3 ms·

That's not really how science works. You can't prove anything doesn't cause cancer in any way, but nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer. If y

That's not really how science works. You can't prove anything doesn't cause cancer in any way, but nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer. If you just assume everything causes cancer then you get California prop 65 style warnings on EVERYTHING and nobody takes anything seriously anymore.

carapace 7y ago
> nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer Like how nobody was able to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer? Or how nobody was able to demonstrate how leaded gasoline was bad?
- AWildC182 7y ago
  In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.
  - carapace 7y ago
    > In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
    - godelski 7y ago
      > Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Except that the science was established and then there was deliberate disinformation. Scientists were saying for a long time that smoking was bad. There's a big difference between the talk within a scientific community compared to the public talk. Look at climate. Within the community everyone's like "well... we're kinda fucked..." outside it is: 1) from the left, "we have to fix policy! It is all the right's fault" 2) from the right, "what global warming? Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, it clearly is caused by these factors that couldn't possibly cause it. The scientists are paid by 'Big Green'". What I'm saying is, listen to the scientists, not the news. News anchors and politicians aren't scientists. > I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. It is clear. And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
      - carapace 7y ago
        Cheers! > And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist). Yes, it's clear. :-)
calibas 7y ago
It's important to note that while a causal link hasn't been established, but there's a number of studies that have shown higher RF is connected to higher cancer rates, though results are mixed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042
- braindongle 7y ago
  Publication bias is rampant. Bad science is everywhere. You have to read the papers. The last reference is indeed worth noting. But even there, look at the main finding. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ This is a correlational study with multiple comparisons and no statistically significant results. In the only outcome reported between cases and controls, cell phone use was (insignificantly) protective for tumor incidence. As for the case-case comparisons, in the best case those are highly susceptible to confounding, and, contrary to the implication in the abstract, they didn't find anything. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 This is a rat model study wherein rats were exposed to cell-range RF from before birth to death, for 19 hours per day. The positive finding was at 50 v/m , 40% higher than the highest measured value (during an outgoing call)[1] that I could find offhand. So yeah, if you strap your phone to your head and have an outgoing call going all day every day, and your phone's field strength is crazy high, and you're a rat, you might have a problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 "No association between mobile phone use and glioma risk was observed across the total population (OR 0.98; 95% CI = 0.88–1.10)..., there was an association between long-term mobile phone use and glioma. However, the analysis was limited by significant heterogeneity between trials and the paucity of data on long term use (10 years)." The funnel plot, an indication of publication bias, does not look good. This is in a reputable journal and appears to be a legit systematic review. Their positive finding can't be dismissed offhand. [1] https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajeassp.2009.771.774 https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajeassp.2009.771.774
  - 7y ago

carapace 7y ago

> nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer Like how nobody was able to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer? Or how nobody was able to demonstrate how leaded gasoline was bad?

AWildC182 7y ago
In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.
- carapace 7y ago
  > In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
  - godelski 7y ago
    > Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Except that the science was established and then there was deliberate disinformation. Scientists were saying for a long time that smoking was bad. There's a big difference between the talk within a scientific community compared to the public talk. Look at climate. Within the community everyone's like "well... we're kinda fucked..." outside it is: 1) from the left, "we have to fix policy! It is all the right's fault" 2) from the right, "what global warming? Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, it clearly is caused by these factors that couldn't possibly cause it. The scientists are paid by 'Big Green'". What I'm saying is, listen to the scientists, not the news. News anchors and politicians aren't scientists. > I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. It is clear. And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
    - carapace 7y ago
      Cheers! > And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist). Yes, it's clear. :-)

calibas 7y ago

It's important to note that while a causal link hasn't been established, but there's a number of studies that have shown higher RF is connected to higher cancer rates, though results are mixed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042

braindongle 7y ago
Publication bias is rampant. Bad science is everywhere. You have to read the papers. The last reference is indeed worth noting. But even there, look at the main finding. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ This is a correlational study with multiple comparisons and no statistically significant results. In the only outcome reported between cases and controls, cell phone use was (insignificantly) protective for tumor incidence. As for the case-case comparisons, in the best case those are highly susceptible to confounding, and, contrary to the implication in the abstract, they didn't find anything. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 This is a rat model study wherein rats were exposed to cell-range RF from before birth to death, for 19 hours per day. The positive finding was at 50 v/m , 40% higher than the highest measured value (during an outgoing call)[1] that I could find offhand. So yeah, if you strap your phone to your head and have an outgoing call going all day every day, and your phone's field strength is crazy high, and you're a rat, you might have a problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 "No association between mobile phone use and glioma risk was observed across the total population (OR 0.98; 95% CI = 0.88–1.10)..., there was an association between long-term mobile phone use and glioma. However, the analysis was limited by significant heterogeneity between trials and the paucity of data on long term use (10 years)." The funnel plot, an indication of publication bias, does not look good. This is in a reputable journal and appears to be a legit systematic review. Their positive finding can't be dismissed offhand. [1] https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajeassp.2009.771.774 https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajeassp.2009.771.774
- 7y ago