3 ms·

Why was the cancer attributed to the microwave incident? After all, it's not ionizing radiation.

JPLeRouzic 4y ago
Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer, yet it is not ionizing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Lower_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Lower_f...
- tailspin2019 4y ago
  From that link: > “2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding RF electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimetre waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.” WTF. This was the exact opposite of my understanding until today… ie that non-ionising radiation from the likes of microwaves was not carcinogenic. I don’t know how to keep up with this stuff.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
    Possibly carcinogenic. Some things we know for sure are carcinogenic, but even then what we know is that exposure increases risk in a population by so-and-so percent. It's much harder to work backwards from one individual case of cancer and finding out what the cause was. It's highly irresponsible and downright cruel to accuse the husband of killing his wife by botched microwave repair based on so little evidence. What was the location and extent of the original microwave injury? Did the cancer originate in the same spot? What is the proposed mechanism of action? How long is "a few years later"? Can it be ruled out that she didn't have cancer at the time of the microwave incident? What other causes has been considered, other known carcinogens, or a family history? Who made the claim in the first place, did the oncologist blame the husband?
    - tailspin2019 4y ago
      Yes completely agree regarding blaming the husband. Without the - likely unobtainable - certainty that that was the cause, why even suggest that…
- Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
  Near UV isn't, but the photons still carry considerable energy to push chemical reactions over the edge. Whereas microwaves are far, far below the visible spectrum, and none of that causes cancer. A microwave injury is serious stuff, but it seems like a huge stretch to attribute a later cancer to that exact incident.
  - JPLeRouzic 4y ago
    > Near UV isn't, but the photons still carry considerable energy to push chemical reactions over the edge. In my opinion (I am an amateur biologist) there is no need to deploy considerable energy to mess things at the cell scale: Most interactions there occur because of thermal noise. Furthermore most protein interactions depend how they are folded which involves different fields, including Van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces carry an energy of 4 to 40 meV per bond which is in infrared range. So even infrared can mess up the internal working of cells. It could be that even lower frequencies also have a biological effect: (Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417565/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417565/ Yet cells have many "quality control" mechanisms so usually the is no permanent damage. But infrared exposure could bring benefits to cells also.

Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer, yet it is not ionizing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Lower_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Lower_f...

tailspin2019 4y ago
From that link: > “2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding RF electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimetre waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.” WTF. This was the exact opposite of my understanding until today… ie that non-ionising radiation from the likes of microwaves was not carcinogenic. I don’t know how to keep up with this stuff.
- Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
  Possibly carcinogenic. Some things we know for sure are carcinogenic, but even then what we know is that exposure increases risk in a population by so-and-so percent. It's much harder to work backwards from one individual case of cancer and finding out what the cause was. It's highly irresponsible and downright cruel to accuse the husband of killing his wife by botched microwave repair based on so little evidence. What was the location and extent of the original microwave injury? Did the cancer originate in the same spot? What is the proposed mechanism of action? How long is "a few years later"? Can it be ruled out that she didn't have cancer at the time of the microwave incident? What other causes has been considered, other known carcinogens, or a family history? Who made the claim in the first place, did the oncologist blame the husband?
  - tailspin2019 4y ago
    Yes completely agree regarding blaming the husband. Without the - likely unobtainable - certainty that that was the cause, why even suggest that…
Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
Near UV isn't, but the photons still carry considerable energy to push chemical reactions over the edge. Whereas microwaves are far, far below the visible spectrum, and none of that causes cancer. A microwave injury is serious stuff, but it seems like a huge stretch to attribute a later cancer to that exact incident.
- JPLeRouzic 4y ago
  > Near UV isn't, but the photons still carry considerable energy to push chemical reactions over the edge. In my opinion (I am an amateur biologist) there is no need to deploy considerable energy to mess things at the cell scale: Most interactions there occur because of thermal noise. Furthermore most protein interactions depend how they are folded which involves different fields, including Van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces carry an energy of 4 to 40 meV per bond which is in infrared range. So even infrared can mess up the internal working of cells. It could be that even lower frequencies also have a biological effect: (Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417565/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417565/ Yet cells have many "quality control" mechanisms so usually the is no permanent damage. But infrared exposure could bring benefits to cells also.