3 ms·

Many people think GMOs, Bluetooth and 5G causes cancer no matter how much evidence you provide that it doesn't. It is unlikely they will accept irradiation eve

Many people think GMOs, Bluetooth and 5G causes cancer no matter how much evidence you provide that it doesn't. It is unlikely they will accept irradiation even if it means a less healthy food supply.

snordgren 4y ago
People will fight tooth and nail against new technology out of fear for cancer, but won't make the two adjustments that are most likely to save them from cancer: eat less processed food and exercise more. So evidently the risk of cancer is not the real reason for their fear.
giantg2 4y ago
I mean, that's a pretty shallow statement and may even be misrepresenting their position. GMOs themselves my not be linked to cancer. Higher levels of glycophosphate could have some risk. There could be some unknown risks of cellphone/wifi/etc. It's not a bad idea to limit exposure where it makes sense (like scheduling your wifi to turn off during sleeping hours). What we do know about wireless radiation around these bands is that cellular glucose metabolism increases. What that means exactly is unknown. However, glucose metabolism and its larger system has links to everything from cholesterol production to influence on metastatic cancer spread. You also imply that irradiated food would be healthier. That claim needs extensive research to back it up, which I haven't seen posted here.
- spicymaki 4y ago
  You are right that people are concerned about glycophosphate (not arguing about that), but people are also concerned about GMOs themselves causing cancer. e.g. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/gmo-side-effects https://www.greenmatters.com/p/gmo-side-effects The unknown risks are unknown and we should not make policy decisions without evidence. People turn unknown risks into fear mongering campaigns.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Sure, there are some people with unreasonable and unsupported positions, like thinking GMOs cause cancer. The person I was responding to had essentially strawmanned by picking the most extreme position to argue against and implying there were no risks to even contemplate. "The unknown risks are unknown and we should not make policy decisions without evidence." I wasn't talking about policy. I had mentioned basic personal steps someone could take to reduce exposure and provide other benefits as well (energy savings, security, etc). But when we are making policy decisions we should look at evidence from both sides of the argument. Right now we know that it increases glucose metabolism and we know that glucose metabolism is linked to various issues. We also have studies showing there are some known risks, and many agencies say their safety is undetermined or needs more studies (CDC and IARC). I'm not proposing we make any policy against wireless technologies, but I also don't think we should promote their use without some caution and continued research. Also, what was your link about? I didn't see them stating anything about GMOs causing cancer. In fact, they said there's no evidence of it.

snordgren 4y ago

People will fight tooth and nail against new technology out of fear for cancer, but won't make the two adjustments that are most likely to save them from cancer: eat less processed food and exercise more. So evidently the risk of cancer is not the real reason for their fear.

giantg2 4y ago

I mean, that's a pretty shallow statement and may even be misrepresenting their position. GMOs themselves my not be linked to cancer. Higher levels of glycophosphate could have some risk. There could be some unknown risks of cellphone/wifi/etc. It's not a bad idea to limit exposure where it makes sense (like scheduling your wifi to turn off during sleeping hours). What we do know about wireless radiation around these bands is that cellular glucose metabolism increases. What that means exactly is unknown. However, glucose metabolism and its larger system has links to everything from cholesterol production to influence on metastatic cancer spread. You also imply that irradiated food would be healthier. That claim needs extensive research to back it up, which I haven't seen posted here.

spicymaki 4y ago
You are right that people are concerned about glycophosphate (not arguing about that), but people are also concerned about GMOs themselves causing cancer. e.g. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/gmo-side-effects https://www.greenmatters.com/p/gmo-side-effects The unknown risks are unknown and we should not make policy decisions without evidence. People turn unknown risks into fear mongering campaigns.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Sure, there are some people with unreasonable and unsupported positions, like thinking GMOs cause cancer. The person I was responding to had essentially strawmanned by picking the most extreme position to argue against and implying there were no risks to even contemplate. "The unknown risks are unknown and we should not make policy decisions without evidence." I wasn't talking about policy. I had mentioned basic personal steps someone could take to reduce exposure and provide other benefits as well (energy savings, security, etc). But when we are making policy decisions we should look at evidence from both sides of the argument. Right now we know that it increases glucose metabolism and we know that glucose metabolism is linked to various issues. We also have studies showing there are some known risks, and many agencies say their safety is undetermined or needs more studies (CDC and IARC). I'm not proposing we make any policy against wireless technologies, but I also don't think we should promote their use without some caution and continued research. Also, what was your link about? I didn't see them stating anything about GMOs causing cancer. In fact, they said there's no evidence of it.