7 ms·
Wait so the phones cause cancer people were right?
by davidblowie 3y ago
Wait so the phones cause cancer people were right?
- jiofj 3y agoThe WHO said so: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.... (Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)
- jdietrich 3y agoThe WHO said that it's a possibility. Group 2B classification is extremely precautionary and includes a lot of scary-sounding chemicals, but also a lot of quite ordinary things like aloe vera and kimchi. Many licensed medicines and permitted food additives are classified in Group 2B - while there's a possibility that they may be carcinogenic, there isn't enough evidence to justify withdrawing those products from the market.
- boxed 3y agoIt's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
- oblio 3y ago> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero. https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/cancer-cases/ https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c... > Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million to 3.1 million cases between 1995 and 2018 in Europe. Hmmm...
- JacobSeated 3y agoIt is far more likely that it is due to numerous other causes, some even with proven links – there is, however, still no links to mobile phone use, and no known mechanism by which it could even happen. Non-Ionizing Radiation causing cancer is probably as close to a physical impossibility as you get. Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,
- flagrant_taco 3y agoProving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for. Epidemiological studies tracking humans over time aren't controlled and will at best show a correlation worth studying, lab animal studies aren't great analogs given all the confounding factors and environmental differences with humans in real life, and unless the cancer causing agent acts quickly a controlled human study is likely impossible as controlling variables over years simply won't happen at scale. Also the idea that visible light should be banned because radiation is an asinine argument meant to just badger without actually making a point.
- boxed 3y ago> Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for. But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoEven that is a strong correlation though, and a simplified one at that. Context matters even for sun exposure, if solar radiation was a direct cause of cancer you should reliably see consistent skin cancer rates among people with similar complexion and exposure rates. I've seen some really compelling research looking into diet changes that may impact risk of skin cancer, specifically an increase in saturated fats helping to reduce risk. The idea is that saturated fats are envloved in the process of your body turning UV into vitamin D. With more saturated fats in your system the UV has effectively has a job and is processed by the body. My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.
- tgv 3y agoMy bet, too. It should be even easy to test: ownership should correlate, as should (square of) distance from the mast.
- Dylan16807 3y agoThey're measuring absorbed watts and saying it's over the regulatory limit. Where does cancer come in?
- borissk 3y agoWhy do you think there's a regulatory limit in the first place?
- 369548684892826 3y agoBecause slow-cooking your brain is a bad thing?
- mjbeswick 3y agoOr maybe because possibly interfering the operation of other electrical devices, that have only been tested to operate with certain levels of external interference; is a bad thing!
- rcxdude 3y agoThis specific test is not about that: it's about radiation absorbed by the user during operation of the device.
- jdietrich 3y agoAn abundance of caution.
- interactivecode 3y agobetter a bit of caution than a slow and painful death? If history is any indicator it's a good idea to be more cautious than less
- stetrain 3y ago
- willis936 3y agoNot right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy. Emotion-based policy is dangerous.
- hankchinaski 3y ago[flagged]
- JacobSeated 3y agoAspartame is still fine, and it is one of the most researched substances. This type of reasoning, that you are using, is down right unscientific, conspiratorial, and dangerous. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/
- hankchinaski 3y agoDarwinian law of self selection will take its course
- j16sdiz 3y agoHow is it "unscientific" when we know they are 99.99% unrelated, but you want at least 99.99999% to feel safe? Aspartame, unlike sugar, are non-essential. If somebody don't want to take that 0.000000001% risk, I guess they should be free to make their choice?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sva_ 3y agoSugar is non-essential as the body can synthesize carbohydrates through gluconeogenesis.
- marcinzm 3y agoThe general issue I've found with people that take this mindset is that they focus so much on the 0.000000001% risks that they miss a lot of 1% risks. Which I would say is unscientific in terms of minimizing ones risks.
- eclecticfrank 3y agoThat is still an ongoing debate [1] and one side of the argument is heavily influenced and funded by the telecom industry [2]. [1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2]https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...
- nikanj 3y agoThe other side is funded and heavily influenced by the ”buy our Goji berries to shield your body from toxins and our shielding bracelet to stop harmful radiation from altering your chakras” quacks. There are no neutral parties in the argument
- a-french-anon 3y agoGuess who's more likely to have the funds to do proper propaganda.
- BossingAround 3y agoThe US government has the funds to sponsor all of your neighbors. They could conspire with the US government to pretend like they go to work every day, so that they fool you, who are the only sucker in your neighborhood whose life isn't getting paid by the US government. I honestly don't think it matters who has funds to do what... :) The "natural health" industry is a multi-billion dollar industry as well, and is a much more insidious than the telco industry if you ask me.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoGuess which side is more susceptible to low-quality propaganda.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y ago[flagged]
- stetrain 3y agoNot sure how that follows from this article. A government having a regulatory limit on device emissions and a device failing that test is orthogonal to "phones cause cancer"
- kube-system 3y agoNo, non-ionizing radiation is still not linked to cancer. However, SAR limits still exist because there is concern about localized heating of body tissue. As an extreme example, putting your head in a microwave and turning it on is not a good idea. Not because it will give you cancer, but because it will cook your head.