3 ms·

Sadly my experience shows that people who believe that mobile phones ARE linked to brain cancer also don't believe in studies that show the opposite edited for

by VMG 2y ago

Sadly my experience shows that people who believe that mobile phones ARE linked to brain cancer also don't believe in studies that show the opposite edited for clarity

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
Correct, you can always find studies that say the opposite. My general rule: err on the side of caution for any new technology.
- smt88 2y ago
  This is not "new technology". Cell phones have been around for 50 years and in widespread use for more than 25 years. Non-ionizing radiation (in the range of frequencies used by mobile phones) has been used for wireless communication for more than 75 years.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    This is not "new technology". Cell phones have been around for 50 years and in widespread use for more than 25 years. Larger scales like 50k years are to be considered. Evolutionary scale.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Better not use wheels then. We don't know what the effects of such recent technology could be! Integrated circuits? Electric lighting? Gasp! Those are way too modern. Better switch to caves and campfires for housing and lighting.
      - djhn 2y ago
        To be fair, being overly reliant on wheels for locomotion does have some serious consequences. Even cutting out walking and jogging in favour of *human-powered* bikes or wheelchairs will lead to bone density loss and muscular dystrophy.
        arghwhat 2y ago
        It's not really reliance on wheels, but reduction of all mechanical work as one then goes to sit at a desk. Walking a 60km commute every day wouldn't be good for your knees either though. > will lead to bone density loss and muscular dystrophy. It's not right to call this bone and muscle distrophy. Not playing squash, probably the sport leading to the highest bone density by far, does not mean you suffer from or muscle distrophy. Rather, whenever you change any habits, your bone density and muscle mass adjusts to prioritize things relevant. Pick up tennis? Your right arm will be heavily prioritized. Change to running? Your arms will no longer be prioritized. It's mainly an issue when you drop below a healthy limit - that doesn't really happen from changing your exercise, but from a complete lack or physical disorders. (Suggesting one is "cutting out" walking or jogging once they get tied to a wheelchair might also not be the best way to phrase things.)
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      How are you even posting on HN, then? Going back 50K years is a different sort of lifestyle indeed.
    - VMG 2y ago
      he typed into a computer, unironically
    - smt88 2y ago
      > Larger scales like 50k years are to be considered. The context of this thread is the effect of mobile phones on human health. That's a timescale of a human lifespan, not 50k years. But if you want to avoid all new technology for 50k years, enjoy: - seeing no doctors, taking no medication, receiving no surgery - walking everywhere - hunting/gathering for all food
      - arghwhat 2y ago
        Unless the topic is how TikTok can cause hemorrhoids from sitting too long on the can, I imagine the topic is specifically the effect of radio waves in the cellular bands on nervous tissue, not the general concept of mobile phones on general human health. Radio waves has been studied since the 19th century - around the same time a doctor realized that maybe one should wash their hands after an autopsy before delivering a child, although no one really believed him for decades - and we have been exposed to them since the beginning of life itself. Peaks in history have happened as kilo- and megawatt transmitters for point-to-point and broadcast transmissions came and (almost) went. Lightning strikes and solar storms still bombard us though. We have studied the effect on tissue within these frequencies extensively - all it can do is oscillate matter in various ways (in case of water, it causes the molecules to spin), depending on the power level and resonant frequencies - and every household is now comfortable having a kilowatt transmitter to cook food with despite leakage. Even with that transmitter right up against your food, the food only cooks at the standing wave anti-nodes - where constructive interference from reflections in the small closed space boosts the signal further (a necessary mechanism, as the food would otherwise only cook at the surface). Cellphones transmitters usually operate in tens to hundreds of milliwatts as they will aggressively throttle output to save power when it is not needed (the closer you are to the tower, the lower your exposure!). The power at the surface of the phone is far too low to matter, and the power once it has gone through your skin, bones and cerebral fluid to get to your brain is much, much lower. Phones even need to be certified for their maximum energy absorption, at their maximum transmit power across all bands of operation. Take an iPhone for example: https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone14,5/en https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone14,5/en
        2y ago
- arghwhat 2y ago
  On the side of sensible caution when presented with unknown factors, yes. That does not apply when there is neither practical evidence nor any room for justified suspicion. At that point it might at best be silly, even if not harmful. Depending on the subject at hand, acting out and advising caution on things that are well understood to be harmless can be very harmful. Not using a cellphone oneself is fine. Advising others to not have cellphones can lead to them not having access to emergency services when they need them. Protesting against and burning down cellphone towers takes out emergency services for an entire local population. Non-ionizing radiation is a very well-understood topic, and we also know very well what energies are required to do harm, and what harm it does.
smt88 2y ago
This is a review of thousands of studies saying that there aren't high-quality studies that "show the opposite".
- VMG 2y ago
  edited my comment for clarity - you were replying to a version where it was ambiguous which side I was referring to I guess those who misread my comment agree with it because both sides think the other side is ignoring evidence
AStonesThrow 2y ago
[flagged]
arghwhat 2y ago
Apologies, I have to nitpick: Of course they can't both believe one thing and the opposite at the same time. Now, believing something with zero supporting evidence or arguments, and plenty against it, is of course silly - but you still believe either/or. :)

by VMG 2y ago

Sadly my experience shows that people who believe that mobile phones ARE linked to brain cancer also don't believe in studies that show the opposite edited for clarity

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

Correct, you can always find studies that say the opposite. My general rule: err on the side of caution for any new technology.

smt88 2y ago
This is not "new technology". Cell phones have been around for 50 years and in widespread use for more than 25 years. Non-ionizing radiation (in the range of frequencies used by mobile phones) has been used for wireless communication for more than 75 years.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  This is not "new technology". Cell phones have been around for 50 years and in widespread use for more than 25 years. Larger scales like 50k years are to be considered. Evolutionary scale.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Better not use wheels then. We don't know what the effects of such recent technology could be! Integrated circuits? Electric lighting? Gasp! Those are way too modern. Better switch to caves and campfires for housing and lighting.
    - djhn 2y ago
      To be fair, being overly reliant on wheels for locomotion does have some serious consequences. Even cutting out walking and jogging in favour of *human-powered* bikes or wheelchairs will lead to bone density loss and muscular dystrophy.
      - arghwhat 2y ago
        It's not really reliance on wheels, but reduction of all mechanical work as one then goes to sit at a desk. Walking a 60km commute every day wouldn't be good for your knees either though. > will lead to bone density loss and muscular dystrophy. It's not right to call this bone and muscle distrophy. Not playing squash, probably the sport leading to the highest bone density by far, does not mean you suffer from or muscle distrophy. Rather, whenever you change any habits, your bone density and muscle mass adjusts to prioritize things relevant. Pick up tennis? Your right arm will be heavily prioritized. Change to running? Your arms will no longer be prioritized. It's mainly an issue when you drop below a healthy limit - that doesn't really happen from changing your exercise, but from a complete lack or physical disorders. (Suggesting one is "cutting out" walking or jogging once they get tied to a wheelchair might also not be the best way to phrase things.)
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    How are you even posting on HN, then? Going back 50K years is a different sort of lifestyle indeed.
  - VMG 2y ago
    he typed into a computer, unironically
  - smt88 2y ago
    > Larger scales like 50k years are to be considered. The context of this thread is the effect of mobile phones on human health. That's a timescale of a human lifespan, not 50k years. But if you want to avoid all new technology for 50k years, enjoy: - seeing no doctors, taking no medication, receiving no surgery - walking everywhere - hunting/gathering for all food
    - arghwhat 2y ago
      Unless the topic is how TikTok can cause hemorrhoids from sitting too long on the can, I imagine the topic is specifically the effect of radio waves in the cellular bands on nervous tissue, not the general concept of mobile phones on general human health. Radio waves has been studied since the 19th century - around the same time a doctor realized that maybe one should wash their hands after an autopsy before delivering a child, although no one really believed him for decades - and we have been exposed to them since the beginning of life itself. Peaks in history have happened as kilo- and megawatt transmitters for point-to-point and broadcast transmissions came and (almost) went. Lightning strikes and solar storms still bombard us though. We have studied the effect on tissue within these frequencies extensively - all it can do is oscillate matter in various ways (in case of water, it causes the molecules to spin), depending on the power level and resonant frequencies - and every household is now comfortable having a kilowatt transmitter to cook food with despite leakage. Even with that transmitter right up against your food, the food only cooks at the standing wave anti-nodes - where constructive interference from reflections in the small closed space boosts the signal further (a necessary mechanism, as the food would otherwise only cook at the surface). Cellphones transmitters usually operate in tens to hundreds of milliwatts as they will aggressively throttle output to save power when it is not needed (the closer you are to the tower, the lower your exposure!). The power at the surface of the phone is far too low to matter, and the power once it has gone through your skin, bones and cerebral fluid to get to your brain is much, much lower. Phones even need to be certified for their maximum energy absorption, at their maximum transmit power across all bands of operation. Take an iPhone for example: https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone14,5/en https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iphone14,5/en
      - 2y ago
arghwhat 2y ago
On the side of sensible caution when presented with unknown factors, yes. That does not apply when there is neither practical evidence nor any room for justified suspicion. At that point it might at best be silly, even if not harmful. Depending on the subject at hand, acting out and advising caution on things that are well understood to be harmless can be very harmful. Not using a cellphone oneself is fine. Advising others to not have cellphones can lead to them not having access to emergency services when they need them. Protesting against and burning down cellphone towers takes out emergency services for an entire local population. Non-ionizing radiation is a very well-understood topic, and we also know very well what energies are required to do harm, and what harm it does.

smt88 2y ago

This is a review of thousands of studies saying that there aren't high-quality studies that "show the opposite".

VMG 2y ago
edited my comment for clarity - you were replying to a version where it was ambiguous which side I was referring to I guess those who misread my comment agree with it because both sides think the other side is ignoring evidence

AStonesThrow 2y ago

[flagged]

arghwhat 2y ago

Apologies, I have to nitpick: Of course they can't both believe one thing and the opposite at the same time. Now, believing something with zero supporting evidence or arguments, and plenty against it, is of course silly - but you still believe either/or. :)