3 ms·

Breast tissue is very sensitive, not sure electronics "permanently" being there is a great idea. And please don't downvote me just because you don't believe thi

by loceng 13y ago

Breast tissue is very sensitive, not sure electronics "permanently" being there is a great idea. And please don't downvote me just because you don't believe this could lead to higher rates of cancer - it's still not fully known and should be considered a valid concern. EDIT: A number of spiteful and/or lazy people on HN eh?

diab0lic 13y ago
Females, at least where I'm from, regularly keep things in their bra such as cell phones. It never ceases to amaze me when a phone suddenly materializes from seemingly nowhere. Given that I feel they would hardly be opposed to some thin embedded electronics in the bra.
- loceng 13y ago
  Yes, I have seen this too. I'm sure they're not aware of or perhaps don't believe the studies showing that there's increased cancer around the area where heavy cellphone use it as. Sure, you can argue they're not using the phone - however phones more and more actively push and receive data.
  - daeken 13y ago
    Citation badly needed. There have been many studies on this and, as far as I'm aware, not one has shown such a link.
    - loceng 13y ago
      I have to head out now - this was nearest I could find at the moment - http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 - if clicking "View Affiliations" you can see where study was done, who's involved, and could do more searches. The study's conclusion is 70% increased in certain cancers if used 1 year or longer, and 300% increase if 25 years or longer (cordless and cellphone) - though not many participants had used cell or cordless phones for 20-25 years.
      - smtddr 13y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 I already tried this subject on HN and failed miserably. There are a few things in life that I kinda trust my gut-feeling more than science[1]. Or rather, in the same way there was a time where jewelry was made from radioactive material because science couldn't detect the danger yet; one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. I have no proof and this "logic"(fear) could be applied to anything. It's just a gut feeling I have. 1. This probably already qualifies me as insane & absurd by 98% of HN readers. I just don't think the science of humans can completely capture & comprehend the universe or even the human body. I think we're more than the sum of our parts, but don't ask me to prove it. I can't. :(
        daeken 13y ago
        > one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer. Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.
        loceng 13y ago
        But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!
cmelbye 13y ago
Your comment is being downvoted not because people disagree with you but because it violated the last two points at the end of the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- loceng 13y ago
  I disagree with it never doing any good. There could have been less conversation then. And there was no intent of baiting.

by loceng 13y ago

diab0lic 13y ago

Females, at least where I'm from, regularly keep things in their bra such as cell phones. It never ceases to amaze me when a phone suddenly materializes from seemingly nowhere. Given that I feel they would hardly be opposed to some thin embedded electronics in the bra.

loceng 13y ago
Yes, I have seen this too. I'm sure they're not aware of or perhaps don't believe the studies showing that there's increased cancer around the area where heavy cellphone use it as. Sure, you can argue they're not using the phone - however phones more and more actively push and receive data.
- daeken 13y ago
  Citation badly needed. There have been many studies on this and, as far as I'm aware, not one has shown such a link.
  - loceng 13y ago
    I have to head out now - this was nearest I could find at the moment - http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 - if clicking "View Affiliations" you can see where study was done, who's involved, and could do more searches. The study's conclusion is 70% increased in certain cancers if used 1 year or longer, and 300% increase if 25 years or longer (cordless and cellphone) - though not many participants had used cell or cordless phones for 20-25 years.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 I already tried this subject on HN and failed miserably. There are a few things in life that I kinda trust my gut-feeling more than science[1]. Or rather, in the same way there was a time where jewelry was made from radioactive material because science couldn't detect the danger yet; one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. I have no proof and this "logic"(fear) could be applied to anything. It's just a gut feeling I have. 1. This probably already qualifies me as insane & absurd by 98% of HN readers. I just don't think the science of humans can completely capture & comprehend the universe or even the human body. I think we're more than the sum of our parts, but don't ask me to prove it. I can't. :(
      - daeken 13y ago
        > one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer. Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.
        loceng 13y ago
        But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!

cmelbye 13y ago

Your comment is being downvoted not because people disagree with you but because it violated the last two points at the end of the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

loceng 13y ago
I disagree with it never doing any good. There could have been less conversation then. And there was no intent of baiting.