3 ms·
The particular model chosen in the article reflects physical reality, and the physical reality of it is that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. Ther
by rrss1122 11y ago
The particular model chosen in the article reflects physical reality, and the physical reality of it is that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. There is no debate as to whether this is correct, because this is how we see the world operating.
As the article states, you only start running into ionizing radiation at much higher energy levels, the kind you are exposed to just walking outside in sunlight. The link between sun exposure and skin cancer is well-established. The link between cell phone exposure and any cancer is non-existent.
- holri 11y agoMaybe it reflects what we understand today. But we also know that we know very, very little.
- justinsb 11y agoI agree with you as to the conclusion: I don't believe that cell-phones cause notably higher rates of cancer. I believe that based on the studies, as I think you do. The problem with the article, and perhaps the reasoning in your comment, is that it assumes that ionizing radiation is the sole cause of cancer. The article implies that cancer studies that consider anything other than ionizing radiation are a waste of time and money. I believe the debate as to whether there are non-radiation causes, catalysts or contributors to cancer is very much open, and I appreciate the work that people do to investigate these possibilities.
- hetman 11y agoAnd if we can prove that ionising radiation is the only thing that can cause cancers then we're golden in applying this model.