4 ms·
This is an interesting counterpoint to an article/thread from earlier today: "Why Cell Phones Can’t Cause Cancer, But Bananas Can" http://mitchkirby.com/2015/
by jobu 12y ago
This is an interesting counterpoint to an article/thread from earlier today:
"Why Cell Phones Can’t Cause Cancer, But Bananas Can"
http://mitchkirby.com/2015/04/22/why-cell-phones-cant-cause-cancer-but-bananas-can/ http://mitchkirby.com/2015/04/22/why-cell-phones-cant-cause-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9446505
- ghostberry 12y agoEvidence trumps theory. A theory can be as clever as you like, but if it disagrees with the evidence, the theory is wrong.
- acqq 12y agoAnd what is the actual evidence of the visible increase of cancer from EM radiation? Is there a real "signal" or a kind of "noise"? I've also stumbled to this: http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6/abstract?cc=y http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6...
- jfoutz 12y agoWell, X-rays of course. There's a pretty strong case to be made that exposure to uv increases skin cancer rates. I'm sure you mean the lower frequency stuff though, and yeah, that's probably pretty safe.
- acqq 12y agoYes, of course, I mean all the waves on the infrared side of the light (those that we call "radio waves") not on the ultraviolet one. And I mean not including heating effects, which are already measured.
- ChuckMcM 12y agohttp://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/levitt-and-lai-peddling-discredited-emf-science/ http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/levitt-and-lai-peddling-... There are a lot of papers which have failed to reproduce these effects. Granted fractal antennas are weird in and of themselves but cellular ones fail to pass the sniff test.