The Inconvenient Truth about Cancer and Mobile Phones

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A recent government study reportedly found “clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, but its lack of coverage has redrawn attention to the wireless industry’s use of PR campaigns to mislead consumers. The Guardian points out that 5G will massively increase the general population’s exposure to radiation, but some say that the majority will remain willfully ignorant for convenience’s sake.

Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes genetic damage or cancer.
 
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe,

I agree but it does also not mean its not safe... it means exactly jack squat.
So why not go and find eveidence instead of trying to create a fear about it instead.

helthy scepticalism is good but uneded fear is not
 
That story is simply terrible. It's either intentionally sensationalist or written by someone who doesn't understand what science is.

Finding that something may cause cancer in rats simply does not mean that it will cause cancer in humans. Exposing rats to a human lifetime's worth of almost anything will likely cause health problems.

This is exactly the same nonsense that was spread about saccharin. It scared a lot of people until they figured out that they would have to continuously drink diet soda for months in order to reach the same relative exposure levels as the scientists were cramming into their rodents.

More ammunition for the paranoid.
 
Megalith said:
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a new strategy here, they took a page right out of the Phillip Morris playbook.
 
I've got this nice tin foil hat to protect yourselves with. Its like claiming drinking normal amounts of drinking water is bad for you because boiling water will hurt you. Different wavelengths of the EMR spectrum have diffent impacts.
 
Eh. People still smoke, and lay out in the sun for hours and hours. As long as something feels good, they don't really care if they get cancer, they think it only happens to other people. Same with cellphones. You think people will give up the very thing that they focus their life around just because it 'might' cause cancer? Nah. Not going to happen. You'd have to see widespread guys dicks falling off, or girl's tits shriveling up, before they'll put their phones down. Brain cancer? They don't use their brains for much, anyway.
 
Microwave radiation and organic tissue != a good mix, and we're just adding more and more microwave radiation to our lives 24/7 with more and more devices. Sure, one device may not directly cause issues, as in cancer, mutations in the cellular structure, etc, but the fact that we are living in a world that is literally bombarding us constantly with more and more microwave radiation cannot be fucking dismissed out of hand just because the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and don't know Jack Fucking Shit about how microwave radiation works and damages organic tissue.

We're dooming ourselves with every new device that hits the market and gets powered on, and it will just get worse by the day.
 
Tiberian said:
Microwave radiation and organic tissue != a good mix, and we're just adding more and more microwave radiation to our lives 24/7 with more and more devices. Sure, one device may not directly cause issues, as in cancer, mutations in the cellular structure, etc, but the fact that we are living in a world that is literally bombarding us constantly with more and more microwave radiation cannot be fucking dismissed out of hand just because the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and don't know Jack Fucking Shit about how microwave radiation works and damages organic tissue.

We're dooming ourselves with every new device that hits the market and gets powered on, and it will just get worse by the day.
Click to expand...
Wow. This reads almost like someone who hasn't even read the Wikipedia page on microwave radiation.
 
Babbster said:
Wow. This reads almost like someone who hasn't even read the Wikipedia page on microwave radiation.
Click to expand...

As a radio engineer for the better part of my 5 decades of existence (yes, I went there), I can speak from experience and first-hand knowledge of what microwave radiation does to organic tissue. Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone? See what happened when people - aka organic tissue - touched the antennas? Their organic tissue wicked away that microwave RF radiation like water being sucked up by a Super Shammy.

But thanks for the laugh at even mentioning Wikipedia 'cause, well, that's the last bastion for most of those people I was talkin' about.
 
Tiberian said:
As a radio engineer for the better part of my 5 decades of existence (yes, I went there), I can speak from experience and first-hand knowledge of what microwave radiation does to organic tissue. Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone? See what happened when people - aka organic tissue - touched the antennas? Their organic tissue wicked away that microwave RF radiation like water being sucked up by a Super Shammy.

But thanks for the laugh at even mentioning Wikipedia 'cause, well, that's the last bastion for most of those people I was talkin' about.
Click to expand...
Okay. Cool. Then I'm sure you have proof of this incredible damage that cell phones are doing to human tissue. Shit, The Guardian will clearly print anything, so you should contact them and let them in on your data regarding the extreme dangers that two watts of RF output can pose to the human body.
 
Tiberian said:
Microwave radiation and organic tissue != a good mix, and we're just adding more and more microwave radiation to our lives 24/7 with more and more devices. Sure, one device may not directly cause issues, as in cancer, mutations in the cellular structure, etc, but the fact that we are living in a world that is literally bombarding us constantly with more and more microwave radiation cannot be fucking dismissed out of hand just because the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and don't know Jack Fucking Shit about how microwave radiation works and damages organic tissue.

We're dooming ourselves with every new device that hits the market and gets powered on, and it will just get worse by the day.
Click to expand...

It almost sounds like your describing the suns radiation

It is very simple. There is no safe level of radiation, that doesnt mean its harmful however it reasonable to say its not to be encouraged as healthy. Clickbate sensationalism is vastly counter productive then to simply state that mobile phones radiate, we cant directly link that useage with definitive cancers but caution to minimize exposure is the best avenue forward.

At least we arnt using the nokia or ericcsons from 15 years ago
 
Last edited:
Babbster said:
Okay. Cool. Then I'm sure you have proof of this incredible damage that cell phones are doing to human tissue. Shit, The Guardian will clearly print anything, so you should contact them and let them in on your data regarding the extreme dangers that two watts of RF output can pose to the human body.
Click to expand...

Stupid sells itself.
 
Everything causes cancer! That article and this post will give you cancer!

Just live your life...even if it is shortened.
 
Babbster said:
It scared a lot of people until they figured out that they would have to continuously drink diet soda for months in order to reach the same relative exposure levels as the scientists were cramming into their rodents.
Click to expand...
Continuously drink diet pop for months... you act like that's hard to do. Everyone I know drinks many of these a day and been doing it for decades...
 
shpankey said:
Continuously drink diet pop for months... you act like that's hard to do. Everyone I know drinks many of these a day and been doing it for decades...
Click to expand...
When I said "continuously," I truly meant it (like 24/7), and even that was hyperbole in the sense that a human simply can't consume enough diet soda to reach the saccharin levels that were used to show the potential for causing cancer in rodents.

The bottom line is that saccharin (and other artificial sweeteners) are safe by any reasonable usage of the word...just like cell phones.
 
Babbster said:
When I said "continuously," I truly meant it (like 24/7), and even that was hyperbole in the sense that a human simply can't consume enough diet soda to reach the saccharin levels that were used to show the potential for causing cancer in rodents.

The bottom line is that saccharin (and other artificial sweeteners) are safe by any reasonable usage of the word...just like cell phones.
Click to expand...

Did you see a journal this year detailing evidence that regular consumption of Aspartame changes the stomachs micro biome causing it to absorb glucose at increased levels causing weight gain. It also changes insulin levels but the links of that connection didnt seem to be as black and white.
 
nimer said:
Did you see a journal this year detailing evidence that regular consumption of Aspartame changes the stomachs micro biome causing it to absorb glucose at increased levels causing weight gain. It also changes insulin levels but the links of that connection didnt seem to be as black and white.
Click to expand...
I've seen a lot of "mays" based on rodent studies. Given that aspartame is a commonly used sweetener, we should have a significant amount of human data with which to work. If it's proven unsafe for humans, I am happy to jump on the anti-aspartame bandwagon. Hell, if cell phones - another item that is ubiquitous - are proven unsafe for humans, I will not only give up mine but I'll put immense pressure on my friends and family to do the same.

I love scientific evidence, but rodent studies have proven over and over again to provide misleading results when an attempt is made to apply them to humans without doing the human work.
 
Babbster said:
I've seen a lot of "mays" based on rodent studies. Given that aspartame is a commonly used sweetener, we should have a significant amount of human data with which to work. If it's proven unsafe for humans, I am happy to jump on the anti-aspartame bandwagon. Hell, if cell phones - another item that is ubiquitous - are proven unsafe for humans, I will not only give up mine but I'll put immense pressure on my friends and family to do the same.

I love scientific evidence, but rodent studies have proven over and over again to provide misleading results when an attempt is made to apply them to humans without doing the human work.
Click to expand...

There absolutely is anecdotal evidence of people overweight consuming the sweetener regularly. Determining where the cause and effect is taking place if at all is the important part though :)
 
shpankey said:
Continuously drink diet pop for months... you act like that's hard to do. Everyone I know drinks many of these a day and been doing it for decades...
Click to expand...

you seem to not really know how much of something and in what method of delivery stuff is given to research animals.
 
nimer said:
There absolutely is anecdotal evidence of people overweight consuming the sweetener regularly. Determining where the cause and effect is taking place if at all is the important part though :)
Click to expand...
Switching from regular to diet soda is a good way to keep from gaining additional weight, all other factors being equal. It's those other factors being equal, though, that is most likely preventing those people from losing weight.

I have a hard time buying that going from 250-300 calories per drink to 0-1 is a bad thing. That's what I'd like to see proven before I jump on the anti-diet soda bandwagon...though I consider it patently obvious that switching to water is a far healthier option.
 
the entire article is a collections of lies ans mistruths:

"Not one major news organisation in the US or Europe reported this scientific news."

I guess Scientific american and NYT do not count as major news organizations.

"Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe"

Actually, the very definition of a safety proof is the lack of proof that it is harmful, as one can not prove a negative.

This article, as every article based on pseudoscience, fails to explain the basics assumptions its theory require:
that there is a new way to cause cancer not related to the only way we currently know: modifying the genetic material using chemicals, virus or ionizing radiation.
 
Babbster said:
So, that's a "no" on the request for evidence?
Click to expand...

People get caught up in trying to link correlation with causation. In reality, a presentation of symptoms/disease involves complex systems biology. You asked for evidence, and I can give some of that, but not directly linking EMF to cancer. But...the effect of cell phones usage on human behavior and cancer risk? yes. I can link that, most certainly. The link between EMF and circadian disruption is validated in the research as well. By now most everyone understands the blue light from screens affects sleep (that insult itself will increase cancer risk), but in addition is that the activities that one engages in with a cell phone (social media, games, etc) are all engaging the brain in a way that is stimulatory. Ultimately, the problem boils down to circadian biology and sleep fragmentation; fragmented sleep has a tumorigenic effect. Why the evidence isn't direct in linking cell phone usage to cancer is that one can use cell phones in a way that does not lead to significant disruption of sleep quality. In addition, individuals with airway problems often present with complex insomnia due to overactive sympathetic outflow; such individuals would have fragmented sleep and be more likely to add further insult to their already compromised state through late-night cell phone usage. But anyway, while I could bombard you with research articles I'll just leave it at this article that goes over the specific mechanisms by which sleep fragmentation promotes cancer/other diseases:

Khalyfa, A., Mutskov, V., Carreras, A., Khalyfa, A. A., Hakim, F., & Gozal, D. (2014). Sleep Fragmentation During Late Gestation Induces Metabolic Perturbations and Epigenetic Changes in Adiponectin Gene Expression in Male Adult Offspring Mice. Diabetes, 63(10), 3230–3241. http://doi.org/10.2337/db14-0202

If you want to look deeper into things check out the research of Dr. David Gozal. His focus on the epigenetic changes that occur in children with sleep disordered breathing has disturbing implications to neurological development and the increased prevalence of adult disease in children.
 
What you're describing is a behavioral issue, though. The LCD issue you describe is also not unique to cell phones. That said, I am perfectly willing to agree that children's cell phone use should be monitored and controlled, like any number of other potentially damaging behaviors.

Regardless, it's still not evidence that the RF radiation of a cell phone damages human tissue, which is what I was requesting after being told quite haughtily that such damage was obviously happening and was in the process of killing us all.
 
Babbster said:
Switching from regular to diet soda is a good way to keep from gaining additional weight, all other factors being equal. It's those other factors being equal, though, that is most likely preventing those people from losing weight.

I have a hard time buying that going from 250-300 calories per drink to 0-1 is a bad thing. That's what I'd like to see proven before I jump on the anti-diet soda bandwagon...though I consider it patently obvious that switching to water is a far healthier option.
Click to expand...
Maybe consider switching to water instead of synthetic sweeteners.

I don't understand the relationship between low-income and soda consumption. It doesn't taste good (unless mixed with alcohol), costs money, makes you thirsty, fat and toothless.
These days I prefer to mix my drinks (Gin or Scotch) with tonic water. I liked rum/whiskey and coke when I was younger.

If I go into one of the budget supermarkets I see junk food everywhere and families with flats of soda in the shopping carts.
If I go to a nice supermart I see very little snacks, desserts, fizzy drinks ... and most carts have water.

I understand that junk food and frozen food is significantly cheaper to feed a family than eating healthy. I know the pack of crisps or cookies is cheap and requires no time to prepare.
I don't understand why low-income individuals prefer to buy soda when water is free.

Even as a child from a family that wasn't well off, I prefer juice, even if it was from powder or concentrate.
If I remember correctly, a frozen tin of concentrate is cheaper than a big bottle of Coke.

This is an issue that should be addressed. The government is largely to blame, subsidising cornstarch.

Congress and the Department of Agriculture are spending more than $1.28 billion annually to subsidize the crops that are used as additives in manufacturing ... with highly subsidized processed ingredients, including corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and vegetable shortening.
Click to expand...
Link
 
Last edited:
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...gnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

I'm neutral on the entire thing, but my memory was telling me that there have been 'attempts' at legitimate studies conducted on the topic

silk186 said:
I don't understand the relationship between low-income and soda consumption.
Click to expand...

Food Deserts are a modern travesty on the poor and under educated, access to choice is the issue here and there are exceptions where highly processed foods which are not healthy as a regular part of a diet are vastly cheaper and more convenient and accessible .
 
Last edited:
Tiberian said:
As a radio engineer for the better part of my 5 decades of existence (yes, I went there), I can speak from experience and first-hand knowledge of what microwave radiation does to organic tissue. Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone? See what happened when people - aka organic tissue - touched the antennas? Their organic tissue wicked away that microwave RF radiation like water being sucked up by a Super Shammy.

But thanks for the laugh at even mentioning Wikipedia 'cause, well, that's the last bastion for most of those people I was talkin' about.
Click to expand...

First off, BS. The iPhone antenna fault was not because 'organic tissue wicks away radiation'. That is the most rediculous thing I've heard today. The issue was caused by a person's electrically conductive skin shorting the posts of the antenna, causing crosstalk.

Next up. Microwave radiation is non ionising radiation, meaning it has no ability to alter the molecular structure of ANY material, organic or otherwise. In huge amounts it can heat things up, but the same can be said for literally ALL wavelengths of EM radiation. In other words, if you're worried about mW range microwave radiation causing issues with organic tissue, then make sure to NEVER do things like 'turn on a lightbulb' or 'stand near a banana'. Because the radiation and ionising properties of those things are far more dangerous.
 
silk186 said:
I don't understand the relationship between low-income and soda consumption. It doesn't taste good (unless mixed with alcohol), costs money, makes you thirsty, fat and toothless.
These days I prefer to mix my drinks (Gin or Scotch) with tonic water. I liked rum/whiskey and coke when I was younger.
Click to expand...
First off, taste is subjective. For example, I find tonic water to be vile. Second, it's kind of hilarious to take potshots at people who drink soda and then immediately talk about how you enjoy drinking hard liquor...which, by the way, almost everyone hates the taste of the first time they drink it.
 
The article is referencing a study that was metioned here in 2011 http://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry
In other words it's a slow news day and sites gotta get clicks somehow.

The main take away that should terrify everyone;
Lai, 61, says this phenomenon could be a direct result of the way science is now funded around the world. “[The U.S. was on] the cutting edge of this whole area for the last 30 years. [But] right now, we’re the Third World country. We’re not doing research at all,” Lai says. With government funding all but nonexistent, the bulk of scientific research is funded by private industry. “The mechanism is funding,” Lai says. “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive.”​


nutzo said:
NYT, no. They have lost all credibility and no linger qualify as a legitimate news source.
Click to expand...
name checks
Guess again on the times; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ Factual Reporting: HIGH World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
 
Last edited:
You dont have to cast your scope of reference too far to see the NYT's standing as a unbiased fact checking news outlet has eroded substantially coinciding with the present administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top