The Inconvenient Truth about Cancer and Mobile Phones

Babbster said:
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.
Click to expand...
most anti tech are poorly written the thing is for every one of these studies saying it is bad there are 2 or more reputable better written ones saying the opposite or only at levels and intensity that would cause other issues for instance the last one i cared to read had the antenna attached to the mouse's head and they were pumping 1.2 MW @1900mhz through it. To show the damage a 15mW would do over 20 years of constant use. Another completely trashed that study in the methodology was 100% unrealistic and the only thing it simulated was sitting on top of a cell tower.
 
Zumino Zufeilon said:
While absolutely true, the inherent, underlying assumption is that anything created is safe.

The "testing" required for new chemicals, technology, etc to be listed as safe is . . . basically non-existent.

Chemicals, at least in the US, are considered safe until proven unsafe. Which is/why how the Asbestos Industry, Tobacco Industry, Petroluem Industry, etc, etc, etc work SO hard to keep the appearance of "reasonable doubt".

And that seems pretty foolishly short-sighted.
Click to expand...

I agree "Healthy sceptism is good"

But the US has never really been god in protection is citizens against "evil" companies.
 
SvenBent said:
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.
Click to expand...
As stated: Lack of proof that it's harmful doesn't mean it's safe.
It means you shouldn't be surprised if every user dies after a while due to a factor that isn't tested and proven safe.

Using the global population as guniea pigs for safety tests is an inherently bad idea!

geok1ng said:
... Actually, the very definition of a safety proof is the lack of proof that it is harmful, as one can not prove a negative. ...
Click to expand...
The key is that it's only proven safe in the aspects where testing is done.

I can't say I'm afraid to get cancer by using a mobile phone. Partially because I don't use it much, but mostly because...
The biggest problem today is the global exposure to a huge coctail of marginally tested products. Chemical products and EM radiation at a wide range of frequencies. There's absolutely no test done of the effect from long term low intensity exposure to (the mix of) these products, some of which weren't even invented a few years ago.
Absolutely nobody can claim that this is safe, and the situation gets worse every month!
If/when we can show that it's causing a global health problem it's impossible to place the blame at any one factor.
 
Olle P said:
EM radiation at a wide range of frequencies
Click to expand...

this is the main fallacy behind cellphone cancer.
there is not a single theory to explain or mere speculate how non-ionizing radiation could cause cancer. Because every single cancer-related agent that we know changes DNA, which non-ionizing radiation can not.

the very fact that some idiots try to put lower energy photons on same cancer-related agent list of high energy photons and completely ignore the medium energy photons between them shows how much pseudoscience garbage litters the discussion.

In other words: if one believes that radio and microwaves can cause cancer, just like gamma, x rays and UV radiation does, why ignore visible light and infrared as cancer-related agents?
 
geok1ng said:
this is the main fallacy behind cellphone cancer.
there is not a single theory to explain or mere speculate how non-ionizing radiation could cause cancer. Because every single cancer-related agent that we know changes DNA, which non-ionizing radiation can not.

the very fact that some idiots try to put lower energy photons on same cancer-related agent list of high energy photons and completely ignore the medium energy photons between them shows how much pseudoscience garbage litters the discussion.

In other words: if one believes that radio and microwaves can cause cancer, just like gamma, x rays and UV radiation does, why ignore visible light and infrared as cancer-related agents?
Click to expand...
They can cause (well, not really cause...) cancer, but it takes a LOT, and the cause is more from the heat damage than from dna mutations from radiation. If you damage more cells, then they have to be replaced more often. Every new cell has a chance at being cancerous, the ones that are cancerous are usually eliminated by our immune system. It only becomes a problem when there is so much damage that the immune system can't keep up or when your immune system is already compromised.
 
No, no, no! Enough of this shit. Heat does not cause cancer. Repeated healing does not cause cancer. This thread has more than enough unscientific nonsense in it already!
 
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/sun-safety.htm

Or if you don't trust the CDC...
https://www.cancer.gov/types/skin/anyone-can-get-skin-cancer

Or if the National Cancer Institute is untrustworthy...
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/uv-radiation.html

Maybe australia knows a thing or two...
https://www.dermcoll.edu.au/atoz/skin-cancer-overview/

So like I said, UV can cause cancer, but it takes a lot. Heat, not so much (though it can indirectly contribute if the heat causes damage to the cells). Visible light, I have no idea. I'd guess not, but I haven't seen any research on the subject. Repeated healing does not cause cancer (that's not what I said), but every new cell has a chance at being cancerous. If you are replacing more cells due to damage, then there is a higher chance of you having one or two cancerous cells, but more than likely your immune system will eliminate it (same as the billions of other new cells that are made in your body every day).
 
Last edited:
Cancer is a genetic disease—that is, it is caused by changes to genes that control the way our cells function, especially how they grow and divide.

Genetic changes that cause cancer can be inherited from our parents. They can also arise during a person’s lifetime as a result of errors that occur as cells divide or because of damage to DNAcaused by certain environmental exposures. Cancer-causing environmental exposures include substances, such as the chemicals in tobacco smoke, and radiation, such as ultraviolet rays from the sun. (Our Cancer Causes and Preventionsection has more information.)
.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

The genetic changes that contribute to cancer tend to affect three main types of genes—proto-oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and DNA repair genes. These changes are sometimes called “drivers” of cancer.

Proto-oncogenes are involved in normal cell growth and division. However, when these genes are altered in certain ways or are more active than normal, they may become cancer-causing genes (or oncogenes), allowing cells to grow and survive when they should not.

Tumor suppressor genes are also involved in controlling cell growth and division. Cells with certain alterations in tumor suppressor genes may divide in an uncontrolled manner.

DNA repair genes are involved in fixing damaged DNA. Cells with mutations in these genes tend to develop additional mutations in other genes. Together, these mutations may cause the cells to become cancerous
.
Click to expand...

Source
 
nomu said:
*Ionizing radiation.

I've never heard that claim in regards to visible light or infrared radiation. And I've never heard it in regards to radio. For some reason microwaves seem to be the sweet spot for paranoia.
Click to expand...


That's because people can see that their Microwave Oven blows things up when they leave it on for twenty minutes instead of two, and obviously they can put two and two together and get five.

Kinda like Megalith here. He has a propensity for falling for FUD like this, and used to post shit like this constantly before they put him on Front Page News.. Somehow I knew without reading the author who posed this tripe.
 
Last edited:
SvenBent said:
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
Click to expand...

For "radiation" to cause cancer it has to be of the type ionizing. Radio waves which cell phones wifi and even microwaves use is non ionizing. If cell phones are dangerous so is your wifi regardless of if it is 2.4 ghz or 5ghz spectrum or more recent specs and so is your microwave and also your satellite tv and to a lesser degree cable tv over coax. And your xm satellite and your hell to many things to mention. This unfounded fear hyping comes up all the time and seems to center around election years. A couple years back it was teen girls getting breast cancer and they carried their phones there this one has some truth to it. But the tumors were not lkely caused b the phone in and of it self but by constant pressure on the tissue causing damage also heat could be a factor.

Now with that all said this IS microwave radiation at the 2.5 etc frequencies and 2 or 3 watts of out put at those frequencies can begin to noticeably heat water above ambient temperatures. Now This still will not cause cancer as a result of exposure to the micro waves but it could cause damage to the tissues in the form of burns etc. Now it would take way more in watts than cell phones etc put out. Simply put while yes you can take a reading of water in front of high powered wifi gear and see a raise in temperature but it wont be enough to do damage.
 
3f11877306ea8b447eac3eb296b502e4.png

This popped in my head while reading.

Seriously though, why do people always start with "i am an expert in this" before they provide their opinion? Is that like some way to just make us all fall in line and say they are right without question?
 
Olle P said:
The biggest problem today is the global exposure to a huge coctail of marginally tested products.
Click to expand...
Uh, NO. That might be the biggest problem for global 1%-ers, but the rest of the world has bigger issues, like starvation, disease, unsafe water, war, crime, and cultural norms that lead to, for example, young women being murdered for violating taboos.

You worry about whether some food might someday cause cancer. They're worried about having food at all.

Get some damn perspective.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Uh, NO. That might be the biggest problem for global 1%-ers, but the rest of the world has bigger issues, ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps I was a bit short. My statement implied
... with any relation to this thread/article.
Getting cancer from cell phones is way less of a problem than getting any sort of disease due to exposure to all sorts of "new" products.
The problems you list are for sure very troubling immediate concerns for way too many, but it would be pretty embarrassing if we fixed those problems only to have humanity go extinct a decade or two later just because we got some new fancy clothing material that proved to be toxic...
 
Olle P said:
it would be pretty embarrassing if we fixed those problems only to have humanity go extinct a decade or two later
Click to expand...
Embarrassing, yeah, but all the non-domesticated animals on the planet would throw us one super-happy wake.
 
Nobu said:
and the cause is more from the heat damage than from dna mutations from radiation
Click to expand...

Nice pseudoscience theory: heat damage causes cancer. :ROFLMAO:

so people have less cancer in colder climates :cool:? NOPE.

so cellphone's microwave radiation cause more "heat damage" to your cells than visible light or infrared:barefoot:? BIG NOPE.
 
geok1ng said:
Nice pseudoscience theory: heat damage causes cancer. :ROFLMAO:

so people have less cancer in colder climates :cool:? NOPE.

so cellphone's microwave radiation cause more "heat damage" to your cells than visible light or infrared:barefoot:? BIG NOPE.
Click to expand...
I may or may not have been drunk when I posted that. Regardless, I posted some more reliable sources than myself afterward. I promise, they don't repeat anything I said verbatim. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top