Mobile Phones and Cancer: The Full Picture

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Due to the publication’s “highly controversial” piece regarding “the inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones,” The Guardian has returned with a follow-up authored by cancer expert and physicist David Grimes, who says it “misrepresented the research and that fears are ill-founded.” He argues that if there was a true link, cancer rates would have clearly increased by now due to the exponential adoption of mobiles. Grimes also says there can’t be a conspiracy by the telecoms industry because there isn’t any real scientific evidence to downplay.

A Danish cohort study followed 358,403 people for 27 years, again finding no link between phone usage and tumor rates. The scientific consensus to date is that there is no evidence linking cancer to mobile phones. To ignore strong evidence against a conjecture while inflating weak studies is textbook cherry-picking, where data that might contradict a particular hypothesis is jettisoned, and only evidence fitting the desired story retained. This is antithetical to science, where the totality of evidence must be assessed in concert.
 
That is always the case of "fear-mongering" and "anti-science"...be it cancer from mobile, global warming or flat-earth….those who put bias over facts have to cherry-pick...because the facts don't suit their mentally flawed "logic".
 
Kdawg said:
luckily, no one uses a phone as a phone. Most people don't even talk into a phone. they just type on it, so worst you get is finger cancer.
Click to expand...
As much as I can appreciate this illustrative comment, the phone is always emissive. There is always RF. Some of it in SHF or near microwave frequencies.

I'm glad that, so far, there is no correlation. I like my phone.
 
How about re-heating that gas station burrito you got at 3am, in a house underneath a major power line while drunk calling the ex and watching fox news. That's gotta give someone cancer ;)
 
lostin3d said:
How about re-heating that gas station burrito you got at 3am, in a house underneath a major power line while drunk calling the ex and watching fox news. That's gotta give someone cancer ;)
Click to expand...
everything you mentioned is carcinogenic
 
Ask 10 people if they would stop using a cell phone if there was a chance they would get cancer. Im betting 10 would people would say “hell no!”
 
The ignorance of many many people... blow my mind.

5g frequencies on the higher end of the spectrum are in fact ionizing at higher power levels.

I am a biologist and military trained in RF as well as amateur radio licensed. There are stark differences between 4g lte and 5g frequencies. The way 5g works... is city wide RF blankets. You will not be able to escape the near field radiation in dense urban areas.

Hey whatever this crap always falls on the deaf idiotic ears of those that know so much that isn't so.

Once 5g becomes the norm I'm done with these phones fully. I'm going to enjoy them for now on 4g until that time.
 
tangoseal said:
The ignorance of many many people... blow my mind.

5g frequencies on the higher end of the spectrum are in fact ionizing at higher power levels.

I am a biologist and military trained in RF as well as amateur radio licensed. There are stark differences between 4g lte and 5g frequencies. The way 5g works... is city wide RF blankets. You will not be able to escape the near field radiation in dense urban areas.

Hey whatever this crap always falls on the deaf idiotic ears of those that know so much that isn't so.

Once 5g becomes the norm I'm done with these phones fully. I'm going to enjoy them for now on 4g until that time.
Click to expand...

Can you site your paper showing that wavelength can be ionising? We are so far away from the energies that would cause that, a 2cm wavelength is huge and not particularly high energy.
 
tangoseal said:
The ignorance of many many people... blow my mind.

5g frequencies on the higher end of the spectrum are in fact ionizing at higher power levels.

I am a biologist and military trained in RF as well as amateur radio licensed. There are stark differences between 4g lte and 5g frequencies. The way 5g works... is city wide RF blankets. You will not be able to escape the near field radiation in dense urban areas.

Hey whatever this crap always falls on the deaf idiotic ears of those that know so much that isn't so.

Once 5g becomes the norm I'm done with these phones fully. I'm going to enjoy them for now on 4g until that time.
Click to expand...

Look! Someone that didn't pass intro to physics!

The power of a source has absolutely nothing to do with an individual photon's ability to ionize any atom because ionization is a quantized process (i.e. it is an interaction between a SINGLE photon and a SINGLE electron.) Ten billion photons even the tiniest bit below the ionization energy for any electron will never have any chance of removing that electron from its atom.
 
tangoseal said:
. The way 5g works... is city wide RF blankets. You will not be able to escape the near field radiation in dense urban areas.


Once 5g becomes the norm I'm done with these phones fully. I'm going to enjoy them for now on 4g until that time.
Click to expand...

So are you out moving to the country then?
 
People tend to forget a nuclear fireball can burn you with full spectrum radiation; we all have a life long exposure to this.
It is call the SUN............
RF emissions from a cell phone is a fart in the wind.
 
Last edited:
Megalith said:
A Danish cohort study followed 358,403 people for 27 years, again finding no link between phone usage and tumor rates
Click to expand...


so.. what were they studying for the first 10 years?? mass cell phone use has not been around that long
 
Since I am essentially being called an idiot by some of you, instead of being defensive, I will attempt yet again to be the scientist I am by degree and profession. And also since I appear to be a failure in physics intro according to one of you maybe you can refute this study with one that suggests otherwise.

As a biologist we look for connections and patterns and then put things to the test.
If you calculate the wavelength of the average frequency of 5g radiation at 25 ghz you will find that a quarterwave is V=C/a where V is frequency, C speed of light in vac, a is wavelength

thus, we solve for A and we get 11mm wavelength for 25ghz making a halfwave roughly 5.5m and a quarterwave around 2.75mm.

Now the average apocrine gland (sweat) is roughly 2 to 5 mm uncoiled in length. This makes for the perfect helical antenna for reception fundamentally for 25ghz transmissions. This essentially suggests that human skin is the perfect antenna for receiving RF electrically from said 5g transmission sources.


Here is a study suggesting exactly the same thing I am trying to share with you.

upload_2018-7-23_15-10-6.png
 
tangoseal said:
Since I am essentially being called an idiot by some of you, instead of being defensive, I will attempt yet again to be the scientist I am by degree and profession. And also since I appear to be a failure in physics intro according to one of you maybe you can refute this study with one that suggests otherwise.

As a biologist we look for connections and patterns and then put things to the test.
If you calculate the wavelength of the average frequency of 5g radiation at 25 ghz you will find that a quarterwave is V=C/a where V is frequency, C speed of light in vac, a is wavelength

thus, we solve for A and we get 11mm wavelength for 25ghz making a halfwave roughly 5.5m and a quarterwave around 2.75mm.

Now the average apocrine gland (sweat) is roughly 2 to 5 mm uncoiled in length. This makes for the perfect helical antenna for reception fundamentally for 25ghz transmissions. This essentially suggests that human skin is the perfect antenna for receiving RF electrically from said 5g transmission sources.


Here is a study suggesting exactly the same thing I am trying to share with you.

View attachment 91170
Click to expand...

I fail to see any mention of ionized radiation...which were your initial claim.

Moving goalposts/claims is a clear indication of fallacies, not facts.
 
tangoseal said:
Since I am essentially being called an idiot by some of you, instead of being defensive, I will attempt yet again to be the scientist I am by degree and profession. And also since I appear to be a failure in physics intro according to one of you maybe you can refute this study with one that suggests otherwise.

As a biologist we look for connections and patterns and then put things to the test.
If you calculate the wavelength of the average frequency of 5g radiation at 25 ghz you will find that a quarterwave is V=C/a where V is frequency, C speed of light in vac, a is wavelength

thus, we solve for A and we get 11mm wavelength for 25ghz making a halfwave roughly 5.5m and a quarterwave around 2.75mm.

Now the average apocrine gland (sweat) is roughly 2 to 5 mm uncoiled in length. This makes for the perfect helical antenna for reception fundamentally for 25ghz transmissions. This essentially suggests that human skin is the perfect antenna for receiving RF electrically from said 5g transmission sources.


Here is a study suggesting exactly the same thing I am trying to share with you.

View attachment 91170
Click to expand...

Hi, actual physicist here. That's not ionization. And since you said, and I quote:

5g frequencies on the higher end of the spectrum are in fact ionizing at higher power levels.
Click to expand...

I maintain that you still lack a basic understanding of physics. Subsurface heating by RF is not a new thing and nothing specific to 5g cellular radios, and such an effect is certain to be infinitesimal at the sorts of intensities that will be encountered by people every day.
 
Even if your right and biologically you are not right PERIOD, is this grounds for dismissal of the inherent threat that EHF poses to our DNA and subsequent cancer as a result?

Certainly the WHO employs many many PhDs in physics and they are concerned not just with heating of tissue but CANCER.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/

As a physicist I understand you may or may not understand cancer. Cancer is caused by mutations to DNA nucleotides on specific Genes in which the gene has a molecular change most normally occurring from either a free radical a chemical reaction or an ionizing event in which dimers and other changes in amino specific molecular configuration changes the ultimate downstream protein products.

If RF poses no threat to human cancer proliferation then why are governments and medical Institutions world wide concerned?
 
I for one welcome our soon to be new ionizing radioactive overlords.... I mean phones.

How does that ionizing wavelength affect... say, my testicles if in front pocket, or my ass if in the rear pocket? I've been pocketing cell phones since the 90's and my junk hasn't fallen off yet. Yes I said the NINETYs, I am old. You cannot convince me that "new" cell phones are less safe than old ones.

Also everyone seems fixated on cell phone radiation when next to one's noggin. I ask you this... when is the LAST time anyone saw someone using a cell phone next to their head like a regular phone? All I see is either headsets, or people screaming into their phones at arm's length on speakerphone. If anyone needs a case sample, go vist a local WalMart. (for control purposes, I use a wired headset 95% of the time)

OTOH, fuck people, gimme my 5ghz ionizer phaser gun please! :) /s
 
tangoseal said:
Even if your right and biologically you are not right PERIOD, is this grounds for dismissal of the inherent threat that EHF poses to our DNA and subsequent cancer as a result?

Certainly the WHO employs many many PhDs in physics and they are concerned not just with heating of tissue but CANCER.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/

As a physicist I understand you may or may not understand cancer. Cancer is caused by mutations to DNA nucleotides on specific Genes in which the gene has a molecular change most normally occurring from either a free radical a chemical reaction or an ionizing event in which dimers and other changes in amino specific molecular configuration changes the ultimate downstream protein products.

If RF poses no threat to human cancer proliferation then why are governments and medical Institutions world wide concerned?
Click to expand...

RF poses no threat of ionization, that's not the same as posing no threat of human cancer. Governments are concerned because people are concerned, and studies are inconclusive. Any mechanism by which RF could cause cancer is unknown.
 
Slightly OT, but I rarely use speakerphone, and never use a headset/earpiece...they hurt my ears.
 
We have never used cellphones in the EHF range either.. what's next? 6g gonna be gamma wavelengths?

Hey man y'all can believe what you want. Maybe cancers will rise beyond belief or stay the same. But does this discount the need to do far more laboratory and field studies before we blindly just accept new tech?

Whatever... I am done arguing about the ethics of blindly accepting EHF cell phone tech. I'm out.
 
tangoseal said:
We have never used cellphones in the EHF range either.. what's next? 6g gonna be gamma wavelengths?

Hey man y'all can believe what you want. Maybe cancers will rise beyond belief or stay the same. But does this discount the need to do far more laboratory and field studies before we blindly just accept new tech?

Whatever... I am done arguing about the ethics of blindly accepting EHF cell phone tech. I'm out.
Click to expand...

Thanks...allthough that was a lot words to say your claim about "ionization" was false...but I guess that is our fault too? :rolleyes:
 
tangoseal said:
We have never used cellphones in the EHF range either.. what's next? 6g gonna be gamma wavelengths?

Hey man y'all can believe what you want. Maybe cancers will rise beyond belief or stay the same. But does this discount the need to do far more laboratory and field studies before we blindly just accept new tech?

Whatever... I am done arguing about the ethics of blindly accepting EHF cell phone tech. I'm out.
Click to expand...

*waves*
 
For people who might fall for the FUD posted, here is a good little video:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top