Study of Cellphone Risks Finds "Some Evidence" of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats

mope54 said:
That trend looks flat rather than declining.
Click to expand...
Which is why I included the data table. It peaked at 490.7 per 100,000 in 2001, ending at its lowest of 437.7 in 2015. That is a 10.8% difference.
 
Armenius said:
Which is why I included the data table. It peaked at 490.7 per 100,000 in 2001, ending at its lowest of 437.7 in 2015. That is a 10.8% difference.
Click to expand...
I was looking at the numbers, not the line :)

The drop that looks statistically significant appears to have started around 2010, but the chart ends at 2015 (the first time in decades the US life expectancy dropped) (https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds). That's a trend that held through 2017 making it the first time in over 50 years to drop for two consecutive years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...falling-and-drug-overdose-deaths-are-soaring/

Cancer.org claims the 2% year over year drop in new cancers (in men, it's been flat for women) is due to reduced cigarette consumption. I didn't dig deep enough to find how statistically significant the numbers were--we're talking about 50 cases per 100,000 people. I'm not saying your interpretation of the graph is wrong or not encouraging, but it's important to note that if people are dying younger, and cancer is more closely associated with aging populations, we could be missing something important in the assessment of why new cancer cases are dropping (eg, people are dying younger in the US for the first time in modern history).

They're both important stories, both true, yet point to dramatically different implications for public policy.
 
Just gotta watch out. Some places show a bunch of birds and certain animals dropping dead from 5g test setups. Not sure about the credibility on everything. Just gotta keep the phone away from your main organs to be safe. Don't leave it on in your pocket too long unless you want to be sterile.
 
PaulP said:
Most current cell phones use analog? 2G is "recent" technology? Maybe in 2001. But it's a difference without a distinction anyway. It does not matter how the signal is encoded, RF at a particular frequency and power is all the same as far as the effect on biological systems is concerned.
Click to expand...


But it DOES make a difference!

Modern cell phones (3G) use Spread Spectrum (CDMA2000, and WCDMA), so the power density at a specific frequency is lower than the analog phone days.

Same total power, but less focused. It was introduced to reduce interference, and to also increase number of connections allowed to a singe cell.

So yeah, I don't believe this would carry over with modern phones. You typically need highly focused power to do damage to a cell.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top