sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,991
pun?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Inconvenient Truth about Cancer and Mobile Phones
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,000
All mainstream news is owned by people with agendas. The thing humans have never learned to do is be sceptical and analytical of All news and form their own conclusion.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,647
This is the truth.
Did it? Or did it just cause the impedance of the antenna to change dramatically, leading to refelctions and loss of energy in the phone's transmission path ?
Hopefully you understood what I just said, even though I didn't use technical terms like "wicked away" and "Super Shammy."
And we should believe these "mediabiasfactcheck" people because ... why? Because they say so? They "took the truth pledge?" LOL
I never heard of mediabiasfactcheck before. Looking at their front page, they seem to have an anti-Trump bias.
Who funds them? Bezos? Soros?
And, most importantly, don't link your cell phone to one of those 500W linear amplifiers (like truckers use) and then hold the amplifier next to your head.
the_real_7
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,402
Like the old saying goes everything gives you cancer. The truth is there no 100 percent that anything gives you cancer , there's test groups that's test a group and if they get higher than average we based facts they take the fork and the road and consider that's a issue. . The truth is like the ocean we just only tapped the surface of things and we really dont understand the human anatomy as much as we would pretend we do.
they could have used that in Flint MI
*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.
I know it's rough to hear things you don't agree with, it bothers me to.
It's no wonder a site that ranks news sources for factual information might appear at first glance to be anti-dRumpf, it's not like the prezident regularly lies and obfuscates facts .
If you'd bothered to do more than a cursory glance you would have noticed the about page which explains how the site is funded, and while you're there you can make a donation and be part of their funding.
Or you can enjoy your lol's and stay firmly locked in your bubble. The choice is all yours.
https://www.poynter.org/international-fact-checking-network-fact-checkers-code-principles
Liar. It asks people to help fund them on Patreon, not that Patreon is the only source.
It doesn't say where their funding comes from.
You are Fake News, complete with the unfounded personal attacks and insertion of Trump bashing at every opportunity.
Just like your idol, the NYT.
Who funds Media Bias/Fact Check?
We have an account with WordAds, which is the WordPress equivalent of Google’s AdSense. These ads generate a fraction of penny per page view. Thus far the bulk of our minimal funds come from these ads. We also have a donate button on our website that allows people to donate whatever amount they choose to help fund this project. We do not accept funding from any businesses, corporations, politicians or media outlets.
Funding for MBFC News comes from site advertising, individual donors, and the pockets of our bias checkers.
Sorry that they don't dox their donors, you'll just have to burn that cross another day.
That's a lame way to admit that you lied about them revealing their funding, but if it's all you can bring yourself to admit, fine.
So I'll ask again the question you neglected to answer, the issue you'd like people to ignore:
Why should anyone trust these self-appointed, anonymously-funded "media bias/fact checkers" ?
I know why you do, of course: they say what you want to hear. But why would anyone else?
I think it's because some people still believe that microwave ovens "irradiate" their food, as in making it radioactive, despite that fact that even actually irradiating food with ionizing radiation doesn't make food radioactive. Once this belief is held, anything called a "microwave" is believed dangerous.
Ever wonder how they guarantee the sterility of a Band-Aid brand bandage inside it's paper wrapper?
Gamma irradiation. See https://www.steris-ast.com/services/gamma-irradiation/
We irradiated blood products (to order - it was not routine) when I worked in the laboratory at our local American Red Cross. The machine that did so was perfectly safe sitting right out in the open and when the irradiation was complete the bags were perfectly safe to handle with our usual latex gloves.
And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,024
We'll need to drain all your blood for that, or else bleach your skin and burn you in various locations in a rather cool looking pattern. Are you okay with this?And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
Pretty sure it has more to do with how big a target cellphones and network devices are rather than anything specific to microwaves.
Typical.
Start with an insult and then point to a left leaning fact checking site...
When I'm reading my local paper I can almost always tell when the story I'm reading is a reprint from the NYT, before I see the line saying it's reprinted.
The bias is that obvious.
At least they are not as bad as the Washington Post.
And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!
You need gamma radiation for that.
theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
so, can the experts tell me do cell phones give me more cancer than BBQ chicken wings, or is it just the same as eating white bread or inconsequential when living in a big city ?
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,030
News flash: Everything causes cancer. Life itself is a cancer risk. Of course you can mitigate that risk, but an overseas flight is probably a bigger risk than a lifetime of cell phone use.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
24/7 direct microwave exposure is safe now because of, well, appearance which is why it's getting political for some.
But it's non-ionizing and no individual source operates at particularly high levels, so it's "safe". Never mind the fact that we have countless sources that are heating us from the inside. It's not just cell towers, all new cars have radars these days. All that power adds up.
Fucking love cities but things are getting out of hand
But it's non-ionizing and no individual source operates at particularly high levels, so it's "safe". Never mind the fact that we have countless sources that are heating us from the inside. It's not just cell towers, all new cars have radars these days. All that power adds up.
Fucking love cities but things are getting out of hand
No, it doesn't add up. Below a threshold level, your body's thermal regulation systems just get rid of it (look up hormesis).
Now, maybe if your ability to shed heat was already overtaxed, like when it's 115F in Phoenix, you'd have a problem. But at that temperature, you should worry more about your phone getting heated, as opposed to doing the heating. Hell, you should probably turn the damn thing off and use it as a heat sink, and for shade.
Besides, no cell phone on the market today is going to increase your total radiation exposure as much as living in Santa Fe (elev. 7100 ft) or Denver (elev. 5300 ft) does.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,773
I think I might skip this thread in general because it’s just going to make me angry and disappointed about H’s general population...
LastQuestion
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 454
I was trying to point out that people are confusing correlation with causation. In this instance, the correlation is cell phone usage seems to lead to increased cancer rates. People then jump to 'cell phones cause cancer' and try to form a hypothesis to explain this, latching on the the EMF. Now, there is some research that indicates EMF can have a notable influence on cellular function, and studies do link it to being disruptive enough to affect sleep and circadian cycles to a modest extent. While this doesn't technically show EMF damages human cells, it does provide some credence to the idea that it adversely impacts human health. Systems biology and chronic diseases are not about "insult X cause disease Y'; people continue to try to conceptualize these things as acute exposures similar to infectious disease/heavy metal poisoning/etc. While some aggressive cancers can be as a result of exposure, most are as a result of chronic events and have taken decades to develop before they get caught in screening. Moreover, the previously cited research demonstrates that not only does sleep fragmentation affect the prevalence of cancer, but is directly linked to how aggressive that cancer is.
What I had hoped to convey is that there are many insults contributing to chronic diseases and trying to figure things out in a reductionist paradigm that simplies matters to one site of injury is part of why so much confusion exists on the topic. People want simple answers when it comes to illness, they want cause and effect, but nature doesn't operate in that way. It's more about what tips things over the edge past the bodies ability to adapt. For example, a study demonstrated that people can have the 'alzheimers gene' and never develop alzheimers based predominantly upon their lifestyle choices. With everything we've learned about epigenetics kept in mind such a finding is not all to surprising, but for ages the thinking was 'Genes are destiny'. Now we know, "Genes are like a loaded gun, but something has to pull the trigger." Similarly, at what point the body cannot effectively manage cancerous cells is subject to a whole host of factors; Craniofacial development and its affect on breathing, lifestyle and its effect on genetic expression, local environmental toxins/allergens, etc. etc. etc. etc....really too many etcs to cover. Some really push things over the edge, such as massive radiation exposure, while others, like sleep fragmentation, take time but nonetheless inexorably march towards inducing a host of chronic diseases of which cancer is but one.
I'll give a specific hypothetical to really illustrate this. John uses a cell phone. He uses it late at night. He does this every night, and every night he struggles to sleep well. He wakes up tired with difficulty thinking clearly and drinks coffee throughout the day, which makes it even harder to go to sleep. He is prescribed sleep medications. Unknown to John and his medical provider he has a underdeveloped upper jaw which compromises his airway. His autonomic nervous system has been able to cope with this well enough that the disordered breathing he experiences has not yet caused enough harm to be noticed by his PCP. However, the sleep medications blunt the response of his autonomic nervous system by systemically inhibiting neuronal function; both muscles tone and the neurology governing muscle function are impaired. Unknown to John, this causes his SDB to worsen to the point that he would fit the diagnostic criteria for Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea. John notes difficult with memory oriented tasks and responds with more caffeine. He seeks medical help and gets diagnosed with adult onset ADD and is prescribed amphetamines. John reports having even more trouble sleeping and is placed on more potent sleep medications. The inhibition of the autonomic nervous system is increased. Several years go by, and the insult of amphetamines stacked on top of the intermittent hypoxia caused by OSA leads to significant brain damage. John reports symptoms of cognitive decline and he begins to show signs of heart disease. He gets a referral to a heart specialist who refers him to a sleep specialist and after a sleep study gets diagnosed with severe OSA. John is finally offered appropriate treatment.
Did Cell Phone usage cause John to develop heart disease? Was is the sleep meds, or the amphetamines... We could say it was the underdeveloped jaw, but what caused the jaws to underdevelop? Or perhaps those are the wrong questions to be asking if we're to be interested in preventing such diseases from occurring?
Last edited:
Dead Parrot
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,831
The problem with most cell phone radiation studies done more then 10 years ago is the usage they presumed most likely doesn't reflect today's 'always on,always transmitting' phones of today. Most of the 90' and 00's studies probably used flip phones as the base phone. One radio, mostly not transmitting. Today's smartphones have multiple radios, cell-wifi-bluetooth and are almost always transmitting something. Even worse are the new Apple phones that encourage users to insert a small bluetooth transmitter into each ear so they can listen to music. Harmful? Maybe, maybe not. But definitely more exposure then what a lot of the studies accounted for.
Kalabalana
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,313
I wish there would simply be a synopsis or abstract at the beginning of any such article.
Tell me what I am about to invest time into reading, to see if it is worth my time, don't click bait me in, then push flowery paragraphs at me instead of hard evidence and facts.
Start the article with the study and the results - I hate journalists more and more, because there are so few with any talent-skill.
Tell me what I am about to invest time into reading, to see if it is worth my time, don't click bait me in, then push flowery paragraphs at me instead of hard evidence and facts.
Start the article with the study and the results - I hate journalists more and more, because there are so few with any talent-skill.
Had to post on this one...Please, not this old saw, again. Gawd, some people today are so ignorant it hurts...
"Cell phones cause cancer" is from the same school of "science" *cough* that tells us that diet soft drinks are harmful because they "fool" the taste buds...ha-ha...what idiots! Yes, you can fool the taste buds--but you cannot fool the digestive tract...! In fact, fooling the taste buds is utterly irrelevant to anything the digestive tract does. So, for instance...cyanide made to taste like candy is still lethal, candy made to taste like cyanide is still only candy, etc. A famous study done back in the '60's during an African famine concerned an entire tribe that actually starved to death eating milkweed, which has no nutritional value. The irony was that even as they starved to death to a man they went to bed each night satisfied, their bellies full! There is no fooling or deceiving the human digestive tract. When it comes to diet soft drinks, interestingly enough, there is no food product on earth that has been tested to the extent that diet soft drinks have been tested--and in every nation on the planet that can afford to do so. The *science* is still that drinking diet soda is much less harmful to a person than drinking sugar-sweetened soda--for dozens of good reasons. The *myth* is that through some unknown process diet soda is "bad" and sugar-soda is "good." That isn't science--it is mumbo-jumbo.But back to the similar mythology surrounding cell phones. Despite *exhaustive* testing by several nations to date, nothing has been shown to link cell-phone use to cancer in humans. Indeed, people who fly regularly, for instance, receive far more radiation in their lives than people who use cell phones, etc. Sunbathers--even outdoor hikers, hunters, and athletes, are other classes of folks whose exposure to radiation dwarfs that received merely by cell-phone usage. It's the logic the fear-mongers use that I find so offensive, and it goes something like this: Lots of people die of cancer, and lots of people use cell phones, so there *must* be a connection! And if anyone tells you there is no connection then he has to be lying! Ha-ha--that actually seems *logical* to these people..! So try this one on for size:
Every human being on the planet breathes in oxygen; every human being on the planet dies! Ergo, breathing oxygen will kill you!... Idiots--pure idiots...! But that is the way they think--there's no science involved whatsoever in these claims.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Heh, the only thing that's missing is a library of congress comparison. Seriously.
I read some parts of the article. It says radiation is not good for you
Where else are you supposed to put them? Google "phone death grip" - it was hardly limited to iPhones at the time. Heck there were many articles that had screen shots of other manufacturers owners manuals showing the exact same illustrations and holding instructions as Apple for phones release before the iPhone 4. I personally never had problems with the iPhone 4, but did enjoy the free bumper case.
But it's always more fun and attention grabbing to have Apple in headlines, and why let something pesky like facts get in the way of a good internet lynching!
As for the hysteria over radiation, just remember we are pelted constantly by it from space and other natural sources. Granite? Congress gets lots of constant background radiation (hey, that may explain a lot). And if you think cell phones are bad, don't ever get in a commercial plane and fly coast to coast or overseas! Astronauts are so far out of the protective shield of the atmosphere they can see spots directly induced by cosmic rays - and we are fretting over cell phone radiation?!?
"We" is probably the wrong word. "Nuts" works better.
BrotherMichigan
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2016
- Messages
- 376
You must have been a shitty "radio engineer," because that's definitely not what the issue was. The issue was that bridging the gap between the two separate antenna bands that surrounded the device with a finger detuned each of them enough to severely attenuate the signal, hence why the solution was simply to move the gap between the antennae to a place where it would not frequently be bridged by a finger or palm rather than to relocate the antennae entirely.
Zumino Zufeilon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 917
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.
silk186
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,628
I wasn't criticizing people that like sweet drinks. I was commenting on the association between economic status and soda consumption.
I really don't think you should have went there.