GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The article includes links to many studies, summarizes the results, and concludes that, overall, the results are inconclusive but that there are significant correlations between heavy use or use at a young age with certain brain cancers. http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/preventive-care/article/still-hung-cell-phones?

The article makes reference to the risks of blue tooth exposure, recommends speaker phones or wired headsets as alternatives and provides a link to this article https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2016-10-18/clear-sound-sleek-styling-and-microwave-radiation

Almost as an afterthought the article cites a National Safety Council estimate that 20 percent of crashes (1.1 million a year) in the U.S. involve cell phones. A UC Berkeley article with more information on distracted driving is here http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-community/healthy-community/health-care-policy/article/don’t-text-while-driving

KNS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,439 Posts
It's amazing that with the length of time cell phones have been in common use, and their worldwide distribution, they wouldn't know yet for sure if the radiation is dangerous or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It looks like several commenters may not have read the article to which I linked in the opening post. It cites many studies involving thousands of people over many years. The overall results are inconclusive because several of the studies were funded by the cell phone industry and - surprise - none of those found any harm. The data do point to a correlation between brain cancer and heavy use or use by young people with developing neurological systems. Careful scientific practice demands replication so that the number of participants in studies designed to identify whether or not the link is causal can provide a high level of certainty - one way or the other. There is nothing "tin hat" about this. The technology has been evolving with new frequency bands, broader spectrum, etc. Medical researchers - and cell phone users - would be fools if they ignore the possibility of cumulative neurological or DNA damage caused by long term exposure to cell phone radiation.

KNS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
There is an energy level required to break a chemical bond.
Scientists (real ones) have determined that the energy emitted at cell phone frequencies is not enough to break the bonds in DNA. Period. Can't happen.

So how it this energy doing it?

Think of it this way. If I have a piece of 1/8" aluminum sheet, and I know a .22 bullet can go through it, it does not mean that throwing marshmallows at it for a very, very long time will puncture the aluminum. The marshmallow cannot break the molecular bonds because it never approaches the energy necessary.

Brain cancer has been on a steady rise since the 1970's. But there were no cellphones.

While I would LOVE for them to ban cellphones as a possible carcinogen, there is no science or even "wishful thinking tort-focused statistics" from legal firms that can back the claim up.

If it worries you, stop using cellphones. I do not use them except rarely, and never while driving or in the company of others. Not because of lawyer-funded studies, (yes, universities do that quite often but because I trust scientists more than lawyers when it comes to science), but because it's an unnecessary evil while driving in a car, and very rude in public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
The article includes links to many studies, summarizes the results, and concludes that, overall, the results are inconclusive but that there are significant correlations between heavy use or use at a young age with certain brain cancers.
Are you familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"

It's amazing that with the length of time cell phones have been in common use, and their worldwide distribution, they wouldn't know yet for sure if the radiation is dangerous or not.
Easy - you cannot prove a negative. I would venture that 99.9999% of cancer victims have eaten carrots. Prove to me that carrots do not cause cancer.

Cheese is dangerous too:



http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
There is an energy level required to break a chemical bond.
Scientists (real ones) have determined that the energy emitted at cell phone frequencies is not enough to break the bonds in DNA. Period. Can't happen.

So how it this energy doing it?
No offense but why are you repeating this debunked nonsense that has nothing to do with the conversation?

Radiation is never emitted at a steady level at the particle level.

If it were no one would get skin cancer because the form of radiation emitted by the sun at the average level at midday is too weak to displace DNA as well.

It has been known since the 50's that there is no safe level of radiation of any type, we just happen to be lucky that our bodies can repair damaged DNA.

What does this mean? That radiation has a wide spread of energy levels , which means the rate of damage simply follows a curve based on exposure level/duration and that damage is cumulative.

Specific populations like people from Iran can tolerate many times the normal lifetime exposure due to a genetic mutation, other populations are much more susceptible to damage like babies, children and again those genetically predisposed.

Add to this our environment has thousands of new chemicals in it that alone may be mostly harmless but combined have synergistic effects, one common affect is an increased likelihood of cancer.

As a people genetically we are degrading much more in the last 40 years than in the previous 40.
Sterility has increased massively in that time.

Combining all these modern hazards well...
Our success may eventually kill us.

Add to this children are emotionally stunted by electronic exposure, that has been shown repeatedly and it would be prudent of us to ban juvenile use of a variety of devices on that alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
No offense but why are you repeating this debunked nonsense that has nothing to do with the conversation?

Radiation is never emitted at a steady level at the particle level.

If it were no one would get skin cancer because the form of radiation emitted by the sun at the average level at midday is too weak to displace DNA as well.

It has been known since the 50's that there is no safe level of radiation of any type, we just happen to be lucky that our bodies can repair damaged DNA.

What does this mean? That radiation has a wide spread of energy levels , which means the rate of damage simply follows a curve based on exposure level/duration and that damage is cumulative.

Specific populations like people from Iran can tolerate many times the normal lifetime exposure due to a genetic mutation, other populations are much more susceptible to damage like babies, children and again those genetically predisposed.

Add to this our environment has thousands of new chemicals in it that alone may be mostly harmless but combined have synergistic effects, one common affect is an increased likelihood of cancer.

As a people genetically we are degrading much more in the last 40 years than in the previous 40.
Sterility has increased massively in that time.

Combining all these modern hazards well...
Our success may eventually kill us.

Add to this children are emotionally stunted by electronic exposure, that has been shown repeatedly and it would be prudent of us to ban juvenile use of a variety of devices on that alone.
Your cellphone does not operate in ionizing wavelengths. Water is not same as ice when you sail a ship through it.

Cell Towers are many times more powerful than handheld emitters. You'd see cancer clusters around towers and in the workers.

Homeopathic medicine does not work because it's below an effective threshold, ditto with radio communication wavelengths in portable devices.

But don't take my word for it. Which scientists and medical experts seem trustworthy? How about the American Cancer Society:

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Understand that law firms who creates data that 'proves' to 12 non-scientists and a robed liberal arts major that Cell Phones Are Killers, hit the Holy Grail of Class Action suits. Trillions of dollars to the law firm. Biggest of all time by an order of magnitude.

If they have to spend a billion to 'prove' cell phone cause cancer it was a very, very profitable investment. They are certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
I will wager that the Berkeley info was directly or indirectly funded by lawyers or professors affected by law firm income.

This is how Toyota proved the Prius normal hybrid is 'greener' than any EV. They purchased a major university study.

Our public universities are simply for-profit mechanisms to enrich the upper staff members. A primary focus on pure learning went into the toilet a long time ago, with money and politics coming in First and Second goals in their unofficial Mission Statement.

Berkeley in particular is now the center of new totalitarian movement. But instead of government power, it's corporate power that curtails civil rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
No offense but why are you repeating this debunked nonsense that has nothing to do with the conversation?

Radiation is never emitted at a steady level at the particle level.

If it were no one would get skin cancer because the form of radiation emitted by the sun at the average level at midday is too weak to displace DNA as well.

It has been known since the 50's that there is no safe level of radiation of any type, we just happen to be lucky that our bodies can repair damaged DNA.

What does this mean? That radiation has a wide spread of energy levels , which means the rate of damage simply follows a curve based on exposure level/duration and that damage is cumulative.

Specific populations like people from Iran can tolerate many times the normal lifetime exposure due to a genetic mutation, other populations are much more susceptible to damage like babies, children and again those genetically predisposed.

Add to this our environment has thousands of new chemicals in it that alone may be mostly harmless but combined have synergistic effects, one common affect is an increased likelihood of cancer.

As a people genetically we are degrading much more in the last 40 years than in the previous 40.
Sterility has increased massively in that time.

Combining all these modern hazards well...
Our success may eventually kill us.

Add to this children are emotionally stunted by electronic exposure, that has been shown repeatedly and it would be prudent of us to ban juvenile use of a variety of devices on that alone.
Radiation is also cumulative right? Good points all around though.

Let the people who believe otherwise continue to do so. You can't change their minds so they can knock themselves out by not taking proper precautions and using common sense. The fact of the matter is many of these mechanisms are not well understood. So to err on the side of caution seems a pretty no-brainer approach to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Radiation is also cumulative right? Good points all around though.

Let the people who believe otherwise continue to do so. You can't change their minds so they can knock themselves out by not taking proper precautions and using common sense. The fact of the matter is many of these mechanisms are not well understood. So to err on the side of caution seems a pretty {good} no-brainer approach to me.
Exactly. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Even with aluminum sheet and ping pong balls. :) And there could be damage mechanisms other than breaking strands of DNA that we don't yet know about.

KNS
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top