SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25 million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats.
There are some major caveats, though. The results were only observed in male rats; there weren't any significant effects seen in female rats. Exposure in utero didn't seem to affect cancer risk. And in male rats, the incidence of those two cancers was quite low. But even a small increase in the incidence of those cancers could have a major public health impact given how many people in the world regularly use cell phones.
(Score: 1) by DonkeyChan on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:24AM
Is incapable of breaking the bonds to cause cancer, on a quantum level.
But on a more abstract note, I'm 100% done with sites using fear to get money.
I'm tired of fear being used as a social control, full stop.
These people prey on the ignorance of others, and the fear wrought from it, exactly like the authority structures did in the dark ages.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:42AM
What if the effect is not caused by breaking bonds, but by affecting the repair mechanism? Genes are frequently damaged due to various causes; cancer only develops if the damage cannot be repaired.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:52AM
yes, that's true. I think the non-crazy researchers are now wondering whether consisted exposer to RF can generate problems in other ways (heating for instance). In any case, while my gut instinct is to simply ignore anyone saying "cancer" and "cellphone" in the same sentence, you have to realize that animals are very complicated things, and we don't understand how everything works. we really don't know whether or not our bodies can be affected by sustained coherent RF, even if a lot of us are doubtful of it.
as an aside: personally, I think the amount of people killed because they're on the phone while driving or crossing the street is much bigger than the number of people who get cancer from phones. in this sense, cellphones are a horrible hazard for individual lives (although, at least for the dead pedestrians, we could cynically call them a genepool clearing device).
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:53AM
Ionizing radiation is not the only thing that causes cancer:
- Child Abuse and Neglect: Consequences [cdc.gov]
- Asbestosis [wikipedia.org]
- About Cancer > Causes and Prevention > Risk Factors > Alcohol [cancer.gov]
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:31AM
I drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. I have poor health. So far, I'm okay.
Short of a cold water immersion, none of us are more than eight minutes away from death (if you choke, you die).
I'm gonna be comfortable and happy until something kills me. None of us are getting away alive.
Doc said, "You need to stop drinking and smoking." I said, "Figure the bill, Doc - we're done."
There's no point in trying to live forever. Be happy, be good to others, and quit worrying.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:36AM
These people prey on the ignorance of others, and the fear wrought from it, exactly like the authority structures did in the dark ages.
The difference being, the authority structures in the dark ages were right!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:38AM
Not all cancer and tissue damage is due to ionizing radiation. So just because it isn't ionizing radiation doesn't mean it's safe. There's not much proof it's dangerous yet either but don't prey on the ignorance of others and tell them it's AOK because it's non-ionizing radiation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:04PM
Duh. Yeah, it warms it up. Kind of like setting a stick on fire and standing near it. Your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:48PM
You really don't have a grasp on heat transfer and the circulatory system and what it does, do you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:17PM
The evidence better supports aneuploidy causing cancer than point mutations, so I don't see why ionizing radiation would be neccesary. Essentially, your premise is oft repeated, but that doesn't make it true.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:49PM
Why do you assume the mechanism is breaking bonds? Radiation is well known for resonating with certain bonds which depending on lot different things, and can either facilitate or hinder the forming of bonds (as opposed to the breaking of bonds).
And, FWIW, even though the radiation may not, by itself, be sufficient to break bonds, it could easily be sufficient to lower the threshhold for something else breaking the bond.
This whole controversy can ONLY be settled by longitudinal studies with controls, and just try to set that up. It's a plausible argument, because there are many potential pathways in which it could happen. But it's also quite plausible that it's a false alarm. And the whole thing is too complex to construct a trustworthy model about. So experiments are the ONLY approach. But rats aren't people, and high levels of microwave radiation aren't at all equivalent to low levels.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.