Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study • Hacker News Board

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#151

Post by hobbes78 » Fri, May 27, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #27

joshvm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue.…

> At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls. Part of me wants to spam…

I see a pattern here: everything that slows aging increases the chance of cancer.

Take e.g. anti-oxidants, which fight ageing agents (free radicals) but cause cancer to spread faster.

Take reducing the role of telomeres, which stops putting a limit on cell division (thus allowing cell replacement on old people as it happens on young people), causes any appearance of cancer to spread way more quickly.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#152

Post by colordrops » Fri, May 27, 2016, 8:00 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #147

colordrops wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really just speaking about you. It is near impossible to speak about GMOs in anything but glowing terms pretty much anywhere on the internet. I have no idea what you are speaking about regarding ignoring existing information by the way. I didn't even mention any specifics.

Another area besides GMOs where you're going to experience a visceral reaction for offhanded skepticism is evolution. Saying, "I think we need more studies on evolution" has implicit in it the assumption that we don't know much about it. While of course we have a lot left to discover on evolution, making that statement without acknowledging that we do know a lot about evolution and its status is not in doubt, will pu…

You see though, you don't even know the details of my thoughts and you build a strawman that doesn't resemble them.

To be clear, by your analogy, I do believe that GMOs exist.

Jokes aside, GMOs are not a binary proposition, like the question on global warming or evolution, which is whether the theories are true or not. The question is two fold - whether individual GMO crops are safe or not, and whether it is possible that harmful GMOs are possible at all. The answer to the first question seems to be that existing crops are safe, based on several studies. The answer to the second is easy - yes, harmful GMOs are obviously possible - it doesn't seem all that difficult for instance to insert a gene from a toxic organism into a food plant. Not that anyone would do that, but it's physically possible. People conflate these two questions, which is where the crazy internet arguments come from.

Considering that it is indeed possible to create a harmful GMO, and considering that we barely understand how regular old nonmodified genes operates in relation to the entire organism, it is neither unscientific nor absurd to question whether subtle problems could arise from transgenetic modification. Current safety testing involves statistical studies across time and subjects, looking for correlations between the crop and harmful effects. It is impossible to simulate from first principals and predict all effects to an organism and its ecosystem due to the countless parameters involved. Science doesn't prove anything - it only posits theories and strengthens them with evidence, which could always be overturned with future data. To claim otherwise is the true anti-science stance.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#153

Post by donovanr » Fri, May 27, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

tiplus wrote: post #135

donovanr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been curious: I understand that h.nu from cell phone radiation isn't big enough to ionize (say) DNA, but since the molecules in our body are in thermal equilibrium, can't h.nu + kT get it done every once in a while? [edited because using an asterisk to denote multiplication was a bad idea]

kT is very little energy compared to a chemical bond. Take for example [0], they give an excitation energy for water of about 8 electron Volts which is ~750 kJ/mol, whereas kT at room temp is about 2.5 kJ/mol. [0] http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/10/10.1...

Right, but it's the 'every once in a while" part that I wonder about, i.e. the variance of that distribution. Maybe you could argue that since the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is narrower the lower its mean, if kT is small then it's an exponentially tiny effect.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#154

Post by dalu » Sat, May 28, 2016, 12:04 AM UTC

Johnythree wrote: post #56

1337biz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cellphones or wi-fi today are like cigarettes in the '40s. That is exactly the same question I am always asking. But with most controversial topics this could be true.

When the statistical evidence for Cigarette usage was closely examined it was immediately obvious that there was a link with health. But we have hundreds of detailed studies of Radio and Health, and no reproducible link has ever been found. You can't have it both ways. To conflate the two is simply wrong. The evidence doesn't support your argument.

> But we have hundreds of detailed studies of Radio and Health, and no reproducible link has ever been found.

What about http://www.bioinitiative.org/

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#155

Post by epistasis » Sat, May 28, 2016, 12:40 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #152

epistasis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another area besides GMOs where you're going to experience a visceral reaction for offhanded skepticism is evolution. Saying, "I think we need more studies on evolution" has implicit in it the assumption that we don't know much about it. While of course we have a lot left to discover on evolution, making that statement without acknowledging that we do know a lot about evolution and its status is not in doubt, will pu…

You see though, you don't even know the details of my thoughts and you build a strawman that doesn't resemble them. To be clear, by your analogy, I do believe that GMOs exist. Jokes aside, GMOs are not a binary proposition, like the question on global warming or evolution, which is whether the theories are true or not. The question is two fold - whether individual GMO crops are safe or not, and whether it is possible…

Let's go back to your original statement, that baited me into responding:

>You even just hint that you wanna see more studies on their safety you will be torn limb from limb

So what more studies do you want to see on their safety that hasn't yet been performed, or would not be required by law for a new GMO?

You started with persecuted hyperbole, but now it seems to have come to this:

>Considering that it is indeed possible to create a harmful GMO, and considering that we barely understand how regular old nonmodified genes operates in relation to the entire organism, it is neither unscientific nor absurd to question whether subtle problems could arise from transgenetic modification

which is essentially "we don't know everything about gene regulation, therefore anything could happen." This is somewhat fallacious.

Well, really, nearly anything could happen. But it's all about chances of bad things happening. Maybe due to random quantum fluctuations, my fingernail turns into a blackhole. The risk of that is extremely small.

We spent many many decades bombarding plants with ionizing radiation in order to mutate them into better species, a roll of the dice every time. Most of these mutations were not desirable, but a very small few were desirable. Now we can be more focussed rather than just rolling the dice billions of times.

We base risk on the amount of experience we have with things, certain behaviors become less and less likely. Introducing non-native species to control some part of the ecosystem has proven to be exceptionally risky, for example. Randomly mutating plants with lots of radiation has not proven to be very risky. So far, genetically modifying them has not proven to be risky either.

If there's some potential risk that you can specifically determine that should be tested for, but is not currently, please publish your findings. But in all these paragraphs you've said nothing that would not be considered in the first five minutes by a thoughtful scientist, so I doubt that you have any deep insight here. I'm officially putting you into the nutter category. Consider this me wanting to tear your metaphorical limbs off ;) You have been vindicated in that sense...

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#156

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 28, 2016, 12:40 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #152

epistasis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another area besides GMOs where you're going to experience a visceral reaction for offhanded skepticism is evolution. Saying, "I think we need more studies on evolution" has implicit in it the assumption that we don't know much about it. While of course we have a lot left to discover on evolution, making that statement without acknowledging that we do know a lot about evolution and its status is not in doubt, will pu…

You see though, you don't even know the details of my thoughts and you build a strawman that doesn't resemble them. To be clear, by your analogy, I do believe that GMOs exist. Jokes aside, GMOs are not a binary proposition, like the question on global warming or evolution, which is whether the theories are true or not. The question is two fold - whether individual GMO crops are safe or not, and whether it is possible…

[deleted]

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#157

Post by colordrops » Sat, May 28, 2016, 4:26 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #155

colordrops wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see though, you don't even know the details of my thoughts and you build a strawman that doesn't resemble them. To be clear, by your analogy, I do believe that GMOs exist. Jokes aside, GMOs are not a binary proposition, like the question on global warming or evolution, which is whether the theories are true or not. The question is two fold - whether individual GMO crops are safe or not, and whether it is possible…

Let's go back to your original statement, that baited me into responding: >You even just hint that you wanna see more studies on their safety you will be torn limb from limb So what more studies do you want to see on their safety that hasn't yet been performed, or would not be required by law for a new GMO? You started with persecuted hyperbole, but now it seems to have come to this: >Considering that it is indeed po…

> I'm officially putting you into the nutter category.

Insults and invective make you come off as immature and are explicitly disallowed on HN. You should be able to stand by the strength of your argument. If you feel it is too weak so that you must resort to epithets, then maybe you should keep your comments to yourself. I said nothing that I haven't tried to reason out, and am totally open to discussion, but you don't seem to be interested in having a discussion in good faith. if an expert in programming was discussing with a beginner making wildly wrong assertions, do you think calling that beginner a "nutter" would be in order? You seem to think you have a strong grasp of the subject, and I am clueless, so educate rather than insult.

I do have a response to your comment here, but I will only continue if you agree to discuss in good faith. I am not so hard headed as to be closed to new ideas, but I will not just throw everything out the window before thinking critically about the facts and understanding the merits and flaws in both my and your argument.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#158

Post by tiplus » Sat, May 28, 2016, 4:47 AM UTC

donovanr wrote: post #153

tiplus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kT is very little energy compared to a chemical bond. Take for example [0], they give an excitation energy for water of about 8 electron Volts which is ~750 kJ/mol, whereas kT at room temp is about 2.5 kJ/mol. [0] http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/10/10.1...

Right, but it's the 'every once in a while" part that I wonder about, i.e. the variance of that distribution. Maybe you could argue that since the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is narrower the lower its mean, if kT is small then it's an exponentially tiny effect.

So yes, kT is small on average (does fluctuate) and it is also 1 kT per degree of freedom. So yes, in principle a few hundreds of atoms could randomly fluctuate in energy to create this effect. However, this is hyper unlikely. I would be suprisd if it happened once in the life time of the universe. Also consider that you cannot create Maxwell demons[1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#159

Post by tim333 » Sat, May 28, 2016, 12:47 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #59

tim333 wrote: post #57

From the paper a sample of 90 control rats had no cancer found while the groups (90 in each) of rats exposed to radiation had between 0 and 3 instances of cancer being found. I would have though the odds of it coming out like that by chance would be fairly high. I also note the control rats seemed to have survived less well "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all…

The subtleness if the differences between the groups seems to undermine their hypothesis. How are they saying this is statistically significant?

I'm not sure. Also from an NYT article:

>Also it was unusual that the control group had zero tumors. In previous studies at the National Toxicology Program, an average of 2 percent of rats in control groups developed gliomas. Had that happened in this study, there would have been virtually no difference between the exposed rats and the controls.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#160

Post by Gnarl » Sat, May 28, 2016, 1:46 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #81

agumonkey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about wifi ? Since I, we, are sitting next to routers all day long, which I guess are sending more EMW energy through us than 3G towers.

The exposure from towers and base stations will be tiny compared to the exposure from devices. Inverse square law and all that.

With regard to cell-towers: the inverse-square law will underestimate your radiation exposure from a cell-tower, because they are directional and the inv.sq.law relates only to to perfectly isotropic radiators. In other words: you need to factor the cell-tower antenna gain (typically between 7-10dB) into your calculation.