Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#21

Post by tristanj »

finkin1 wrote: post #18
beloch wrote: post #3

A slightly less wrong (but still wrong) title would be "Sunlight is deadlier than pacific sushi". First, this article doesn't even mention cell phone radiation. Second, your cell phone isn't deadlier than pacific sushi. Damage to DNA caused by EM radiation is more a function of frequency than intensity. A small amount of X-Ray radiation is far more damaging than sitting in front of an infrared lamp getting toasty war…

I've always been told that "sunlight causes skin cancer" but after 20 minutes of looking around the Internet, I can't seem to find an actual scientific study that confirms the statement to be true.

UV radiation found in sunlight can produce Pyrimidine dimers, which can lead to genetic mutations. Essentially, the UV radiation causes two DNA bases (Thymine or Cytosine) to fuse together and make that portion of DNA unreadable. Fortunately, our cells have mechanisms to repair such DNA damage, but if damage is acquired faster than the cell is able to repair itself, then permanent mutation is likely. If a cell acquires too many mutations, the mechanisms that prevent it from continuously replicating may fail, and the cell will replicate uncontrollably and spread throughout the body. This situation is known as cancer, and can occur in many different ways, making it fairly difficult to treat.

There's a nice summary of the process listed here: http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/6/3/298.full

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#22

Post by finkin1 »

tristanj wrote: post #21
finkin1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been told that "sunlight causes skin cancer" but after 20 minutes of looking around the Internet, I can't seem to find an actual scientific study that confirms the statement to be true.

UV radiation found in sunlight can produce Pyrimidine dimers, which can lead to genetic mutations. Essentially, the UV radiation causes two DNA bases (Thymine or Cytosine) to fuse together and make that portion of DNA unreadable. Fortunately, our cells have mechanisms to repair such DNA damage, but if damage is acquired faster than the cell is able to repair itself, then permanent mutation is likely. If a cell acquir…

Right. This is the exact type of language I found everywhere else. Just because it "can" mutate which "can" become cancerous does not mean there is a direct correlation between UV radiation and skin cancer. I'd like to see some actual studies with controlled variables.

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#23

Post by chc »

finkin1 wrote: post #18
beloch wrote: post #3

A slightly less wrong (but still wrong) title would be "Sunlight is deadlier than pacific sushi". First, this article doesn't even mention cell phone radiation. Second, your cell phone isn't deadlier than pacific sushi. Damage to DNA caused by EM radiation is more a function of frequency than intensity. A small amount of X-Ray radiation is far more damaging than sitting in front of an infrared lamp getting toasty war…

I've always been told that "sunlight causes skin cancer" but after 20 minutes of looking around the Internet, I can't seem to find an actual scientific study that confirms the statement to be true.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_and_benefits_of_sun_exp... has lots of references.

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#24

Post by bsullivan01 »

``Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over at the Very Least,'' reads the headline of a post accompanied by photos of people suffering from radiation poisoning, as well as a deformed infant"

Brilliant campaign for the anti-whaling /anti-fishing crowd actually. The truth doesn't matter, as long as people believe it.

"And the plant operators and government seem to be blundering from one miscalculation to the next. If the scale of the leak increases, or large quantities of more persistent radioactive elements such as strontium-90 get into the food chain, there might be cause for greater concern. So far, that doesn't seem to have happened."

The governments also lie ("downplay") http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/jun/... for one reason or another (commerce, not cause panic etc) so their numbers would mean little to me. Better safe than sorry, it's not like I can't do without Japanese fish for xxx days.

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#26

Post by gilgoomesh »

finkin1 wrote: post #18
beloch wrote: post #3

A slightly less wrong (but still wrong) title would be "Sunlight is deadlier than pacific sushi". First, this article doesn't even mention cell phone radiation. Second, your cell phone isn't deadlier than pacific sushi. Damage to DNA caused by EM radiation is more a function of frequency than intensity. A small amount of X-Ray radiation is far more damaging than sitting in front of an infrared lamp getting toasty war…

I've always been told that "sunlight causes skin cancer" but after 20 minutes of looking around the Internet, I can't seem to find an actual scientific study that confirms the statement to be true.

I don't know where you looked but you were looking in the wrong place. An overwhelming majority of the studies ever conducted on the topic have found UV exposure to increase skin cancer risk. In fact, most studies are more interested in the mechanisms now than the risks, since the risks have been known for 50 years.

Look through the list of papers here:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=uv+exposure+malignant...

If you want a really simple summary, from this meta study in 1997:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(1...

> There was a significantly increased risk with sunburn at all ages or in adult life (OR = 1.91) and similarly elevated relative risks for sunburn in adolescence (OR = 1.73) and in childhood (OR = 1.95).

Basically, if you have a history of sunburn (at any age) you nearly double the chance of getting malignant melanoma (the most deadly form of skin cancer).

And here's one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363407/

That indicates an 80% elevated risk of malignant melanoma from using sun tanning beds.

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#27

Post by nitrogen »

finkin1 wrote: post #22
tristanj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UV radiation found in sunlight can produce Pyrimidine dimers, which can lead to genetic mutations. Essentially, the UV radiation causes two DNA bases (Thymine or Cytosine) to fuse together and make that portion of DNA unreadable. Fortunately, our cells have mechanisms to repair such DNA damage, but if damage is acquired faster than the cell is able to repair itself, then permanent mutation is likely. If a cell acquir…

Right. This is the exact type of language I found everywhere else. Just because it "can" mutate which "can" become cancerous does not mean there is a direct correlation between UV radiation and skin cancer. I'd like to see some actual studies with controlled variables.

Are you suggesting that scientists should expose randomly selected subjects to UV light for their whole lives to see which ones get more skin cancer?

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#28

Post by beloch »

finkin1 wrote: post #22
tristanj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UV radiation found in sunlight can produce Pyrimidine dimers, which can lead to genetic mutations. Essentially, the UV radiation causes two DNA bases (Thymine or Cytosine) to fuse together and make that portion of DNA unreadable. Fortunately, our cells have mechanisms to repair such DNA damage, but if damage is acquired faster than the cell is able to repair itself, then permanent mutation is likely. If a cell acquir…

Right. This is the exact type of language I found everywhere else. Just because it "can" mutate which "can" become cancerous does not mean there is a direct correlation between UV radiation and skin cancer. I'd like to see some actual studies with controlled variables.

Getting cancer is like winning the lottery, and every time you go out in the sun, use a cleaning product, get an X-Ray, take an intercontinental flight, eat a banana, etc. you get a varying number of tickets. Unlike a lottery, once you finally "win" it's virtually impossible to figure out which ticket was "lucky".

To do a controlled study on humans you'd need those humans to record an impractical amount of information about their day-to-day actions over their entire lives. This isn't going to happen anytime soon. To make matters worse, humans also use sunlight to synthesize Vitamin D, and low levels of Vitamin D are also correlated with cancer. So... Too much UV gives you cancer and too little can give you cancer if you don't get enough Vitamin D in your diet, which might also give you cancer. Okay... So use mice. Do mice respond exactly the same way to everything as humans? No... Probably not...

Medical science is a bit like trying to figure out how to build the ultimate F1 car on a budget that only lets you work with Lada's.

Re: Your Phone Is Deadlier Than Pacific Sushi

#29

Post by glenra »

finkin1 wrote: post #22
tristanj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UV radiation found in sunlight can produce Pyrimidine dimers, which can lead to genetic mutations. Essentially, the UV radiation causes two DNA bases (Thymine or Cytosine) to fuse together and make that portion of DNA unreadable. Fortunately, our cells have mechanisms to repair such DNA damage, but if damage is acquired faster than the cell is able to repair itself, then permanent mutation is likely. If a cell acquir…

Right. This is the exact type of language I found everywhere else. Just because it "can" mutate which "can" become cancerous does not mean there is a direct correlation between UV radiation and skin cancer. I'd like to see some actual studies with controlled variables.

One nice natural experiment is drivers. People who drive in the US get more sun on the left side of their face and their left arm. People who drive in Australia get more sun on the right side of their face and their right arm. If you measure which side people tend to get cancer on it seems to track this.

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/shocking-evidenc...

Post reply on HN