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

We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#111

Post by darkxanthos »

latk wrote: post #19
darkxanthos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also seems to imply that medical tests which expose us to radiation are the cause of supposedly increasing cancer rates... which _seems_ a bit alarmist?

That would actually be a sound argument: If we assume a linear damage model for radiation exposure (which is a generally accepted model for these circumstances), then there is no safe dose. Instead, any exposure increases your lifetime risk of cancer. It is therefore not useful to talk about how medical imaging causes an individual case of cancer. But for a larger population we can figure out what the cancer risk wit…

Really... fixating on the risk of cancer at all is a mistake. As other commenters have said, it's about balancing the risk with the value. Instead, we should find

a) How much radiation one might on average incur due to medical reasons b) How many years of life that causes us to lose on average (or per capita) c) How many years of life the average person gains due to the use of this technology.

As long as c - b > 0 (in a real way) we don't really have a problem here. We have an optimization to make. I don't see any evidence here that c - b 0. Any other point seems moot.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#112

Post by jorgem »

tlrobinson wrote: post #96
nostromo wrote: post #4

This goes beyond the medical field. ProPublica did a story about how X-rays are becoming more common in law-enforcement and border security as well. http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-official...

Is there a relatively inexpensive portable Geiger counter or something that can measure this type of radiation?

http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determ...

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#113

Post by socillion »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #90
slacka wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone now in Hong Kong about to fly back home to SF, I have always tried to schedule my flights so that I minimize my exposure to day time radiation. I guess I'm in the minority, but it's something to consider when taking international flights.

Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.

"Some claim" a lot of things.

http://i.imgur.com/7LzpYl4.jpg

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#115

Post by bloopletech »

ivanca wrote: post #45
gadr90 wrote: post #21

As a person who had two minor head injuries and took a CT after each one (to find nothing, thankfully) in the last 6 months... I find this rather disturbing.

I took more than 20 in a couple of months (ordered by myself) after doctors couldn't find anything concrete (later on the current diagnostic is "fybromialgia" and the symptoms remain nearly 2 years later). I was aware of cancer danger but I needed to find some treatment before ending completely mad.

You may be interested in http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html - the probable cause of fibro has been identified - which will be a huge boon to the sufferers - including my girlfriend.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#116

Post by philwelch »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #97
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.

I don't know why this was down voted; while in an elevator one is not supposed to use a cell phone, because of this effect. At least in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevat...

I thought one is not supposed to use a cell phone in the elevator because it doesn't work because elevators are made out of ferrous metals and hence are effectively Faraday cages.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#118

Post by DanBC »

philwelch wrote: post #116
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why this was down voted; while in an elevator one is not supposed to use a cell phone, because of this effect. At least in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevat...

I thought one is not supposed to use a cell phone in the elevator because it doesn't work because elevators are made out of ferrous metals and hence are effectively Faraday cages.

I can make and receive phone calls in lifts. It was weird the first few times. I'm in the UK if that makes any difference.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#119

Post by coldtea »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #97
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.

I don't know why this was down voted; while in an elevator one is not supposed to use a cell phone, because of this effect. At least in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevat...

That "in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so" is hardly evidence for anything.

People use cellphones in elevators ALL the time, ALL around the world. Especially when continuing a conversation they had as they walked in the building, and for as long as the signal stays.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#120

Post by rdl »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #103
hbar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Radio and microwaves can still have biological effects, including cancer risk. Animal experiments prove this.

Absolutely -- you can get RF burns from holding antennas, and you can obviously see the results of massive radars (e.g. putting a gerbil in a microwave).

What we're arguing about is the signal strength and duration (and to some extent, where on the person the radiation is administered; hands are pretty tolerant compared to brain or torso), and the conversion factor to biological effect (which varies by frequency).

With modern radios, you've also got duty cycle -- your cellphone isn't transmitting full-time.

I'm basically not afraid at all about "tower" signals as a member of the public. I wouldn't stand in a microwave point to point beam. I also wouldn't want a 5W HT radio next to my head (or groin) for high duty cycle use, but I'm ok with holding it in my hand with a hands-free kit.

The people who vote you down for saying some types of non-ionizing radiation can be bad are actually worse scientists than if you were to say all (non-ionizing or ionizing) radiation is a huge problem. We have positive evidence that some radiation is really bad, and some is sort of bad; we have a bunch of negative confirmations that low levels of many kinds of radiation aren't likely to be very bad, and certainly aren't super-bad, but the exact borderline isn't known, and varies, and a 0.01% increase in cancer with zero benefit is more of a concern to me than a 1% increase in cancer with massive benefit (e.g. a CT for trauma where you'd otherwise be likely to die).

(Incidentally, my fear of ~200 wifi devices transmitting in the milliwatts on 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz or on a flight is approximately zero -- especially since it's unclear how many would actually be using the service at any given time, and it's a pretty large volume.)

Post reply on HN