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

UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

news.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#21

Post by deepserket »

ihunter2839 wrote: post #19
alex_young wrote: post #3

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

During my rather short stint in a synthetic chemistry lab in college, I learned that it was a relatively standard practice for folks to "nuke" their reactions in a microwave in an attempt to speed things up. Certainly, nobody wanted anything to get ionized in these situations... So, to me the idea that biological systems may be able to pick up additional energy from local RF fields, and that this increase could poten…

By "nuke their reactions" you mean heating things up... Usually when there is more heat chemical reactions are faster (higher energy means higher chances for the right stuff to bump into each other)

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#22

Post by ebcode »

Firefighters in California had a law passed that prevents cell phone towers from being placed on fire station property[0]. They complained of headaches and nausea from living near the antennae.

As a species and a culture, it seems we're just finding out about the precautionary principle. We should be more careful.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... (search for "fire")

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#23

Post by rambojazz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #10

> For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. Implicit in this is that, despite the decade-plus quest, he has done nothing like proving it. And that seems to be the case. The most telling refutation is despite the low-quality r…

Adding to this, the "I want to find a proof for my idea" attitude is very different from "let's see objectively what is going on".

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#24

Post by swiley »

ihunter2839 wrote: post #19
alex_young wrote: post #3

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

During my rather short stint in a synthetic chemistry lab in college, I learned that it was a relatively standard practice for folks to "nuke" their reactions in a microwave in an attempt to speed things up. Certainly, nobody wanted anything to get ionized in these situations... So, to me the idea that biological systems may be able to pick up additional energy from local RF fields, and that this increase could poten…

Thermal cycling is a big part of PCR. My understanding is that the cycle length is related to the length of the DNA/RNA you want to amplify.

At some point there's just so much noise you'll probably find carcinogens everywhere.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#25

Post by tzs »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #13
alex_young wrote: post #3

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

I think the theory is that effects like heating or pulsing might interfere with physical chemistry of biological mechanisms, rather than ionizing atoms directly. But I doubt we'll see these correlations taken seriously unless these interferences can be observed.

Another possibility is interference with DNA repair. DNA molecules are conductive. Some researchers believe this is used as part of the mechanism for detecting damage. Damage tends to reduce or eliminate the conductivity in the area of the damage. They believe the repair mechanism located damaged areas by essentially trying to send a current between two points and if it can then there is no damage between those points.

If a passing electromagnetic wave were to cause current in the DNA right when the damage detection and repair machinery is checking things out that might interfere making it miss some damage, which could result in cancer.

In that case the electromagnetic radiation would not cause the cancer, but it would make some other thing that can cause cancer more effective.

You'd probably never be able to see this if you studied an average population looking for signs of increased cancer in cell phone users. Where you need to be looking is populations that have a high cancer rate, where their bodies are already near the limit stopping DNA damage from turning into cancer, and see if adding cell phones increases cancer rates.

Can a passing electromagnetic wave cause current in DNA? It should be possible. The real question is what wavelengths can do it. DNA is pretty small, so you'd expect that you would need a very short wavelength--several orders of magnitude shorter than 5G.

But DNA is actually a very long molecule that is twisted and curved to pack it into a tiny space. If it could be laid out in a line it would be around 2 m.

Weird things happen when you take an antenna and fold it into a smaller area, especially when the shape it undertakes has a lot of self similarity, including handling longer wavelengths than you might otherwise expect. Would that be enough in the case of DNA to increase the wavelength that can cause currents into cellphone range?

If I had to bet, I'd bet "no", but I wouldn't place a large bet.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#26

Post by ihunter2839 »

deepserket wrote: post #21
ihunter2839 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my rather short stint in a synthetic chemistry lab in college, I learned that it was a relatively standard practice for folks to "nuke" their reactions in a microwave in an attempt to speed things up. Certainly, nobody wanted anything to get ionized in these situations... So, to me the idea that biological systems may be able to pick up additional energy from local RF fields, and that this increase could poten…

By "nuke their reactions" you mean heating things up... Usually when there is more heat chemical reactions are faster (higher energy means higher chances for the right stuff to bump into each other)

Well, yes and no. If they just wanted to heat things up, they'd throw the reaction over a Bunsen burner or some other appropriate heating element. So while I agree that the reactions are speeding up due to an increase in available energy, I'm hesitant to say it's the same as simply "heating things up".

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#27

Post by ihunter2839 »

baryphonic wrote: post #16
alex_young wrote: post #3

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

Or even (especially?) light bulbs. Visible light is far more energetic than radio- or microwave radiation.

While this is true, it overlooks the selection pressures that exist on nucleotide selection. If I recall correctly, the canonical bases are relatively robust to radiation in the ir, visible, and uv spectrums when compared to other nucleotides. http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/4181368 Not sure if that's the correct article, but it's a good starting point on selection pressures for nucleotides and heterocycles.

That is to say - just because visible light is more energetic does not mean it is guaranteed to cause more damage.

(I briefly worked in Tor's lab - a truly incredible chemist and teacher)

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#28

Post by juanjmanfredi »

10GBps wrote: post #12

A microwave oven is non-ionizing radiation but you wouldn't want to stick your hand in there. It's in the same 2.4GHz band as WiFi. I personally know a couple people who went blind from looking at radio sources (one was a wave-guide the other was a radar dish; oops). That's one reason I never watch my food cook in a microwave. As a kid we used to cook hotdogs using an antenna and transmitter. So yeah, radio waves can…

Microwaving cooks food by applying enough power to heat it up to a higher temperature. Moskowitz is explicit that his claim is not about raising temperature, but rather some other mechanism related to bodily signals that is not fully understood.
Post reply on HN