Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

Post by tomp » Fri, May 27, 2016, 11:22 AM 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…

Post by Houshalter » Fri, May 27, 2016, 11:32 AM UTC

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #40

It's important to note that according to official dogma, non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer. I've heard my own concerns about non-ionising radiation dismissed (even belittled) so many times that I've lost count. Most often this comes from educated people who think that their education constitutes the whole of all knowledge about the universe and that there is nothing left to be discovered. But one should und…

Post by DanBC » Fri, May 27, 2016, 11:46 AM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #63

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #40

It's important to note that according to official dogma, non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer. I've heard my own concerns about non-ionising radiation dismissed (even belittled) so many times that I've lost count. Most often this comes from educated people who think that their education constitutes the whole of all knowledge about the universe and that there is nothing left to be discovered. But one should und…

Perhaps, but how, in 2016, is it not known? Surely scientists have tried raising rats near strong radio waves to see if they die or get cancer?

Post by maxerickson » Fri, May 27, 2016, 12:05 PM UTC

marvin wrote: post #58

shirro wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may not be true. UVA is not ionising and possibly increases risk of skin cancer. Non-ionizing radiation can cause chemical reactions (photochemical, heating, burns) that damage cells and might lead to increased cancer risk. I really doubt if that is the case with mobile phones but I think it makes more sense to look at the epidemiological data rather than make a bunch of hand wavey arguments about the radiation.…

Non-ionizing radiation can also cause other adverse health effects. A famous Norwegian case in the early 90s related to navy personnel on board an attack vessel, where 17 of the 85 children of soldiers who had served on the vessel, had birth defects. A disproportionate number of the employees on the electronics workshop of its home base also has children with similar birth defects The negative effects are widely beli…

Post by ecopoesis » Fri, May 27, 2016, 12:12 PM UTC

brador wrote: post #38

yoz-y wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Is it because the tissues are exposed continuously at the same place?

Yes. Similar, but not the same as, a microwave. Take out the turntable and you'll get localised high temperature spots.