-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Cancer and smartphones: Anyone worry about "always on" data and keeping phone in pocket?
- Thread starter Vesbon
- Start date
It's certainly a combination of the two. Its hard to say what is more important, eating habits or exercise habits in maintaining a normal weight.
But the food is not helping. It is possible to live a sedentary life and not become obese. It's the people that are sedentary and make love to their quadruple processed double fried, smothered in chicken fat take out dinners every night that are becoming obese.
I am not saying its completely the food, activity plays a major role, but it all just goes back to an arrogant mentality, apathy, and a refusal to face the facts.
OK, many thanks for the citations, my responses:
The first article is studying low power at 60 Hz. The crux of your argument seems to be that if we're uncertain, let's look for evidence. The study in that citation seems to be unrelated.
The second one is worth seeing in detail. While not able to provide direct proof, the mechanism sounds credible and the failure mode is established by repetitive stress - a unique approach, it suggests that the effect can be integrated.
I found that interesting and will check on it a bit more.
The third I have to summarily reject for a host of reasons. The first is because I trust the press to get scientific reports on just about anything and everything wrong. The second is because the article is highlighting a conspiracy by the cell phone industry as the primary possible reason that the reports aren't being taken seriously.
I have two problems with that second part. First is that that's a red flag that the source is more interesting in selling a story than getting science facts straight.
The second reason that I have a second problem with that third article is that I used to work at one of leading DOE laboratories in matters involving nuclear radiation, remain on one of their mailing lists, and because those physicists took an interest in this area (being exposed to radiation is something you take quite seriously if you're employed by the DOE), they seem to have conducted a number of informal studies where they can't find any mechanism for cell phone power at cell phone frequencies to tissue damage. Some of them have been vocal decrying cell phone cancer as a myth, and I know for a personal fact that they have no interests or egos in siding with cell phone companies whatsoever. (And in addition to nuclear-related work, many of us were involved in directed energy weapons research.)
~~~~~
That said - the second article did look interesting, and as time permits, I'll pass that by them and see if anything interesting results.
I'd ask you to post it - but it's copyrighted, so let's not have that. Instead, I'll see about getting my own copy.
At present, my take-away is that there's nothing to worry about here.
~~~~~
Nothing personal or disparaging intended by my remarks - if I've stated something harshly, not my intent, PM me and I'll edit this post.
I used the third (news) article not to point out its theories (conspiracy), but as a layperson's summary of Lai's research, author of first article (pretty much just the first two sentences), which states that it was done on cell phone-like electromagnetic radiation. I am not exactly sure why there is a discrepancy. I couldn't find the original article from 1994, the only related one I could find in print was published in 2004 (could it be an update?). I see what you are saying in that the third article could have manipulated Lai's research to report something not even he believed (I hate the media as much as anyone).
I have access to about 90% of the sites that host scientific journals. The site with the heat shock protein article is among the other 10%. I apologize. However here is an an interesting article that refers to the heat shock protein hypothesis and refutes its claims:
Informa Healthcare - International Journal of Radiation Biology - 80(6):389 - Summary
Here is a list of all of Lai's research. At the moment, I cannot go through all of them, but if you have access to the hosting sites, it may be worth while.
Lai - Core Faculty - People - Bioengineering - UW College of Engineering - University of Washington, Seattle
Thank you for being so polite, earlymon, as well as for sharing your experience working for a DOE lab. Trust me, I would love to be proven wrong on this matter.
Hey, my positions are simple:
- None of us has a monopoly on the truth
- There's more to what we think we know than to what we really know
- We often learn best by collaboration and counterpointing arguments
Those points certainly apply in my case.
Just quickly to reply to the applicability of that first (original) article - from the abstract, it looked like they were using an AC source at a frequency many orders of magnitude different than that in question for a cell phone.
So - if and only if I read that one correctly - while it's all EM, and more like cell phone radiation than not - when we're talking about the effects of power coupling an AC signal, we look at frequency and power.
The author's position seems to be to study and see if results are causal (not casual, causal), and see if the failure mechanism can be understood if causality's involved.
I think I safely say that because we can't agree a failure mechanism yet, we can't extrapolate results from that study to results _specific to_ cell phone conditions (as opposed to _like_ cell phone conditions).
Let me know if that's gooblety-gooky sounding and I'll try to fix it.
PS - haven't had time to review the new links and I thank you for those.
it's not the govt's role to legislate that.
Clearly that's the stance everyone is taking.
Why are addictive drugs regulated?
Why is asbestos regulated?
Why are cigarettes heavily taxed?
Why is indoor tanning taxed?
Gas guzzler tax (maybe a stretch but still relevant)?
What exactly is happening here? I see a great deal of inconsistencies.
I agree....
When and where did they ban smoking in bars and restaurants? Because here, we can smoke in these places. In fact the only places where smoking is not allowed, is aircraft and high-speed trains.
I hear in the USA, many cities and towns ban smoking in the street. Oh well so much for the land of the free.
Yeah - go ahead - make me miss the free side of Asia. (lived there myself, I know)
OK - the subject for this thread is - cell phones causing cancer.
Anybuddy want to start a thread on government intrusions to our freedoms - in the Lounge or under the Politics sub-forum - I'm all for it, see you there.
/carry on!
OK - the subject for this thread is - cell phones causing cancer.
Anybuddy want to start a thread on government intrusions to our freedoms - in the Lounge or under the Politics sub-forum - I'm all for it, see you there.
/carry on!
sorry, Earlymon, but i have to ask BLL this...
legal lover (Can I just call you Steve or something? Pat? that could be unisex), do you think those things should not be regulated at all and that "dangerous" (whatever that means) substances should be left completely legal and available and their use left up to the discretion of the public?
Open a thread on this, PM me on which posts you want there - I'll move them over for you.
It's its own topic - I don't want to censor - just focus for those interested in THIS topic.
Reply ONLY by PM and let me know how you want to proceed.
It's its own topic - I don't want to censor - just focus for those interested in THIS topic.
Reply ONLY by PM and let me know how you want to proceed.
i agree