Phone radiation cause cancer?

[RuLeZ]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Hypocondria and confirmation bias do that. I'd be willing to bet those migraines would go away if they were told the antenna wasn't there anymore, even if it was a lie. Or maybe something else about the place they live is causing them. There is no evidence of even gamma radiations causing migraines. They give you skin burns and cancer, not migraines.

 

You know what DOES cause cancer with scientific proof and nobody gives a crap about? Cigarettes.

Radiation sounds way more scary than Tobacco.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Hypocondria and confirmation bias do that. I'd be willing to bet those migraines would go away if they were told the antenna wasn't there anymore, even if it was a lie. Or maybe something else about the place they live is causing them. There is no evidence of even gamma radiations causing migraines. They give you skin burns and cancer, not migraines.

 

You know what DOES cause cancer with scientific proof and nobody gives a crap about? Cigarettes.

in beglium half of the cigarette packaging is legally required to say smoking is lethal.

 

and i've put an example in the thread where confirmation bias does not apply, since the "subject" was not aware of the test even being done.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Godlygamer23 said:

The middle age timeline is slowly merging with ours.

So, would BLM be the new Spanish Inquisition?

 

Or would that be the ecomentalists?

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, manikyath said:

in beglium half of the cigarette packaging is legally required to say smoking is lethal.

 

and i've put an example in the thread where confirmation bias does not apply, since the "subject" was not aware of the test even being done.

Even if the package says it's lethal what's inside not only addicts the user to craving more, it also affects those around him. You can be affected by cigarette smoke even if you never lit one yourself. GSM, aside from being obsolete and close to retirement, seems like the significantly lesser problem - if it even IS a problem, and I have yet to see any real evidence in that sense.

 

One personal experience is not evidence, it's an anecdote. There are countless variables that could have influenced the outcome. Besides, either it causes cancer or it affects your perception - these are two different things and evidence for one does not indicate the other. You can't "feel" your cancer forming or becoming more likely to form.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Even if the package says it's lethal what's inside not only addicts the user to craving more, it also affects those around him. You can be affected by cigarette smoke even if you never lit one yourself. GSM, aside from being obsolete and close to retirement, seems like the significantly lesser problem - if it even IS a problem, and I have yet to see any real evidence in that sense.

 

One personal experience is not evidence, it's an anecdote. There are countless variables that could have influenced the outcome. Besides, either it causes cancer or it affects your perception - these are two different things and evidence for one does not indicate the other. You can't "feel" your cancer forming or becoming more likely to form.

trust me, the packaging isnt even half of the social pressure put on smokers, there's been talks of making smoking around children a part of "child abuse" laws.

 

and it is not one experience, it is repeatable with great accuracy, and if you werent some -cutting this out for the forum's sake- trying to prove wrong any possible negative effect, you would have read trough the entire thread that i'm not saying it's giving you cancer, i'm saying that there is enough worry to be worth the time to care and investigate what exactly is going on.

 

to reiterate, this research is important technology does not need a new asbestus.

[Clanscorpia]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

trust me, the packaging isnt even half of the social pressure put on smokers, there's been talks of making smoking around children a part of "child abuse" laws.

 

and it is not one experience, it is repeatable with great accuracy, and if you werent some -cutting this out for the forum's sake- trying to prove wrong any possible negative effect, you would have read trough the entire thread that i'm not saying it's giving you cancer, i'm saying that there is enough worry to be worth the time to care and investigate what exactly is going on.

 

to reiterate, this research is important technology does not need a new asbestus.

My dad smokes and I wouldnt call it child abuse. He always makes sure that we aren't too close to him, and he is very anti-smoking for kids. He just can't quit  

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

My dad smokes and I wouldnt call it child abuse. He always makes sure that we aren't too close to him, and he is very anti-smoking for kids. He just can't quit  

Smoking around children can be considered child abuse.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

Smoking around children can be considered child abuse.

Not in Canada apparently

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Smoking around children can be considered child abuse.

http://www.slaw.ca/2009/01/21/ontario-bans-smoking-in-cars-when-children-present/ Oh shit

[manikyath]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

My dad smokes and I wouldnt call it child abuse. He always makes sure that we aren't too close to him, and he is very anti-smoking for kids. He just can't quit  

exactly the reason why that didnt go trough. but basicly in belgium its not "socially" allowed to smoke near children, it is illegal in restaurants and bars, pretty much all public places have a "no smoking" sign, and it's kind of looked down upon to do it on the streets.

 

basicly the clue is, we know it's an addiction that is extremely hard to get rid of, just do it, but do it somewhere secluded you wont impede on other people's health. (aka dont blow your last puff of smoke out when you step on the train, this is why i'd vote for banning smoking on train platforms. i'm fine with people smoking there, just dont bring it inside the tin can i'm forced to sit with you for the next hour.)

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

http://www.slaw.ca/2009/01/21/ontario-bans-smoking-in-cars-when-children-present/ Oh shit

have you ever smelled a smoker's car? if you ever want to carry more people than yourself and other smokers you dont even want this.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, manikyath said:

exactly the reason why that didnt go trough. but basicly in belgium its not "socially" allowed to smoke near children, it is illegal in restaurants and bars, pretty much all public places have a "no smoking" sign, and it's kind of looked down upon to do it on the streets.

 

basicly the clue is, we know it's an addiction that is extremely hard to get rid of, just do it, but do it somewhere secluded you wont impede on other people's health. (aka dont blow your last puff of smoke out when you step on the train, this is why i'd vote for banning smoking on train platforms. i'm fine with people smoking there, just dont bring it inside the tin can i'm forced to sit with you for the next hour.)

Well, apparently it's illegal in cars with kids under 16. http://www.slaw.ca/2009/01/21/ontario-bans-smoking-in-cars-when-children-present/ I've never heard of this being enforced though. I know this might sound bad but he only ever does it with me because he knows I understand why he does it. I dont know how many police would care with me in the car, especially because me and my dads car rides are basically debates or talking about things like tech 

[manikyath]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Well, apparently it's illegal in cars with kids under 16. http://www.slaw.ca/2009/01/21/ontario-bans-smoking-in-cars-when-children-present/ I've never heard of this being enforced though. I know this might sound bad but he only ever does it with me because he knows I understand why he does it. I dont know how many police would care with me in the car, especially because me and my dads car rides are basically debates or talking about things like tech 

well, it's one of those things that you should never "socially" allow either way, i'm most likely the least worried non-smokers in terms of "passive smoking". basicly all i ask from a smoker is to understand my point on the matter, and to have a little bit of respect.

[Peepnbrick]

I read an article about this about a month ago, and it stated the same things: studies have revealed that low energy microwave radiation from our devices has been linked to certain problems - like infertility if you keep your phone in your pocket all day.

 

I'm not dismissing this as the new vaccines cause autism, because there may be effects that we just don't know yet since this long term exposure is a new thing to the human population. These symptoms might not have anything to do with whether the radiation is ionizing or not. But I'm not ready to start believing this until someone gives me a scientific explanation for how this Non-Ionizing EM Radiation causes these things. Anyone can claim there is a link between two things, but providing an explanation is much more convincing.

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Peepnbrick said:

I read an article about this about a month ago, and it stated the same things: studies have revealed that low energy microwave radiation from our devices has been linked to certain problems - like infertility if you keep your phone in your pocket all day.

 

I'm not dismissing this as the new vaccines cause autism, because there may be effects that we just don't know yet since this long term exposure is a new thing to the human population. These symptoms might not have anything to do with whether the radiation is ionizing or not. But I'm not ready to start believing this until someone gives me a scientific explanation for how this Non-Ionizing EM Radiation causes these things. Anyone can claim there is a link between two things, but providing an explanation is much more convincing.

Do you know basic biology? I can explain it. When your cell splits, proteins create new DNA. When there is radiation the DNA can be modified. Thats it basically. The thing is, cell phone waves can't do that, they are not nearly that strong. They go so far because of how long the wavelengths is, which means it causes much less damage

[manikyath]

Just now, Peepnbrick said:

I read an article about this about a month ago, and it stated the same things: studies have revealed that low energy microwave radiation from our devices has been linked to certain problems - like infertility if you keep your phone in your pocket all day.

 

I'm not dismissing this as the new vaccines cause autism, because there may be effects that we just don't know yet since this long term exposure is a new thing to the human population. These symptoms might not have anything to do with whether the radiation is ionizing or not. But I'm not ready to start believing this until someone gives me a scientific explanation for how this Non-Ionizing EM Radiation causes these things. Anyone can claim there is a link between two things, but providing an explanation is much more convincing.

finally some sense.

 

to give you a bit of a booster: the big issue on this topic, is the amount of variables, compared to how "intense" you can make the experiment. i've taken my conclusions as to what levels of "radiation" i'm comfortable with having around me, and i hope everyone that may run into this thread in the future will do the same.

[kuddlesworth9419]

FYI all radiation causes cancer. All depends on the amount or radiation. Everything except for dark matter gives off radiation, there is no avoiding it.

[Okjoek]

The reason I wanted some extra opinions on this topic was because I'm a guy that treats my body like a temple. I never do anything I don't have to and that I KNOW has negative impacts on my well being. I get what some people are saying "everything causes cancer", "life causes cancer", "nature wants us dead" I get it, but as a human being aside from wanting to leave the world a better place than how I entered it, I want to be able to give myself every natural advantage for living as long as possible. There's just no reason to not want to do that which is why I was curious.

[NinjaJc01]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

This old chestnut. If you look at anything for long enough you'll find evidence to support any theory. Heck I just proved that the colour purple was responsible for the shooting of JFK. 

I need to see this line of thought.

[Clanscorpia]

3 minutes ago, Peepnbrick said:

I read an article about this about a month ago, and it stated the same things: studies have revealed that low energy microwave radiation from our devices has been linked to certain problems - like infertility if you keep your phone in your pocket all day.

 

I'm not dismissing this as the new vaccines cause autism, because there may be effects that we just don't know yet since this long term exposure is a new thing to the human population. These symptoms might not have anything to do with whether the radiation is ionizing or not. But I'm not ready to start believing this until someone gives me a scientific explanation for how this Non-Ionizing EM Radiation causes these things. Anyone can claim there is a link between two things, but providing an explanation is much more convincing.

It also explains why radiation doesnt affect cockroaches. There cells only split every few months, so their DNA has no chance to mutate from the radiation. If it was shedding though (When the cells start to split and grow), they would be just as affected as humans. Humans are constantly growing so thats why we get affected

 

 

[Peepnbrick]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Do you know basic biology? I can explain it. When your cell splits, proteins create new DNA. When there is radiation the DNA can be modified. Thats it basically. The thing is, cell phone waves can't do that, they are not nearly that strong. They go so far because of how long the wavelengths is, which means it causes much less damage

To be clear, I never said anything about this radiation affecting the production of DNA. I know all about how cancer is caused by Ionizing Radiation. What I am saying is that there is the possibility of non-ionizing radiation causing problems other than genetic damage that we just don't know about yet. That is what I want an explanation on.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, kuddlesworth9419 said:

FYI all radiation causes cancer.

No, no it doesnt. Do magnets cause cancer? No. Do you know what the earth is? A magnet. A giant magnet and magnets work using electromegnetic radiation

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, Peepnbrick said:

To be clear, I never said anything about this radiation affecting the production of DNA. I know all about how cancer is caused by Ionizing Radiation. What I am saying is that there is the possibility of non-ionizing radiation causing problems other than genetic damage that we just don't know about yet. That is what I want an explanation on.

It doesnt. Or we'd all have cancer before we were born

[RuLeZ]

18 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Smoking around children can be considered child abuse.

In Germany I even see people smoking inside closed cars with kids on the back seat

[manikyath]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

No, no it doesnt. Do magnets cause cancer? No. Do you know what the earth is? A magnet. A giant magnet and magnets work using electromegnetic radiation

magnets are not electromagnetic "radiation" FYI