Latest tech quickie video slightly incorrect...

[Enderman]

 

1)

Simply having a lower frequency wavelength does not automatically mean it is less harmful than a high frequency wavelength.

It is possible to have high energy low frequency and low energy high frequency. It's called amplitude.

 

2)

There have been studies correlating RF radiation to cancer.

For example, this one here found brain tumors in most cases to be on the side of the brain where the phone was closest to: https://www.emfacts.com/2006/04/further-article-on-the-latest-swedish-cell-phone-study/

10% of the sample that got a tumor was people with extremely high cell phone usage.

And this one found a clear relation between RF radiation and brain tumors in rats: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

 

3)

Some people said that the tests on rats don't represent humans, however rats are specifically used in lab testing because of how similar their brain is to the human brain.

The reason the link between RF and tumors was found is because they used higher dosage, such as 9 hours a day for months straight.

Very few people use their cell phone that much, which is why studies on large groups of people can't find a statistically significant difference.

 

4)

The conclusion is yes cell phones cause cancer, just like nearly everything else in life, but it will only make a difference if you use the cell phone for CALLS (with it next to your head) for many hours a day nearly every day of your life.

From what I see these days, most people use their phone for texting or internet, rarely making phone calls. So basically nobody is at any risk of getting cancer from their phone.

Any future studies on humans will probably find the same, no increased chance of cancer, since people don't use phones to calls as often like they did 10-20 years ago.

 

If you happen to be a special person that needs to make phone calls the entire day, every day, then use a headset or speaker so your phone isn't against your head for thousands of hours.

Then you won't have any increased risk, since RF power decreases exponentially the farther it is. Even a few centimeters would probably be enough to make any chances of cancer negligible.

[RadiatingLight]

have you watched this one:

 

 

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

have you watched this one:

 

Read what I wrote.

They do, but pretty much no human uses it enough for it to reach a level where it can be noticed as a statistically significant difference.

Unless you use a phone for CALLS, next to your head, for many hours a day, every day, there is pretty much 0 risk.

[TheGleaner]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Read what I wrote.

They do, but pretty much no human uses it enough for it to reach a level where it can be noticed as a statistically significant difference.

Unless you use a phone for CALLS, next to your head, for many hours a day, every day, there is pretty much 0 risk.

Define 'many', what about If you put it in your pocket?

[Enderman]

Just now, TheGleaner said:

Define 'many', what about If you put it in your pocket?

Then there is no problem.

The chances of getting a tumor is only when you have the phone right next to your head for thousands of hours.

Even a few cm away would probably make the risk close to 0.

[TheGleaner]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Then there is no problem.

The chances of getting a tumor is only when you have the phone right next to your head for thousands of hours.

Even a few cm away would probably make the risk close to 0.

I mean wouldn't the chance of getting something like skin(or bone or whatever(organs(ie: shirt pocket)) is close to your phone) cancer be the same? Of course this will be beat to death aslong as there is "cellular devices" around

[Enderman]

Just now, TheGleaner said:

I mean wouldn't the chance of getting something like skin cancer be the same? Of course this will be beat to death aslong as there is "cellular devices" around

I am fairly sure that brain cells are much more susceptible, probably because they get replaced much less often than all the other cells in our body (IIRC).

[kirashi]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

--SNIP--

Does anyone like bananas? If so, you're more likely to get cancer from eating said bananas than sleeping next to someone, let alone from a cell phone.

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

[kirashi]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Are you another person that didn't read?

--SNIP--

Making calls with the phone right next to your head for thousands of hours is what will cause it.

--SNIP--

Do you understand? Or do you need me to simplify further?

Nope, I read just fine. I also perform my research to ensure the things I comment on are <mostly> accurate.

Cell phones cause non-ionizing radiation - ionizing radiation causes cancer. No studies say otherwise... yet.

I understand fully; no simplification needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

[Enderman]

13 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Nope, I read just fine. I also perform my research to ensure the things I comment on are <mostly> accurate.

Cell phones cause non-ionizing radiation - ionizing radiation causes cancer. No studies say otherwise... yet.

I understand fully; no simplification needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

Then explain the statistically significant increase in malignant tumors when organisms are exposed to cell phone radiation in the second peer reviewed journal article I linked?

 

I found this from your wikipedia article:

Quote

Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimeter waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

 

I think it is definitely possible that with enough exposure, non-ionizing radiation will cause cancerous effects.

The lab test on rats is a very good example of what would happen if humans were used for testing instead.

It also explains the 10% of people who got malignant tumors in the first article, since those 10% of people were heavy cell phone users (thousands of hours of calls)

[kirashi]

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

--SNIP-- 

 

Oh boy, here we go. Also in the Wikipedia article, 3rd paragraph from the top:

Quote

Different biological effects are observed for different types of non-ionizing radiation.[2][3][4] A difficulty is that there is no controversy that the upper frequencies of non-ionizing radiation near these energies (much of the spectrum of UV light and some visible light) is capable of non-thermal biological damage, similar to ionizing radiation. Health debate therefore centers on the non-thermal effects of radiation of much lower frequencies (microwave, millimeter and radiowave radiation). The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently stated that there could be some risk from non-ionizing radiation to humans.[5] But a subsequent study reported that the basis of the IARC evaluation was not consistent with observed incidence trends.[6] This and other reports suggest that there is virtually no way that results on which the IARC based its conclusions are correct.[7]

 

If you read the citations at the bottom, as one normally should when sourcing any information from the internet, you'll find this article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cellphones-do-not-give-you-brain-cancer

 

While they're not outright disputing IARC's claims, what they are noting is that if the claims were true, then we should be seeing much higher brain cancer rates since cell phones have been a mainstream appliance for around the last 20 years.

Quote

There is, however, a simple way to settle this debate. If this group is correct about the size of the effect of cellphones on brain cancer, brain tumor rates should have been dramatically increasing since the introduction of the mobile phone. A study in the U.S. published in 2012 evaluated this possibility by comparing observed rates of glioma to projected rates from two studies for the period from 1997 to 2008. It found that brain tumor rates are pretty much unchanged since mobile phones arrived. If the Swedish team is right about the size of the cellphone effect, tumor rates would be 40 percent higher than they are. There is virtually no way its results are correct.

 

To be clear, I am not a scientist, and am not here to argue, troll, or otherwise debate for the sake of debate. I am merely listing the data as gathered by others through the practice of real science, where proof rules over sensationalism every single time. (well, except maybe if you're FOX news... )

I am 100% open to accepting factually unbiased information when presented, but just like Isagenix, Amway, and Religion, I have yet to see any of such factually unbiased evidence supporting claims made. If such information were to be proven in an unbiased factual scientific study over an adequate time period proving that non-ionizing radiation does indeed cause cancer, then I'll stand behind those facts same as I stand behind the opposite ones now.

[Tsuki]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

 

2)

 

There have been studies correlating RF radiation to cancer.

For example, this one here found brain tumors in most cases to be on the side of the brain where the phone was closest to: https://www.emfacts.com/2006/04/further-article-on-the-latest-swedish-cell-phone-study/

10% of the sample that got a tumor was people with extremely high cell phone usage.

And this one found a clear relation between RF radiation and brain tumors in rats: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

 

correlation is not causation

[Enderman]

Just now, Tsuki said:

correlation is not causation

In the second article it is a causation with a 5% statistical significance.

The reason that you don't get these results on surveys done on people is because the amount of people that spend thousands of hours making calls on a cell phone is extremely small.

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, kirashi said:

If you read the citations at the bottom, as one normally should when sourcing any information from the internet, you'll find this article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cellphones-do-not-give-you-brain-cancer

 

While they're not outright disputing IARC's claims, what they are noting is that if the claims were true, then we should be seeing much higher brain cancer rates since cell phones have been a mainstream appliance for around the last 20 years.

Again, that's just another big survey of many people that normally use a cell phone for regular stuff.

Texting, internet, occasional calls, etc...

The "heavy cell phone users" only counts how many hours they use their phone, not how many hours of continuous calls with the phone next to their head.

 

This is what I am talking about when I say "cell phones can cause cancer".

I said multiple times that it needs to be CALLS with the phone next to your head, and for thousands of hours.

Just like in the rat experiment, or in the first article that found some users that used their phones for thousands of hours of calls.

 

For any regular phone user there is pretty much no risk of cancer at all. It is very rare that someone spends 8 hours a day, every day, making calls on a cell phone.

I don't even know if there is a cell phone that can last 8 hours making calls these days  Old phones could though.

 

So for all intents and purposes, no, using a cell phone will not cause cancer, unless you are one of those special outliers that uses it for calls for thousands of hours.

So the correct answer is "Yes it can, but if you use the phone like a normal person then it won't."

 

 

Thanks to texting, speaker phone, earphones with mics, pretty much nobody has their phone next to their head for thousands of hours.

[Tsuki]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

In the second article it is a causation with a 5% statistical significance.

The reason that you don't get these results on surveys done on people is because the amount of people that spend thousands of hours making calls on a cell phone is extremely small.

and if you actually read the reviewer comments, you'll note that the testing methodology is called into question, as are the results, and the number of potential false positives. most of the reviewers dont accept the findings as fact.

i can write a peer reviewed paper showing the correlation between the increase of US spending on science and space, and suicide by hanging or strangulation. you'd probably be worried until you actually read the reviewers part of it and realized it was all bullshit.

 

you may enjoy this

[WMGroomAK]

21 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Then explain the statistically significant increase in malignant tumors when organisms are exposed to cell phone radiation in the second peer reviewed journal article I linked?

 

I found this from your wikipedia article:

 

28 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Nope, I read just fine. I also perform my research to ensure the things I comment on are <mostly> accurate.

Cell phones cause non-ionizing radiation - ionizing radiation causes cancer. No studies say otherwise... yet.

I understand fully; no simplification needed. http

Didn't really want to get involved in this discussion, but following some of those links in Wikipedia and the associated sources takes you to the WHO fact sheet for this which states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#Radio_frequency_fields

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

Quote

Long-term effects
Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

 

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.

 

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.

 

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

Basically, the WHO is saying that there is not enough long term data to conclusively say whether RF exposure causes tumors and therefore more research is required to rule out any biasing or confounding. 

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Tsuki said:

and if you actually read the reviewer comments, you'll note that the testing methodology is called into question, as are the results, and the number of potential false positives. most of the reviewers dont accept the findings as fact.

i can write a peer reviewed paper showing the correlation between the increase of US spending on science and space, and suicide by hanging or strangulation. you'd probably be worried until you actually read the reviewers part of it and realized it was all bullshit.

I already explained how rats brains are very similar to humans.

The main criticisms are how large the doses were, "7 times more than normal" but that's because they did it for 9 hours a day for months straight.

 

What this means is that the results are very exaggerated compared to normal cell phone use.

As I said previously, a normal user who texts, uses the internet, and makes occasional calls has pretty much 0 chance of getting cancer.

 

BUT for someone who takes similar doses to this experiment by making calls 9 hours a day for months straight, then they would see similar results.

Unfortunately we can't test that directly on humans, but it explains why in the first article, 10% of people who got malignant tumors were people who had thousands of hours making cell phone calls.

Yes, this is extremely rare, almost nobody makes that many phone calls especially these days with texting and email, but it is still possible to get cancer from a cell phone like this.

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

 

Didn't really want to get involved in this discussion, but following some of those links in Wikipedia and the associated sources takes you to the WHO fact sheet for this which states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#Radio_frequency_fields

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

Basically, the WHO is saying that there is not enough long term data to conclusively say whether RF exposure causes tumors and therefore more research is required to rule out any biasing or confounding. 

That information is from 2014 and does not include the recent 2017 test done on rats.

It is VERY clear that RF can cause malignant tumors from this recent testing.

It is VERY clear that it takes a ton of RF doses over a long time, something that almost nobody will get from cell phone use.

 

My point is that for the rare case where someone makes thousands of hours of phone calls, without using a headset, they would see the same increase in malignant tumors, just like with rats.

[Tsuki]

5 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

Basically, the WHO is saying that there is not enough long term data to conclusively say whether RF exposure causes tumors and therefore more research is required to rule out any biasing or confounding. 

i wouldnt trust a pinball wizard with science stuff. just saying

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

What this means is that the results are very exaggerated compared to normal cell phone use.

except the peer reviewers say the results are bullshit because the testing methodology was wrong. which means the results mean literally nothing

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

i wouldnt trust a pinball wizard with science stuff. just saying

except the peer reviewers say the results are bullshit because the testing methodology was wrong. which means the results mean literally nothing

Just because it is unrealistically high doesn't mean it's wrong.

The results will still apply to humans who take similar extreme doses.

Which is why I said "thousands of hours" of cell phone use next to the brain.

 

Obviously it does not apply to the 99.99999% of people who use their cell phone normally.

My point is that yes it is possible to get cancer from extreme doses of RF radiation.

[WMGroomAK]

2 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

i wouldnt trust a pinball wizard with science stuff. just saying

Kinda sad it took me a moment to catch the reference, but you could always do worse on taking science advice...  

[Tsuki]

Just now, Enderman said:

Just because it is unrealistically high doesn't mean it's wrong.

its not about whether its unrealstically high or not.

im just saying that the sources for your information are incorrect.

Quote

The results will still apply to humans who take similar extreme doses.

no it wont, because those results are not factual.

 

you quoted a peer reviewed study without:

A.) actually reading it

B.) reading the peer reviewed part that disproves the entire thing

[Enderman]

17 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

its not about whether its unrealstically high or not.

im just saying that the sources for your information are incorrect.

no it wont, because those results are not factual.

 

you quoted a peer reviewed study without:

A.) actually reading it

B.) reading the peer reviewed part that disproves the entire thing

 

Quote

All three reviewers found the results to be clearly and objectively presented, although there were suggestions to provide historical control information for brain and heart lesions for female Harlan Sprague Dawley rats, clarify statements about the specific statistical tests used and the presence or lack of statistical significance of the brain gliomas in the Results, and expand the conclusions statements to clarify the basis for the conclusions.

Quote

The reviewers stated that the NTP had performed an adequate and objective peer review of the pathology data, and the statistical approaches used were consistent with other NTP studies. The methods were described as objective and reasonable. The interpretations of the data, including the limitations, were also reasonable and objective.

Quote

Having perused the 3 RFR Draft Report and the raw data, all appears to be in order

Looks good to me.

I don't see anywhere that it "disproves the entire thing", these are typical comments found on peer reviewed research.

 

One reviewer questions how accurately it applies to humans since the doses are higher than a normal person receives, another reviewer wants to know more about the randomization used in the samples and other control condition, asking for additional tests, etc.

 

Overall it's a well performed scientific test, albeit with some very extreme doses for the rats.

So yes, I would definitely say that it does not matter to most people that use cell phones, only those who might be making thousands of hours of calls with the phone next to their head.

 

The exponential decrease in power as the distance increases also explains why 75% of people surveyed in the first article had tumors in the side of the head that they used the cell phone. It also explains why there is pretty much 0 evidence of phones causing tumors in normal people that use cell phones.

 

Normal people only make a few minutes or hours of calls, since almost everything is done through text or internet these days.

 

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer

Quote

Up to 10% of invasive cancers are related to radiation exposure, including both ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation

 

[jmart604]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

 

1)

Simply having a lower frequency wavelength does not automatically mean it is less harmful than a high frequency wavelength.

It is possible to have high energy low frequency and low energy high frequency. It's called amplitude.

Amplitude really doesn't matter much when we're talking about ionizing (or non-ionizing) EM radiation. If EM radiation obeyed the laws of classical physics, it would make more of a difference, but you have to think about EM radiation in a quantum sense, where the frequency is really the only thing that controls whether the radiation will ionize (which messes with molecular bonding, hence the DNA damage).

 

 

Quote

 

2)

There have been studies correlating RF radiation to cancer.

For example, this one here found brain tumors in most cases to be on the side of the brain where the phone was closest to: https://www.emfacts.com/2006/04/further-article-on-the-latest-swedish-cell-phone-study/

10% of the sample that got a tumor was people with extremely high cell phone usage.

And this one found a clear relation between RF radiation and brain tumors in rats: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

Sure, but most other lab studies performed on the subject haven't found a statistically significant correlation between RF radiation and cancer. Do keep in mind that the female rats in the second link you posted didn't show statistically significant tumor growth. You can't just point to one study that kinda-sorta-maybe indicates a link to back up your beliefs when there's ample evidence out there to the contrary. The first link you posted is an observational study based on questionnaires, which can be subject to a number of biases that affect how participants will answer questions. Observational studies typically don't hold the same weight as controlled lab experiments.

 

 

Quote

 

3)

Some people said that the tests on rats don't represent humans, however rats are specifically used in lab testing because of how similar their brain is to the human brain.

The reason the link between RF and tumors was found is because they used higher dosage, such as 9 hours a day for months straight.

Very few people use their cell phone that much, which is why studies on large groups of people can't find a statistically significant difference.

Then it's basically a non-issue. We didn't say "there is absolutely no way cell phones could ever give anyone cancer." We said no definitive link between cell phone use and cancer has even been found (and the rat study does not qualify as a "definitive link" especially when many other studies have yielded different results).

 

Quote

4)

The conclusion is yes cell phones cause cancer, just like nearly everything else in life, but it will only make a difference if you use the cell phone for CALLS (with it next to your head) for many hours a day nearly every day of your life.

From what I see these days, most people use their phone for texting or internet, rarely making phone calls. So basically nobody is at any risk of getting cancer from their phone.

Any future studies on humans will probably find the same, no increased chance of cancer, since people don't use phones to calls as often like they did 10-20 years ago.

 

If you happen to be a special person that needs to make phone calls the entire day, every day, then use a headset or speaker so your phone isn't against your head for thousands of hours.

Then you won't have any increased risk, since RF power decreases exponentially the farther it is. Even a few centimeters would probably be enough to make any chances of cancer negligible.

That's a pretty sweeping conclusion that you seem to be basing on ONE study where tumors were found in THREE rats in a single experimental group. If you're going to call us out for things that you believe to be errors in our videos, it isn't a good look to then turn around and start drawing wild "conclusions" based on one study you found while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

 

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

I think it is definitely possible that with enough exposure, non-ionizing radiation will cause cancerous effects.

Do keep in mind when people discuss "radiation causing cancer," they're usually talking about DNA damage from ionizing radiation.

 

Non-ionizing radiation can certainly be harmful, but the mechanism of action is different. For example, if someone stuck you in a human-sized microwave, you'd die because the microwaves, although non-ionizing, are being blasted out at a high enough wattage to heat the water in your body up to unsafe temperatures. The microwaves aren't knocking electrons in your DNA loose the way ionizing radiation does (which can cause cancer).

 

Could huge doses of non-ionizing radiation cause different effects which in turn may trigger cancer? Potentially, but it's not a direct link in the same way that you can get skin cancer from UV light (as we discussed in the video) - and at this point, it's very possible there are other variables at play between getting hit by the non-ionizing radiation and the actual cancer.

 

Thanks for your feedback, but I stand completely behind this episode.

[MacTavish]

1st. I'll paste my comment from youtube.

 

"It's amazing how easily people think they have learned everything. This video is well lets face it created by lmg which is about tech but not every knowledge behind it. So tell us Luke why the scientific community is broken into two since early 2000s ? Why the technology scientists who are paid by the large company s say the things you say in the video while other scientists (physicians, biologists, doctors and yes other technology scientists) say the opposite? Truth is that we have worldwide capitalism and technology is something that makes HUGE amounts of profit for worldwide groups and their company s . So scientists are not free to conduct deep research at this subject. The standards of safety are ancient (around 1997) and we are on fcking 2017. Research about radiation and how it affects stopped around 2005 (proper research needs big amount of money to be conducted). So if Do Cell Phones Really Cause Cancer? We are going to find out, it seems around 2050 time (if we see percentage of some kinds of cancer to grow by then). I am writing down FACTS here. I hope the REAL answer is no but only time will tell. Anyway this video of Techquickie is inaccurate and without enough research it seems!"

 

2nd. I want the bibliography and the sources used for making this video.

 

3rd. I did all of this so NOT to argue with members of the forum but in order to reach the creators and argue with them because the things I write are not my opinion but they are FACTS. No research is conclusive about the subject and they say No you won't get cancer. Maybe you won't maybe you will. And the things here is that Techquickie has 1.5million subscribers and the viewers will be more than that. You are not allowed to say so inaccurate things and conclude "this is final".