> mfw i slept next to my wireless router for over 3 years

I know this is bait, but non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer.

>>58324599

Your fine, bruh.

>>58324599
Maybe you should water your watercress or whatever that is bruh

Hurr durr, when I put my plant outside it grows better

>>58325041
but muh confirmation bias

>>58324629
what if you have alot of it, like 20 routers being visible from your location at any given second for years.

What about radio/gps satellites/ phone, long range, that type of shit all at once?

>>58327487
>non-ionizing radiation

It doesn't matter if there's one or one thousand routers

File: 1024px-EM-spectrum.svg.png (67KB, 1024x722px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x722px

>>58324629
>>58327513
Non ionizing radiation can give cancer.

>>58324599
that's bad? my wifi router is next to my bed near my head.

>>58327569
No, it cannot.

>>58327569
Actually there isn't a single thing that is proven to cause a cancerous cell unit
Not X rays, not smoking, not fucking starlight or apples
It's all statistical assumption of what causes cancerous cells and posters

>>58327654
>not smoking
top kek what a cuck you are

>>58327651
>not looking at the picture

>>58327654
>not knowing that guilt by association is useful

>>58327654
>Statistical assumption
You're not fooling anyone with your meaningless buzzwords.

>>58327723
Well your post doesn't change the fact that the origin of cancer is still 100% unexplained

>>58327732
>what are jews
>what are new world order
>what are HAARP

>>58327732
The origin of cancer can be a multitude of things, all of them relating to mutations in genes.

Guess what IONIZING radiation does to DNA?

>>58324629
source?

>>58327732
We're reaching levels of autism that shouldn't be possible

>>58327806
The source is non-ionizing radiation doesn't have enough energy to ionize. Only make things hot.

Heat doesn't damage DNA.

>>58327859
post your fucking source or shut the fuck up

>>58324599
Wifi doesn't do shit to you, so your safe

>>58327874
the source is all of physics and biology you dumb shit

>>58327654
Actually there are tons of things that we know for a fact that can damage DNA, but nice bait.

>>58327941
So what you're saying is you have no proof to back up your baseless claims. You really showed me dumbfuck

>>58327874
>post your source for non-ionizing radiation not causing damage that is achieved through ionization
lol

As far as we know, the only non ionizing radiation that can cause any real damage is UV, and only then in sustained or large amounts.

Unless you're counting burns from infrared or other bands, but there is practically zero possibility of encountering that in large enough degrees to cause that, so anyone sane ignores it.

>>58328072
Do you want to link a wiki article for you or something?

>>58327732
oh look another teenager that thinks he knows everything

>>58324599
Source OP?

>>58324599
> mfw i slept next to your mom for over 3 years now

shit, i didnt even fear the cancer

>>58327654

Guess what stupid: all of engineering and science is based upon data gathered with instruments that had some margin of error

Turns out even if you aren't 100% sure you can be pretty damn sure

>>58327859

microwave is non-ionizing and it can do a far bit of damage with sufficient signal strength

>>58328382
those plants do not have cancer

>>58328449
>>58328178
>>58327956
induce me with cancer

>>58328500
Well yes, if you stand in front of a military search radar, you can microwave yourself to death. That happens because it heats you up, the same way your microwave oven heats your ramen noodles up. It won't give you cancer. Barbecuing yourself, though funny, is not cancer.

Anyway I'd like to see you try and find a way to cook yourself from the inside out with an antenna with a grand total of five watts of power.

>>58328500
>can do a far bit of damage with sufficient signal strength

This just in: heating cells up eventually kills them.

>>58328500
Microwaves will cook you to death before they damage your DNA.

>>58328565

the claim was that non-ionizing doesn't do any damage, but no one is going to take the diffraction grating off of a microwave.

>>58328572

citation needed

>>58327713
>not looking at the picture
All of those things posted in the area of non-iodizing do not cause cancer though. You're an idiot.

>>58328597
>citation needed
You can try it yourself!
Put your head inside a microwave oven and turn it on

>>58328572
They can't damage your DNA at all, except by the mechanism of cooking you to death. Generating heat is all they can do to you.

>>58328597
>citation needed
Well they'll eventually denature the proteins, but you'll be dead or dying before that happens. Why do you think PCR needs taq polymerase?

>>58324599
>implying it didn't die because the router gives off heat and dries out the soil

>>58328627

if you ever work with DNA, you know heat destroys your samples

>>58328610
Look at ultraviolet light retard

>>58328500
Source? that's a ridiculous claim to make

>>58328597

If I cook you well done, your DNA will be fucked, but so will the rest of your cellular structure. Dead people don't get cancer.
The point of this entire debate is that ionizing radiation CAN damage DNA without outright killing the cell, which CAN result in cancerous growth. Non-ionizing radiation can damage or destroy tissue if it's strong enough, but that won't cause cancer (with the exception of excessive UV exposure which CAN cause skin cancer).

>>58327569
>discussing radio waves
>b-b-but UV light can cause cancer

>>58328679
Ultraviolet light can be ionizing at the high end and it's been known to be powerful enough to cause reactions in DNA for what, 100 years? That's orders of magnitude more potent than the waves OP is talking about with his fucking wifi lmao. The only retard here is you.

>>58328679
its clearly labelled as ionizing

>>58328714
You make a lot of bold claims but post no source. Is it because none of what you say is true?

>>58328800
I think we're done here.

>>58328763
>being this retarded
I never mentioned OP's Wifi. You're just delusional.

Ayy

>>58328770
It's labelled as both ionizing and non ionizing.

>>58328834
I'm sure the answer to whoever is wrong is very well-documented on Google

>>58328735
>not reading the first comment
>being this dumb

>>58328842
>It's labelled as both ionizing and non ionizing.
Nigga ultra-violet light is ionizing. I don't what some jpg from tumblr jpg says.

Why are all of you so afraid of cancer? Cancer only comes to those who truly deserve it.

>>58328863
I read the first comment. While UV light is non-ionizing radiation that can cause cancer, it couldn't possibly be less relevant. He was just being a twat.

>>58328895
What the fuck am I reading?

>>58328842
When people state that non-iodizing radiation does not cause cancer it's pretty much a given that they are excluding UV light since it can be iodizing in some cases and it most certainly can damage DNA due to free radical formation, which is widely known.

If you can't accept this then I hope I am not the first person to confirm your clinical diagnosis of terminal autism.

>>58327654
Well I can say for certain that this post gave me cancer

>>58328956
religion

>>58329051
Get raped and kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot sack of nigger shit with down syndrome.

>>58328890
Ultraviolet light is mostly non ionizing. Ask Google if you don't believe me.

>>58328973
It doesn't have to be ionizing to damage DNA.

>>58329085
Google isn't a valid source anon

>>58329108
Of course not. You're not using Google as a source though, you're using it to find sources.

>>58329085
>It doesn't have to be ionizing to damage DNA.
You're a pedantic sack of shit.

>>58329077
>triggered

>>58329108
Are you literally mentally retarded or just a fucking idiot?

>>58329203
That's not pedantic at all. The point is that non ionizing radiation can cause cancer. The first commenter was wrong.

>>58329642
You are beyond autistic.

>>58324599
Thanks for the tip OP, hopefully this will take a few years off my life.

>>58324599
little radiation over time makes you more immune to big radiation

UV light is close enough to the ionizing spectrum that through the process of photo chemical reaction can cause damage. really they are starting to just classify ultra-violet as ionizing since its close enough to start emitting other effects other than thermal. UV (uv-c, uv-b, and uv-a) is really in its own "unique" spectrum. we have known this about UV for a very long time. we knew the effects of it before we even created the atom bomb.
everything else to the left of UV is non-ionizing.

>Ultraviolet light can cause burns to skin[11] and cataracts to the eyes.[11] Ultraviolet is classified into near, medium and far UV according to energy, where near and medium ultraviolet are technically non-ionizing, but where all UV wavelengths can cause photochemical reactions that to some extent mimic ionization (including DNA damage and carcinogenesis). UV radiation above 10 eV (wavelength shorter than 125 nm) is considered ionizing. However, the rest of the UV spectrum from 3.1 eV (400 nm) to 10 eV, although technically non-ionizing, can produce photochemical reactions that are damaging to molecules by means other than simple heat. Since these reactions are often very similar to those caused by ionizing radiation, often the entire UV spectrum is considered to be equivalent to ionization radiation in its interaction with many systems (including biological systems).
>For example, ultraviolet light, even in the non-ionizing range, can produce free radicals that induce cellular damage, and can be carcinogenic. Photochemistry such as pyrimidine dimer formation in DNA can happen through most of the UV band, including much of the band that is formally non-ionizing. Ultraviolet light induces melanin production from melanocyte cells to cause sun tanning of skin. Vitamin D is produced on the skin by a radical reaction initiated by UV radiation.

>>58331895
>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]
>Near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radio waves, and low-frequency radio frequency (longwave) are all examples of non-ionizing radiation. By contrast, far ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma-rays, and all particle radiation from radioactive decay are regarded as ionizing. Visible and near ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation may induce photochemical reactions, or accelerate radical reactions, such as photochemical aging of varnishes[8] or the breakdown of flavoring compounds in beer to produce the "lightstruck flavor".[9] Near ultraviolet radiation, although technically non-ionizing, may still excite and cause photochemical reactions in some molecules. This happens because at ultraviolet photon energies, molecules may become electronically excited or promoted to free-radical form, even without ionization taking place.

>>58331939
>The occurrence of ionization depends on the energy of the individual particles or waves, and not on their number. An intense flood of particles or waves will not cause ionization if these particles or waves do not carry enough energy to be ionizing, unless they raise the temperature of a body to a point high enough to ionize small fractions of atoms or molecules by the process of thermal-ionization. In such cases, even "non-ionizing radiation" is capable of causing thermal-ionization if it deposits enough heat to raise temperatures to ionization energies. These reactions occur at far higher energies than with ionizing radiation, which requires only a single particle to ionize. A familiar example of thermal ionization is the flame-ionization of a common fire, and the browning reactions in common food items induced by infrared radiation, during broiling-type cooking.

so pretty much, for non-ionizing to cause thermal induced ionizing type damage, it would have to be a high enough temperature to burn you. sounds a lot like UV huh?

so... i guess don't sleep with a microwave powered on under your pillow?

you know, i went to chipotle today. stood in line for 15 minutes to get my food because the line was wrapped around the restaurant. all the tables where full. i left my phone at home, but i quickly noticed something.... roughly 95% of the people in there had phones from what i could tell. the people in front of me, back of me, in front of them, behind them, sitting at the tables, and so on. staring at a few butts i noticed phones in the back pockets of the girls. even the girls running the line putting orders together.

you can't avoid radiowaves. its everywhere. even you lock your phone in a leaded case (yes i've read about people doing this) or completely forgo wifi and cell phones, you are still being heavily bombarded if you step a foot out of your house (ignoring all the waves blasting through you right now from the five if not more cell towers around your house and your neighbors wifi router).

just in my house hold alone all five of us have cell phones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
>Thermal effects
>Microwave radiation causes dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. For a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. The level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during exposure to direct sunlight. The brain's blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow.
>The cornea of the eye does not have such a temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 2–3 hours duration at SAR values from 100–140 W/kg produced lenticular temperatures of 41 °C in rabbits' eyes and led to the formation of cataracts. There were no cataracts detected in the eyes of monkeys exposed under similar conditions.[10] The power output of mobile phones is considerably lower and such premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use.
i think my head gets hotter than that when i lay on my side in bed.

>UV radiation causes cancer
>(photosynthetic) plants can't live without sunlight

Science CANNOT explain this

>>58332126
>thermal effects
>holding a warm object to the side of your face tends to make the side of your face warm

>>58332126
>100-140 W/kg
Why even mention this when phones are nowhere fucking near that?

>>58327732
> doesn't change the fact that the origin of cancer is still 100% unexplained
Is that why people know that cancer is caused by the breaking of certain DNA bonds (being adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine)?

>>58327569
what is up with that kerning?

>>58328531
read your own fucking posts. you should have something equivalent to aggressive mesothelioma within a week

There has not been a single incidence in the history of mankind of cancer being caused by non-ionizing radiaiton, such as radio waves. At high enough power, you can use microwave radiation to heat up dipoles, but while wireless routers operate on the same frequencies as commercial microwaves, they use very little power and cannot hurt you.

File: Radiation Spectrum edited.png (67KB, 1024x722px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x722px

>>58328714
>with the exception of excessive UV exposure which CAN cause skin cancer
I agree with you except with this. UV is ionizing radiation.

>>58327654
Actually there isn't a single thing that is proven.
Not medicine, not math, not fucking existence of the universe.
It's all logical assumptions based on a few non-provable axioms.

>>58333335
>being this fucking pedantic

people have lived their entire lives with wifi and radio permeating their bodies nearly 24/7, radio even longer, and many different bands

If non ionizing radiation caused cancer, im sure there'd be a huge correlation in locations near broadcasting towers that have a lot more cancer

>>58333693
or walking out in the sun would be way more dangerous than it actually is

>>58333335

>not math
Actually, math is just about the only thing you can make definitive proofs about, because you're manipulating definitions of things, not observations, and making inferences from these definitions.

>>58333248

Some UV light (i.e. what you get out of an ordinary blacklight) is non-ionizing, and some is ionizing. But I have not heard of any claims that non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation can actually cause cancer, and if so, how.

File: trucker-damage-face_web[1].jpg (26KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x350px

>>58333700

Supposedly this is a picture of a trucker who worked 28 years with one side of his face more exposed to sun, he doesn't have cancer, but it certainly looks like his skin was damaged which is plausible.

don't know if its legit or bullshit though.

>>58333722
28 years with many hours a day having one side of his face exposed to the sun while being white and not using sunscreen/having a uv filter on his windows is different from going out in the sun sometimes. this is almost certainly uv damage

>mfw am brown
>everyone and their mother says I need suncreen
>somehow don't think I have sunscreen integrated into my skin at the cellular level

I genuinely don't get sunburns

>>58333722
My step father is a professional driver and does have sun damage on the left side of his face. Not cancer (yet) but it can turn cancerous if he isn't liberal with his use of sunscreen.

Just my anec dote.

SO my airpods will give me brain cancer?

>>58327732
The origin of cancer is 100% explained though. It's from genetic errors.

File: 1463124467830.png (11KB, 211x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 211x246px

>>58333335
>live
>durr universe doesn't exist dude lmao!

What technology is all of this ?

>>>/sci/

This thread gave me cancer

>>58333940
You're a genetic error.

>>58333881
if he has tumors from the sun damage then sunscreen won't prevent them from metastasizing, as they may or may not do that all of their own accord. sunscreen will reduce the chance of non cancerous cells becoming cancerous, at least from uv radiation

>>58333941
Well cognito ergo sum doesn't apply to people who can't think

>>58324629

Thats so...a no.

LF causes autism, HF and ionizing and non-ionizing radiation increases cancer/disease.

>>58334260
Those are some mighty fine sources you've got there.

>>58334226
Yeah no tumors. Just a lot of damage.

>>58324629
So you draw an arbitrary line in the sand at a certain frequency wave length and daddy on one side of the line is cancer and the other side is safe.

It's an acceptable risk line not an invulnerability line

>>58324654
What did he get fined for?

>>58327654
>tfw you're overeducated.
he's partially correct, i'm a radiation oncologist and i approve.

File: 1483598064383.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>58334260
>It's a he doesn't realize he's being bombarded with LF and HF RF episode

>>58324599
think about those asshole who slept near the phone

>>58337421
yes.

literal asscancer.