Do cell phones cause cancer? Is there any plausible way for micro

i dunno

>>60060769
Exposure to anything too long will cause some kind of illness or cancer.
Chemicals, enviroment, dusts particles, sunlights etc.

It's no supprised wifi or mobile phone causes cancer because they're the same spectrum line of radiowaves, just different intensity.

>>60060769
I don't believe they do
source: worked at BlackBerry, had my head stuck in RF chambers next to comm testers broadcasting at max power. I'm fine.

>>60060769
No. Retards that perpetuate this fact should be euthanized. You are constantly bombarded by light of the same wavelength from the sun from the moment you're born until you're die.

>>60060769

You get more radiation taking a flight from CA to NY than 30 years simultaneous cell phone usage.

>>60060829
Sunlight causes cancer though......

no, its fucking radio waves bro

how on earth could they cause canner?

>>60060769
There's no evidence of it. We've had cellphones for years, we'd have picked up a correlation by now if they did.

>>60060866
That's not a worthwhile argument. UV light is radio waves too. As are AM and FM waves

>>60060769
Hey Aldi bro, you guys reslot your store yet?

>>60060769
Yes and no.

See, the thing most people fuck up on is literally everything can and will cause cancer given time.

the best way to look at it is background radiation, 1 days worth is around the same amount as driving 1000 miles on the road, roughly the same risk of death. Unless the radiation is enough to poison you, you are pretty much safe. also the different types of radiation, much of which just bounces off our skin.

>>60060855
It's a different frequency. It's like comparing an earthquake to someone jiggling the table.

>>60060769
Cancer is basically coded into my genes thanks to my mom and her bloodline (cancer all the fucking way up, though not always terminal) so I really don't care if they do.

>>60060823
>I'm fine
for now

>>60061252
Tfw literally nobody in my family gets cancer

>>60060769
You're exposed to more radiation of a very similar frequency from a microwave oven than you are in a cell phone. Way more. Even with all that shielding, there's still way more leaking out of a microwave than a cell phone, and we've had microwave ovens for decades longer than cellphones.

FYI, a microwave oven operates around 2450 MHz. Similar to WiFi (which no one is complaining about), and very close to the AWS spectrum (which goes up to 2195 MHz with AWS-3; in the US, Verizon, T-Mo, and AT&T all use it), and overlaps with AT&T's WCS band (2300 MHz, not implemented in the US yet).

>>60060769
I doubt it, but I was diagnosed with brain cancer last year so what do I know

>>60061948
>Similar to WiFi (which no one is complaining about)
I wish. Do a search for wifi allergy or electromagnetic hypersensitivity and tell me about your faith in the future of the human race.

isn't cancer a step up in evolution, since cancer cells don't age and die? and worthless human cells are weak and mortal and there's a finite number to how many times they can divide
the key to immortality is harnessing the power of cancer
either that, or anime is fiction and not real

>>60060769
Look up ionizing vs non ionizing radiation. It's the difference in bouncing off skin vs knocking holes in DNA and cancering your shit up

>>60062426
No, evolution is determined by if the mutation is able to survive and procreate. Preferably survive and procreate more often than non-mutated specimens.

Cancer makes you less likely to survive and procreate. So it's not the next step in evolution.

If we could learn something from cancer and forced some form of controlled evolution, then it could be part of it.

>>60062465
>forced some form of controlled evolution
exactly
cancer cells divide indefinitely, even if they are not immortal, they outlast human cells and don't degrade as quick, if at all

>>60060769
>microwaves
At a high enough power
>radio waves
At a high enough power
>infrared waves
At a high enough power

Mind you, at the power levels required you would actively feel the effects, so no. Cellphones don't cause cancer.

>>60060769
>Is there any plausible way for micro waves
Microwaves cook you alive

>>60062578

Can the power from dozens of cell phones inside of a train car accumulate and be powerful enough to cause cancer if you're there for hours and hours, like three days?

It is literally impossible for the radiation from phones to cause cancer

You're more likely to get cancer from a flashlight

electromagnetic radiation below UV and visible light levels can only heat cells, they wont cause cancer no matter how much exposure you get

>>60062589
No.
Maybe if you had like 100,000.

so does the sun
and one billion bananas

>>60061252
This. You always get exposed to something. You can reduce it, but it is how your genes handle it.

>>60062641

Not even if it's continuous for days straight??? How can't it?

>tfw live right next to cell tower

File: 1481878392610.jpg (28KB, 469x409px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 469x409px

>non-ionizing radiation somehow capable of modifying tissue despite no effect of such kind ever demonstrated

I can't believe you would even ask such a question. Go read a high school science textbook you fucking monkey.

do not keep PC on the desk.
it will radiate you!!

>>60062655
because working in on the farm would've killed humanity, you realize UV radiation is x1000 stronger than 100000 cellphones?

File: radiation.png (52KB, 826x565px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 826x565px

>>60060769
No.

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

67KB, 1024x722px

>>60062578
>Microwave
No, never
>radio waves
No, never
>Infrareded
No, never

>Gamma
Yes
>Gamma
Yes

Learn the fucking difference

>>60062655
Because it is low power radiation that doesn't have accumulative effects like high power radiation.

how long is earth core will keeps active again?
when that dies it's gonna be fun, if humanity even survives that long

>>60062681
I am pretty sure that it is fairly well proven now that the heating of cells can cause cancers, the problem is that you have to heat the cells quite a bit (more than body temperature fluctuation) to cause it (or else people would be getting a lot more cancers) so you need a lot more power, at which point you're going to start noticing things.

Ionising radiation causes cancer because it can actually rip electrons off atoms, which causes all sorts of problems.

>>60062721
65C and cells start to break up. some chain reaction there after that goes into cancer?

>>60062745
boiling water burns would've killed half human race with skin cancer at this point on the second thought

>>60060769
Cellphones don't cause cancer, but they do make the transmission of cancer from other people more efficient.

>>60062681
Oh yeah, and you have to remember that ionising radiation isn't the ONLY way you get cancer. It's just bad to treat all radiation as equal because they are very different things that interact with matter differently.
Non-ionising radiation will not cause atoms in your cells to lose electrons, but it can affect your cells in other ways, like heating.

>>60062750
Question is have you undertaken a study into burn victims and cancers in later life?
There might be a correlation. Are you discounting it just because it hasn't been done? It just means that we don't know, not that it isn't there.

>>60060811
Not correct. Radiation of certain wavelengths can pass through solid bodies without interacting with them, having no effect over them. Cosmic radiation can pass right through the Earth. Radio wavelengths do no harm to human tissue afaik.

>>60062780
i'm pretty sure 100%(except infants) of humanity got burned by something at least twice in their life

>>60062665
>(((science textbook)))
good goy, the phones are perfectly safe

>>60062796
We are also constantly exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation and we don't all have cancer yet.

>>60060882
no, they're both electromagnetic waves but completely different wavelengths/energy levels.

the highest energy radio wave (by definition) with a wavelength of 1 mm has an energy of 0.00124 eV, the energy of the UV-light which is absorbed by DNA and thus can cause skin cancer has a wavelength of 255 nm and an energy level of about 4.9 eV. the energy levels differ by a factor of almost 4000.

that's why it's completely implausible to get cancer by radio waves. they simply do not carry enough energy to ionize anything.

>>60061948
Yet it isn't even ionizing, no? The only thing microwaves can ever do to you is cause regular old thermal burns.

You could get hit with a deluge of anything from radio waves to violet light and not ever have problems, given that it's not a specific frequency that does stuff like jostle water around.

>>60060811
>It's no supprised wifi or mobile phone causes cancer because they're the same spectrum line of radiowaves, just different intensity.

There's no evidence whatsoever of wifi, cellphones, or other radio sources causing cancer.

>>60061252
>>60061904
Pretty much EVERYONE gets cancer if they live long enough. Age is by far the largest risk factor.

File: verdict.png (26KB, 270x210px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 270x210px

>>60062903
Why we got all this cancer fear mongering? Is it just a side effect of being able to detect cancer?
Do people fear that death from cancer is "unnatural" unlike "natural" death?

>>60063114
People fear that cancer deaths are something that should be treatable, and are quite often horrible to experience.

While it's true that wavelengths used by phones are not energetic enough to ionize your DNA the way UV and XRays do but that doesn't mean they cant be cancer causing.

The initial concerns were about low levels of heating inside the brain when holding the phone up to your ear. This has been not super conclusive and rendered nearly moot now by the way usage patterns have shifted.

The newer worry is over oxidative stress. Rats exposed to low dose radiation in the hundreds to thousands of MHz band show significant increases in mortality from oxidative stress induced cancer.

Theres also a small amount of evidence for reduced fertility in men when carrying phones in pockets.


The effects are all small and testing is usually done at "worst case" or beyond intensities and durations. All in all the evidence is not super concerning but I'm not going to make a habit of using my phone as a pillow.


And the people in this thread who give a definitive answer and then a lame invented justification like " you get 10x more in a plane duh" should think real hard about whether they are the informed citizens they think they are.

Phones in general can cause cancer,but not because of rf.
It's because of the stress caused by talking to people.

>>60060769
>rice pudding 89¢
Where is this? What store as well?

>>60060905
Isn't aldi a yuro thing?
I see $ and ¢ and those prices are not what I'm used to when I go to publix

>>60063347
Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first time I hear that there is a causal relationship between cancer and stress. Can you share any studies about the topic?

t. someone with an extremely stressful life

>>60063140
Because cancer is a "disease" ? Do we have remotely successful cases of averting cancer?
What if all deaths are just result of one type of cancer or another?

>>60060769
It shouldn't. However I agree with using cell phones for smaller amounts of time for other reasons.

>>60063493
Aldi is German but spread internationally.

>>60063140
The treatment is horrible.

>>60062440
UV is non ionizing and causes cancer.

No, but you have to consider that since mobiles have become mainstream, no one has lived a full human lifespan.

If someone was conceived when the first mobile phones were first used, they're only going to be in their early 30's. Even then, it's unlikely they were around them until later on in life when mobiles became more popular.

It won't be until we have late 90's and early 2000's kids turn 60 and 70 to see if there are any long term effects

>>60060855
Matter blocks sunlight (UV) though...

No.

>>60063792
How would you even be able to tell if there's a long term effect? Old people get sick and die all the time. It's because they're fucking old.

>>60063114
People fear death.

>>60064715
Population studies and a boatload of statistics. Although there are a gazillion confounding variables, we have billions of people who will have lived in various circumstances regarding radio waves and wireless technology. With enough samples we could possibly make some inferences. I know it sounds fishy but that's what happens when you can't run controlled experiments.

>>60060769
Everything causes cancer. Overcooking your fries causes cancer.

Stop worrying about that shit.

>>60060769
Cells in your body cause cancer. Not cell phones.

No cell phones dont cause cells to develop cancer either for all we know, even if much stronger and different wavelenght SUNLIGHT does. Stay out of the sun, mkay?

>>60064746
As you say, there are a gazillion confounding variables. There's no way to sort something so specific out except if it has a strong, noticeable effect like asbestos.

The fact that we don't see an asbestos-like pattern is proof enough for me.

>>60060823
>I'm fine
>posts on 4chan
Choose one.

I have cancer

>>60063738
UV is ionising you retard.

>>60062665
>non-ionizing radiation somehow capable of modifying tissue despite no effect of such kind ever demonstrated
Not saying that it's cancer but the tissue of my steak is definitely modified after a few minutes in the microwave oven. (By the heat caused by the irradiation)

>>60062681
correct

>>60060769
radio isn't ionizing numbnuts

do you guys know what causes cancer? then how can you say definitively what waves are harmful.

File: 1516.gif (3MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x282px

>>60060769

It's 90's again?

>>60066166
>do you guys know what causes cancer?
It pretty much comes down to DNA mutations and degradation in the DNA repair mechanisms of the cell.

>>60064997
This

What is MORE dangerous? Cosmic radiation from several hours on a plane or the microwaves from dozens of phones in a train car for multiple days straight?

>>60060769
everything causes cancer, so go to another planet or kill yourself

>he steps outside
LEL ENJOY YOUR CANCER
>he gets on a plane
LEL ENJOY YOUR CANCER
>he breathes air
LEL ENJOY YOUR CANCER

>>60066644
>Tfw nobody can answer this for me

I've been thinking about it for a week and don't k ow enough about this stuff to figure it out. Cosmic radiation IS cancerous and we know that for a fact, but only at high doses. The radiation that cell phones emit, people are claiming cause cancer but others claim the energy isn't high enough. Could 100 cell phones in a train car reflect all of their microwave radiation into you and cause cancer? Is it MORE dangerous than flying on a plane?

>>60060829
>Retards that perpetuate this fact should be euthanized
>fact
Let me guess: You're one of those people who disregard facts that trigger you.

>>60067143
The harmful Cosmic radiation is gamma and xrays tho

>>60060769
no it wont
dont walk around chernobyl and fukushima and your risk of getting cancer is "normal"

>>60063693
this is true, most people would feel better longer if they just didn't undergo treatment. which sounds fucked up but is true. Especially if you have anything pancreas that isn't like, first baby stage, you may as well give up and live well for a year or two.

>>60067180
Equivalent to a chest x ray over several hours, I know, but are loads and loads of phones being used at once and you are exposed to that for 48 hours straight on a long train ride enough to be equivalent to several hours on a plane?

>>60067143
>Cosmic radiation IS cancerous and we know that for a fact, but only at high doses
Actually, there's no safe limit for high-powered radiation like cosmic rays and gamma radiation. It's only a question of what you consider an acceptable risk.

>>60067235
That's microwaves, which are non ionizing

>>60067265
But they cause cataracts and affect cell proteins which causes cancer, so you're wrong

>>60067252
We would see cancer rates increase from 1975+ from CT scan use, but we haven't because it is safe at low levels.

File: cancer.png (19KB, 826x245px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 826x245px

I think I will trust scientists over fat virgin neckbeads.

>>60067339
>tumor in heart
Humans don't get those.

File: nutcancer.png (23KB, 887x308px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 887x308px

expects lots of you faggots to get testicular cancer. not like you were using them anyways

>>60067379
>rats
>thinking rat studies are at all useful for human studies
Rat studies are basically to determine if something causes you to explode into flames and your face to melt off before they move to human trials. If rat studies meant something we'd have cured every disease known to man by now.

>>60067403
so easy to spout rhetoric instead of scientific evidence

>>60067433
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746847/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642860/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016508587902757
http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7586/197.short

Animal studies are not always useful, and in two of these examples give literally not just wrong results, but completely opposite results from clinical trials.

>>60067538
What's the alternative way to test for it?

>>60067603
If there was a good alternative, we wouldn't still be using them. You can always use labgrown human cells instead, but those have their own problems.

>>60067650
Animal studies are okay for some things, but really the only way I'd trust a study saying wifi gives you nut cancer is if they lock a bunch of people in a room for 5 years and bombard them with high intensity wifi.

Or everyone in their 20s now gets cancer at 50.

>>60060769
Radiation which later could = CANCER.

Every fucking thing causes cancer now.

They say you have a 90% chance of getting it by installing Gentoo Linux.

>>60068038
>They say you have a 90% chance of getting it by installing Gentoo Linux.
fucking lel m8

>>60067293
Can someone explain this?

People who stood next to gigantic radio cones in world war 2 for the warmth didn't get cancer. They got cataracts. Your eyes don't have a way to dissipate the heat from a fucking huge radio cone, so you develop cataracts. None of those people ever got cancer though, and I would think those people would be by far without a doubt the most susceptible if we're going to compare it to some stupid cell phones. Any study that irresponsibly claims shit like this is ALWAYS poorly done with plenty of flaws. The results they give are useless.

>>60060769
Immigrants cause cancer

>>6006664
Cosmic radiation can be shown to do damage to cells, phones almost can't. So I'll go with the earlier.

Also, we can probably drop "on a plane" on this. Even at ground level you get hit by cosmic radiation and it's probably worse than cell phones.

Radiation FROM the ground might easily be worse.

Whether you get dangerous cancer or not from radiation damaging cells in random places is a matter of chance. With little radiation, it's a low chance every minute, but it's always there.

>>60068688
That sounds really dumb. Pilots get melanoma from flying so much. It's really common. It's already shown, a proven fact.

>>60064856
We don't see the asbestos-like pattern *yet.* An inferential population study is the best chance we're going to have in the far future, but we need to prepare for that now by collecting environmental data.

Dont care

>>60068847
>yet
We have had radios for like 100 years you turbo retard. Nobody has ever gotten anything from them, including technicians, scientists, people who have been exposed to huge radio cones that get warm from how much power is going through there. You're a tinfoil idiot if you think the MW from cell phones has any way of doing anything at all. It doesn't and if it did we would have LOADS of different places in history to see it, very easily.

Some judge in Europe somewhere recently ruled that they do. So legally, yes.

So much ignorance and pseudoscience in this thread from both sides of the argument. Shit like this really shows off why this place has become little more than a 24/7 consumerism general.

KYFS.

>>60068816
What else did I say?

No, I didn't mean that radiation from the ground is worse than from flying, but from cellphones.

>>60068948
> MW from cell phones
mW. Probably a simple typo, but MW might be problematic.

>>60069310
Haha, yeah MW would be a big deal. I'm on my phone. :/

>>60062680
>>60062681

>hey goys look i have science in my post, I must know what i'm talking about, also am fag

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html

>>60069496

>Non-ionizing radiation is found in a wide range of occupational settings and can pose a considerable health risk to potentially exposed workers if not properly controlled.

I think OSHA knows a little more about radiation than you.

>>60069528
Because they can cause cataracts and heat up... Obvious hazards they are referring to.

Do you really think the OSHA has some secret information or something? Are you mentally deranged?

>>60069528
Microwaves heat stuff, you know... Why are you planning on pretend scientist on 4chan? Why are you trying to prove something that has zero evidence behind it and would be awful if it was true?