|
|
|
|
|
|
by joebubna
2815 days ago
|
|
|
Am I the only one concerned that they are rolling this tech out without further study? To quote the IEEE: "Millimeter waves are broadcast at frequencies between 30 and 300 gigahertz, compared to the bands below 6 GHz that were used for mobile devices in the past." In 2011 the WHO (World Health Organization) panel of scientists decided to label Cell Phones as possibly cancer causing after a review of the available studies:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.h... This past year the department within the US government responsible for studying toxic effects released a preliminary report showing an increase in brain and heart cancer rates within male mice exposed to 2G and 3G wireless radiation:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm... That's not to mention the personal stories of cell-phone induced brain cancers that have been circulating since the 80s. For instance: my brother-in-law's dad died of brain cancer, and he was a business man who was on his cell phone almost 24/7. Exposing the majority of the US population to higher frequency waves than the ones already under suspicion of causing cancer seems like a bad call without further study. |
|
|
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...
Generally, there does not seem to be strong scientific evidence supporting a causal relationship between non-ionizing radiation exposure and increased cancer rates at ordinary levels.
I did find your linked study (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm...) interesting but wanted to point out a few things:
1) These mice were subjected to whole body exposure for their entire lives (from utero to old age) 18.5 hours a day (9 hours of actual sustained exposure) which seems to be of questionable relevance to real-world human conditions. From one of the reviewers:
"There may be also several caveats relating to “under the conditions of these studies”, including how well the conditions recapitulate actual human exposure: whole body exposure from in utero to old age; 18.5 hours/day (10 min on/10 min off, for total of 9hr actual exposure); and dose;"
2) Only male mice in the sample demonstrated statistically significant differences from the control group, female mice did not. This is odd...and the reviewers take note:
"My concern regarding the control data came from the following two considerations. First, we need to consider sample variation. The incidence rates of the current controls for brain gliomas and heart schwannomas were 0. However, the historical controls were 1.67% for gliomas (range 0-‐8%) and 1.30% for schwannomas (0-‐6%). Given that there were substantial variations among the historical controls and the concurrent control is at the lowest end of the range, it is important to evaluate how different estimates of control incidence rates may impact the results of analyses. ... Second, it is puzzling why the control had short survival rate. Given that most of the gliomas and heart schwannomas are late-‐developing tumors, it is possible that if the controls were living longer some tumors might develop."
That is to say the male control group didn't have any tumors develop but they also lived for shorter period of time than the the other groups (ostensibly also the female control). This is odd and explains a possible false-positive scenario where a short lived control group had a 0% expression of tumors naturally because they didn't live long enough for the tumors to develop.
Still an interesting result, but also a good illustration of why science places emphasis on reproducible results.
3) Implied/mentioned by #2, but there were no statistical variations between the female control group and the radiated female group. Perhaps female mice are resistant...or perhaps the male control was a non-representative sample. Either way this difference raises questions and the possibility of a false-positive.
So at the end of reading, I find this reviewer's summary to be most relatable:
"Looking at the data, I agree with the report’s conclusion: Under the conditions of these studies, the hyperplastic lesions and neoplasms observed in male rats are considered likely the result of exposures to GSM- and CDMA- modulated RFR. The findings in the heart were statistically stronger than the findings in the brain. But note, it is “considered likely” not “definitely is”...Results from the companion mouse study will hopefully add some insight."
The keys being "Under the conditions of these studies" which may not be relatable to real-world human exposure as well as " “considered likely” not “definitely is” ". So to your point:
> Exposing the majority of the US population to higher frequency waves than the ones already under suspicion of causing cancer seems like a bad call without further study.
There is ongoing research and study...some dating back to the early-mid 2000's...and so far there hasn't been sufficient evidence to show (or suggest) a causal link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer risk. At least that is my layman's understanding.