[grecy]

> how does non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?

It's the same way that DDT caused cancer when it was first used. It's the same way that BPA caused fertility problems for decades, and it's the same way that BPA substitutes look to be causing fertility problems now.

What way is that?

We simply don't understand what's going on, and it's important that we acknowledge that.

Our current scientific model says "we have spent decades and millions of dollars trying to see if cell phones cause cancer, and we have never found a link, therefore cellphones don't cause cancer."

Which is exactly the same as saying "we have spent decades and millions of dollars searching for little green men, and we have never found any, therefore we are 100% they don't exist."

Both of those statements are utter nonsense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We honestly have no idea if little green men exist somewhere in the universe, and we also have no idea if cell phones cause cancer. We think we know, but we're just doing our best to look at evidence.

You can rest assured that in ~50 years we'll look back and say "Of Course! Those scientists in 2019 were so simplistic and quaint!"

"But don't worry, now it's 2070, we know so much better, so that new-fangled thing you have is perfectly safe!"

[balfirevic]

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Despite what you may have been led to believe, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

More details here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of...

[GuB-42]

Not the same thing as little green men.

We have data involving a significant fraction of humanity and we didn't find a link. Cell phone aren't rare and cancer isn't rare. It means we have a very good statistical model. Cell phones have been widespread for 20 years now, which is less than we might want but still not bad. Furthermore, fundamental physics go against the idea that cell phones cause cancer. We have more or less proved that cell phones don't cause enough cancer to matter.

For little green men, we can only search the tiniest fraction of space, and we have only a single data point: us. The only vaguely statical model we have come from the Drake equation, and it has more holes than Swiss cheese. It would be laughed off by the scientific community if it wasn't so exciting.

[grecy]

> Cell phone aren't rare and cancer isn't rare. It means we have a very good statistical model. Cell phones have been widespread for 20 years now

Uh-huh, and cancer rates are absolutely skyrocketing, soon to be 50% of the population.

Why is that?

> fundamental physics go against the idea that cell phones cause cancer. We have more or less proved that cell phones don't cause enough cancer to matter.

You're missing my point. You should have said "fundamental physics, as we understand it today, can't explain how or why cell phones cause cancer, but there could be stuff we don't understand"

Have a good look at history and look at all the times we didn't understand stuff that we were doing, but we were pretty damn sure we did.

[GuB-42]

Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and it is a good thing, because it means we are not dying from something else first.

As we eliminate causes of death, others raise naturally. Right now, in the first word, we are at about 1/3 heart disease, 1/3 cancer, 1/3 others. If we get to 50% cancer, I guess all we can do is blame cardiologists for doing a good job ;)