[istumbler]

All very speculative, note that these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies.

If cell phones caused even a small increase in cancer rates we would be seeing a massive epidemic, what we see instead is a steady decline in overall cancer rates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-...

[whatshisface]

I'm not a fan of the cell phone EM theories necessarily, but both of the reasons you gave aren't sound. First off, physicists will not be the ones conducting studies about the biological impact of EM waves. That is the wrong department. Secondly, an overall decline could be compatible with dangerous phone rays if there is a larger effect going on in the opposite direction, for example the decreasing environmental concentrations of carcinogens which were discovered and banned recently.

[biesnecker]

Wouldn't we have seen a massive spike in head / mouth / throat cancer, though, even if the overall cancer rates had gone down?

[wizzwizz4]

We might, if we weren't messing with the “proportion smokers” control variable.

[skulk]

> these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies

It's not hard to believe that there's pressure from the telecom industry to not find out these kinds of things. However, it seems quite feasible for a lab today to rigorously measure the effect of cellphone radiation on voltage-gated calcium channels to verify these claims.

[dylan604]

>these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies

nor would I expect them to. if we are talking about cell damage, i'm not wanting to hear from an electrical engineer. i want to hear from a medical professional specializing in cellular activity. a cancer doctor, some sort of micro biologist, or something in that realm would be much more credible when discussing the damage of cells due to whatever cause.

Show me studies where these doctors are working with physicists to setup the RF in controlled environments to study the effects of the radio waves on cellular activity, then I'll be much more interested. There's just too much fringe people pushing this that my natrual inclinations is to not believe it. However, that's not to say that I am unwilling to change my mind if shown actual evidence versus what's there now. I'm just saying I haven't seen any.

[CrispyCas13]

A simple Ames test study I found after doing quick googling: https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2005/04000/.... No real mutagenic effect. Granted this does not exclude the ability for it to be carcinogenic in another manner, but I would doubt such a result.

Edit: some additional thoughts. There is a controversial treatment using EMF to treat glial blastomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_electric_field_the...), the proposed mechanism is that it interrupts mitosis. This method is unlike the one put forward by Dr. Moskowitz which relies on an increase in necrosis/apoptosis.

[alexmcc81]

I'm an engineer working with the best physicists and engineers in wireless technology. None of us know anything about biology. Why would we?

The only time I have ever seen anyone consider biology has been work outsourcing modelling hands for antenna design for handsets.

[dekhn]

More importantly, most 911 emergency calls (and subsequent saved lives) are now done on cell phones presumably in situations where there are no land lines. This increase in saved lives massively outweights any tiny effects from RF.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

This is tangential to the subject discussed. I don't think it's about banning wireless technologies but rather more responsible use - if the negative influence actually exists, and if it's significant enough.

[leephillips]

But this comes from “electromagnetic field scientists”.