[nuvious]

The population born in 1935-1950 is walking around the population of the people that did grow up with tech though. Their exposure is almost a certainty because cell towers didn't exist before 1979 in Japan. Now they're basically ubiquitous and unlike cell phones of the 80s which only transmitted when you were making a call, modern cell phones are constantly transmitting to maintain internet connection.

Rates of brain cancer before and after the 80s and 90s should've shown some sort of statistically significant spike in brain tumors if cell phones were an issue but it didn't because they're not. 800-2000MHz seems like a lot but radiation doesn't cause ionization until you get to the 2400 terahertz range. There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.

[Gnarl]

@nuvious Apparently, it ain't that simple. If you lump together all brain tumour types, you won't see much happening, but once you split the stats into tumour types an interesting picture emerges. The incidence of glioblastoma's increases at pretty much the same rate as more benign types decrease in incidence. What to make of that? Well, something ubiquitous in the environment seems to be "upgrading" benign tumours into aggressive malign tumours. UK scientists did some work on this, here: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/

[nuvious]

I don't have an argument against that observation, but it's agnostic to my concern in people discussing RF as a risk to brain cancer. The rise in rates is an observation and probably a good one but they intentionally do not try to ascribe a cause in that study.

The potential causal mechanisms have been studied for a long time to contrast:

"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...

What I care about is people ascribing a casual effect by conjecture alone, especially when the research has actually been done to assess the probability/impact of a proposed mechanism. In all flavors and frequencies in the RF spectrum, this has turned up basically zero probability, uncertain impact (because how do you measure rhe impact on something that never happens), yielding zero risk out the other end.

[tasubotadas]

But I've read on a Facebook group that it does.

/sarcasm off

[ncmncm]

> There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.

False. We don't know that any form of microwave radiation can induce brain tumors, but we certainly don't now that they can't. It needs experiments, which are being performed (on the public) as I write this.

What we do know is that microwave radiation induces nanoampere currents where absorbed. The exact details of the currents, and where and how absorbed determines their effects. Insisting PHYSICS is a legitimate substitute for experimention is a failing that has become increasingly common, lately.

[nuvious]

You didn't actually propose a mechanism that describes how this proposed effect causes damage to DNA and causes cancer and I'm not your Google-scholar to search for that for you. Provide evidence, here's mine:

"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...

[ncmncm]

There has never before been any substantial exposure to the wavelengths used for 5G, so there is exactly zero epidemiological data to consult.

We don't know what will happen, but we will find out, in time. Previous generations seem to have turned out OK. All we can be certain of is that, if anyone is harmed, no one will go to jail for it. Like the people putting lead in gasoline and paint, no one involved will have their retirement even slightly inconvenienced. (Unless, of course, they are personally harmed by it.)

Do I think harm is likely? I have no information to form an opinion from, so I would be guessing, just like everybody who insists it is all just fine. What I do know is that everyone who insists they know is lying.

[nuvious]

We actually do in radar systems which range between 400 Mhz and 36 Ghz. We've also had 2.4 and 5 ghz wifi and other rf protocols ubiquitously deployed for years. Did you even look at my reference? It's a systematic review of 100s of studys several of which cover frequencies between 2.4gz to as high as 300 ghz. There's tons of them in there and the conclusion still came to no known mechanism for harm or observed harm. You are literally making assertions that research hasn't been done when it absolutely has and you're just being stubbornly assertive about something that's factually incorrect.

And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.

The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.

You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.

Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.

[ncmncm]

You assume that work on 0.9 and 2.4GHz with 3G modulation generalizes to 20GHz and 5G modulation. But there is absolutely no reason to imagine so.

Every single modulation scheme has a completely different risk profile than every other. But almost every study starts out assuming that only heating can have any effect at all, and modulation never any, pre-loading failure.

It is equivalent to saying, "We tried some plants that turned out safe to eat. Therefore, all plants are safe to eat." No. Details matter. Wishing is opposite of facts. Facts are often inconvenient.

We conducted the analog, 2G, 3G, and 4G experiments on the general public, and they appear to have turned out OK--to the extent anybody has checked. Cancer is far from the only public health problem. Is anybody even looking at others? Auto-immune illnesses are way up, and could be caused by any of thousands of untested chemicals, or non-ionizing radiation, or hygiene, or some unholy combination. Who is even checking?

We will now run the 5G experiment on the public, and see again. Or, fail to see, for not looking even after the fact.

Does anybody even have a use for 5G, besides the telecomm companies hustling equipment? 4G barely works for me, most of the time. But I will certainly end up being made to pay for 5G, useful or not, because what I need is the very last consideration.