I don't see anyone in this thread arguing against an abundance of caution. But an abundance of caution doesn't mean the "phones cause cancer people were right"
Yes, which is why the radiation limits for cell phones was set to 10x lower than the lowest amount that might be theoretically even slightly harmful.
Now one testing lab in France says that one particular phone is slightly (less than 10%) higher than those already very conservative, cautious limits.
Most likely scenario: the testing lab used the wrong methodology. This is what happened in France many times previously.
Also possible: the testing lab is right, some phones are slightly out of compliance. They're still safe. The radiation levels are still way below levels that are even theoretically harmful.
Or maybe because possibly interfering the operation of other electrical devices, that have only been tested to operate with certain levels of external interference; is a bad thing!
one side of the "debate" seem to be taken solely by Joel Moskowitz, who's cited in every article that promotes the message of "phone radiation is harmful"
The other side is funded and heavily influenced by the ”buy our Goji berries to shield your body from toxins and our shielding bracelet to stop harmful radiation from altering your chakras” quacks. There are no neutral parties in the argument
The US government has the funds to sponsor all of your neighbors. They could conspire with the US government to pretend like they go to work every day, so that they fool you, who are the only sucker in your neighborhood whose life isn't getting paid by the US government.
I honestly don't think it matters who has funds to do what... :) The "natural health" industry is a multi-billion dollar industry as well, and is a much more insidious than the telco industry if you ask me.
In this day and age there's virtually no barrier to entry for spreading health disinformation and the quack health industry is huge, they sell a _lot_ of schlock. The fact that the people who are factually correct happen to also hold power doesn't matter since the kooks have no barriers to entry for spamming their disinformation across the internet and they're actually hard to avoid (as we see here). The people who are factually correct are generally at a disadvantage since the truth is boring and quacks can sell sensationalism ("your phone causes cancer!").
No, non-ionizing radiation is still not linked to cancer. However, SAR limits still exist because there is concern about localized heating of body tissue. As an extreme example, putting your head in a microwave and turning it on is not a good idea. Not because it will give you cancer, but because it will cook your head.
Not right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy. Emotion-based policy is dangerous.
According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859, it seems like the article is wrong and the iPhone 12 isn't actually in violation of EU regulations. It's just in violation of France's regulations because France is weird.
The WHO said that it's a possibility. Group 2B classification is extremely precautionary and includes a lot of scary-sounding chemicals, but also a lot of quite ordinary things like aloe vera and kimchi. Many licensed medicines and permitted food additives are classified in Group 2B - while there's a possibility that they may be carcinogenic, there isn't enough evidence to justify withdrawing those products from the market.
It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
> Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million to 3.1 million cases between 1995 and 2018 in Europe.
> There are several factors that help to explain the increase in incidence: population growth, population ageing, exposure to risk factors, improved screening and improved outcomes in other diseases (meaning that more people are reaching an advanced age, leaving them at risk of cancer). The incidence of different cancer types varies widely between different European countries, due to these factors.
There are better epistemic standards available than "numbers went up so my hobby horse causal ideal is doing it" despite its popularity on social media.
People living longer and cancer being diagnosed and reported more are the reasons for higher cancer rates. The rates of all kinds of cancer have been rising. If it was being cause by radio waves you would expect it to be certain kinds of cancer. Radio waves from mobile phone don't penetrate flesh very far, so you would expect skin cancer to increase more than other cancers.
High power radio transmissions have been used since the 40s.
It is far more likely that it is due to numerous other causes, some even with proven links – there is, however, still no links to mobile phone use, and no known mechanism by which it could even happen. Non-Ionizing Radiation causing cancer is probably as close to a physical impossibility as you get.
Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,
Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for.
Epidemiological studies tracking humans over time aren't controlled and will at best show a correlation worth studying, lab animal studies aren't great analogs given all the confounding factors and environmental differences with humans in real life, and unless the cancer causing agent acts quickly a controlled human study is likely impossible as controlling variables over years simply won't happen at scale.
Also the idea that visible light should be banned because radiation is an asinine argument meant to just badger without actually making a point.
Where does cancer come in?