[boxed]

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.

[oblio]

> 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.

https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c...

> 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.

Hmmm...

[hombre_fatal]

> Hmmm…

Why did you stop quoting it there?

> 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.

[oblio]

The age argument doesn't seem to be holding up since cancer rates are growing for younger people:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/16/health/early-onset-cancer...

Better screening could be a factor.

Also, population growth doesn't matter for a *rate*.

[dwaite]

> Also, population growth doesn't matter for a rate.

You cited cases, not a rate.

[oblio]

Europe's population (and EU's, if you compare the sum of current member state populations) is basically flat since 1995.

Ergo the increase in cases means an increase in rate.

[sneak]

If growth (ie the first derivative) is flat (which means a steady rate of increase) then an increase of cases does not mean an increase in rate.

[pbhjpbhj]

>exposure to risk factors

Like irradiation from telecoms signals, maybe.

[cmsj]

Irradiation from telecoms signals has been around for more than a decade.

We'd also likely notice things like - lots of people getting a sort of rectangular shaped cancer right under their pants pocket ;)

[mjbeswick]

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.

[JacobSeated]

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,

[flagrant_taco]

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.

[boxed]

> Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for.

But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.

[flagrant_taco]

Even that is a strong correlation though, and a simplified one at that. Context matters even for sun exposure, if solar radiation was a direct cause of cancer you should reliably see consistent skin cancer rates among people with similar complexion and exposure rates.

I've seen some really compelling research looking into diet changes that may impact risk of skin cancer, specifically an increase in saturated fats helping to reduce risk. The idea is that saturated fats are envloved in the process of your body turning UV into vitamin D. With more saturated fats in your system the UV has effectively has a job and is processed by the body.

My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.

[boxed]

> if solar radiation was a direct cause of cancer you should reliably see consistent skin cancer rates among people with similar complexion and exposure rates.

...which you do.

> My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.

That sounds like weasel language to try to muddy the waters to me. If it's tricky or impossible to nail down the effect must be small, and probably not worth caring much about.

[tgv]

My bet, too. It should be even easy to test: ownership should correlate, as should (square of) distance from the mast.