Well this is vague...
"Keep cellphones away form body, but we won't tell you how far away or what the consequences might be"
"Keep cellphones away form body, but we won't tell you how far away or what the consequences might be"
http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2015/02/this-just-in-bein...
It's not ionizing radiation, so it can't give you cancer. See Einstein's Nobel-prize winning paper from 1905.
The statement that non-ionizing radiation can't give you cancer is effectively false. It is based on applying the mechanisms by which ionizing radiation causes cancer. While non-ionizing radiation does not cause double strand breaks and other mutations that can lead to cancer, you cannot use that assertion to claim that non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. It could certainly cause cancer by other means- for example, through induction of heat shock proteins as a response to cellular heating. To my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated this convincingly, although, given the fact that heat shock protein activation can lead to cancer (or cause existing pre-tumors to start growing faster), you can see that we immediately have plausible mechanisms to study, if there is indication that cancer is occurring.
Another way of putting this: if people found strong epidemiological evidence that cell phones caused brain cancer in humans (they haven't, yet), the nature of that mechanism would be subjected to intense scrutiny.
Everything I've stated above is completely mainstream science; nothing I said is controversial. Your mention of the Einstein paper is really a canard- it bears no direct relationship to the biology of the situation.
Oh, and you did notice that I mentioned heating, I hope. As you know, the standard for cellphone radiation is already calibrated to prevent significant heating.
-some random guy in his underwear.
* Genetics
* Natural mutations
* Viruses
* A huge list of substances (called carcinogens), including alcohol
* Being overweight, sedentary, or otherwise unhealthy
Edit: I just had to look up how carcinogenic EB is, and all I have to say is that I'm very disappointed. I should have said radium paint.
Yes, I saw you mentioned heating. That's certainly the first place biologists would start, if there were a solid epidemiological case. however, given that your body has tons of receptors, some of which respond to low frequency radiation, so in theory there could be any number of causal mechanisms.
(you should be aware: I personally think cell phones don't cause cancer, through any mechanism, I'm just making the point that there is zero evidence non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer, there aren't any [reliable] examples of it doing so, either. There is simply no reliable data to make a reasoned determination, either way, because the biology of cellular response to non-ionizing radiation is complex, so making causal claims is very hard without good experimental evidence).
BTW, how is the 1905 paper a canard when it is accepted as the mechanism behind DNA being damaged by ionizing radiation?
You can't point at a disproved theory of high voltage power lines cause cancer and use that as evidence about cell phones at all. Completely different scenario. Anyway, epidemiologists showed a long time ago that it was much more likely that poor health associated with living near power lines was due to poverty/real estate associations.
So, here's an example of Parks writing: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/3/166/2906431
"""All known cancer-inducing agents—including radiation, certain chemicals, and a few viruses—act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA.... Microwave photons heat tissue, but they do not come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how intense the radiation."""
His claim that "all known cancer causing agents ... act by breaking chemical bonds" is both biologically naive, and misleading. For example, the cancer-causing and cancer-preventing molecules I studied for my PhD work only through hydrogen bonding and van der waals forces (they do not make or break chemical bonds as Parks means it).
So basically, if that's representative of Parks position, then I claim he is basically wrong, due to known mainstream biology directly contradicting him.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-...
> The fact that scientists were able to expose animals to nonionizing radiation (like that emitted by cell phones) and those animals went on to develop tumors but that exposure did not significantly raise the animals' body temperatures was “important” to release, Bucher says.
Actual site: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014341601...
Do you know of any examples where cancer is caused by non-ionizing radiation, outside of obvious extremes?
You talk vaguely about plausible mechanisms in the plural, but the only one you can name is heating -- which is tiny. We should certainly ban hair dryer and centrally heated shops before we worry about phones.
I think most of the reporting around cell phones is needlessly alarmist. It's not helped by a number of scientists who persist in running low-quality studies and producing vague, unactionable results, coupled with lots of PR.