Comment by randomname2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomname2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Is it possible this is also in part due to EMFs from their phones (and environment) and circadian rhythm disturbances from screens?

Some studies suggest the radiation can be risky to kids:

Christ A, Gosselin MC, Christopoulou M, K’uhn S, & Kuster N. (2010 Jan.). Age dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55: 1767-1783. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/55/7/001/pdf/0031-9155_5....

Block, R. (12 July 2012). American Academy of Pediatrics letter to the FCC. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/104230961/American-Academy-of-Pedi...

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. (2009) Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones an tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 16 (2-3): 113-122.]

Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Hallquist A. (2004) Cellular and cordless telephones and the association with brain tumours in different age group. Archives of Environmental Health 59 (3): 132-137.

Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. (2008) Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children. Epidemiology 19(4): 523-529.

Byun, YH, Ha, M, Kwon, HJ et al (2013 Mar 21). Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059742.

Morgan, L, Kesari, S, Davis, D (2014). Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2(4): 197-204. doi:10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005

Environmental Health Trust (2015). Wireless and Children. Retrieved from: http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-radiation-3/wireless-and-chil...

Exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields and behavioural problems in Bavarian children and adolescents. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19960235

Ah, whatdya know, I said the same thing a while ago - we don't actually know the effects of long term exposure to so much radiation.

But I think it's mostly the Internet - too much information, endless info streams, endless mindless entertainment, endless feeds of successful people (so it seems that everyone is successful, or making 50K/year, or pretty, except you and your family/friends/hometown).

> we don't actually know the effects of long term exposure to so much radiation.

Don't you mean so little radiation? The sun puts out far more radiation than a phone, and now people are getting less sun, and thus less radiation.

Yes, that's the most overused argument. But the artificial radiation is on top of the natural one. I'm counting not only cell towers and Wifi, but power lines and transformers, and the infra and ultrasound all around us.

It's probably just a blip, though, and it's probably the always-connected aspect that has way more profound effects.

I can only say that a few days in the countryside without electricity was one of the most relaxing experiences ever.

Cel phone tower repair guys should be jumping in droves.

Currently we're running a huge experiment in which virtually everybody is exposed to the electromagnetic fields of communication networks. This has been going on for more than a decade. If there is an effect, we should easily see it.

> we should easily see it.

Note, I'm not saying there is an effect, but it's not quite so easy to say we should have found it if it exists. First, there is a delay between radiation exposure and cancer risk (up to ten years).

Second, if all population centers experience the same increase in radiation exposure, then it is very difficult to use radiation as an independent variable to measure its impact on cancer.

For instance, it took decades before anyone was able to show that nuclear testing caused an increase in deaths, and that was only possible because the distribution of radioactive isotopes was not uniformly spread across the US -- some states (especially in the midwest) received far more radiation than others (e.g. Western California or Louisiana).

In contrast, if electromagnetic radiation from cell towers is relatively uniformly spread for the same population density (e.g. New York is comparable to Los Angeles, and rural Washington is comparable to rural Missouri), then it will be rather difficult to separate cancer risk from electromagnetic radiation from other risks.

Non-ionizing radiation, like the one from cell towers or your smartphone (or radio signals, or TV, or even from power lines) does not cause cancer. It just can't cause cancer, as it can't even rip off a single electron from an atom (definition of non-ionizing).

This seems like a very wrong-headed assumption. We don't understand the etiology of cancer generally, and radio frequency radiation may have physiological effects which produce conditions favorable to cancer. Microwaves aren't ionizing, but it's easy to demonstrate that an oven will damage tissue. Tissue damage results in a cascade of physiological processes, including inflammation and scarring which may precipitate cancer. RF energy is similarly absorbed by tissue producing heat, but the specific absorption rate (SAR) for common RF emitters, including phones, is low. Maybe enough exposure over time becomes an issue, though.

An oven will damage tissue by thermal heating. Since the energies involved in cell phones, WiFi, etc. induce negligible heating, we need another plausible pathway of interaction with the tissue. If we don't have one, then it's like saying that african butterflies could cause cancer at the North Pole by an yet unidentified phenomenon of spooky action at a distance. Impossible to disprove but irrelevant.

Edit: To make matters worse, there is even a profesional disease among people with RF exposure: eye cataract, due to thermal heating of a poorly irrigated and termoregulated corneal tissue. These are guys working in close proximity to megawatt transmitters. It is not correlated to cancers.

Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF emitting devices just because we don't understand all the mediating mechanisms in that relationship. A lack of understanding is not negative evidence. And the fact that I can't disprove your butterfly theory is not a reason that simpler theories (phone usage ~ cancer) are invalid.

> A lack of understanding is not negative evidence

Clearly, but anybody claiming the spooky action effect needs to accept the burden of proof and produce positive evidence. When that necessitates new ways of physical interaction unknown to science, it's a colossal burden, likely to have far reaching implications and revolutionize multiple fields; it's highly unlikely that such positive evidence was ignored for the decades the effect was claimed.

You, also, need to see this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230

That's technically not correct, since RF-induced tissue heating can absolutely cause all sorts of cell damage. As far as I know there have been some indicators that cancer can be caused by RF tissue heating.

However, the field strength generated by everyday devices are regulated to levels that are thought not to generate a relevant heating effect in typical use.

Additionally, looking at your phone means it is an appreciable distance away from the brain, unlike using a phone as a phone.

I think you urgently need to see this then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 (hint: its a indirect effect)

Is that the only vector for cell damage or might there be another one? Seriously asking, I don't know a lot about cell biology.

More than a decade. A century. We've been steadily increasing the number of RF sources, but also at the same time, reducing their intensity. RF noise is weaker now than it used to be.

But where's your control? Everyone is exposed to EM radiation

Areas that were late in getting accesd to power grid, radio stations, landlines, analog TV... This "experiment" has been running for a good century now, and we would have seen effects if they were strong...

We may be able to draw a correlation with pre television era and an introduction to television — for cardiac rhythm and mindlessness entertainment effects among others.

blue light from screens is a much bigger problem and its mostly been proven at this stage that it can affect your sleeping patterns

Reply on news.ycombinator.com