Wait so the phones cause cancer people were right?
Where does cancer come in?
If history is any indicator it's a good idea to be more cautious than less
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.
[1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2]https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...
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.
A government having a regulatory limit on device emissions and a device failing that test is orthogonal to "phones cause cancer"
It may be unnecessarily low, but it's certainly not a mark of shame for EU citizens specifically.
(Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)
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...
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.
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*.
You cited cases, not a rate.
Ergo the increase in cases means an increase in rate.
Like irradiation from telecoms signals, maybe.
We'd also likely notice things like - lots of people getting a sort of rectangular shaped cancer right under their pants pocket ;)
High power radio transmissions have been used since the 40s.
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,
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.
But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.
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.
...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.