Cell phone radiation

[Pixel]

Well you have to understand that mainstream university educated opinion and general mainstream medical opinion is that there is no correlation to cancer. A variety of -longitudinal- studies have been conducted finding results surrounding cancer that are statistically insignificant. Additionally rf radiation has been shown in vitro to not damage cellurar DNA. That does not mean it does not put stressors on cells. And that is the end of it they don't bother doing any research themselves and are aghast to think that the mainstream university educated opinion could be fallible.

Instead of simply google searching and seeing real studies that show odd effects on cells (no DNA damage, though cancer is still up on the air), I assume they just chose to follow the mainstream opinions that there are absolutely no negative side effects on things. Now we aren't talking about aliens, illuminati, mind control, lizard people, elvis presley, fake moon landing, big foot, healing crystals, bermuda triangle conspiracies here.

Instead of focusing on cancer cancer cancer cancer, why not simply look up if rf and emf radiation impacts cells in odd ways.

 

[Pixel]

An example of mainstream opinion being wrong is Autointoxication. For centuries until the 1940s it was believed that the feces that passed through our bowels leaked its waste back into our bodies and was the cause of a variety of diseases and ailments. There was sociologies belief that gender and sexuality is completely societally and environementally based, and lead to one of its pioneers Dr Money's trying to program a boy into a girl who lost his reproductive organs during infancy to a botched circumcision. That theory which had much of sociologies institutional agreement (all nurture, no nature) turned out to be false. Then more recently in psychiatrics it was shown that a "chemical imbalance" in the vast majority of depression was a myth that was something fully adopted and internalized by the mainstream psychiatric institutes. Even more recent MRI and PET scans have overturned some mainstream beliefs in psychiatry.

Even more recently in quantum physics the mainstream may have to backtrack on how we assume the science works and that an older pilot wave theory may be closer to reality.

Try sleeping in a comfortable cot infront of very high powered electric devices that do not emit much heat, and see if you feel great in the morning.

 

[green.pixel]

Some other recent examples of mainstream science being wrong. The number of retracted studies has increased alot in the last several decades.

- Positive effects of omega-3 fatty acids from cancer prevention to brain development have been challenged after follow-up studies showed no significant effect
- The free-radical theory of aging, once a well-regarded theory of how antioxidant enzymes affect cell life, has been thrown out, along with the USDA’s guidelines for measuring antioxidants in food
- The benefits of regular mammograms have been called into question as the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study showed no decline in the rate of mortality from breast cancer, and regular testing sometimes led to overdiagnosis.

But that's all because academia and university research system has been turned into a capitalist pyramid scheme. Decline in state funding for education + removal of public-license restrictions on academic research + flood of capital from private industries wanting to posses a monopoly on scientific advancements = this is what you get. Cutting costs means significantly increasing tuition costs for the students, tenure-tracks being replaced by adjuncts with low pay and no job security as the salaries of bloated administrators continue to rise. This neoliberal privatization model of academic research marks a return to the days of privately funded, pre-tenure origins of the university system when schools were simply research labs for private industries rather than institutions of knowledge advancing science in the public interest.

 

[orangpelupa]

But seriously, anybody remembers using old big as brick cellphone?

Calling using that results in minor headache

anybody knows why? maybe its simply due to the heat it generates? that kind of phone do get hot if i remember correctly.

hmm on the other hand, nowadays i almost never used my phone to phone

 

[cheapchips]

Some other recent examples of mainstream science being wrong. The number of retracted studies has increased alot in the last several decades.

- Positive effects of omega-3 fatty acids from cancer prevention to brain development have been challenged after follow-up studies showed no significant effect
- The free-radical theory of aging, once a well-regarded theory of how antioxidant enzymes affect cell life, has been thrown out, along with the USDA’s guidelines for measuring antioxidants in food
- The benefits of regular mammograms have been called into question as the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study showed no decline in the rate of mortality from breast cancer, and regular testing sometimes led to overdiagnosis.

But that's all because academia and university research system has been turned into a capitalist pyramid scheme. Decline in state funding for education + removal of public-license restrictions on academic research + flood of capital from private industries wanting to posses a monopoly on scientific advancements = this is what you get. Cutting costs means significantly increasing tuition costs for the students, tenure-tracks being replaced by adjuncts with low pay and no job security as the salaries of bloated administrators continue to rise. This neoliberal privatization model of academic research marks a return to the days of privately funded, pre-tenure origins of the university system when schools were simply research labs for private industries rather than institutions of knowledge advancing science in the public interest.

I'm not sure what your point really is with regards to harm from cell phones.

That scientific consensus or public health policies (which aren't always the same by a long shot) have been wrong in the past?

It might be the case that cell phones are causing harm through some as yet undiscovered process.

The actual harm that's being caused would also have to being masked in public health statistics as well.

Those two things together seem to make it very unlikely.

 

[milk]

How about second-hand cellphoning. It's pretty useless to not have a phone when you are constantly surrounded by people that do. How does research acount for that? Do they use hermits as subjects?

 

[MfA]

Inverse cube law, the field strength at your nads and brain from your own phone is far stronger (not to say it's relevant, just far stronger).

 

[green.pixel]

That scientific consensus or public health policies (which aren't always the same by a long shot) have been wrong in the past?

Yes, to both, due to the financial underpinnings of research. See Ben Goldacre's work on that.

The biggest example in recent times: demonizing dietary fat.

 

[cheapchips]

Yes, to both, due to the financial underpinnings of research. See Ben Goldacre's work on that.

The biggest example in recent times: demonizing dietary fat.

That's just a case of the meat lobby being too slow to catch on to the sugar lobby's evil games. [emoji6] Public health would be better if both meat and refined sugars were banned. I doubt I'm on to a winner with that policy though.


In the case of cell phones, there's a massive financial interest in proving that they cause harm. That harm could be linked directly to a corporation, as an iPhone user has likely been so for many years.

And again, the food/health studies are tricky beast even with the best intentions.

Mobile phone use causing statically significant harm would be very apparent in the massive studies that have been done. And that I'm a part of. I got a free voucher and everything. #partoftheconspirasy

 

[milk]

Inverse cube law, the field strength at your nads and brain from your own phone is far stronger (not to say it's relevant, just far stronger).

but is there much o f a diference between a phone in my pocker, vs it in the pocket of the guy sitting right next to me on the train, or right behind me at the theater, etc...

 

[Kyyla]

Bear in mind nutritional science tends to be very flaky since you have to rely on self-reports and a lot of confounding factors in the data. Ben Goldacre once aptly summed the total of our knowledge about nutrition to "Eat your greens.".

 

[MfA]

The stranger behind you at the theatre is still relatively far away given cubed fall off. As for on the train, you don't spend a whole lot of time ass to ass with strangers on the train (I hope) while you can have the phone in your pocket all day.

 

[Davros]

Inverse cube law,

Inverse square law

 

[green.pixel]

In the case of cell phones, there's a massive financial interest in proving that they cause harm. That harm could be linked directly to a corporation, as an iPhone user has likely been so for many years.

I think you've either slipped a word or you've got it the wrong way around. There is a massive money interest in proving they do NOT cause harm makes more sense.

 

[cheapchips]

I think you've either slipped a word or you've got it the wrong way around. There is a massive money interest in proving they do NOT cause harm makes more sense.

No, unusually for my dyslexic brain that was an intentionally missing word.

Proven cell phone harm would mean lawsuits that would absolutely rake in the cash.

 

[green.pixel]

So what we have is a tension between various capital industries, lawyer industry vs. smartphone industry.

 

[Pixel]

Lets think critically about this concept. Lets look at the pharmaceutical industry and the idea the "money interests who aim to expose the pharmaceutical industry are as large or larger than the resources spent by the industry itself on self preservation".

The public would never have known about Vioxx terrible side effects including causing death, unless a doctor during a trial leaked info to the press, which cost him his career and hundreds of thousands in fines. He later had to publicly appologize for leaking the fact Vioxx killed people.

So where was the financial "powers that be" that are funding research on drugs to counter falsified results from pharmaceutical industry funded studies. I think that should give you a litmus test on the finances available for class action lawsuits and -non pharmaeutical industry funded studies compared to pharmaceutical industry funded studies and lobbying. Also look at the FDA a revolving door of industry execs who go onto regulate the very industry they worked for, and after their tenure in the FDA they go right back into industry positions. Why are there no class action trial lawyers or anti pharma whistleblowers or crusaders/critics in the FDA?

Where were the anti plastics industry money interests in what should have been under this concept/pretext a goldmine from BPA xenoestrogen exposure cases from plastics including baby products? The data was sitting in decades of academic research, and additinal lawsuit fodder in that industry research showed conclusively polar opposite falsified results. Instead it was a collaboration between universities, PBS and Washington post through investigative research that exposed this industry corruption. And since then there have been no massive class action lawsuits or "money interests" that have reaped from the exposure of the realities of BPA. There has just been a gradual industry shift away from BPA containing consumer food related products, though its still used heavily in industrial commercial products.

 

[green.pixel]

Looks like BPA altenatives are just as troubling.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-problem-with-bpa-free-alternatives-are-just-as-troubling/

 

[cheapchips]

With BPA in particular, proving harm to an individual beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law from say, a Tommy Tippy cup, is impossible. If cell phone harm manifests in the same background way the yes, my moneyed interest view doesnt play.

The current pronouncements by people claiming harm from phones put you in the realm of direct provable harm to individuals. That's where I coming from with my litigious viewpoint.

Cell phone use is nothing like a drug company acting like arseholes during a trial either. The raft of studies, stats and physics of mobile phone use aren't the manufacturers' data to cover up or skew (for the most part).

I can understand public health cover-up viewpoints, given this has happened and will happen again. Feels like reaching to me at present though