• Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
    33 replies, posted
[url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share[/url] [quote]Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health[/quote] I've always been incredibly sceptical about claims as to the harm of non-ionising radiation, but this is interesting.
Until they can explain how microwave penetrates past skin, flesh and bone into the brain I'll be passing all of this up as crap. Microwaves simply don't work that way.
Considering that none of the females where affected I'm gonna chalk it up as some outside factor influencing their study unless they can reproduce the results repeatedly. It doesn't sound right that radiation would effect them differently that drastically. Other scienteists where saying this on the news as well, unless they're shills or something.
[QUOTE=download;50407488]Until they can explain how microwave penetrates past skin, flesh and bone into the brain I'll be passing all of this up as crap. Microwaves simply don't work that way.[/QUOTE] I'm not a physicist, so I genuinely have to ask: why can't they penetrate past skin? I always thought they could.
Yeah, this flies in the face of other, peer-reviewed studies in the past that have shown quite definitely that it does nothing. More than likely the results of this will collapse under review.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;50407503]I'm not a physicist, so I genuinely have to ask: why can't they penetrate past skin? I always thought they could.[/QUOTE] Water and fat is almost completely opaque to microwaves.
[QUOTE]The results, which were posted on a [B]prepublication[/B] Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory[/QUOTE] I'm gonna assume that means it has yet to be peer reviewed - let's wait and see.
Don't you people see?! The microwaves makes the side of the head heat up! Of COURSE cancer will follow!
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;50407503]I'm not a physicist, so I genuinely have to ask: why can't they penetrate past skin? I always thought they could.[/QUOTE] Also, this opacity is due to only heating molecules, not ionizing them. Because the power of cell phones is negligible, this heating will also be nearly immeasurable. If there is an effect, it is first of all not ionization and second it will be too small. Claiming cellphone microwaves damage DNA by ionization is like claiming the flapping of bird's wings cause tornadoes.
It already is peer reviewed guys [QUOTE]The findings in this report were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by the NTP and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Lastly, the tumors in the brain and heart observed at low incidence in male rats exposed to GSM- and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR in this study are of a type similar to tumors observed in some epidemiology studies of cell phone use. These findings appear to support the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusions regarding the possible carcinogenic potential of RFR. [/QUOTE] It's a "prepublication" because these results are only a small part of what they found out, the rest just isn't peer reviewed yet.
I hardly understand how xrays need a high level of energy to penetrate the brain thoroughly. How can a non-ionizing form of radiation on the opposite side of the spectrum penetrate even our skin let alone cause damage
The journalistic integrity of Scientific American has been going downhill drastically over the last decade (probably longer, but I've only read it since I was in Year 10). To make such a clickbait style article regarding a journal article in pre-print that hasn't been properly peer reviewed is as ignorant as it is negligent; the scientific method requires peer review to corroborate the conclusions draw from near-identical test conditions. As has been mentioned above - the physics of light in the microwave frequency is negligible at best to human physiology on that scale.
From the report: [quote]"Exposures to RFR were initiated in utero beginning with the exposure of pregnant dams... All RF exposures were conducted over a period of approximately 18 hours using a continuous cycle of 10 minutes on (exposed) and 10 minutes off (not exposed), for a total daily exposure time of approximately 9 hours a day, 7 days/week."[/quote] Oh no! I've been using a phone for nine hours a day since I was a fetus, I'm bound to get cancer now!
We all die in the end anyway.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50409699]We all die in the end anyway.[/QUOTE] shitty reasoning for anything imo
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;50407503]I'm not a physicist, so I genuinely have to ask: why can't they penetrate past skin? I always thought they could.[/QUOTE] They said something about some wave lengths.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50408139]I hardly understand how xrays need a high level of energy to penetrate the brain thoroughly. How can a non-ionizing form of radiation on the opposite side of the spectrum penetrate even our skin let alone cause damage[/QUOTE] Less-ionising radiation is actually [b]more [/b]penetrating because it's less interactive; radiation particles lose energy and momentum with each ionising interaction. I think the opacity of water and fat to microwaves is due to those molecules having resonant modes excited by the frequencies of microwaves. This is why microwave ovens are great Faraday cages for WiFi - the frequencies which excite water the most also happen to be close to wifi b/g/n frequencies (although not sure about ac). Physicists please correct, I'm just an engineering student.
The main thing to remember is that we don't have the skulls OR brains of rats
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;50410351]This is why microwave ovens are great Faraday cages for WiFi - the frequencies which excite water the most also happen to be close to wifi b/g/n frequencies (although not sure about ac).[/QUOTE] Microwave ovens and 802.11b use nearly the same frequency, that's why so much interference. Microwave ovens are 2450 MHz while b channel 9 is 2452 MHz (Each channel is separated by 5 MHz).
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50410415]The main thing to remember is that we don't have the skulls OR brains of rats[/QUOTE] ...or at least most people don't. This belief that micro radiation causes cancer has been around since the 70's. Why can't this theory just get cancer and die off?
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;50410351]Less-ionising radiation is actually [b]more [/b]penetrating because it's less interactive; radiation particles lose energy and momentum with each ionising interaction. I think the opacity of water and fat to microwaves is due to those molecules having resonant modes excited by the frequencies of microwaves. This is why microwave ovens are great Faraday cages for WiFi - the frequencies which excite water the most also happen to be close to wifi b/g/n frequencies (although not sure about ac). Physicists please correct, I'm just an engineering student.[/QUOTE] I thought microwave heating was caused by the oscillation of water molecules rotating to align with the EM field generated by the microwaves themselves, it just so happens that the frequency of the oscillation is particularly efficient for those materials? Dunno if it's particularly a resonant mode, not that far into thermal physics (don't particularly enjoy it either) [editline]balls[/editline] Just looked it up, it Actually has nothing to with resonance. Apparently the resonant frequency of water is in the terahertz region. It's definitely from the rotation of the water molecules
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;50422391]I thought microwave heating was caused by the oscillation of water molecules rotating to align with the EM field generated by the microwaves themselves, it just so happens that the frequency of the oscillation is particularly efficient for those materials? Dunno if it's particularly a resonant mode, not that far into thermal physics (don't particularly enjoy it either) [editline]balls[/editline] Just looked it up, it Actually has nothing to with resonance. Apparently the resonant frequency of water is in the terahertz region. It's definitely from the rotation of the water molecules[/QUOTE] When you're talking about "resonant frequency" you have to be careful about what kind of transitions you're talking about: electronic transitions take place in the visible to UV, vibrational transitions in near infrared, and rotational transitions in the near microwave to far infrared. In liquid water, none of these are responsible for dielectric heating, instead it is interactions between the hydrogen bond network and the oscillating electric field that cause the absorption and subsequent heating. I myself am not familiar with how exactly this works, but the key experimental observation is that water absorbs a broad range of microwaves in the 5-100 GHz region, peaking at around 20 GHz.
Yep, for our 24ghz wireless radios at work we can get major issues on extremely humid days because the air moisture starts to fuck with the connection.
[QUOTE=download;50407488]Until they can explain how microwave penetrates past skin, flesh and bone into the brain I'll be passing all of this up as crap. [B]Microwaves simply don't work that way[/B].[/QUOTE] There's nothing simple about the interactions between EM radiation and cells. Many studies have shown there IS some effect, but it's not quite clear what effect it has yet. Either way, the [B]study even admits the groups exposed to EMR had a higher survival rate than the control group[/B]. The only statistically significant result is that the exposed rats had a higher incidence rate of brain lesions [editline]31st May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr Cow;50409616]From the report: Oh no! I've been using a phone for nine hours a day since I was a fetus, I'm bound to get cancer now![/QUOTE] Just because it's an extreme exposure level doesn't mean it should be ignored if it does turn out to be true...that's not how science works
Relevant [video=youtube;0Rnq1NpHdmw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw[/video]
[QUOTE=download;50407488]Until they can explain how microwave penetrates past skin, flesh and bone into the brain I'll be passing all of this up as crap. Microwaves simply don't work that way.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain that got proven with mircowaves in the 70's before they had the door ajar stoppers.
[QUOTE=Trumple;50426128]There's nothing simple about the interactions between EM radiation and cells. Many studies have shown there IS some effect, but it's not quite clear what effect it has yet. [/QUOTE] Doesn't matter. It doesn't work that way because microwaves can't penetrate deeply enough to interact with brain matter.
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;50410351]Less-ionising radiation is actually [b]more [/b]penetrating because it's less interactive; radiation particles lose energy and momentum with each ionising interaction. [/QUOTE] Visible light is a counter example. It really just depends on the energy of the photon and the absorption cross sections that depends on the energy levels of the matter it passes through.
Cellphones transmit at most at 2 watts. I'd be impressed if thats enough to penetrate the skin because cell towers transmit more powerful than that so at that point the cellphone wouldn't even matter.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50431241]Cellphones transmit at most at 2 watts. I'd be impressed if thats enough to penetrate the skin because cell towers transmit more powerful than that so at that point the cellphone wouldn't even matter.[/QUOTE] Even then the cell towers have a very low transmit power (compared to an FM or TV transmitter). Its usually around 40-50 watts compared to the latter's tens of thousands of watts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.