Study shows cellphone induces cancer

>News article
nbcnews.com/health/health-news/possible-cellphone-link-cancer-rat-study-launches-new-debate-n581621

>Official study PDF
biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
news.yale.edu/2013/12/02/metals-smartphone-age-no-plan-b
radiationanswers.org/radiation-introduction/types-of-radiation/non-ionizing-radiation.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Everything that is either electronic or emits rays of light "causes" cancer

Oh my god, your ear area is warmer after holding a warm object and blocking air flow around it for 15 minutes?

My first thought as well

Oh no, they put a warm brick to their face!

CANCER!

e males, the team concluded.

"I SUSPECT THAT THIS EXPERIMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERPOWERED AND THAT THE FEW POSITIVE RESULTS FOUND REFLECT FALSE POSITIVE FINDINGS."
Did you even read it nigga

By this logic every finnish person would have cancer.

>current year
>using your phone to make calls
Get a load of this guy!

also, thermography as a diagnostic tool for anything more than warmth has been discredited since the 1980s

this doesn't mean radiation from a cellphone does not cause problems, but thermography wouldn't be diagnostic of anything

okay ive seen this horseshit circulate the internet enough
the wavelengths that your phone uses to communicate wirelessly are bigger (lower energy/ less cancerous) than the wavelengths of visible light. both are wavelengths of light. if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post

>parents believe clickbait articles about cellphone causing cancer
>try to point out flaws and skepticism in study and in article
>"of course they're going to say those things, they always do when something is bad"
>tell them cellphones wouldn't be sold if such claims are true
>"well they sell cigarettes and that causes cancer"

This.
If I wanted to make calls, I'd get a landline or something.

>implying Sup Forums isnt cancer

>exposed mice through gestation and childhood for NINE HOURS A DAY EVERY DAY
>at a level of energy starting at 1.6W/kg and peaking at 6W per kg of tissue

Are you fucking kidding me, real routers transmit on the order of milliwatts, the energy exposure to humans isn't even comparable to background radiation from cosmic rays and shit not to mention that microwaves do not ionize.
This is research into extremely high powered microwave's effects on tissue, not wifi.

>if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post

Sup Forums isn't cancer, go to Sup Forums or Sup Forums if you want that

not this thread again

Radiofrequency energy, unlikeionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (6–8).

cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

Non ionizing radiation can cause cancer.

They are right.

Explain.

Parents, particularly baby boomers, will never accept defeat from their children, just let them be ignorant.

No it can't you dumbass. Heat generated from a non-ionizing source can cause cancer as concentrated heat can damage cells.

This isn't a problem because phones output about 1w of energy at worst. Old cellphones used to output more than that which caused a slight increase in contracting cancer. Now with our low power phones you're as likely to get cancer from non-ionizing radiation as you are from water

>go outside
>get skin cancer

THANKS OBAMA

Do that for long time and the cells in those areas will mutate at a much higher rate. Thus cancer.

3G phones are allowed a maximum of 500mW of transmit power. If we assume your average human head weighs about 5kg, then holding a phone to your ear would produce energy absorption of 100mW/kg at absolute max. The maximum value is completely unrealistic but lets roll with it.
100mW/kg is still 60 times smaller than the amount used in the paper, and you're only holding your phone to your head for a timescale of minutes, not 9 hours a day.

The results are meaningless and it's just like a crappy news site to vaguely mention that "power levels are far above safe limits for humans" in a single sentence 3/4 into the article.

Pretty much, look at all these young girls doing porn. Their faces and upper chests look like dimpled leather handbags before they turn 25 while everything else from the boobs down is smooth. Too much unprotected sun exposure.

better don't sleep on your side then

>Some forms of nonionizing radiation can damage tissues if we are exposedtoo much. For instance, too much ultraviolet (UV) light from lying out in the sun is known to cause some skin cancers; even moderate amounts can cause skin burns.

They aren't wrong, and your argument is bad.

But, you can make an analogy to cigarettes that is less bad:
We know cigarettes are bad because of the increased frequency with which smokers get respiratory cancer when compared to non-smokers. We should then expect that there would be an increased rate of face/brain cancer on the side that cellphone users hold their phone up to. This may be difficult as most people are cellphone users. You could poll for minutes spoken, and for handedness. You would expect that cancer rates would increase with minutes spoken and that cancer location would change with handedness.

I don't think we are seeing that increased incidence.

Thats normal scenario. Cellphones high temp radiation from exotic metals are artificial.

>Sup Forums and Sup Forums's personal smartphone, gaming and "coding" blog
>not cancer
???

There are studies about literally everything, that's what studies are for, to prove something that they want to prove specifically. There are studies that show how praying cures cancer and how bee stings make you live longer, studies don't mean shit.

Time to curl up in a pitch dark faraday cage encased room to avoid all forms of radiation I guess

>Sup Forums
>Sup Forums unequivocally but particularly /sci/
>into science
>ever

the article clearly isn't discussing about some temperature increases in your ear but the instances of neoplasms and lesions in the heart albeit the findings seem to be insignificant since they're blasting the rats with lots of RF power.

ps: get a load of those guys thinking ionising the tissues is the only way to induce tumors or the background microwave radiation is comparable to the radiated power density of their mobile phones, let alone higher.

>high temp radiation from exotic metals
lel thanks for the laugh

>Thermal imaging
Your stove gives you cancer.
Your heating system gives you cancer.
Your car gives you cancer.
Your pets give you cancer.
Your hands give you cancer.

Thank you captain, we aren't talking about UV radiation though.

Is that Tim Heidecker?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
CHOP ALL UNNECESSARY RADIATORS OFF!

UV and phone microwaves aren't close to comparable in terms of energy level or danger because UV reacts with organic molecules (e.g collagen in your skin) and causes them to break down.
Microwaves just cause your cells to get hot, and you need a level of energy hundreds of thousands of times higher than phones can produce to come close to making that effect.

>2016
>still using your phone to make calls

I'm always use a handset :^)

THAT'S ONLY IN RATS, IT DOESN'T COUNT

*headset ffs

> Move jaw muscles for 15 minutes
> Cheek gets warmer
Phone=Cancer

>Put highly stressed Taiwanese space heater/phone cpu on face for 15mn
>Cheek gets warmer
Phone=Cancer

>Put mouse in microwave
>Dies
Phones=Cancer

>Actually good science, not drawing conclusions on real-world situation
>Media does so anyway
Phones=Cancer

> Soviet-era 20MW world wide transmitting radio antennas have been proven unhealthy
>Phone is also spooky signal and radiation stuff
Phone=Cancer

1.6W/kg is in the order of milliwatt for mice because their weight is in the order of millikilograms

If you actually read the study there were no use of thermal imageing. But they used way more powerfull radiation than in phones/wifi, and even the reviewer says that there is no statistical corelation.

Yes. He's the one who performed this study

Smartphone use all types of exotic metals.

>news.yale.edu/2013/12/02/metals-smartphone-age-no-plan-b

The smartphones can go well over 50-60c with little use. With average body temp being 37C, the 20C extra could very well be deadly to the cells.

i also wrap my microwave in tinfoil to avoid cancerous microwave waves

Well, they did do a bit with the Cino Fone.

>they don't use speaker phone
senpai, it's like you want toasty ears

>eat food for 30 minutes
Smoking=Cancer

>run for 30 minutes
Smoking=Cancer

>lift weight for an hour
Smoking=Cancer


ITS A LIE. LIE MEANT TO MAKE YOU STOP SMOKING. DON'T BELIEV ETHEM.

>if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post
My CRT monitor I'm reading this with produces small amounts of X-rays. Some of them probably slip through the leaded glass, and over the course of many years of sitting two/three feet away for 16 hours a day I've probably been exposed to quite a bit of X-ray radiation. So, it's possible that reading your post has contributed to some future cancer I may get.

well I guess I'm dropping everything and going full Amish

the real question is how long have you stood at the backside of any crt monitor throughout your life

I think almost fucking everything has been linked to cancer in one way or another.

>A giant U.S. study meant to help decide whether cellphones cause cancer is coming back with confusing results.

>[...] even the rats that developed tumors lived longer than rats not exposed to the radiation.

>The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, is still analyzing the findings.

>What they do not show is whether humans are at any risk from using cellphones, or whether using a headset or keeping them away from the head and body might make a difference.

>Brain tumors are rare. [...] And there has not been an increase in rates since the 1990s, when cellphones started to be used.

OP, please explain to me how this source indicates that “cellphone induces cancer”.

>>tell them cellphones wouldn't be sold if such claims are true
>>"well they sell cigarettes and that causes cancer"
Wow user, you got kind of BTFO.

>"A low incidence of malignant gliomas" was seen in male rats exposed to the GSM signals.
Low incidence.

I don't know what kind of shit phone you use if it earts like that. Probably some chinkdroid.

P-value seems a bit low. Interesting though

It doesn't. Only rays starting at a certain wavelength can cause cell mutations
>ionizing radiation

Microwaves are not ionizing, they just heat. That's why radar can cause cataract. it cooks away your cornea

UV is ionizing you dumbass. At least the type that causes cancer

Guess we'd better not take hot showers then, eh?

This post really made me think, I am now a #cruzmissile

this thread is unquestionably cancer in its purest form

>roasted by his own parents
You had one job user. Top fucking kek.

daily reminder there are public beaches with more natural radiation than chernobyl or fukashima has

one of them is Brazil

>1.6W/kg and peaking at 6W per kg of tissue
lel, your average wifi router tops out around 0.1W (100mW) total output

let's just calculate this for an adult at ~85kg
that's 136-510W
And that's only in the direction of the adult. Since most antennas radiate in a spherical manner, you'd have to multiply this by a few times. Assuming 1 adult uses 30° of the full circle, the router would need to put out 1.6-6.2kW output to cover the full circle

good. the earlier I die the better

This. And if i make a call i'm using my headphones with the mic because smartphones suck ass as actual phones. It's rare that i ever place the phone to my ear

That image shows that someone's head is warmer when they hold a warm brick next to their head

This shit will never go away, and if you want to stop using phones because of it, be my fucking guest. The less people you talk to the better.

>millikilograms

>study literally cooks mice for 9 hours a day and is surprised when they don't like it

Why do people even do these studies

>Why do people even do these studies
confirmation bias?

>tfw you wash your hands and it gives you cancer

but they did like it. lmao.

>At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.

Phones emit no ionizing radiation. At best, they emit microwaves, of the kind that you'd need 50 phones strapped to your head for ten hours to cause any tissue damage.

A phone is no more likely to give you cancer than sun bathing, but you don't hear normalfags campaign against going to the beach.

So...Does this mean that people who liver closer to the equator are more at risk for cancer? Given they're more than 15 degrees hotter than many places for very long periods of time? That image makes no sense, and provides zero evidence.

Also, the study itself even says the few positive results reflect false positives.

Does sauna cause cancer then?

radiationanswers.org/radiation-introduction/types-of-radiation/non-ionizing-radiation.html

>A phone is no more likely to give you cancer than sun bathing
Misleading.
Number of cancers caused by sun bathing (in the UK alone) every year: 14,500.
Number of cancers caused by phones every year (in the world) every year:
0.

The difference is significant.

"Some UV waves have an energy that is high enough to cause a structural change within atoms."

These are the UV waves that are ionizing. read it up on wikipedia. It say that some UV waves are ionizing, others arent (im talking about the specific wavelengths)

But... that's what I said. It's not more likely. It's significantly less likely in fact.

ALso, "damage tissues" doesn't mean that it changes the cells, it kills the cell. It's like burning your skin. Cancer develops because of mutations and they occur because of ionization of molecules.

You got served, son.

And no UV comes from phones, except that reflected from the sun.

To establish bounds on radiation safety.

Just knowing that current radiation levels are safe is not as useful as knowing how much radiation *would* still be safe.

To establish that, you have to keep increasing the strength until you get negative effects, and then note down how much radiation you needed.

I'm finnish and I still don't have cancer.
OP BTFO

This is why I said 'misleading' and not 'wrong'.
Your criteria means that phones could cause anywhere between 0 and 14,500 cancers.

This is misleading.

It ionises DNA and generally messes up cell replication processes, causing copying errors. If enough copying errors happen and the error correction mechanisms fail, cancer might happen.

Listen, retards. Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer.

To cause cancer, you must degrade DNA by knocking off a few electrons or whole atoms of it in random places. To do this with electromagnetic radiation, you need to have photons with a minimum energy level of 12 to14 eV. Photons near microwave frequencies have 10 neV, eight whole magnitudes less than what causes cancer.

What microwaves CAN do is excite any polar molecule, such as water, causing them to align with the positive and negative charges of the wave, spinning them. This causes heat, it's how your kitchen microwave works.

Your cellphone operates at amplitudes several magnitudes less than your kitchen microwave.

In short, if microwaves from cellphones cause cancer, so does walking into a warmer than average room in your house.

Under rated

EVERYTHING causes cancer, stop trying to play down the seriousness here.

Who do you work for?

It doesn't because you don't think it does? Right?

Don't worry most normies think like you, usually because of pride and arrogance.

ionization is never mentioned. I read it up on WP now, apparently there is some controversy because non-ionizing UV can still somehow "non-thermally" damage tissue, but it also doesn't mention ionization. But apparently the consensus says that radiation levels low enough not to cause thermal damage also can't cause other hazards (non-thermal)

Red != Pain. It doesn't even mean anything remotely hot.

It doesn't because it doesn't! Ionization requires ionizing radiation!

I'll just go touch this red hot stove then

Non ionising and non thermally conductive radiation does one thing: It passes straight through.
Non ionising means it literally doesn't affect DNA molecules.
Thermal interactions heat up cells and DNA and cause damage that way, which can result in cancer but only very, very rarely. Like you'd have to have a cell that could survive getting cooked first.