this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
381 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58535 readers
4289 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 65 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Great so maybe now the conspiracy morons will shutup about this.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

surely, since they're always up and up about scientific research and very receptive to it

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If evidence would change their minds it already would have

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn't mean there is categorically no link -- it could equally mean that more research is needed.

That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A series of null results is all we have regarding the hypothesis that winged monkeys can fly out of my arse as well, or the hypothesis that the pyramids were built by those same winged monkeys in exchange for pastrami sandwiches from Canters. Beyond a certain point, absence of evidence can be construed as evidence of absence, particularly when the test is specifically meant to detect a particular phenomenon.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn't categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It was still pretty out there. RF in these frequencies isn't new. Radar installations have been using them for decades before, and at far higher power levels than what comes out of any cell phone.

Not only that, but today's cell phones tend to use less output power than those old bricks from the '80s. If there were issues, we'd expect early adopters to be affected all the more, and there just wasn't anything there.

Could there be a difference in how the signal works between radar, analog phones, and digital phones that causes a problem? If it had, it would have been a big surprise. Still, there was a crack of possibility open, which is now sealed shut.

WHO uses the precautionary principle a little too hard sometimes. If it was carcinogenic at all, it'd be at a very small rate.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

All true, but that doesn't disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's absolutely not inherently wrong or implausible to assume that the constant and rather direct exposure over decades causes cancer.

Old timey radio operators definitely died earlier. They had much higher cancer rates. Granted, completely different levels of radiation, but radiation damage is stochastic. If there is an effect at all, it will cause thousands of new cases even low doses simply because we have like 7 billion phone users.

Doing proper studies on that is hard, but absolutely necessary.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Really I'm gonna need a source for that old timey radio claim. Because that sounds like it's made up and even if it's not, correlation does not mean causation.

There is no known mechanism for non ionizing radiation to have ANY effect on the human body or individual cells besides from a warming effect. And even the warming effect is quite small, there are normally a lot of other factors that have a way bigger effect on the temperature. See the Mythbusters episode where they tried to warm a chicken on a radar emitter. The turning of the radar cooled it down more than any warming from the radar did.

If there is any truth to claims that non ionizing radiation harms humans, physicists would be all over that. That would mean new physics in an area where there hasn't been any new stuff for a long time now.

But it turns out we understand it pretty well and see no mechanism for any harm to occur. In that context all of the studies that find no relation are meaningful. If there seems to be no relation and there isn't a mechanism to do anything, why would anybody think there is anything to find? Turns out it always comes down to FUD, to further some kind of an agenda.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Right? Like they're trying to equivocate and act like radio waves are this strange thing that science doesn't quite understand yet, when in reality they're unbelievably well-understood, and it'd be ridiculous to insinuate that radio waves passing through your body perturb it in any even remotely harmful way. The only reason this study had to exist is because of a bunch of psychotic quacks and grifters who say this kind of thing with zero evidence.

You would get more damaging radiation from the potassium-40 in a single banana than you would spending your entire life immersed in humanity's ocean of RF waves, and that's because a radio photon isn't fucking ionizing.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 17 points 1 month ago

Seems like most of them moved on to vaccines, election tampering, and flat earth. Other than the odd blurb about 5G (ignoring older generations and WiFi), I barely hear at all about cell phones causing cancer anymore. Used to be all over Reddit.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dream on, mate.

I've known people with basic scientific educations who still refuse to accept the fact that a few milliwatts of RF energy cannot ionize anything, let alone tweak your somatic DNA. If that did happen, broadcast radio and TV would be thousands of times more deadly, and I could make a death ray out of my home wifi box and a wok.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

and I could make a death ray out of my home wifi box and a wok.

I mean, you could. Do you happen to have a small nuclear reactor and about 400l of liquid helium?

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

this is not how conspiracy theories work. these start and end with need for feeling special for "having" some secret knowledge. it's all elaborated nicely if you have an hour of unnecessary time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Special knowledge that comes from media that millions of people are exposed to, in a form that any anonymous asshole can easily fabricate. Really fucking esoteric.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

No, they'll likely just attack the authors as being "in on it"

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You forgot to add the /s in the end...

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Knowing how their mind works, they’ll read some misleading headline, and then make it their “research” once again