Everything gives you cancer ...

[Glaucus]

Those idiots who think wi-fi makes them sick are also the ones that think NASA is a waste of money and also are happy about this: A crazy judge throws out Obama's stem-cell policy—and Bush's

"Compassionate conservatism" has been overtaken by the Tea Party. El sueno Americano has given way to anti-immigrant fever. The "war on terror" has degenerated into a backlash against American Muslims. Now, even Bush's stem-cell policy has been overturned as too permissive.

The stem-cell ruling, issued Monday by U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, says that federal funding of research using cells derived from destroyed embryos violates federal law. Pro-lifers are ecstatic. "Court Strikes Down Obama Administration Stem Cell Policy," crows Americans United for Life. "A stinging rebuke to the Obama Administration," gloats the Family Research Council. A defeat for "the Obama administration's rabid and unscientific fixation" on embryo destruction, says the American Life League.

Seems like the US insists on not being a leader in stem cell research.

 

[faethor]

What I find interesting in this exchange is the law is squarely blamed on Obama. This law has been in place since the Clinton administration. It's finally come to pass in the courts. Even the more restrictive action of the Bush administration is struck down by this ruling. But hey blame Obama is you believe it'll give you purchase.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Unfortunately it seems the religious kooks are winning. For example -- Simcoe County school district in Ontario, Canada built a new Wi-Fi network last year. This year parents want them to pull it out for fear of making their kids sick. -- What the heck?!

Remember when radium water was good for you? Remember when smoking cleared your airways? Asbestos was a wonder material that would save you money.

Technologies have up sides and downsides. The Romans did fantastically well for themselves with lead plumbing (it would be redundant to say "lead plumbing" to a Roman - plumbum being the Latin for lead) but they did pay a price too.

Flying in a jet airliner subjects you to more radiation than staying on the ground - the increased risk of cancer is small but the time savings are enormous.

Wireless radiation isn't completely benign. It dumps energy into your body. We don't really know what effects the current power-levels and frequencies have but the infrastructure is incredibly useful (like old time X-rays) so the trade off seems worthwhile.

There are serious minded people who aren't convinced that the current technology is safe. While there is general agreement that the thermal effects of this radiation is fairly low except perhaps with cell phones, other experiments have demonstrated harmonic effects on cells including interference with and modulation of ion channels and resonant effects that cause segments of DNA to separate.

Just because it's "science based" doesn't automatically make it safe.

 

[cecilia]

Just because it's "science based" doesn't automatically make it safe.

no, but science, as you well know, is self correcting.

they tend not to stay stuck too long on silly ideas.

unlike religions and other fairy based notions

it's silly to have "faith" in science. But a common sense appreciation of it's value to technology is fine.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

no, but science, as you well know, is self correcting.

they tend not to stay stuck too long on silly ideas.

Yes, science IS self correcting. It can take generations to correct itself (well, OK, it's a series of approximations towards a useful description so "correct" isn't probably the right word to use).

However, business has even more inertia than science. With scientists you have to convince individuals to give up models and ideas that they may be very attached to, perhaps because they have invested considerable years or prestige in. Business has much more to lose if the science on which it it based turns out to be incorrect - or if new science contraindicates a lucrative technology.

What we use and put our hands on and depend on day to day is not science but technology usually built and provided with a profit motive. Science is something much less material. People keep making the mistaken assumption that science is the driving force behind technology. Science is just a means to technology. What actually drives technology is human desires.

 

[cecilia]

What we use and put our hands on and depend on day to day is not science but technology usually built and provided with a profit motive. Science is something much less material. People keep making the mistaken assumption that science is the driving force behind technology. Science is just a means to technology. What actually drives technology is human desires.

I completely agree

 

[Glaucus]

There are serious minded people who aren't convinced that the current technology is safe. While there is general agreement that the thermal effects of this radiation is fairly low except perhaps with cell phones, other experiments have demonstrated harmonic effects on cells including interference with and modulation of ion channels and resonant effects that cause segments of DNA to separate.

It's true, we tend to operate under the premise that it's safe until proven otherwise. Interestingly, even things that are proven to be unsafe are still used by people, example: cigarettes and all that junk food people stuff down their throats. Fact is, all these risks are part of a huge race condition: will they kill you before you die of old age? Just as it's important that we identify anything that posses a major risk to our health, it's also important we don't over inflate minor health risks. No level of mercury is considered safe, yet we consume it every time we eat tuna. A single can of tuna has more mercury then the H1N1 flu shot, yet everyone went hysterical about the H1N1 shot. So yes there are risks, but we need to be realistic about how threatening those risks really are.

 

[faethor]

No level of mercury is considered safe, yet we consume it every time we eat tuna. A single can of tuna has more mercury then the H1N1 flu shot, yet everyone went hysterical about the H1N1 shot. So yes there are risks, but we need to be realistic about how threatening those risks really are.

Add to that the types of mecury are different. Ethylmercury, in the flu shoot for example, has been found not to accumulate in the body.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Well, yes, actually
WiFi DOES give you cancer.

And it's been known since the 60s that microwaves have biological effects even when they don't have thermal effects. Research has shown that microwave emission limits should be lowered substantially except when that research has been sponsored by the mobile phone industry and the military. It's kind of like tobacco research.

The difference between mobile communications and cigarettes is that cigarettes aren't nearly as useful. If you can get twice as much done in your lifetime using mobile communications but it shaves 20% off your lifespan you are still ahead by quite a lot. On the other hand, if it's addling your brain and giving your kids uneven numbers of limbs then the trade-off calculation may be a bit different.

 

[Glaucus]

That's an interesting article. The author makes some interesting claims, using "preliminary" findings from the Interphone study where cell phones can increase your risk of brain tumors by as much as 40%. No link to this was provided. However, the Interphone study has since been published, and guess what? Nothing at all about a 40% increase in brain tumors, in fact, quite the opposite. From this wikipedia entry we see that study found no conclusive link between cancer and cell phones:

The following studies of long time exposure have been published:

* The 13 nation INTERPHONE project - the largest study of its kind ever undertaken - has now been published and did not find a solid link with mobile phones and brain tumours.

The International Journal of Epidemiology published [19] a combined data analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.

The authors reported the following conclusion:

Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

In the press release[dead link] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:

An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

So we're still at square one: need more research. Of course this doesn't mean cell phones are harmless, but we still can't say it's been proven that they do cause damage.

Now, for my own comments on the matter. cell phone technology has changed in the past decade or so. Analog communications are pretty much no longer used, many phones don't even have an analog radio built in any more. The analog radios used a much stronger signal (which is why digital phones get better battery life). The Interphone study focused on digital transmissions, so it's quite possible that analog cell phones are in fact dangerous and may explain some high occurrences of brain tumors from early adopters ten or so years ago (although that's just speculation on my part, I'm not sure if it was ever proven that there ever was a spike in brain tumors ever).

We're also getting to the point where every jurisdiction is banning cell phone use while driving. Some jurisdictions however still allow using the phone so long as you're using a hands free device like a bluetooth ear piece. Bluetooth uses significantly less power then your cell phone, further reducing the radiation exposure. If bluetooth continue to gain popularity, and it probably will to some extent, that too would mitigate radiation exposure overall.

One more thing. The article also claims there's a link between cell phones and sperm counts in males due to the fact that most men keep the phones in their pockets. Considering the phone doesn't transmit much when not being used as a phone, I find it hard to believe there's a link here. So I have to say I call bullshit on that.

NCI Statement: International Study Shows No Increased Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use

Interphone, an international collaboration, and the largest study of its kind to date, reported that overall, cell phone users have no increased risk of two of the most common forms of brain cancer -- glioma and meningioma. Furthermore, there was no evidence of risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or time since the start of the use of cell phones. However, for the small proportion of study participants who used cell phones the most – measured as cumulative call time over their lifetime – there was a suggestion of increased risk of glioma, though the authors call this finding inconclusive. The study was published online May 17, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

 

[faethor]

This reminds me of the time I attempted to get a co-worker to understand why answering and talking on the cellphone is not going to blow you up while filling your car with gas.

 

[cecilia]

This reminds me of the time I attempted to get a co-worker to understand why answering and talking on the cellphone is not going to blow you up while filling your car with gas.

haha!
people like that should be removed from the gene pool (by their own dumb actions)

don't bother warning them. you'll be doing everyone a favor

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

This reminds me of the time I attempted to get a co-worker to understand why answering and talking on the cellphone is not going to blow you up while filling your car with gas.

Consider:

You are filling your car (and you have to hold the pump because the handy dandy lock that they used to have has been removed or disabled) and your phone rings. You answer your phone and the current draw increases, but you have a dodgy battery. As you talk you phone gets very hot and starts venting. It burns your hand or your ear and you jump and drop it but at the same time you jump you withdraw the pump from the gas-hole and you spill fuel all over your legs and feet. The dropped phone by now is "venting with flame" and you are F'd*

*Where F is "flambe".

Extremely unlikely but not impossible.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes, that would burn you badly, but that would still not "blow you up". So faethor was right! :roflmao:

 

[faethor]

@Fluffy

Yes say you have a bad batter and the phone explodes in your pocket while you're leaning against the car and some of the flash goes into the tank. I'd bet static shock from the car to pump has a more likely occurance than the exploding phone.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fluffy

Yes say you have a bad batter and the phone explodes in your pocket while you're leaning against the car and some of the flash goes into the tank. I'd bet static shock from the car to pump has a more likely occurance than the exploding phone.

I've had static from the pump handle to the fuel port. It was a little unnerving, but fortunately not exploding.

 

[faethor]

Ohio court rules rBST milk is worse and has more cancer causing agents as non-horomally treated cow milk. LINK

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just a data point (otherwise known as a datum).

 

[Glaucus]

Just a data point (otherwise known as a datum).

That's interesting, but the data here actually makes the case against the link between wifi and dead trees:

In the Netherlands, about 70 per cent of all trees in urban areas show the same symptoms, compared with only 10 per cent five years ago, the study found.

Cordless phones, baby monitors, remote controlled toys and microwaves also operate in this same frequency, and analog phones tend to use a stronger signal then digital signals do. They've been around for longer then 5 years so the researchers would need to explain the differences with wifi here.

Also, the study seems to have placed a wifi source only inches from a tree, where as in reality most trees on a street would be on the outer edge of the wifi coverage (wifi coverage is measures in feet, low double digits).

Honestly I'm skeptical about wifi radiation killing tress. One of the main reasons is this: Chernobyl: Green shoots in a disaster zone. If anything, I'd expect them to do better with the extra radiation.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

One of the main reasons is this: Chernobyl: Green shoots in a disaster zone.

I think I've read something on that before. On the other hand it seems that radiation of this kind is very bad for animals. Perhaps having to worry about animals less is among the things that are good for plants.

If anything, I'd expect them to do better with the extra radiation.

Ah, but what radiation are we talking about. Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation have been a part of the environment since there was an environment. Microwaves, not so much.