General Discussion

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)

15. Even that seems unlikely, I mean, non-ionizing means its highly unlikely to interact with...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:54 PM

Jun 2016

any of the atoms in your body in any clinically significant way, unlike ionizing radiation which does so in various ways, especially in damaging DNA. I would hazard a guess that the chances of developing cancer from exposure to non-ionizing radiation is about as likely as developing cancer from exposure to neutrinos. Theoretically possible but difficult to trace.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer ... [View all] HuckleB Jun 2016 OP

But what of the rats StarTrombone Jun 2016 #1

Rats can't read warning labels Major Nikon Jun 2016 #6

Rats don't talk on cell phones meow2u3 Jun 2016 #17

Friggin' Luddites! HuckleB Jun 2016 #18

Good enough for the media to sensationalise. liberal N proud Jun 2016 #2

Unfortunately, that's part of our current knowledge/lack of knowledge problem. HuckleB Jun 2016 #3

And one of the more amusing things is that the full study won't be out for a few months... TreasonousBastard Jun 2016 #4

Exactly! HuckleB Jun 2016 #5

Sounds like someone's Sacred cow was attacked Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #7

How is that? HuckleB Jun 2016 #8

Must have held a mobile phone to the cows ear. Bonx Jun 2016 #10

Ah, indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #20

Because no one said it was proof so you seem defensive. randome Jun 2016 #29

So you didn't bother to note the hyperbolic headlines. HuckleB Jun 2016 #31

Yeah, well, carnival barkers have to bark, I guess. randome Jun 2016 #32

Which is the point of the OP. HuckleB Jun 2016 #33

No doubt Major Nikon Jun 2016 #9

Still trying to figure out how radio waves are sex selective, or how they damage cells in the ... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #11

If you were subjected to a very high level of even non-ionizing radiation for 9 hours per day... Major Nikon Jun 2016 #12

That's easy to do. Go out in the sun. backscatter712 Jun 2016 #14

Which also exposes you to ionizing radiation, which is the biggest part of the problem Major Nikon Jun 2016 #16

Sorry but that's a disingenuous line of rebuttal. randome Jun 2016 #30

Even that seems unlikely, I mean, non-ionizing means its highly unlikely to interact with... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #15

The problem is, rats are severely prone to cancer already. JesterCS Jun 2016 #13

No wonder it wasn't peer reviewed. GeorgeGist Jun 2016 #19

I'm worried about rats using cell phones in the first place. NV Whino Jun 2016 #21

There is a massive increase in rat head injuries due to cell phone distractions. HuckleB Jun 2016 #22

There otta be a law. NV Whino Jun 2016 #23

It's the reason the big carriers are throttling bandwidth. bluesbassman Jun 2016 #40

Dang it! HuckleB Jun 2016 #41

Cell phones have been around for about 20 years alarimer Jun 2016 #24

As you know, I generally disagree with you, but on this, I agree. closeupready Jun 2016 #25

. HuckleB Jun 2016 #42

Anyway, how did they make such tiny cell phones? The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #26

More importantly, what was their data plan and who was the carrier? randome Jun 2016 #35

Hopefully not Cricket. HuckleB Jun 2016 #37

We are constantly being bombarded by radio waves. immoderate Jun 2016 #27

Did they use human sized mobile phones or tiny rat sized mobile phones during the study? Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #28

I have never understood this urban legend, so where is the harmful radiation supposed to come from? Rex Jun 2016 #34

As you note, plausibility is probably the biggest issue. HuckleB Jun 2016 #36

This topic has been around since cell phones, why is it taking them so long to find the source Rex Jun 2016 #38

No, no, ... not THAT! HuckleB Jun 2016 #39