General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

30. Sorry but that's a disingenuous line of rebuttal.

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:44 PM

Jun 2016

I don't necessarily think cell phones can cause cancer but your point is the same as that of Reagan back when he denied there was anything like climate change to worry about: "Trees put out more CO2 than humans." Remember that? But the point that was lost on him was that human activity contributes even MORE CO2 than already provided by nature.

Same thing with your argument. Just because the Sun puts out more non-ionizing radiation does not mean our exposing ourselves to more is meaningless.

Although I understand the point about non-ionizing radiation being, for the most part at least, harmless by its very definition. I'm just quibbling over the idea that a bulk source of something is not proof that more is automatically safe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

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