Products > Dodgy Technology

Do cellphones actually give you cancer?

<< < (16/18) > >>

Cyberdragon:

--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on October 18, 2021, 11:02:05 am ---
--- Quote from: borjam on October 15, 2021, 07:07:59 am ---If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!


--- End quote ---

As someone who inhabits the wrong part of the planet in terms of my own complexion, I beg to differ. UV light that is contained in all visible light, unless filtered out, does indeed cause cancer. One of my nation's biggest killers. More deadly than koalas.

--- End quote ---

All visable light has UV? What? LEDs are causing cancer now?

I think you meant sunlight there.

borjam:

--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on October 18, 2021, 11:02:05 am ---As someone who inhabits the wrong part of the planet in terms of my own complexion, I beg to differ. UV light that is contained in all visible light, unless filtered out, does indeed cause cancer. One of my nation's biggest killers. More deadly than koalas.

--- End quote ---
Not at all.

Visble light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV is insible so obviously it is not visible light.

You are talking about light sources, and there is a world of difference between them. Good old tungsten incandescent bulbs emit very little UV because glass filters it out. Halogen lights are worse because the bulb is made of quartz.

Now, LEDs? Sodium vapor lights? No.

perieanuo:
hi,
that's like the cases in France country-side, where dozen babies are born without arms, there are studies but non-concludent (i'm talking about government studies after those medical issues appeared in mass-media). people blamed pesticides, other people suggested radiation minerals.
anyway, on those subjects regarding cancer from aliments or radio products, all studies will be 'not concludent'
i'm not conspirationist, but a pattern forms here, it's called capitalism stupidity.
of course chemicals have side effects, radio too, some organisms are more susceptible then another.
can we officially talk about this. NO, we are bad seeds by just asking the questions. the state doesn't do his feedback role, it's compromised, conclusion for sincere scientist from top-labs are censored.
do you think, if you can buy 100 euros device to move your muscle without your neural network to give the impulses, that radio is absolutely non-invasive? my answer is categorically no.
i worked almost 5 years as radio support engineer, had 'radio cash bonus'. i don't have medical issues on this side, i guess my body is not that sensitive to this. others are, i had colleagues with headache when exposed longer than 2-3 hours near relays in vhf. but my oppinion, higher the freq, we approach wavelengths close to our internal ones.
even for lower ones, that's a reason fences are around big power transmitters in simply AM relays. people died by not shutting down the transmitter before entering the perimeter. yes, it's not cancer they cicked the bucket, the idea is that we are affected by radiation (Am ~1MHz is just one example i know personally].
saying any radio receiver (powerfull enough, like anything that could harm us) is not affecting us is just pure ignorance

salihkanber:
I think there is not enough evidence to prove that, but the question is why "not enough evidence" ?

thm_w:

--- Quote from: borjam on October 19, 2021, 06:59:33 am ---Not at all.

Visble light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV is insible so obviously it is not visible light.

You are talking about light sources, and there is a world of difference between them. Good old tungsten incandescent bulbs emit very little UV because glass filters it out. Halogen lights are worse because the bulb is made of quartz.

Now, LEDs? Sodium vapor lights? No.

--- End quote ---

Try staring into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJkEfGiv00

 8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version