Author Topic: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?  (Read 18417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2021, 06:31:56 pm »
...
How you can burn down a metal tower?

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.
I challenge anyone to burn a metal tower and post a picture.  :bullshit:

I'm not about to commit a felony to prove a point, but there are certainly cases where the flammable materials adorning metal towers have caught fire and caused the tower to collapse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-14168281
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_transmitting_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendstation_Smilde#Fire_and_collapse

 

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1076
  • Country: de
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2021, 11:35:29 am »
Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.

This.

But.

It seems like 3G / 4G / 5G (and won't we have 6G soon?) will bring to light serious mental issues in a lot of people. Most likely the same people believing in getting chipped by their doctor and frequent buyers of tinfoil hats (because of government control rays).

 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2021, 06:59:19 pm »
Correct me if I am wrong.  As I understand it, with the penetration issue right now, you would need a "tower" in every room to get 5G in every room.

So, I think we are going to get stuck between 4G+/5G- for a while.  With full 5G having such issues with penetrating barriers such as walls and windows, we would need a lot of minor changes and advancements to occur between 5G- and full 5G.

I think we may get to the point where we have 5G to buildings, and mini-cells of 4G-LTE for that immediate area at full speed and stuck there for a long while.  Or, lower the frequency (thus lowering the bandwidth) to enhance the penetration while keeping some of the other 5G features.  So we have 5G-- or 5G--- or 5G----.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 07:02:01 pm by Rick Law »
 

Online thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6273
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2021, 08:29:28 pm »
Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.

That is assuming nothing else is causing cancer rates to decrease over that period of time. If you look at very specific types of brain cancer, where you'd expect to see effects, they have been going up: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118305462?via%3Dihub
But as the author says, unlikely to be causal. and as you say, much worse risks out there exist (distracted driving).

Still doesn't mean it should not be investigated.

Correct me if I am wrong.  As I understand it, with the penetration issue right now, you would need a "tower" in every room to get 5G in every room.

So, I think we are going to get stuck between 4G+/5G- for a while.  With full 5G having such issues with penetrating barriers such as walls and windows, we would need a lot of minor changes and advancements to occur between 5G- and full 5G.

I think we may get to the point where we have 5G to buildings, and mini-cells of 4G-LTE for that immediate area at full speed and stuck there for a long while.  Or, lower the frequency (thus lowering the bandwidth) to enhance the penetration while keeping some of the other 5G features.  So we have 5G-- or 5G--- or 5G----.

Should have just stuck with 3G support, good range, lower power consumption, and decent enough bandwidth for most IOT applications.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2021, 10:21:56 pm »
Should have just stuck with 3G support, good range, lower power consumption, and decent enough bandwidth for most IOT applications.
As was said by all the users of 2G at the time it was switched off, fit for purpose and better suited for wide area lower data communication than 3G. Progression to ever high data rate densities (within the same bandwidth, the "expensive bit" that is bureaucratically limited) basically mandates smaller cells/poorer range...

which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14297
  • Country: fr
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2021, 08:39:12 pm »
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #56 on: October 14, 2021, 09:10:58 pm »
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.
... lowers TX power of the handset. The bit that people are pressing themselves against and the majority of the exposure.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14297
  • Country: fr
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #57 on: October 14, 2021, 11:46:40 pm »
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.
... lowers TX power of the handset. The bit that people are pressing themselves against and the majority of the exposure.

Ah, yeah. I was thinking of the base stations. For which I have figures. I mentioned them because they definitely have a much lower TX power.

But as to the cell phones, I admit I have no figures as far as TX power is concerned. Which is why I omitted this part.
Do you have any? Of course that would highly depend on how close you are to a base station, which should be relatively close if you are in a well-equipped big city, and not that close otherwise... Of course the same is true for 3G and 4G, and admittedly more problematic as there couldn't be as many base stations even in large cities, but I'd be curious to see real figures depending on use cases.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 11:48:43 pm by SiliconWizard »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2021, 11:55:03 pm »
Isn't the penetration much lower for high frequencies too? I'm not an RF guy, or a biologist, but I know higher frequencies tend to be more attenuated by walls and such. Other than by heating, I just don't see how modest amounts of RF can interact with the body.
 

Offline borjam

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Country: es
  • EA2EKH
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #59 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!

It is complete nonsense spewed without any proof nor even hints. Just because.

And if radio frequency was harmful we would be dead long ago. There is a lot of RF energy everywhere since the mid 20th century.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ed.Kloonk

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #60 on: October 15, 2021, 01:39:08 pm »
Once the frequency gets high enough, such as far UV and x rays, the radiation causes ionization and thereby does cause cancer.
Below ionization, EM radiation has only been shown to have thermal effects on humans;  if focused or too strong, the thermal effects can be harmful (e.g., cataract formation).
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, newbrain

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #61 on: October 16, 2021, 01:34:30 am »
Which brings to mind...

With a vibrant sun-screen lotion/oil market out there, may be a new industry will begin...  5G lotion.

Here is how an ad for 5G lotion may be like:
You protect yourself when you go to the beach and you go there only weekends - but you are blasted by 5G all day!  Doesn't it make sense to take the same care?  Send $19.95, and we will ship you our unscented 5G lotion.  For a mere $10 more, you can smell like a rose all day long as you protect yourself all day long.  Send your money now while supplies last...

Call now!  Shipping and handling extra.
 

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1076
  • Country: de
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #62 on: October 16, 2021, 08:05:54 am »
Wouldn't it be much easier and more protective to just dip your smartphone into anti-5G lotion?
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4643
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #63 on: October 16, 2021, 08:48:54 am »
Wouldn't it be much easier and more protective to just dip your smartphone into anti-5G lotion?

That won't stop those focused beams of mind-control energy from the cell towers
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 
The following users thanked this post: newbrain

Offline newbrain

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1714
  • Country: se
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #64 on: October 18, 2021, 09:13:35 am »
[5G+ 5G- etc.]
Please, do not conflate 5G with "mmwave" technology, there's no need to invent special terminology (after all, we are on a technical forum).

5G, initially defined for the Radio Access Technology (5G NR - new radio) in 3GPP Release 15 (2017 IIRC),  uses a number of frequency bands.
Many bands overlap/are the same as previous technologies, then there is FR2 "Frequency range 2" with bands ~24 to ~52 GHz, mmwave.

In Europe, as an example, some countries are freeing bands  currently used by DVB in the 700 MHz range for 5G deployments.

The changes in 5G are in the modulation - not a great technology leap, still OFDM (orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing) as in 4G - which has been optimized and in many other RAT related details, allowing for lower latencies, higher throughput, special use cases etc.

So much so that the radio HW of many vendors can be upgraded to 5G "just" with a SW update, some vendors' radio can even multiplex 4G and 5G in the same spectrum with tens of ms granularity, to serve different generations user equipments.

Of course, the ultra high speeds can only be achieved in the higher bands and it must be said that the USA is, as of my last check, the country where most of the mmwave deployment is being done.
Nandemo wa shiranai wa yo, shitteru koto dake.
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2021, 11:02:05 am »
If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!


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.
iratus parum formica
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #66 on: October 18, 2021, 05:13:57 pm »
[5G+ 5G- etc.]
Please, do not conflate 5G with "mmwave" technology, there's no need to invent special terminology (after all, we are on a technical forum).
...
...

Not intended as a "formal" terminology, but intended to mock their calling everything 5G these days.  I have two flip phones each from different carriers and both are calling their phone 5G compliant, but it really is 4G+LTE+VoLTE (HD).  So "5G---" is mocking them: less this, less that and less also something else, but we are calling it 5G anyway.

They will call a lawnmower an airplane if it help them sell more.  Our attachment to properly describe an implementation is observably not shared by the Marketing departments, thus the mocking.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5170
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #67 on: October 18, 2021, 05:41:33 pm »
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
2.  Could be postural changes associated with holding cell phones.
3.  Could be more brain activity in speech centers
4.  Could be RF
5.  Could be chemical
6.  Could be thermal
7.  Could be any of the other magnetic or electrical leakage from the phone.
8.  Could be bacterial or viral due to changes in the environment around the ear.

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, Haenk

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3423
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #68 on: October 18, 2021, 06:04:45 pm »
...
...
But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Besides what CatalinaWOW wrote in the last reply, which I entirely agreed...  another thing is typically this zero risk crowd would also ignore the total cost of avoiding such tiny risk.

It is often said: "If it saves one life, it would be worth it!"  Really?   The same cost, if deployed on other more meaning factors might have saved hundreds.

If the entire cost is paid by the risk-barer, that is the person's own choice; but cost is rarely entirely covered by an individual.  Even if the risk is say for example hiking.  While you pay for the trip yourself, if injured, your injury affects others insurance rates and tax rates -- someone has to paid for the rescue when bad things happen, and your injury will affect insurance rate calculation for your age group.  Taken as a whole, the resource to avoid one risk must be judged by comparing to other meaningful things.

EDITed:  Initial click was done by mistake and had to re-edit to finish editing.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2021, 06:11:21 pm by Rick Law »
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1076
  • Country: de
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2021, 06:15:05 pm »
That's just these damn statistical problem - a gazillion of factors which might or might not influence very rare occurances.
IMHO if it is not statistical provable by rather easy means, it's safe enough for general use. (Based on modern testing methods, of course.)
Life is risky, every action does add a bit to the overall risk. One should ignore that for very minor risks, for ones own mental health...
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4643
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2021, 07:16:04 pm »
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.



Correlation is not causation. This is fairly a basic principle of statistics.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2021, 07:29:11 pm »
When I have seen alarmist discussions of geographic clusters of rare cancers, I have never seen a statistical estimate of the probability of such a concentrated cluster (area and population) expected from the general incidence of the disease and the number of randomly-occurring clusters to be expected in a large area (e.g., a State).
 

Online thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6273
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2021, 11:08:27 pm »
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Literally no one is screaming bloody murder in this thread. It is a discussion between people claiming it has zero risk, and people claiming it has some low amount of risk.
The article is far more extreme in its views and suggestions than anyone here.

Quote
All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.
No, unless you are going to put forth the effort to provide studies to back their credibility.
eg if it were chemical, you'd see an increase in skin cancer not brain cancer, which is not seen. If it were bacterial, you'd see the same occurrences in cordless phone use, which is not seen.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/311044
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5170
  • Country: us
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2021, 12:34:10 am »
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Literally no one is screaming bloody murder in this thread. It is a discussion between people claiming it has zero risk, and people claiming it has some low amount of risk.
The article is far more extreme in its views and suggestions than anyone here.

Quote
All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.
No, unless you are going to put forth the effort to provide studies to back their credibility.
eg if it were chemical, you'd see an increase in skin cancer not brain cancer, which is not seen. If it were bacterial, you'd see the same occurrences in cordless phone use, which is not seen.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/311044

I agree.  The discussion here has been reasonable and mostly fact based. 

I disagree on credibility.  As far as I know there are no studies which have identified a causal path.  And the correlation is not yet firmly established.  There are contradictory studies and even in the confirming studies the signal is small.  Chemical pathways do not affect all organs identically, and until a particular pathway is studied and either proved or disproved the possibility is low, but not zero.  Same thing with bacterial/viral pathways.  Patterns of use with cordless phones are not similar to cell phone use (but are more similar than corded phones).  And I am unaware of studies of the impact of cordless phones.  They haven't made the news. 

If I were in a position of funding studies on this problem I would have some difficulty ranking them.  Hopefully the proposals would have much more detail than the concepts I threw out and would provide more information to decide upon.  But unless someone came up with a really credible proposal I would not dump large amounts in any direction, hoping that cautious and broad investment would provide more information on appropriate direction for further studies.
 

Offline borjam

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Country: es
  • EA2EKH
Re: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2021, 06:10:48 am »
So, let's accept that those particular frequency bands are especially dangerous because, well, they tickle spermatozoids or whatnot.

Weren't they dangerous when they were used for high power, in the order of KW, television transmissions? Antennophobiacs tend to think that "those frequencies were invented for cell phone use" or some equivalent bullshit.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf