|
cowboyro
Premium Member
2011-Oct-24 8:58 am
Comprehension failBeing unable to find a noticeable link and finding no link are two different things. That doesn't mean that there is a link, it doesn't mean there is no link either. It just means that based on N years of data they were unable to find a link. Come to think about it, exposure to asbestos only shows effects 10-40 years later. |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2011-Oct-24 9:28 am
Fifteen YearsIt is an interesting study but as noted in another post, fifteen years is not a long time to evaluate cancer risks. Cancer can take decades to start from initial exposure to a carcinogen. My own father died of bladder cancer at age 75. He was a professor of chemistry and was for decades exposed to many organic chemicals including benzene and carbon tetrachloride. They were identified in the 1970's as carcinogens and exposure was reduced at that time. However, one can assume the genetic damage was already done and it took two decades for the diseases to surface. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
sometimes it surfaces and sometimes it doesn't.
I probably stand alone here but I think the world population could use a little culling now that we have had a good hundred years of over abundance in most of the free world. |
|
|
Corporate Propaganda?But George Noory had a man on the Coast to Coast show who claimed that the study was funded by Denmark's biggest cellphone company. Not sure how reliable that is, will keep an open mind until I know exactly where this report came from. |
|
neftv join:2000-10-01 Broomall, PA |
neftv
Member
2011-Oct-24 10:39 am
wowwhat else are they going to say? Any report that would say there is a link the Cell phone business will be dead. Couple years back a health program I watched on a Greek channel from Greece said there was a link to cancer based on a combination of university studies from USA and Europe. You don't know what to believe from Media anymore with the games they play. |
|
|
ughhcomeon
Anon
2011-Oct-24 10:40 am
Hello?RF radiation is non-ionizing, it does not damage DNA and the strongest effect is warming by friction. If you think this is what causes the cancer then please by all means stop going outside as the sun warms you much more and will kill you!!!! |
|
|
to ArrayList
Re: Fifteen YearsWell, you could always lead by example. |
|
|
HappyAnarchy
Anon
2011-Oct-24 11:40 am
Wrong thingI sincerely doubt that cel phones are causing the trouble - far more likely the increase in cancer rates are caused by a combination of poorer nutrition, various chemicals and drugs put in our food before it gets to our plate - whether animal or vegetable. Add a healthy dose of chronic stress from being overworked and underpaid and you end up with poor health. |
|
firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
to cowboyro
Re: Comprehension failsaid by cowboyro:Being unable to find a noticeable link and finding no link are two different things. That doesn't mean that there is a link, it doesn't mean there is no link either. It just means that based on N years of data they were unable to find a link. Come to think about it, exposure to asbestos only shows effects 10-40 years later. Seems they just couldn't put cell phones above the noise of anything else that can cause cancer that a person is regularly exposed to. One side has billions of dollars at stake, the other side has their own health at risk so history says the dollars take precedent. I guess it also divides people by those who blindly trust and those who understand that trust was lost or never there to begin with. |
|
NJxxxJon2 0 1 7 Mmm Here We go man! Premium Member join:2005-10-22 |
NJxxxJon
Premium Member
2011-Oct-24 12:07 pm
BallsMy balls seem to be the same...so nope - my droid makes me cancer freeeeeeeeee yes! |
|
|
CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF. Premium Member join:2004-11-12 |
CableTool
Premium Member
2011-Oct-24 12:37 pm
Thank GOD!Thank GOD this new study refutes the old study until the next study that will refute this study!!
Great News!!! |
|
cairo3 join:2006-03-07 Camden, NY |
cairo3
Member
2011-Oct-24 1:15 pm
Please standbyHams knows the joy of RF burns. You're cooked then later you realize that you are cooked. In 20 years we will see the effects in the courthouse. It will be a lawyer's field day.
Anybody that says putting RF to an inch from your brain is safe is irresponsible. |
|
slckusr Premium Member join:2003-03-17 Greenville, SC |
slckusr
Premium Member
2011-Oct-24 1:37 pm
Cancer or notCell phones emit electrical signals, our body is like a big bioelectrical device, it only makes sense that our little devices could cause the cancer trigger in some people due to the increased exposure to the energy waves. (water is after all an awesome conductor). The same could be said about all the rf signals being pumped though our body on a daily basis ( computers, wifi, microwaves, etc...) |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Ga Dawg
Re: Fifteen YearsI take my chances the same as anyone else. Not going to be a fool and do what I have to to get cancer. |
|
JammerMan79 Premium Member join:2004-05-13 Prince George, BC |
This won't change any opinionsThis study won't change any opinions... The people who believe that cell's cause cancer will simply say this doesn't mean anything.... When someone believes something, regardless of fact or evidence, you'll never be able to change their mind |
|
|
to slckusr
Re: Cancer or notsaid by slckusr:Cell phones emit electrical signals, our body is like a big bioelectrical device, it only makes sense that our little devices could cause the cancer trigger in some people due to the increased exposure to the energy waves. Extremely low energy. If RF from cell phones has any effect on health, it is likely far less than the hundreds of other carcinogenic agents we are exposed to on a daily basis such as carbon/nitrogen monoxide from gas/diesel engines, airborne heavy metals from coal plants and incinerators, airborne radioactive isotopes, etc. Funny thing about all those cellphone doomsday paranoids is that the majority are more worried about 10-40W cell towers emitting at frequencies that can barely get through skin than 200-3000 kW (5000-300000X more powerful) TV/FM antennas that go through almost anything including their bodies. |
|
|
TheMG Premium Member join:2007-09-04 Canada MikroTik RB450G Cisco DPC3008 Cisco SPA112
|
to ughhcomeon
Re: Hello?Indeed, few people actually think of sunlight as being harmful, which it is. The sun emits quite a bit of nasty stuff from UV rays to xrays, gamma rays, and beyond! The most harmful being the UV rays since they are present at much greater levels. All of that is ionizing radiation.
How many of those who believe cell phones cause cancer step outside on a sunny day without any sunscreen lotion? I'm willing to bet quite a few.
A few hours in the sun with no sunscreen lotion probably increases your cancer risk by a lot more than a lifetime's worth of cellphone usage (that's assuming cellphone microwave radiation has any effect at all whatsoever). |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to JammerMan79
Re: This won't change any opinionssaid by JammerMan79:When someone believes something, regardless of fact or evidence, you'll never be able to change their mind Amen. Around here's it's especially bad. |
|
19579823 (banned)An Awesome Dude join:2003-08-04 |
to n2jtx
Of course they would say this....
THIS IS MSM GARBAGE,thier main goal is to keep people UNAWARE OF THINGS!!!!!! |
|
a1_Andy Premium Member join:2005-12-29 Oshawa, ON |
to Gnarlodious
Re: Corporate Propaganda?Yes and that Cellphone company would not allow data in un covered areas (areas without towers) to be entered into the data. lol |
|