>News article
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/possible-cellphone-link-cancer-rat-study-launches-new-debate-n581621
>Official study PDF
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf
Thoughts?
Everything that is either electronic or emits rays of light "causes" cancer
>>54769495
Oh my god, your ear area is warmer after holding a warm object and blocking air flow around it for 15 minutes?
>>54769566
My first thought as well
Oh no, they put a warm brick to their face!
CANCER!
e males, the team concluded.
"I SUSPECT THAT THIS EXPERIMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERPOWERED AND THAT THE FEW POSITIVE RESULTS FOUND REFLECT FALSE POSITIVE FINDINGS."
Did you even read it nigga
>>54769495
By this logic every finnish person would have cancer.
>>54769495
>current year
>using your phone to make calls
Get a load of this guy!
>>54769566
>>54769588
also, thermography as a diagnostic tool for anything more than warmth has been discredited since the 1980s
this doesn't mean radiation from a cellphone does not cause problems, but thermography wouldn't be diagnostic of anything
>>54769495
okay ive seen this horseshit circulate the internet enough
the wavelengths that your phone uses to communicate wirelessly are bigger (lower energy/ less cancerous) than the wavelengths of visible light. both are wavelengths of light. if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post
>parents believe clickbait articles about cellphone causing cancer
>try to point out flaws and skepticism in study and in article
>"of course they're going to say those things, they always do when something is bad"
>tell them cellphones wouldn't be sold if such claims are true
>"well they sell cigarettes and that causes cancer"
>>54769604
This.
If I wanted to make calls, I'd get a landline or something.
>>54769629
>implying 4chan isnt cancer
>exposed mice through gestation and childhood for NINE HOURS A DAY EVERY DAY
>at a level of energy starting at 1.6W/kg and peaking at 6W per kg of tissue
Are you fucking kidding me, real routers transmit on the order of milliwatts, the energy exposure to humans isn't even comparable to background radiation from cosmic rays and shit not to mention that microwaves do not ionize.
This is research into extremely high powered microwave's effects on tissue, not wifi.
>>54769629
>if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post
/g/ isn't cancer, go to /pol/ or /v/ if you want that
not this thread again
Radiofrequency energy, unlikeionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (6–8).
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
>>54769707
Non ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
>>54769674
They are right.
>>54769727
Explain.
>>54769674
Parents, particularly baby boomers, will never accept defeat from their children, just let them be ignorant.
>>54769727
No it can't you dumbass. Heat generated from a non-ionizing source can cause cancer as concentrated heat can damage cells.
This isn't a problem because phones output about 1w of energy at worst. Old cellphones used to output more than that which caused a slight increase in contracting cancer. Now with our low power phones you're as likely to get cancer from non-ionizing radiation as you are from water
>go outside
>get skin cancer
THANKS OBAMA
>>54769566
Do that for long time and the cells in those areas will mutate at a much higher rate. Thus cancer.
>>54769831
3G phones are allowed a maximum of 500mW of transmit power. If we assume your average human head weighs about 5kg, then holding a phone to your ear would produce energy absorption of 100mW/kg at absolute max. The maximum value is completely unrealistic but lets roll with it.
100mW/kg is still 60 times smaller than the amount used in the paper, and you're only holding your phone to your head for a timescale of minutes, not 9 hours a day.
The results are meaningless and it's just like a crappy news site to vaguely mention that "power levels are far above safe limits for humans" in a single sentence 3/4 into the article.
>>54769878
Pretty much, look at all these young girls doing porn. Their faces and upper chests look like dimpled leather handbags before they turn 25 while everything else from the boobs down is smooth. Too much unprotected sun exposure.
>>54769888
better don't sleep on your side then
>>54769786
>>54769831
>Some forms of nonionizing radiation can damage tissues if we are exposedtoo much. For instance, too much ultraviolet (UV) light from lying out in the sun is known to cause some skin cancers; even moderate amounts can cause skin burns.
>>54769674
They aren't wrong, and your argument is bad.
But, you can make an analogy to cigarettes that is less bad:
We know cigarettes are bad because of the increased frequency with which smokers get respiratory cancer when compared to non-smokers. We should then expect that there would be an increased rate of face/brain cancer on the side that cellphone users hold their phone up to. This may be difficult as most people are cellphone users. You could poll for minutes spoken, and for handedness. You would expect that cancer rates would increase with minutes spoken and that cancer location would change with handedness.
I don't think we are seeing that increased incidence.
>>54769933
Thats normal scenario. Cellphones high temp radiation from exotic metals are artificial.
>>54769716
>/v/ and /pol/'s personal smartphone, gaming and "coding" blog
>not cancer
???
>>54769495
There are studies about literally everything, that's what studies are for, to prove something that they want to prove specifically. There are studies that show how praying cures cancer and how bee stings make you live longer, studies don't mean shit.
Time to curl up in a pitch dark faraday cage encased room to avoid all forms of radiation I guess
>4chan
>/g/ unequivocally but particularly /sci/
>into science
>ever
the article clearly isn't discussing about some temperature increases in your ear but the instances of neoplasms and lesions in the heart albeit the findings seem to be insignificant since they're blasting the rats with lots of RF power.
ps: get a load of those guys thinking ionising the tissues is the only way to induce tumors or the background microwave radiation is comparable to the radiated power density of their mobile phones, let alone higher.
>>54769947
>high temp radiation from exotic metals
lel thanks for the laugh
>>54769495
>Thermal imaging
Your stove gives you cancer.
Your heating system gives you cancer.
Your car gives you cancer.
Your pets give you cancer.
Your hands give you cancer.
>>54769935
Thank you captain, we aren't talking about UV radiation though.
>>54769495
Is that Tim Heidecker?
>>54769981
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
CHOP ALL UNNECESSARY RADIATORS OFF!
>>54769935
UV and phone microwaves aren't close to comparable in terms of energy level or danger because UV reacts with organic molecules (e.g collagen in your skin) and causes them to break down.
Microwaves just cause your cells to get hot, and you need a level of energy hundreds of thousands of times higher than phones can produce to come close to making that effect.
>>54769495
>2016
>still using your phone to make calls
I'm always use a handset :^)
THAT'S ONLY IN RATS, IT DOESN'T COUNT
>>54770160
*headset ffs
> Move jaw muscles for 15 minutes
> Cheek gets warmer
Phone=Cancer
>Put highly stressed Taiwanese space heater/phone cpu on face for 15mn
>Cheek gets warmer
Phone=Cancer
>Put mouse in microwave
>Dies
Phones=Cancer
>Actually good science, not drawing conclusions on real-world situation
>Media does so anyway
Phones=Cancer
> Soviet-era 20MW world wide transmitting radio antennas have been proven unhealthy
>Phone is also spooky signal and radiation stuff
Phone=Cancer
>>54769707
1.6W/kg is in the order of milliwatt for mice because their weight is in the order of millikilograms
If you actually read the study there were no use of thermal imageing. But they used way more powerfull radiation than in phones/wifi, and even the reviewer says that there is no statistical corelation.
>>54769992
Yes. He's the one who performed this study
>>54769970
Smartphone use all types of exotic metals.
>http://news.yale.edu/2013/12/02/metals-smartphone-age-no-plan-b
The smartphones can go well over 50-60c with little use. With average body temp being 37C, the 20C extra could very well be deadly to the cells.
>>54769495
i also wrap my microwave in tinfoil to avoid cancerous microwave waves
>>54770199
Well, they did do a bit with the Cino Fone.
>they don't use speaker phone
senpai, it's like you want toasty ears
>>54770195
>eat food for 30 minutes
Smoking=Cancer
>run for 30 minutes
Smoking=Cancer
>lift weight for an hour
Smoking=Cancer
ITS A LIE. LIE MEANT TO MAKE YOU STOP SMOKING. DON'T BELIEV ETHEM.
>>54769629
>if phones give you cancer than so does reading this post
My CRT monitor I'm reading this with produces small amounts of X-rays. Some of them probably slip through the leaded glass, and over the course of many years of sitting two/three feet away for 16 hours a day I've probably been exposed to quite a bit of X-ray radiation. So, it's possible that reading your post has contributed to some future cancer I may get.
well I guess I'm dropping everything and going full Amish
>>54770399
the real question is how long have you stood at the backside of any crt monitor throughout your life
I think almost fucking everything has been linked to cancer in one way or another.
>>54769495
>A giant U.S. study meant to help decide whether cellphones cause cancer is coming back with confusing results.
>[...] even the rats that developed tumors lived longer than rats not exposed to the radiation.
>The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, is still analyzing the findings.
>What they do not show is whether humans are at any risk from using cellphones, or whether using a headset or keeping them away from the head and body might make a difference.
>Brain tumors are rare. [...] And there has not been an increase in rates since the 1990s, when cellphones started to be used.
OP, please explain to me how this source indicates that “cellphone induces cancer”.
>>54769674
>>tell them cellphones wouldn't be sold if such claims are true
>>"well they sell cigarettes and that causes cancer"
Wow anon, you got kind of BTFO.
>>54770527
>"A low incidence of malignant gliomas" was seen in male rats exposed to the GSM signals.
Low incidence.
>>54769566
I don't know what kind of shit phone you use if it earts like that. Probably some chinkdroid.
P-value seems a bit low. Interesting though
>>54769552
It doesn't. Only rays starting at a certain wavelength can cause cell mutations
>ionizing radiation
Microwaves are not ionizing, they just heat. That's why radar can cause cataract. it cooks away your cornea
>>54769935
UV is ionizing you dumbass. At least the type that causes cancer
>>54770221
Guess we'd better not take hot showers then, eh?
>>54769716
This post really made me think, I am now a #cruzmissile
>>54769716
this thread is unquestionably cancer in its purest form
>>54769674
>roasted by his own parents
You had one job anon. Top fucking kek.
>>54769495
daily reminder there are public beaches with more natural radiation than chernobyl or fukashima has
one of them is Brazil
>>54769707
>1.6W/kg and peaking at 6W per kg of tissue
lel, your average wifi router tops out around 0.1W (100mW) total output
>>54770804
let's just calculate this for an adult at ~85kg
that's 136-510W
And that's only in the direction of the adult. Since most antennas radiate in a spherical manner, you'd have to multiply this by a few times. Assuming 1 adult uses 30° of the full circle, the router would need to put out 1.6-6.2kW output to cover the full circle
good. the earlier I die the better
>>54769604
This. And if i make a call i'm using my headphones with the mic because smartphones suck ass as actual phones. It's rare that i ever place the phone to my ear
That image shows that someone's head is warmer when they hold a warm brick next to their head
This shit will never go away, and if you want to stop using phones because of it, be my fucking guest. The less people you talk to the better.
>>54770195
>millikilograms
>study literally cooks mice for 9 hours a day and is surprised when they don't like it
Why do people even do these studies
>>54770925
>Why do people even do these studies
confirmation bias?
>>54770649
>tfw you wash your hands and it gives you cancer
>>54770925
but they did like it. lmao.
>At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.
Phones emit no ionizing radiation. At best, they emit microwaves, of the kind that you'd need 50 phones strapped to your head for ten hours to cause any tissue damage.
A phone is no more likely to give you cancer than sun bathing, but you don't hear normalfags campaign against going to the beach.
>>54769495
So...Does this mean that people who liver closer to the equator are more at risk for cancer? Given they're more than 15 degrees hotter than many places for very long periods of time? That image makes no sense, and provides zero evidence.
Also, the study itself even says the few positive results reflect false positives.
>>54769495
Does sauna cause cancer then?
>>54770642
http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-introduction/types-of-radiation/non-ionizing-radiation.html
>>54771047
>A phone is no more likely to give you cancer than sun bathing
Misleading.
Number of cancers caused by sun bathing (in the UK alone) every year: 14,500.
Number of cancers caused by phones every year (in the world) every year:
0.
The difference is significant.
>>54771132
"Some UV waves have an energy that is high enough to cause a structural change within atoms."
These are the UV waves that are ionizing. read it up on wikipedia. It say that some UV waves are ionizing, others arent (im talking about the specific wavelengths)
>>54771144
But... that's what I said. It's not more likely. It's significantly less likely in fact.
>>54771166
ALso, "damage tissues" doesn't mean that it changes the cells, it kills the cell. It's like burning your skin. Cancer develops because of mutations and they occur because of ionization of molecules.
>>54769674
You got served, son.
>>54771166
And no UV comes from phones, except that reflected from the sun.
>>54770925
To establish bounds on radiation safety.
Just knowing that current radiation levels are safe is not as useful as knowing how much radiation *would* still be safe.
To establish that, you have to keep increasing the strength until you get negative effects, and then note down how much radiation you needed.
>>54769495
I'm finnish and I still don't have cancer.
OP BTFO
>>54771181
This is why I said 'misleading' and not 'wrong'.
Your criteria means that phones could cause anywhere between 0 and 14,500 cancers.
This is misleading.
>>54771183
It ionises DNA and generally messes up cell replication processes, causing copying errors. If enough copying errors happen and the error correction mechanisms fail, cancer might happen.
Listen, retards. Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer.
To cause cancer, you must degrade DNA by knocking off a few electrons or whole atoms of it in random places. To do this with electromagnetic radiation, you need to have photons with a minimum energy level of 12 to14 eV. Photons near microwave frequencies have 10 neV, eight whole magnitudes less than what causes cancer.
What microwaves CAN do is excite any polar molecule, such as water, causing them to align with the positive and negative charges of the wave, spinning them. This causes heat, it's how your kitchen microwave works.
Your cellphone operates at amplitudes several magnitudes less than your kitchen microwave.
In short, if microwaves from cellphones cause cancer, so does walking into a warmer than average room in your house.
>>54771003
Under rated
>>54771291
EVERYTHING causes cancer, stop trying to play down the seriousness here.
Who do you work for?
>>54770611
It doesn't because you don't think it does? Right?
Don't worry most normies think like you, usually because of pride and arrogance.
>>54771286
ionization is never mentioned. I read it up on WP now, apparently there is some controversy because non-ionizing UV can still somehow "non-thermally" damage tissue, but it also doesn't mention ionization. But apparently the consensus says that radiation levels low enough not to cause thermal damage also can't cause other hazards (non-thermal)
>>54770582
Red != Pain. It doesn't even mean anything remotely hot.
>>54771320
It doesn't because it doesn't! Ionization requires ionizing radiation!
>>54771331
I'll just go touch this red hot stove then
>>54771324
Non ionising and non thermally conductive radiation does one thing: It passes straight through.
Non ionising means it literally doesn't affect DNA molecules.
Thermal interactions heat up cells and DNA and cause damage that way, which can result in cancer but only very, very rarely. Like you'd have to have a cell that could survive getting cooked first.
>>54771291
It's a proven fact browsing 4chan from a cellphone can cause cancer.
>>54770582
Red is 30C. Green is like 20C.
Your ear becomes a temperature close to that of your armpits when you hold a warm brick to the side of your face for 15 minutes.
>>54771369
exactly
>>54771310
>stop trying to play down the seriousness here
There's nothing serious about it. If it was, you'd realize you are currently bathing in all forms of electromagnetic radiation right now and have a panic attack.
Does your computer monitor cause cancer? Wireless router? FM radio stations? What about the billions of photons on all wavelengths (except those so graciously blocked by our atmosphere and magnetosphere) traveling through you right now from the sun? Been in a brick building or walk over tile today? You've absorbed some alpha radiation today!
I work for a credit bureau.
>>54771380
>It's a proven fact browsing 4chan can cause cancer.
Fix'd
>>54771411
>I work for a credit bureau.
I need say no more.
>>54771345
holy shit
>>54771513
You caught me. I want to kill you with cancer so that you're dead and can't rack up more debt, because that benefits me somehow.
>>54771291
Yes it can retard.
http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-introduction/types-of-radiation/non-ionizing-radiation.html
>>54769495
First, the study and the graphic are two different things. The study was done on rats.
Second, the findings are vague; "Potentially preneoplastic lesions were also observed in the brain and heart of male rats exposed to RFR"
Third, independent reviewers found the results mostly inconclusive and statistically insignificant.
Sum up, the results are inconclusive.
>>54771582
That article says UV light is non-ionizing. UV light photons are 12.4 to 13 eV, which is an ionizing energy level.
Who's the retard?
>>54769831
There is no such thing as non-ionizing radiation, its a buzz word.
The energy released from radiation in a cellphone can ionize, it has more than enough energy to ionize, valence electrons don't require a specific amount of radiation to be released i.e. ionizing radiation is a fucking meme.
>>54770649
There are no exotic metal right next to your face when you take shower.
Radiation doesn't come from just the heat, but rather the radiation from those metals that seep into your skins and cells.
>>54771582
You should actually read it before you post it. It's specifically talking about UV radiation which is on the opposite side of the spectrum from radio/microwave and is much higher energy.
>>54771625
will you fucktard ever understand quantum physics?
>>54771639
Except UV radiation can correctly be called both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because those words don't actually mean anything without context.
Jesus if cellphones cause cancer I must have super cancer since I use a radar gun with a significantly higher output power.
Should I see a doctor?
>>54771625
Dear lord help me, I'm responding to a tripfag.
>valence electrons don't require a specific amount of radiation to be released
Prove it and win a nobel prize or three, because you've shattered a multitude of fundamental understandings of physics with this statement.
>>54771683
The threshold is different for each molecule because they already contain energy. You fucking moron.
>>54771610
So you're saying the article is wrong?
>>54771639
Which can still be non ionizing.
>>54771625
>it has more than enough energy to ionize
And what energy level is that, exactly?
>>54771706
There isn't one, that was my entire point.
>>54771683
>>54771649
Stop it, this guy is an idiot of the highest calibre or a troll. I'm all for tripfriends, Falcon has done this board a great service. This muppet, on the other hand, is what has given them a bad reputation.
>>54771698
yes, but there is a minimum (for the atom that needs the least amount of energy) and it isn't overcome by microwaves.
>>54771682
What town so I can avoid?
>>54771730
Hardly, facilitation of ionization can be effected with any level of energy in a complex biological system.
>>54771698
But that's not what you said, you fucking moron.
>valence electrons don't require a specific amount of radiation to be released
Here's a list of every element and their *specific* ionizing energy requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)
>>54771723
sorry for responsing to the fucktard 1sec after you posted your comment :P
>>54771682
you're a cop so you're already brain dead.
>>54771701
The article says UV isn't ionizing. Not only is it wrong, it's young earth creationist level wrong.
>>54771749
Do you think every valence electron starts at the same energy level? Basically you are too stupid for common sense.
>>54771759
Don't cut yourself with that edge.
>>54771718
But there is
>>54771749
You'll notice microwaves are on the scale of nano-electronvolts and that literally zero elements will ionize at this level of energy.
>>54771779
a tiny part of the UV spectrum is nonionizing, but that part doesnt cancer you
>>54771784
every valence electron of a certain orbit and a certain element has the same "starting energy". THAT'S HOW THEY KEEP THEIR ORBIT!
>implying I dont want to get cancer and die
what website do you think you just posted on
>>54771806
>tiny
>more than half
>organic material wicks up microwave radiation like a sponge wicks up water
>cell phones emit microwave radiation
>cell phones are typically used next to a person's head
>a person's head is made up of organic material
You don't have to be a fucking rocket scientist to understand this basic principle. It might not be a LOT of radiation but it IS radiation and it IS being wicked up by our organic material so it DOES do damage - the issue is how much damage and whether or not it builds up over time with repeated dosing.
No study is ever going to be able to prove it with any degree of absolute certainty but again the basic principle is a scientific fact.
>people don't realize this shit
>the iPhone 4 failed miserably because Apple put metal antennas emitting microwave radiation directly into physical contact with our fingers aka organic material
>people wondered why the god damned phone was such a piece of shit
>stupid Apple engineers thinking they could disobey the laws of physics and microwave transmission
>boy what a clusterfuck that was
>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all
>>54770221
>exotic metals
most phones have exteriors made out of mostly glass and plastic
>>54771823
Well 1. electrons don't "orbit"
and 2. Valence electrons don't require specific additional energy to break free
So your entire argument is retarded.
>>54770195
>millikilograms
do you mean grams
>>54771888
>Valence electrons don't require specific additional energy to break free
Yes they do, that's what the WP article was about: The specific energies needed to break them free from their respective shell
>Ultraviolet is classified into near, medium and far UV according to energy, where near and medium ultraviolet are technically non-ionizing, but where all UV wavelengths can cause photochemical reactions that to some extent mimic ionization (including DNA damage and carcinogenesis).
>>54771914
Except you don't know the specific energy required to break free of any of the godamn atoms in your face which is my entire point.
There is some kind of physical disconnect in what you think you know and what you actually understand that no amount of arguing is going to fix.
>>54771822
>>54771784
You're tolling hard, but for the benefit of everyone else, electrons of a given valence shell have the same energy level. Lower valence shells have lower energy levels. This property actually has a lot to do with what electrons are preferentially ionized in an atom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_principle
>>54769495
>Place head on pillow
>Pillow causes same effect after 15 minutes
>Pillows cause Cancer
>>54771941
In other news 1 is lower than 2.
Durrr
>>54771934
the margin from non-ionizing to ionizing might depend on the atom, but the dangerous radiations are already magnitudes higher in wavelength than needed to ionize my "face-atoms"
Yes, the margin is blurred, obviously, since the face is not a homogenous block of iron, but it is irrelevant because microwaves are magnitudes below the required wavelength and gamma radiation is magnitudes higher than needed.
>>54771967
>it is irrelevant
Not when you are arguing with a bored asshole.
>>54771806
Yes it does. See
>>54771919
>>54771984
you are basically arguing that we can't know the EXACT wavelength that will "cancer our face". But this is irrelevant because all radiation we use (microwave, xray etc) are far beyond or below the limits needed for ionization
>>54771992
>limits needed for ionization
No they aren't.
You are using a flawed argument.
>>54771869
Are they radiation proof?
>>54771823
protip: electron "orbits" are made up and don't exist in real life
>>54771291
Yes it can. See
>>54771919
>>54772010
no, then they couldn't radiate radio waves
>>54769495
Who the fuck still uses a cell phone to call people?
>>54769495
>there has not been an increase in rates since the 1990s, when cellphones started to be used.
stopped reading there
>not using speaker mode when using cellphones
>wanting headcancer
>>54772016
everything we know about subatomic stuff is made up and just serves as a model to explain the physics behind it
>>54772032
people who do useful things
>>54772017
This guy is only kind of right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer
"Non-ionizing" UV light causes cancer because it has a high enough energy level to excite certain chemical bonds, but it is only able to do this because it is close to the minimum energy level required to ionize.
Microwaves are 10e-8 the energy level of UV, ionization is impossible at those levels.
>>54772101
thank you
>>54772101
Fun fact: Some levels of visible light can also cause cancer. Browsing 4chan is literally more cancerous than making a phone call.
>>54771470
>>It's a proven fact cancer can cause browsing 4chan
fixed
>>54771626
so if i put my head on iron from africa, on scale qt3.14 to banana how soon ill get cancer?
> being this dumb
Today I learned some of /g/ knows nothing about cancer
Killing cells ≠ cancer. Heating your face with a somewhat warm device for several minutes isn't going to kill any significant number of cells. By that logic hot showers/saunas are cancerous.
Cancer is an abnormal growth in your body which cannot be controlled and needs to be killed. One way of doing this is extreme directed radiation (chemo). Phones don't generate anywhere near the amount of radiation needed to kill cancer, and it's not even directed.
Making your face somewhat warm isn't that. Fuck off /g/ and Google shit before jumping at the chance to make a new thread.
If you really want to be a freedumb-esque tinfoil hat wearer then wear headphones while making a call or use Bluetooth. Or just text. There's a ton of ways to communicate.
>tfw i sleep with my phone under my pillow every night to listen to asmr videos
>>54769495
>rats exposed to cellphone radiation had longer life spans
sounds like a good thing senpai, time to top up desu
>>54772370
why did you censor the names of a ribbit post?
>>54769495
>Call
lel, I just use my phone for whatsapp and kikebook. I can live with hand cancer
>>54772482
>One way of doing this is extreme directed radiation (chemo).
Chemo is.chemo and radiation is radiation. Get your shit right. Otherwise I approve everything else you said. Stupid tinfoil hatters
>>54772482
>Bluetooth
Also microwaves, and therefore CANCER
>>54772547
Not me. Downloaded it this way
>>54772482
>One way of doing this is extreme directed radiation (chemo)
>Today I learned some of /g/ knows nothing about cancer
>>54772533
Sauce?
>>54769495
This just in holding hot object to your face will cause an increase in temperature to sed face.
>>54772482
>use Bluetooth
>being this retarded
>>54771626
You're a potato what thinks it's a brainiac.
>>54772482
>Chemo is radiation
>Increase in temperature doesn't increase your chances of getting cancer
Your and idiot kill you'reself
>>54772584
Chemo involves injecting radioactive isotopes near the tumors.
>>54772595
the pdf
>>54772595
>Posts in thread about study without reading the study
You are what is wrong with society.
>heat causes cancer
what a study
>>54772679
He just confused radioherapy and chemotherapy. And no, radioactive isotopes aren't injected in chemotherapy, it's mostly enzymes or antimetabolits. Doctors wouldn't inject radioactive shit for several months in your bloodstream. Radiotherapy is used because it's very localized and you can just hit the tumor. With radioactive chemicals, all you'll get would be a risk of other cancers developing.
>>54772796
>Still feeding the troll
Why? Seriously why?!? How can you not realise that he's a troll? What is wrong with you? Do you really have to validate yourself by falling for such an obvious troll? Can't you take up an instrument or learn a language instead?
>>54769727
>Non ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Uh.. no.
>>54773070
Retard
>>54769495
good thing no one is ever calling me
>>54773147
>definition of retard: believing that low-power wavelengths as long as your forearm have enough energy to knock electrons out of orbit.
>>54769495
Good thing I don't talk to anyone on my smartphone.
>>54773228
Retard see
>>54771919
>>54769495
I always have finger lifting phone from my ear, I have no problem with warmth.
>>54773291
Don't go outside anon, your head might raise in temperature by 1 degree C like the rats in this study.
I got a rare form of cancer from browsing this site
>>54773500
But anon, you ARE the cancer!
I never make calls on me phone
If I do I i use headphones
Headphones don't cause cancer, right?
>>54773575
>Headphones don't cause cancer, right?
Everything causes cancer. Trust me, I got it from a good source.
>>54769723
>Actual answer with scientifically backed evidence from a reputable source
>Gets. Completely fucking ignored
>>54771957
Jesus Christ, how can you be this stupid? This is shit you learn in 10th grade. You haven't said anything about the previously mentioned post... I wonder why?
>>54773543
based on our trusty newsources everything causes cancer so with that logic it's safe to say everything is cancer
I think that's the same scientific approach media uses
>>54773672
>trusting the government
>>54769888
So if I take long, hot showers, I will have cancer everywhere?
>>54771144
>sun
>UK
>>54769495
>http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/possible-cellphone-link-cancer-rat-study-launches-new-debate-n581621
>thermal (heating) effects that can cause negative health effects
Yeah, whenever there is a particularly hot day in summer I get cancer.
>>54774241
You may be kidding, but I can tell you my skin gets wet and I'm more thirsty when it's hot. I should probably go to a doctor.
>>54774310
Meme science does exist.
"But female rats didn't, and even the rats that developed tumors lived longer than rats not exposed to the radiation."
>be human
>be on cell phone all the time
>develop tumor
>oh shit wat now?
>live to be 9,001
>cell phone tumors are special power
>like wolverine
X-Gene cell phone mutation when?
>>54774282
Do it. Your isn't worth the risk.
>>54773945
Yes of course. Look at black people. Hot temperatures in Africa turned an entire race of people into cancer.
>>54774510
kek
>>54769495
>>54769674
Seems like the parents have better reasoning than you.
>>54769566
>>54769588
>>54769618
>He doesn't know radiation is energy and can cause warming.
You do realize why people sweat like crazy when there are radiation leaks at nuclear power plants right? And it's not just from the fuck up.
>>54769674
Your parents fucked your little anus. Your reasoning sucks.
I have social anxiety, so when I've finished on the phone, I could probably kickstart the hydrogen fusion of a star with my face.
>>54771320
>It doesn't because you don't think it does? Right?
>
>Don't worry most normies think like you, usually because of pride and arrogance.
Yeah please go read up on Wave Length and Photon energy level... Radio wave does not have the energy to cause Ionization...
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT DOES? SUN LIGHT AKA U.V. light.
You ever notice how the people constantly tanned look like prunes at the age of 35 ;) ? that's why. U.V.
>>54774752
same here family
>>54773739
Don't cut yourself on that edge, kid.
Also, great argument, you DEFINETELY proves me wrong alright.
>>54774697
Of course, EM radiation can heat object, see the microwave.
However, the brain has lot of blood flow, and is thus able to dissapate a heat generated to other parts of the body.
>>54774921
I don't see how it's edgy. Government is made of people with their own agenda and interests. Of course you shouldn't trust people with such power. Tell me about those mass destruction weapons in Irak again?
>>54775003
Kid, there are non government citations on there, the national cancer society, and many other health organisations, you're just being an edgy faggot and entirely rejecting the argument simply because the fact that you don't like where it came from, get lost kid.
>>54774752
Crippling social anxiety here, my emotional segment shuts down rather than flare up.
Sorta lucky you can say, but at the same time, higher functions and all other shutdown leaving me a prone robot body until I recover an hour or so later.
>>54769935
>UV Light: 800 THz to 30 PHz
>Cell phones: 800MHz to 2600Mhz
wew its five orders of magnitude difference
>>54775097
There is no need to call me a "kid" to make your point, I'm probably older than you.
American government lied to its people, and the world, to legitimate a war. Lobbying is also a big thing in the USA. Not many countries consider pizzas a healthy vegetable. And companies like funding studies going their way, like tobacco lobbies and their studies. I don't see why phone manufacturers wouldn't try to keep it quiet if their product could be dangerous.
I'm not even the person you were calling edgy btw, and I agree with these scientific sources of national cancer association or whatever. But I think you're naive if you deny huge interests of lobbies and the possibility of lies by officials.
>>54775307
Brush, the problem is, there are NUMEROUS citations on there. the IARC, Interphone study group, here, just have a look at the sources on this page.
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phones
>>54775384
Yeah, I repeat : I agree with these scientific sources. It doesn't mean you should blindly trust a government on all matters or call somebody edgy because he doesn't trust it. You would probably gain persuasion in your arguments if you didn't insult or act aggressive. That's the edgy attitude.
*sheath katana*
Nothing personal, "kid".
>>54775384
>trusting the liberal universities
How many cellphones do I need to get cancer within 3 months? This is important please answer.
>>54775510
Oh jeez please not this meme again...
>>54769495
>"Thermal (heating) effects"
Wow, I better not take a shower
>>54769495
Must have called his wife
studies show breathing gives you cancer
fuck off with your disproved bait
>>54775619
LOL
