General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

54. We're supposed to happily let woo replace science?

Fri Apr 13, 2012, 08:10 PM

Apr 2012

Do some good science to show it, and I'll happily listen to claims of danger from cell phones. The problem is the people claiming danger or ability to sense EM haven't done that.

The only indisputable truth we have regarding cancer is that we do not know what causes it, period.

We know exactly how a lot of cancers are caused. For example, mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. Not all of them, no, but lots of them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reminder: Cell phones do not cause cancer, nor do radio waves make you sick. [View all] TheWraith Apr 2012 OP

It's only what's ON the radio waves that makes one sick Ezlivin Apr 2012 #1

Radio waves carrying Rush Limbaugh have often made me vomit... rfranklin Apr 2012 #2

Radiohead for me. Vomiting within seconds of hearing Thom Yorke "sing" ANYTHING. Amerigo Vespucci Apr 2012 #47

+1 nt zappaman Apr 2012 #48

Heck, I should have been dead 30 years ago. Archae Apr 2012 #3

It probably depends on nebenaube Apr 2012 #4

I've got a lot of heavy metal in me guitar man Apr 2012 #30

Jury is not completely out with nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #5

*sigh* jeff47 Apr 2012 #10

I join you with your *sigh* zappaman Apr 2012 #13

Radiation from battery packages and a few other things nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #20

No, the statistics are already in. jeff47 Apr 2012 #25

Sure they are... why the WHO is still waiting for them nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #40

*double sigh* n/t zappaman Apr 2012 #43

LOL, digging youself into a fact free hole again? dionysus Apr 2012 #71

It's homeopathic EM radiation...nt SidDithers Apr 2012 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Apr 2012 #59

Yup... SidDithers Apr 2012 #64

Radiation from battery packages? Would you care to try that one again? TheWraith Apr 2012 #61

Tell you what, take the issue with the World Health Organization nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #63

Suffice it to say, zappaman Apr 2012 #22

Cell phones transmit the receive frequencies of the base station, while retread Apr 2012 #29

When talking about biological systems, the difference between 812MHz and 824MHz is irrelevant. jeff47 Apr 2012 #35

Antennas are mounted on at least 100 ft towers. You do the math. retread Apr 2012 #39

The point is the constant exposure, not the greater power output at the antenna. (nt) jeff47 Apr 2012 #52

I know of no cell freq at 812. In the 850 band the offset is 45 mhz. Cripes I'm done arguing with retread Apr 2012 #41

Are you seriously trying to argue 800MHz is different from 850MHz in a biological system? jeff47 Apr 2012 #51

Here is a good overview. Mojorabbit Apr 2012 #46

These are actually conspiracies that were hatched by the aluminum manufacturers MrScorpio Apr 2012 #6

I agree wholly with you but intaglio Apr 2012 #7

Spot on. I like this thread. Dosage is important.... wandy Apr 2012 #17

And neither is in the same time zone as using a cellphone. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2012 #18

Chemical saturated, hormone-soaked genetically modified highly processed food IS IS IS good for you Gibby Apr 2012 #8

Oh wow Aerows Apr 2012 #21

actually, you cannot support your data-free statement DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #9

You might wanna read your post. jeff47 Apr 2012 #11

nice cherrypicking, but inconclusive is inconclusive DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #12

Please point to any actual inconclusive results jeff47 Apr 2012 #19

I see. So an inconclusive result means lying scientists just want more grant money. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #23

No, the lie is that there are inconclusive results. jeff47 Apr 2012 #26

did you just call me a liar? DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #27

You appear to be quoting people. jeff47 Apr 2012 #28

Don't much want to talk to you anymore, as courage of convictions aren't a part of your character. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #37

So sorry your alert fishing failed. jeff47 Apr 2012 #53

alert fishing? No. I was taking a measure of your character DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #55

It's off point garbage to ask for the evidence you claim to have? jeff47 Apr 2012 #56

Goodbye. Come back when you're able to talk about all the points I've brought up DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #58

You still haven't posted the one thing I've been asking for jeff47 Apr 2012 #69

"possibly carcinogenic to humans" DCBob Apr 2012 #33

There has been more than a century of exposure. jeff47 Apr 2012 #34

The fact there are some studies that have shown effect warrant further research. DCBob Apr 2012 #36

Because there aren't studies that have shown effect in cell phones. jeff47 Apr 2012 #50

Maybe Im wrong but I thought there were some studies that showed effect. DCBob Apr 2012 #60

Oh please. Inverse square law applies to electromagnetic radiation. retread Apr 2012 #38

Yes it does....did it occur to you that people lived near TV and radio transmitters? jeff47 Apr 2012 #49

And chemtrails proud2BlibKansan Apr 2012 #14

Upon request I will repost Uncle Jacks guaranteed chemtrail removal recipe. n/t wandy Apr 2012 #16

Now don't go telling that to our red footed, tin hat wearing friends.... wandy Apr 2012 #15

If they collected the amount of data this quack claims they would NickB79 Apr 2012 #24

Not to mention how much RF/EMF that server farm would generate.... wandy Apr 2012 #31

The voices in my head beg to differ! DefenseLawyer Apr 2012 #32

Show me the dead radio workers is my response Canuckistanian Apr 2012 #44

I find it amusing that the deniers are just as fervent in their faith-based claims as the panickers. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #45

We're supposed to happily let woo replace science? jeff47 Apr 2012 #54

You are simply wrong. Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #66

In today's lesson, you learn that not everything on the internet is true or up-to-date. jeff47 Apr 2012 #68

As I said, amusing. n/t Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #70

There are PLENTY of scientific methods that can link activities or substances to cancer Canuckistanian Apr 2012 #62

Fully agreed nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #65

I'm very relieved that you are not an Oncologist, and hope you are not making a living Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #67

Radio waves do not have the energy to damage DNA. That is a fact. Odin2005 Apr 2012 #57