Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   250 scientists sign petition warning that wireless tech is eating your BRAAAAINS with cancer   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

928 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Mar 2019 at 8:36 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-03-12 07:25:26 AM  
And yet there is no increase in brain cancers.  In fact, they have decreased slightly since 1992.  Hmm...

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/htm​l​/brain.html
 
2019-03-12 07:40:15 AM  
I'll wait to see if the antivaxxers can give them up first.......
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2019-03-12 08:15:58 AM  
The problem is that we've been using mobile phones for years and they put out many hundreds of times the em radiation that earpods do since they have to communicate miles away, not feet, so surely if this was correct we'd have seen an increase in cancers by now.
 
2019-03-12 08:40:49 AM  
10% will give the converse answer on any polling question due to a mixture of stupidity and avarice.
 
2019-03-12 08:42:49 AM  
This means nothing.
 
2019-03-12 08:46:55 AM  
The same 250 scientists that disagree with global warming and think that vaccines are overrated?
 
2019-03-12 08:48:58 AM  
"AirPods in particular are concerning because they sit deeply enough within the ear canal to emit expose these fragile parts of the ear to dangerous among of radiation, some experts warn."

The Daily Fail is a cancer on journalism.
 
2019-03-12 08:51:39 AM  
Let me fix that for you.

250 morons who failed their way into a degree sign petition warning that wireless tech is eating your brain with cancer.

There we go, much better.
 
2019-03-12 09:00:57 AM  
A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.
 
2019-03-12 09:02:07 AM  
250 scientist failed sophomore physics.
 
2019-03-12 09:12:55 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.


It's also far different than 250 scientists endorsing a compendium of peer reviewed research.
 
2019-03-12 09:13:27 AM  
With a little effort one could find 250 "scientists" to support almost anything.   Are these guys working in relevant fields?  Do they just have a degree or are the eminent researchers.  How many are under 70 years old?  Are they employed by a lab at Harvard or by Answers in Genesis?

Flat Earth is pretty much the only quack "theory" that to my knowledge has not attracted a bona fide Ph.D.  Yes the geocentrists have had Ph.D. "astronomers" though they won't get any where near 250.   But creationists, climate change deniers, deniers of thermodynamics, anti-vaxxers, etc. etc. etc. all have over 250 quacks with doctorate degrees among their numbers.
 
2019-03-12 09:16:09 AM  

meat0918: Tyrone Slothrop: A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.

It's also far different than 250 scientists endorsing a compendium of peer reviewed research.


No it's not.

Work speaks for itself. Consensus means nothing.
 
2019-03-12 09:30:02 AM  

This text is now purple: meat0918: Tyrone Slothrop: A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.

It's also far different than 250 scientists endorsing a compendium of peer reviewed research.

No it's not.

Work speaks for itself. Consensus means nothing.


When you have someone claiming consensus means nothing, it usually means that they are deep in trying to deny to work of a lot of scientists.
 
2019-03-12 09:33:48 AM  
The scientific jury is still out on the whether or not the particular devices an cause cancer

No it's not. Is the radiation ionizing? No? Then it can't cause cancer.
 
2019-03-12 09:45:09 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This text is now purple: meat0918: Tyrone Slothrop: A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.

It's also far different than 250 scientists endorsing a compendium of peer reviewed research.

No it's not.

Work speaks for itself. Consensus means nothing.

When you have someone claiming consensus means nothing, it usually means that they are deep in trying to deny to work of a lot of scientists.


Most new physics work relies upon the old guard to die before it becomes accepted. Whether a theory is true or not occurs independent of consensus in the field.
 
2019-03-12 10:02:44 AM  

This text is now purple: TheMysteriousStranger: This text is now purple: meat0918: Tyrone Slothrop: A petition is not a peer reviewed scientific research paper.

It's also far different than 250 scientists endorsing a compendium of peer reviewed research.

No it's not.

Work speaks for itself. Consensus means nothing.

When you have someone claiming consensus means nothing, it usually means that they are deep in trying to deny to work of a lot of scientists.

Most new physics work relies upon the old guard to die before it becomes accepted. Whether a theory is true or not occurs independent of consensus in the field.


Lysenkoism is due for a comeback!
 
2019-03-12 10:10:57 AM  

Virtually_Human: And yet there is no increase in brain cancers.  In fact, they have decreased slightly since 1992.  Hmm...

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html​/brain.html


True, but then I got curious and clicked on all the other charts. They all look flat or decreasing until the thyroid cancer chart.  It rises at an alarming but steady pace from 1992-2009, then the slope decreases a little but overall continues to rise at a linear rate to the present day. I only mention it because cellular carriers pulled the plug on analog and went entirely digital in 2008, so almost on top of that bend in the line. You may recall that digital was touted as lowering the user's radiation exposure compared to analog when it came out. Not saying there's any correlation but holy shiat it sure looks suspicious.
 
2019-03-12 10:11:32 AM  
Here it is, really simple: Non-ionizing radiation does precisely dick to humans.
 
2019-03-12 10:15:29 AM  
Just keep the fluoride out of my WiFi, I'm deep enough into the spectrum as it is.
 
2019-03-12 10:30:46 AM  

pheelix: Virtually_Human: And yet there is no increase in brain cancers.  In fact, they have decreased slightly since 1992.  Hmm...

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html​/brain.html

True, but then I got curious and clicked on all the other charts. They all look flat or decreasing until the thyroid cancer chart.  It rises at an alarming but steady pace from 1992-2009, then the slope decreases a little but overall continues to rise at a linear rate to the present day. I only mention it because cellular carriers pulled the plug on analog and went entirely digital in 2008, so almost on top of that bend in the line. You may recall that digital was touted as lowering the user's radiation exposure compared to analog when it came out. Not saying there's any correlation but holy shiat it sure looks suspicious.


Yep, that is interesting point.  I wonder if anyone is looking at that.  Still not brain cancer though.
 
2019-03-12 10:40:57 AM  

Virtually_Human: True, but then I got curious and clicked on all the other charts. They all look flat or decreasing until the thyroid cancer chart.  It rises at an alarming but steady pace from 1992-2009


There are a lot of environmental possibilities, but it seems that obesity and, ironically, decrease in smoking could be tied to the increase. Apparently smoking has been shown to reduce the incidence of thyroid cancer, which is my "TIL" fact of the day I think.

https://www.livescience.com/58489-thy​r​oid-cancer-rates-tripled.html
 
2019-03-12 10:53:14 AM  

phimuskapsi: Virtually_Human: True, but then I got curious and clicked on all the other charts. They all look flat or decreasing until the thyroid cancer chart.  It rises at an alarming but steady pace from 1992-2009

There are a lot of environmental possibilities, but it seems that obesity and, ironically, decrease in smoking could be tied to the increase. Apparently smoking has been shown to reduce the incidence of thyroid cancer, which is my "TIL" fact of the day I think.

https://www.livescience.com/58489-thyr​oid-cancer-rates-tripled.html


Interesting.  Thanks.
 
2019-03-12 10:56:28 AM  

Fano: The same 250 scientists that disagree with global warming and think that vaccines are overrated?


And don't believe in evolution.

/None are biologists, climate scientists, or chemists...
 
2019-03-12 11:20:10 AM  

Fano: The same 250 scientists that disagree with global warming and think that vaccines are overrated?


That's actually a good question. We're talking scientists from at least 40 different countries, so, not exactly a representative sample.

Would've been nice if the article actually had a link to the petition itself - does anyone else?
 
2019-03-12 11:31:57 AM  
Ha! Found it, at EMFscientist.org. This isn't specific to AirPods - it's the same appeal that the International EMF Scientist Appeal started in 2015.

And, yeah, some of the usual suspects are on the list of "scientists" signing this thing - and, interestingly, some dead scientists. Martin Blank died last year...
 
2019-03-12 12:06:15 PM  
Probably more of a problem of them developing hearing issues instead of cancer.
 
2019-03-12 12:27:47 PM  

Virtually_Human: And yet there is no increase in brain cancers.  In fact, they have decreased slightly since 1992.  Hmm...

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html​/brain.html


Stupidity is clearly on the rise though.
 
2019-03-12 01:07:11 PM  
I think the author is suffering from a neurological condition.

"Essentially anything that communicates wirelessly using electromagnetic energy waves of varying types."

"This means that radiowaves (sic) are less dangerous than higher energy radiation like X-Rays or UV, but more extremely low-frequency radiation."

"And brain cancers are among the forms that research links to EMF radiation."

Author appears scientifically illiterate as well as regular-style.
 
2019-03-12 02:23:07 PM  

csny_Hippie: I think the author is suffering from a neurological condition.

"Essentially anything that communicates wirelessly using electromagnetic energy waves of varying types."

"This means that radiowaves (sic) are less dangerous than higher energy radiation like X-Rays or UV, but more extremely low-frequency radiation."

"And brain cancers are among the forms that research links to EMF radiation."

Author appears scientifically illiterate as well as regular-style.


Yeah. You'll find that the folks who started the International EMF Scientist Appeal are fools and morons that, around 2010 or so, got laughed out of just about every venue in which they attempted to peddle their bullshiat, hence the "let's start our own club, with hookers and blackjack" response.

Seriously, search for Henry Lai and B. Blake Levitt, or for Magda Havas - half of the folks who originally started the International EMF Scientist Appeal - and you'll find that their bullshiat was discounted many years ago in both the United States and Canada (most notably by CASS, which gutted their research papers.)

It's a farce, and the only reason you're seeing anything about this right now is that someone managed to name-drop AirPods into a farcical production that's been going on for far too long - the "scientists" in question have been at it since at least 2009, and the "petition" is on its fourth year of begging for signatures.
 
2019-03-12 03:10:22 PM  

FormlessOne: Ha! Found it, at EMFscientist.org. This isn't specific to AirPods - it's the same appeal that the International EMF Scientist Appeal started in 2015.

And, yeah, some of the usual suspects are on the list of "scientists" signing this thing - and, interestingly, some dead scientists. Martin Blank died last year...


BING BING BING POPCORN
 
2019-03-12 04:48:35 PM  
just keep your smartphone away from your balls.

copper/fiber is the only way to Fly.
 
2019-03-12 04:52:34 PM  
on a serious note, since no one REALLY knows the facts about RF radiation on living cells, i take the prudent route and keep my dumbphone several (about 8 to 12) inches from my bod, especially my head and balls.

just sayin.
 
2019-03-12 07:08:17 PM  

Xai: The problem is that we've been using mobile phones for years and they put out many hundreds of times the em radiation that earpods do since they have to communicate miles away, not feet, so surely if this was correct we'd have seen an increase in cancers by now.


Interesting viewing:

The secret inside your cellphone (CBC Marketplace)
Youtube Wm69ik_Qdb8
 
2019-03-13 10:32:47 AM  

Linux_Yes: on a serious note, since no one REALLY knows the facts about RF radiation on living cells, i take the prudent route and keep my dumbphone several (about 8 to 12) inches from my bod, especially my head and balls.

just sayin.


Wut?

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-​c​auses/radiation-exposure/cellular-phon​e-towers.html
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/mate​r​ials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiati​on_studies_508.pdf

Rats were exposed to the radiation 24/7 for 2 years and had some correlation to some kinds of tumors but they also generally lived longer. That being said, they were pumping between the max allowed limit for humans and 4x over that limit - to a body that is 1/100th our size, every day for 730 days. It did not definitively show any negative effect.

"Studies of people who may have been exposed to RF radiation at their jobs (such as people who work around or with radar equipment, those who service communication antennae, and radio operators) have found no clear increase in cancer risk."

Other large RF studies are hard to verify because RF radiation is one possible environmental factor out of many more.
 
2019-03-13 04:02:44 PM  

phimuskapsi: Linux_Yes: on a serious note, since no one REALLY knows the facts about RF radiation on living cells, i take the prudent route and keep my dumbphone several (about 8 to 12) inches from my bod, especially my head and balls.

just sayin.

Wut?

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-c​auses/radiation-exposure/cellular-phon​e-towers.html
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/mater​ials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiati​on_studies_508.pdf

Rats were exposed to the radiation 24/7 for 2 years and had some correlation to some kinds of tumors but they also generally lived longer. That being said, they were pumping between the max allowed limit for humans and 4x over that limit - to a body that is 1/100th our size, every day for 730 days. It did not definitively show any negative effect.

"Studies of people who may have been exposed to RF radiation at their jobs (such as people who work around or with radar equipment, those who service communication antennae, and radio operators) have found no clear increase in cancer risk."

Other large RF studies are hard to verify because RF radiation is one possible environmental factor out of many more.


there is also contradictory evidence.   i'm smart enough to know that there is so much money being made with devices that emit RF radiation, it is in the Industry's interest to play down any hazards.  after all, they want to keep that river of money flowing in and they don't want "irrational" fears to affect the flow.
plus i'm not  a mouse.
if you want to throw the dice with your health, that's your business.  i'm not going to do that.  until i know for a certainty, then i'm going to treat RF energy with respect and minimize its proximity to my balls and head/body.

It's the right thing to do.  after all, what do i have to lose by doing that??  absolutely nothing.  and i might have everything to gain.

i've learned over the years to NEVER trust anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
 
2019-03-13 04:09:40 PM  

Linux_Yes: phimuskapsi: Linux_Yes: on a serious note, since no one REALLY knows the facts about RF radiation on living cells, i take the prudent route and keep my dumbphone several (about 8 to 12) inches from my bod, especially my head and balls.

just sayin.

Wut?

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-c​auses/radiation-exposure/cellular-phon​e-towers.html
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/mater​ials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiati​on_studies_508.pdf

Rats were exposed to the radiation 24/7 for 2 years and had some correlation to some kinds of tumors but they also generally lived longer. That being said, they were pumping between the max allowed limit for humans and 4x over that limit - to a body that is 1/100th our size, every day for 730 days. It did not definitively show any negative effect.

"Studies of people who may have been exposed to RF radiation at their jobs (such as people who work around or with radar equipment, those who service communication antennae, and radio operators) have found no clear increase in cancer risk."

Other large RF studies are hard to verify because RF radiation is one possible environmental factor out of many more.

there is also contradictory evidence.   i'm smart enough to know that there is so much money being made with devices that emit RF radiation, it is in the Industry's interest to play down any hazards.  after all, they want to keep that river of money flowing in and they don't want "irrational" fears to affect the flow.
plus i'm not  a mouse.
if you want to throw the dice with your health, that's your business.  i'm not going to do that.  until i know for a certainty, then i'm going to treat RF energy with respect and minimize its proximity to my balls and head/body.

It's the right thing to do.  after all, what do i have to lose by doing that??  absolutely nothing.  and i might have everything to gain.

i've learned over the years to NEVER trust anyone who has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.


there is also interest in Apple's bluetooth Earbuds because they are in such close proximity to the inner ear.  one advantage, though, is that bluetooth doesn't transmit nearly as much energy as a cell phone.  but it is still something that any reasonable person should be concerned about.

once i get my Librem 5 smartphone, i'll have a standard 3.5 mm headphone jack so i won't have to think about the RF issue in my inner ears.
 
2019-03-13 05:40:38 PM  

Linux_Yes: there is also interest in Apple's bluetooth Earbuds because they are in such close proximity to the inner ear.  one advantage, though, is that bluetooth doesn't transmit nearly as much energy as a cell phone.  but it is still something that any reasonable person should be concerned about.


No. It's something a tin-foil hat wearing person should be concerned about. BT power output is around 1mW (that's milliwatt). Wifi is around 100mW. A cell phone is around 3W. Terrestrial radio hits around 50KW. Hell your microwave, shielded or not will give you a dose of power much higher than your cell phone use (they are also in the 2.4ghz band). That's not counting the innumerable sources of radio frequencies that we use in our world. 

They just aren't powerful enough to do anything.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report