What Researchers Suspect May Be Fueling Cancer Among Millennials (msn.com)
- Reference: 0179603468
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/30/1549226/what-researchers-suspect-may-be-fueling-cancer-among-millennials
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-researchers-suspect-may-be-fueling-cancer-among-millennials/ar-AA1N7YdH
Researchers are examining the "exposome" -- the full range of environmental exposures across a person's life. Studies have linked early-onset cancers to medications taken during pregnancy, ultra-processed foods that now account for more than half of daily calorie intake in the United States, circadian rhythm disruption from artificial light and shift work, and chemical exposures. Gary Patti at Washington University is using zebrafish exposed to known and suspected carcinogens to track tumor development. His lab has developed systems to scan blood samples for tens of thousands of chemicals simultaneously to identify signatures appearing more frequently in early-onset cancer patients.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-researchers-suspect-may-be-fueling-cancer-among-millennials/ar-AA1N7YdH
Limits of model organisms (Score:2)
Studying tumor development in zebrafish is a start. But that's hardly the same as figuring out mechanisms in mammals, let alone humans. Let's not forget: we've cured cancer in mice about 1000 different ways. In humans? Only so-so.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually cancer treatment has improved enormously. Deaths are much reduced. It is slow but steady progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that progress had not been made. I have cancer survivors in my family, too.
What I'm getting at is the dearth of real, definite "cures" as opposed to "we've beaten it back, so you're cancer-free right now. And you've probably got lots of trouble-free years. But who knows." Along the lines of [1]this XKCD comic [xkcd.com].
[1] https://xkcd.com/931/
Re: (Score:1)
My cancer is probably cured. There are however many awful kinds that can only be slowed down a bit. Cancer is primarily a mitochondrial disease and at this time we mainly treat the resulting tumours, not the underlying disease, so in many cases the problem can come back after a few years respite. Anyhoo, getting old with or without cancer is a blessing - many people do not get old.
Re: (Score:2)
Some time ago, I discovered that Google has scans of old magazines, and I looked through an issue of Popular Science from the 1930s. It had a tiny news item reporting that "George Whipple shared the 1934 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with William P. Murphy and George Minot for discovery of an effective treatment for pernicious anemia using liver concentrate". (That's from [1]Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].) Pernicious anemia is caused by lack of B-12 (which is depleted by alcohol, by the way). Vitamin B-12 was first identi
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#History
Re: (Score:2)
What you want ain't happening, by the very nature of the disease. It takes only a handful of cancerous cells among the trillions in your body to cause a recurrence. It's a needle in a haystack you'll never find, and even if it's present, it may not gain a foothold again.
"Your chances of remaining cancer-free look good" is the best you're gonna get.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more of [1]this one [xkcd.com].
[1] https://xkcd.com/1217/
Re: (Score:3)
We've done a pretty amazing job of cancer in humans too.
I know I would rather have today's treatments than the ones from when I was a child.
Re: (Score:3)
Aye- absolutely amazing.
Survival rates on most cancers are actually pretty goddamn good, where they were virtual zero 70 years ago.
In my extended family alone, I've got 6 cancer survivors, and 1 that didn't.
Of course, the 1 that didn't had a glioblastoma- which have been pretty impervious to medical science given its predilection for growing tendrils throughout your brain.
Tylenol (Score:2)
Blame the Tylenol. If you can weave in the trans you get bonus points
Vaping (Score:4, Insightful)
Know what makes people age fast and causes cancer? Smoking. Know what 14% of millennials do? Vape.
Re:Vaping (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that keeps them under the percent gen X that were smoking at the same age, so I doubt it's behind the increase.
Re: (Score:1)
Vaping is certainly a proven problem. Also, so many young people die from drugs that it is probably skewing other statistics.
Re: (Score:1)
> Vaping is certainly a proven problem. Also, so many young people die from drugs that it is probably skewing other statistics.
Dying from drugs would reduce cancer incidence, as that is a competing outcome.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh sure, in the 90s we did every drug we could get our hands on.
"It is clear that in the '90s there has been a considerable resurgence of drug use. Marijuana use, in particular, has led the increase, but there are other drugs, including ones as dangerous as heroin, which have grown in use,"
[1]https://www.psychiatrictimes.c... [psychiatrictimes.com]
Yeah, sorry, its not the vapes even if the vapes are bad.
[1] https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/resurgence-illicit-drug-use-90s-poses-challenge-physicians
Nah, we don't need any studies (Score:5, Funny)
RFK Jr. just knows the cause, whatever it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see what other long term determined to be safe OTCs do we have... oh, blame Benadryl!
Re: (Score:1)
> oh, blame Benadryl!
Well, we should all judiciously use OTC meds....they pretty much all have some sort of side effects.
I have horrible allergies ...and Benadryl is a friend of mine, but I watch it....
But there are [1] signs it can contribute to dementia risks [harvard.edu] in humans.
So, careful with ANY OTC meds the public can access.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/common-anticholinergic-drugs-like-benadryl-linked-to-increased-dementia-risk-20150128812
Re: (Score:2)
It is good to point out that any drug is biologically active or it wouldn't be a drug. If you can eat as much as you want it isn't likely doing anything medically.
Re: (Score:2)
Orange Jesus already has it figured out. If you don't test
, there won't be any new cases!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, RFK Jr can tell who's full of cancer just by looking at 'em in airports.
Still room for more funny on the dark story. America has struck it rich in the stupid mine.
Not really a joke, but my considered response of the weak week:
Everyone wants a sage oracle to trust. But you have to be fundamentally stupid to mistake the Yuge Orange Buffoon for anything but a silly and grotesque liar. The spice called sage is more honest and sincere.
Re: (Score:2)
RFK Jr can also point you to a company selling magic juices, fully natural of course, that will prevent cancer. No connection with his own bank account.
All that poison people eat and smear on their skin (Score:1)
Corporate poison that people are sold that accumulates in the body which can't get rid of it until it becomes toxic and disrupts metabolic processes. We're being manipulated so the rich can get needlessly richer. Just stop buying crap from corporations. Pollution is bad enough but we compound it by polluting ourselves. Like all those fake fragrances and chemicals in our cleaning and health products. Things like air 'fresheners' are just evil
Re: (Score:2)
Most natural fragrances are actual drugs that have significant potency. For example, clove oil or Eugenol, is roughly as strong as aspirin at thinning blood, even exceeding aspirin in some particular mechanisms of the clotting process. We know aspirin is dangerous and even taking a small amount every day should be consulted by a doctor but it’s in your shampoo, hair care products, skin care products, air fresheners, even many types of incense because it is present in nearly every species of plant to
Re: (Score:2)
It is a good reason to have some house plants. The amount of spores in your home will go up from the soil/moisture but they are good at cleaning random VOCs from the air.
Re: (Score:2)
The far more effective way to remove VOC is to use activated charcoal as a filter. If you work in a painting booth for a living and need OSHA approved filtration for the air you breathe so as to not paint your lungs, it’s primarily achieved through a carbon filter, with some charged fiber filters for particulates.
Re: (Score:2)
True! I'd worry that to get that to work well you'd want it in your home HVAC which isn't practical for many vs putting some house plants around areas you're using cleaning agents or creating aerosols and so on like the kitchen. For home painting I recommend a 3M half face with charcoal, easier to be sure you're protected than a standalone air scrubber in a non-industrial setting.
Re: All that poison people eat and smear on their (Score:2)
"Most natural fragrances are actual drugs that have significant potency."
Most fragrances aren't natural. At least not here in the US. The balance might be different in the EU where they are much more willing to ban compounds on the basis that they are probably carcinogenic.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Most natural fragrances are actual drugs that have significant potency."
> Most fragrances aren't natural. At least not here in the US. The balance might be different in the EU where they are much more willing to ban compounds on the basis that they are probably carcinogenic.
I mean, most fragrances in products really are natural mostly because we have evolved a sense of smell to detect them because they are so bio active, but not at the concentrations we use them at meaning none are natural in a strict sense. While a small exposure in passing a flower bed may be natural, taking 700 lbs of flowers/plants and packing it into 4oz of concentrate that’s pumped out to 100x the passing smell but 24-7 is not exactly “safe because it’s natural”.
Re: (Score:2)
"Safe because it's natural" is trivially false. Consider lead, consider arsenic. Consider smallpox.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Safe because it's natural" is trivially false. Consider lead, consider arsenic. Consider smallpox.
I prefer poison ivy “bath tissue”, castor bean chili, and hemlock shakes but to each their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you two had that part of that conversation without me, because I wasn't trying to go anywhere near that argument anyway. I was only pointing out that what natural stuff does is mostly irrelevant in the cases I'm concerned about because they don't primarily involve natural fragrances. Those are expensive by comparison, and variable in effect when what's wanted is consistency. Here in the USA we seem to want to pound everything full of synthetic fragrances when there's really no need for them. When I
Re: (Score:3)
Aspirin isn’t just in willow bark, salicylates including acetylsalicylic acid makes up to 20% by weight in bark, stems, and leaf material and also contains strong acting members of the flavonoid family. Eugenol, also a potent non-steroidal anti inflammatory that thins blood, is present in many plants but tends to be quite high in spices like the clove plant (where the oil gets its name) and bay leaves. While aspirin, once attached to platelets, does not come off unless the receptor its binding to is
Re: (Score:2)
acetylsalicylic acid Is the chemical name for aspirin lol.
chicken nuggets and fries (Score:2, Informative)
We have entire generations that will only eat chicken nuggets and fries. Keep wondering why they are unhealthy.
Vapes (Score:2)
Blowin' fat clouds
Stress (Score:5, Interesting)
Today’s life, including social media and needing to be a seconds notice from work at all hours of the day, promotes stress and it’s at much higher levels than previous generations going back quite a few years. Under higher stress, all matter of illnesses increase in likelihood and severity. People tend to not even have families when they have trouble caring for themselves and children can’t help economically.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... this would be my bet, honestly? Most of the other suspected causes mentioned are really things you'd be hard-pressed to pin as things only the millennials would be predominantly exposed do. Ultra-processed foods, for example, are consumed in large quantities by Gen-X -- because they were the "latch-key kids" who got used to the whole idea of fending for themselves at an early age. As a pre-teen or teen trying to fix their own meals, they turned to all the fast/easy solutions available to them and
Better diagnosis (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to see a good line of evidence eliminating the possibility that better diagnosis technology --finding cancers that previously wouldn't have been discovered-- isn't the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean sure, but then you'll have addressed cancer and missed the underlying problem of blood aging biomarkers being higher. Even if better diagnosis was the cause of increased cancer diagnosis, it doesn't account for anything else in the underlying study.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting point. It's definitely true that some past spikes in disease reporting have been caused by improved diagnosis.
Re: (Score:1)
> I'd like to see a good line of evidence eliminating the possibility that better diagnosis technology --finding cancers that previously wouldn't have been discovered-- isn't the cause.
Pre-cancer tumors and lesions aren't reported as cancers, they are reported as Intraepithelial neoplasias or dysplasias in solid cancers. it is only once the tumor has become invasive (or micro-invasive in some cases) that it is classified as a cancer. Current improvement strategies around cancer detection revolve around early detection of pre-cancer symptoms, where intervention can be more beneficial and less risky along with enabling less pervasive treatment options. This would not appear in official canc
Plastics. The answer is microplastics (Score:3)
Microplastics are this generations lead in gasoline. Crappy processed food would be the second culprit, followed by vaping and whatever crap goes into that.
So, can you pay me all that research money now?
Re: (Score:2)
> Microplastics are this generations lead in gasoline. Crappy processed food would be the second culprit, followed by vaping and whatever crap goes into that.
> So, can you pay me all that research money now?
Those are great hypotheses. Now prove them likely true with preliminary evidence that is rigorously collected so that it might be duplicated by others, and then you get a shot at research money. With that research money, you then need to perform additional data collection and hypothesis testing in a way that, again, is rigorous, using tools and techniques that are widely available, so that others can duplicate and extend your findings. And if the additional data you collect shows that you were wrong, the
Not the same population (Score:2)
Its important to remember that the population changed. Its plausible that was has changed is the makeup of the population. In fact, that is a given. The question is what has changed. Perhaps the current population is more urban and has more people living in poorer neighbors and exposed to more carcinogens as a result. Its also possible that the genetic makeup of the population has changed to make it more susceptible to cancer. It may also be that we are diagnosing a higher percentage of people who have canc
The American Dream (Score:2)
"Studies have linked early-onset cancers to medications taken during pregnancy, ultra-processed foods that now account for more than half of daily calorie intake in the United States, circadian rhythm disruption from artificial light and shift work, and chemical exposures."
What a great country!
Who though that crapping all over the environment (Score:2)
Was bad for the next generation. Evil at work.
Re: Silence (Score:2)
You mean he pretends to not know who he's talking about, because he's too cowardly. Speaking of which...
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of thing is possible in Russia and China.
In America, if the GOP stops you, you sue and get tons of coverage. If the DNC stops you, Trump and he says it and gets tons of coverage.
If the GOP and DNC stop you, then Russia and China shout it to the world
The only time the kind of stupid censorship you describe happens is when the government controls everything - and in that case a-holes like you are not allowed to say stupid crap like "They stop us from speaking."
Re: (Score:1)
So far X paid Trump 10 million, Meta paid Trump 16 million and Google paid him 24.5 million for censoring him a few years ago. So (previous) gov ordered censorship is pretty well proven in court and these companies should sue Joe Autopen for a refund.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a right to your opinion on vaccines, but you have no inherent right to a particular job. If the person hiring you insists that you wear a stupid costume and you refuse, he does not have to hire you. The same thing applies to vaccines or anything else that is not clearly discriminatory. It is possible that if you claimed a religious objection to vaccines (for example, as a member the Christian Science faith) that you might have a case or you might not, if the employer clearly stated that it was p
\o/ (Score:1)
Noone is allowed to say smartphones
Re:\o/ (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they are. Stupid people are allowed to say whatever they like.
Smart people aren't saying smartphones, because well, they're not stupid.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Whenever I see anyone responding with a personal attack (even an indirect one), I see a tacit acknowledgement that the point cannot be questioned on its merits.
Re:\o/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Person 1: "The earth is flat"
Person 2: "That's kind of a stupid take."
Person 1: "Whenever I see anyone responding with a personal attack (even an indirect one), I see a tacit acknowledgement that the point cannot be questioned on its merits."
Some assertions are so dumb, they require no refutations, because only dumb people believe them. Honestly, the reason the internet has gone to shit is because the cost to post a stupid thing is vastly lower than the post to thoroughly demonstrate why it's a stupid thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the earth is flat. The definition of flat is warped.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you're not wrong.
The thing we call a sphere- Earth- is really a bizarre 4-dimensional object in a curved spacetime.
Takes nothing but a transform to get us from what we perceive, to what it is.
Likewise, it's nothing but a transform from the 3-dimensional Earth to an infinite 2-dimensional flat Earth. And.... it's not wrong.
Of course, that's not what they mean by "flat Earth", but meh. We're having fun here.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, smartphones *do* put a lot of plasticizers in the breathing pathway, so it's likely a (small) contributory factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really? Because the logic behind that is so broken that it explains how you can come to such bad conclusions.
Imagine such,
You assert that gravitation is in fact not a geometric consequence of a curved Minkowski spacetime, and caused by electromagnetic radiation.
Einstein responds that you are a fucking moron.
Has Einstein just tacitly acknowledged that your point cannot be questioned on its merits? Of course he hasn't. He has decided that you aren't worth doing so.
You're clearly just not a very
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that calling someone an idiot confirms whatever preceded it, then that's just more evidence that you are indeed a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to provide some evidence for this position? I cannot find any. The predictions of his theories are consistently found to match reality and if he plagiarized from anyone, I cannot find it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old Nazi theory pushed by Philipp Lenard, who very much objected to Einstein's "Jewish Physics".
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Some fun reading if you feel like being sick to your stomach today. [scientificamerican.com]
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
Re: (Score:2)
The smartphone/cancer connection has been heavily researched, and no link has been found.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Show me the science which proves that smartphone radiation doesn't cause cancer... (a link to scihub would be best)
What's that you say, it's impossible to prove a negative OR
even if it were, there's no study been done in this area OR
I don't have the reference to hand ?
Well then, I'm sure readers will just take your assertion that research has happened as evidence that smartphones are completely safe.
Why not tape one to your head and get back to us in twelve months for an update? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Far from it, I'm sure it increases your risk of cancer if you throw it in the vitamix and chug the smartphone!
Re:\o/ (Score:4, Informative)
> Show me the science which proves that smartphone radiation doesn't cause cancer..
You obviously don't understand statistics or science, but here's a link in case other people are interested:
[1]https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Seriously, you shouldn't reply to me, you'll be wasting your time. Instead, you should go take a statistics class.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/no-link-between-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-who-led-study-says-2024-09-03/
Re: (Score:1)
I note that adfarmer reuter doesn't provide a citation and that there's no need to understand stats to read that adfarm page :-)
Seriously, you guys need to chill.
If there's evidence of safety, simply link to it. Either way, personal attacks say more about you than the intended target.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's evidence of danger, simply link to it.
Re: (Score:1)
The burden of proof is on those claiming safety. Or is this illogical too? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Okthen
> The mobile phones (MP) are low power radio devices which work on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), in the frequency range of 900-1800 MHz. Exposure to MPEMFs may affect brain physiology and lead to various health hazards including brain tumors. Earlier studies with positron emission tomography (PET) have found alterations in cerebral blood flow (CBF) after acute exposure to MPEMFs. It is widely accepted that DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and their misrepair in stem cells are critical events in the multistage origination of various leukemia and tumors, including brain tumors such as gliomas. Both significant misbalance in DSB repair and severe stress response have been triggered by MPEMFs and EMFs from cell towers. It has been shown that stem cells are most sensitive to microwave exposure and react to more frequencies than do differentiated cells. This may be important for cancer risk assessment and indicates that stem cells are the most relevant cellular model for validating safe mobile communication signals. Recently developed technology for recording the human bio-electromagnetic (BEM) field using Electron photonic Imaging (EPI) or Gas Discharge Visualisation (GDV) technique provides useful information about the human BEM. Studies have recorded acute effects of Mobile Phone Electromagnetic Fields (MPEMFs) using EPI and found quantifiable effects on human BEM field. Present manuscript reviews evidences of altered brain physiology and stem cell functioning due to mobile phone/cell tower radiations, its association with increased cancer risk and explores early diagnostic value of EPI imaging in detecting EMF induced changes on human BEM. [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Here's another one.
> A colleague and I carried out a study on a healthy volunteer, recently published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. We showed that just 5minutes of direct exposure to an operating cellphone in contact with the skin surface behind the knee (see Supplemental Videos Links, page 57) produced rouleaux formation in the popliteal vein. [2]https://www.tandfonline.com/do... [tandfonline.com]
That's enough for me. But keep using your handheld cancer generator if you're not convinced. If you want more evidence, go find it yourself.
The cell phone induced double strand breaks set the stage for other cancer factors like the Epstein Barr virus.
> Breast cancer has a relentless tendency to come back after treatment. Analyses of public data from about 2100 breast cancers produce a model that explains this recurrence and implicates variants of Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV or Human Herpes Virus 4). These viruses cause chromosome breaks. Broken chromosome pieces rejoin abnormally, sometimes including two centromeres. Two centromeres on the same chromosome interfere with cell division. Each centromere gets pulled toward a different pole. This mechanical stress shatters chromosomes. Shattered chromosome fragments rejoin arbitrarily, but showers of mutations accompany their rejoining. In this way, a single break can destabilize the entire genome. The breast cancer phenotype is not fixed and constantly creates new cancer driver genes. The phenotype becomes independent of the original virus and its dosage. Cancer comes back because treatment does not explicitly target the underlying breakage-rejoining cycles or the contributing virus.
> The following data support this model. EBV causes chromosome breaks, and breast cancer chromosomes often have two centromeres. Breast cancer breakpoints on all chromosomes aggregate around the same positions as breakpoints in cancers definitively associated with EBV infection (nasopharyngeal cancer and endemic Burkitt’s lymphoma). Rejoined boundaries of highly fragmented chromosomes characteristic of breakage fusion cycles cluster around viral sequences. There is presumptive evidence of past infection. Human EBV sequences distribute like retrovirus transposons near dense piRNA clusters at a critical MHC-immune response region of chromosome 6. Other viruses strongly resemble endogenous transposons which piRNAs inactivate by methylation and cleavage. Remnants of exogenous EBV variants sit close to inactive transposons in piRNA sandwiches. The arrangement grossly resembles bacterial CRISPR and adds a layer of DNA protection to the immune system. Breast cancers target this protection with chromosome breaks and mutations and have a distinctive methylation signature nearby. Finally, areas near EBV docking sites can have increased numbers of breaks. [3]https://www.biorxiv.org/conten... [biorxiv.org]
Problems arise from DNA repaired during cell division (mitosis).
> Microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) is a highly mutagenic pathway to repair double-strand breaks (DSBs)
> MMEJ is an error-prone repair mechanism for DSBs, which relies on exposed microhomologous sequence flanking broken junction to fix DSBs
With 30 trillion cells, what are the odds over a long period of time that some dna breaks won't be repaired correctly and turn into cancer? Does a cell phone increase thi
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27144830/
[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2471222
[3] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.08.467751v5.full
Re: \o/ (Score:2)
These effects could be real and irrefutable, and yet time and again we see that bright sunlight has equal or greater effects to these levels. Indeed, many environmental exposures, natural or not (perfumes, dyes, exhaust, smoke, nearly every volatile compound) can disrupt cellular behavior. Plastics and plasticizers can disrupt hormonal reactions, especially in a fetus. These new correlations in the article do not include cellular microwaves because they don't rise to a level that exceeds other influence
Re: \o/ (Score:2)
"Seriously, you guys need to chill."
True, you are way too successful at trolling these people.
Re: (Score:2)
This more evidence that you're just not very intelligence.
You don't need to prove a negative- which yes, you absolutely can prove a negative. It's just difficult.
In this case, we take the world population, and look for evidence that cancer is caused by cell phone use.
If we cannot find it, then the negative is effectively proven.
Trying to make a God of the Gaps argument for non-ionizing radio-wave induced cancer isn't smart- in fact, it's quite dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
One can only prove a negative (in general) given a restricted domain.
SOME negatives can be proven.
In this particular case, it would be possible to prove that smartphones have no large effect, but I doubt that it would be possible to prove that they have no effect.
FWIW, I believe it HAS been proven that smartphones have no large effect on cancer rates for exposure periods of less than a decade...but do note the qualification. Proof of that kind of statement is, as you admit, difficult. Proving that they ha
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence that smart phones cause cancer in any studied range. Even including indirect effects.
To show otherwise is quite easy. There are many populations that do not use cell phones.
And yes, you can only prove a negative within a restricted domain.
But all relevant discussions have some domain which can be restricted.
I do not need to prove that a cell phone is not linked to cancer incidence for all of time, I only need to show that it isn't over the course of a human lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but I don't think any of the existing studies have actually done this. And it would be extremely difficult.
(OTOH, yes, there is no evidence to support the conjecture that they are causally related to the increase in cancer. Though I suspect that there might be a strong causal correlation with cellphones being used after a cancer diagnosis.)
Re: (Score:1)
That's unfair - they're looking... with their eyes closed whilst their inner monologue repeats "please let the obvious but inconvenient truth be... untrue"
Re: (Score:2)
What mechanism are you proposing for smartphones to cause cancer?
Re: (Score:3)
Vibe Biology.
They talked an LLM into agreeing that it wasn't impossible, thus discovering that cell phones cause cancer.
The brilliance of the argument, is that no mechanism is needed.
Re:\o/ (Score:4, Interesting)
To quote medical literature on ROS,
> Although these reactive molecules can potentially cause damage to biological material and impede functionality, their presence and production should not generally be considered harmful.
ROS are ubiquitous in human cells. Your cells literally use them to power themselves.
RF radiation is ubiquitous in the world- long before the advent of the first bit of technology.
The RF can lead to an increase in ROS is unsurprising.
RF is absorbed by the body.
What you cannot demonstrate, is that it represents a biologically relevant increase in oxidative stress above background.
For every study showing that RF of some wavelength increases ROS somewhere in the cell, there's another showing that it lowers it.
And the final say, is you cannot epidemiologically show an increase in cancer among population that use cell phones, and those who do not.
Calm your arrogance pls (Score:2)
> ROS are ubiquitous in human cells. Your cells literally use them to power themselves.
ROS is a byproduct like pollution and must be controlled. Most ROS in cells are from mitochondria, which use fat and sugar to turn ADP into ATP by adding electrons. ROS are chemical off products like superoxides, peroxidies etc. Your antioxidants work to render these inert, like superoxide dismutate, catylase, etc. They don't "power the cell"
Here's some more info. There is no ability to QA mitochondria besides the ones that persist, persist, the ones that are dysfunctional, rupture and are removed. Surviv
Re: (Score:2)
> They don't "power the cell"
You're right- that wording was weird.
It should have said,
"Your cells literally use the production of them to power themselves."
ROS production was an evolutionary decision.
That ROS are destructive to cellular machinery is without question.
Their absence is also death.
Measuring an increase in ROS does not mean measuring an increase in the probability of a cell forming cancer. It can simply be an increase in its metabolism, and there is no direct link between metabolic rate and probability of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possibly people using cellphones tend to have a disrupted sleep cycle, which is known to (slightly) increase rates of cancer. (E.g. & IIRC, shift workers tend to die several years earlier, among other problems.)
There are probably other plausible mechanisms, also. (I know about disrupted sleep cycles, because I've gotten several spam calls at wildly inappropriate times.)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the "disrupted sleep cycle" avenue, is that so many things lead to disrupted sleep cycles, that it's pretty impossible to pin it on cell phones.
For me, it was computers... and then it was girlfriends over the (wired!) phone... then it was school... then it was work.
Re: (Score:3)
But he's nevertheless correct.
Phones have been extensively researched, and there's no evidence that they cause cancer.
(on the other hand, the lack of exercise caused by sitting in a chair and being glued to your phone and your many other devices may be a factor.)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those studies were short term, and would only find large effects. Proving that there's no small effect over decades is probably impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
> Whenever I see anyone responding with a personal attack (even an indirect one), I see a tacit acknowledgement that the point cannot be questioned on its merits.
In some cases it's more that the point is not deserving of even having its merits discussed. The Smartphone cause cancer crowd are right up there with the flat earthers and the moon walk being faked. Some discussions aren't worth entertaining, and we should just call fucking morons fucking morons and get on with our lives without them.
Re: \o/ (Score:2)
That's not how anything works.
Also, that was a direct attack, but you weren't smart enough to recognize that.
Whether an attack is made or not is orthogonal to whether the person can refute your dumb-assed claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod grandparent funny. FP and defense of FP not so much. (Charitable assumption that FP was seeking Funny?)
Re:\o/ (Score:4, Funny)
> Noone is allowed to say smartphones
Or blue hair dye.
Re: (Score:2)
Craziest part of this is the fact that the pollution was far worse for Boomers as factories were everywhere in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
> Craziest part of this is the fact that the pollution was far worse for Boomers as factories were everywhere in the US.
Yeah...sure was fun as a kid, riding our bicycles behind the mosquito fogging trucks in the summer evenings....breathing in all that nourishing DDT.
;)
Re: \o/ (Score:2)
There was more pollution then, but we have exotic new kinds of pollution that literally didn't exist then, like that related to PTFE production.
Re:\o/ (Score:4, Interesting)
It probably is smartphones, but not because of the wifi signal. Its because of the stress you experience from being connected at all times.