According to scientists cell phone radiation could be linked to cancer and lower sperm count

Have you seriously counted your sperms one by one?

okay, everyone stop using cellphones now. I'm sure your health is more important than facebook, instagram and twitter.

Reminder that radio waves have less energy than visible light and so the lights you use are more likely to give you cancer than the radio waves your phone produces

Was meant to contain this image

Attached: 1389833597041521329.png (2000x1185, 227K)

Reminder that you don't have light going through your body 24/7

When my sperm count gets to 0 it's game on.

Reminder that visible light it about 10^7 times more powerful than radio waves and you're exposed to visible light for about half of the amount of time you spend subjected to radio waves

>Californian science
They're just covering up for the onions industry they love so much.

I smoke my balls are perma broken from HRT (tried stopping for 4months and it didn't come back) and I have frozen sperm. guess im the modern man.

>California
nothing to worry about.

No. I just eyeball the white gooey stuff when I cum.

>commifornia
according to them, everything manmade causes cancer.
>what's that you altered the shape of that rock?
>altered rocks cause cancer

California is the perfect example of why warning based labelling is a bad idea

>cancer
But radio and microwaves are weaker and less ionizing than visible light.

>sperm count
The actual heat from laptops is probably the cause and the radio/microwaves in laptops and smartphones.

>actually putting a laptop on a lap
yikes

Perhaps the heat from your laptop is acting as a ball warmer?

you remind of that one /diy/ thread where this one user made a "contraceptive" that's basically just a ball warmer

Well that's where I learnt about it, but I did some research and apparently it works, though with much hysteresis.

why is it a bad idea?

>laptop
>lap
>top
wtf

Boy who cried wolf, nobody believes any of the warnings anymore because most of them are inconsequential

>What does Jow Forums think about this?
I think I'm going to stop my balls from taking personal calls.

I think it's definitely true

but then again I'm spending 16+ hours per day in front of my laptop so...

yes, men paranoid about their sperm count, please stop carrying your cell phones and remove yourself from social relevance. we'd love to not have to deal with your garbage

Cell phones are probably doing something. But would the addicts ever put the phone away even if we knew?

Wow, it's like TV is killing you even when you don't watch it!

Attached: 2343242343254.png (1600x1298, 621K)

I'm sure this is bait, but 99.9% of what comes out is not in fact sperm

Completely and utterly ridiculous. If you're worried about RF radiation, just imagine what visible light would do to you. If there's even the slightest chance of getting damaged by cell phone levels of RF radiation, then just turning on a lamp in your room would fry your brains out, let alone venturing out into the sun. The retardery of being afraid of cell phones is on the level of """electricity allergy""".

Attached: ahegao-1.png (128x128, 24K)

These "scientists" are idiots. Wheres their shield to protect us from Jupiters radio waves then?

this

Don't trust shit that newspapers and blogs say, check the source studies (if there aren't any it's automatically bullshit) and if the article is based on a real study check it's validity (author, where it was publicated etc...), then read the actual contents of the article and compare it to the rest of the articles that you can find online (schoolar.google.com is a good source).
Regarding this particular claim he's a good video that is somewhat founded on real studies: youtube.com/watch?v=qAfKeHB9Gq4
tl;dr no

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (474x381, 25K)

If you browse Jow Forums it is certain that you will never have sex so no problem.

forgot to quote OP

the scientific community will smugly say "lol no, not possible" until it turns out to be true. then they'll change to "told you so"

your fallacy relies on the waves being of equal amplitude

Also coffee and farting produces cancer. kek

without googling, tell me the energies of average cellphone-level RF exposure and that of artificial light over one second

also explain why you think radiation of all wavebands behaves the same and interacts with cells in exactly the same way, the only variable being energy

if anything laptop heat already killing our sperm count

If you are so concerned, then why is it always about cell phones and not LMR say a policeman uses?

California considers nitrile gloves themselves to be hazardous. Theyd rather you handle calcium chloride with your bare hands.

kek

>also explain why you think radiation of all wavebands behaves the same and interacts with cells in exactly the same way, the only variable being energy
I absolutely don't, and that's at least half the point. Each photon of RF radiation has far less energy, and therefore can participate in far fewer interactions. First and foremost, RF radiation absolutely cannot be ionizing, whereas solar light at least stretches into vaguely and weakly ionizing UV bands.
But even then, the radiomagnetic flux right next to a cell phone transmitting at max power is probably only roughly 0-1 orders of magnitude less than that of incoming solar radiation, per unit of area. But the visible light is 100% absorbed by the body, whereas most of the cell phone radiation passes right through the body, so the amount of absorbed radiation is far less (particularly as it is also spread over a much larger volume, rather than being absorbed by a few millimeters of skin). And just to reiterate, even then, the only kind of reaction it literally *can* participate in simple heating.

visibility and ubiquity

This.
Because the more you puts frivolous warnings all over literally everything, the less people notice or take heed of them. One of the better examples is California's proposition 65. It states that any product containing chemicals that are known to cause cause cancer, regardless of how tiny or miniscule the amount contained may be, has to have a warning on it. This means things you normally use everything that wouldn't think twice about, like say, food, drinks, fruits, vegetables, alcoholic beverages, coffee, automobiles, power tools, desk lamps, charger cables, writing instruments, ceramic decor, beauty products, clothing, etc. that contain less than 0.001% trace amounts of some kind of chemical that might, possibly cause cancer, has to have warnings plastered on them saying you can get cancer or suffer from reproductive toxicity. It's gotten to where businesses don't even evaluate the levels of these chemicals in their products; it's easier and cheaper to just print the label on it and call it day, regardless if it actually causes cancer or not.
amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=3234041

ah yes it's the "a wave of unit amplitude has less energy at this wavelength" argument again, looking only at that constant and holding all variables fixed.

>RF radiation absolutely cannot be ionizing
everyone knows this. radiation being ionizing or not is a deflection at this point. putting aside some amorphous cloud of layman's "concern", the concern isn't about ionization. the concern is that there could perhaps be, for example, any number of subtle changes in behaviour of the sub-cellular machinery as a response to localized artificial heating that are cumulatively deleterious in some way. remember just how precise proteins are, and how simple heating can dramatically alter their efficacy, or deactivate them entirely, and even damage them so that they perform their tasks incorrectly.

would you want a very skinny, fairly-high-amplitude lobe of microwave radiation poking right through your brain or your bollocks while you sleep for the next 40 years? believe me, it's completely safe, because RF energy isn't ionizing.

anyone claiming to know 100% the long-term safety of absolutely anything introduced to the human body is a popsci cunt. not everything is known about everything.

>But the visible light is 100% absorbed by the body
except that which is reflected

>the only kind of reaction it literally *can* participate in simple heating.
exactly

That's fine but the problem is that RF frequencies pass right through water and biochemical molecules. They don't absorb the RF. At all. A little understanding of quantum physics would help here; it either gets absorbed by something or it doesn't. For example: Microwaves. Water absorbs a microwave, and this stretches the molecule apart. This stretching then rebounds, and in a cup of water, say, increases the temperature from the increased energy in the water. Ionising radiation is similar; it hits at a different level but it hits hard enough that it rips electrons right out of molecules. These molecules then are super reactive and will bind to anything, damaging what is nearby.
RF frequencies... don't do anything to organic molecules or water.

>the concern is that there could perhaps be, for example, [blah blah]
There isn't actually any such concern, though. Only people actively looking for such evidence (for ideological reasons, more than likely) are actually construing such possible mechanism as pure speculation.
>remember just how precise proteins are, and how simple heating can dramatically alter their efficacy
If this were a problem with cellphone radiation, then you'd obviously have people coming in with skin cancer from burning themselves on the stove. Likewise visible light also causes such "localized artificial heating" in perfectly living skin layers, and at a rate exceeding that of cellphones by orders of magnitude. Please tell me all about how worried you are about getting skin cancer from the heat radiation of a fireplace or campfire.
>would you want a very skinny, fairly-high-amplitude lobe of microwave radiation poking right through your brain or your bollocks while you sleep for the next 40 years? believe me, it's completely safe, because RF energy isn't ionizing.
Why would you want to be bombarded by INFRARED RADIATION just from being next to room-temperature objects for the next 40 years. You can make up a similarly bullshit claim about any frequency below visible light in human life.
>anyone claiming to know 100% the long-term safety of absolutely anything introduced to the human body is a popsci cunt. not everything is known about everything.
Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily claiming that it's 100% impossible for cellphone radiation to be harmful in some way; there are often unknown or unexpected effects of things, and I don't think clinical studies into the matter is a waste of research money. But there is also exactly zero reason to actively suspect there to be one, especially no more reason than to expect any other unknown or unexpected effects from all kinds of things happening on the planet.

>absorbed by a few millimeters of skin
>skin cancer from burning themselves on the stove
You two are forgetting that skin is a specially adapted organ for stuff like that and skin cancer still exists. I really don't think RF radiation is anything to be concerned about, but to blindly say that there's no way it can do anything seems pretty stupid to me. Your internal organs did not evolve with a bunch of RF bouncing around.

>But there is also exactly zero reason to actively suspect there to be one
And just to expand on this point: Literally *the only* reason people are walking around being afraid of cellphones is because it is "radiation". And radiation is scary, we all know that from the nucular bombs. If it weren't for such boundless stupidity, it is more than likely that noone would have even brought forth the idea.

So why then not show the same concern for "radiation" from a baseboard hot water heating system? Maybe to protect everyone we should all cool ourselves to absolute 0.

Heat, or infrared radiation, is absorbed by the skin. It doesn't penetrate. Give examples of commonplace radiation that can penetrate to your internal organs, or those types of arguments don't make any sense.

I did just that because I'm afraid of all the radiation every single part of my body emits.

>but to blindly say that there's no way it can do anything seems pretty stupid to me.
Okay, let me put it more appropriately: As I wrote in the post you replied to, it is probably more accurate to say "zero reason to suspect a problem" than "100% impossible for there to be a problem".
>Your internal organs did not evolve with a bunch of RF bouncing around.
That, however, is a stupid arguments, because for the past couple of thousand years, we've been going through innumerable things that we didn't evolve for (just to pick a few things that can also be made to sound vaguely threatening: eating selectively bred crops, being in direct contact with chemically pure metals, aviation in the upper atmosphere, &c&c), and only a very small minority of those things have been harmful. There is no reason to suspect a threat from something just because it hasn't been a common occurrence for humans on an evolutionary timescale.

>Your internal organs did not evolve with a bunch of RF bouncing around.
We've always been bathing in RF radiation from the sun.

NIR penetrates the skin.

And everything inside you also emits infrared.

>Give examples of commonplace radiation that can penetrate to your internal organs
On the contrary, give an example of a reason why you would expect any internal tissues to react differently than the living skin layers that both visible and infrared light most certainly penetrates to.

>eating selectively bred crops
That's actually not any different from eating any other non-GMO food. Those foods could have also arisen over time from natural selection.

>being in direct contact with chemically pure metals
You mean like radium? Who was it that discovered the element again?

>aviation in the upper atmosphere
Which is known to give a large dose of radiation...

>There is no reason to suspect a threat from something just because it hasn't been a common occurrence for humans on an evolutionary timescale.
There absolutely is. There's no reason for us to expect our bodies to react intelligently to something they've never encountered before. That is a ludicrously stupid thing to do. We are intelligent. Our bodies are not. In fact, I think the human body is wholly substandard for the level of intelligence we have. Given that, we should really be treating our bodies like babies, and for the most part, we do. Medical science exists as a field specifically because our bodies are fragile compared to our minds. Ignoring RF radiation for the reasons you've stated is hilariously stupid. Being afraid of RF is also hilariously stupid. Marie Curie wasn't afraid of her research, but it was certainly dangerous and I'm betting she would do it again.

IR does penetrate.

Put your head in a microwave then, retard.

Everyone out of high school know what you posted, current studies are discusing things like the effect of local tissue warming and observed calcium increased movility in cell walls.

california tried to put a cancer warning on coffee
the laws and voters there are beyond retarded

>That's actually not any different from eating any other non-GMO food.
In just the same way as I can claim that cellphone radiation is no different from visible light. You "don't know" that the breeding process hasn't introduced undesired gene expressions.
>You mean like radium? Who was it that discovered the element again?
Indeed, a few select elements out of many tens of them.
>Which is known to give a large dose of radiation...
But which has not been linked to any clinically significant increase in cancer risk. If anything, studies seem to have been closer to proving that the break in circadian rhythm for flight crews have a higher chance of causing cancer than the ionizing radiation they receive.

>There absolutely is.
There absolutely is not, and you have not stated any reason to, other than "we haven't specifically, positively proven the absence of any effect". For all that we treat our bodies as babies, we don't usually spend 10 years of research before accepting any conceivable change to utterly normal conditions, and neither should we. A mountain climber shouldn't, and indeed usually doesn't, waste a decade of animal experiments before climbing that peak that is 10 meters higher than what he has climbed previously because who knows how the atmosphere may be up there.
>Marie Curie wasn't afraid of her research, but it was certainly dangerous and I'm betting she would do it again.
This is true, but I wouldn't call her stupid and reckless for it. She didn't have reason to suspect anything, and if anything we should all be thankful for her (unintentional) sacrifice for providing such a reason. As for cellphone radiation, however, there is still no such reason, neither theoretical nor empirical.

>RF frequencies... don't do anything to organic molecules or water
other than cause heating. you're changing the subject back to direct, radiation-induced chemical reactions rather than the rather less visible consequences of heating at a sub-cellular level that i just hypothesized

>then you'd obviously have people coming in with skin cancer from burning themselves on the stove
(a) maybe there is indeed a link between burns and increased risk of skin cancer. maybe. it's something anyone is sure of. to presume either way is arrogance
(b) the skin, particularly the epidermis, is an organ that has evolved to cope with a (narrow range of) artificial heating and cooling. but we're talking about the internal organs here.

>But there is also exactly zero reason to actively suspect there to be one
that is fair enough, and i believe it is not particularly stupid to believe there will turn out to be deleterious effects on human health at today's level of exposure to RF

knee-jerk less

infrared is irrelevant to this discussion. i thought you lads were all about the waveband.

You seem to think I'm arguing against doing things because they may be dangerous when I'm actually arguing in favour of investigation. I don't know if cell phone radiation is dangerous, but it's worth investigating specifics because it's an abnormal condition. In your example of mountain climbers, those people know one of the risk factors is low oxygen levels, so they carry tanks. That is an abnormal condition that we're aware of and can address. You seem to be pretending that abnormal conditions don't exist and that we have no mitigation against them. user keep bringing up sunlight. Isn't it interesting that so many people wear sunscreen?

subject sertoli cells to the same range of temperatures that skin cells will happily cope with and see if they can still produce sperm

I live 100ft away from a tower, and my health has been declining since I moved here a year ago.

They are very harmful

You can protect yourself with emr shielding painting your bedroom quite easily

I've done it and you'll feel miles better in the mornings.

stay safe Jow Forums

Attached: bibi.png (460x401, 425K)

>and i believe it is not particularly stupid to believe there will turn out to be deleterious effects on human health at today's level of exposure to RF
But the problem is that you have no objective reason to believe that. You're just making shit up because you want to believe that for some reason.
>knee-jerk less
It's literally true, though. Not even shitposting.

Again, freeze yourself to absolute 0.

You coated your room with thermite?

>when I'm actually arguing in favour of investigation.
I mean, as I've already stated, I agree in principle, but you could be in favor of investigating literally anything. There has to be some reason that you think it's more prioritized to investigate this particular thing over all other possible things that could be investigated.
I don't disagree cellphone radiation was a "new" condition in a field that previously was less than satisfactorily explored, but by now it has already been investigated any number of times. There are several tens of peer-reviewed studies (and I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the hundreds by now) trying to find effects of cellphone radiation on living tissues of various different kinds, and the vast, vast majority of them are turning up statistical noise. How many more studies do we have to commission before you're content?
>Isn't it interesting that so many people wear sunscreen?
Yes, because of UV radiation, which is indeed ionizing. Duh.

only affects white boys. Asians are unaffected.

Attached: 1507643226628.jpg (1437x909, 155K)

>But the problem is that you have no objective reason to believe that
you don't have a peer-reviewed study saying there's nigs loitering in the hood but you know it's not implausible

>You're just making shit up because you want to believe that for some reason.
i sincerely hope that it isn't the case. i really hope that generation Z don't end up having a +900% cancer rate spike when they reach their 60s because of the ubiquity of microwave exposure or some food additive or something else thought to be safe at the time and exposed to them since birth.

>you don't have a peer-reviewed study saying there's nigs loitering in the hood but you know it's not implausible
I would at least have hearsay to suggest it. "Objective" doesn't mean "peer-reviewed, tested science", but merely that I haven't just made it up in my head.

ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf

>i really hope that generation Z don't end up having a +900% cancer rate spike when they reach their 60s
If that were the case, then we'd at least have seen some, minor effect already, where in fact cancer rates are almost universally dropping.

You say it man

>because of the ubiquity of microwave exposure or some food additive or something else thought to be safe at the time and exposed to them since birth
I can be pretty ludditic myself, but this is just stupid. Are you going to halt literally all new developments whatsoever just because "we don't know" if there may be completely unknown and unexpected effects from them?

>where in fact cancer rates are almost universally dropping
are they?

>Are you going to halt literally all new developments whatsoever
no. we can but wait and see.

>no. we can but wait and see.
Isn't that exactly what we're doing?

nah you've got redditors who know everything raging at the suggestion more research is necessary, calling anyone with concerns about the long-term safety of [thing] complete and utter retards

Take your cancerous headline thread back to

This was already well known and obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of phones. Put your phone in your back pocket and take it out of your pocket whenever possible.

Maybe for lung cancer, but not for other cancers.

Attached: LCNewStatBanner.png (732x475, 64K)

>but not for other cancers.
But the only cancer not decreasing in the chart you posted in of the pancreas.

>pancreas
Except I'm blind and it's apparently of the liver. Point still standing, though.

>This was already well known and obvious to anyone
who had no engineering/science training.
It's a very old meme. Not unlike the "CRTs hold a deadly charge" meme. It's the sort of unsourced pop-sci crap in supermarket mags meant for young mothers.

Ask a ham radio user, they've been putting their bodies near far more powerful radio emitters for longer than cell-phones have been around, and the worst you'll get from one of those is a literal burn, not any accumulating effects. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it's arguably better than 30 years of cellphone use. We're using microwave radiation to heat up people with hypothermia, if there was any effect that showed itself before heating we'd know about it. But also ball warmers.

Smoke weed er'y day

>government official telling people
>california
>no journal article linked as a source

don't care, Californians are scared of their own shadow.

I think you posted the wrong image.

Attached: china2.png (1437x909, 58K)