Abstract This paper attempts to resolve the debate about whether non-ionizing radiation (NIR) can cause cancer-a debate that has been ongoing for decades. The rationale, put forward mostly by physicists and accepted by many health agencies, is that, "since NIR does not have enough energy to dislodge electrons, it is unable to cause cancer." This argument is based on a flawed assumption and uses the model of ionizing radiation (IR) to explain NIR, which is inappropriate. Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing. While IR directly damages DNA, NIR interferes with the oxidative repair mechanisms resulting in oxidative stress, damage to cellular components including DNA, and damage to cellular processes leading to cancer. Furthermore, free-radical damage explains the increased cancer risks associated with mobile phone use, occupational exposure to NIR (ELF EMF and RFR), and residential exposure to power lines and RF transmitters including mobile phones, cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and radar installations.</i>
I gave it a shot. I downloaded the paper and started to read. It's a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, written by one guy, who then proceeds to cite himself among the key thought leaders of the proponents of the idea that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Of course, no one else has authored anything with the guy...
There are other indications of this. The label you are so quick to toss out is exactly why there isn't a lot of direct research of cancer but oxidation damages DNA and that carries a risk of cancer mutation and the linkage to oxidation does seem to be established. Studies have shown damage to mammal tissues so it seems unlikely this wouldn't be a problem for humans as well. Where there is cellular damage there is mutation and where there is mutation there is a cancer risk.
Still non-ionizing (Score:-1)
FUD...
That heuristic no longer works (Score:2)
It's time to ditch outdated heuristics man. We are not a bulk material, but exquisitely engineered organisms with trillions of moving parts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?
Re: (Score:1)
Look...
I gave it a shot. I downloaded the paper and started to read. It's a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, written by one guy, who then proceeds to cite himself among the key thought leaders of the proponents of the idea that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Of course, no one else has authored anything with the guy...
He's a crackpot.
Re: (Score:3)
There are other indications of this. The label you are so quick to toss out is exactly why there isn't a lot of direct research of cancer but oxidation damages DNA and that carries a risk of cancer mutation and the linkage to oxidation does seem to be established. Studies have shown damage to mammal tissues so it seems unlikely this wouldn't be a problem for humans as well. Where there is cellular damage there is mutation and where there is mutation there is a cancer risk.
http://cms.galenos.com.tr/Uploads/A