Isn't that the reason for the suit?
> ”The FCC has for years failed to protect public health by relying on 24-year-old safety tests designed when phones were the size of a shoe and used by few,” Davis told Law&Crime via email. ”We filed this appeal in order to insist that the agency take full measure of the U.S. government and other scientific evidence that cellphone radiation can be harmful.”
> Davis continued, noting the FCC’s hands-off approach to cell phone-related regulation over the last three presidential administrations.
> ”The agency has dismissed hundreds of scientific studies submitted to its inquiry on wireless radiation and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, without providing any rationale for doing so,”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907669/ This is a correlational study with multiple comparisons and no statistically significant results. In the only outcome reported between cases and controls, cell phone use was (insignificantly) protective for tumor incidence. As for the case-case comparisons, in the best case those are highly susceptible to confounding, and, contrary to the implication in the abstract, they didn't find anything.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389 This is a rat model study wherein rats were exposed to cell-range RF from before birth to death, for 19 hours per day. The positive finding was at 50 v/m , 40% higher than the highest measured value (during an outgoing call)[1] that I could find offhand. So yeah, if you strap your phone to your head and have an outgoing call going all day every day, and your phone's field strength is crazy high, and you're a rat, you might have a problem.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472042 "No association between mobile phone use and glioma risk was observed across the total population (OR 0.98; 95% CI = 0.88–1.10)..., there was an association between long-term mobile phone use and glioma. However, the analysis was limited by significant heterogeneity between trials and the paucity of data on long term use (10 years)." The funnel plot, an indication of publication bias, does not look good. This is in a reputable journal and appears to be a legit systematic review. Their positive finding can't be dismissed offhand.
Like how nobody was able to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer?
Or how nobody was able to demonstrate how leaded gasoline was bad?
Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation.
Look we know light pollution is a thing, right?
And these transmitters are lights, right?
To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas.
> Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.
I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less.
You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
Except that the science was established and then there was deliberate disinformation. Scientists were saying for a long time that smoking was bad.
There's a big difference between the talk within a scientific community compared to the public talk. Look at climate. Within the community everyone's like "well... we're kinda fucked..." outside it is: 1) from the left, "we have to fix policy! It is all the right's fault" 2) from the right, "what global warming? Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, it clearly is caused by these factors that couldn't possibly cause it. The scientists are paid by 'Big Green'".
What I'm saying is, listen to the scientists, not the news. News anchors and politicians aren't scientists.
> I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less.
It is clear. And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
> And I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to express a different view point (and a particular frustration I experience being a scientist).
Yes, it's clear. :-)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#controversies [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-p...
The RF emitted by cell phones and even 5G systems is many orders of magnitude lower energy than the light you're exposed to all day. The only connection we know of at the moment would be through RF heating but that requires way more radiated power than anything you will likely interact with unless you stick your head in a microwave oven.
Edit: also, things RF can interact with are dependent on feature size. 5GHz has a wavelength of ~6cm so in the same way that you can't see a virus with a microscope because it's too small for light to interact with, it's just not going to be able to cause localized heating on anything smaller than about 3cm. The singular scientist in the article is mostly just taking issue with the testing methodology and wants software to minimize RF emissions to the lowest level possible for communication which is already the case as otherwise your battery would be depleted very rapidly.