Not right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy. Emotion-based policy is dangerous.

Like aspartame was totally fine but then it wasn’t. Better safe than sorry in these circumstances

Aspartame was totally fine until Coca Cola decided to switch to stevia.

Aspartame is still fine, and it is one of the most researched substances. This type of reasoning, that you are using, is down right unscientific, conspiratorial, and dangerous.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/

Darwinian law of self selection will take its course

How is it "unscientific" when we know they are 99.99% unrelated, but you want at least 99.99999% to feel safe?

Aspartame, unlike sugar, are non-essential. If somebody don't want to take that 0.000000001% risk, I guess they should be free to make their choice?

The general issue I've found with people that take this mindset is that they focus so much on the 0.000000001% risks that they miss a lot of 1% risks. Which I would say is unscientific in terms of minimizing ones risks.

1. It's not just risk, it's also a risk/benefit balance.

2. We have 8 billion human on this earth. Is it bad to have 0.00001% of human alive (i.e. a few thousands) focus on 0.00001% risk?

This is a commonly (mis)-used argument, that misses the fact that if the statistics tell us the risk is less than some value (lets say 10^-6), the assumption is that the risk is 10^-6. Often, statistical tests have the power to detect very rare effects, but not effects that are even rarer. So less than 10^-6 does not mean the risk is one in a million, it means we do not know how low the risk is (could be 10^-23), but we know that it is no higher than 10^-6.

Sugar is non-essential as the body can synthesize carbohydrates through gluconeogenesis.

Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower.

The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.

The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Calling people conspiracy theorist or stupid because they don’t agree with you is just bizarre.

> I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place.

We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence.

> I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision.

Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame.

The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".

Unlike aspartame, we understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation.

It's the same type of radiation as sunlight, but lower energy and lower intensity.

The EU has more lax regulations on SAR than the FCC does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobil...).

It may be unnecessarily low, but it's certainly not a mark of shame for EU citizens specifically.

Then why is the iPhone 12 not in violation of US regulations?

According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859, it seems like the article is wrong and the iPhone 12 isn't actually in violation of EU regulations. It's just in violation of France's regulations because France is weird.

Dude it's the EU more then half their shit is feels based then facts. Still waiting for them to find any actual issue with GMO crops.

They're measuring absorbed watts and saying it's over the regulatory limit.

Where does cancer come in?

Why do you think there's a regulatory limit in the first place?

Because the people in charge are government employees.

An abundance of caution.

better a bit of caution than a slow and painful death?

If history is any indicator it's a good idea to be more cautious than less

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing against an abundance of caution. But an abundance of caution doesn't mean the "phones cause cancer people were right"

Yes, which is why the radiation limits for cell phones was set to 10x lower than the lowest amount that might be theoretically even slightly harmful.

Now one testing lab in France says that one particular phone is slightly (less than 10%) higher than those already very conservative, cautious limits.

Most likely scenario: the testing lab used the wrong methodology. This is what happened in France many times previously.

Also possible: the testing lab is right, some phones are slightly out of compliance. They're still safe. The radiation levels are still way below levels that are even theoretically harmful.

Because slow-cooking your brain is a bad thing?

Or maybe because possibly interfering the operation of other electrical devices, that have only been tested to operate with certain levels of external interference; is a bad thing!

This specific test is not about that: it's about radiation absorbed by the user during operation of the device.

The WHO said so: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E....

(Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)

The WHO said that it's a possibility. Group 2B classification is extremely precautionary and includes a lot of scary-sounding chemicals, but also a lot of quite ordinary things like aloe vera and kimchi. Many licensed medicines and permitted food additives are classified in Group 2B - while there's a possibility that they may be carcinogenic, there isn't enough evidence to justify withdrawing those products from the market.

It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.

My bet, too. It should be even easy to test: ownership should correlate, as should (square of) distance from the mast.

> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.

https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c...

> Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million to 3.1 million cases between 1995 and 2018 in Europe.

Hmmm...

It is far more likely that it is due to numerous other causes, some even with proven links – there is, however, still no links to mobile phone use, and no known mechanism by which it could even happen. Non-Ionizing Radiation causing cancer is probably as close to a physical impossibility as you get.

Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,

Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for.

Epidemiological studies tracking humans over time aren't controlled and will at best show a correlation worth studying, lab animal studies aren't great analogs given all the confounding factors and environmental differences with humans in real life, and unless the cancer causing agent acts quickly a controlled human study is likely impossible as controlling variables over years simply won't happen at scale.

Also the idea that visible light should be banned because radiation is an asinine argument meant to just badger without actually making a point.

> Proving a link between cancer and one specific environmental factor is the physical impossibility you're looking for.

But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.

Even that is a strong correlation though, and a simplified one at that. Context matters even for sun exposure, if solar radiation was a direct cause of cancer you should reliably see consistent skin cancer rates among people with similar complexion and exposure rates.

I've seen some really compelling research looking into diet changes that may impact risk of skin cancer, specifically an increase in saturated fats helping to reduce risk. The idea is that saturated fats are envloved in the process of your body turning UV into vitamin D. With more saturated fats in your system the UV has effectively has a job and is processed by the body.

My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.

> if solar radiation was a direct cause of cancer you should reliably see consistent skin cancer rates among people with similar complexion and exposure rates.

...which you do.

> My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.

That sounds like weasel language to try to muddy the waters to me. If it's tricky or impossible to nail down the effect must be small, and probably not worth caring much about.

People living longer and cancer being diagnosed and reported more are the reasons for higher cancer rates. The rates of all kinds of cancer have been rising. If it was being cause by radio waves you would expect it to be certain kinds of cancer. Radio waves from mobile phone don't penetrate flesh very far, so you would expect skin cancer to increase more than other cancers.

High power radio transmissions have been used since the 40s.

> Hmmm…

Why did you stop quoting it there?

> There are several factors that help to explain the increase in incidence: population growth, population ageing, exposure to risk factors, improved screening and improved outcomes in other diseases (meaning that more people are reaching an advanced age, leaving them at risk of cancer). The incidence of different cancer types varies widely between different European countries, due to these factors.

There are better epistemic standards available than "numbers went up so my hobby horse causal ideal is doing it" despite its popularity on social media.

The age argument doesn't seem to be holding up since cancer rates are growing for younger people:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/16/health/early-onset-cancer...

Better screening could be a factor.

Also, population growth doesn't matter for a *rate*.

> Also, population growth doesn't matter for a rate.

You cited cases, not a rate.

Europe's population growth (and EU's, if you compare the sum of current member state populations) is basically flat since 1995.

Ergo the increase in cases means an increase in rate.

If growth (ie the first derivative) is flat (which means a steady rate of increase) then an increase of cases does not mean an increase in rate.

Thank you for the 10th grade math lesson, I've edited my previous comment.

>exposure to risk factors

Like irradiation from telecoms signals, maybe.

Irradiation from telecoms signals has been around for more than a decade.

We'd also likely notice things like - lots of people getting a sort of rectangular shaped cancer right under their pants pocket ;)

That is still an ongoing debate [1] and one side of the argument is heavily influenced and funded by the telecom industry [2].

[1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2]https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...

The other side is funded and heavily influenced by the ”buy our Goji berries to shield your body from toxins and our shielding bracelet to stop harmful radiation from altering your chakras” quacks. There are no neutral parties in the argument

Guess who's more likely to have the funds to do proper propaganda.

The US government has the funds to sponsor all of your neighbors. They could conspire with the US government to pretend like they go to work every day, so that they fool you, who are the only sucker in your neighborhood whose life isn't getting paid by the US government.

I honestly don't think it matters who has funds to do what... :) The "natural health" industry is a multi-billion dollar industry as well, and is a much more insidious than the telco industry if you ask me.

Guess which side is more susceptible to low-quality propaganda.

Well judging from the last few years… know any countries besides the us doing covid boosters?

India and Germany just from the top of my head, I assume there are others.

The UK -- boosters for high risk groups and people over 60 (at the moment): https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccination/...

France: https://www.thelocal.fr/20230811/france-plans-new-covid-vacc...

Germany -- boosters for high risk groups: https://www.dw.com/en/covid-19-dont-wait-until-autumn-for-a-...

The Netherlands: https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/dutch-...

Denmark: https://www.thelocal.dk/20230609/denmark-to-offer-covid-and-...

Norway: https://www.fhi.no/en/id/corona/coronavirus-immunisation-pro...

So yes, boosters are being rolled out for older people and at-risk groups, all over the place.

I pretty much found these just by googling: <random country name> covid booster 2023

If/when you are an eligible age, will you get your health authority's recommended annual/winter flu jab? (e.g. the multivalent vacine offered to all eligible older adults in the UK).

If not, why not? If yes, why not Covid?

Aren’t all countries doing boosters? Which countries don’t have boosters? Do you know of any specifically?

This comment surprised me so I looked it up. The WHO report from Jan 2023 says 91 countries are reporting data on boosters. [1] The ‘our world in data’ site shows booster coverage for most of the world, only missing some countries in Africa and maybe small countries and islands too small to see on the map. Aside from the US, there’s booster coverage in Australia, Canada, China, Russia, India, all of Europe, all of South America, among others. This URL has the map view scrolled to May 2022, which appears to be the peak of the data reporting for boosters. [2]

[1] https://apps.who.int/gb/COVID-19/pdf_files/2023/05_01/Item1....

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-covid-vaccine-...

You'll have to admit that one side has more to lose and more power than the other

[delayed]

one side of the "debate" seem to be taken solely by Joel Moskowitz, who's cited in every article that promotes the message of "phone radiation is harmful"

Sure, in the sense that there’s an ongoing debate between creationists and normal people.

Not sure how that follows from this article.

A government having a regulatory limit on device emissions and a device failing that test is orthogonal to "phones cause cancer"

No, non-ionizing radiation is still not linked to cancer. However, SAR limits still exist because there is concern about localized heating of body tissue. As an extreme example, putting your head in a microwave and turning it on is not a good idea. Not because it will give you cancer, but because it will cook your head.