The question of ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ is a philosophical question as much as anything else. Different human being have different ideas, and different ideas about different questions, and different ideas about the same question presented with different words.
Having said that, many important biological processes are mediated by catalysts, with important biological process occurring even though high energy barriers exist. The possibility that low-level near-field EM energy could influence a catalyzed reaction, or simulate a catalyzed reaction, was not immediately discounted by educated people with no specific knowledge.
But when people tried to demonstrate that mechanism, they couldn’t.
Like other humans, Doctors can be a bit funny about ‘proof’. Mostly they seem to like to believe that ‘proof’ just depends on the numbers: people who use cell-phones don’t get more brain cancer, which proves that cell-phones don’t cause brain cancer.
But when you talk more generally about what they believe, it’s clear that a lot of Doctors really believe in mechanisms as much or more than they believe in numbers. In their hearts, they believe that since there is no mechanism by which cell phones could cause brain cancer, cell phones don’t cause brain cancer.
And here lies a long tortured line of reasoning. Of course the scary radiation wasn’t electromagnetic stuff anyway. Atomic radiation, now that’s the stuff that makes you glow green and get cancer isn’t it? One could see the connection from the days of fear of atomic weapons, and radioactive materials (that absolutely did cause cancer and eat your flesh) to electromagnetic radiation in people’s minds.
So what is radiation? Something that radiates. That is, it travels in straight lines out from a source. Bicycle spokes radiate from the wheel hub. Same root as radius.
But it’s radiation.
See, if you grew up in NYC where there was never enough space for all the crazies, you were already used to people walking the streets babbling. So, little earbud or no, it’s just a continuation here.
The whole thing started when a person died of brain cancer who was also a cell phone user and the survivors decided that taking the phone companies to court could be a gold mine (Reynard v. NEC, 887 F. Supp. 1500 [M.D. Fla. 1995]). They lost. So has virtually anyone else who tried this, because there is no causal link shown by any credible study.
The vast majority of users I see have their phone, either flat on a table in front of them, or in their hand where they can see the screen. The sheer size of much of this equipment precludes the ear/moth arrangement anyway.
A million years ago, an epidemiologist told me that the current thinking (at the time) was that the causality may be reversed — that, all other considerations being equal, power lines tend to be installed on less-expensive, less-desirable real estate, which means the pre-existing residents, if there are any, don’t have the resources or political presence to push back. And if they’re less wealthy, they already have indications for relatively poorer health and shorter lifespans. In other words, the power lines don’t cause premature death, people who are already at risk of premature death due to other factors are unable to stop the power lines from being imposed on them.
Like I said, this was a long time ago, and I haven’t kept up with it, but as a hypothesis it made sense to me.
There’s been at least one case where Italian courts ruled that there was a connection between cellphone use and a type of brain tumor (schwannoma), and ordered compensation for the plaintiff.
I see that that among the “experts” consulted by the appeals court was the Ramazzini Institute, notorious for poor quality research alleging that aspartame causes cancer.
Based on the lack of good evidence supporting this and other bizarre science-related rulings in Italy (including one court affirming that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and another case in which seismologists were found criminally liable for failing to predict an earthquake), plus the fact that in general courts do not establish science, (scientists do), I wouldn’t give much credence to what the Turin Court of Appeals says about cellphones and cancer.
Could very well be. And that is also a self-perpetuating cycle the other way.
If a powerline exists on open land, the houses that are later built nearby will be cheaper, less fancy houses than the average for the area. Just like the ones downwind of the sewage plant will be. So less affluent folks will buy these “more affordable” = cheap houses. Folks who already have one strike against them healthwise just due to their jobs and their wallets.
So it’s not a matter, (or at least not just a matter) as ecg suggests of folks with healthy lifestyle attitudes avoiding powerlines, but also of small(er) and therefore unhealthy(er) wallets being actively attracted to powerlines. And sewage plants, and stockyards, and … etc.
Correlation isn’t causation, but if you cast a wide enough net of all the attributes that are co-correlated, you may find some are actually causal. The hard part is figuring out which co-correlates are pushing & pulling which way on the Ouija of observed results.
Since I am working from home and I am the only person in my home I always set my phone to speakerphone and lie it on the table near me (or carry it around on speakerphone as I do other things in the home…I’ll hit the mute button if I am doing something noisy like running water in the sink).
If I am in public then I put it to my ear or it is on Bluetooth with my headphones (which also have a mic).
