>Radiation is such an incredibly nebulous term. In the popular consciousness "radiation" means "something to do with nuclear weapons/reactors" while in reality it's a lot broader than that, radio waves for instance is "radiation", like wise certain forms of heat. The idea that "radiation" causes cancer is dumb a betrays a fundamental illiteracy of physics and biophysics.
>>10468915>Several entire (no-name) scientistsWow so many
>>10468915>In the popular consciousness "radiation" means "something to do with nuclear weapons/reactors">The idea that "radiation" causes cancer is dumb a betrays a fundamental illiteracy of physics and biophysicsYes, and if people associate radiation with nuclear weapons and materials such as Uranium, then yes, it should be associated with cancer. The airpod cancer thing is stupid, but radiation still does cause cancer.It is not wrong to associate radioactive materials with cancer.
>>10468956Name ten actively publishing scientists who are not, "no-name."
>>10468979Ionizing radiation causes cancer. Radiation on its own doesn't. Saying radiation causes cancer is very misleading and leads to the situation described in OP.
>>10469054Neil Degrasse Tyson and Idris Elba
ITT: people have no idea what wavelength is
>>10469298I said ten, illiterate nigger.
>>10469105nobody cares about other types of radiation, this is just incredibly pedantic, of course colloquially words have different meanings
>>10469054Lenny, Ed, Juan, Moustache, Baldy, Chink, Crazy Nip, Inexplicably Gay, Al Gore the Category Theorist (his cousin is very famous, so he can't be no-name) and, if blogs count as publishing, Al Gore's Arch Nemesis.
>>10468979Yes it is, since I’m radioactive. The wall is radioactive. Dogs are radioactive. Plants are radioactive. Everything emits radiation.
>>10469376Still referring to ionizing radiation, considering I mentioned uranium and nuclear weapons.>>10469105 ^
>>10468915Most electromagnetic radiation used has wavelengths which dont have the capability of interacting with tissue. This is absolutely asinine.
>>10468915I invite you to sit in my microwave oven for two minutes.5g is and bluetooth headphones are waste of resources and utter bullshit even if they don't cause cancer.If they cause people will just get what they deserve.
>>10468915>petition is about microwave radiation>blogger ignorantly spouts shit about EMAny person in media is human garbage.
>>10469610The extent to which science reporting sucks cannot be overstated.
>>10469610>microwaves are not em
>>10469714>>10469610Well known faxs.
>>10468915This is the scariest thing ever to cause cancer in only 30 years later with years of unobstructed use. Call now and get a free tinfoil hat.
>>10469752Never said they weren’t. Just that his spurt unknowingly failed to distinguish between microwaves and commercially used radio waves.
>>10468915great now sound waves give you cancer and are now considered a form of radiation. if you ever want to read more bad science go to https://phys.org and read all the countless fraudulent documents.
So....like....has everyone taken crazy pills lately?
>>10469807Other students not getting cancer, more likely shit genes
airpods transmit at 2.4 GHz, a wavelength of 0.125 meters would just bend around your head. Also, light isn't ionizing and it's a far higher frequency that 2.4 GHz. The electric field of the sun on a sunny day is like 24 V/m.
>>10469833UV is a form of light and causes skin cancer.
Ever notice how all conspiracy retards reject technology? We should just let them have what they want, let then live on tax funded "retard reserves" while the rest of us are building space elevators and fucking our cat girl sex slaves.
>>10469839UV is at frequencies of 750 THz or higher though.
>>10469833*visible light isn't ionizing, is what I meant.
>>10469842>space elevatorsEver notice how all the science fiction retards think /sci/ is for science fiction?
>>10469807That's a goddamn cell phone tower. This thread is for air pods. Try comparing the two antenna sizes at least before posting
>>10469858It is m80. It's a bit of a problem with light microscopy even, dosing a cell with visible light often kills it dead.
well, in theory, it could even at those non-ionizing energies, cells are sensitive to their environments, so if radiation heats up a cell even by fractions of a degree for long periods, it could increase risk of cancer.but then so could literally everything, so the risk increase is literally irrelevant in magnitude.
>>10471261One is far away and one is inside your ear. Try comparing the two distances at least before posting.
>>10471529>risk increase is literally irrelevantUntil you get cancer then it is relevant as fuck.
>>10471751The main cause of your cancer is you since it is your own body misbehaving on a cellular level.Blaming your own inability to eat and live more healthy on companies and technology is retarded as fuck.
>>10471961Quite a list of logical fallacies you have there, kid.
>>10468915Um. .... Is Bluetooth and WiFi safe? I definitely don't want cancer.
>>10472067they're believed to be essentially harmless in normal usage, but it depends on the amount of power and how close you are to the source
>>10472067>safePlease, define that term first.
>>10469337Except scientists will call radio waves and blackbody emissions "radiation" (as they should) and then laypeople misinterpret this thinking that radiation means inherently harmful/carcinogenic
>>10471961Based, people abuse the fuck out of their bodies and then ask why they get cancer