<story><title>“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”</title><url>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>userbinator</author><text>&lt;i&gt;At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.</text></item><item><author>BurnGpuBurn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves.&lt;p&gt;Yet they are very ready to call &amp;quot;more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields&amp;quot; &amp;quot;wackos&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;cranks with a PhD&amp;quot;, call their research &amp;quot;bullshit&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;impossible&amp;quot;, call the people &amp;quot;thruthers&amp;quot; or claiming &amp;quot;Russian troll farms&amp;quot; are behind this story.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;ve ever seen so much non-scientific HN comments on a science article.&lt;p&gt;At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>andrepd</author><text>Unfortunately the hunch you have just spendt 30 seconds thinking about is sadly incorrect. The increase in life expectancy doesn&amp;#x27;t account for the increased incidence of cancers. There are other factors at play, which need to be investigated (some that we know: obesity, pollution, cigarettes).</text></comment>
<story><title>“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”</title><url>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>userbinator</author><text>&lt;i&gt;At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.</text></item><item><author>BurnGpuBurn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves.&lt;p&gt;Yet they are very ready to call &amp;quot;more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields&amp;quot; &amp;quot;wackos&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;cranks with a PhD&amp;quot;, call their research &amp;quot;bullshit&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;impossible&amp;quot;, call the people &amp;quot;thruthers&amp;quot; or claiming &amp;quot;Russian troll farms&amp;quot; are behind this story.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;ve ever seen so much non-scientific HN comments on a science article.&lt;p&gt;At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kristjankalm</author><text>from where does this increase in cancer probability statistic come from? anyone have a link to a paper? tried googling but found nothing reliable sadly</text></comment>