Food for thought. LED light causes cancer?

[walpurgis]

There's a suggestion here that LED light from street lights and other sources may cause cancer.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/street-lamps-could-triggering-thousands-1502458

What about LED TV's and Monitors? They emit a lot of light.

[YNWaN]

If you actually read what the scientists are saying this is spectacularly poor reporting of the ‘fake news’ standard and utter nonsense.

[walpurgis]

It may or may not be fake news. But it has been mentioned quite a few times.

[YNWaN]

Yep, no doubt it has - still utter nonsense. Scientists have just discovered the moon is made of cheese and looking at it dangerously raises your cholesterol - time to get a grip....

[walpurgis]

Hmm. Been on the brandy again Paul? :hmm:

[montesquieu]

Tinfoil hat and dark sunglasses at all times. It’s the only way to stay safe.

[CageyH]

The sun also causes cancer, but that won’t stop me from going outside or living in the dark.

[narabdela]

Typical media fearmongering bollocks of the first magnitude. Just about anything can provide the stimulus for cancer if you have too much of it, or you're just unlucky.

Eat, drink, and be merry! :cool:

[alphaGT]

I’d have to say that LED light is safer than buttermilk. They only emit on a very narrow frequency, the soft white ones used for lighting are nowhere near any UV or other dangerous light spectrums.

Russell

[walpurgis]

Strange how a report on some studies can prompt reactionary and dismissive responses. Wonder why? Is it subconscious fear causing a need to reject anything that disturbs the cosy balance that is perceived as safe and normal life?

Nobody has stated that the study results are definitive fact, more that there are possible implications. To assert outright that it is scaremongering or fake news seems odd. It would make mores sense to me to simply suggest that it may be.

Here's a further one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5663097/Blue-light-comes-smartphones-increase-risk-breast-prostate-cancer.html

[StanleyB]

Anyone can write a study paper, but that doesn't make the information contained within that study credible.

[Macca]

Here's a further one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5663097/Blue-light-comes-smartphones-increase-risk-breast-prostate-cancer.html

According to the Daily Mail everything causes cancer.

My best guess is that saying something causes cancer is high performing click-bait. So keep those cancer stories coming!

Saw some research once that says breathing in the water vapour from a shower causes cancer. Breathing in oxygen causes cancer, try avoiding doing that.

[walpurgis]

Saw some research once that says breathing in the water vapour from a shower causes cancer. Breathing in oxygen causes cancer, try avoiding doing that.

I'm sure I read somewhere, a similar story about cigarette smoke.

[Joe]

Strange how a report on some studies can prompt reactionary and dismissive responses. Wonder why? Is it subconscious fear causing a need to reject anything that disturbs the cosy balance that is perceived as safe and normal life?


I think it's more that such far-fetched theories a) cause unnecessary worry and b) distract us from dealing with the actual, preventable causes of most cancers. Plus of course, anything printed in the Daily Mail is by definition, bollocks.

Here's a saner report from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43895514

Drinking from plastic bottles and using microwave ovens are some of the fake causes of cancer people believe, research suggests.

In a survey of 1,330 people in England, published in the European Journal of Cancer, most people correctly said smoking was a cause.

But increasing numbers are getting the risk factors wrong.

Smoking, being overweight and overexposure to UV radiation are the biggest preventable causes of cancer.

Cancer Research UK said about four in 10 cases of cancer could be prevented through lifestyle changes and it was important to have the right information to "separate the wheat from the chaff".

Researchers at University College London and the University of Leeds carried out the survey and found that more than 40% wrongly thought that stress and food additives caused cancer.

One-third incorrectly believed that electromagnetic frequencies (35%) and eating genetically modified (GM) food (34%) were risk factors, while 19% thought microwave ovens and 15% said drinking from plastic bottles caused cancer, despite a lack of good scientific evidence.

[...]

Dr Samuel Smith, from the University of Leeds, said: "It's worrying to see so many people endorse risk factors for which there is no convincing evidence.
"Compared to past research, it appears the number of people believing in unproven causes of cancer has increased since the start of the century, which could be a result of changes to how we access news and information through the internet and social media."

[Joe]

According to the Daily Mail everything causes cancer.


The Daily Mail is perfectly capable of announcing that a certain foodstuff 'causes' cancer, then some weeks later announcing that the same foodstuff 'prevents' cancer.

[walpurgis]

And some believe Lord Lucan, Hitler and Elvis are still alive and hiding somewhere. And that we are being poisoned by 'chemtrails' and that the moon landings were faked, as was 9/11. And that 'there's something in the water'. And that the powerful plan to enslave us (hang on, that one has already happened). And that there's something called 'God'. 'Flat Earth' principles seem to be gaining favour too.

[struth]

And some believe Lord Lucan, Hitler and Elvis are still alive and hiding somewhere. And that we are being poisoned by 'chemtrails' and that the moon landings were faked, as was 9/11. And that 'there's something in the water'. And that the powerful plan to enslave us (hang on, that one has already happened). And that there's something called 'God'. 'Flat Earth' principles seem to be gaining favour too.

i am ;)

[Joe]

And some believe Lord Lucan, Hitler and Elvis are still alive and hiding somewhere. And that we are being poisoned by 'chemtrails' and that the moon landings were faked, as was 9/11. And that 'there's something in the water'. And that the powerful plan to enslave us (hang on, that one has already happened). And that there's something called 'God'. 'Flat Earth' principles seem to be gaining favour too.

Most of those beliefs will do you no harm, apart from people pointing at you and laughing. But getting your risk assessment about the causes of cancer wrong might be fatal.

[Macca]

Most of those beliefs will do you no harm, apart from people pointing at you and laughing. But getting your risk assessment about the causes of cancer wrong might be fatal.

I don't know, Lucan was fatal to at least one person and Hitler was fatal to a lot of people.

Elvis seems to be largely blame-free by comparison; although he was fatal to himself.

[Joe]

I don't know, Lucan was fatal to at least one person and Hitler was fatal to a lot of people.

Elvis seems to be largely blame-free by comparison; although he was fatal to himself.

Yebbut believing these bods are still alive won't do anyone any harm other than being ridiculed, and if being ridiculed is too much for them, they need to get a grip.

Most people (including me) are crap at risk assessment. For example, you're many times more likely to die in a road accident than in an aircraft crash, yet some people who will happily drive a car every day won't even get on to an aeroplane. Death by terrorist action is even less likely than an air crash, but it preys on some people's minds to a disproportionate extent.

[Macca]

I am also more reluctant to get onto an aeroplane than in a car, despite the stats. But the stats don't tell the whole story. If I am on a plane and something goes badly wrong then I'm dead. if I'm in a car and something goes badly wrong there is a reasonable chance of survival.

Consequently, even though the stats clearly demonstrate that there is a much greater chance of something going wrong in a car compared to an aircraft, I feel much more comfortable getting in the car than getting onboard a plane.

[Joe]

I am also more reluctant to get onto an aeroplane than in a car, despite the stats. But the stats don't tell the whole story. If I am on a plane and something goes badly wrong then I'm dead. if I'm in a car and something goes badly wrong there is a reasonable chance of survival.

Consequently, even though the stats clearly demonstrate that there is a much greater chance of something going wrong in a car compared to an aircraft, I feel much more comfortable getting in the car than getting onboard a plane.

Well, yes, me too, though the more I fly the less I worry about flying. I had a horrendous flight back from Amsterdam about fifteen years ago, which put me off flying for several years.

[Macca]

The only flight I've had that wasn't horrendous was an overnight across the States, hardly anyone on the plane so I covered myself in blankets and slept across a row of empty seats. That's why I've always wondered why, even in 2018, there is no 'B.A Baracus' solution on offer where you can just eat a drugged hamburger and wake up at customs.

Mind you I've a mate whose been in 2 crash landings and walked away both times. And he still flies. Hope over experience IMO.

[Macca]

In fact, taking that thought further, why not drug everyone who gets on a plane? No need to provide food, drink or toilet facilities, no need for cabin crew, save the airlines a fortune. Also no risk of being hi-jacked in mid-air, so security problems solved as well.

[walpurgis]

You should try being in a plane doing aerobatics. You'd either love it or be too traumatised to ever fly again. :D

(I loved it by the way :thumbsup:)

Flying is perfectly safe. It's the crashing bit that hurts! :eek:

[Macca]

No way you'd get me doing that unless you put a gun to my head.

To get on a plane I have to think about all the bomber crews in WW2 flying over Germany in comparatively primitive aircraft and being shot at by triple A and Focke-Wulfs. Then it seems a bit shit that I am scared to get on a modern airliner in peacetime. So I basically shame myself into doing it. But I don't like it one bit.

[Pigmy Pony]

I bought a novelty cigarette lighter while on holiday last year, which has a couple of flashing LED's. That's going in the bin now, not worth the risk :(

[struth]

No way you'd get me doing that unless you put a gun to my head.

To get on a plane I have to think about all the bomber crews in WW2 flying over Germany in comparatively primitive aircraft and being shot at by triple A and Focke-Wulfs. Then it seems a bit shit that I am scared to get on a modern airliner in peacetime. So I basically shame myself into doing it. But I don't like it one bit.

Used to fly a lot and hated it. Only time I liked it was in a little Cessna that was fun. Helicopters were novel but you soon thought about a minor failure and the end of days

[Macca]

It's weird. Helicopters I don't mind at all. I flew over the volcano on Monserrat in one on Friday 13th. And we did nearly die, but that was the fault of the volcano, not the chopper.

[spendorman]

About 25 years ago I was in a small plane, certainly very scared, was even more scared when the pilot said to me:

"you take the controls now"

I did, and when the plane recovered from it's aerobatics, he said to me:

"Don't worry, If we crash they won't know who was flying"