Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Snufflepuffster t1_iu0s59g wrote

What they are saying is historically we have considered cancer to be caused by DNA corruption, but how the DNA is read is actually way more important. How DNA is read can be affected by your environment, so this is a big shift in how we consider the disease.

230

[deleted] t1_iu2mtj0 wrote

[removed]

68

TheShadowOfKaos t1_iu2q4pm wrote

Care I stare into a microwave while it's heating food yet?

11

NoPajamasNoService t1_iu2vfjl wrote

I would put my forehead against it while I waited for my food to cook while I was in college. Combination of being tired, hungry, and probably high was no Bueno apparently.

5

PloxtTY t1_iu31nq6 wrote

I always thought the radiation can’t escape the door

3

jam3s2001 t1_iu33l48 wrote

It can, but not enough to physically hurt you. But:

It's not the kind of radiation that causes cancer. I'm going to really simplify things here, but when we think about radiation in this context, there's 2 kinds - ionizing and non-ionizing. Anything that's got a longer wavelength than UV light is non-ionizing. This is pretty much all of the stuff we find useful for everyday tech: cell phones, wifi, microwaves, and all that jazz.

Ionizing is the stuff that can hurt us, like UV, X-rays, and Gamma rays. We still have all kinds of useful tech that relies on that stuff, but aside from UVA blacklights, you won't often find it in your home.

Quick edit: microwaves and non ionizing radiation can still hurt you. Microwaves excite water molecules and can cause burns to tissues under your skin. Best to try to avoid exposure.

4

Zebra03 t1_iu38wi8 wrote

It does emit a bit of radiation but ultimately should be fine in the long term, it's worser to get beamed on by the sun or have a single cigarette then it is to be close to a tv

1

KamikazeKauz t1_iu378aw wrote

This is nothing new though, it has been studied for a long long time already, so the title is pure click bait. Here's a 20 year old review on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421942/

38

Cylius t1_iu3vi2u wrote

I mean from what I understand, the article you linked says we should get a better understanding, and this new article seems to suggest we now have that better understanding? Doesnt seem too far from a revelation

39

KamikazeKauz t1_iu57m5x wrote

The point I was trying to make is that epigenetics in cancer are not a new concept, so there is nothing revolutionary about these papers. It's not a revelation or breakthrough if dozens of other papers have found similar things over the course of the past 20 years.

−2