Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] A Connection between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MIT] A Connection between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found - Page 9  

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

Interactions of photons on these scales occur as particles, not waves. EDIT: I should have said discrete quantized packets of energy we call photons, not really definable as particles or waves.
I think it's more accurate to say you describe them as particles, and not as waves. We tend to ignore the latter description in favor of the former, as if one is a true existence while the other is pseudo science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

This is true, there is a lot we do not know about chemical causes for cancer. We do understand EM radiation better than chemistry though. Are you thinking maybe microwave radiation changes how a protein folds (protein folding probably does depend on some interactions that might be at microwave energies), or some other non-classic model for cancer causes? The problem is inheritance to subsequent cell divisions, that seems like it requires a change to the DNA itself and we think that requires a covalent chemical bond to break (C-C, C-N, C-O, or O-P).
Actually I was using that as an example of how we use a more brutish, unscientific method to find chemical causes for cancer, and it yields far better results than expecting that our understanding of chemical carcinogens to be full before admitting there's a correlation. We had to accept that radiation from unstable isotopes also cause cancer, after the results of bathing in that radiation become undeniable too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

Simply denying the study is good evidence for a connection of the incidences of cancer to microwave exposure. All photons of a particular energy level are the same, that is one of the principles of quantum interactions. Different polarizations but after that, a photon is a photon.
We can classify photons. We can classify wavelengths, frequency, quantify the energy. That's all fine and dandy. But if our cells are doing the same thing, as we suspect, we have a very limited knowledge as to how they're doing it and whether or not what we're doing might interfere in some small fashion. It's not completely unfathomable. If the fundamentals of cell division are rooted, somehow, in "tuning in" to a certain type of intelligible information that's travelling across a certain field, we could hypothetically complicate that process. The field of study surrounding that is only breaking right now; it would have been considered fringe science some decade ago, to say that such a complex method of communication could be occurring on such a level, but not today.

I think it's fair to say that there's a lot we don't know about it, now that we've discovered a tiny bit about it. I know we have our ways of recognizing patterns that prove intelligible information within waves. On some level, any form of life that can see, hear, or feel is doing that. It's not exactly a characteristic unique to sentient human beings. Embedding information into waves does make them different, fundamentally. I'm not too rooted in the idea of "equality of photons" to imagine that; that might be the difference between us, outside of the fact that I'm sure you know far more on the subject than I do. Permeability of these waves matters, surely, but as I'm sitting here I have a phone within arms reach, same with a router, 3 bluetooth transmitters and an RF mouse and keyboard. If my biology can recognize the difference, or needs to recognize the difference between it's own informal communication through waves and "natural" waves.. I can imagine that it could be an issue.

I'm not about to go live in the wilderness, but I think there's enough of what "we don't know" out there to suggest that a bit of a witch hunt couldn't hurt. I feel no sympathy for lab mice, and it's not hard or expensive to throw a large sum of them into a soup of information bearing waves in the light of these new findings which, after all, deal with GSM and CDMA specifically. I can see how that might be different, considering the new work they've done concerning cell communication. But it's not going to happen when our ego, bias, and our social infrastructure turns it into a career killer.
Edited by Mookster - 5/29/16 at 2:41am
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post

Getting funding for studies like these is nearly impossible. People need to start demanding it.
That is so true.

I have been to a lecture by a an old professor who had been conducting research into the health effects of cell phone radiation. He was at the end of his career, after having worked in radiophysiology all his life and was already past the retirement age.
He expressed his frustration in the difficulty of not only getting research grants himself but also in the difficulty in getting younger scientists interested in conducting research in this field.
The notion that radio waves could be unhealthy in any way is still mostly associated with crazy people wearing tin-foil hats and living away from civilization.
Young scientists want to have a productive career -- and that requires that they work in the mainstream where the money (the research grants) are. If they get associated with a controversial issue then that could hurt their options in the future.
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post

I think it's more accurate to say you describe them as particles, and not as waves. We tend to ignore the latter description in favor of the former, as if one is a true existence while the other is pseudo science.

It is my experiance that most of the time we treat photons (light) as waves, because we think of it as continuous. It is actually more packetized than that with quantum oddness, if there isn't an available quantum transition for a photon to interact with (matching its energy) no interactions happen at all (except in the rare event it happens to hit the nucleus, which results in a reflection of an identical photon). We do not transmit information with single photons, we use bursts of lots of them which in collection have interesting interactions with each other as waves but when each individual photon is interacting with a molecule or atom the interaction seems a lot more like a particle interaction (exactly one photon per interaction which must have a transition available for exactly 100% of its energy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post

Actually I was using that as an example of how we use a more brutish, unscientific method to find chemical causes for cancer, and it yields far better results than expecting that our understanding of chemical carcinogens to be full before admitting there's a correlation. We had to accept that radiation from unstable isotopes also cause cancer, after the results of bathing in that radiation become undeniable too.

Just because it is brutish doesn't mean it is unscientific. We do not learn much from the classic ones beyond "at this X/kg dosage 50% of the subjects die" but that is still scientific information. When others try it the LD50 is the same X/kg. tongue.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post

We can classify photons. We can classify wavelengths, frequency, quantify the energy. That's all fine and dandy. But if our cells are doing the same thing, as we suspect, we have a very limited knowledge as to how they're doing it and whether or not what we're doing might interfere in some small fashion. It's not completely unfathomable. If the fundamentals of cell division are rooted, somehow, in "tuning in" to a certain type of intelligible information that's travelling across a certain field, we could hypothetically complicate that process. The field of study surrounding that is only breaking right now; it would have been considered fringe science some decade ago, to say that such a complex method of communication could be occurring on such a level, but not today.

I think it's fair to say that there's a lot we don't know about it, now that we've discovered a tiny bit about it. I know we have our ways of recognizing patterns that prove intelligible information within waves. On some level, any form of life that can see, hear, or feel is doing that. It's not exactly a characteristic unique to sentient human beings. Embedding information into waves does make them different, fundamentally. I'm not too rooted in the idea of "equality of photons" to imagine that; that might be the difference between us, outside of the fact that I'm sure you know far more on the subject than I do. Permeability of these waves matters, surely, but as I'm sitting here I have a phone within arms reach, same with a router, 3 bluetooth transmitters and an RF mouse and keyboard. If my biology can recognize the difference, or needs to recognize the difference between it's own informal communication through waves and "natural" waves.. I can imagine that it could be an issue.

I'm not about to go live in the wilderness, but I think there's enough of what "we don't know" out there to suggest that a bit of a witch hunt couldn't hurt. I feel no sympathy for lab mice, and it's not hard or expensive to throw a large sum of them into a soup of information bearing waves in the light of these new findings which, after all, deal with GSM and CDMA specifically. I can see how that might be different, considering the new work they've done concerning cell communication. But it's not going to happen when our ego, bias, and our social infrastructure turns it into a career killer.

I cannot argue with any of this, there is so much of physics and especially biology that we are clueless about, my issue is with assuming cell phone radiation is bad without good evidence. It is hard to do the research, like it is to research anything which the scientific community is convinced is a negative, people like to fund things that seem most likely to produce useful results, there is a limited amount of funding available and it might make more sense to spend it on something else (maybe researching a cure for cancers?). Scientifically proving a negative, e.g. cell phone level microwave exposure does not cause cancer, is almost impossible so, because that is the expected result, no one wants to fund it. Also people with lots of money who really do not want it researched never help. mad.gif

Even with all that being true I have never seen any good evidence that it is a significant risk, worrying about this is much like investing in a cold fusion startup, it could be true but there are better/worse bets/risks. Avoid french fries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Findecanor View Post

I have been to a lecture by a an old professor who had been conducting research into the health effects of cell phone radiation. He was at the end of his career, after having worked in radiophysiology all his life and was already past the retirement age.
He expressed his frustration in the difficulty of not only getting research grants himself but also in the difficulty in getting younger scientists interested in conducting research in this field.
The notion that radio waves could be unhealthy in any way is still mostly associated with crazy people wearing tin-foil hats and living away from civilization.
Young scientists want to have a productive career -- and that requires that they work in the mainstream where the money (the research grants) are. If they get associated with a controversial issue then that could hurt their options in the future.

I agree that this is a major issue for scientific research, and always has been. There are so many examples of long periods of stagnation in many disciplines due to the general scientific consensus being wrong that it is seriously depressing. It used to be even worse simply because the community was smaller. We spent decades trying to figure out what phlogiston was. I am not sure how to fix it though because funding every crackpot theory doesn't work either, not that this one is particularly crackpot, but there does have to be some sort of peer review process or something. Damn humans. tongue.gifwink.gif
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-18-18-41-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Custom Water Loop Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-18-18-41-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Custom Water Loop Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
post #84 of 88
Quote:
Some of the caveats to the latest study make things even less clear: the male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation actually lived longer than the control group, for example.

Oh these studies.

rolleyes.gif
Hydra TH10A
(15 items)
 
Nova Vault
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Rampage V Extreme 3-Way SLI GTX 980 Ti Hydro Copper 16 GB Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
480GB Intel 730 SSD Raid 0 x4 Custom Loop 4x 480 Alphacool Radiators Aquacomputer Aqualis 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer B326HK Razer Black Widow 2014 Corsair AX1500i  Case Labs TH10A 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga 2014 Megasoma 2 Creative ZxR 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Xeon D-1541 Supermicro X10SDV-TLN4F 128GB Crucial DDR4 2133 ECC 10x WD Red 4TB  
Case
Caselabs Nova  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.9 Ghz Radeon Pro 560 4GB 16 GB 1TB SSD 
OSMonitor
OS 10.11 15 Inch Retina 2880x1800 
  hide details  
Hydra TH10A
(15 items)
 
Nova Vault
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x Rampage V Extreme 3-Way SLI GTX 980 Ti Hydro Copper 16 GB Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
480GB Intel 730 SSD Raid 0 x4 Custom Loop 4x 480 Alphacool Radiators Aquacomputer Aqualis 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer B326HK Razer Black Widow 2014 Corsair AX1500i  Case Labs TH10A 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga 2014 Megasoma 2 Creative ZxR 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Xeon D-1541 Supermicro X10SDV-TLN4F 128GB Crucial DDR4 2133 ECC 10x WD Red 4TB  
Case
Caselabs Nova  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.9 Ghz Radeon Pro 560 4GB 16 GB 1TB SSD 
OSMonitor
OS 10.11 15 Inch Retina 2880x1800 
  hide details  
post #85 of 88
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
post #86 of 88
<
MFW these studies.
Ereshkigal
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 ASUS P5B DELUXE EVGA 8800GTS 2GB G.SKILL DDR2 800MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
western digital 200GBSATA XP SP2 Home 19" generic Saitek Eclipse Red 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
stock 410W / TT dedicated GPU 250W PSU INWIN x710 Logitech MX1000 ... Uhhhh my desk 
  hide details  
Ereshkigal
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 ASUS P5B DELUXE EVGA 8800GTS 2GB G.SKILL DDR2 800MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
western digital 200GBSATA XP SP2 Home 19" generic Saitek Eclipse Red 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
stock 410W / TT dedicated GPU 250W PSU INWIN x710 Logitech MX1000 ... Uhhhh my desk 
  hide details  
post #87 of 88
The ONLY thing that cellphone radiation can do is slightly warm you. You're utterly bathed in far more radiation than what a cellphone puts out just by existing. You, yourself, put out this kind of radiation, so does everything you touch.

If it were dangerous, we'd all be dead.

Yes, if you crank up the amplitude to silly levels, then the warming starts to become problematic. This is the kind of radiation that a microwave oven uses to cook food, and if you were cooking your brain with it, you would know. But the power levels simply aren't that high, and never will be that high.

Furthermore, warming your brain doesn't give you cancer. The amount of warming a cellphone could possibly generate, on max, is far, far less than how much warming you get from moving from under the shade of a tree to standing under direct sunlight. I grew up in Arizona, and there were days when I experienced 122-degree-in-the-shade weather. If cellphones caused cancer, then I'd have massive brain tumors from simply walking outside even without the direct sunlight irradiating me, simply because my head got a bit toasty.

All of this is complete and utter junk. To date, nobody has come up with anything even remotely approaching a theory as to how the physics of cellphone electromagnetics could possibly cause any effect at all other than slight heating, let alone any effect that is actually dangerous. And not for lack of trying: electromagnetic radiation is thoroughly studied and incredibly well-understood, down to the basics of how exactly photons interact with matter. It's something I've studied extensively in my career as an optical engineer, and there really isn't any mystery as to how electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter. And with all that knowledge, we have identified precisely nothing that could explain how the radiation actually interacts with a brain that could cause anything remotely noteworthy, let alone dangerous. And without that, you should take every alleged correlation as nothing more than a grab for a headline.
Edited by Mand12 - 6/2/16 at 11:11am
post #88 of 88
"But its the special frequency"...

The fact that these worried enthusiasts have 500-1000W of CPUs/GPUs crunching 3ft away from our head (even closer to the ballz) all day = harmless...
cause these electronics don't advertise themselves as "wireless" or having "radio" in them...
cause if wireless then <1W cell phone transmitters and cause we all know that wireless = radio = radioactive = cancer.

Nor we are worried about the sun outside radiating >1000W per sq. m all day long...no, sun = health, go out and play, don't "Fry your brain with video games". Because we all know that the TV tube was also radioactive and would fry your brain and eyes etc, don't we? Good thing LCD solved that...or did it not?

As said above, we are bathed daily with thousands of watts of electromagnetic waves. Be it heat from the sun, heat from our heater, heat from our PC, our convection oven, our microwave, our cell phone, the FM stations all-over, TV waves, radar, our dryer - even the gas one...if it makes heat, it radiates it. That's how we, and our cells perceive long - wave radiation, as heat.

Stop thinking radiation as in "radioactive" ... it is a failure of language that should not be transformed into a failure of understanding what experimental physics and biology indicates. Its true, super-short wave radiation can be harmful. But what is long and what is short?

We know that UV radiation, or electromagnetic waves with wavelengths from 10^-8 m to 3.8*10^-7 m (10 nm to 380 nm) can affect biological chemistry. We know that ionizing radiation waves, like Gamma (what Radium or Uranium decay produces, what laymen think radiation is) or X-Rays with wavelengths of 10^-11 m to 10^-8 m (10 pm to 10 nm) can affect the molecular structure of cells directly - given enough exposure...even that is not "instantaneous", and unfortunately it never works like Marvel or DC would suggest. Cells just die or become false copies (i.e. cancer). No super-powers.

But GSM is a wavelength in the order of 33cm (2W max, GSM 900) ~ 17cm (1W max, GSM 1xxx). That is MILLIONS OF TIMES LESS POWERFUL than what is proven to be harmful.

"But its the special frequency"... well...that's linked to the wavelength...but if you want to make that analogy, GSM is still in the 25-60MHz range, while brain-waves (which are not the same, but lets play along for argument shake) are in the .5~42Hz range...Hz, as in MILLIONS OF TIMES SLOWER THAN MHz...yet people realistically support the notion that our brain "resonates" with that...

Exposing someone, either rat or human, to unrealistic scenarios of radiation to find out whether it affects them or not, is one thing, pushing for a predetermined, perhaps uneducated and biased result, time, after time, after time - like dating fossils over and over to prove that dinosaurs walked this Earth along humans in the Garden of Eden thingy, and quote mine words or individual results out of oceans of texts that overwhelmingly reject our hypothesis - seizes being true science.

False positives in un-linked phenomena, like the hypothesis that if I type too hard some plane over the Mediterranean sea crashes, might happen now and then. Its a coincidence of no statistical significance. But take anecdotes, personal experience and bias as equivalents to evidence of truth, and it might be a sign of God.

Publishing incomplete, biased or falsified data as scientific results ts sensationalism. Period.
Edited by pcfoo - 6/2/16 at 2:15pm
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] A Connection between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found