US Govt cellphone cancer study - clear dose response relationship

Forums › Health and fitness › US Govt cellphone cancer study - clear dose response relationship

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1561353 28-May-2016 18:12

joker97:

Hammerer:

joker97:

You will find that proponents will hail this as a game changer,

While skeptics will say humans aren't rats.

Same old story.

In this controversy, skeptics have always been those who doubted the safety of cell phones.

Proponents are those who say there is no problem with cell phone radiation.

Proponents of the study results, skeptic of the study results.

I was pointing out that the "old story" on this controversy. It could be replaced by a new story where skeptics continue to be those who oppose the new research findings.

The term skeptic is not value free. It generally suggests a negative and unreliable position. This is particularly the case around popular scientific issues. You only have to look at TV ads to see that it is considered OK to poke fun at the tin-foil brigade. So it will be interesting to see if this study really results in a swing the other way. It would be a paradigm change as big as the shift we saw in the smoking controversy.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561354 28-May-2016 18:14

Hammerer:

joker97:

Hammerer:

joker97:

You will find that proponents will hail this as a game changer,

While skeptics will say humans aren't rats.

Same old story.

In this controversy, skeptics have always been those who doubted the safety of cell phones.

Proponents are those who say there is no problem with cell phone radiation.

Proponents of the study results, skeptic of the study results.

I was pointing out that the "old story" on this controversy. It could be replaced by a new story where skeptics continue to be those who oppose the new research findings.

The term skeptic is not value free. It generally suggests a negative and unreliable position. This is particularly the case around popular scientific issues. You only have to look at TV ads to see that it is considered OK to poke fun at the tin-foil brigade. So it will be interesting to see if this study really results in a swing the other way. It would be a paradigm change as big as the shift we saw in the smoking controversy.

Ok shall I re-word

You will find that some will hail this as a game changer,

While the rest will say humans aren't rats.

Same old story.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1561362 28-May-2016 18:35

freitasm:

Damn, even publication sometimes means nothing. The vaccine - autism study was published on The Lancet and then retracted when they found out the author was trying to hawk his own "non vaccine vaccine".

And yet they continue publish many articles from scientists with patents for the medicines they push in their studies (e.g. the new drugs due to replace statins now that they are out of patent and no longer profitable). His patent was for a measles vaccine - at that time he wasn't anti-vaccine, although he might be now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1561368 28-May-2016 18:43

freitasm:

gzt: I can certainly agree there. There are no details or expert interpretation of the results so far. It is just the study leaders confirming the results unexpectedly show a strong dose response relationship.

One study, not yet peer-reviewed and for all we know it could have been flawed. Once it's accepted and published by an authority then we talk again.

Damn, even publication sometimes means nothing. The vaccine - autism study was published on The Lancet and then retracted when they found out the author was trying to hawk his own "non vaccine vaccine".

The study has been peer reviewed. The peer review and responses are in the paper. It's important to read the responses - not just skim through the reviews to conclude that the study is "full of holes" It probably isn't. How statistically significant - who knows?

I don't know if/where it's being published - I haven't looked to find out.

The study could be flawed - true enough. How?

Brief synopsis:

People freak out about cellphones - are they killing us?

No they aren't - there's no way that low level of RFR could be doing damage at the cellular / molecular level.

Some epidemiological studies done, some show an apparent correlation with those specific tumours, most other studies don't. Conclusion - the studies showing a correlation were flawed. (Almost) everybody happy - except the tinfoil hat brigade.

This study done - whoops - not only does it show tumour formation in rats, but exactly the same type of tumour as the (mainly refuted) epidemiological studies in humans, those certainly subject to general scepticism, because RFR at those levels "doesn't cause damage". Very very weird.

Even if the study is statistically flawed, it's a helluva coincidence IMO.

The paper has been released before the full study has been completed. Very wise IMO, as something is wrong, either with the study, or with the assumption that "RFR at those levels can't cause this". If it can't in humans for that reason (no mechanism), then it can't in rats either. So there is an issue all right - relevance to humans and cellphones - unknown. WTF is the mechanism?

The responses "everything causes cancer" or "just because it causes cancer in rats doesn't mean it does in humans" aren't particularly relevant - IMO.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1561369 28-May-2016 18:46

https://xkcd.com/882/

If you don't get this, then read up about what statistical significance means until you do...

cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

coffeebaron

6233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561377 28-May-2016 19:12

So the rats that were exposed lived longer? I think I better start taking on my cellphone more often :)

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

gzt

17125 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1561382 28-May-2016 19:32

freitasm:
gzt: I can certainly agree there. There are no details or expert interpretation of the results so far. It is just the study leaders confirming the results unexpectedly show a strong dose response relationship.

One study, not yet peer-reviewed and for all we know it could have been flawed. Once it's accepted and published by an authority then we talk again.

Damn, even publication sometimes means nothing. The vaccine - autism study was published on The Lancet and then retracted when they found out the author was trying to hawk his own "non vaccine vaccine".

This is true. Publication in Lancet was very useful in that instance. It brought the article enough attention to be conclusively refuted purely on the math and stats within days. It is all part of the process. That is what journal publication is designed to achieve.

This particular cellphone study is based on controlled experiment. Journal publication will see other researchers try to replicate the conditions and see if the results hold true.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561392 28-May-2016 19:47

Just read the paper.

1. I do not see proof of dose dependant effect. No idea how they came to that conclusion. Can anyone point to the statistical analysis to conclude that?

2. Interesting results, if they can replicate this repeatedly then the results would be more validated. Otherwise the sample size is too small.

3. Rats are not humans, but I am not suggesting humans do not respond the same as rats.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561396 28-May-2016 19:49

If they can find twins or triplets of these things from the same family and do different things to them that could be much more validating.

I wonder if PETA is going to protest ...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1561407 28-May-2016 20:18

The most concise summary / news article I've seen is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/health/cancer-study-radiation-cellphones.html

mdav056

607 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#1561431 28-May-2016 21:44

Talkiet:

https://xkcd.com/882/

If you don't get this, then read up about what statistical significance means until you do...

cheers - N

Nice. 20 studies, 1/20 significant. So, that one can be published because it is significant, and you can get more research money; stow all the rest in the file drawer.

At least it was an experiment -- better than asking 1000 people with and without glial cancer how much they had used their cellphones in the last 20 years, and finding a "link" (aka correlation, no causation).

I wonder why they didn't have a group of 90 rats in tinfoil hats? Oh, has anyone looked to see if mice have a layer of tinfoil in their crania? That could explain a lot.

<sigh>

gml

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561448 28-May-2016 22:10

asking many other labs to repeat the experiment would validate the results. using different mice with different genetic ancestors.

then one would need human data. no problem when President Trump makes his demands known to prisons of his foreign subordinates

JayADee

2148 posts

Uber Geek

#1561473 29-May-2016 05:31

Can somebody give me a simple explanation of p values, preferably with a couple examples?

Edit: never mind, I think if I read this a couple more times I'll get it:
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/understanding-hypothesis-tests:-significance-levels-alpha-and-p-values-in-statistics

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1561488 29-May-2016 08:51

joker97:

asking many other labs to repeat the experiment would validate the results. using different mice with different genetic ancestors.

then one would need human data. no problem when President Trump makes his demands known to prisons of his foreign subordinates

Trump wouldn't be coming up with anything new:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1561539 29-May-2016 09:38

JayADee: Can somebody give me a simple explanation of p values, preferably with a couple examples?

Edit: never mind, I think if I read this a couple more times I'll get it:
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/understanding-hypothesis-tests:-significance-levels-alpha-and-p-values-in-statistics

p-value is

according to the statistical test that is used, the probability that the observed effect is due to chance/coincidence.

p of 0.047654 means the probability that the observed effect is due to chance is 4.8%

p of 0.1234 means that probability of the observed effect is due to chance is 12.3%

and so on

it's just a magical number plucked from the sky for the lay person. that magical cut off is set at <5% = eureka moment/significant. what one must understand is what that observed effect is and what it means in real life.

and don't get me started on confidence intervals ....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6