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

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562510 30-May-2016 17:48

gzt: Scientific American takes a look.

The dose response claims are repeated there. It appears the data released so far are part of a larger study programme. I have not seen anything definitive on this yet, it seems implied in several articles.

This will take some time.

I still don't see how they can claim dose response. The study results will need to be repeated by other people ("further studies warranted") for any validity. One experiment of 90x4 rats usually don't mean much in the overall scheme of things.

Note: again for those who missed, it does not mean it does or does not cause cancer; what I'm referring to is the process of analysing a "scientific experiment"

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562511 30-May-2016 17:49

Oncop53:

I think it is worth reading the response by the Science Media Centre:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/05/30/cellphone-radiation-and-cancer-in-rats-experts-reaction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Very eloquently worded.

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1562535 30-May-2016 18:23

Oncop53:

I think it is worth reading the response by the Science Media Centre:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/05/30/cellphone-radiation-and-cancer-in-rats-experts-reaction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At last, some sensible reporting of the results.

There are several questions/inadequacies around the control group and statistical analysis that has numerous issues. The end result is that the study, although costing several million dollars, effectively tells us very little about the size of the effect when exposed to GSM/CDMA RFR at high levels for a large number of hours. They could of designed a much better study using the same number of rats and, combining this with better analysis, they could of had a more reliable estimate of the size of the effect.

SepticSceptic

2188 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1562969 31-May-2016 12:50

Schrodingers Rat ?

Of particular note is that the rats treated with RF lived longer than the controls.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562984 31-May-2016 13:21

SepticSceptic:

Schrodingers Rat ?

Of particular note is that the rats treated with RF lived longer than the controls.

No Superrats.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1563340 31-May-2016 22:03

zenourn:

Oncop53:

I think it is worth reading the response by the Science Media Centre:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/05/30/cellphone-radiation-and-cancer-in-rats-experts-reaction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At last, some sensible reporting of the results.

There are several questions/inadequacies around the control group and statistical analysis that has numerous issues. The end result is that the study, although costing several million dollars, effectively tells us very little about the size of the effect when exposed to GSM/CDMA RFR at high levels for a large number of hours. They could of designed a much better study using the same number of rats and, combining this with better analysis, they could of had a more reliable estimate of the size of the effect.

IMO it's not sensible reporting to apparently select "expert" opinion to only refute what the study presented.

The first expert cited, Dr Rodney Croft states:

Of particular note is that the rats treated with RF lived longer than the controls (which is counter intuitive given that the increased tumour rates normally lead to reduced lifespan), the controls did not have ‘any’ tumours (which is also not what is normally found), and the lack of clear dose-response relationships raises the possibility that the results may merely be ‘false positives’ (particularly given the large number of statistical comparisons, the one significant result would appear consistent with chance).

The fact that the control rats had reduced lifespan doesn't invalidate the results. Sure it's of note, but not of "particular note" and as an opening comment - that shows bias.

"The controls do not have any tumours (which is not what is normally found)"

Historical control data is shown in the paper. In 12 out of 22 other studies the controls did not have tumours.

At that point I stopped reading the article.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1563342 31-May-2016 22:07

Fred99:

zenourn:

Oncop53:

I think it is worth reading the response by the Science Media Centre:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/05/30/cellphone-radiation-and-cancer-in-rats-experts-reaction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At last, some sensible reporting of the results.

There are several questions/inadequacies around the control group and statistical analysis that has numerous issues. The end result is that the study, although costing several million dollars, effectively tells us very little about the size of the effect when exposed to GSM/CDMA RFR at high levels for a large number of hours. They could of designed a much better study using the same number of rats and, combining this with better analysis, they could of had a more reliable estimate of the size of the effect.

IMO it's not sensible reporting to apparently select "expert" opinion to only refute what the study presented.

The first expert cited, Dr Rodney Croft states:

Of particular note is that the rats treated with RF lived longer than the controls (which is counter intuitive given that the increased tumour rates normally lead to reduced lifespan), the controls did not have ‘any’ tumours (which is also not what is normally found), and the lack of clear dose-response relationships raises the possibility that the results may merely be ‘false positives’ (particularly given the large number of statistical comparisons, the one significant result would appear consistent with chance).

The fact that the control rats had reduced lifespan doesn't invalidate the results. Sure it's of note, but not of "particular note" and as an opening comment - that shows bias.

"The controls do not have any tumours (which is not what is normally found)"

Historical control data is shown in the paper. In 12 out of 22 other studies the controls did not have tumours.

At that point I stopped reading the article.

I think you should ignore their shortsighted preambles. The points they make after that are a bit more insightful.

Again, as I said from the beginning, there will be two camps. They are both neither right nor wrong. We need repeat studies to validate the rat results. Then human experimental studies probably need to follow. [Which I gather, would not be possible]

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1563361 31-May-2016 23:15

joker97:

Fred99:

zenourn:

Oncop53:

I think it is worth reading the response by the Science Media Centre:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2016/05/30/cellphone-radiation-and-cancer-in-rats-experts-reaction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At last, some sensible reporting of the results.

There are several questions/inadequacies around the control group and statistical analysis that has numerous issues. The end result is that the study, although costing several million dollars, effectively tells us very little about the size of the effect when exposed to GSM/CDMA RFR at high levels for a large number of hours. They could of designed a much better study using the same number of rats and, combining this with better analysis, they could of had a more reliable estimate of the size of the effect.

IMO it's not sensible reporting to apparently select "expert" opinion to only refute what the study presented.

The first expert cited, Dr Rodney Croft states:

Of particular note is that the rats treated with RF lived longer than the controls (which is counter intuitive given that the increased tumour rates normally lead to reduced lifespan), the controls did not have ‘any’ tumours (which is also not what is normally found), and the lack of clear dose-response relationships raises the possibility that the results may merely be ‘false positives’ (particularly given the large number of statistical comparisons, the one significant result would appear consistent with chance).

The fact that the control rats had reduced lifespan doesn't invalidate the results. Sure it's of note, but not of "particular note" and as an opening comment - that shows bias.

"The controls do not have any tumours (which is not what is normally found)"

Historical control data is shown in the paper. In 12 out of 22 other studies the controls did not have tumours.

At that point I stopped reading the article.

I think you should ignore their shortsighted preambles. The points they make after that are a bit more insightful.

Again, as I said from the beginning, there will be two camps. They are both neither right nor wrong. We need repeat studies to validate the rat results. Then human experimental studies probably need to follow. [Which I gather, would not be possible]

Absolutely not WRT ignoring the preamble. That's appalling - "personal opinion", indicating so much bias they couldn't be bothered reading the paper.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1563407 1-Jun-2016 00:35

Linuxluver:

joker97:

I have a feeling this link has been proposed before. (Cellphone <-> Brain tumour)

I've always kept my cell phone well away from my head when not in use and my calls tend to be less than a minute and at most a handful / day.

I started doing that after 3 people I know in the 80s died of brain tumors in the early 90s ...... who also happened to use those old Motorola 'bricks' a lot and for years.

The science wasn't in......but until they stack the bodies so high no one can deny it the science typically isn't yet in. I'm risk averse.

It does seem far more people are getting these brain tumors these days. I haven't really seen any research that shows whether they have increase or not since the 80's. If there is an increase, then something would be causing the increase. Then you would have to look at trends, and things in common. These days people have multiple devices around them. So even if a single device is likely to be safe, what about 24 hour multiple dosages. I think it would be naive to believe that a cellphone hasn't contributed in some way to a single death in the world. Even as a contributor in conjuction with something else. Years ago, people said that Asbestos was safe, as was smoking. Even eating cured meats is a new one that people thought was 100% safe.. Doctors even prescribed smoking as a remedy. The problem is that too many people have conflicts of interests with this. And it is very difficult to prove this sort of thing 100%. I guess it is a managed risk. If you use one, hold it away from your head etc until the science is out.

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1563435 1-Jun-2016 07:50

Fred99:

The fact that the control rats had reduced lifespan doesn't invalidate the results. Sure it's of note, but not of "particular note" and as an opening comment - that shows bias.

"The controls do not have any tumours (which is not what is normally found)"

Historical control data is shown in the paper. In 12 out of 22 other studies the controls did not have tumours.

At that point I stopped reading the article.

Control rats having a shorter lifespan in this particular study is a very serious issue. These type of tumours are age-dependent and hence a shorter lifespan reduces the probability of the tumours being seen in the control group. They use Poly-6 to try to account for this but the assumptions are violated by not observing any events and a small sample size.

If you look at Table 1, pg 9 you can see that historical control incidence in NTP studies is 11/550 (2.0%) with a range of 0-8%.

Also from this table they also observed (for male gliomas):
GSM 1.5: 3.3%
GSM 3.0: 3.3%
GSM 6.0: 2.2%
CDMA 1.5 0%
CDMA 3.0: 0%
CDMA 6.0: 3.3%

The mean over these different conditions is 2.0% which matches exactly the control incidence in NTP studies. The results are all just sampling variability, inflated due to small sample sizes, and there is no evidence of any effect.

The observed incidence and prevalence of glioblastomas and other nasty brain cancers are increasing. However, once you age and sex standardise and correct for a few other confounding variables due to observational nature then there is no evidence of an increase over years. As these type of diseases are age-dependent you can expect an increase as life expectancy increases.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1563436 1-Jun-2016 07:50

Fred99:

Absolutely not WRT ignoring the preamble. That's appalling - "personal opinion", indicating so much bias they couldn't be bothered reading the paper.

It is not personal opinion.

The quality of a control group in an experimental study is that the control group must be a comparable group to the intervention group. If the control group generates zero events, its representation must be questioned. And that is always a valid question. The question is asked all the time. Vice versa. if the control group generates more event than usual, its representation is also suspicious.

Lifespan between groups - well I don't know why that is not a valid question to be honest. Again, we must know the significance of that. Chance vs something else - eg are the groups for some reason not comparable.

Again, not saying whether the study shows it causes cancer or not, just the process of peer review unfortunately. It is very usual for 90x4 animals to attract these sorts of issues.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1563510 1-Jun-2016 09:57

joker97:

Fred99:

Absolutely not WRT ignoring the preamble. That's appalling - "personal opinion", indicating so much bias they couldn't be bothered reading the paper.

It is not personal opinion.

The quality of a control group in an experimental study is that the control group must be a comparable group to the intervention group. If the control group generates zero events, its representation must be questioned. And that is always a valid question. The question is asked all the time. Vice versa. if the control group generates more event than usual, its representation is also suspicious.

Lifespan between groups - well I don't know why that is not a valid question to be honest. Again, we must know the significance of that. Chance vs something else - eg are the groups for some reason not comparable.

Again, not saying whether the study shows it causes cancer or not, just the process of peer review unfortunately. It is very usual for 90x4 animals to attract these sorts of issues.

That's not correct. Zero incidence in the control group is a "normal" result. Over half of other trials done in that lab using the same type of rat had zero incidence in the controls.

There are many possible reasons why there are large differences in incidence in controls between that study and historical.

Hopefully that can be addressed in future trials. They must be done. Reacting to say that the study was a load of rubbish is a very stupid position to take.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1563538 1-Jun-2016 10:40

Fred99:
joker97:

Fred99:

Absolutely not WRT ignoring the preamble. That's appalling - "personal opinion", indicating so much bias they couldn't be bothered reading the paper.

It is not personal opinion.

The quality of a control group in an experimental study is that the control group must be a comparable group to the intervention group. If the control group generates zero events, its representation must be questioned. And that is always a valid question. The question is asked all the time. Vice versa. if the control group generates more event than usual, its representation is also suspicious.

Lifespan between groups - well I don't know why that is not a valid question to be honest. Again, we must know the significance of that. Chance vs something else - eg are the groups for some reason not comparable.

Again, not saying whether the study shows it causes cancer or not, just the process of peer review unfortunately. It is very usual for 90x4 animals to attract these sorts of issues.

That's not correct. Zero incidence in the control group is a "normal" result. Over half of other trials done in that lab using the same type of rat had zero incidence in the controls.

There are many possible reasons why there are large differences in incidence in controls between that study and historical.

Hopefully that can be addressed in future trials. They must be done. Reacting to say that the study was a load of rubbish is a very stupid position to take.

I'm going to read the link again but i didn't get the feeling that they were saying it's a load of rubbish. I thought they said this study in the context of current best knowledge (brain cancer possible in very heavy users, not much else known about the rest, what about children no one knows anything), is different and must be further evaluated.

I do note the statements are carefully worded on the side of don't cause panic to the public.

wasabi2k

2096 posts

Uber Geek

#1563552 1-Jun-2016 10:55

mattwnz:

It does seem far more people are getting these brain tumors these days. I haven't really seen any research that shows whether they have increase or not since the 80's. If there is an increase, then something would be causing the increase. Then you would have to look at trends, and things in common. These days people have multiple devices around them. So even if a single device is likely to be safe, what about 24 hour multiple dosages. I think it would be naive to believe that a cellphone hasn't contributed in some way to a single death in the world. Even as a contributor in conjuction with something else. Years ago, people said that Asbestos was safe, as was smoking. Even eating cured meats is a new one that people thought was 100% safe.. Doctors even prescribed smoking as a remedy. The problem is that too many people have conflicts of interests with this. And it is very difficult to prove this sort of thing 100%. I guess it is a managed risk. If you use one, hold it away from your head etc until the science is out.

"It does seem"

"I haven't seen any"

"something would be causing"

None of the above statements help with making a convincing argument. Your first statement "more people getting brain tumours" should be provable with data, assuming that the data is available and it isn't affected by things like bad reporting, mis-diagnosis etc.

If cancers are increasing, then it makes sense that something may be contributing to that. However if we look at changes to joe average since the 80s - there are a hell of a lot more than increased radio signal exposure. Diet, environment, stress levels, solar radiation etc etc etc etc.

"I think it would be naive to believe that a cellphone hasn't contributed in some way to a single death in the world" - has anyone actually claimed this? And do you mean by radio signal exposure? Cellphones have contributed to a number of crashes/accidents just through their usage - and that is anecdotally.

I agree with this:

Years ago, people said that Asbestos was safe, as was smoking. Even eating cured meats is a new one that people thought was 100% safe.. Doctors even prescribed smoking as a remedy. The problem is that too many people have conflicts of interests with this. And it is very difficult to prove this sort of thing 100%.

I do not agree with this:

I guess it is a managed risk. If you use one, hold it away from your head etc until the science is out.

There is a body of research showing no link - and no scientific basis for it causing cancers. To use your previous example - was there independent, non tobacco funded, research that showed smoking was safe?

tl;dr - Science is hard, commonality is not causality, feelings are not data.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1563559 1-Jun-2016 11:06

Fred99:

That is not correct. Zero incidence in the control group is a "normal" result. Over half of other trials done in that lab using the same type of rat had zero incidence in the controls.

There are many possible reasons why there are large differences in incidence in controls between that study and historical.

Hopefully that can be addressed in future trials. They must be done. Reacting to say that the study was a load of rubbish is a very stupid position to take.

Zero incidence in control group is not a normal result.

1. Unless an event never occurs, the nominator cannot be zero. It may be a small number, but zero breaks math and stats.

2. Zero incidence in control group from what you say, does have internal validity. But no one has shown it has external validity, ie can that be repeated elsewhere. Other lab, other mice, other country etc.

3. Hence the question in a peer review is valid.

4. It does not mean the controls are shammed in some way. It could well be that the incidence is very very small, and torching rats between conception and middle age causes cancer.

So where does this leave the rats. Assuming the controls are validated. Well, is it that the RF at first trimester (organogenesis) that's causing it. Is it during rapid growth of neuronal cells during early infancy? Do rats have a special genes that other species don't? Is there something about very high dose? Is it the exposure time? Is it cumulative? etc etc etc and the list never stops. ONE of that list is that small doses RF are cumulative and does cause brain and heart tumours in humans. Can't tell from this.

If you want to be scientific you have to play by the rules of scientific peer review. Unfortunately, it is a very long process, and a lot of years of heated arguments between so called experts. I do not claim to be one.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6