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

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1563576 1-Jun-2016 11:34

wasabi2k:

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.

1. we are told many things by all kinds of people and given many instructions. sleep for 8 hours, brush your teeth twice a day, exercise 5 mins a week, and so on. it's ok to make things up. that's life. I do not consider these to be absolute scientific truths. they are no more accurate than my mother telling me to make my bed every morning.

2. there is always scientific links. the issue lies with what one calls scientific evidence. what is evidence? I looked up a few places

This oxford site (not updated since 2009) says the best evidence is systematic review of homogenous randomised control trials, and the lowest evidence they accept is "Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”"

- which, you could argue, if an expert says he thinks cellphone radiation cause cancer it is the lowest form of scientific evidence but nonetheless evidence.

According to the American Heart Association

- Highest is "multiple randomized trials", lowest is "consensus opinion of experts"

According to the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council highest is systematic review of randomized trials and lowest is case series[i have no idea what pretest posttest outcomes are]

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2008316 5-May-2018 08:53

So we have new data in England that "The rate of glioblastoma climbed from 2.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 people in England between 1995 and 2015".

"The tumors "primarily are in the frontal and temporal lobe areas, by your ear and forehead," which raises the cell phone suspicion".

But. "What the analysis does not show is that this rise is caused by mobile phones ... this paper does not attempt to link the rise in mobile phone use with a rise in brain tumor incidence directly"

And. "Even if such a link were found, correlation does not imply causation".

Thought I'd put it out there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/02/health/brain-tumors-cell-phones-study/index.html

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2008318 5-May-2018 08:54

Hmm I underlined all the bits that were quoted from the researchers in " " but underlines don't show up for some reason. Might try italics ..

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2008319 5-May-2018 08:59

Yes, but read the other bits in the article - most of it is saying it's unrelated:

"The data analyzed in the study only reflect trends in brain cancer cases and do not shed light on why these trends could have occurred, but the researchers pointed to examples of lifestyle factors that they think could have played a role."

"Several experts in the UK have cautioned that although the study found evidence of an increase in brain tumors, the suggestion that cell phone use could be responsible is not proven."

"However, the US Food and Drug Administration notes that since cell phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy that are non-ionizing, they're not considered strong enough to permanently damage our biological tissues."

"The researchers wrote in the study that ionizing radiation, especially from X-rays used in CT scans, has the most "supportive evidence" as a possible factor behind the rise in glioblastoma diagnoses."

"This paper provides evidence for a rise in specific malignant brain tumors in England, showing that incidence has more than doubled over the last two decades. What the analysis does not show is that this rise is caused by mobile phones. This is for a number of reasons," Lion Shahab, senior lecturer in epidemiology and public health at University College London, said in a written statement released by the Science Media Centre."

"There are statistical techniques available to do this, for instance using time-series analysis, which attempt to link changes in a putative risk factor with changes in the outcome of interest over time. This was not done here," he said. "Second, even if such a link were found, correlation does not imply causation."

"While mobile phone usage in the population increased from less than 15% to 95% over the time period studied, we do not see the same increase in malignant brain tumors. This suggests that the strength of any effect, if present, would have to be small," Shahab said.

In other words, not conclusive and not even the objective of the study.

Ouranos

118 posts

Master Geek

#2008329 5-May-2018 09:44

freitasm:

In other words, not conclusive and not even the objective of the study.

And such studies are meaningless unless normalized for changes in screening and diagnosis techniques. Finding more of something does not necessarily mean that there is more of it.

For example, the "incidence" of breast cancer in the USA increased by around 30% from the 1980s to the 1990s. There is no evidence to suggest that actual occurrences increased, but the timing does coincide with the introduction of a screening program.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2008629 6-May-2018 10:57

Ouranos:

freitasm:

In other words, not conclusive and not even the objective of the study.

And such studies are meaningless unless normalized for changes in screening and diagnosis techniques. Finding more of something does not necessarily mean that there is more of it.

For example, the "incidence" of breast cancer in the USA increased by around 30% from the 1980s to the 1990s. There is no evidence to suggest that actual occurrences increased, but the timing does coincide with the introduction of a screening program.

Utter BS.

Proof of this is that despite even more widespread screening over the past two decades (compared to the '80s and '90s), there's been a significant decline in BC incidence in the USA since the year 2000, and massive reduction in mortality probably due in part to early diagnosis from screening.

Breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. began decreasing in the year 2000, after increasing for the previous two decades. They dropped by 7% from 2002 to 2003 alone. One theory is that this decrease was partially due to the reduced use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by women after the results of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative were published in 2002. These results suggested a connection between HRT and increased breast cancer risk.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2008651 6-May-2018 11:46

Regardless I expect the number of phone to the head cell calls has dropped dramatically anyway.

First SMS on Android touch, email, followed by Facebook, Snapchat and all the other platforms.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6