Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study

Posted by samzenpus on Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:36 AM
from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.
Communications Science
ZZeta writes "Following up on the Swedish study on cell phone cancer risk, the FDA released a statement today questioning its reliability. From the statement: 'These facts along with the lack of an established mechanism of action and supporting animal data makes the Hardell et al's finding difficult to interpret.' Also available several links to other studies."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Swedish Study Finds Cell Phone Cancer Risk 282 comments
dtjohnson writes "A new Swedish study has found that heavy users of cell phones had a 240 percent increase in brain tumors on the side of their head that the phone was used on. The study defined 'heavy' use as more than 2,000 total hours, or approximately one hour of use per workday for 10 years. An earlier British study was previously discussed here that didn't find an increased risk, although that study covered fewer subjects and only followed one type of brain tumor for a shorter period of time. Or course, the biggest epidemiological study of all is the one we are all participating in whenever we use our cell phone. The results from that study won't be available for a while."
[+] Mobile: Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk 222 comments
Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wait, does this mean the lump on the side of my head isn't from my cell phone? Oh, shi....

  • Finding out the truth (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2006, @10:39AM (#15084602)

    will be very hard when there is a billion dollar industry based on cellphones
    its like global warming vs the oil industry, it will take numerous studies over decades until the "truth" will finally come out

    • Global warming is potentially a major change in the entire biosphere that will affect every living creature on the planet. I think cell phone brain cancer risks are overblown. Even if the studies showing risk are true, I'm personally not going to change my behavior. The cell phone is a useful enough device for me personally to accept the health risks, and I imagine this is true of most heavy users.

      The industry already offers hands-free devices so that you don't need to hold the thing to your face if you'
      • We drive cars even though they are huge killing machines. Why, because the benefits are worth the risk. Same with going out in the sun. It is well known that the sun causes cancer. We still go out in the daylight. Again, the benefits out weigh the risk.
    • You seem to be assuming that they definitely cause cancer and the truth is being covered up. From what I have read in the book Freakonomics, cell phones have no influence on the overall rate of brain cancer. Since that book says some pretty non-PC things, I doubt they would have worried about what a couple cell phone companies thought about what they were saying. By saying that the truth is unknown at this time flies right in the face of work done in the field that shows no influence - you are in essence
      • Observations are observations. If someone wants to verify the study, he can copy the methods and see if the results support or discredit the original study, or he can show that the methods were wrong.

        Observations are observations, but interpretation is another matter. The observation is that when the investigators questioned a group of brain cancer victims, they reported more cell-phone use than people without cancer. As for interpretation, there are multiple possibilities:

        1. Were people who used cell phone

  • LOL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mozumder (178398)
    A pro-capitalist political organization puts out a press release questioning a study that may possibly hurt the communications industry?

    THERES A FUCKING SURPRISE.

    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RexRhino (769423) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:13AM (#15084951)
      I don't think that you could call a vast government beurocracy which costs industry billions every year and has almost absolute power to dictate policy to buisnesses a capitalist organization. I realize it is the fashion for Socialists to call anything they don't like "Capitalist", in the same way Pat Roberson and the Christian Right call anything they don't like "Satanist", but really your definition of "Capitalism" makes the word meaningless. Why not call things you are against "Badism", and say you are a "Goodist"... that would say about as much.

      The FDA, in particular, is considered a bit overzealous if anything. Many drugs, food products, etc., which are totally legal most places in the world, get banned in the U.S. by the FDA. The usual critism is not that the FDA doesn't go far enough in regulation, but that it goes too far compared with places like Western Europe.
    • Article line SHOULD be:

      "Following up on the Swedish study on cell phone cancer risk, the FDA released a statement today questioning its PROFITABILITY."

  • Animal data? (Score:5, Funny)

    by i_am_the_r00t (762212) on Friday April 07 2006, @10:41AM (#15084624)
    Most animals cannot hold cell phones up to their ears and many simply can't fill out the contracts required to obtain a cell phone.

    Animal Data. that's ridiculous!

  • Why the FDA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vellmont (569020) on Friday April 07 2006, @10:43AM (#15084645)
    Can someone tell me why the FDA is releasing a statement about this? Cell phones and RF are neither a food nor a drug, nor a medical device. Does this fall under some part of the FDA I'm not aware of?

    • Re:Why the FDA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by DerGeist (956018) on Friday April 07 2006, @10:51AM (#15084723)
      The FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA is divided into five groups:

      Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
      Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
      Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
      Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
      Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

      This falls underthe CDRH's domain and they share information with the FCC regarding the health effects of cell phones and other RF devices.

      "FDA" almost seems like a misnomer since they are much more than just food and drugs, but that's what they started as, so that's what they're called today. Nowadays they are almost like a much more generic "health cop."

  • "This study has been brought to you by your friendly neighbors Nokia, Siemens and Motorola."

  • Whew! (Score:3, Funny)

    by DerGeist (956018) on Friday April 07 2006, @10:45AM (#15084662)
    Thank God, I can start using my cell phone again! Man, I'm glad someone criticized that study or I'd be in trouble.

    So long as someone is advocating the viewpoint I'm more personally comfortable with regardless of the facts I'm happy!

    Of course if no one is taking my side, then I have a foolproof plan -- I just say studies contradict each other too often and hence can't provide any reliable information about anything. Then I can do whatever I want, risk-free!

    • Thank God, I can start using my cell phone again! Man, I'm glad someone criticized that study or I'd be in trouble.

      Of course we see this in all manner of studies.

      One decade, bacon and eggs is a good, healthy breakfast.
      Next decade, cholesterol is bad, that means bacon and eggs are bad.
      The next decade, obesity is bad, eat bacon and eggs to lose weight and be healthier.
      Next decade -yes people with high cholesterol have higher rate of cardiac trouble, years of changing diet and cholesterol lowering drugs work t
    • Sounds like the studies on :
      • global warming
      • the increasing rate at which species vanish
      • the oil peak
      • so called "alternative" energy sources
      • the lack of health impact testing of pretty much any household chemical
      • etc.

      I don't want to know! don't tell me don't tell me! Turn Fox (or CNN or whatever) up!

  • From another study on their list (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kangburra (911213) on Friday April 07 2006, @10:48AM (#15084695)
    The authors conclude that there is no substantial risk of this tumour in the first 10 years after starting mobile phone use. However, an increased risk after longer term use could not be ruled out.

    This seems to be their reasoning, only after longer (10 years) use does it have any effect. So people who've had a phone for more than 10 years could be at higher risk.
  • This reminds me of one of the ending scenes for "Thank You for Smoking" where Nick Naylor is consulting the cell phone lobbyists on how to sway the industry into thinking cell phones aren't harmful. I can't quote the scene from memory and I won't be able to do it justice if I wing it, so I just won't. Those who have seen it know what I'm talking about though and if you haven't seen it... Well why the hell not?
  • It was probably the duct tape that was used to secure the phone to the head of the rabbit that gave it cancer.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by gregarican (694358) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:05AM (#15084861) Homepage
    The FDA announced that eating a steady diet of old Motorola brick phones will actually improve colon health and act as a cancer fighting agent.

  • Radiation + head = ??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:06AM (#15084865)
    It doesn't seem like a good idea to put a transmitter strong enough to broadcast for miles right up against the side of my head. When I had a cell phone I used a bluetooth headset in the hopes of lessening the amount of radiation entering my skull.

    A few years back my boss died of brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme). The tumor was right above his left ear...the side he held his cell phone to. He went to the doctor in May for headaches and the next March we were at his funeral. Yes, it's only one anecdotal case, but still it reinforces my belief that holding a cell phone against your head just can't be good for you.
    • It seems that doubting a god that flies a flaming golden chariot across the sky every day wouldn't be a good idea. That's why a make offerings the the Sun God daily.

      A few years back a friend of mine who believed that the Sun God was just a ball of fire circling the earth, died right where the light and warmth from the Sun God would hit him. Yes this is only one anecdotal case also, but still it reinforces my belief that denying the Sun God just can't be good for you.

      The point: You openly know that
      • I'm not making a wag about his death. He died of brain cancer, that much is known. No, I didn't need to find some reason for his death. I was just struck by the coincidence, as he was on his cell phone all the time. Yes, it could be a coincidence. It could also be due to cell phone usage. No one can say either way. I'm open to either reason, given proof. There's enough uncertainty in the studies (i.e. long term effects) for me to say, "cell phones are perfectly safe."
      • I thought of that too. I believe the power drops off with the square of the distance. Also, if the antenna is right up against your head you'd get everything coming off that side of the antenna, while if the phone is further away you'd intersect a smaller slice of the radiation pie.

        This is not a very rigorous look at what's going on, obviously. I suppose I could sit down and do the math but I'll leave that exercise to the reader.
          • Off a "regular" antenna the radiation propagates radially out from the antenna. I don't know about your phone, though it would still have to be omnidirectional or you'd have to turn a certain way to get a signal.

            Of course, I could be wrong...hopefully someone smarter about these things will chime in.

  • U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:3, Informative)

    by ENOENT (25325) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:07AM (#15084872) Homepage Journal
    Is anyone here old enough to remember how long it took the government to recognize tobacco as a health risk?

    • Is anyone here old enough to remember how long it took the government to recognize tobacco as a health risk?

      Is anyone here old enough to recognize that *life* is a health risk ?

      You can die from eating too much, but no-one bans food !

      I just did a quiz to calculate my life expectancy and it came out at 86 years. I'm 40 now, so I'm not even half way there. Yes I smoke, yes I drink, yes I ride a motorcycle, yes I eat red meat, yes I use a mobile phone, no I don't go to the gym (I work hard anyway), and yes I'

  • No clear connection, sort of murky one (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Friday April 07 2006, @11:08AM (#15084898)
    Don't worry - if it's not the cell phone that kills you, the guy talking on one while driving into your lane - will.
    • More FUD from the neo-luddites. You are more likely to be run down by that guy listening to his radio, or arguing with his wife who is in the seat next to him.

      Anyone who listens to the radio or has passengers in their car, and complains about cell phones while driving is a hypocrate.

  • Text Message (Score:4, Funny)

    by OneBigWord (692129) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:11AM (#15084926) Homepage
    That's why I only use text messaging on my cell phone. But I'm sure my thumb cancer is unrelated.

  • Reasonable statement (Score:5, Informative)

    by hubie (108345) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:24AM (#15085063)
    I just read TFA and their statement is perfectly reasonable. The statement basically states that the recent, highly publicized, study was based on combining two previously published studies (published in 2002 and 2005), which itself should raise some eyebrows. Other than making an adjustment based on the time of diagnosis, there were no other adjustments made for anything else (make/female, young/old, lifestyle, etc.). That should raise the level of suspicion in the strength of the conclusions greatly.

    By my reading, it sounds like they sent mailings to people that have diagnosed brain tumors in those previous two studies and asked them how much they used the cell phone over the last 10 years. They then compared that to a general population sample. Deriving exposure levels from questionnaires is, in my opinion, almost worthless. How many minutes have you used the cell phone in the last 24 hours? Week? Month? Can you come up with a number you believe accurate to within a factor of 2? 10? 100?

    This reminds me of a study released in the early 90's that suggested that 60 Hz EMF fields caused cancer. The "researchers" went through death records and picked out people who were listed as having "electrical related" occupations such as electricians and such, then seeing how many of them died of cancer. This study got lots of press, of course. However, a follow-up study was done that looked at 30,000+ workers at an electric generating plant where they actually measured real exposure levels and no correlation was found.

    The FDA statement itself says basically that because of all these loose or non-existent controls, it this study cannot really be compared to the other better controled studies that were done. That is a perfectly reasonable and well-explained statement, so I am not sure what the knee-jerk posts about corporate control and suppressing the truth posts are based on. Personally I think that if the study in question was run in the manner described, it is essentially worthless and should not have received any press coverage in the first place.

    • I'm not sure why, seems to be more than the normal distribution here, and their opinions seem to be given more eight than you'd expect.

      At any rate the reason you get loony responses like this is because consparicy theorists believe everything is part of the consparicy. That's why it's impossible to reason with them. You show them evidence of why they are incorrect, and they just twist it to be part of the consparicy and take it is more proof they are right.

      It's really not worth arguing with the consparicy n

  • Such a strang place, Slashdot. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by some guy on slashdot (914343) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:34AM (#15085164)
    When the study came out, most of the comments here were refuting it. Now that the FDA has refuted it, everyone seems to be claiming that they were bought by the cell phone companies.

    So, what? Are all the people in the cellphone-cancer camp on one side of the globe or something?

    Remember, the methodology for this study was step one: find people who already have cancer. Step two: do a survey (not a lab observation or a running record) to get data about their past cell phone usage. How can you bitch when someone contradicts that?

  • Extendable Antennas (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrDitto (962751) on Friday April 07 2006, @11:38AM (#15085211)
    I used to work on mobile phones at a large company. SAR rating used to be a big deal to us. One of the major reasons for using extendable antennas was to get the EMF away from the head, hence lowering the SAR. But the market got quite competitive and external antennas went out of style. Before I left, we only cared about meeting the FCC requirement rather than aiming for a truly low SAR of 0.2-0.4.
  • PDF of the document is available here:
    link [arbetslivsinstitutet.se]

    It appears it's *another* (double/single) blind study on the affects of cellphone use. Though, it is the only one (AFAIK) that was done on cancer patients.

    To sum up my recollection of the previous studies, the most interesting aspect was that they showed a transfer of the 217hz wave from your cellphone's speaker to your Delta wave during prolonged 10mins use. No physiological effects were ever attributed to this wave-transfer.
  • I hadn't heard of this study or anything.

    If you only read the /. summary you can't actually TELL if the study confirmed risks or denied risks, only that the FDA didn't agree with the study.

    Did anyone here think that the "Study" may have stated that the risks are minimal, and the FDA was saying "Hey, wait a minute, that's not a very accurate study! There may significantly more risk".

    The fact that no reasonable, informed person could have expected that the FDA might have actually been trying to actually "Pro
  • Sorry but with this administrations credibility problems. I find it impossible to believe anything that's coming out of a crony infested federal agency.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.