FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study 173
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."
Erm... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Erm... (Score:1)
Re:Erm... (Score:2)
Re:Erm... (Score:2)
Finding out the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2, Insightful)
The industry already offers hands-free devices so that you don't need to hold the thing to your face if you'
Exactly. (Score:2)
Re:Exactly. (Score:2)
Hence, the benifits out weigh the risk.
"What we accept is doing anything about it. (at least with cars) Imo, that is merely because of apathy. ie, someone else was the victim, some other stranger was the perpetrator and any changes to 'fix' things would inconvenience me. That doesn't mean it is not possible to use cars without having the death toll that we accept, it just
Re:Exactly. (Score:2)
Offtopic, but that was the truest/funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in at least a month. The fact that it could apply to so much here makes me want to turn that into my sig.
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
Damn straight. I'm afraid I cannot return the compliment, though.
Because living and good health is over-rated?
Especially when it comes to proper brain function... apparently.
No, living is under-rated, and good health is over-rated. Living is expressing yourself, making a difference in people's lives, and enjoying things while you have them. Some people find these things easier with a cell phone.
"Good health" these days apparently means compromising your living in a pleth
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
No worries. You just keep reinforcing that image. Makes it easier for me to convince people that I'm Canadian when I travel abroad...
Because you won't have them as long when you do reckless things without a good reason.
There is a HUGE difference between living life (bungy jumping, rock climbing, parasailing) and just being stupid (unprotected sex with strangers, sharing needles, crossing the street without
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
Is that because I disagree with you? I'm not exactly getting a "friendly Canadian" stereotype from you, since you opened by trying to call me names.
I consider it ridiculous for you to call my use of a cell phone "reckless" or to compare it to crossing the street without looking. There's no reason to believe that use of a cell phone is anywhere near as dangerous as crossing the street WITH looking.
Likewise, there are things that can EASILY be done to MITIGAT
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
No, it is because I am nothing like the stereotype that your behavior propagates.
Thus making it harder for others to figure out we are both from the same country... because *I* don't fit that stereotype. And the farther the "stereotypical" behavior deviates from my own the safer I feel in other countries.
I'm not exactly getting a "friendly Canadian" stereotype from you, since you opened by trying to call me names.
I'm not Canadian.
Actually, I was commenting on the attitud
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
And if the global warming is anything to go by, the "truth" might never come out [slashdot.org].
Wrong! The Oil Industry Is Good! (Score:2)
[sarcasm]
The oil industry is good. They're saving us from the clean air that causes global warming. Don't buy into the hype. That layer of black oil and coal on your house siding just shows that it's working... like the wear indicator on a toothbrush.
[/sarcasm]
-M
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
That's just like those who say global warming is occurring, just because the greenhouse gases have driven a^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H seem to be way out of con^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H are present, and the summers seem warmer.
Or like saying that just because Texas and Georgia construction companies have documents saying that they know their silica dust is killing their workers, and are going to keep
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
One that would not be directly or indirectly financed by a party that has nothing to loose if cellphones are banned from our lives?
Let's get realistic over here, all these studies have been potentially biaised, just as the current one. That said, there were numerous scandals over here in France and Spain of schools who rented their rooftop to cell phone companies and three years later the percentage o
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
In my experience, nonscientists tend to overestimate the influence of funding sources on research. Most scientists will accept funding from just about anybody, and feel little loyalty to a funding source--they are far more concerned with their reputation and publication record than with making the organization that gave them the money happy. And there's not likely to be a lot of
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
Believing that the cellphone businesses and all connex businesses are doing absolutely no effort to burry the truth (admitting there is something to burry) is terribly naive.
We even got a fireman in France thet got burned to the third degree putting his hands on a cellphone antenna. And noone denie
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
Actually, if you follow those links to the original references, it turns out that there is much less substance there than it appears.
But do I really need to point out that nothing could tell our young that smoking was dangerous untils a few years ago? That fuel is bad for the environment? That asbestos was terribly bad for health?
Actually, evidence had been building up for years that smoking was dangerous. It wasn't all resting on shaky retrospective studies. And
Re:Finding out the truth (Score:2)
I really think we should all switch to saying "natural oil" and "fossil gas".
LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
THERES A FUCKING SURPRISE.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How the FDA actually makes decisions (Score:2)
The interests of business play a very large part in the decision making. Furthermore, this has been the situation for a very long time.
A case in point are the standards for Microwave Oven Emissions. Now, one might think that these were based upon actual trial
Re:How the FDA actually makes decisions (Score:2)
So, please understand
Re:How the FDA actually makes decisions (Score:2)
I also think you missed the point. The FDA was putting corporations first because the question of what was actually "safe" wasn't raised at all. Instead, they went with what was the least amount of radiation emissions that businesses could live with.
Determining what was actually safe wasn't an issue, since it would take too much time
Re:How the FDA actually makes decisions (Score:2)
Re:How the FDA actually makes decisions (Score:2)
And I presume you meant "typo", not "type". :)
Re:A little rhetorical analysis (Score:2)
You know, just FYI
Re:A little rhetorical analysis (Score:2)
This word would imply that my words were angry and/or violent.
Not angry and/or violent. Perhaps you're not aware of common internet usage of the word "rant". A rant is simply anyone rambling on about something just because they disagree...
By not having paragraphs, you look like you're rambling and not forming well formed coherent statements. It looks like you're just "ranting away".
Hell, it's so bloched together, I didn't *READ* the thing to find out
Re:A little rhetorical analysis (Score:2)
Take, for example, the time it takes to comply with regulation on pharmaceuticals... it takes, on average, 10 years and 1 billion dollars to get a new drug approved in the U.S.
Re:LOL (Score:2)
"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)
Animal Data. that's ridiculous!
Re:Animal data? (Score:1)
Re:Animal data? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Animal data? (Score:2)
Animal data should be opposed to the usual electrical data (phones, computers).
It is data transmitted using RFC 1149 [faqs.org]
Re:Animal data? (Score:2)
Re:Animal data? (Score:2)
I'm sure the Swedes are kicking their modular furniture in embarassment right about now.
Re:Animal data? (Score:2)
-chris
Re:Animal data? (Score:2)
Obviously your American animals are dumb compared to our European animals. Here in Europe there are plenty of records showing that many animals, including dogs and goldfish, are able to obtain credit cards without difficulty. We actually have a credit card company that TARGETS goldfish [goldfish.com] Surely its easier to get a phone than a credit card?
Why the FDA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why the FDA? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:Why the FDA? (Score:2)
Trusting the studies.. (Score:2)
Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re:Whew! (Score:2)
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
Re:Whew! (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:From another study on their list (Score:1)
Re:From another study on their list (Score:2)
I suggest a replacement :
There are two types of people, those that understand hexadecimal and those that don't.
No, wait...
Re:From another study on their list (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank You for Smoking (Score:2)
Re:Thank You for Smoking (Score:2)
Ah, maybe we have better things to do? That's just my guess. I can't watch every film out there.
Re:Thank You for Smoking (Score:2)
Like press refresh on slashdot ever five minutes?
Re:Thank You for Smoking (Score:2)
Dude... it's not THAT hard to make your proxy insert a refresh statement into the html.
Hell, you could probably write a greasemonkey script to do it...
Re:Thank You for Smoking (Score:2)
FDA? (Score:1)
Re:FDA? (Score:1)
That was yesterday's story [slashdot.org].
Actually... (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Radiation + head = ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I understand... (Score:2)
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
Re:I understand... (Score:2)
Re:I understand... (Score:2)
What I find more of a coincidence is that th
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
Much better.
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/logit
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
This was in the early 80's.. before most people (and especially her) had cell phones.
Yes, it's only one anecdotal case, but still it reinforces my belief that NOT holding a cell phone against your head just can't be good for you.
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
Of course, I could be wrong...hopefully someone smarter about these things will chime in.
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
Re:Radiation + head = ??? (Score:2)
It's not exactly the same frequency. Microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. Bluetooth operates at 2.4GHz. Power output is also different. Microwave ovens put out 700-1100W (from what I've seen). Bluetooth headsets output much less. Logitech (who made the headset I used) addresses this online (headset vs cell phone):
http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/logit e ch_en_amr.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=845 [custhelp.com]
U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:2)
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'
Re:U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:2)
"life expectancy is 91.6 years"
current age 28....
30.5% of my life is gone...:(
Re:U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:2)
It isn't bad for you any more... [wikinews.org]
No clear connection, sort of murky one (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD (Score:2)
Anyone who listens to the radio or has passengers in their car, and complains about cell phones while driving is a hypocrate.
I disagree... (Score:2)
Actually, I mostly disagree with this statement, as a phone (landline or cellphone) is a fundamentally different beast. I say "mostly", because your statement about passengers is closest to a cellphone (but not exact), and radio is completely different.
It basically comes down to the nature of real-time interactive communication over alternative (virtual) communication mediums, like c
Text Message (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Text Message (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Text Message (Score:2)
Don't worry, I think you got that from your Crackberry.
Not funny. (Score:2)
Isn't liver cancer also up nowadays? I wonder if it is related. And like brain cancer, liver cancer is particularly deadly, even *if* you get a liver
Reasonable statement (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
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
Re:Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
Re:Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
Re:Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
You want twisting of the facts? That's what we call it when you change someone's statement from "the FDA's statement should be questioned" to "the FDA's statement is a lie funded by big business."
If you don't believe that big business has more influence on politics than citizens do, then you're clearly not paying sufficient attention.
Re:Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
Re:Because /. has lots of consparicy theorists (Score:2)
Re:No, this statement is not that reasonable (Score:2)
I do have an appreciation for these kinds of studies in terms of how hard it is to collect and analyze data. But I also do get tired of seeing 1-sigma or less results from exploratory studies blown way out of proportion in the media (I'm not referring specifically to this cell phone study). Remember oat bran? Some preliminary studies came out suggesting its cholesterol reducing properties, then suddenly EVERYTHING on the supermarket shelf ha
Such a strang place, Slashdot. (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Karma Whoring, no really (Score:2)
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.
A simple poll of slashdot users (Score:2, Redundant)
If you only read the
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
I agree, but... (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm pretty skeptical of people who aren't skeptical of the U.S. government. I think they must be "in it" with the Aliens and the Jews! Oh, and the Reptiloids, NEVER forget about the Reptiloids!
Re:how this recent FDA cite? (Score:2)
Bunch of damn goons--thanks for the data point.
Credibility (Score:2)
Re:Not surprised (Score:2)
Let's discuss quantum theory. This means that radiation with particles of less than a certain energy (frequency) can't cause certain things to happen, such as breaking the bonds in a DNA molecule (which is necessary to cause cancer). There may be some indirect effect - if the radiation causes sufficient heating, but that would have to be significant heating.
Anything in sufficient quantities is bad.
That is true, but does not me