Slashdot Log In
FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study
Posted by
samzenpus
on Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:36 AM
from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.
from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.
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."
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Erm... (Score:2, Funny)
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: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
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.
Parent
Animal data? (Score:5, Funny)
Animal Data. that's ridiculous!
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]
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."
Parent
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!
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:4, Insightful)
Parent
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.
U.S. Government says science "load of hooey" (Score:3, Informative)
No clear connection, sort of murky one (Score:3, Insightful)
Text Message (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Text Message (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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)