Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer 320
mclearn sends in news of "a very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia" that shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors. "Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumors did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer, including brain tumors, although years of research have failed to establish a connection. ... 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote. Overall, there was no significant pattern."
But they do increase.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if it did? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?
Everything is a risk. It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk. Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.
I like those odds.
Correlation is not causation (Score:1, Insightful)
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:2, Insightful)
Same thing as the wifi scare... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is so much potential for online news. They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science. I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation! I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units. I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what's better: ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself.
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator, where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content.
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't control "all other variables." Otherwise you could prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer, but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases, so it's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer. Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.
So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer. If you want to argue that they do, you'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument.
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Seriously? If you have several variables (as you claim) and observe no meaningful changes in the brain cancer rate it leaves you with the following outcomes:
1. Some radio waves DO cause cancer, but some radio waves also decrease it at the exact same rate, and those counteracting radio waves interacted just enough to cause the results of the study to indicate that the original waves which may or may not have been causing cancer to be cancelled out at just the right times.
2. Radio Waves do cause cancer, but something new introduced at exactly the same time is counteracting that. This new 'thing' must have occured and been adopted at the same rate as cell phones.
3. Radio Waves do not cause brain cancer.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
Re:extremes (Score:4, Insightful)
Radio waves are part of the EM spectrum just like light, X-Rays, and Gamma rays the only difference is the color/frequency of the EM.
That being said the frequencies used in cell phones are not ionizing. At a high enough energy level they will cause harm but that level is really high. Will it cause cancer? Not that I know of.
It doesn't matter people will still fear cell phones and other things because there is money to be made scaring people.
Re:B*S (Score:1, Insightful)
Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,
Seems to me it's important to find out how many people got glioma before cell phones were popular, if your goal is to establish whether or not that number has increased with cell phone usage. *shrug*
Perhaps you overestimate... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.
I'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this. I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society. The tolerance of most people for anything even remotely resembling detail is pretty low. You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model. Eyes will glaze over. Quickly.
They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.
Here's the thing: There is no they. "They" is really us. "We" could be doing any of this. But the fact is, our mainstream culture ISN'T that way because for the most part, WE aren't that way. In the meantime, there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information. Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms, links to the paper, etc.
There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells. Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT. They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs. The "vast majority of people" want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them.
Re:extremes (Score:4, Insightful)
because there is money to be made scaring people.
There is political power to be gained by scaring people all around. But to make money (directly) you have to offer a dubious protection device after scaring them.
The world is going to be destroyed in a super earthquake in Nov 2012. Here buy my EarthQuake Repellent Spray by Acme Chemicals.
Bad Title (Score:2, Insightful)
Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM
That isn't a very good title. The article doesn't state that scell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer. It just says there is no scientific link. These are two very different things.
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones don't increase the chances of brain cancer. It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma.
Credible scientific articles don't often , if ever, come right out and say they have proven anything. When other sources get ahold of it, they make the jump from "we have determined with reasonable probability" to Science has prooven!
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be... back in 2003. As far as I know, the ubiquity of the device has increased substantially since the beginning of the decade. Back at the start of the decade, it was still a strange thought to consider giving up your land-line and keep only a cell-phone. Since then, we've seen the introduction of cell phones tailored specifically to children and the ubiquity of the devices permiating most parts of our society and culture.
This is a "30 year study" that takes into account about 10 years of actual device use by the common population, of which only the tail end showed true ubiquity.
I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying there may not be enough data yet.
-dZ.
Re:B*S (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,
OK, try to wrap your little brain around this: there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 (when there were no cell phones) to 2003 (when there were a shitload). If brain cancer didn't change, but cell phone usage went from 0 to "a whole bunch", the conclusion is that cell phones don't cause brain cancer.
Re:Perhaps you overestimate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nicely said. I once read about an interview with Steve Jobs, at around the time that the started the NeXT Computer Company, and I was impressed when he said something similar to your comment. I found the quote in WikiQuotes:
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
And like him, I agree: that's a far more depressing thought than a mere conspiracy. It means that, as you say, there is no they; we are building the world as we want it; by inertia and laziness, not by force. That people--us--are actually that dispassionate and lethargy by our own nature. To me, it is important to recognize this. Only then can we truly see what we are doing, and perhaps steer away from that course.
-dZ.
Re:So what if it did? (Score:2, Insightful)
"So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?"
The difference is that now people who get brain cancer won't have someone to blame. In our modern culture and legal system, there simply is no such thing as "shit happens". If something bad happens, it is ALWAYS someone's fault. There is no room for what were once called "accidents", "acts of God", or "fate". It's like the tragedy of the commons in reverse.
Re:extremes (Score:2, Insightful)
If the incubation period of cell phone-induced brain tumors is 20 years, then this study tells us nothing other than we need to check again in 10 years.
Then again, even studies do show increased tumor rates over a couple decades, the old truism applies -
If something takes longer than 20-30 years to kill you, humans tend to feel invincible to it unless someone has scared them sufficiently (look at how much of our society eats poorly, smokes, etc.)
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a study from Scandinavia, not from the technologically backwards US.
Re:So what if it did? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wifi allergy (Score:4, Insightful)
I would bet money that you could not tell, in a double-blind test, whether or not there is a 2.4GHz transmitter near you. I think you are self-deluded.
Cell phones may cause cancer; we do not know yet. (Score:1, Insightful)
The tobacco industry succeeded in hiding the fact that smoking caused cancer for 50 years. They did so by advertising and suppressing unfavorable research. Why? It was the money!
Could the cell phone industry do the same? Why would they?
If it take 20 years to cause cancer - it may not be yet apparent in the general population but it may be apparent if you compare long term high users against low users. Cell phone carriers have all the the information. So the data is available to them.
A good book to read is: The Secret History of the War on Cancer Devra Davis
Re:extremes (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is that half of the time, they seem to do this:
"Next up, are your children eating POISON with their food? Find out, after this commercial break."
{commercials}
"And now, our feature story: Are your children eating POISON with their food? Reporter Jim Smith investigates."
{Jim Smith interviews food processing plant owner}
"So no, your children are not eating poison with their food. Next up, is your cell phone giving you cancer?"
Hint: Scandinavia is not US (Score:5, Insightful)
NMT dominated the 80's (in fact, it was the biggest cellular network in the world back then...) and the beginning of the 90's there. Introduced almost three decades ago. Rapidly lost relevance with the large scale introduction of GSM networks in the mid 90's (which begun in 91 in Scandinavia BTW)
And you dismiss the most important thing - that the study didn't look at the specific hypothetical mechanisms in detail, just at the prevalence of cancer in relation to cellphones adoption.
It found NOTHING. Which is especially significant given partially sensibly sounding "complications" in the latter part of your post.
FirstOne is clueless (he's the old tech) (Score:1, Insightful)
You are just another ignorant American, you think the world is as outdated as the US? America is and was a backwards place with regards to cellphones.
This study was conducted in Scandinavia, the cradle of cell phone technology! GSM was created by Norwegians, sold and developed by Swedes and Finns (Ericsson and Nokia)!
We used GSM technology from the beginning of the 90s! From 1990 and onwards we had GSM phones everywhere! You Americans only managed to upgrade in the last decade, but Europe and the World has been using GSM for decades now!
Perhaps you should upgrade your memory, it seems to be lacking.
Re:extremes (Score:2, Insightful)
I completely agree, and I think that what you're getting at is the "art" of science. Knowing how to develop good experimental procedures, deciding when the evidence is enough to convince you of X, etc. It's a deep and fascinating topic, and I am grateful that you started the discussion.