FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study

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."

Comments

From another study on their list

[Kangburra]

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.

Re:Why the FDA?

[DerGeist]

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."

U.S. Government says science "load of hooey"

[ENOENT]

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

Re:Text Message

[RexRhino]

Remember, if you lose full use of your thumb, then you are no better than any other primate out there!

Reasonable statement

[hubie]

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.

Extendable Antennas

[DrDitto]

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.