Doubts Raised About Cellphone Cancer Study (vox.com)

Vox is strongly criticizing coverage of a supposed link between cellphones and cancer suggested by a new study, calling it "a breathtaking example of irresponsible science hype." An anonymous reader writes: A professor and research monitoring administrator at an American medical school reported that to get their results, the researchers "exposed pregnant rats to whole body CDMA- and GSM-modulated radiofrequency radiation, for 9 hours a day, 7 days a week," and the results were seen only with CDMA (but not GSM-modulated) radiofrequency. "[F]alse positives are very likely. The cancer difference was only seen in females, not males. The incidence of brain cancer in the exposed groups was well within the historical range. There's no clear dose response..."
An emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Britain also called the study "statistically underpowered..." according to Vox. "Not enough animals were used to allow the researchers to have a good chance of detecting a risk from radiofrequency radiation of the size one might plausibly expect."

Comments

Funny, I thought

[johnsmithperson123]

That 1, it was the male rats affected, and two, those rats actually lived longer. So we should see headlines like this: Constant Cell Phone Use Lengthens Lifespan (in men)

Re:Vox

[ArmoredDragon]

A bullshit study is a bullshit study, no matter who calls out the fact that it is bullshit. The fact that this only happens to the males and not the females is basically a dead ringer for it being a part of the rat's genome and that it's not being influenced by any environmental or other outside factors. I'm not even a scientist and that fact sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Then when you read deeper into the methodology used, and they didn't even use enough subjects to be able to come anywhere close to being able to meet statistical significance, that this is just another one of those bogus health related studies that come around every now and then because somebody is ideologically opposed to something everybody does or uses, and sets out to prove a point rather than to investigate. This is similar to studies that come around every now and then to attempt to prove that take your pick of any one of meat, GMO, vaccination, or aspartame is bad for you.

Emotional involvement

[Okian Warrior]

One problem with media reporting today is the perceived need to get emotional involvement.

In it's economic zeal to get eyeballs on articles, the media has resorted to sensationalizing and emotionalism. They compete for the most outrageous, most shocking headlines in an attempt to lure readers.

...and because of this the media has lost all credibility. The readers have wised up, and most don't seem to fall for these tricks any more.

We only have to look at the Trump campaign to see how this happened. Taking one single issue as an example, we read all about how he hates and has a war against latinos. In reality, he said nothing of the sort, which is 'kinda why he's got such a huge support base right now.

The media is astonished that his supporters aren't leaving him in droves... he *is* the next Hitler, didn't you know?

Everything is a crisis, everything is a war on something, everything is a conflict.

(Note: You can learn how to get around this using this one weird trick!)

Re:Emotional involvement

[careysub]

Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies...

Interestingly enough, this is a very popular tactic used by Neo-Nazis to deny that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities.

Many years after WWII the German files have been exhaustively searched and analyzed, and so we know exactly what the record shows of the Holocaust's planning and execution. So the tactic is to make up some seemingly reasonable sounding "requirement" that the Hitler-defender knows does not exist - e.g. Hitler must have signed a formal order for the Holocaust - and demanding that it be produced, insinuating that if you can't produce such a document then it never happened. We know that that was not required, all of Hitler's Lieutenants knew what he wanted (he kept it no secret) and set the wheel on motion on their own authority given them by Hitler (but he did for example personally authorize the establishment of battlefield death squads, and the murder of disabled Germans, and was kept apprised of the progress of the Holocaust).

The journalism..

[TechyImmigrant]

was facepalm worthy from the get go.
But it continues to be facepalm worthy in criticizing the study.

The study was not worthless. It failed to show a statistically significant link. But it might have. The study was big enough that a real effect would have stuck out like a sore thumb. That it didn't, but some weird weak relationships were seen in fact puts a bound on the maximum size of the problem : I.E. In some contexts (gender, ludicrously powered phone, being a mouse) the effect of cell phone radiation doesn't cause excess tumors over the expected rate with a pretty good confidence.

The press started out all "OMG! Cell phones cause cancer!!!!". Then after the criticism of the hyperbole they went all "OMG!!! That study was shite!!!". The problem is with the press, not the study.