Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
Vox is a highly-leveraged company that makes money with a news site that's designed for use on mobile devices. What the fuck you think they're gonna say?
Plus, Vox is the absolute ugliest news site every on the internet. I'm not joking. If you visit their page, be careful ow whiplash when you involuntarily turn your head away in horror. And their stock in trade are these hot-take "explainer cardstacks" which is some jargon bullshit for a web page with almost no information that prompts you to click on many other pages in order to read the whole story, which inevitably turns out to be disappointing, with mostly pictures and great big infographics without labels that make you come away feeling like you learned something when in fact you are stupider than when you started.
A bunch of refugees from other hipster publications started Vox, and they stand as a shining example of bad journalism, bad design and a bad business model.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You know the worst part, though? The headline of very Slashdot story implies that doubts were raised about the study rather than how it was reported. The mistake is being compounded every time the story is retold.
(Incidentally, the "statistically underpowered" comment is accurate but irrelevant. The whole point of a small-scale study is to decide whether or not it's worth spending resources on a larger-scale study. Science journalists should know this.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies, but lets take a look at what the interwebs are saying:
9 Outrageous Things Donald Trump Has Said About Latinos
And then there's this headline "5 QUOTES THAT PROVE DONALD TRUMP HATES MEXICANS"
Now, I don't think Trump actually hates Latinos but I do think he's trying to capture the votes of a lot of people who either fear or hate Mexico and illegal immigrants. I think he panders to the lowest parts of our society by carefully selecting rhetoric that gives them the idea that he agrees with them and feels the same ignorant hatred they do.
It's a politician's trick. You say something that sounds good to people you don't want to actually be caught agreeing with while carefully avoiding actually saying you agree with their opinions.
For most voters, sadly that's enough. People are flocking to Trump in droves because he represents the golden trinity of an electable candidate. 1 - He is running on one of the two parties tickets, 2 - He has a strong claim to being an outsider angered by the insiders, 3 - He stays in the headlines.
Say what you like about the man, but he's good at getting people to support him. The fact that he uses short small words to make emotional impact makes him sound silly and sometimes irritating to me, but it sticks in people's minds and gives them things they can quote and feel opinions about. He's being compared to historical villains who did the same thing, but really there have been all sorts of politicians who have done the same thing. To me he often sounds stupid, but when he's not pandering to the masses and actually speaking like a normal person, I've heard him sound like a sensible human being. That makes me think it has to be intentional.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
I think the big thing to remember is that humans are walking around making calls with a 1-3W microwave transmitter attached to the side of their head, rats don't. This may not be a lot of power however combined with human habit (left or right side exposure) it is certain to deliver a constant rate of microwave energy almost directly to the brain.
I've seen someone die from brain cancer and it's bad, so I think it's worth sharing a few things that make it simple to take personal responsibility for your own safety. First, it's your brain, so it is worth protecting as the most valued organ in the body and much more sensitive than the thigh or other large muscle groups or even a hand - so simple habit changes can reduce the risks, whatever they turn out to be.
Second, don't trust any information from any source that sponsored from an interest in mobile phone sales or use, we've all seen how the tobacco industry behave to protect their business model and revenue stream.
Once you are aware of the properties of the transmitter and the device it is simple to make minor changes to usage patterns that can also increase the usefullness of the device. At approximately 2.4 Ghz the wavelength is roughly 13cm, which is about the width of a human head, so if you are within one wavelength your head will absorb a portion of the energy from the phone. At 60-180 degrees of the fresnel of transmission into the head, it can vary between >0% to 50% of the power output.
If the device is pressed up against you will increase the rate of absorbtion due to inductance, this will also cause the device to increase the power output of the to maintain a clear signal, which consequently will increase the rate of exposure to the brain.
Another thing to factor is if the phone has a wi-fi transmitter operational while you are using it, as this will also contribute to increasing the rate of exposure as it is also a 2.4 Ghz transmitter.
For every wavelength away from your head the phone is this will reduce the exposure to your brain by increasing orders of magnitude. This might mean you choose to use speaker phone if you have a private moment, or to use the same headphone you are using for music to take the call. Additionally you may find that the battery life of the device is increased and you have less call dropouts as it is no longer increasing its signal output to overcome the effects of the capacitance from the water in your brain to maintain the call connection.
The long term effects from mobile use will vary however the properties and nature of the device are predictable enough to make simple, unobtrusive changes to usage patterns to avoid being someone who finds out if there is any the hard way. If it means your battery lasts longer, you appear more polite to people and you have better call quality while your use your phone this may be an unexpected benefit of erring on the cautious side.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.