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.
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)
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.
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!)
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I didn't. :) But just reading the first dozen pages...
It looks like they broke the test rats into groups with 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg exposure, CDMA and GSM, male and female. That's 3*2*2 = 12 groups. For the brain section, they looked for two types of tumors. So now they've got 24 groupings that they're searching for possible correlations.
The statistical significance of the one correlation they found (male, CDMA, 6 W/kg, malignant glioma) was p < 0.05. In other words, due to their limited sample size, just by random chance alone you'd expect such a blip to occur about 1 in 20 times even when there is no real correlation. Well they tried 24 times and got one blip.
Same thing with the heart results. 24 groupings, one blip with p < 0.05, one blip with p = 0.052. Again, almost exactly what you'd expect by pure chance alone.
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.
The consensus is that research causes cancer in mice. News at 11.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Why the emo?
From the study:
"In the heart, exposure to GSM or CDMA modulations of RFR in male rats resulted in a statistically significant, positive trend in the incidence of schwannomas. "
One of its conclusions:
"Under the conditions of these 2-year studies, the hyperplastic lesions and glial cell neoplasms of the heart and brain observed in male rats are considered likely the result of whole-body exposures to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR."
One of the three reviewers (all three of whom agreed with the study's conclusions):
https://cvm.ncsu.edu/directory...
What they are saying could well be true.