Slashdot Mirror
Study of Cellphone Risks Finds 'Some Evidence' of Link To Cancer, At Least In Male Rats (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not cellphones can cause cancer. On Thursday, a federal agency released the final results of what experts call the world's largest and most costly experiment to look into the question. The study originated in the Clinton administration, cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents. The experiment, by the National Toxicology Program, found positive but relatively modest evidence that radio waves from some types of cellphones could raise the risk that male rats develop brain cancer. But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot "be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience." Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago. Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.
The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users. That level of exposure rarely occurs in typical cellphone use, the toxicology agency said. The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum. The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for two years -- far longer even than heavy users of cellphones. For the rats, the exposures started before birth and continued until they were about 2 years old. Some 2 to 3 percent of the male rats exposed to the radiation developed malignant gliomas, a deadly brain cancer, compared to none in a control group that received no radiation. Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population. "The study also found that about 5 to 7 percent of the male rats exposed to the highest level of radiation developed certain heart tumors, called schwannomas, compared to none in the control group," the NYT reports.
It's worth nothing that the rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz, the frequency used in the second generation of cellphones that prevailed in the 90s, when the study was first conceived. For comparison, fourth generation (4G) and fifth generation (5G) phones employ much higher frequencies, which are "far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats," the NYT reports.
The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users. That level of exposure rarely occurs in typical cellphone use, the toxicology agency said. The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum. The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for two years -- far longer even than heavy users of cellphones. For the rats, the exposures started before birth and continued until they were about 2 years old. Some 2 to 3 percent of the male rats exposed to the radiation developed malignant gliomas, a deadly brain cancer, compared to none in a control group that received no radiation. Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population. "The study also found that about 5 to 7 percent of the male rats exposed to the highest level of radiation developed certain heart tumors, called schwannomas, compared to none in the control group," the NYT reports.
It's worth nothing that the rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz, the frequency used in the second generation of cellphones that prevailed in the 90s, when the study was first conceived. For comparison, fourth generation (4G) and fifth generation (5G) phones employ much higher frequencies, which are "far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats," the NYT reports.
Most people use their smartphones for data/texting these days, rather than voice calls. You'd assume there'd be an increased incidence of hand cancer if modern cell phone radio emissions were carcinogenic.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The rats in the study were only exposed to cell phone radiation for 2 years, and I'm assuming they were sacrificed at the end of the 2 years. (Rats only live 3-4 years anyway at best). How long does it take humans to develop cancer after exposure to a carcinogen? Quite a lot longer than that, in some cases. Sometimes it's decades.
I realize that there were factors in this study which would tend to overestimate the risk (e.g., intensity of radiation and daily length of exposure), but the limited length of the study would seem to introduce an error in the other direction.
It is well known that if you subject tissues to elevated temperatures, you'll get chemical changes that could lead to cancer. And a rat doesn't have enough body area to get rid of heat as easily as a large human, meaning that tissues could easily be overheating.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
The confidence interval is 98%, sometimes 95%. That is, just by random chance, 2% or 5% of the time, a study will turn up a correlation which doesn't really exist. The die rolls just happened to come up snake eyes that time. The chances increase the more correlations a study looks for. Like the massive Netherlands study a couple decades back which found a strong correlation between cell phone radiation and certain types of cancer. But it turned out they looked at thousands of possible correlations, so just by chance alone you'd have expected them to find a few hundred random correlations, with a few "strong" ones (strong by chance, not because it was real). Like if you throw a thousand darts at a dartboard, just by pure chance a few will hit the bullseye; not because you're good at throwing darts, but because of random chance.
If (as the media tends to do) you then choose to publicize the studies finding a correlation while ignoring all the studies finding no correlation, then you're committing confirmation bias. Studies which find no positive result still generate valid data. And dismissing them in favor of studies with a positive result is a statistical and logical error. To properly assess what's going on, you need to compare the number of positive result studies with the number of negative result studies. And given the huge number of negative result studies, the greater likelihood here is that this is one of the studies which found a correlation due to a random blip, not something that's real.
Obligatory XKCD comic.
There's a note by one of the reviewers who points out that the control rats in the group that were compared to the "high radiation" male rats had a lower than expected number of gliomas, which is part of how they had "more gliomas" in that group.
The number of male rats who had gliomas actually had a fairly typical number of gliomas for rats.
There was also a bit of fudging up above: while 3000 or so rats were studied, they broke them into smaller numbers with different dose rates. There were only 94 rats in the group of "high exposure" rats.
Basically, instead of a "3000 rat" study, it was a whole bunch of smaller studies. Treated as a 3000-rat whole, there was no effect, statistically.
I remember digging into the preliminary draft that's mentioned in TFA. Here are the two highlights:
NTP conducted the studies in phases, including several phases to determine the correct field strengths that would not raise the animal's body temperature.
They were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off increments, totaling a little more than nine hours [of radiation over an 18 hour period per day] from before birth through two years of age.
First they had to figure out the "correct field strength" that wouldn't cook the rodents.
Then they cycled that just-below-cooking field on and off over the course of 18 hours per day, for two years, over the entire body, beginning (for the rats) in the womb
AFACT, there's nothing in the published materials that implies a relationship exists between the study and human health..
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Microwaves DON'T heat from the inside out:
see Wickipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"This idea arises from heating behavior seen if an absorbent layer of water lies beneath a less absorbent drier layer at the surface of a food; in this case, .... etc"
The Microwave is NOT "tuned to be really well absorbed by oils and water for the purpose of cooking".
again...
" It is a common misconception that microwave ovens heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food. As noted microwave ovens can operate at many frequencies"
and
"....the microwave oven's operating frequency has absolutely nothing to do with water or any other material resonant frequency whatsoever. Any coincidence is coincidental. The ISM (industrial-scientific-medical) band frequencies given out by the FCC were determined by regulatory/bureaucratic/interference considerations not by physics".
We have back generated a study from the 19th century - zero cases of cancer for cell phone use pre 1900s.
Confirmation bias!
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"Cell phone radiation safe for humans". No scientist would ever say that. Science is about falsifying hypotheses, not proving hypotheses. You can prove experimentally that a hypothesis is incorrect, but you can never prove that it is correct. See Karl Popper. So you can never prove that something does no harm, but you can prove that it causes harm under certain conditions. We already know that microwaves are harmful, that's not in question. The question is the degree of harm under certain conditions.
That headline would be completely inaccurate. It's found a small risk, but not nonexistent.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
This reminds me of the joke about the wild rabbit and the one born in captivity, sharing the same cage in the lab. The wild one convinces the "old dog" to escape with him (cause he knows the inns and outs in the lab), promising to show him the best three things in a wild rabbit's life.
First, they go to a cabbage filed. "That's number one", says the wild one. They eat to bursting. Then, they go to a carrot field. "That's number two, see how great it is" intones the wild rabbit. They eat more. Three, they go to the rabbit holes. Bunnies! Lots of them! Sex all night!! "That's the best part, number three" says the wild one. "What do you think". " I don't know man", replies the lab rabbit, "It's all pretty good, but I am going back". "Why!!!". "Well, mate, I am just dying for a cigarette!".
Or at least, when a rat asks for a cellphone, don't give it a second generation one.
Talk about the deaths of little 21 month old Mariee, how ICE stole her from her mother, she got sick in an ICE internment army camp, lost 1kg of weight, was not given medical attention before being released to die with her mother, the mother who lives in New Jersey.
But Vice News says five pediatricians who reviewed details of Mariee's care say that after contracting the illness, she received treatment that was consistent with what they would have done. The story says all five doctors believed Mariee's "recommended course of treatment would have been the same had she not been in ICE custody."
"It's reasonable care," said Dr. Ewen Wang, associate director of pediatric emergency medicine at Stanford University Medical Center. "It didn't sound like she was in the best of health, but not something you anticipate dying from."
https://www.usnews.com/news/us...
New Jersey.
"Juarez told Vice News that she decided to have Mariee buried in their native Guatemala. Her asylum case is pending."
Democrat propaganda in full swing.
I sleep a lot deeper with the phone and wifi off. Live in the country side far from neighbours wifi. Wife notices it too. Haven't slept this well in about 17 years. Pretty amazing for my quality of life now that I've finally figured it out. I could also never understand why I slept so well at my parents cabin until I made this connection.
You have it exactly backwards:
Yes, the commonly used frequency of microwaves (2.4 GHz) is easily absorbed by water, fat, and sugar.
But the frequency is well removed from maximum absorption point. The frequency band was selected because the optimum frequency would prevent penetration beneath the surface of most foods.
And FWIW, industrial microwave ovens use various other frequency bands for the same reason.
Microwaves don't really operate at 2.45GHz. They operate at 2.45GHertzish. Their tuning varies between 'crap' and 'god-awful' - the magnetron is a means of generating microwave energy at very high power levels, not at precise frequency, and magnetrons intended for microwave ovens are not manufactured to the high tolerances expected in communications.