4 ms·

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article

by djmdjm 10y ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval is reported. No mention of dose sensitivity is mentioned. So they report some cancer association (how much? we don't know. how confident? we don't know) in a small subset of their study population (excluding female rats and all mice) at some unknown RF power and at an exposure time considerably larger than what most humans would receive. I'm sure the science behind the study is much more rigorous than this, but wow - the reporting sucks.

mcpherrinm 10y ago
The paper is linked at the beginning of the article. Abstract: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 Direct PDF link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...
- LionessLover 10y ago
  The problem with linking to websites like this is that one has to be logged int o see anything but the first line of the article...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - timpattinson 10y ago
    not this time - this is an open access preprint server like arXiv for physics and math
    - niels_olson 10y ago
      He meant the WSJ article
cnvogel 10y ago
This seems to be some other report about this study http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results No link to a proper publication, though.
mnoorenberghe 10y ago
It's linked right in the article: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...
joshvm 10y ago
Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue. In the UK/EU it's 2 W/kg. - 18 hour cycle each day, 10 minutes off, 10 minutes on (i.e. a 9 hour 50% duty cycle) - 90 rats per gender per group (I think 1260 total) - 106 week study - Litter weights were slightly lower in exposed groups (~10%), but over time there was no significant weight difference between the exposed and control groups - For the things they studied, the exposed rats had a defect rate of a few percent compared to control values of zero. Historic control values were (in my opinion) comparable to the exposed group and it seems to be barely statistically significant. The exception seems to be heart schwannomas which were as high as 7%. - More will be published this and next year. Here's a fun statement: At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.
- alex_duf 10y ago
  Thanks for the summary, very interesting!
- carlesfe 10y ago
  Thanks for the summary, I just read the article and I feel like you touched the main points. Regarding survival, I also noticed it, surprising. Could you define "survival rate" for someone who's not in the field? Does it mean what it looks like it means, i.e., survival rate is higher when rats die at an older age in average?
  - joshvm 10y ago
    Not a medic or biologist (or a statistician!) so I don't know the specific definition, but I assumed it simply means the number of rats still alive at the end of the 106 week period.

by djmdjm 10y ago

mcpherrinm 10y ago

The paper is linked at the beginning of the article. Abstract: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 Direct PDF link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

LionessLover 10y ago
The problem with linking to websites like this is that one has to be logged int o see anything but the first line of the article...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- timpattinson 10y ago
  not this time - this is an open access preprint server like arXiv for physics and math
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    He meant the WSJ article

cnvogel 10y ago

This seems to be some other report about this study http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results No link to a proper publication, though.

mnoorenberghe 10y ago

It's linked right in the article: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

joshvm 10y ago

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue. In the UK/EU it's 2 W/kg. - 18 hour cycle each day, 10 minutes off, 10 minutes on (i.e. a 9 hour 50% duty cycle) - 90 rats per gender per group (I think 1260 total) - 106 week study - Litter weights were slightly lower in exposed groups (~10%), but over time there was no significant weight difference between the exposed and control groups - For the things they studied, the exposed rats had a defect rate of a few percent compared to control values of zero. Historic control values were (in my opinion) comparable to the exposed group and it seems to be barely statistically significant. The exception seems to be heart schwannomas which were as high as 7%. - More will be published this and next year. Here's a fun statement: At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.

alex_duf 10y ago
Thanks for the summary, very interesting!
carlesfe 10y ago
Thanks for the summary, I just read the article and I feel like you touched the main points. Regarding survival, I also noticed it, surprising. Could you define "survival rate" for someone who's not in the field? Does it mean what it looks like it means, i.e., survival rate is higher when rats die at an older age in average?
- joshvm 10y ago
  Not a medic or biologist (or a statistician!) so I don't know the specific definition, but I assumed it simply means the number of rats still alive at the end of the 106 week period.