4 ms·

Dismissing a news article based on association is, for me, not a very good method. Following the link that it provides is a useful method. In this case to the a

Dismissing a news article based on association is, for me, not a very good method. Following the link that it provides is a useful method. In this case to the actual paper in question: http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf If the Register ran an article on a startup company, would that invalidate what is really presented? "Mobile Operator Association" sends up red flags for conflict of interest in this argument. Not that I dismiss, but would hope for a more independent assessment. "the science suggests" is, to me, an appeal to the authority of a select number of papers and implies that the paper in question is not "science". I do not see a conflict on interest or false scientific reasoning in the paper in question. If anything, this paper could be considered "newer science with more data" with its 2008 publish date and recently cited studies. The author directly contests the assumption that the long wavelengths used by cellphones result in less risk to the users. He also mentions a report of an office in the top floor being closed due to the "seventh working in as many years" being diagnosed with brain cancer that he attributes to a cell phone tower directly above the office.

tptacek 19y ago
My point wasn't "guilty by association", though given the reputation of the original source, I can see how it would be read that way. My point is that progress in the medical sciences isn't charted through "exclusive reports" to newspapers. As anyone who clicks through the link you've helpfully provided will note, this is a story based on a white paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I'm sorry, I don't know offhand what the "DH" code is for the error this newspaper article made. I suspect it's a high number. 23, perhaps.
KirinDave 19y ago
The current body of medical literature is at best ambivalent about the risk of long-term exposure. That's not an appeal to authority, that's just checking on the state of the literature. Science is always open to revision, and so I don't think it's impossible that this is true (indeed, I use a handsfree religiously to minimize my potential risk). But there isn't any hard evidence, and one study does should not a panic take, especially given the profound and subjectively positive social implications of mobile computing and mobile communication. The article has nothing new for me, except sensationalist rhetoric and carefully worded (and carelessly paraphrased) "Mobile Operator Association points to these studies", when really that's the gross body of the current medical literature. It's not cherry-picked literature, the bulk of the literature suggests it is not true. That's not a conflict of interest, that's just pointing to the independently funded science. As for the story about the top floor of the tower, why would only their heads be getting cancer if they're being universally exposed? The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Whenever we have a somewhat difficult to reproduce condition with less-than-certain explanation in terms of the physical method, I demand more solid evidence before taking drastic action. I also think that news outlets like the register should take more responsibility and demand more evidence before pulling out the dramatic horn kicks and warming up a headline like this one. People have been expressing fear over EMF for a long time now, and in general these fears have been dismissed and unsupported by scientific examination. Until I see some hard evidence, I consider a cellphone is about as harmful as a microwave. That is to say, there are small potential risks (particularly with damaged units), but I'm more likely to be struck by a car while commuting to work.

tptacek 19y ago

My point wasn't "guilty by association", though given the reputation of the original source, I can see how it would be read that way. My point is that progress in the medical sciences isn't charted through "exclusive reports" to newspapers. As anyone who clicks through the link you've helpfully provided will note, this is a story based on a white paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I'm sorry, I don't know offhand what the "DH" code is for the error this newspaper article made. I suspect it's a high number. 23, perhaps.

KirinDave 19y ago

The current body of medical literature is at best ambivalent about the risk of long-term exposure. That's not an appeal to authority, that's just checking on the state of the literature. Science is always open to revision, and so I don't think it's impossible that this is true (indeed, I use a handsfree religiously to minimize my potential risk). But there isn't any hard evidence, and one study does should not a panic take, especially given the profound and subjectively positive social implications of mobile computing and mobile communication. The article has nothing new for me, except sensationalist rhetoric and carefully worded (and carelessly paraphrased) "Mobile Operator Association points to these studies", when really that's the gross body of the current medical literature. It's not cherry-picked literature, the bulk of the literature suggests it is not true. That's not a conflict of interest, that's just pointing to the independently funded science. As for the story about the top floor of the tower, why would only their heads be getting cancer if they're being universally exposed? The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Whenever we have a somewhat difficult to reproduce condition with less-than-certain explanation in terms of the physical method, I demand more solid evidence before taking drastic action. I also think that news outlets like the register should take more responsibility and demand more evidence before pulling out the dramatic horn kicks and warming up a headline like this one. People have been expressing fear over EMF for a long time now, and in general these fears have been dismissed and unsupported by scientific examination. Until I see some hard evidence, I consider a cellphone is about as harmful as a microwave. That is to say, there are small potential risks (particularly with damaged units), but I'm more likely to be struck by a car while commuting to work.