4 ms·

In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review, updated in September 2016

In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review, updated in September 2016, shows that cancer death rates decreased by: 1.8% per year among men from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among women from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among children ages 0–19 from 2009 to 2013 From https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Yes, that's US only, but the US has built a lot of cellular and wifi infrastructure during that time of cancer rate decline.

jessaustin 9y ago
Eh, at that level, an actual effect from mobile phones could have been masked by a bigger decrease in some other effect. Besides, cancer diagnosis is often delayed relative to exposure to carcinogens. I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly in place, thank you.
- scott_s 9y ago
  Which you're free to do. But you can't cite cancer rates as the cause for your tinfoil hat. (And should perhaps raise the question of what is causing your tinfoil hat?)
  - cmrdporcupine 9y ago
    You quoted death by cancer rates, not cancer rates
colordrops 9y ago
Aren't the cancers proposed to be caused by non-ionizing radiation quite specific? Overall rates wouldn't say much about that.
acegopher 9y ago
Technically, it's not death rates that matter, but occurrence rates. Death rates could decline because of better treatment outcomes.
- betterbeehome 9y ago
  This. Cancer death rates != Cancer occurrence rates
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Houshalter 9y ago
There are many many causes of cancer. Even if cellphones are a significant source of cancer, any effect would be almost entirely lost in the noise. Demographic change and frequency of smoking alone explain much of the variation in cancer. That doesn't mean other things don't cause cancer. Also weird that your statistics start in the mid 2000's when cellphones were widely adopted.
acct1771 9y ago
Death rate doesn't matter, we're talking about frequency of occurrence. Got relevant stats?

jessaustin 9y ago

Eh, at that level, an actual effect from mobile phones could have been masked by a bigger decrease in some other effect. Besides, cancer diagnosis is often delayed relative to exposure to carcinogens. I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly in place, thank you.

scott_s 9y ago
Which you're free to do. But you can't cite cancer rates as the cause for your tinfoil hat. (And should perhaps raise the question of what is causing your tinfoil hat?)
- cmrdporcupine 9y ago
  You quoted death by cancer rates, not cancer rates

colordrops 9y ago

Aren't the cancers proposed to be caused by non-ionizing radiation quite specific? Overall rates wouldn't say much about that.

acegopher 9y ago

Technically, it's not death rates that matter, but occurrence rates. Death rates could decline because of better treatment outcomes.

betterbeehome 9y ago
This. Cancer death rates != Cancer occurrence rates
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Houshalter 9y ago

There are many many causes of cancer. Even if cellphones are a significant source of cancer, any effect would be almost entirely lost in the noise. Demographic change and frequency of smoking alone explain much of the variation in cancer. That doesn't mean other things don't cause cancer. Also weird that your statistics start in the mid 2000's when cellphones were widely adopted.

acct1771 9y ago

Death rate doesn't matter, we're talking about frequency of occurrence. Got relevant stats?