4 ms·
What a silly article. The article finds 3 brain surgeons who dont use cell phones near their ear, and it becomes news. If 4 our of 5 dentists recommend Crest
by cninja 18y ago
What a silly article. The article finds 3 brain surgeons who dont use cell phones near their ear, and it becomes news. If 4 our of 5 dentists recommend Crest toothpaste, then if I talk to 15 dentists, I can find 3 dentists that dont recommend Crest.
My favorite quote from the pseudo science fear mongering article:
"researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist."
- Alex3917 18y agoThey could at least find someone in the right field. What next, car mechanics reject evolution? It's especially ridiculous coming from Sanjay Gupta, the same shill that CNN keeps on staff to attack Michael Moore.
- gojomo 18y agoGupta is a neurosurgeon like the other two doctors quoted; what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers? Gupta was CNN's medical correspondent long before facing off with Michael Moore, and with regard to 'Sicko', pointing out Moore's omissions and distortions is a public service.
- Alex3917 18y ago"what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers?" A cancer researcher?
- gojomo 18y agoPerhaps, and the article did cite recent study results in both directions, though it didn't ask the researchers their personal practices. For that general-audience question -- "what should people do while the question is open?" -- brain specialist doctors are a great source. Sometimes practitioners can see patterns others miss. It was doctors directly treating gastric diseases who discovered the role of H. Pylori in stomach ulcers, against a mistaken medical consensus that had prevailed for decades.
- LPTS 18y ago"Gupta is a neurosurgeon like the other two doctors quoted; what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers?" How about a 10th grade science student who understands what nonionizing radiation means. "And now Sara will use what she learned in 9th grade science to tell us all why Dr. Gupta is a moron."
- gojomo 18y agoSo by your cocky and insulting tone, I assume you have 100% confidence that mobile phone radiation is harmless, and that the various studies indicating otherwise will all ultimately be refuted?
- LPTS 18y agoNo. I only have about 75% confidence. But, I do have 100% confidence that Dr. Gupta of CNN news has no good reasons to think it does, and that, if it does, the mechanism is unknown.
- gojomo 18y agoThe article's only comment about Dr. Gupta is that he uses an earpiece for his mobile phone. From that, you can divine that he's a 'moron', and 'has no good reasons' for his beliefs? Maybe for him, a 25% chance the studies showing harm are correct (similar to your belief) is enough to justify the earpiece.
- noahlt 18y ago“The plural of ‘anecdocte’ is not ‘data’.”
- akd 18y agoWhat's wrong with that quote? That's true of many things in science; we know the existence of a relationship but not the cause. For example, charge separation between the sky and ground is a very poorly understood phenomenon, but we know that it happens since we have lightning. Twenty years from now, we may find that cellphones cause horrible brain problems or that they have no effect at all. What the scientists are saying is that the data we have now doesn't allow us to make a call one way or the other.
- jcl 18y agoI assume the problem with the quote is that saying "we don't know how cellphones cause brain cancer" -- though technically true -- carries the implicit message that "cellphones cause brain cancer"... even though we don't know that, either. For example: "I don't watch reality television," said Dr. Gupta, "While there is no known mechanism for reality television to cause cancer, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
- andreyf 18y agoThere is no correlation between reality television and cancer, but there is with cell phone use.
- yummyfajitas 18y agoIs there? I've seen very little that is conclusive. A few studies here and there show some, but that's to be expected: a 5% confidence interval means 1/20 otherwise good studies will get it wrong. Interaction between weak radiation and matter is very well understood (1). Unless the currently known laws of physics are completely wrong, the interaction between cell phone radiation and your brain is so small as to be irrelevant. (1) Look up Fermi's golden rule in Landau/Lifshitz, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_golden_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_golden_rule or elsewhere. Also look up multiphoton ionization; if you've got a university library, look up Phys. Rev. A 42, 3090 - 3106 (1990).
- jcl 18y agoActually, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some correlation between reality television and cancer. After all, significant television consumption is correlated with obesity, and obesity is correlated with several forms of cancer -- never mind other risk factors like vitamin D deficiency. For all we know, reality television could be more correlated with cancer than cellphone use.
- commandar 18y agoFrom TFA: "Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer." I love how that's just buried in the middle and then quickly ignored.
- yummyfajitas 18y agoI ran this through babelfish, translating from geek to reporter: "Cellphones science science science science, science science DNA science science cancer. There is no known science science science cancer."