11 ms·
I clicked on a few links and Googled a few names. It's roughly what I'd expect: People with few publications now working in other fields, people without scienti
by hannob 7y ago
I clicked on a few links and Googled a few names.
It's roughly what I'd expect: People with few publications now working in other fields, people without scientific publications, but university degrees, people who regularly speak at events from radiation critics, people who are invested in other fringe theories.
People get fooled by "large lists of peer-reviewed publications". Peer review is a lowest level quality mark for a piece of science. It means that hopefully it's not complete bullshit. Sometimes it still is, because noone can forbid you to call your journal "peer-reviewed" with your own weak standards of peer review. And sometimes credible journals make huge mistakes (remember the "Wakefield-study"...). Even with only well-performed, non-flawed studies you'll always have some studies saying that something is there that actually isn't. That's simple statistics, you'll have outliers.
"Here's a large number of studies saying X" is meaningless in a topic where a very large number of studies have been done. What you need is systematic reviews of the literature that not only count studies, but evaluate their quality and combine their results.
Also it's not true that "nobody knows why" cancer incidence has risen. It's a mixture of people getting older and diagnosis getting better. Not mysterious at all.
- BurnGpuBurn 7y ago> "Here's a large number of studies saying X" is meaningless in a topic where a very large number of studies have been done. What you need is systematic reviews of the literature that not only count studies, but evaluate their quality and combine their results. The sixth link in the article will get you what you want: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300991#bib0020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421...
- 99052882514569 7y ago"The present review - of results published by my group from 2006 until 2016" Self-evaluation of quality is not quite a systemic review of literature. Neither is research on drosophila melanogaster quite in the same ballpark as research on homo sapiens.
- tboyd47 7y agoThank you. The sheer volume of blatantly false comments on this thread is astounding to me.
- jonnypotty 7y agoI find your certainty regarding the reasons we have increasing incidents of cancer to seriously detract from your previous points.
- dekhn 7y agoMost people in the cancer field (I worked in a tangential one) believe that incidence of cancer is due to people living longer (cancer rates go up a lot as you age), and not dying of other diseases first. In a sense, cancer is what you get after you solved the other problems.
- jonnypotty 7y agoI agree - and you're probably right but I think we should hold ourselves to the same standards of evidence we expect of others.
- mdorazio 7y ago"Most people in the cancer field" seem to be pretty misinformed then. See [1] and [2]. At a minimum, health/diet habits have increased cancer risk in young people over the last 20 years, and probably other environmental factors/exposures as well. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30267-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/young-people-cancers/incidence https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
- dekhn 7y agoSorry, i think you misunderstood. I believe that lifestyle effects do influence cancer rates, but I don't think they influence it as much as the effects I mentioned. Note that in the papers you describe, the increase in relative risk is actually fairly small.
- mdorazio 7y agoOk in that case I agree. I think it’s important to recognize that lifestyle and environmental factors are a contributor to cancer rates across age groups. Thanks for clarifying.
- BostonFern 7y agoI haven't read the article, and I'm not a party to the 5G debate, but what you're describing in your comment is a meta-analysis, which is a practice that has produced some of the most controversial findings in recent times. If anything is needed to clear up an inconclusive body of studies, it's better and more reliable studies and experiments, not meta-analyses.
- phalangion 7y agoCan you give some examples of the controversial findings of meta-analysis?
- extra88 7y agoRecently, a meta-analysis calling into question a connection between eating red and processed meat and heart failure.
- BostonFern 7y agoIn 2010, a meta-analysis seeking to reevaluate the scientific evidence behind the prevailing view that dietary saturated fats are tied to adverse effects on cardiovascular health was published.[1] The study's conclusion, "a meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic [sic] studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD", unleashed a wave of news reports claiming dietary saturated fats were no longer considered harmful, further tilling the grounds for a movement urging the increase in consumption of saturated fats for added health benefits. The 2010 meta-analysis has been criticized here: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/91/3/497/4597072 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/91/3/497/4597072 Again, I'm not a party to this particular debate on dietary saturated fats, but I am critical of the suggestion that a meta-analysis of an inconclusive body of studies will yield an actionable conclusion. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
- NikolaNovak 7y agoIsn't meta-analysis necessary and critical today? With a potentially large # of studies on a specific subject, some of which may be contradicting, meta-analysis will be done. Whether by accredited scientists, or institutions who do this on a professional basis with open and established criteria and consistency in approach (though there may still be flaws in the approach); and/or by individuals when confronted with large # of studies, when I feel bias would almost certainly be the primary driver. While you absolutely cannot eliminate the latter, it feels it would be foolish to dismiss or eliminate the former. As long as: a) World is a bit tricky (phenomena difficult to define and isolate; limitations in equipment and measurements; limitations in humans) b) We use statistical analysis as primary differentiator of significance There will continue to be contradicting studies. Not disagreeing it's always better to improve studies and experiments, but it feels like meta-analysis of multiple studies is not just a necessary evil, but a good and desirable next step. Thoughts?
- nroets 7y agoFurthermore, even if cell phones cause cancer then the risk will in all likelihood be so small that it doesn't justify banning the technology. [1] For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs
- someonehere 7y agoBut not everyone eats barbecued meat or has barbecued meat near/next to their body 24/7 like people who use cell phones. I can opt out of eating barbecued meat though it carrying a phone close to my body.
- davinic 7y agoFortunately/unfortunately some of us live in Kansas City and have no choice in the matter.
- donquichotte 7y agoRegarding 5G or barbecued meat?
- frandroid 7y agoMeat barbecued with 5G
- madengr 7y agoAs I type this across from Jack Stack. Korean BBQ is better anyway.
- scriptdevil 7y agoWouldn't the difference there be that the person consuming meat is voluntarily consuming it while even people sticking to older tech phones are exposed to the newer radiation? I am no luddite but this would be my argument from a devil's advocate position
- adamsea 7y agoSo as to help me best evaluate the validity of the article, what is your background? Are you familiar w/that field? That would help me assess the usefulness of your critique of the backgrounds of people linked to in the article.
- adamsea 7y agoAlso the World Health Organization (WHO) is cited: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf "Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1 , associated with wireless phone use."
- gridlockd 7y agoThe "possibly carcinogenic" declaration is quite weak ("evidence far from conclusive"). Even if it was "carcinogenic to humans", there's a lot of things that are vital to modern society which fall into that category. It's then up to the regulators to guess an "acceptable" limit of exposure.
- drucik 7y ago“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” seems appropriate here...
- plughs 7y ago> People with few publications now working in other fields I'm surprised this statement passed muster on HN where there must be some number of PhDs now working in other fields. Certainly the ones I know wouldn't take kindly to the idea that somehow, just because they left academia their research can be easily and completely dismissed.
- klmr 7y agoBeing such a person is totally fine (I’m one myself). What’s damning is the fact that this list is largely composed of just such people (plus some that are less qualified).
- hannob 7y agoThere's nothing wrong with changing fields. But if you tell me "these are the most relevant scientists in the field" and most of them aren't actively working scientists - it looks fishy...
- plughs 7y agoYou might find it more informative to look at the last author, who is typically the expert and ( ideally ) is helping to drive the research.
- driverdan 7y agoIt's unfortunately common in science for someone who's an expert in one field to think they can easily be an expert in another field and get it completely wrong. Linux Pauling is the most well known example of this.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- knzhou 7y agoYeah, this is just a ridiculous way to dismiss the papers. Most authors are "people with few publications now working in other fields". One professor trains 25+ PhDs in their career, and usually all but one or two of them will end up fitting that description.
- Barrin92 7y agoNot only that but the article also leans on the somewhat infamous 'rat study', which produced hugely misleading findings, as explained in a good writeup by John Timmer here (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-analysis-of-the-latest-cellphone-safety-scare/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-analysis-...)
- RobertRoberts 7y ago> Peer review is a lowest level quality mark for a piece of science. Peer reviewed used to be the epitome of proof, now it's been relegated to base minimum? Are you saying that consensus is no longer considered valid proof? (not that I disagree, it's just that this is a rare argument in my experience)