10 ms·
This article links to research that shows some of these claims are spurious: “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure tha
by jdavis703 5y ago
This article links to research that shows some of these claims are spurious:
“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”
- jcranmer 5y agoIf I'm reading that report correctly, there's a gem in the report that basically says that the small studies confirm that RF causes cancer, but as you roll that out to larger cohort studies and entire-population studies, the effect disappears entirely. So we should dismiss the negative evidence of the large-group-size studies in favor of the small-group-size studies and conclude that RF causes cancer, it concludes. That... kind of feels backwards. If the effect is real, it should show up more powerfully in larger studies, not smaller studies. Especially if you're crusading against purported broad environmental harm, the whole-environment studies seem the most relevant: even if some specific uses of cell phones may be harmful, that the way the average public uses it isn't one of those uses is important (that's one way to square the evidence, but I don't entirely believe it's the best way).