8 ms·

Massive 15-year Study finds no link between cell phones, cancer

• desireco42 15y ago
  I find this hard to believe. Especially first generation of cellphones, now I can see how they can be OK, but first generation was really bad.
• macavity23 15y ago
  Very nice study. Kudos to Denmark for using proper database normalization across the board!
  • tomjen3 15y ago
    Hilariously it is not allowed to use the social security number as the primary key (nor is it recommended since they can, and do, change e.g. after a sex-change operation people are assigned a new number because the final digit indicate the sex of the person) but you may store it in the database along with the other information you have on the subscribers. How they got it past the privacy officials I have no idea, you cannot normally get sensitive medical records on that many people.
• nobody31415 15y ago
  Media attention this will get = zero Result of a scientist saying "Well no you can't PROVE there is no link" = wifi being banned in schools.
  • dstein 15y ago
    It's receiving hourly replays on CBC news in Canada.
    • nobody31415 15y ago
      I think that's actually the mathematical definition of zero !
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
• jterenzio 15y ago
  The Economist had great piece about the misplaced fears of wireless a few weeks ago. Worth a read. http://www.economist.com/node/21527022 http://www.economist.com/node/21527022
• Detrus 15y ago
  What about links to mental conditions?
  • lukifer 15y ago
    I would wager that the behavioral/psychological side effects of owning a mobile or smartphone far outweigh any physiological effects of the radiation. Either way, I'm curious as well.
• Monkeyget 15y ago
  Any link to the actual study?
  • 1880 15y ago
    FTA: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387 http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387
• clumsysmurf 15y ago
  There are still other things which I find concerning. For example " electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones alters the permeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), resulting in albumin extravasation immediately and 14 days after 2h of exposure." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 So I don't think there will be a definitive answer on the safety of these devices for a while.
• ajkessler 15y ago
  Note to those that carry a phone in their pocket: there does seem to be a link between cell use and sperm quality/count. See, for example, http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jandrol.111.014373v1.pdf http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jandrol.111.014... Not exactly scientific, but I know a guy who's sperm count increased (enough to knock up his wife anyway) once he stopped carrying his phone in his pocket. Tim Ferriss, of 4-hour body fame, tested this and seems to agree. He mentions in his book that he now carries his phone on an arm-band.
  • anigbrowl 15y ago
    Although it's a preprint, the study seems quite rigorous. I don't see why this is getting downvoted.
    • schrototo 15y ago
      Probably because of the Tim Ferris mention. That guy causes a strong spike on the bullshit-o-meter...
      • anigbrowl 15y ago
        I hate him too, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    • sbierwagen 15y ago
      The percentage of users on HN that are currently attempting to conceive a child is probably very low, and that's the only cohort that would be worried about a temporary drop in sperm count. The percentage that do not want to have a child, either accidently or on purpose, will be much higher. For that cohort, a low sperm count can only be a good thing.
  • swah 15y ago
    Girlfriend gets pregnant, you argue you had the phone in your pocket all day.
  • xbryanx 15y ago
• brc 15y ago
  Doesn't matter how many times it is studied. Paranoia will always reign. Whenever someone talks about electro magnetic radiation from wifi or phones, I usually point out the massive ball of radiation in the sky that will burn their skin in 15 minutes of exposure and is known to cause cancers in millions of people. People tend to forget about that one when they are obsessing about low powered mobile devices.
  • codex 15y ago
    The sun puts out amazing power (roughly one kilowatt per square meter), but most of that power is in the visible spectrum. As a black body, only a tiny fraction of that power would be emitted at frequencies used by mobiles. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find hard figures, so I so I can't directly compare mobile phone power output with sun exposure at identical frequencies. Does anyone have a good number?
    • Dn_Ab 15y ago
      I don't think you used black body in a way that makes sense to your point. Could you clarify? That is, it is true the sun is (approximately) a black body radiator but I am unclear how that supports what you are trying to say. Ionizing radiation is the main cancer culprit and you can be sure the sun emits far more such radiation - mainly in the form of UV rays - than your cell phone. Which is at frequency levels below visible - mainly microwaves I think.
      • codex 15y ago
        It is claimed that mobile phone risks are insignificant compared to the risks of the sun, because the sun puts out way more radiation. However, risks may depend on power and frequency of the radiation (while it is true that ionizing radiation causes cancer, one can't rule out cancer effects at other, non-ionizong frequencies through unknown mechanisms). If it can be shown the sun puts out much less mobile-phone like radiation than your phone, then the conparison is not really valid. Put another way, the question is, "will I be exposed to more mobile-phone like radiation (1.8 Ghz) from a five minute call, or from standing in the sun for five minutes?" I tried to use a blackbody model of the sun to answer this, but I failed. There's also effects of the heat given off by the phone heating your head, but I ignore that.
• lukifer 15y ago
  To the extent that other studies have found such links in the past, I'm curious how much is due to pure correlation: ie, people who own cell phones and also engage in other behavior that increases the risk of cancer. This would also be much more relevant in the days when only a few early adopters owned mobiles, as opposed to now, when practically everybody does.
  • eliben 15y ago
    Valid point, but this concern should be somewhat alleviated by the massiveness of the study. I imagine that in 360,000 people, "pure correlation" should be relatively uniformly-spaced, meaning that there's enough people for all "correlative" behaviors to be statistic noise.
• gregwebs 15y ago
  Title is slightly misleading because the study didn't go on for 15 years, they used an existing database with 15 years of information. I also hate the use of the word 'link' because it seems to imply causality in many people's minds. This is a correlational study - a finding either way is good for suggesting a hypothesis, but we cannot infer (in this case a lack of) cause and effect. There could easily be gigantic unknown confounding variables. There could also be a very small minority of people very sensitive to radiation that can easily be brushed aside as outliers in these kinds of studies. I am even more interested in any wifi studies now that I am constantly near wifi. But my guess is that wifi radiation is orders of magnitude less powerful than cellphone radiation so it won't be as great of a concern.
  • jerf 15y ago
    Lack of correlation isn't "proof" of lack of causation, but it's damned strong evidence. Yes, in theory a precisely calibrated confounding variable could be precisely canceling the real effect, but until you've got some sort of actual evidence of such a factor you're in blatent violation of Occam's Razor. I'm really starting to loathe the thoughtless chants of "correlations doesn't imply causation"; it used to signal a deep understanding of science, now it tends to signal quite the opposite.
    • wtvanhest 15y ago
      No, it is not strong evidence. It is only evidence of a correlation which is meaningless. You shouldn't loath those thoughtless chants, you should embrace them. The first thing someone should say when presented with "linkage" is think, that is meaningless on its own. The real problem is that there are so many scientists (people with the ability to conduct statistical analysis) and so much data, that every possible correlation is being discovered. Even correlations that have nothing to do with anything. The best examples come from Finance, where the data has been more attainable, and where the rewards for finding real causality have been available longer and allowed for advanced computations on super computers before we all had excel (or put more useful statistical tool here). One of the go to papers on Motley Fool's completely loosing stock selection strategy is here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=158409 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=158409 There are lots of papers and examples in finance where people tried to find causality, but really only found correlation. Doing so is the best way to loose a ton of money. It is also the best way to get people to do stuff you do/don't want them to do and it is the best way to stop progress. So, don't make assumptions about causality, you should provide real evidence of causality beyond correlation if you write the word linkage.
• kleiba 15y ago
  Potentially off-topic, but: Bad for privacy, but good for science! is a little too hand-wavy for my taste.
• mgxplyr 15y ago
  It's about time someone shut these sensationalist scientists up. I was getting tired of the constant conflicting reports. Unless you can refute a 15-year longitudinal study with a longer study and a more concrete conclusion, keep your mouth shut.
  • daeken 15y ago
    While this study is great, you seem to be under the impression that science is so cut and dry when it comes to disproving theories. A shorter study with the right constraints could easily disagree with this one and warrant further investigation. While I find it highly unlikely that cell phones are cancer-causing agents, there's no reason to simply say "great, we've solved it, let's stop looking at this." That's not how science should or does work, when you're talking about something like this.
• hugh3 15y ago
  I read somewhere, many years ago, that there were thousands of suspected carcinogens, but only dozens of known carcinogens. The known carcinogens are things that raise your (fairly low) chance of getting some particular form of cancer by a factor of ten or a hundred or a thousand -- things like cigarette smoke and ionizing radiation. The suspected carcinogens are things that may or may not raise your chance of getting some particular form of cancer by a few percent. We'll likely never know whether some of these things really do cause cancer, because you're looking for tiny correlations in data which is already pretty sparse. Anyway, either you'll get brain cancer or you won't. The difference made by using or not using a phone is not a significant factor in determining the way you die. Unless, of course, you use it while driving. Heck, even using it while crossing the street has probably cost thousands of lives so far.
  • timedoctor 15y ago
    yes agree with this, basically even if there is a link it's not that important or relevant to your risk of dying.
• jacques_chester 15y ago
  Not a complete shock. If I understand it right, the frequencies chosen for mobile phones shouldn't interact with flesh; otherwise you're wasting energy.
• timedoctor 15y ago
  This is interesting but doesn't prove there is no link, as brain cancer is very infrequent, trying to show the incidence increasing by studying hundreds of thousands of people is actually not the most accurate method. It's more logical to investigate it in the following way: Look at people who have brain cancer, and see if it's more likely to be on the side of the head where the person uses their mobile phone. If statistically significant, then it's a much easier way to prove a link. This link has been shown in this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475713 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475713 for acoustic neuromas. This doesn't mean for all brain cancer and doesn't mean it's a strong effect. But if you are studying brain cancer, you have to compare apples to apples, and this study, whilst useful doesn't prove that there is link to brain cancer it only proves that they did not find a link. A more precise study is more effective.
  • zdw 15y ago
    I'm not sure if there's a causal link in this case. It could also be argued that, because the acoustic neurons on that side of the head are being used more, they're more likely to be cancerous, or that both are caused by a similar issue. For example, left handed women are more likely to have breast cancer, and a similar minor preference like which ear you use for a phone might correlate with health issues.
    • donaldc 15y ago
      It could also be argued that, because the acoustic neurons on that side of the head are being used more, they're more likely to be cancerous, or that both are caused by a similar issue. That sounds pretty convoluted to me. It could be true, but it probably isn't. If, as the paper abstract seems to indicate, long-term (but not short-term) cellphone users are getting fourfold more acoustic neuroma on the side of the head they use their cellphone on, as compared with the other side of their head, I'd say that the most likely explanation is that cellphone use is responsible.
• eck 15y ago
  Suppose you are injured or are having chest pains and need medical attention urgently. Then what is the link between having a cell phone and surviving? I would wager that effect is several orders of magnitude greater than any cancer effect.
  • brk 15y ago
    Well, yes, but what is your point? If you carry a cell phone, but use it ONLY for emergencies, then your exposure to radiation is tiny, and it would be a potentially valuable tool. If you carry it and hold it against your head 5 hours a day, then your risk increases (or so some "studies" would claim). You're not making any kind of a logical analogy here.
• lucisferre 15y ago
  I look forward to 5 more years of "cell phones may cause cancer" before the 20 year study that finds the exact same thing is in.
• codex 15y ago
  There are some caveats to this study which mean isn't as spectacularly powerful as Ars makes it. - They only have subscriber data from 1987-1995, when almost nobody had mobile phones (7%), and they were so expensive to use that they were used rarely (mostly outdoors and in cars). - But since then, 86% of the population has started to use mobile phones, and because they don't have tracking data for them, all of these mobile phone users are in the control group. So they're comparing exposed users to only-slightly-more exposed users (as I mention above, cell phones were rare and had quite expensive per-minute fees before 1995). They only know that most in the control group didn't have a mobile before 1995. Since then, they don't know how long any user in either group has used their mobile. - During the period for which they have data (pre-1996) 30% of users were on corporate plans and couldn't be tracked--so the heaviest users were lumped in with the control group too. - The 1987-1995 group mostly used analog phones, not today's GSM phones. Still, earlier phone users have used their phones slightly more than non-users in aggregate, so this study is noteworthy despite the lumping of the 30% heaviest users with the controls and the massive cell phone use by both groups since 1995. You'd expect cancer rate to correlate with mobile phone exposure, and both groups are very large.