4 ms·

> one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue tha

by daeken 13y ago

> one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer. Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.

loceng 13y ago
But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!
- daeken 13y ago
  Have you read the paper? What that means is: no statistically significant links were found. But because of bias in the study, it's possible that we're wrong about the highest end of exposure, so this should be studied further. Claims that interphone found any statistically significant risk increase due to the use of cell phones is not backed up by the data in any way, shape, or form. (But this, of course, doesn't mean there is no risk, but that we haven't seen it. Future studies could find such a risk, as unlikely as that may be.)

by daeken 13y ago

loceng 13y ago

But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!

daeken 13y ago
Have you read the paper? What that means is: no statistically significant links were found. But because of bias in the study, it's possible that we're wrong about the highest end of exposure, so this should be studied further. Claims that interphone found any statistically significant risk increase due to the use of cell phones is not backed up by the data in any way, shape, or form. (But this, of course, doesn't mean there is no risk, but that we haven't seen it. Future studies could find such a risk, as unlikely as that may be.)