General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer ...
No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer, no matter what Mother Jones and Consumer Reports say
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/
"...
To be fair, NaturalNews includes Adams usual conspiracy-mongering about vaccines, GMOs, and the like, linking them all to government coverups, but when you are a mainstream publication like Consumer Reports or Mother Jones and your headlines and much of your text are not that far removed from something published on NaturalNews, you are doing it wrong. As Matthew Herper put it writing for Forbes about the reporting on this study, Yesterdays cell phone cancer scare scares me a little about the future of journalism. In fact, if you look at some of the stories linked to above, youll note that many of them include notes at the end mentioning something like, This article was updated to reflect criticism of the studys conclusions by outside researchers. Thats the press jumping first and being forced to backtrack under reasonable criticism. Unfortunately, none of them seem actually to make it very clear specifically how the stories were altered in response to criticism, which is bad.
...
Still, from the standpoint of basic science, specifically basic physics and biology, the likelihood that radio waves can cause cancer is incredibly unlikely, or, as I like to put it, not quite homeopathy-level implausible but damned implausible nonetheless. Indeed, from a biological standpoint, a strong link between cell phone use and brain cancer (or any other cancer) is not very plausible at all; in fact, its highly implausible. Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation; they emit electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum whose energy is far too low to cause the DNA damage that leads to mutations that lead to cancer. While it is possible that perhaps heating effects might contribute somehow to cancer, most cell phones, at least ones manufactured in the last decade or so, are low power radio transmitters. It is also necessary to acknowledge the possibility that there might be an as-yet-undiscovered biological mechanism by which low power radio waves can cause cancer, perhaps epigenetic or other, but the evidence there is very weak to nonexistent as well. Basically, based on what we know about carcinogenesis, a postulated link between cell phones and cancer is highly implausible.
In the absence of better basic science that nails down a heretofore-undiscovered potential biological mechanism by which exposure to radio waves could cause cancer, I have a hard time managing to muster any enthusiasm about recommending more studies than the ones that are already going on, particularly in light of various recent studies that weve examined that purport to find a link between cell phones and cancer but really do not, as described in these posts dating back to 2008, listed for your convenience if you want more in-depth information and discussion:
...
In other words, as a skeptic whos probably the most open-minded (perhaps almost to the point of my brains falling out) to the claim that cell phones cause cancer, I still consider the claim, on basic science considerations alone, so incredibly implausible as to be an incredible, albeit not quite physically impossible, claim. I base this opinion on a preponderance of evidence that shows that brain cancer incidence is not increasing, inconsistent cell culture and animal studies that suffer from publication bias and when considered in the context of Bayesian prior plausibility are in fact negative, several epidemiological studies that failed to find a cell-phone cancer link, and the fact that the only epidemiological studies that claim to find a cell phone-cancer link have come from one group in Sweden whose principal investigator is known for being an expert witness in lawsuits against mobile phone companies.
..."
-------------------------------------
It's best to go to the link to get the full picture.
Here's another piece on this study:
Underwhelming Cell Phone Rat Study
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/underwhelming-cell-phone-rat-study/
-------------------------------------
Whether one agrees fully with the author or not, at the end of the day, I hope everyone sees how the media blew this story with unnecessary hyperbole, and a nearly complete lack of context.
StarTrombone
(188 posts)Won't anyone think of the rats
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)meow2u3
(24,764 posts)Nor do they text their fellow rodents.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)so it's just the preliminary findings, which are doubtless out there to help get more funding, that caused all the ruckus.
Anyway, low energy or not, it's counterintuitive to think that cell phone radiation has no effects at all. Maybe it doesn't, but maybe it does-- we still don't know for sure.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Bonx
(2,053 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the many hyperbolic responses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141467490
Nice spin.
randome
(34,845 posts)They use very selective language to push that implication forward, that's for sure. But the study itself does not say cancer can be caused by cell phones.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Try reading it.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)first place.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)for every day of your life even including the time you were in the womb, then you might develop cancer from it.
If anything the study demonstrates just how safe cell phones really are.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Just stepping outside exposes you to a lot of non-ionizing, and a little bit of ionizing radiation from that big fusion reactor in the sky.
We seem to have somehow learned to live with it, even with the ionizing radiation that causes skin cancer. Assuming you use sunscreen, the sun exposes us to everything from radio to microwave to IR to visible EM radiation. Somehow, I think we'll pull through.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I don't necessarily think cell phones can cause cancer but your point is the same as that of Reagan back when he denied there was anything like climate change to worry about: "Trees put out more CO2 than humans." Remember that? But the point that was lost on him was that human activity contributes even MORE CO2 than already provided by nature.
Same thing with your argument. Just because the Sun puts out more non-ionizing radiation does not mean our exposing ourselves to more is meaningless.
Although I understand the point about non-ionizing radiation being, for the most part at least, harmless by its very definition. I'm just quibbling over the idea that a bulk source of something is not proof that more is automatically safe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)any of the atoms in your body in any clinically significant way, unlike ionizing radiation which does so in various ways, especially in damaging DNA. I would hazard a guess that the chances of developing cancer from exposure to non-ionizing radiation is about as likely as developing cancer from exposure to neutrinos. Theoretically possible but difficult to trace.
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)I've had 4 as pets, 3 died from cancer, 1 from old age.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)The 'irradiated rats' outlived the controls.
Plus for added dumbness, it cost $25M.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts).They keep bonking into brick walls. It's a rat society tragedy.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)bluesbassman
(19,373 posts)Rat bastards are all streaming Willard 24/7!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Rats!
alarimer
(16,245 posts)If they caused cancer, you would think we would know by now. But possibly not, given how slowly some develop.
But yes, this one study purports to show the opposite of what we know so far: that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones does not cause cancer.
I respect Consumer Reports as a tester of consumer goods. As science reporters, I think they fell down on the job.
Mother Jones, however good on some political things, is so caught up in woo nonsense, I'm not surprised they fell for it.
I do know one thing, though, people fall for these breathless reports because they know jack-shit about science and how to evaluate a study. That is a skill we all need. I see smart people falling for nonsense every single day.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm someone who is marginally paranoid about the possible health risks posed by devices, and after doing my own simple research, I'm not convinced there is much risk from most modern cell phones, if any.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,692 posts)And how could the rats use them since they have no thumbs?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)They'd probably eat the dang phones. Hmm. I wonder if the researchers looked into that.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)And I keep the radio on.
--imm
Ace Rothstein
(3,163 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Inside the phone? What is the source of this harmful radiation? No one ever really pins it down and saying radio waves are at fault is loony toons.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's one of Gorski's main points in the piece, in fact.
Rex
(65,616 posts)of this harmful radiation? Wait I know...cell phone are...wait for it (been a while)...devices from...drumroll...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)We are screwed.