Connection Between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found. Should We Be Worried? | Hacker News Reader

Connection Between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found. Should We Be Worried?

technologyreview.com

26 pointschewymouse15 comments

Previous HN thread, with many of the problems in this publication discussed:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160

Note that the irradiated group also lived longer. I'm surprised the headline didn't read, "New Study Finds Cancer Good for Your Health!"

PSA: health research headlines are generally worse than worthless.

Also, remember, "one study on rats" will never be sufficient to correct anything physicists know about EM waves.

UPDATE: Here's the WHO announcement explaining the 2B classification. I didn't find it very satisfying, but judge for yourself: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

Here is the link to the actual paper: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

The rats where exposed to more RF for 9 hrs a day than what is permissable for general public exposure to RF by various safety standards. It does seem like this was more of a study that found that pesticide killed butterflies by crushing them with it.

They calibrated the RF levels to be under that which causes heating, rather than levels humans typically are exposed to.

I would be worried about this increased cancer risk if I was a cell tower maintenance worker who liked to put in a days sleep while draped over the active antennas.

A study with cancer happy rats does not mean there is a connection to humans.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/massive-15-year-study...

Short answer: NO

Sounds a lot like The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Do enough studies and statistically speaking one of them will show a link. This is most likely a statistical outlier and without multiple iterations of this test a false conclusion can easily be created.

Also as other commentators have already pointed out there are other points of correlation such as longevity which have been conveniently ignored - again helping to reinforce the TSF :)

I guess rats shouldn't use cellular phones.

The funny thing is people have started to make a big deal out this and smartphones are required to emit less than 1.6 watts. This is in stark contrast to the many, many years, people were using 3 watt phones and nobody ever made a link between cancer and using phones that emitted much more than today's cellphones.

Is that a GSM or LTE connection?

While this isn't particularly worrying, it shows that all people who said that cell phone radiation simply cannot cause harm, who were convinced %100 that harm was impossible, that those people were just arogant baffoons.

It also shows "the male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation actually lived longer than the control group". I'm not quite sure how to take such jarring results.

If they did not properly account for longevity then it's easy to see how (live longer -> higher chance of cancer)

Exactly. So—assuming all results are statistically significant—where's the causal relationship? Radiation-> Cancer? Radiation->Lives longer? Lives longer->Cancer? and if there are two results that are related independently of this study (lives longer/gets more cancer), then how can we presume one of the other results is more "valid" than another (as broadcast in the headlines)

There were 6 times as many test groups as control groups (3 intensities * 2 modulations). It would have been good to have more control groups to reduce statistical effects.

This is just one study and there are baffling results if you look at the data. For example, there's no good explanation for why the middle exposure group often had ZERO cancer (just like the control), with all the problems in the high & low exposure group.

That says to me that the random variance is high enough to swamp out the signal here. This also has to be weighed against all the studies that found no link.

I strongly expect that future studies will fail to replicate these results.

That's actually the case with lead. Lead is most dangerous at low and or high doses. No one knows why. Perhaps the body starts to fight back at a high enough dose, but loses at an even higher dose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com