Brain surgeons don't hold cellphones next to their ears | Hacker News Reader

Brain surgeons don't hold cellphones next to their ears

nytimes.com

38 pointsechair32 comments

What a silly article. The article finds 3 brain surgeons who dont use cell phones near their ear, and it becomes news. If 4 our of 5 dentists recommend Crest toothpaste, then if I talk to 15 dentists, I can find 3 dentists that dont recommend Crest.

My favorite quote from the pseudo science fear mongering article: "researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist."

What's wrong with that quote? That's true of many things in science; we know the existence of a relationship but not the cause. For example, charge separation between the sky and ground is a very poorly understood phenomenon, but we know that it happens since we have lightning.

Twenty years from now, we may find that cellphones cause horrible brain problems or that they have no effect at all. What the scientists are saying is that the data we have now doesn't allow us to make a call one way or the other.

I assume the problem with the quote is that saying "we don't know how cellphones cause brain cancer" -- though technically true -- carries the implicit message that "cellphones cause brain cancer"... even though we don't know that, either.

For example: "I don't watch reality television," said Dr. Gupta, "While there is no known mechanism for reality television to cause cancer, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

There is no correlation between reality television and cancer, but there is with cell phone use.

Is there? I've seen very little that is conclusive.

A few studies here and there show some, but that's to be expected: a 5% confidence interval means 1/20 otherwise good studies will get it wrong.

Interaction between weak radiation and matter is very well understood (1). Unless the currently known laws of physics are completely wrong, the interaction between cell phone radiation and your brain is so small as to be irrelevant.

(1) Look up Fermi's golden rule in Landau/Lifshitz, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_golden_rule or elsewhere. Also look up multiphoton ionization; if you've got a university library, look up Phys. Rev. A 42, 3090 - 3106 (1990).

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some correlation between reality television and cancer. After all, significant television consumption is correlated with obesity, and obesity is correlated with several forms of cancer -- never mind other risk factors like vitamin D deficiency. For all we know, reality television could be more correlated with cancer than cellphone use.

From TFA:

"Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer."

I love how that's just buried in the middle and then quickly ignored.

I ran this through babelfish, translating from geek to reporter:

"Cellphones science science science science, science science DNA science science cancer. There is no known science science science cancer."

“The plural of ‘anecdocte’ is not ‘data’.”

They could at least find someone in the right field. What next, car mechanics reject evolution? It's especially ridiculous coming from Sanjay Gupta, the same shill that CNN keeps on staff to attack Michael Moore.

Gupta is a neurosurgeon like the other two doctors quoted; what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers?

Gupta was CNN's medical correspondent long before facing off with Michael Moore, and with regard to 'Sicko', pointing out Moore's omissions and distortions is a public service.

"what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers?"

A cancer researcher?

Perhaps, and the article did cite recent study results in both directions, though it didn't ask the researchers their personal practices.

For that general-audience question -- "what should people do while the question is open?" -- brain specialist doctors are a great source.

Sometimes practitioners can see patterns others miss. It was doctors directly treating gastric diseases who discovered the role of H. Pylori in stomach ulcers, against a mistaken medical consensus that had prevailed for decades.

"Gupta is a neurosurgeon like the other two doctors quoted; what field could possibly be better for a story about cell phones and brain cancers?"

How about a 10th grade science student who understands what nonionizing radiation means.

"And now Sara will use what she learned in 9th grade science to tell us all why Dr. Gupta is a moron."

So by your cocky and insulting tone, I assume you have 100% confidence that mobile phone radiation is harmless, and that the various studies indicating otherwise will all ultimately be refuted?

No. I only have about 75% confidence. But, I do have 100% confidence that Dr. Gupta of CNN news has no good reasons to think it does, and that, if it does, the mechanism is unknown.

The article's only comment about Dr. Gupta is that he uses an earpiece for his mobile phone. From that, you can divine that he's a 'moron', and 'has no good reasons' for his beliefs?

Maybe for him, a 25% chance the studies showing harm are correct (similar to your belief) is enough to justify the earpiece.

The Sweeds might beg to differ: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-195865.html

The meat:

"However, researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life said they looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and found a link.

"A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot," the study said.

"The study also shows that the rise in risk is noticeable for tumors on the side of the head where the phone was said to be used," it added.

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones, for instance of who make mobile phone calls for 2,000 hours or more in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used. "

That's fairly conclusive because there is the asymmetry of tumours and there is a control group.

There is, however, the possibility that the people who got tumors were somehow susceptible to them (i.e. would have likely gotten them anyway) and that the cellphone use merely influenced which side of the brain the tumor formed. Or perhaps there is some other factor (handedness, the side you sleep on, the side of the car you usually sit in, etc.) that both biases cancer to one side of the head and influences which hand you use to talk on the cell phone.

Yes, but the more important question is: do urologists keep their phones on their belt or in their pockets?

Did they try and balance prick bias? A lot of brain surgeons are hot shots. Hot shots like to show how important they are by using a hands free unit (Mr. Important can't be bothered to use a hand while he's rudely talking on the phone in line at Starbucks). Thus, brain surgeons are likely to use hands free units.

You might be on the right track, except I think that those brain surgeons just want to reduce any chance of getting a brain tumor themselves, because each one thinks he's the only person with god's gift to remove the tumor :)

I think gifts like brain surgery comes more from the heretics that dug up corpses in defiance of the church then from god.

Fumbling with ear pieces is inconvenient as well. I wish there were a cellphone with an external antenna instead (connected via a cable). You could then keep the antenna in your pocket (shield it towards the side facing the body).

Maybe I should just get a tinfoil hat instead... ;)

Meanwhile, there are a variety of other things (bad diet, not exercising, smoking, excessive alcohol/drug usage) that almost certainly will impact your health quite negatively, generally for fairly simple, well-understood reasons. So, spend less time worrying about the little things and more about the big things.

If one of them is the best brain surgeon in the world, it might explain his reluctance.

"If someone else gets a tumor, they can always come to the best brain surgeon in the world! But if it happens to me, I'm stuck with the second best brain surgeon in the world, and he's a quack!"

"Mobile phones do not pose health problems to adults in the short term but there is a "slight hint" of a cancer risk for long-term users, according to the results of a study which could not rule out risks of brain or ear cancer for those who have used mobiles for more than 10 years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/13/mobilephones.h...

Another interesting study is this one:

"Microwaves similar to those emitted by cell phones may affect long-term memory, according to a new study by a University of Washington researcher."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991202070403.ht...

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=2333

I'm tempted to see if I can cook an egg inside its shell in 2 to 3 days time by placing my phone next to it. It's not 3G though.

Two "science" articles from the New York Times on the front page, from the same user, at the same time... oh dear.

A first for me: the exact same post in 2 different threads.

This makes 2 NYT science articles in the HN Top Ten, one about cell phones and one about red wine, both guilty of the same common mistake in lay "science" news. So let's get this right, once and for all:

   CORRELATION != CAUSATION

Great. Now we'll have a steady dose of "cellphones are bad" and "red wine is good" from the mainstream pseudo news aftermarket for the next 3 days.

Thanks, New York Times...

"All the Science News That's Fit to Misprint"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com