San Francisco, 5:06 AM
Sat Dec 19
30 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
SO the scandinavian men with tumors along the side of the head EXACTLY where the antennae goes only had face and scalp cancer, and that's not important because it's not the brain.
NEW REPORT: Bullets don't (always) cause diarrhea.
"suggests that [either] the induction period for brain tumours associated with mobile phone use exceeds five to 10 years, the increased risk of brain tumours associated with mobile phone use in this population is too small to be observed, the risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or that there is no increased risk associated with mobile phone use."
Sounds like they waffled a little on that conclusion.
@Jrsy Devil's Advocate®: It's impossible to prove a negative. That's why I (and many others) cringed when some senator a while back complained that nobody had yet done a study to prove that cell phones cause brain tumors.
You can never conclusively prove that cell phones do not cause brain tumors, you can only try (and fail) to show that they do. What they did was quite eloquently list the potential ways that cell phones could cause brain cancer that this study could not find. All of them are unlikely so it is unlikely (in the extreme) that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors.
Furthermore, it was determined that there is a direct link between the number of bluetooth headsets currently in use and the rise in general douchebaggery worldwide.
@ignignoktnerr:
Douchebaggery is directionally proportional to the use of a Blutooth headset and inversely proportional to the headset's size.
Ergo if while walking down the street, you really appear to be talking to yourself like some Night Train swilling wino, you are a douch .
@tamahome: Doctor Oz is a cardiothoracic surgeon. As such, his opinions on neurology or oncology are about as valid as his opinions on my dog's hip dysplasia.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: He had an expert on his show that said that if you take the studies with the best methods and the longest duration, there appears to be a link. I think it's wise to take precautions. The effect wears off with the square of the distance, so you don't have to hold the phone that far away.
@twophrasebark: No, it does not mean that. Not all studies are equal. A huge, national, prospective population based trial is much better evidence than a small retrospective local review.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: You think they reliably studied 16 million people? Now we're comparing apples and oranges. Statistical studies versus clinical studies?
This is all BS on top of BS. There's no way to determine wtf is going on yet.
@twophrasebark: Yes, I believe they did it as well as it can be done. The scandinavians are so far ahead of the US in clinical trials that you can hardly see them from here. Part of the price they pay for nationalized health care is mandatory participation in clinical trials where one is available. They are the only ones who could do this study. Additionally, they have a very high rate of cell phone use so it is an excellent population to study.
I don't know what the participation rate is in clinical trials in Sweden off the top of my head, but it is better than the 2 - 3% that US cancer trials get.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: It does not appear to be a clinical trial. It appears to be a survey and statistical study of adults in four countries.
"Mike Dolan, executive director of MOA, said: "The research reported no increase in incidence rates of brain tumours during a period when mobile phone use increased in Nordic countries."
This was a statistical study, not a clinical trial.
@twophrasebark: I see your point, but this is a matter of semantics. To a researcher, a prospective observational population based study qualifies as a clinical trial since the proper rules for data collection, statistical analysis and protection of the rights of the study group still apply.
It's not ionizing radiation. Xray and Gamma can both knock loose electrons and causing dna damage. That's what results in cancer. We would have seen cancer in people that live near radio or tv towers with cancer if nonionizing radiation caused cancer a long time ago if this were the case.
@♠ Final ♠: "We would have seen cancer in people that live near radio or tv towers with cancer if nonionizing radiation caused cancer a long time ago if this were the case."
I thought there was some anecdotal evidence that living near these transmission towers can cause increased incidence of cancer.
@twophrasebark: If you mean urban ledgends about them causing cancer, yes. If you mean if any of the many studies conducted to try and prove that link, then no.
I would rate it somewhere higher than urban legend but lower than causal link. I do believe that people's anecdotal reports of headaches and nausea from living near such equipment cannot be dismissed out of hand.
As for cancer, well, I wouldn't live too close to one of these things. Would you? Just sincerely wondering.
@twophrasebark: You know, I will give you the headaches and nausea, there is an actual recordable force at work here, but do I believe that non-ionizing radiation from radio or tv towers can ever cause cancer? no.
That is why I will continue to use my cell phone with impunity.
Funny that one of the signs of the apocalypse is that the sun will rise in the west...a pole flop would kinda fulfill that one..."In the face of inescapable doom, one should simply find a good chair a good wine and a good spot to watch the end of the world. In short, just live your life and laugh in the face of death...it confuses him."
12/05/09
NEW REPORT: Bullets don't (always) cause diarrhea.
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
Sounds like they waffled a little on that conclusion.
12/05/09
You can never conclusively prove that cell phones do not cause brain tumors, you can only try (and fail) to show that they do. What they did was quite eloquently list the potential ways that cell phones could cause brain cancer that this study could not find. All of them are unlikely so it is unlikely (in the extreme) that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors.
12/05/09
Any volunteers?
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
Douchebaggery is directionally proportional to the use of a Blutooth headset and inversely proportional to the headset's size.
Ergo if while walking down the street, you really appear to be talking to yourself like some Night Train swilling wino, you are a douch .
12/05/09
less of a douchebag
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/07/09
12/09/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
A crazy technology/health scare theory is forever.
12/05/09
[gizmodo.com]
Meanwhile the connection between zombieism and cellphones is still not yet clear.
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
What do you call it if you poke a dear's eyes out:
No eye deer
Cut off his legs:
Still no eye deer
12/05/09
12/05/09
This is all BS on top of BS. There's no way to determine wtf is going on yet.
12/05/09
I don't know what the participation rate is in clinical trials in Sweden off the top of my head, but it is better than the 2 - 3% that US cancer trials get.
12/05/09
"Mike Dolan, executive director of MOA, said: "The research reported no increase in incidence rates of brain tumours during a period when mobile phone use increased in Nordic countries."
This was a statistical study, not a clinical trial.
12/05/09
12/05/09
12/05/09
I thought there was some anecdotal evidence that living near these transmission towers can cause increased incidence of cancer.
12/05/09
12/05/09
I would rate it somewhere higher than urban legend but lower than causal link. I do believe that people's anecdotal reports of headaches and nausea from living near such equipment cannot be dismissed out of hand.
As for cancer, well, I wouldn't live too close to one of these things. Would you? Just sincerely wondering.
12/05/09
That is why I will continue to use my cell phone with impunity.
12/05/09
12/05/09
I never said it was.
12/05/09
Maybe you didn't really mean to use it to truly mean "evidence" but it gave me an opportunity to use one of my favorite truisms.
12/05/09
12/05/09
10/29/08