29-Year Study Finds No Link Between Brain Cancer And Cellphones

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A study out of Australia has found that smartphones do not increase the risk of brain cancer. All cases in the country/continent are registered by law, so some think this study has further merit.

In summary, with extremely high proportions of the population having used mobile phones across some 20-plus years (from about 9% in 1993 to about 90% today), we found that age-adjusted brain cancer incidence rates (in those aged 20-84 years, per 100,000 people) had risen only slightly in males but were stable over 30 years in females. There were significant increases in brain cancer incidence only in those aged 70 years or more. But the increase in incidence in this age group began from 1982, before the introduction of mobile phones in 1987 and so could not be explained by it. Here, the most likely explanation of the rise in this older age group was improved diagnosis.
 
Of course they aren't linked, cell phones emit radio waves, non ionizing radiation.
 
Just another case of media paranoia over a lack of understanding of how science works. They quote one sensational study headline as though that one study is what makes fact, and the unsuspecting public just eats it up.
 
California disagrees...
California is run by liberal lobbyist whose goal is to increase the power of government by eliminating freedoms. They will restrict or tax anything the liberal media publishes.
 
They quote one sensational study headline as though that one study is what makes fact, and the unsuspecting public just eats it up.
It is also likely that people who are not skeptical will take this current news item and conflate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
 
It is also likely that people who are not skeptical will take this current news item and conflate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

First of all, how would you prove something doesn't cause cancer? Like what would evidence that something *does not* cause cancer even look like?

Second of all, if you're just going to say "We should assume it causes cancer until we can prove it doesn't"(which you can't really do anyway but that's beside the point), what good is a warning label telling people that something might cause cancer? You'd literally have to put it on everything, so what good is it then?
 
First of all, how would you prove something doesn't cause cancer? Like what would evidence that something *does not* cause cancer even look like?

Second of all, if you're just going to say "We should assume it causes cancer until we can prove it doesn't"(which you can't really do anyway but that's beside the point), what good is a warning label telling people that something might cause cancer? You'd literally have to put it on everything, so what good is it then?

In answer to your first question, you test to see if it creates situations which are known to cause cancer (e.g. DNA damage) and cross that with correlative data. Of course it's not conclusive -- research science rarely ever is -- but it's a large body of research that helps paint a clearer picture of the truth, whether it is the existence or nonexistence of something.

He's not saying to assume anything, but he's promoting critical thinking, thinking for oneself and being knowledgeable and savvy.
 
In answer to your first question, you test to see if it creates situations which are known to cause cancer (e.g. DNA damage) and cross that with correlative data.

From cancer.org:

"As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion."

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Of course it's not conclusive -- research science rarely ever is -- but it's a large body of research that helps paint a clearer picture of the truth, whether it is the existence or nonexistence of something.

He's not saying to assume anything, but he's promoting critical thinking, thinking for oneself and being knowledgeable and savvy.

Again, from cancer.org:

"
In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.

Most studies do not show a “dose-response relationship,” which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

Some studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because most studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these report"

"The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years."

"A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain."

"A large prospective (forward-looking) study of nearly 800,000 women in the UK examined the risk of developing brain tumors over a 7-year period in relation to self-reported cell phone use at the start of the study. This study found no link between cell phone use and brain tumors overall or several common brain tumor subtypes, but it did find a possible link between long-term cell phone use and acoustic neuromas."

Essentially the pattern you see is that every time it looks like there's a signal in the data, a different group comes up with a better study targeted on that signal and then the signal disappears. There is very, very little evidence that cell-phone use can be linked in any way with any type of cancer.

This is my point behind saying "How do you prove they don't cause cancer?" because it can't be done. All you can ever say is that "The study we performed that looked at these use cases did not see an increased risk of cancer.", and that's what the majority of studies say and generally speaking the better the studies get the more often they find nothing.
 
From cancer.org:

"As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion."

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?



Again, from cancer.org:

"
In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.

Most studies do not show a “dose-response relationship,” which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

Some studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because most studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these report"

"The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years."

"A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain."

"A large prospective (forward-looking) study of nearly 800,000 women in the UK examined the risk of developing brain tumors over a 7-year period in relation to self-reported cell phone use at the start of the study. This study found no link between cell phone use and brain tumors overall or several common brain tumor subtypes, but it did find a possible link between long-term cell phone use and acoustic neuromas."

Essentially the pattern you see is that every time it looks like there's a signal in the data, a different group comes up with a better study targeted on that signal and then the signal disappears. There is very, very little evidence that cell-phone use can be linked in any way with any type of cancer.

This is my point behind saying "How do you prove they don't cause cancer?" because it can't be done. All you can ever say is that "The study we performed that looked at these use cases did not see an increased risk of cancer.", and that's what the majority of studies say and generally speaking the better the studies get the more often they find nothing.

I'm not refuting any of this. I'm also not saying that RF waves from wireless phones do or do not cause cancer. What I am deriding is the media quoting a single study as though that's the end all and be all of that subject. Even among laymen it's become a joke. I've heard more than a few times, "One week chocolate is bad for you and the next week it's good for you! Scientists don't know what they're doing!" or something to that effect. Headlines like this, while I'm sure are well-intended, only serve to confuse people, not help them.
 
so if cell phones don't, does this mean living near power lines is off the hook too?
 
I'm not refuting any of this. I'm also not saying that RF waves from wireless phones do or do not cause cancer.

The post I responded to said that people were confusing the "absence of evidence with the evidence of absence", hence my response asking what "proof" that something doesn't cause cancer(evidence of absence) could possibly look like - all a study can ever do is show the absence of evidence.

What I am deriding is the media quoting a single study as though that's the end all and be all of that subject. Even among laymen it's become a joke. I've heard more than a few times, "One week chocolate is bad for you and the next week it's good for you! Scientists don't know what they're doing!" or something to that effect. Headlines like this, while I'm sure are well-intended, only serve to confuse people, not help them.

Did you read the article? Because if you did I'm at a complete loss as to how you could have come to that conclusion in this particular case. The article covered this study, how it was performed, the models they used to estimate what levels of cancer incidence they might see and then what the actual levels were. I'm honestly not sure how you could write a better article about one specific study. The article does *not* say "based on this one study we can conclude..." or "So there you have it, this study finally proves..." or anything of the sort. I feel like we must be reading different articles here.
 
The post I responded to said that people were confusing the "absence of evidence with the evidence of absence", hence my response asking what "proof" that something doesn't cause cancer(evidence of absence) could possibly look like - all a study can ever do is show the absence of evidence.



Did you read the article? Because if you did I'm at a complete loss as to how you could have come to that conclusion in this particular case. The article covered this study, how it was performed, the models they used to estimate what levels of cancer incidence they might see and then what the actual levels were. I'm honestly not sure how you could write a better article about one specific study. The article does *not* say "based on this one study we can conclude..." or "So there you have it, this study finally proves..." or anything of the sort. I feel like we must be reading different articles here.

I don't get the first part. Studies prove the existence of evidence all the time.

It doesn't matter what the article states. Tomorrow ask the most average person you know if they heard this news. I'd put good money that they'll say something along the lines of, "Yeah, cell phones don't cause cancer," or some other equally definitive statement.

Exempli gratia:
Mobile phones DON'T cause cancer: Study finds they pose 'no risk'
SCIENCE: Don't Worry, Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer
No, cell phones don't cause cancer
Mobile phone use not causing brain cancer, University of Sydney study claims
 
I don't get the first part. Studies prove the existence of evidence all the time

It's really just a matter of proving a negative. Studies can eventually pile up that make it exceptionally unlikely that X causes Y, and maybe even make it unreasonable to think that X might cause Y, but the studies will still only be able to conclude "We did not observe X causing Y."

It doesn't matter what the article states.

You said the article quoted a single study as though it was the "be all end all" of the subject. That's NOT what the article did, and when I call you on that claim now you say "It doesn't matter what the article states."? Nonsense.

Tomorrow ask the most average person you know if they heard this news. I'd put good money that they'll say something along the lines of, "Yeah, cell phones don't cause cancer," or some other equally definitive statement

What does that have to do with whether or not this was a responsible reporting of a study's findings? Nothing, that's what.
 
Jeebus. People worry about the dumbest shit. We are exposed to higher quantities and more harmful radiation everyday from our sun than the meager radio waves that a cellphone produces, and yet life endures. The only things we need to worry about being radiated from cellphones are more dumbass theories like this one typed up and spread to social media by your average idiot.
 
It's really just a matter of proving a negative. Studies can eventually pile up that make it exceptionally unlikely that X causes Y, and maybe even make it unreasonable to think that X might cause Y, but the studies will still only be able to conclude "We did not observe X causing Y."

You said the article quoted a single study as though it was the "be all end all" of the subject. That's NOT what the article did, and when I call you on that claim now you say "It doesn't matter what the article states."? Nonsense.

What does that have to do with whether or not this was a responsible reporting of a study's findings? Nothing, that's what.

My complaint is against mainstream media. I know I didn't make that at all clear, and that's my fault. Sites like this is where it starts.
 
What about the Phones from say 10 years ago or more were they any better?
I know of lots of famous people who used phones over the years that are no longer with us. Due to Brain Caner on the Right side. It could be the transistors not the actual waves.

I know if you live next to a bunch of Smart Meters or Cellphone Towers you will get sick.
 
Back
Top