- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,000
Due to the publication’s “highly controversial” piece regarding “the inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones,” The Guardian has returned with a follow-up authored by cancer expert and physicist David Grimes, who says it “misrepresented the research and that fears are ill-founded.” He argues that if there was a true link, cancer rates would have clearly increased by now due to the exponential adoption of mobiles. Grimes also says there can’t be a conspiracy by the telecoms industry because there isn’t any real scientific evidence to downplay.
A Danish cohort study followed 358,403 people for 27 years, again finding no link between phone usage and tumor rates. The scientific consensus to date is that there is no evidence linking cancer to mobile phones. To ignore strong evidence against a conjecture while inflating weak studies is textbook cherry-picking, where data that might contradict a particular hypothesis is jettisoned, and only evidence fitting the desired story retained. This is antithetical to science, where the totality of evidence must be assessed in concert.
A Danish cohort study followed 358,403 people for 27 years, again finding no link between phone usage and tumor rates. The scientific consensus to date is that there is no evidence linking cancer to mobile phones. To ignore strong evidence against a conjecture while inflating weak studies is textbook cherry-picking, where data that might contradict a particular hypothesis is jettisoned, and only evidence fitting the desired story retained. This is antithetical to science, where the totality of evidence must be assessed in concert.