WHO: Cancer and mobile phones

RoboClam

In the interest of being fair and balanced, I feel it is my duty to admit that I may have been wrong in the past in relation to this topic. I have argued in the past that there was no link and at the time, what I was saying was backed with evidence.

The newest WHO report on the matter is not so clear cut. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)

The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

Now, I don't see this as smoking gun evidence that there is a link between mobile phone use and cancer. More evidence will certainly be required, but it's certainly an interesting conclusion.

The IARC Working Group will be publishing their conclusions online in the next few days, which should be an interesting read.

Discuss.

robtri

is this a conspiracy or just that up till now the scientific evidence hasnt been compelling enough to say for a fact that there was a link.....

RoboClam

robtri wrote: »

is this a conspiracy or just that up till now the scientific evidence hasnt been compelling enough to say for a fact that there was a link.....

Well, I don't think it was ever a conspiracy, but in the past there has been a number of multi-page topics on this so I figure there was some interest or belief that it was a CT. I assume it was something to do with suppressing this information I guess?

Remember these pictures?

hooradiation

Those images are comedy gold.

But there is one thing i am unsure of it says "showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users " then gives the figure of an average, can i assume the "highest category of heavy users" is well above 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period or is that what they define as the highest category of heavy users?

RoboClam

hooradiation wrote: »

Those images are comedy gold.

But there is one thing i am unsure of it says "showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users " then gives the figure of an average, can i assume the "highest category of heavy users" is well above 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period or is that what they define as the highest category of heavy users?

They don't list what they define to be heavy use, you're right. They only give the average use (I would feel that 30 minutes a day is quite high for an average though). I assume the report in The Lancet Oncology will give the actual values they used to determine heavy usage.

studiorat

Acoustic Neuroma isn't cancer btw. Also according to the WHO you are more likely to die in a war than die from a disease such as this.

RoboClam

studiorat wrote: »

Acoustic Neuroma isn't cancer btw. Also according to the WHO you are more likely to die in a war than die from a disease such as this.

Acoustic neuroma is a benign growth, and may not be cancerous, but it can still have negative effects (Although it could still possibly develop into a malignant form).

But the more important aspect of this report is the possible 40% increase in the development of glioma, which is a cancer and is much more serious.

hooradiation

RoboClam wrote: »

Acoustic neuroma is a benign growth, and may not be cancerous, but it can still have negative effects (Although it could still possibly develop into a malignant form).

But the more important aspect of this report is the possible 40% increase in the development of glioma, which is a cancer and is much more serious.

Well, how serious that 40% increase is would entirely depend on that the percentage risk was before, surely.

Talk E

I have a feeling the risk is higher than even 40%. If this is only coming out now, and you can bet someone tried to cover it up, it's probably a safe bet that more will be uncovered in future.

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

I have a feeling the risk is higher than even 40%.

Lets say it's 60%. Hell, lets say it's 100%.
That number is meaningless without the original, base rate of risk.

Talk E wrote: »

If this is only coming out now, and you can bet someone tried to cover it up, it's probably a safe bet that more will be uncovered in future.

I would take neither of those bets.

Talk E

There has been speculation regarding the correlation between cellphones and cancer for well over a decade. Someone in the industry knew and suppressed the information for obvious reasons. They will do their best to discredit these recent findings and any other findings that relate cellphones to cancer and you unwittingly help them in your own way. There is to much to gain and to much to lose. You'd probably do the same if you were in their shoes, I'd probably do it too; in another life. Money money money, that's the way it is. If you doubt it, you're naive.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

If you doubt it, you're naive.

New word is it?

So who in industry knew and who 'suppressed' the information?

Name's, dates, details. Otherwise you're just making this up.

RoboClam

hooradiation wrote: »

Lets say it's 60%. Hell, lets say it's 100%.
That number is meaningless without the original, base rate of risk..

This is a good point and it could be linked to recall bias. People get brain cancer, know about a suggested link between it and mobile phone usage and thus misremember and possibly exaggerate their usage.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

New word is it?

It ? no, I been using "it" for yonks.

studiorat wrote: »

So who in industry knew and who 'suppressed' the information?

Name's, dates, details. Otherwise you're just making this up.

I am making it up.

Would it surprise you to discover that's exactly how it happened ?

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

It ? no, I been using "it" for yonks.



I am making it up.

Would it surprise you to discover that's exactly how it happened ?

That you just made it up? Given your previous posts, no it wouldn't.

So who in industry knew and who 'suppressed' the information?

hooradiation

RoboClam wrote: »

This is a good point and it could be linked to recall bias. People get brain cancer, know about a suggested link between it and mobile phone usage and thus misremember and possibly exaggerate their usage.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/

That's a pretty interesting article and all of the points raised bear keeping in mind when talking about this.


As an aside out of curiosity i stuck "rates of glioma" into Google, and "Neuro-oncology: The Essentials By MARK BERNSTEIN" came up in Google books with handy graph, showing that the incident rates were, at their highest, 0.9% per 100,000 (these are also age and gender dependent as well, and limited only to the USA, but lets be generous)

so, a bit of quick maths would mean that the new rate per 100,000 would be 1.26 (0.9 (base) + 0.36 (40% of the base)) per 100,000 or 1,260 people per 100,000 (up from 900) - and that's assuming that everyone is in the previously mentioned "highest category of heavy users" and also in the riskiest age group and gender. The reality would, obviously, therefore be different.

Leaving aside that I think people may have been jumping the gun in thinking that this was damning evidence, even if it turned out to be 100% accurate then the risk is still so small that i do not see it as being of any consequence.

YMMV, of course.

RoboClam

hooradiation wrote: »

That's a pretty interesting article and all of the points raised bear keeping in mind when talking about this.


As an aside out of curiosity i stuck "rates of glioma" into Google, and "Neuro-oncology: The Essentials By MARK BERNSTEIN" came up in Google books with handy graph, showing that the incident rates were, at their highest, 0.9% per 100,000 (these are also age and gender dependent as well, and limited only to the USA, but lets be generous)

so, a bit of quick maths would mean that the new rate per 100,000 would be 1.26 (0.9 (base) + 0.36 (40% of the base)) per 100,000 or 1,260 people per 100,000 (up from 900) - and that's assuming that everyone is in the previously mentioned "highest category of heavy users" and also in the riskiest age group and gender. The reality would, obviously, therefore be different.

Leaving aside that I think people may have been jumping the gun in thinking that this was damning evidence, even if it turned out to be 100% accurate then the risk is still so small that i do not see it as being of any consequence.

YMMV, of course.

I agree with all of this and I will point out that I never suggested that it was damning evidence at all. If anything it's pretty poor evidence all things considered and WHO seem to be saying that they cannot discount the possibility that mobile phones cause cancer.

I think the most important thing to consider is that there is no known mechanism by which non ionising radiation could cause cancer.

Also: Everything causes cancer!

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

That you just made it up? Given your previous posts, no it wouldn't.

So who in industry knew and who 'suppressed' the information?

I said I made it up. But if I really wanted to find out, I'd follow the money.

Ya know for someone who's constantly bitching and moaning about the CT forum and it's posters, you sure spend a lot of time here. Damn, you never leave. I'd go so far as to say you clock up the most time here out of the lot of us and even a few of us combined.

I think you secretly love conspiracies and conspiracy theorists :pac:

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

I said I made it up. But if I really wanted to find out, I'd follow the money.

Ya know for someone who's constantly bitching and moaning about the CT forum and it's posters, you sure spend a lot of time here. Damn, you never leave. I'd go so far as to say you clock up the most time here out of the lot of us and even a few of us combined.

I think you secretly love conspiracies and conspiracy theorists :pac:

Made it up? As in lied?

It's kinda like watching a car crash I suppose, you know you shouldn't look, but you just can't help yourself. It's entertaining, there's been some right good posters through here in the past, I still miss mysterious, that was a hoot.

The computers always on so I look in every so often, keep an eye on ya. I'm particularly interested in what makes you tick Talkie. Like why do you make all this stuff up and post it here? Telling everybody you feel sick when you drink water with fluoride in it when in fact you just cut and pasted someone else's post from a different site. Why would you do that?

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Made it up? As in lied?

Made up as in, made an assumption based on historical trends.

studiorat wrote: »

It's kinda like watching a car crash I suppose, you know you shouldn't look, but you just can't help yourself. It's entertaining, there's been some right good posters through here in the past, I still miss mysterious, that was a hoot.

So I was right, you do love conspiracy theorists. Don't worry, time is a good healer.

studiorat wrote: »

The computers always on so I look in every so often, keep an eye on ya. I'm particularly interested in what makes you tick Talkie.

Now you're really making me feel uncomfortable.

studiorat wrote: »

Like why do you make all this stuff up and post it here? Telling everybody you feel sick when you drink water with fluoride in it when in fact you just cut and pasted someone else's post from a different site. Why would you do that?

I guess I just wanted to see if I could get away with it. No flies on you though, surprisingly.

hooradiation

RoboClam wrote: »

I agree with all of this and I will point out that I never suggested that it was damning evidence at all. If anything it's pretty poor evidence all things considered and WHO seem to be saying that they cannot discount the possibility that mobile phones cause cancer.

Of course, I didn't have anybody specifically in mind when i spoke of the idea that the evidence would be considered damning.

But on the plus side this will prompt and influence more research in the future and who knows what we might learn - or how much more of the conspiracy we might uncover as others might say.

lonestargirl

hooradiation wrote: »

As an aside out of curiosity i stuck "rates of glioma" into Google, and "Neuro-oncology: The Essentials By MARK BERNSTEIN" came up in Google books with handy graph, showing that the incident rates were, at their highest, 0.9% per 100,000 (these are also age and gender dependent as well, and limited only to the USA, but lets be generous)

so, a bit of quick maths would mean that the new rate per 100,000 would be 1.26 (0.9 (base) + 0.36 (40% of the base)) per 100,000 or 1,260 people per 100,000 (up from 900) - and that's assuming that everyone is in the previously mentioned "highest category of heavy users" and also in the riskiest age group and gender. The reality would, obviously, therefore be different.

The numbers are actually way smaller than that. The rate is 0.9 per 100,000 not 0.9%.

Assuming there are 4 million people in Ireland. That would give a baseline rate of 36 people per year. The new rate of 1.26 per 100,000 would give 51 (50.4) people per year, an increase of 15.

Malignant brain tumours are quite rare. There were 4415 cases in Ireland between 1994 -2009 (only a small % of these would have been gliomas). Source: National Cancer Registry

hooradiation

Cheers for clearing that up and the extra info - I don't know how I made that mistake.

studiorat

Of course EMF radiation may be good for you also.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html

weisses

hooradiation wrote: »

Cheers for clearing that up and the extra info - I don't know how I made that mistake.

To much time talking on the handy ... i would say

33

I haven't been posting much or lurking lately, was a bit off colour, but that's done and dusted.
I've always "assumed" that any and all outside waves can cause an unbalance of the human body, it is an electrical device after all, frequency and type of wave can and do inbalance our electrical mind's and body's, like a jammer for radio frequencies, our brains use a form of electricity to pass a message from one neuro transmitter to another, now why is it such a wild assumption to suggest that these electrical transmissions cannot be disabled by a specific frequency, thus causing an abnormal imbalance in the mind or body.
There was a thread about psychiatry is bogus, well to be honest, science as a whole is bogus, it comes from assumption of one man who may have a bit of clout and backing, the deeper they look the more they discover that they actually know less.

This has been proven time and time again, nobody knows anything for certain, we all have an inkling towards what we percieve as the truth, but the people listening to any one man and taking it as Gospel is an idiot, even they, the scientists, know that at this stage, but will not or cannot try discredit it because of house rules.

Every assumption should be held up and the holes examined, einstein is not the world and just as anybody here is quite capable of punching above his weight, which he has, we are Human, we have limited grasp and ability in the great scheme of what is and what's not.