[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]   Help@Insulin-Pumpers.org
  [Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   for subscribe/unsubscribe assistance
 
 

RE: [IP] Re: insulin-pumpers-digest V11 #14



 "The Food and Drug Administration said the results indicate a strong need
for more study but not for immediate action to curb cell phone usage."

This is the only statement I took as meaningful from the article.

John S Wilkinson
Rome, NY



-----Original Message-----
From: email @ redacted
[mailto:email @ redacted] On Behalf Of Felix Kasza
(lists)
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 7:31 AM
To: email @ redacted
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: insulin-pumpers-digest V11 #14

Here we go again with the junk science.

>From the article you point to:

 > Additionally, an epidemiological study showed
 > nearly a tripling in the incidence of certain
 > cancers -- neurocytomas, which grow inward from
 > the periphery of the brain -- compared with
 > people who do not use cell phones.

Actually, the study (actually, it was just part of the Interphone
multi-centre study) showed a not-quite-tripling of the odds ratio,
with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.6 to 6.1. In other
words, the result is so vague that it is worthless; given the
range, it may even be that cell phone use _protects_ from
neurocytomas! Woot!

 > Radio frequency emissions are generally
 > regarded as dangerous and workers in
 > broadcasting, aviation and similar
 > fields generally try to avoid prolonged
 > exposure to transmitting antennas.

Are the people who write such articles born that way, or do they
have to undergo a surgical lobotomy? The workers mentioned here
avoid working on live antennas because 100+ kW of transmitter
power will fry anything. Hold your hand close to a 100 watt light
bulb. Now imagine another bulb producing a thousand times the
heat. The second bulb will burn you to a cinder. Your 100W bulb,
the first one, will not.

To drive the point home, the difference in intensity between a
cell phone transmitter and the radio/TV broadcast emitters we are
talking about is even more lopsided -- I used an analogy with
bulbs of 100 watt and 100 kilowatt; to come closer to the cell
phone situation, I would have had to use a 0.2 watt bulb -- that's
right, the twenty-fifth part of our grandfathers' incandescent
flashlights.

Finally, the article is cherrypicking -- I already pointed out at
the suppression of information on the statistical
(non-)significance of that "3 times" result, right? Well, it turns
out the magazine is also lying, by omission, about the rest of the
study. A Pubmed search for "cell phone cancer interphone" will dig
up the interphone study which the article distorts mercilessly,
and it's rather boring -- this doesn't happen, that doesn't occur,
those other possibilities did not eventuate. There is also a
meta-analysis pooling nigh on a dozen large studies, also with
negative results.

The only statistically significant result I take from the article
is that consumeraffairs.com regards advocacy as more important
than truth. Sad, really.

Cheers,
Felix.

=========================cut======
.
----------------------------------------------------------
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe/change list versions,
contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org