Live data from Hacker News

Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

wsj.com

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#11
post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

This seems to be some other report about this study http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results

No link to a proper publication, though.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#13
post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

It's linked right in the article: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#15
"I suspect that this experiment is substantially underpowered and that the few positive results found reflect false positive findings." - Dr. Michael S Lauer, Director of Cardiovascular Sciences at NHLBI. Peer Review in Appendix G starting on page 36 of the study.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#16
At the moment the wsj article doesn't correctly link to the abstract so I put it in my post [1] (which also includes the full PDF link to the study [2]).

Considering there are an absolute ton of studies showing there isn't a link this is highly interesting. I'm not a telecom engineer so I don't entirely understand the methodology but part of their pilot study was to test various field strengths that do not raise the mouse or rat's body temperature (does this mean they are not using the same field strength as our towers?). They were also put into custom reverberation chambers; wouldn't that amplify or at least repeat the signal? Or is that not an issue and if so, why?

Also this section has me confused (maybe I'm reading it incorrectly?):

"At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls."

This makes it sound like the ones exposed to RF lived longer than those in the control. Am I reading that right?

[1] http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699

[2] http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#17
post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

Key points:

- The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes

- They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor

- 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals

- SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue. In the UK/EU it's 2 W/kg.

- 18 hour cycle each day, 10 minutes off, 10 minutes on (i.e. a 9 hour 50% duty cycle)

- 90 rats per gender per group (I think 1260 total)

- 106 week study

- Litter weights were slightly lower in exposed groups (~10%), but over time there was no significant weight difference between the exposed and control groups

- For the things they studied, the exposed rats had a defect rate of a few percent compared to control values of zero. Historic control values were (in my opinion) comparable to the exposed group and it seems to be barely statistically significant. The exception seems to be heart schwannomas which were as high as 7%.

- More will be published this and next year.

Here's a fun statement:

At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#18

Sigh, this isn't going to help the (mentally ill?) people who believe cellphones / wifi are making them sick. I wish this study wasn't paywalled, it needs some careful reading to determine actual risk. And then, if phones are causing cancer? Do you think everyone will stop using them? Do you think Apple will go bankrupt?

> I wish this study wasn't paywalled, it needs some careful reading to determine actual risk.

It's not paywalled. It's linked in the article as well as in other articles. Take a look here: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

> And then, if phones are causing cancer? Do you think everyone will stop using them? Do you think Apple will go bankrupt?

Everything comes with a risk. If phones really do cause cancer we need to figure out the possibility and weigh it. It's likely very small if it exists whereas every person in the United States, over an average life time, has an almost 2% chance of dying in a car (which is insanely high when you think about it) and yet we're still using cars, non-stop.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#19
post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

The paper is linked at the beginning of the article. Abstract: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 Direct PDF link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

The problem with linking to websites like this is that one has to be logged int o see anything but the first line of the article...

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#20
post #17
post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue.…

Thanks for the summary, I just read the article and I feel like you touched the main points.

Regarding survival, I also noticed it, surprising. Could you define "survival rate" for someone who's not in the field? Does it mean what it looks like it means, i.e., survival rate is higher when rats die at an older age in average?

Post reply on HN