Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3 with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to my head, hips, and stomach.
First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paragraph immediately below in the paper states: > At the 14-week interim evaluation, there were increased incidences of right ventricular cardiomyopathy in the heart of male rats following exposure to GSM- and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR compared to sham controls. And a little further down: > Following exposure to GSM- or CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR, there were increases in the incidences of malignant schwan…
Right, that's the p-hacking section. If the death rate goes down and also the causes of death shift around, it's dishonest to focus narrowly on the subset of causes of death that went up. And if you look at so many different things that something as obscure and specific as "malignant schwannoma in the heart" is, then your paper better mention multiple-hypothesis correction, which this one doesn't. (I predict that thi…
As a person who reads papers and is (seemingly) confident in their ability to debunk claims that manipulate data, could I ask your advice?
How do you approach hot-button questions in health-related fields? I find it hard to navigate the deluge of information out there related to keeping in good health re: diet, exercise, personal routines and habits, etc. It feels like there are so many conflicting opinions, all with people trying to influence your behavior and nudge you towards living one way or another. Weasel words, twisted data, fake news, or whatever you want to call it seem to be a big part of this, too.
To relate to this specific post, I'm taking a course as part of my EE degree right now on EM Wave Propagation and even that prof gave a little talk about the negative health risks of cell phones, which I found... odd, to say the least. I still don't know what to make of his cautionary words, or whether I should take them to heart.
I feel ignorant and naive, and am unsure of how to live my life at times. What do you do to navigate all of this?
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#13What the Quartz article says the results were: > "The papers found that, in male rats, this exposure increased malignant tumors called schwannomas in the connective tissues that surround nerves in the heart, raised the risk of heart conditions, and led to evidence of DNA damage. Baby rats born to mothers during the trial had lower birth weights. The scientists also found a statistically significant increase in lympho…
The quartz article is reporting on the peer review of the resarch, not the research itself. The independent experts who reviewed the paper decided that the results of the research were understated.
This is made very clear in the quartz article:
A re-evaluation of the data
When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear evidence.”
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's the p-hacking section. If the death rate goes down and also the causes of death shift around, it's dishonest to focus narrowly on the subset of causes of death that went up. And if you look at so many different things that something as obscure and specific as "malignant schwannoma in the heart" is, then your paper better mention multiple-hypothesis correction, which this one doesn't. (I predict that thi…
As a person who reads papers and is (seemingly) confident in their ability to debunk claims that manipulate data, could I ask your advice? How do you approach hot-button questions in health-related fields? I find it hard to navigate the deluge of information out there related to keeping in good health re: diet, exercise, personal routines and habits, etc. It feels like there are so many conflicting opinions, all with…
Never start from a news article, unless your goal is to help others by debunking it. News articles rarely reflect the research they claim to report on, and even if they did, they'd be reporting on a highly skewed subset of the research.
Read sources that are intended for people who genuinely care about getting the right answer. For exercise, that means writing where the target audience is professional athletes and their coaches. For nutrition, try to start from Wikipedia (if you don't have a specific question) or PubMed (if you do). Carefully avoid anything that's focused on weight loss, because that's where the crackpots, laymen and officially-respectable conmen are.
Japan has the longest life expectancy and the lowest obesity rate. Every time you see a claim about what a good diet is, check it against the Japanese diet; if the Japanese are doing the supposedly-bad thing, reject both the advice and its source.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#15What the Quartz article says the results were: > "The papers found that, in male rats, this exposure increased malignant tumors called schwannomas in the connective tissues that surround nerves in the heart, raised the risk of heart conditions, and led to evidence of DNA damage. Baby rats born to mothers during the trial had lower birth weights. The scientists also found a statistically significant increase in lympho…
The quartz article is reporting on the peer review of the resarch, not the research itself. The independent experts who reviewed the paper decided that the results of the research were understated. This is made very clear in the quartz article: A re-evaluation of the data When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the dat…
The non-exposed rats are more likely to die than the exposed ones. That's the important part of the study. I'm not sure what kind of "independent expert" will "reevaluate" the data to underline risks that don't actually matter.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#16Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3 with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to my head, hips, and stomach.
It only causes heart cancer, so that's OK. Also OK for women and non-mice.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#17Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3 with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to my head, hips, and stomach.
I was told that the focal point of the radiation may be a couple of feet from the source when it's a phone. I can't get Google to confirm this (quickly) and I don't know about a watch (does it depend on the size of the antenna?). To be honest, focal point only makes sense to me for a parabolic antenna - so I'm just repeating what I heard.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person who reads papers and is (seemingly) confident in their ability to debunk claims that manipulate data, could I ask your advice? How do you approach hot-button questions in health-related fields? I find it hard to navigate the deluge of information out there related to keeping in good health re: diet, exercise, personal routines and habits, etc. It feels like there are so many conflicting opinions, all with…
Never start from a news article, unless your goal is to help others by debunking it. News articles rarely reflect the research they claim to report on, and even if they did, they'd be reporting on a highly skewed subset of the research. Read sources that are intended for people who genuinely care about getting the right answer. For exercise, that means writing where the target audience is professional athletes and th…
I'm not sure whether your reasoning about Japan is a good way to evaluate things. That's because Japan could be different because of a particular thing out of all the possible factors. The reason I say that is because I am thinking of the effect of lead exposure on crime rates as an analogy. There are a million things that could and probably do affect crime, but lead in the environment seems to dominate. If the Japanese are particularly healthy, it could be to one particular factor, say fish oil consumption (just to be arbitrary) and everything else might conceivably be irrelevant or harmful. Assuming the "goodness" is distributed equally among the various characteristics of the typical diet could lead you astray when you focus on something that doesn't matter or is harmful. It's the same issue as if you observe some people living a very long time while smoking - is smoking contributing to their lifespan or working against it?
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#19Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3 with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to my head, hips, and stomach.
It only causes heart cancer, so that's OK. Also OK for women and non-mice.
I don't generally hold my phone near my head or heart.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#20Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3 with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to my head, hips, and stomach.
You could wrap it in tinfoil while not using it.