121–130 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, in a country that grew by approximately 10 Million people in the same span.
Probably got older too - are brain tumours linked with age? If this chart is accurate, 3.5 years older: https://www.statista.com/statistics/275394/median-age-of-the... They really should have looked at rates by a given age.
"They analysed 79,241 malignant brain tumours over 21 years, finding that cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000." ~2000 new cases per year in a country with 53 million people? I'll take my chances. I'm fascinated how people obsess over the unproven and ultimately minuscule health risks associated with using a cell phone or drinking a glass of wine or eating chocol…
I'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist. I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.
I sure have my phone adjacent to those parts of my body a whole lot more than my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Do you have any family who live more than 30 minutes away?
That's not how I meant it. I don't think it's typical of phone calls ; it is certainly common among people who make phone calls. Also, both qualifications in that sentence are important - not only "an hour at a time", but "direct contact". I have been on long calls at work with a landline/VOIP phone and found my ear hurts after a while with the earpiece resting against my ear. So I know that when my ear does not hurt…
I wonder how many people hold their heads close to a running microwave while they are watching to see if something is overheating...
They probably don't do that making direct contact between their heads and the machine for an hour at a time. Seems like a bad comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist. I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.
Shouldn't smartphones, if they do cause cancer, cause a much larger spike in the hands or pocket area? I sure have my phone adjacent to those parts of my body a whole lot more than my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also expect the number of identified cases to increase as we improve detection methods and find tumors earlier.
Is this actually likely to have a notable impact on the statistics? My understanding is that cases diagnosed later or discovered in autopsy will contribute just as much as cases diagnosed early. Assuming that such tumours aren't routinely missed in autopsies. I imagine improvements in early detection may result in a temporary increase due to the shifting phase of detection, but this wouldn't account for a doubling ov…
2) The article is vague and short but "cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000" almost certainly refers to diagnosed cases of GBM, not including incidentals found in autopsies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist. I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.
Shouldn't smartphones, if they do cause cancer, cause a much larger spike in the hands or pocket area? I sure have my phone adjacent to those parts of my body a whole lot more than my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me that it's a bad comparison for several reasons. (a) I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Most calls I make are short and I don't actually hold it touching my ear. That does depend on the noise level though. (b) Microwaves are much higher power. (c) Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. Yes, microwaves are diff…
Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. How? A cellphone literally can't shield its radiation, otherwise it wouldn't really work.
So basically yes, phones do have shielding (on the head side only)
Pretty sure this is complete B.S considering the view of talking on the phone millenials and younger have. Like, there are literal memes about one being horrified and the sound of a phone ringing, which to me seems like a good indicator that we're talking less on the phone, so why would brain tumors increase?
"They analysed 79,241 malignant brain tumours over 21 years, finding that cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000." ~2000 new cases per year in a country with 53 million people? I'll take my chances. I'm fascinated how people obsess over the unproven and ultimately minuscule health risks associated with using a cell phone or drinking a glass of wine or eating chocol…
1.5 months of life is huge, this is only ~1 order of magnitude more than the smoking takes nationwide, and only a few times more than the drinking does. Probably more than any illegal drug does, taken separately.
So if this study is true, it will definitely put mobile phones among top 10 preventable causes of death.