Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 185 posts

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#131

Post by remir »

Imagine we have solid evidence that cell phones, Bluetooth headphones, smart watches, etc are responsible for the rise in tumors.

I'm curious to know how people (and the industry) would react. We made these powerful communication tools that are connecting the world, that changed how we communicate and they are causing us harm?

Cigarettes were wonderful until they weren't. Oil was perfect until it became problematic for environmental reasons. Are cell phones the next thing on the list?

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#132

Post by pdpi »

jhayward wrote: post #91
gnode wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any statistics available which can link GBM to age?

It doesn't have to be linked to age, just a yearly probability summed over more years. Then you can start adding in the things that make people live longer, like less heart disease per year of life, etc., and you get the same effect they are charting.

If the effect isn't related to age, then what you're describing is captured by population.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#133

Post by michaelmrose »

dbatten wrote: post #16

"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…

The population also increased by 13%. If nothing changed one would expect 1400 so its an excess mortality of 1600 that isn't borne out by the rest of the world. Something is presumably at fault but its unlikely to be cell phones and since we don't know what it is you aren't likely to be able to avoid it.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#134

Post by matte_black »

remir wrote: post #131

Imagine we have solid evidence that cell phones, Bluetooth headphones, smart watches, etc are responsible for the rise in tumors. I'm curious to know how people (and the industry) would react. We made these powerful communication tools that are connecting the world, that changed how we communicate and they are causing us harm? Cigarettes were wonderful until they weren't. Oil was perfect until it became problematic f…

We could finally eliminate the dumb speaker you hold up your ear and just have every phone be a speaker or FaceTime only phone. Maybe then the iPhone can eliminate the notch.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#135

Post by sandworm101 »

remir wrote: post #131

Imagine we have solid evidence that cell phones, Bluetooth headphones, smart watches, etc are responsible for the rise in tumors. I'm curious to know how people (and the industry) would react. We made these powerful communication tools that are connecting the world, that changed how we communicate and they are causing us harm? Cigarettes were wonderful until they weren't. Oil was perfect until it became problematic f…

>> Are cell phones the next thing on the list?

Cigarettes created hospitals full of "black lung" diseases, the scary one being cancer. The experts had their suspicions. Cellphones are as pervasive now as tobacco was in the 1950s. We aren't seeing hospitals full of brain cancers. If they are causing tumors, they are doing so only in a very few cases. So no, even if the link is made the reaction will not parallel tobacco.

Imho if a link is found we will not see a ban. We will see standards for shielding, a layer of tinfoil between the antenna and the head.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#136

Post by Tloewald »

remir wrote: post #131

Imagine we have solid evidence that cell phones, Bluetooth headphones, smart watches, etc are responsible for the rise in tumors. I'm curious to know how people (and the industry) would react. We made these powerful communication tools that are connecting the world, that changed how we communicate and they are causing us harm? Cigarettes were wonderful until they weren't. Oil was perfect until it became problematic f…

"A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."

King James

Cigarettes were never wonderful. They were addictive.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#137

Post by cgb223 »

jackschultz wrote: post #118

Story time, as is often the case when "studies" talk about medical risks. Couple years ago I started noticing these events, deja vu flashes, tingly right arm from the shoulder all the way down to my fingers, and then the inability to comprehend words for a few minutes. Never issues with coordination, because the first one I remember distinctly was riding a bike. Eventually was told they could be seizures, got an MRI…

Hey so I’m also left handed and have a lot of the same symptoms you’ve described.

Can you explain the deja vu, tingling, etc symptoms a bit more

This has me a little nervous and I want to be sure it’s something I need to get concerned about

Did you actually end up having seizures?

How did you know it was serious?

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#138

Post by carbocation »

awakeasleep wrote: post #113
carbocation wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also expect the number of identified cases to increase as we improve detection methods and find tumors earlier. If this is true (and I think you're likely to be right) then we should see longer survival with GBM thanks to lead-time bias.

It's actually more complicated than that- we'd need to know the survival rate for procedures carried out at different discovery times. If the cancer is basically inoperable, or if there isn't a big difference in outcome based on time of detection, then there wouldn't be an appreciable change in survival rates

> If the cancer is basically inoperable, or if there isn't a big difference in outcome based on time of detection, then there wouldn't be an appreciable change in survival rates

Lead time bias tells you that even if there is no effective treatment, you will appear to live longer thanks to earlier discovery of the disease. It was a hot topic with regard to prostate cancer a few years ago.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#139

Post by michaelmrose »

csomar wrote: post #100
dbatten wrote: post #16

"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…

Or it helps them ignore the bigger/harder issues. How many people is stress killing? Is stress affecting your work, family? Is stress causing addiction? Is stress due to food, or workplace environment. Smoking kills. But I think people overestimate stuff. Unless you are smoking 60-100 cigs per day, I'd not be worried. When I worked in the cardiology department, those who suffered from pulmonary diseases were heavy sm…

Smoking kills more people that smoke like chimneys but its killed many millions that didn't. Your analysis is based on fancy not fact and it is horrifically bad.

Smokers, as in all smokers not just the heaviest, have a life expectancy 10 years less than non smokers.

10s of thousands die annually just from cancers/complications from secondhand smoke.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

Post reply on HN