This study is like a bad penny.
First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Japan…
It's not a completely reliable heuristic, but it's easy to check, and the things it's flagged that I've checked have turned out to be bullshit. (Sometimes highly respectable, promoted-by-mainstream-institutions bullshit, but not supported by quality studies if you read carefully.)
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#23Earlier 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…
Those quotes were to show that the article didn't take findings out of context - it was a restatement of things in the paper. According to the article it's already passed peer review, where reviewers upgraded the findings from 'equivocal' to 'clear' evidence. Both the article and paper seem to focus on cancers - not death.
Side observation -- does this mean cell phone radiation actually reduces kidney failure rates?
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#24In his circa 1985 book Body Electric, Robert O. Becker M.D. cites to several published research studies he conducted related to acceleration of mitosis by electromagnetic fields.
Re: First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>> The non-exposed rats are more likely to die than the exposed ones.
If I understand correctly, that was the information that was re-evaluated.