Iphone radiation and health, a discussion

[blow45]

Bingo! Electromagnetic "radiation", even microwaves, simply doesn't have the energy levels required to cause molecular changes in DNA until you get into the ultraviolet / X-ray part of the spectrum.

Radio waves and microwaves are *way* down the spectrum, well below visible light and infrared. You may as well be more concerned by that infrared heater sitting under your office desk.

People really need to understand the difference between "radiation" and "ionizing radiation". The first is the general classification of any sort of electromagnetic waves including light or radio waves, the later is the subclassification where the electromagnetic waves are high enough in the spectrum (have a high enough internal energy, i.e. x-rays) to cause ionization of molecules in your body.

To say that cell phones haven't been ruled out as carcinogenic is sort of like saying you haven't ruled out the existence of ghosts. Difficult to prove the nonexistence of something.



More like since forever. You're thinking of "background radiation" which is the constant natural ionizing radiation coming from space, the sun, and naturally occurring radioactive substances in the Earth.

very informative post and thanks for it. Although the point you are making about ghost, and the non existence of something (the loch ness monster say) indicates that you are very much aware of the basis of logical argumentation (kudos for this btw) I think you have misapplied it here. They are not trying to rule out the existence of some concrete entity they are trying to rule out the influence of something on the human body, and this had there not been so many vested interests would be easy to prove or disprove from all sorts of epidemiological and other type of studies. It's also the time frame we are talking here which is very small that people have been using cell phones to conduct a proper study in the long term (and not solely on animal models) and of course there is the perennial issue of how is going to fund these very expensive studies when big pharma who is the usual sponsor doesn't make any many out of this. It's then up to the departments of public health for each country which can be very slow and lacking in funds to go ahead.

It's a mess, anyway, like I said I am not debating whether they do or do not cause cancer or any other health issue, I am simply trying to find a good datum to gauge which phone emits more, or what type of usage is the safer to get less radiation. You say this type of radiation is harmless. But if cell phone radiation, non ionizing radiation as I guess it should be described, then why put limits on it to begin with? Are all those radiation experts who insist on certain antennae placement and SAR limits so ignorant? This is not a provocation question, I am sincere and I really wonder.

In any case harmless or not, less radiation near the head is the best choice, the safest choice, and it also seems easy to do by simple buying choices and behavioural (ie usage) modifications such as bluetooth. Having said that I don't see phone companies, apple included, particularly interested on competing on what amount of radiation their phones emit, because that would open up a huge bag of worms for them. I hope in 20 years time we are not talking about a new tobacco companies issue, but in any case I ll take my measures. I am not afraid of the type of wifi radiation anyway, since I am not some alarmist loon, but I won't put my airport next to my bed when I sleep obviously or next to my new born baby's bed. I am worried about cell phone radiation and for the moment until I find a reliable way to gauge each one based on sar and antenna placement, I am sticking to bluetooth.

peace. blow.

----------

My opinion is that there's simply too much profit to be had. Too many companies thrive off the huge margins some like Apple generate. Formally educated in the field of electrical engineering & computer science, I'm convinced mobile phones are harmful when held up to ones head. The remaining question is how harmful are they? Far too much money passes under the table to reveal the truth anytime soon. The way our government operates, the time tested stalling technique will reign supreme & bury any meaningful test results from seeing the light of day.

Ignorance is bliss, I know. Now pardon me while I light up.

In all seriousness though, no one asked you.

These fields overlap. He doesn't need a degree in medicine to be aware of the effects of radiation. He might even know the effects better than most doctors. When I did work in Uranium enrichment, I could tell my partner (physician) more about the effects of radiation than anyone.

Thanks for the very sensible posts.

 

[VulchR]

...
In terms of the "save the children" comment, it is a medical FACT that younger brains are more susceptible to radiation's effects? It's not an opinion, it is a FACT....

As a practicing neuroscientist, you lost me when you capitalized 'fact'. I'm not even sure how one would quantify radiation susceptibility in human brains - there are certain ethical issues - and in general children adapt better to brain damage than adults. I am not trying to put you down, for no doubt you heard some source that overstated the certainty of a scientific result, and over-interpreted its meaning. Just remember that journalists are paid to write stories that have impact rather than inform you, and that sadly this is even more true of science than of politics. Add to that the greedy, self-promoting, careerist attitude of some of my colleagues and it is like pouring gasoline on a flame.

 

[old-wiz]

How come no one has commented about possible radiation danger to your progeny from keeping your cell phone in your pants pocket?
(for Men) Is there a danger that your sperm cells may become deformed or your DNA snipped and your children born with ???
(for Women) Is there danger to your ovaries from the cell phone radiation? Keeping it your back pocket (which I see lots of women doing) might mess up your eggs.

 

[eawmp1]

These fields overlap. He doesn't need a degree in medicine to be aware of the effects of radiation. He might even know the effects better than most doctors. When I did work in Uranium enrichment, I could tell my partner (physician) more about the effects of radiation than anyone.

Yet EE/computer science degrees don't overlap with medicine in meaningful ways. Many on here use the term "radiation" without truly knowing there is a difference between ionizing, RF, electromagnetic, etc. radiation. And the effects of human tissues differ.

As of 2012, there is no definite evidence to conclusively suggest cell phone use is harmful or harmless. And any suggestions about the use of handsfree, bluetooth, etc. to minimize any potential risk is speculation.

 

[VulchR]

How come no one has commented about possible radiation danger to your progeny from keeping your cell phone in your pants pocket?
(for Men) Is there a danger that your sperm cells may become deformed or your DNA snipped and your children born with ???
(for Women) Is there danger to your ovaries from the cell phone radiation? Keeping it your back pocket (which I see lots of women doing) might mess up your eggs.

There appear to be scientific articles on this topic (just try Google Scholar with 'fertility' and 'mobile phone radiation' as keywords). However, it seems mostly limited to research on sperm quality (the male-oriented bias in science strikes once again), much of it seems to be at relatively high doses above that emitted by the iPhone, and I didn't see any meta-analyses that check for publication bias (a way of determining if mostly statistical flukes have been published). Note that I am not an expert on the reproductive system....

 

[thelatinist]

(for Men) Is there a danger that your sperm cells may become deformed or your DNA snipped and your children born with ???

NO. There is no way that microwaves can affect your DNA. Period. A photon of light with a wavelength longer than that of UV light (about 400 nm) simply does not possess enough energy to cause any damage to DNA. The light we're talking about with a cell phone is in the microwave range, with wavelengths between one millimeter and one meter and cannot damage any molecule in the human body.

The ONLY physical effect that that microwave light can have on the human body is to heat it slightly. Our bodies are incredibly good at regulating their own temperatures. The biggest concern would be the eyes, and you'd still have to get them up to 107F before you'd have a problem. Sperm die at slightly lower temperatures, but you'd still have to heat them several degrees to kill any of them; and since you make billions of them daily and temperatures below 107F cause no permanent damage to sperm-producing cells, there's not much worry there either.

 

[blow45]

As a practicing neuroscientist, you lost me when you capitalized 'fact'. I'm not even sure how one would quantify radiation susceptibility in human brains - there are certain ethical issues - and in general children adapt better to brain damage than adults. I am not trying to put you down, for no doubt you heard some source that overstated the certainty of a scientific result, and over-interpreted its meaning. Just remember that journalists are paid to write stories that have impact rather than inform you, and that sadly this is even more true of science than of politics. Add to that the greedy, self-promoting, careerist attitude of some of my colleagues and it is like pouring gasoline on a flame.

Point taken, actually, multiple points taken, and I cannot unfortunately remember my sources, nor as you say how they quantified this, which is a very pertinent question here. I have a keen interest in neuroscience myself having read a few books (doidge, kandel, etc.) and listened to a few podcasts, but other than that my understanding is at best rudimentary. As you say children's brain is far more adaptable. Maybe it has to do with the amount and thickness of the physical structure surrounding the brain mass, if it is at all correct, but it might more likely be a case of journalistic mis-reporting or "scientific" overstating as fact of some dubious indication culled from research. I 'll look it up and get back to you on a pm, if it's ok.

 

[deeddawg]

I think you have misapplied [logical argumentation] here. They are not trying to rule out the existence of some concrete entity they are trying to rule out the influence of something on the human body, and this had there not been so many vested interests would be easy to prove or disprove from all sorts of epidemiological and other type of studies. It's also the time frame we are talking here which is very small that people have been using cell phones to conduct a proper study in the long term (and not solely on animal models)

First of all, let me express my appreciation for the cordial, cogent manner of your disagreeing with my post. It is refreshing.

I do recognize and appreciate your point, but I maintain the analogy holds in the manner I intended. Namely I was speaking of the difficult of proving the negative in a complex and not-fully-understood system and used a colorful example. Conceptually, yes, sufficient studies could *show* there to be no statistically significant correlative or causative link between cell phone usage and cancer, but proving unequivocally would not be possible in my opinion. (Consider the example of aspartame where a LOT of money has been spent on studies and ninety countries considering it safe for consumption, yet a lot of people consider it to be poison)

One correction though - I did not intend to say that radiofrequency radiation is "harmless", but only that it cannot directly cause molecular ionization since it doesn't have a high enough internal energy. What it can do is induce heating by vibrating water molecules as occurs with a microwave oven. Of course those operate at 1000 watts or more vs a fraction of a watt (typically) in a cell phone. What effect this has on your brain or other tissue hasn't been completely worked out, so one can't say it's harmless. My point was differentiating ionizing radiation from the general classification since the generic word "radiation" seems to make people think of sitting on a pile of plutonium.

BTW, here's some decent reading: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

 

[mrsir2009]

Oh well

 

[alFR]

This study (probably the biggest, best controlled one to date) suggests there is no increased risk of glioma or meningioma (i.e. brain tumours) associated with long term mobile use. Ok, it's only 1 data point but I think it's about the most reliable one we have. In that context I'd suggest you probably don't need to take additional precautions to reduce your radiation exposure during normal use of your phone. If you're going to talk on it 24/7 with it duct taped to your head, of course, that might not apply.

 

[Stealthipad]

As predicted, this thread is now mirroring multiple previous threads on the same subject.

No conclusive proof either way. Lots of opinions and facts but no real or useful new information.

 

[thelatinist]

Conclusive proof is the wrong standard. Plausible argument is a better one. Nobody in this thread has made a plausible argument that light in the microwave band can cause cancer or any other health problem. All they've done is repeat again and again that it is "radiation" under the blithe assumption that because something is "radiation" it is harmful.

 

[blow45]

Conclusive proof is the wrong standard. Plausible argument is a better one. Nobody in this thread has made a plausible argument that light in the microwave band can cause cancer or any other health problem. All they've done is repeat again and again that it is "radiation" under the blithe assumption that because something is "radiation" it is harmful.

My focus in this thread has been to seek to educate myself and others about ways to minimize exposure to mw radiation via cell phone usage and to find effective ways to compare mw radiation emitted by each handset.

But your staunch apologism and down and out denial, as well as your attitude of thinly veiled put downs to anyone not supporting your opinion (even people with degree qualifications in the field - and btw what is your area of expertise?) is so infuriating it has obliged me to respond to the health concerns too.

You want a plausible argument? And I don't have to show indications of cancer but ANY health problem? I will spend 10 mins in google scholar, not more.

There you go:

Here, we report for the first time that UMTS MWs affect chromatin and inhibit formation of DNA double-strand breaks co-localizing 53BP1/γ-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons and confirm that effects of GSM MWs depend on carrier frequency. Remarkably, the effects of MWs on 53BP1/γ-H2AX foci persisted up to 72 h following exposure of cells, even longer than the stress response following heat shock.

Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/γ-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes

Cytogenetic damage in human lymphocytes following GMSK phase modulated microwave exposure
G d'Ambrosio, R Massa, MR Scarfi… - …, 2002 - Wiley Online Library

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis
Volume 583, Issue 2, 6 June 2005, Pages 178–183
Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro
Elisabeth Diema, Claudia Schwarza, Franz Adlkoferb, Oswald Jahna, Hugo Rüdigera, ,

(emphasis mine)

Enhancement of chemically induced reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells by 872 MHz radiofrequency …
J Luukkonen, P Hakulinen… - Mutation Research/ …, 2009 - Elsevier

This is ten minutes of research, no more no less. All articles are available on google scholar (not all of them in full text.)

You want more long term epidemiological studies, more studies in vivo, more studies on animal models. Get me, not apple's mobile profits, not samsung's profits either, but one of the lowest earning telecoms of the world and I 'll get you 10 times the amount of studies that currently exist.

----------

First of all, let me express my appreciation for the cordial, cogent manner of your disagreeing with my post. It is refreshing.

I do recognize and appreciate your point, but I maintain the analogy holds in the manner I intended. Namely I was speaking of the difficult of proving the negative in a complex and not-fully-understood system and used a colorful example. Conceptually, yes, sufficient studies could *show* there to be no statistically significant correlative or causative link between cell phone usage and cancer, but proving unequivocally would not be possible in my opinion. (Consider the example of aspartame where a LOT of money has been spent on studies and ninety countries considering it safe for consumption, yet a lot of people consider it to be poison)

One correction though - I did not intend to say that radiofrequency radiation is "harmless", but only that it cannot directly cause molecular ionization since it doesn't have a high enough internal energy. What it can do is induce heating by vibrating water molecules as occurs with a microwave oven. Of course those operate at 1000 watts or more vs a fraction of a watt (typically) in a cell phone. What effect this has on your brain or other tissue hasn't been completely worked out, so one can't say it's harmless. My point was differentiating ionizing radiation from the general classification since the generic word "radiation" seems to make people think of sitting on a pile of plutonium.

BTW, here's some decent reading: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

Points well taken, and you 've described the thermal effect very lucidly for the benefit of other forum readers. I will hid your advice and refer to said radiation as mw radiation henceforth. Having said this it is my understanding that there a number of in vitro and animal model studies that do demonstrate a harmful effect on living organisms, humans included, that is non-thermal, even if in principle the amount of internal energy does not allow for ionizing radiation. This at least is my understanding of the available research because my expertise (I have two degrees from universities, one in computer science, but not any in the biological sciences) does not allow me to have an authoritative opinion.

 

[VulchR]

I would not trust anything done in cell culture. There are too many confounding variables in cell cultures to trust that results will be generalizable to whole organisms. (Indeed, in my opinion the over-reliance on cell cultures is why the big pharmaceutical companies are crashing out of research - the results just don't translate well and it was naive hubris to ever think they would.)

 

[VulchR]

This study (probably the biggest, best controlled one to date) suggests there is no increased risk of glioma or meningioma (i.e. brain tumours) associated with long term mobile use. Ok, it's only 1 data point but I think it's about the most reliable one we have. In that context I'd suggest you probably don't need to take additional precautions to reduce your radiation exposure during normal use of your phone. If you're going to talk on it 24/7 with it duct taped to your head, of course, that might not apply.

The problem with this whole field is that there is so much at stake economically it is hard to determine whether researchers have conflicts of interest. In this case, the authors admit to indirect funding from the mobile phone industry:

'The authors acknowledge funding from the European Union Fifth Framework Program, “Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources” (contract QLK4-CT-1999-01563), the Swedish Research Council, and the International Union against Cancer (UICC). The UICC received funds for this purpose from the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum and GSM Association.' (color emphasis added)​

 

[blow45]

I would not trust anything done in cell culture. There are too many confounding variables in cell cultures to trust that results will be generalizable to whole organisms. (Indeed, in my opinion the over-reliance on cell cultures is why the big pharmaceutical companies are crashing out of research - the results just don't translate well and it was naive hubris to ever think they would.)

VuchR you seem very knowledgable, I was under the impression that not all of the studies I mentioned have been done on cell cultures. Am I wrong in assuming this?

 

[Stealthipad]

Conclusive proof is the wrong standard. Plausible argument is a better one. Nobody in this thread has made a plausible argument that light in the microwave band can cause cancer or any other health problem. All they've done is repeat again and again that it is "radiation" under the blithe assumption that because something is "radiation" it is harmful.

This reminds me of Al Gore and Global Warming!

 

[thelatinist]

There you go:

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis
Volume 583, Issue 2, 6 June 2005, Pages 178–183
Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro
Elisabeth Diema, Claudia Schwarza, Franz Adlkoferb, Oswald Jahna, Hugo Rüdigera,

(emphasis mine)

I decided to start with this paper since it is the one you chose to highlight. A couple minutes of research on PubMed showed me that this paper by Diema et al. was completely fabricated. The authors didn't even conduct the study, they just made up fake data to support their conclusion!

An investigation by the Medical University of Vienna (Austria) was initiated by a letter by the first author of the present paper, based on the data contained in the reply by the authors [Rüdiger et al., Mutat. Res. 603 (2006) 107-109] [17]. The University published three press releases, stating that "the data were not measured experimentally, but fabricated" and that the Mutation Research paper and another, published by the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (IAOEH) in 2008, should be retracted. So far, neither of these papers has been retracted. Only a Letter of Concern by the Editors of IAOEH, and an Editorial by Mutation Research were published. Here we describe the statistical methods used to identify the evidence of data fabrication. The major point is the small variation in the reported data, which is below the theoretical lower limit derived from multinomial distributions and also lower than those derived from detailed simulations. Another reason for doubt was the highly significant non-equal distribution of last digits, a known hint towards data fabrication. In view of the results of the University's investigation and the evidence presented in this paper, the Diem et al. (2005) [10] publication should be retracted, with or without the authors' agreement. Source

I must confess that I haven't thoroughly researched all of the other articles you pulled quotes from, so I can't conclude that they were similarly forged. But I did read the ones I could find full text of, and I noted a couple of common denominators: none of them contained any sort of Bayesian analysis to take prior probability into account, all were in-vitro, and none of them proposed any mechanism for the observed effect.

I have to thank you for the laugh, though. Next time, you might want to check that your sources aren't fraudulent before you trot them out in public.

 

[eawmp1]

My focus in this thread has been to seek to educate myself and others about ways to minimize exposure to mw radiation via cell phone usage and to find effective ways to compare mw radiation emitted by each handset.

No.

Reading your posts indicate you have bias, OP. Your hypothesis is that cell phone use causes harm. You seek out research that might support your bias, and trivialize evidence to the contrary. "Absence of proof of harm isn't proof of absence." Whether autism and vaccines, cell phone use and brain tumors, or the Loch Ness Monster...this tact is deceptive, and dangerous because it feeds our basest fears. And fear in the human animal trumps logic.

The conclusions in studies you cite are questionable science. And even one concedes the results, humans aren't petri dishes of fibroblasts. We have reparative processes that continuously are nipping problems in the bud.

The incidence of brain tumors increases with age. So pick any exposure in an individual and you can correlate with disease over the life of that individual. The incidence of brain tumors in the U.S. has not gone up in the past decade. Sorry, but I don't know the non-U.S. data (though if the incidence is up in the Scandanavian countries I'll invoke Chernobyl).

You have taken a stand, OP. Fine, but you have to admit you too are minimalizing those who have provided viewpoints that run counter to our hypothesis. As the potential risk is epidemiologically small (if such risk exists at all) the burden of proof is on those suggesting there is harm.

So, use a headset, a wired earbud, a land line, a cranium-molded (though the tried and true approach has been a pyramidal shape) layer of tin foil. Just live. If one constantly worries what he is going to die from, one never truly lives with anything.

 

[blow45]

@earwmp1
Yes I suspect a potential health risk and I would like to minimize my exposure (although ascribing this to worry and not wanting to make a rational decision with safety in mind is unfair). I clarified from the get go that I am interested in ways to compare handsets and finding ways of usage that expose me to less mw radiation. My opinion, or my suspicision of potential health risks, is irrelevant to this. Surely if I care about lowering my exposure I do suspect health risks to some extent.

I haven't trivialized the evidence provided by anyone. I have tried to withstand an apologist attitude and downright denial by people who haven't bothered to reply to my initial query of understanding the validity of SAR for comparison reasons, the usage of earphones or bluetooth to lessen exposure to mw radiation yet went on ahead on their tangent that either they "don't care" or that there isn't any potential health risk to begin with.

The very same apologists have failed to propose robust evidence. And the burden of proof does not lie with those that suspect a potential health risk from mw radiation to human beings. It lies on both "parties of the debate" to show either the safety of long term mw radiation in the proximity to the human body (including the thermal effects) or refute it, on evidence, not via speculation. Of course I picked the papers I submitted here because I want to refute the direct denial of ANY health concerns that's rampant by a few posters and which wants to quickly end any discussion on what handsets do emit less mw radiation.

We live in an era where technologies proliferate, it's the responsibility of those promoting any technology and benefiting with enormous profits from it to prove it's also safe for us to use, particularly those technologies where there is already abundant doubt via scientific evidence that they are not harmless. They can't have both the pie and eat it too. They can't have both the profits from selling said technology and roll over the research of the health risks to the societies.

Even if they are not willing to do so, as they are very evidently not in the case of mw radiation in cell phones, I would require them to give me accurate measures of the mw radiation I am exposed to via their handsets and bluetooth. This is hardly something that requires the interdisciplinary level of scientific input or the vast epidemiological, animal model, or vitro studies. But they are not even prepared to do this on the probability that using accurate and comparable mw radiation emissions across handsets would elicit a demand for more robust medical investigation on their effects.

They are very good however in doing everything in either denying any health concern by their pr machines, or spreading (again via their pr machines) disinformation and doubt over some basic established comparison methods such as SAR. Thus in my research on SAR (because I wanted to find out if it's indeed a good measure to compare handsets by) I have found several websites of questionable origin or interests trying to promote the opinion that SAR is not a reliable measure of gauging mw radiation emission from handsets at all. So, in essence what they are saying is we can't even responsibly and reliably measure the amount of mw radiation of our handsets (because it relies on a no. of factors blah blah..) to begin with. What a sham...

I decided to start with this paper since it is the one you chose to highlight. A couple minutes of research on PubMed showed me that this paper by Diema et al. was completely fabricated. The authors didn't even conduct the study, they just made up fake data to support their conclusion!


I must confess that I haven't thoroughly researched all of the other articles you pulled quotes from, so I can't conclude that they were similarly forged. But I did read the ones I could find full text of, and I noted a couple of common denominators: none of them contained any sort of Bayesian analysis to take prior probability into account, all were in-vitro, and none of them proposed any mechanism for the observed effect.

I have to thank you for the laugh, though. Next time, you might want to check that your sources aren't fraudulent before you trot them out in public.

It's not my responsibility in my 10 mins of looking through google scholar to check the history of publication and comments on every article and to doubt the veracity of articles in very established medical journals. You cherry picked the one you could attack more easily and it happened to have a dubious history. Yet the article has not yet been retracted from said journal so it's a failure of peer review, not myself. By virtue of the potential dishonesty of one paper (and one can be sure dishonesty is rampant in papers directly funded by the mobile phone industry bearing in mind the vested interests involved) your first line of argument is to doubt the honesty of other peer reviewed research I quoted in very established journals.

Your arguments on all the other articles I mentioned have just a pretense a validity so you can influence whoever here is reading you without a modicum of a scientific background while they are out and out misleading and/or false:

Bayesian analysis first of all doesn't examine prior probability but prior occurrence of an event, that is prior evidence and it cannot be applied in whichever study you select. It's application or non application is not a means to judge a priori a piece of research.

In vitro studies are typical when one is trying to study a biological marker that it's not possible to study in vivo and they are an established paradigm in medical science.

A proposed mechanism of the observed effect is also not a requirement for the acceptance of a set of evidence in the biological or medical sciences. I would have to be involved in these sciences to elaborate on this more but there seem to be countless examples in science where such mechanisms are only weak postulations and where the mechanism of effect is very poorly understood. Countless medicines are also brought to market without one, for example 1/10 of americans are on antidepressants whilst neither the etiology (or etiologies) of depression is well understood at all nor the exact mechanism of effect of the medicines themselves, other than a very oversimplified model of action.

|n the interests of full disclosure at some point you should also divulge your area of expertise (as others and myself have here) since you are categorically denying what you are not in a position to authoritatively make judgements on to begin with. I have already mentioned that I am not formally trained in the biological sciences and I am thus prone to errors of judgement or understanding.

Next time you start laughing, remember others have the assorted facial muscles too to have the last laugh. And since I had 5 more minutes today to read through one of the articles I posted, here's a meta analytical epidemiological study too which is as robust evidence as you can find for brain tumor growth. So much for the denial of any health effects...

Int J Oncol. 2008 May;32(5):1097-103.
Meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use and the association with brain tumours.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Hansson Mild K.
Source
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden. lennart.hardell@orebroll.se
Abstract
We evaluated long-term use of mobile phones and the risk for brain tumours in case-control studies published so far on this issue. We identified ten studies on glioma and meta-analysis yielded OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.8-1.1. Latency period of > or =10-years gave OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8-1.9 based on six studies, for ipsilateral use (same side as tumour) OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2-3.4 (four studies), but contralateral use did not increase the risk significantly, OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.6-2.0. Meta-analysis of nine studies on acoustic neuroma gave OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.7-1.1 increasing to OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.6-2.8 using > or =10-years latency period (four studies). Ipsilateral use gave OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.1-5.3 and contra-lateral OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.7-2.2 in the > or =10-years latency period group (three studies). Seven studies gave results for meningioma yielding overall OR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7-0.99. Using > or =10-years latency period OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.9-1.8 was calculated (four studies) increasing to OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.99-3.1 for ipsilateral use and OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.3-3.1 for contralateral use (two studies). We conclude that this meta-analysis gave a consistent pattern of an association between mobile phone use and ipsilateral glioma and acoustic neuroma using > or =10-years latency period.

 

[thelatinist]

And the burden of proof does not lie with those that suspect a potential health risk from mw radiation to human beings. It lies on both "parties of the debate" to show either the safety of long term mw radiation in the proximity to the human body (including the thermal effects) or refute it, on evidence, not via speculation.

Actually, when there is no plausible physical explanation for any mutagenic effect, the burden of proof is most definitely on those who propose it's existence.

It's not my responsibility in my 10 mins of looking through google scholar to check the history of publication and comments on every article and to doubt the veracity of articles in very established medical journals.

Yes, if you wish to make responsible and persuasive arguments it is absolutely your responsibility to evaluate the evidence you are using and ensure that it is not fraudulent. The fact that something appears in a "very established peer-reviewed journal" is not evidence that it is accurate or even logically sound. Hell, recently a study was published in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal which suggested that studying vocabulary can affect results of recall tests that have already been taken!

I'm on my cell phone, so I can't really read the new study you cite. I will do so later if I have time, but I am frankly tired of this argument.

 

[blow45]

Actually, when there is no plausible physical explanation for any mutagenic effect, the burden of proof is most definitely on those who propose it's existence.


Yes, if you wish to make responsible and persuasive arguments it is absolutely your responsibility to evaluate the evidence you are using and ensure that it is not fraudulent. The fact that something appears in a "very established peer-reviewed journal" is not evidence that it is accurate or even logically sound. Hell, recently a study was published in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal which suggested that studying vocabulary can affect results of recall tests that have already been taken!

I'm on my cell phone, so I can't really read the new study you cite. I will do so later if I have time, but I am frankly tired of this argument.

All the more tired I suppose when I ve just posted a very robust meta analysis of long term phone use and brain tumors (and I have a second one coming). Good choice also to not directly respond to my arguments btw.

(Yeah I was supposed to ensure non alleged fabrication of data when the whole peer review process failed to begin with on one of the most respected medical journals, after spending 10 mins on scholar just to refute your baseless claim that there isn't even the suspicion of a health risk, going out of my way and the original intent of the thread which is different as I ve stressed several times... I also have to be some uber editor leonardo davinci and correct peer reviewed articles from people who 've spent oh about 10-15 years in formal university training in their area of expertise... And I also have to now discover the exact mutagenic mechanism for any findings... Just put the Nobel committee on stand by for a few minutes while I get back to you and I ll be treating you to shrimps by the Stockholm harbour by tomorrow.)

 

[alFR]

All the more tired I suppose when I ve just posted a very robust meta analysis of long term phone use and brain tumors (and I have a second one coming).

Remember a meta analysis is only as good as the data it analyses.

one of the most respected medical journals

It isn't - it only has an impact factor just over 2, whereas Nature Medicine for example has an impact factor of about 25.

 

[blow45]

Remember a meta analysis is only as good as the data it analyses.

I am not sure how you gathered I had forgotten this. May I remind you too that there exist incorporation criteria?

It isn't - it only has an impact factor just over 2, whereas Nature Medicine for example has an impact factor of about 25.

You are not mentioning Nature Medicine just as "an example" you are mentioning it for effect because it's the highest rated non review journal across scientific disciplines. As for the larger discussion on impact factors I am sure you are well versed in the scientific method so as not to require me to enlighten you about their failings.

 

[SR45]

You just won't let this go away will you ? It has been beaten to death already, but you just like to Argue, don't you. Nothing else to do in your life ?