Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:56 PM Jun 2016

No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer ... [View all]

No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer, no matter what Mother Jones and Consumer Reports say
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/

"...

To be fair, NaturalNews includes Adams’ usual conspiracy-mongering about vaccines, GMOs, and the like, linking them all to “government coverups,” but when you are a mainstream publication like Consumer Reports or Mother Jones and your headlines and much of your text are not that far removed from something published on NaturalNews, you are doing it wrong. As Matthew Herper put it writing for Forbes about the reporting on this study, “Yesterday’s cell phone cancer scare scares me a little about the future of journalism.” In fact, if you look at some of the stories linked to above, you’ll note that many of them include notes at the end mentioning something like, “This article was updated to reflect criticism of the study’s conclusions by outside researchers.” That’s the press jumping first and being forced to backtrack under reasonable criticism. Unfortunately, none of them seem actually to make it very clear specifically how the stories were altered in response to criticism, which is bad.

...

Still, from the standpoint of basic science, specifically basic physics and biology, the likelihood that radio waves can cause cancer is incredibly unlikely, or, as I like to put it, not quite homeopathy-level implausible but damned implausible nonetheless. Indeed, from a biological standpoint, a strong link between cell phone use and brain cancer (or any other cancer) is not very plausible at all; in fact, it’s highly implausible. Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation; they emit electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum whose energy is far too low to cause the DNA damage that leads to mutations that lead to cancer. While it is possible that perhaps heating effects might contribute somehow to cancer, most cell phones, at least ones manufactured in the last decade or so, are low power radio transmitters. It is also necessary to acknowledge the possibility that there might be an as-yet-undiscovered biological mechanism by which low power radio waves can cause cancer, perhaps epigenetic or other, but the evidence there is very weak to nonexistent as well. Basically, based on what we know about carcinogenesis, a postulated link between cell phones and cancer is highly implausible.

In the absence of better basic science that nails down a heretofore-undiscovered potential biological mechanism by which exposure to radio waves could cause cancer, I have a hard time managing to muster any enthusiasm about recommending more studies than the ones that are already going on, particularly in light of various recent studies that we’ve examined that purport to find a link between cell phones and cancer but really do not, as described in these posts dating back to 2008, listed for your convenience if you want more in-depth information and discussion:

...

In other words, as a skeptic who’s probably the most open-minded (perhaps almost to the point of my brains falling out) to the claim that cell phones cause cancer, I still consider the claim, on basic science considerations alone, so incredibly implausible as to be an incredible, albeit not quite physically impossible, claim. I base this opinion on a preponderance of evidence that shows that brain cancer incidence is not increasing, inconsistent cell culture and animal studies that suffer from publication bias and when considered in the context of Bayesian prior plausibility are in fact negative, several epidemiological studies that failed to find a cell-phone cancer link, and the fact that the only epidemiological studies that claim to find a cell phone-cancer link have come from one group in Sweden whose principal investigator is known for being an expert witness in lawsuits against mobile phone companies.

..."


-------------------------------------

It's best to go to the link to get the full picture.

Here's another piece on this study:

Underwhelming Cell Phone Rat Study

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/underwhelming-cell-phone-rat-study/

-------------------------------------

Whether one agrees fully with the author or not, at the end of the day, I hope everyone sees how the media blew this story with unnecessary hyperbole, and a nearly complete lack of context.

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
But what of the rats StarTrombone Jun 2016 #1
Rats can't read warning labels Major Nikon Jun 2016 #6
Rats don't talk on cell phones meow2u3 Jun 2016 #17
Friggin' Luddites! HuckleB Jun 2016 #18
Good enough for the media to sensationalise. liberal N proud Jun 2016 #2
Unfortunately, that's part of our current knowledge/lack of knowledge problem. HuckleB Jun 2016 #3
And one of the more amusing things is that the full study won't be out for a few months... TreasonousBastard Jun 2016 #4
Exactly! HuckleB Jun 2016 #5
Sounds like someone's Sacred cow was attacked Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #7
How is that? HuckleB Jun 2016 #8
Must have held a mobile phone to the cows ear. Bonx Jun 2016 #10
Ah, indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #20
Because no one said it was proof so you seem defensive. randome Jun 2016 #29
So you didn't bother to note the hyperbolic headlines. HuckleB Jun 2016 #31
Yeah, well, carnival barkers have to bark, I guess. randome Jun 2016 #32
Which is the point of the OP. HuckleB Jun 2016 #33
No doubt Major Nikon Jun 2016 #9
Still trying to figure out how radio waves are sex selective, or how they damage cells in the ... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #11
If you were subjected to a very high level of even non-ionizing radiation for 9 hours per day... Major Nikon Jun 2016 #12
That's easy to do. Go out in the sun. backscatter712 Jun 2016 #14
Which also exposes you to ionizing radiation, which is the biggest part of the problem Major Nikon Jun 2016 #16
Sorry but that's a disingenuous line of rebuttal. randome Jun 2016 #30
Even that seems unlikely, I mean, non-ionizing means its highly unlikely to interact with... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #15
The problem is, rats are severely prone to cancer already. JesterCS Jun 2016 #13
No wonder it wasn't peer reviewed. GeorgeGist Jun 2016 #19
I'm worried about rats using cell phones in the first place. NV Whino Jun 2016 #21
There is a massive increase in rat head injuries due to cell phone distractions. HuckleB Jun 2016 #22
There otta be a law. NV Whino Jun 2016 #23
It's the reason the big carriers are throttling bandwidth. bluesbassman Jun 2016 #40
Dang it! HuckleB Jun 2016 #41
Cell phones have been around for about 20 years alarimer Jun 2016 #24
As you know, I generally disagree with you, but on this, I agree. closeupready Jun 2016 #25
. HuckleB Jun 2016 #42
Anyway, how did they make such tiny cell phones? The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #26
More importantly, what was their data plan and who was the carrier? randome Jun 2016 #35
Hopefully not Cricket. HuckleB Jun 2016 #37
We are constantly being bombarded by radio waves. immoderate Jun 2016 #27
Did they use human sized mobile phones or tiny rat sized mobile phones during the study? Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #28
I have never understood this urban legend, so where is the harmful radiation supposed to come from? Rex Jun 2016 #34
As you note, plausibility is probably the biggest issue. HuckleB Jun 2016 #36
This topic has been around since cell phones, why is it taking them so long to find the source Rex Jun 2016 #38
No, no, ... not THAT! HuckleB Jun 2016 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, a rat study with marg...