Latest Breaking News

athena

(4,187 posts)

118. Bad reporting of statistically insignificant results.

Sun May 29, 2016, 11:26 AM

May 2016

We're talking here about two or three rats out of ninety, compared to zero rats with cancer in the control group. If the expected number of rats that get cancer, with no cellphone radiation, is 2 or 3, then there is a 14% or 5% probability, respectively, that no rats would get cancer in the control group. In other words, you could easily get this study's results through pure chance.

Given that there is no known physical process through which non-ionizing electromagnetic waves can cause cancer, there is good reason to doubt the results of this statistically weak study. I expect that these results will not be upheld by subsequent studies.

For additional reasons to doubt the study's results, see:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer [View all] groundloop May 2016 OP

Darn rats! Who got them cellphones in the first place! Silver_Witch May 2016 #1

They probably won't have to give them up if the companies can improve the shielding cstanleytech May 2016 #4

Can't shield the antenna or it won't work. hobbit709 May 2016 #5

Who knows, maybe they can redesign the antennas or use somthing like a bluetooth cstanleytech May 2016 #24

speaker phone mode SCantiGOP May 2016 #31

Bluetooth has a range of not much more than 30 ft or so. hobbit709 May 2016 #61

I was thinking more along the lines of a cheap little external antenna cstanleytech May 2016 #77

100KW -- did that have water-cooled tubes yourpaljoey May 2016 #102

What do you think? proverbialwisdom May 2016 #79

I would have to see an independant study done on them to see if they actually cstanleytech May 2016 #81

Lke this? proverbialwisdom May 2016 #85

Interesting, still the cases arent designed for every phone so i suspect cstanleytech May 2016 #87

thinking it more for protecting like RFID Case Silver_Witch May 2016 #88

You didn't read the material carefully enough. (nt) proverbialwisdom May 2016 #91

Why not just turn it off? One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #98

Very seldom do I put my cell phone up to my head madokie May 2016 #14

That's me too. 99th_Monkey May 2016 #33

Me too. My left ear is toast and I'm right-handed. Mostly, I just text. MgtPA May 2016 #45

Rats are also terribly susceptible to leisure suits elljay May 2016 #59

See there is evidence that Rats are afterall quite wise Silver_Witch May 2016 #89

Certainly about wearing leisure suits elljay May 2016 #90

Rats are insanely prone to cancer JesterCS May 2016 #92

I had a sister-in-law died from brain tumors. yallerdawg May 2016 #2

let me text my friend and tell her...oh wait. nt Javaman May 2016 #3

+1 99th_Monkey May 2016 #34

There's a massive ongoing human study MowCowWhoHow III May 2016 #6

no controls? reddread May 2016 #19

However the smoking study I linked to was carried out MowCowWhoHow III May 2016 #20

This would be a correlational study not an experiment. Loudestlib May 2016 #29

Nobody uses cell phones for voice any more anyway. NT Ex Lurker May 2016 #7

My fellow passengers on Metrorail and Metrobus must not have heard about this development. NT mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #9

I'm a mostly text kind of guy myself madokie May 2016 #15

if I had to choose between talk or text NJCher May 2016 #109

At my wife and I's age madokie May 2016 #110

I certainly don't-- or I use headphones Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #22

Especially most children and teens. tavernier May 2016 #54

Wouldn't the radiation effect all cells in the body? OnlinePoker May 2016 #76

Thanks.. LiberalArkie May 2016 #8

Gotta do the headphone thing Scientific May 2016 #10

On a wire, Bluetooth no good. Speakerphone should be fine also still_one May 2016 #32

yes, I encourage all who read this to spend $5 to $15 to get a wired headset for your phone GreatGazoo May 2016 #48

I wear hearing aids in both ears. How am I supposed to use a headset or ear buds? -none May 2016 #103

Please share your source of $5-$15 wired headset- preferably comfortable (not buds) and Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #114

For any cellphone batteries, chargers, headset, etc GreatGazoo May 2016 #119

Me too, I can't stand the vibe of the phone next to my head. glowing May 2016 #41

My wife insisted on a handset which plugs into an iPhone ... SomeGuyInEagan Jun 2016 #124

adding a link mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #11

Ha! trudyco May 2016 #16

Johnny Cochran was highly suspected tavernier May 2016 #56

The National Toxicology Program is holding a media briefing at noon today to discuss the results mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #12

I'll be sure to listen in on my smart phone. mac56 May 2016 #18

where did they get the teeny tiny little cell phones?! n/t Locrian May 2016 #13

. Guy Whitey Corngood May 2016 #42

Beat me to it, but I was going to make the 'how are they even supposed to fit in the building' joke. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #52

Ha! Guy Whitey Corngood May 2016 #55

--- mac56 May 2016 #17

And cell phone corporations come out with never-before-heard-of scientist and science fasttense May 2016 #21

Where is the cancer in humans? former9thward May 2016 #116

They're here. N/T fasttense May 2016 #121

this has been suggested for quite a while now but many were in denial Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #23

That's not quite it. Orrex May 2016 #36

I know what you are saying Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #65

I've likewise been skeptical, but... Orrex May 2016 #70

Many thought that because One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #95

No convincing evidence AND no scientific reason William Seger May 2016 #68

fair enough... I know what you are saying Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #83

I don't think it will, read the study yourself, no biological significant effects for female rats... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #100

Your last sentence is where we fundamentally disagree. I take whatever evidence there is Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #115

My hunch is that this is a cumulative problem, more likely to harm those who grew up with cellphones groundloop May 2016 #25

My husband gave me a hard time when I made the SAR rating the #1 criteria for selecting a phone Skwmom May 2016 #26

Looks like I am safe Matt_in_STL May 2016 #27

I think this will have some major consequences to the industry still_one May 2016 #28

New brain cancer diagnoses linked to reality Major Nikon May 2016 #30

That chart does not exactly show a huge increase SheilaT May 2016 #37

The uptick at the end is interesting daleo May 2016 #112

Notice that rates of diagnosed brain cancer fell SheilaT May 2016 #117

Of course there may be a lagged covariance, once we get more data daleo May 2016 #120

Interesting correlation at end (where we would expect it). Need data newer than a decade old. Bernardo de La Paz May 2016 #38

Delete this post - people might not panic!!! We want panic!!!111!!!1 Lucky Luciano May 2016 #40

Way back in the 90's the cell phones transmitted with a lot more power than they do now. LiberalArkie May 2016 #43

I think the 600mhz spectrum just went up for, or is about to go up for auction. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #49

I was going to say, it drops at 2006. That's around the time the iPhone came into being. C Moon May 2016 #53

As I recall gliomas need a few years to get from a few cells to something that will be disruptive to Jemmons May 2016 #62

glioma isn't mesothelioma Major Nikon May 2016 #80

You have the requirements for relevance lined up the wrong way round. If and only if you can be sure Jemmons May 2016 #84

Nobody is saying they are sure of anything Major Nikon May 2016 #86

Interesting. sofa king May 2016 #93

Now can we study wireless access points? Ned Flanders May 2016 #35

Very different frequencies/power levels. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #51

I wonder how much RF is being broadcast along all those big power lines bringing us the jtuck004 May 2016 #39

This message was self-deleted by its author mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #63

Anecdotally, shortwave reception has been wiped out. mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #64

Such as that on my sw radio or...? n/t jtuck004 May 2016 #66

Right. 1.711 MHz to 29.999 MHz mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #67

I used to do that as well, and had noticed the reception wasn't near what it used to be. jtuck004 May 2016 #69

That's a content problem. Not EMF. Frank Cannon May 2016 #71

FCC Stopped accepting China Lab data One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #106

The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to ... AlbertCat May 2016 #44

Except they are much higher, distributed across the entire body, and were for 9 hours per day Major Nikon May 2016 #50

Also the cell size in humans and rats are different. -none May 2016 #104

About overhead power lines mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #46

Hand women the Cell Phones guys One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #47

they knew this already without killing the rats restorefreedom May 2016 #57

Fire hot..burns. vkkv May 2016 #58

My Schwannoma geardaddy May 2016 #60

I read a study years ago truthisfreedom May 2016 #72

It's time to develop phone cases that shield the radiation from users. The phone industry should Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #73

Unfortunately, if you shield the user you'll also shield the cell tower (i.e. won't work) groundloop May 2016 #74

Where there is a will there is a way! Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #75

Offhand three solutions One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #107

The rich will have the problem solved for themselves at our expense. :-/ Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #108

I wonder if this is the same with DECT cordless phones. nt valerief May 2016 #78

Lee Atwater Jesus Malverde May 2016 #82

woah causes Schwannomas'? They're usually benign but cause a lot of problems to nerves. Sunlei May 2016 #94

This also is linked to cancer and it must be corrected whistler162 May 2016 #96

Good luck taking on Big Water. Their contributions to Congress fall like rain. mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #105

Hopefully they used whistler162 May 2016 #97

Interesting, apparently it only effects male rats, as the study itself concludes.... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #99

Cell Phone Free ForEver cantbeserious May 2016 #101

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #111

MEANWHILE... just try to find a functioning, well made & comfortable wired headset preferably Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #113

Bad reporting of statistically insignificant results. athena May 2016 #118

No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer, GoneOffShore May 2016 #122

So, if you have to use a smart phone, what would you consider a "best practices" to safeguard WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2016 #123