
Massive 15-year Study finds no link between cell phones, cancer - DanielRibeiro
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/massive-15-year-study-finds-no-link-between-cell-phones-cancer.ars
======
brc
Doesn't matter how many times it is studied. Paranoia will always reign.

Whenever someone talks about electro magnetic radiation from wifi or phones, I
usually point out the massive ball of radiation in the sky that will burn
their skin in 15 minutes of exposure and is known to cause cancers in millions
of people. People tend to forget about that one when they are obsessing about
low powered mobile devices.

~~~
baddox
Is there really even much public paranoia? I've never heard of anyone that
refuses to use a cell phone because of perceived risk, other than the tiny few
people who try to sue claiming that cell phones or cell towers caused cancer
or a rash. At worst, I imagine many people probably think there's an extremely
small negligible risk.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
I wouldn't call it mass hysteria, but yeah there's paranoia. I was in a
doctor's office recently (a doctor specializing in "holistic" medicine) where
there was a sign in the waiting room asking people to turn off their cell
phones because it interferes with the nervous system. With all this radiation
messing up our nervous system, no wonder we're all crazy (and have been from
prehistoric times)

~~~
alexholehouse
I mean - if your "doctor's" waiting room has a sign saying that, I think it's
time to find another doctor.

------
codex
There are some caveats to this study which mean isn't as spectacularly
powerful as Ars makes it.

\- They only have subscriber data from 1987-1995, when almost nobody had
mobile phones (7%), and they were so expensive to use that they were used
rarely (mostly outdoors and in cars).

\- But since then, 86% of the population has started to use mobile phones, and
because they don't have tracking data for them, _all of these mobile phone
users are in the control group_. So they're comparing exposed users to only-
slightly-more exposed users (as I mention above, cell phones were rare and had
quite expensive per-minute fees before 1995). They only know that _most_ in
the control group didn't have a mobile before 1995. Since then, they don't
know how long any user in either group has used their mobile.

\- During the period for which they have data (pre-1996) 30% of users were on
corporate plans and couldn't be tracked--so the heaviest users were lumped in
with the control group too.

\- The 1987-1995 group mostly used analog phones, not today's GSM phones.

Still, earlier phone users have used their phones _slightly_ more than non-
users in aggregate, so this study is noteworthy despite the lumping of the 30%
heaviest users with the controls and the massive cell phone use by both groups
since 1995. You'd expect cancer rate to correlate with mobile phone exposure,
and both groups are very large.

------
hugh3
I read somewhere, many years ago, that there were thousands of suspected
carcinogens, but only dozens of known carcinogens. The _known_ carcinogens are
things that raise your (fairly low) chance of getting some particular form of
cancer by a factor of ten or a hundred or a thousand -- things like cigarette
smoke and ionizing radiation.

The suspected carcinogens are things that may or may not raise your chance of
getting some particular form of cancer by a few percent. We'll likely never
know whether some of these things really do cause cancer, because you're
looking for tiny correlations in data which is already pretty sparse.

Anyway, either you'll get brain cancer or you won't. The difference made by
using or not using a phone is not a significant factor in determining the way
you die.

Unless, of course, you use it while driving. Heck, even using it while
crossing the street has probably cost thousands of lives so far.

~~~
timedoctor
yes agree with this, basically even if there is a link it's not that important
or relevant to your risk of dying.

------
clumsysmurf
There are still other things which I find concerning. For example

" electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones alters the permeability
of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), resulting in albumin extravasation
immediately and 14 days after 2h of exposure."

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073>

So I don't think there will be a definitive answer on the safety of these
devices for a while.

------
macavity23
Very nice study. Kudos to Denmark for using proper database normalization
across the board!

~~~
tomjen3
Hilariously it is not allowed to use the social security number as the primary
key (nor is it recommended since they can, and do, change e.g. after a sex-
change operation people are assigned a new number because the final digit
indicate the sex of the person) but you may store it in the database along
with the other information you have on the subscribers.

How they got it past the privacy officials I have no idea, you cannot normally
get sensitive medical records on that many people.

------
ajkessler
Note to those that carry a phone in their pocket: there does seem to be a link
between cell use and sperm quality/count. See, for example,
[http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jandrol.111.014...](http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jandrol.111.014373v1.pdf)

Not exactly scientific, but I know a guy who's sperm count increased (enough
to knock up his wife anyway) once he stopped carrying his phone in his pocket.
Tim Ferriss, of 4-hour body fame, tested this and seems to agree. He mentions
in his book that he now carries his phone on an arm-band.

~~~
anigbrowl
Although it's a preprint, the study seems quite rigorous. I don't see why this
is getting downvoted.

~~~
schrototo
Probably because of the Tim Ferris mention. That guy causes a strong spike on
the bullshit-o-meter...

~~~
anigbrowl
I hate him too, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

------
gregwebs
Title is slightly misleading because the study didn't go on for 15 years, they
used an existing database with 15 years of information.

I also hate the use of the word 'link' because it seems to imply causality in
many people's minds. This is a correlational study - a finding either way is
good for suggesting a hypothesis, but we cannot infer (in this case a lack of)
cause and effect. There could easily be gigantic unknown confounding
variables.

There could also be a very small minority of people very sensitive to
radiation that can easily be brushed aside as outliers in these kinds of
studies.

I am even more interested in any wifi studies now that I am constantly near
wifi. But my guess is that wifi radiation is orders of magnitude less powerful
than cellphone radiation so it won't be as great of a concern.

~~~
mikeash
Correlation does not imply causation, but _lack of_ correlation certainly does
imply lack of causation.

~~~
hugh3
Not _always_. For instance, the temperature in my fridge is a pleasant four
degrees celsius constantly, but the compressor keeps on switching on and off.

In the absence of a feedback loop, though... yes.

~~~
mikeash
Eh, that's just a lack of detail. With a sufficiently precise thermometer,
you'd see the temperature rising when the compressor is off, and falling when
it's on.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yes, but in real life our data usually isn't infinitely accurate.

~~~
mikeash
Right, but that just means that you're only able to disprove correlation to
within a certain accuracy. Correlation below the detection threshold could
still exist, and could still be due to causation. Correlation above the
detection threshold does not exist, and rules out causation above the
detection threshold.

------
jterenzio
The Economist had great piece about the misplaced fears of wireless a few
weeks ago. Worth a read. <http://www.economist.com/node/21527022>

------
lukifer
To the extent that other studies have found such links in the past, I'm
curious how much is due to pure correlation: ie, people who own cell phones
and also engage in other behavior that increases the risk of cancer. This
would also be much more relevant in the days when only a few early adopters
owned mobiles, as opposed to now, when practically everybody does.

~~~
eliben
Valid point, but this concern should be somewhat alleviated by the massiveness
of the study. I imagine that in 360,000 people, "pure correlation" should be
relatively uniformly-spaced, meaning that there's enough people for all
"correlative" behaviors to be statistic noise.

------
timedoctor
This is interesting but doesn't prove there is no link, as brain cancer is
very infrequent, trying to show the incidence increasing by studying hundreds
of thousands of people is actually not the most accurate method. It's more
logical to investigate it in the following way:

Look at people who have brain cancer, and see if it's more likely to be on the
side of the head where the person uses their mobile phone. If statistically
significant, then it's a much easier way to prove a link.

This link has been shown in this study
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475713> for acoustic neuromas.

This doesn't mean for all brain cancer and doesn't mean it's a strong effect.
But if you are studying brain cancer, you have to compare apples to apples,
and this study, whilst useful doesn't prove that there is link to brain cancer
it only proves that they did not find a link. A more precise study is more
effective.

~~~
zdw
I'm not sure if there's a causal link in this case.

It could also be argued that, because the acoustic neurons on that side of the
head are being used more, they're more likely to be cancerous, or that both
are caused by a similar issue.

For example, left handed women are more likely to have breast cancer, and a
similar minor preference like which ear you use for a phone might correlate
with health issues.

~~~
donaldc
_It could also be argued that, because the acoustic neurons on that side of
the head are being used more, they're more likely to be cancerous, or that
both are caused by a similar issue._

That sounds pretty convoluted to me. It could be true, but it probably isn't.
If, as the paper abstract seems to indicate, long-term (but not short-term)
cellphone users are getting fourfold more acoustic neuroma on the side of the
head they use their cellphone on, as compared with the other side of their
head, I'd say that the most likely explanation is that cellphone use is
responsible.

------
lucisferre
I look forward to 5 more years of "cell phones may cause cancer" before the 20
year study that finds the exact same thing is in.

------
eck
Suppose you are injured or are having chest pains and need medical attention
urgently. _Then_ what is the link between having a cell phone and surviving? I
would wager that effect is several orders of magnitude greater than any cancer
effect.

~~~
brk
Well, yes, but what is your point?

If you carry a cell phone, but use it ONLY for emergencies, then your exposure
to radiation is tiny, and it would be a potentially valuable tool.

If you carry it and hold it against your head 5 hours a day, then your risk
increases (or so some "studies" would claim).

You're not making any kind of a logical analogy here.

------
Monkeyget
Any link to the actual study?

~~~
1880
FTA: <http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387>

------
jacques_chester
Not a complete shock. If I understand it right, the frequencies chosen for
mobile phones shouldn't interact with flesh; otherwise you're wasting energy.

------
mgxplyr
It's about time someone shut these sensationalist scientists up. I was getting
tired of the constant conflicting reports. Unless you can refute a 15-year
longitudinal study with a longer study and a more concrete conclusion, keep
your mouth shut.

~~~
daeken
While this study is great, you seem to be under the impression that science is
so cut and dry when it comes to disproving theories. A shorter study with the
right constraints could easily disagree with this one and warrant further
investigation. While I find it highly unlikely that cell phones are cancer-
causing agents, there's no reason to simply say "great, we've solved it, let's
stop looking at this." That's not how science should or does work, when you're
talking about something like this.

------
kleiba
Potentially off-topic, but: _Bad for privacy, but good for science!_ is a
little too hand-wavy for my taste.

------
Detrus
What about links to mental conditions?

~~~
lukifer
I would wager that the behavioral/psychological side effects of owning a
mobile or smartphone far outweigh any physiological effects of the radiation.
Either way, I'm curious as well.

------
desireco42
I find this hard to believe. Especially first generation of cellphones, now I
can see how they can be OK, but first generation was really bad.

