
Connection Between Cell Phones and Cancer Has Been Found. Should We Be Worried? - chewymouse
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601591/a-connection-between-cell-phones-and-cancer-has-been-found-should-we-be-worried/
======
ptaipale
Previous HN thread, with many of the problems in this publication discussed:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160)

------
brownbat
Note that the irradiated group also lived longer. I'm surprised the headline
didn't read, "New Study Finds Cancer Good for Your Health!"

PSA: health research headlines are generally worse than worthless.

Also, remember, "one study on rats" will never be sufficient to correct
anything physicists know about EM waves.

UPDATE: Here's the WHO announcement explaining the 2B classification. I didn't
find it very satisfying, but judge for yourself: [http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf](http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf)

------
extrapickles
Here is the link to the actual paper:
[http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...](http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf)

The rats where exposed to more RF for 9 hrs a day than what is permissable for
general public exposure to RF by various safety standards. It does seem like
this was more of a study that found that pesticide killed butterflies by
crushing them with it.

They calibrated the RF levels to be under that which causes heating, rather
than levels humans typically are exposed to.

I would be worried about this increased cancer risk if I was a cell tower
maintenance worker who liked to put in a days sleep while draped over the
active antennas.

------
okket
A study with cancer happy rats does not mean there is a connection to humans.

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/massive-15-year-
study...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/massive-15-year-study-finds-
no-link-between-cell-phones-cancer/)

------
neilellis
Short answer: NO

Sounds a lot like The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)

Do enough studies and statistically speaking one of them will show a link.
This is most likely a statistical outlier and without multiple iterations of
this test a false conclusion can easily be created.

Also as other commentators have already pointed out there are other points of
correlation such as longevity which have been conveniently ignored - again
helping to reinforce the TSF :)

------
astrodust
I guess rats shouldn't use cellular phones.

------
at-fates-hands
The funny thing is people have started to make a big deal out this and
smartphones are required to emit less than 1.6 watts. This is in stark
contrast to the many, many years, people were using 3 watt phones and nobody
ever made a link between cancer and using phones that emitted much more than
today's cellphones.

------
ariendj
Is that a GSM or LTE connection?

------
timthelion
While this isn't particularly worrying, it shows that all people who said that
cell phone radiation simply cannot cause harm, who were convinced %100 that
harm was impossible, that those people were just arogant baffoons.

~~~
jeremysmyth
It also shows "the male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation actually lived
longer than the control group". I'm not quite sure how to take such jarring
results.

~~~
cozzyd
If they did not properly account for longevity then it's easy to see how (live
longer -> higher chance of cancer)

~~~
jeremysmyth
Exactly. So—assuming all results are statistically significant—where's the
causal relationship? Radiation-> Cancer? Radiation->Lives longer? Lives
longer->Cancer? and if there are two results that _are related independently
of this study_ (lives longer/gets more cancer), then how can we presume one of
the other results is more "valid" than another (as broadcast in the headlines)

~~~
cozzyd
There were 6 times as many test groups as control groups (3 intensities * 2
modulations). It would have been good to have more control groups to reduce
statistical effects.

