

Brain surgeons don't hold cellphones next to their ears - echair
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/03well.html?em&ex=1212724800&en=b85e4024dde0de7b&ei=5070

======
cninja
What a silly article. The article finds 3 brain surgeons who dont use cell
phones near their ear, and it becomes news. If 4 our of 5 dentists recommend
Crest toothpaste, then if I talk to 15 dentists, I can find 3 dentists that
dont recommend Crest.

My favorite quote from the pseudo science fear mongering article: "researchers
who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the
mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist."

~~~
akd
What's wrong with that quote? That's true of many things in science; we know
the existence of a relationship but not the cause. For example, charge
separation between the sky and ground is a very poorly understood phenomenon,
but we know that it happens since we have lightning.

Twenty years from now, we may find that cellphones cause horrible brain
problems or that they have no effect at all. What the scientists are saying is
that the data we have now doesn't allow us to make a call one way or the
other.

~~~
jcl
I assume the problem with the quote is that saying "we don't know how
cellphones cause brain cancer" -- though technically true -- carries the
implicit message that "cellphones cause brain cancer"... even though we don't
know that, either.

For example: "I don't watch reality television," said Dr. Gupta, "While there
is no known mechanism for reality television to cause cancer, that doesn't
mean it doesn't exist."

~~~
andreyf
There is no correlation between reality television and cancer, but there is
with cell phone use.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Is there? I've seen very little that is conclusive.

A few studies here and there show some, but that's to be expected: a 5%
confidence interval means 1/20 otherwise good studies will get it wrong.

Interaction between weak radiation and matter is very well understood (1).
Unless the currently known laws of physics are completely wrong, the
interaction between cell phone radiation and your brain is so small as to be
irrelevant.

(1) Look up Fermi's golden rule in Landau/Lifshitz, here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_golden_rule> or elsewhere. Also look up
multiphoton ionization; if you've got a university library, look up Phys. Rev.
A 42, 3090 - 3106 (1990).

------
josefresco
The Sweeds might beg to differ:
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-195865.html>

The meat:

"However, researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life said
they looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80
who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and found a link.

"A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones,
that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used
them a lot," the study said.

"The study also shows that the rise in risk is noticeable for tumors on the
side of the head where the phone was said to be used," it added.

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of
mobile phones, for instance of who make mobile phone calls for 2,000 hours or
more in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on
the side of the head the phone is used. "

~~~
xirium
That's fairly conclusive because there is the asymmetry of tumours and there
is a control group.

~~~
jcl
There is, however, the possibility that the people who got tumors were somehow
susceptible to them (i.e. would have likely gotten them anyway) and that the
cellphone use merely influenced which side of the brain the tumor formed. Or
perhaps there is some other factor (handedness, the side you sleep on, the
side of the car you usually sit in, etc.) that both biases cancer to one side
of the head and influences which hand you use to talk on the cell phone.

------
hobbs
Yes, but the more important question is: do urologists keep their phones on
their belt or in their pockets?

------
jonknee
Did they try and balance prick bias? A lot of brain surgeons are hot shots.
Hot shots like to show how important they are by using a hands free unit (Mr.
Important can't be bothered to use a hand while he's rudely talking on the
phone in line at Starbucks). Thus, brain surgeons are likely to use hands free
units.

~~~
RK
You might be on the right track, except I think that those brain surgeons just
want to reduce any chance of getting a brain tumor themselves, because each
one thinks he's the _only_ person with god's gift to remove the tumor :)

~~~
LPTS
I think gifts like brain surgery comes more from the heretics that dug up
corpses in defiance of the church then from god.

------
bk
Fumbling with ear pieces is inconvenient as well. I wish there were a
cellphone with an external antenna instead (connected via a cable). You could
then keep the antenna in your pocket (shield it towards the side facing the
body).

Maybe I should just get a tinfoil hat instead... ;)

------
henning
Meanwhile, there are a variety of other things (bad diet, not exercising,
smoking, excessive alcohol/drug usage) that almost certainly _will_ impact
your health quite negatively, generally for fairly simple, well-understood
reasons. So, spend less time worrying about the little things and more about
the big things.

------
icky
If one of them is the best brain surgeon in the world, it might explain his
reluctance.

"If someone _else_ gets a tumor, they can always come to the best brain
surgeon in the world! But if it happens to _me_ , I'm stuck with the _second_
best brain surgeon in the world, and he's a _quack!_ "

------
nickb
"Mobile phones do not pose health problems to adults in the short term but
there is a "slight hint" of a cancer risk for long-term users, according to
the results of a study which could not rule out risks of brain or ear cancer
for those who have used mobiles for more than 10 years."

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/13/mobilephones.h...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/13/mobilephones.health)

Another interesting study is this one:

"Microwaves similar to those emitted by cell phones may affect long-term
memory, according to a new study by a University of Washington researcher."

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991202070403.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991202070403.htm)

------
MoeDrippins
<http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=2333>

------
wallflower
I'm tempted to see if I can cook an egg inside its shell in 2 to 3 days time
by placing my phone next to it. It's not 3G though.

------
alex_c
Two "science" articles from the New York Times on the front page, from the
same user, at the same time... oh dear.

------
edw519
A first for me: the exact same post in 2 different threads.

This makes 2 NYT science articles in the HN Top Ten, one about cell phones and
one about red wine, both guilty of the same common mistake in lay "science"
news. So let's get this right, once and for all:

    
    
       CORRELATION != CAUSATION
    

Great. Now we'll have a steady dose of "cellphones are bad" and "red wine is
good" from the mainstream pseudo news aftermarket for the next 3 days.

Thanks, New York Times...

"All the Science News That's Fit to Misprint"

