
First clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats - ValentineC
https://qz.com/1241867/cell-phone-radiation-can-cause-cancer-in-rats-according-to-the-final-results-of-a-us-government-study/
======
tompagenet2
Ars covered this particular story and were deeply skeptical, attributing the
findings to selective use of p values:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-
analysis-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-analysis-of-
the-latest-cellphone-safety-scare/)

~~~
cornholio
At least we know for sure the male vs. female incidence is completely bogus:

 _But there 's still one significant increase in cancer in their data, so
let's look more closely at that: "A statistically significant increase in the
incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the
highest dose." When it comes to this type of cancer, the control group of 817
rats developed four tumors. But critically, all of those tumors occurred in
females; none in males. This apparent sex bias will necessarily exaggerate the
impact of any tumors in any of the male experimental populations.

And that's exactly what you see happening. In one female population, 2.2
percent of an experimental group developed this type of tumor, but that was
not a statistically significant result. By contrast, in this male population
with the significant difference, only 1.5 percent of the animals developed
these tumors. A low-dose group of males had the same number of tumors, but the
group was larger and so the result slipped below significance.

These numbers suggest that the one statistical effect seen in this study is
caused by the unusually low tumor incidence in the control group, rather than
a specific effect of cellphone radiation._

------
x1798DE
I'm not sure I buy this. Given that the prior plausibly is low and earlier
studies have not found any increased risk of cancer, and it sounds like they
were looking for increases in _any_ kind of cancer, this seems like a result
that was bound to happen by chance anyway.

If they replicate these particular findings in a preregistered trial, that
might move the needle (even better if someone else does).

Unfortunately, if a new preregistered trial does come out showing that this is
negative, I doubt it will be as widely disseminated, or undo the association
between cell phones and cancer created by this story.

------
saas_co_de
> When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all
> results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data
> weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects
> or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart
> pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the
> data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear
> evidence.”

The study was conducted on Male and Female Mice and Rats and initially found
no conclusive evidence at all.

On reevaluation peer reviewers found that there was evidence for Male Rats
only (as I read it) which is a pretty weak result.

The full study results are here:

[https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/doc...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/docs/2018/march/index.html)

------
downandout
Assuming this data is accurate, I’m curious how this will affect smart watch
usage, since these devices are in such close proximity to body parts that
normally wouldn’t be exposed to radiation by a cell phone. My Apple Watch 3
with cell functionality is not only on my wrist, but somewhat often close to
my head, hips, and stomach.

~~~
lopmotr
It only causes heart cancer, so that's OK. Also OK for women and non-mice.

~~~
perl4ever
I don't generally hold my phone near my head _or_ heart.

------
GregoryPerry
In his circa 1985 book Body Electric, Robert O. Becker M.D. cites to several
published research studies he conducted related to acceleration of mitosis by
electromagnetic fields.

------
jimrandomh
What the Quartz article says the results were:

> "The papers found that, in male rats, this exposure increased malignant
> tumors called schwannomas in the connective tissues that surround nerves in
> the heart, raised the risk of heart conditions, and led to evidence of DNA
> damage. Baby rats born to mothers during the trial had lower birth weights.
> The scientists also found a statistically significant increase in lymphoma
> (cancer of the lymph nodes) among female mice and heightened rates of liver
> cancer in the male mice."

What the paper says the results were
([https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/t...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf)):

> "In the 2-year studies, there was significantly lower survival in the shared
> male sham control group compared to almost all exposed groups, for both
> modulations. Survival began to decline at a faster rate than in exposed
> groups after week 75. In the sham control group, 28% of animals survived to
> study termination, compared to 48% to 68% for exposed groups across both
> modulations. Lower survival in sham control male rats was largely attributed
> to higher severity of chronic progressive nephropathy and there was a
> spectrum of lesions in other organs considered secondary to chronic
> progressive nephropathy that occurred at higher incidences in male sham
> controls. Survival in the shared female sham control group was significantly
> lower than the 6 W/kg CDMA-exposed group; however, it was similar to all
> other exposure groups, across modulations. At study termination, there was
> no effect on body weight in male or female rats, and there were no exposure-
> related clinical observations."

So the Quartz article says cell phone radiation kills rats, and the paper says
that rats are less likely to die if they're exposed to cell phone radiation.
Then the paper p-hacks its way through a bunch of specific conditions and
subtypes of cancer, but really, that won't fool anyone who actually reads the
paper and actually understands what they're reading. But it did fool the
Quartz author, apparently.

~~~
stevens32
The paragraph immediately below in the paper states:

> At the 14-week interim evaluation, there were increased incidences of right
> ventricular cardiomyopathy in the heart of male rats following exposure to
> GSM- and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR compared to sham controls.

And a little further down:

> Following exposure to GSM- or CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR, there were
> increases in the incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart of male
> rats

~~~
jimrandomh
Right, that's the p-hacking section. If the death rate goes down and also the
causes of death shift around, it's dishonest to focus narrowly on the subset
of causes of death that went up. And if you look at so many different things
that something as obscure and specific as "malignant schwannoma in the heart"
is, then your paper better mention multiple-hypothesis correction, which this
one doesn't.

(I predict that this paper, which went to the press before peer review, will
not pass peer review, for this reason.)

~~~
owlsaway
As a person who reads papers and is (seemingly) confident in their ability to
debunk claims that manipulate data, could I ask your advice?

How do you approach hot-button questions in health-related fields? I find it
hard to navigate the deluge of information out there related to keeping in
good health re: diet, exercise, personal routines and habits, etc. It feels
like there are so many conflicting opinions, all with people trying to
influence your behavior and nudge you towards living one way or another.
Weasel words, twisted data, fake news, or whatever you want to call it seem to
be a big part of this, too.

To relate to this specific post, I'm taking a course as part of my EE degree
right now on EM Wave Propagation and even that prof gave a little talk about
the negative health risks of cell phones, which I found... odd, to say the
least. I still don't know what to make of his cautionary words, or whether I
should take them to heart.

I feel ignorant and naive, and am unsure of how to live my life at times. What
do you do to navigate all of this?

~~~
jimrandomh
Never start from a news article, unless your goal is to help others by
debunking it. News articles rarely reflect the research they claim to report
on, and even if they did, they'd be reporting on a highly skewed subset of the
research.

Read sources that are intended for people who genuinely care about getting the
right answer. For exercise, that means writing where the target audience is
professional athletes and their coaches. For nutrition, try to start from
Wikipedia (if you don't have a specific question) or PubMed (if you do).
Carefully avoid anything that's focused on weight loss, because that's where
the crackpots, laymen and officially-respectable conmen are.

Japan has the longest life expectancy and the lowest obesity rate. Every time
you see a claim about what a good diet is, check it against the Japanese diet;
if the Japanese are doing the supposedly-bad thing, reject both the advice and
its source.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm not sure whether your reasoning about Japan is a good way to evaluate
things. That's because Japan could be different because of a particular thing
out of all the possible factors. The reason I say that is because I am
thinking of the effect of lead exposure on crime rates as an analogy. There
are a million things that could and probably do affect crime, but lead in the
environment seems to dominate. If the Japanese are particularly healthy, it
could be to one particular factor, say fish oil consumption (just to be
arbitrary) and everything else might conceivably be irrelevant or harmful.
Assuming the "goodness" is distributed equally among the various
characteristics of the typical diet could lead you astray when you focus on
something that doesn't matter or is harmful. It's the same issue as if you
observe some people living a very long time while smoking - is smoking
contributing to their lifespan or working against it?

~~~
jimrandomh
It's not a completely reliable heuristic, but it's easy to check, and the
things it's flagged that I've checked have turned out to be bullshit.
(Sometimes highly respectable, promoted-by-mainstream-institutions bullshit,
but not supported by quality studies if you read carefully.)

------
Gibbon1
This study is like a bad penny.

------
grecy
How long until laws are passed making it illegal to sue cell phone
manufacturers or carriers for selling a product that causes cancer?

~~~
agumonkey
if cigarettes found a way to stay in business cellphones won't die soon

