SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25 million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats.
There are some major caveats, though. The results were only observed in male rats; there weren't any significant effects seen in female rats. Exposure in utero didn't seem to affect cancer risk. And in male rats, the incidence of those two cancers was quite low. But even a small increase in the incidence of those cancers could have a major public health impact given how many people in the world regularly use cell phones.
(Score: 1) by hopp on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:56AM
I think you'll find a rat study is an apples and oranges comparison when dealing in the realm of EM radiation and it's health effects.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:47AM
True (especially given rats are fairly prone to cancer), but these aren't made as definitive studies.
The relationship between various radiations and their effects is complex, and not all of them need be harmful.
Non-exposure to bright light has been linked to myopia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjdkbcOx05A [youtube.com]
Low doses of gamma radiation has been linked to hormesis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222047.htm [sciencedaily.com]
And of course the possibility of developing super-human abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man [wikipedia.org]
The point is that the effects are unclear, and there are probably a host of effects, both good and bad, from any single stimuli. Wireless technologies are embedded in to the culture now, so I doubt there is any going back.
But that doesn't mean the effects shouldn't be continually evaluated and re-evaluated. No sense in walking through the abyss blind.
Hell, I get violently ill near MRI machines and the cause has only been recently described, instead of just being "in my head".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2040946/MRI-scans-CAN-make-dizzy-Magnetic-fields-disrupt-fluid-inner-ear.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:22AM
True (especially given rats are fairly prone to cancer), but these aren't made as definitive studies.
The general populace is not exactly knowledgeable about the intricacies of scientific studies. The problem is, these are gonna be reported and spread around Facebook&co as the most definitive studies in the history of mankind.
You just need to remember that one discredited, debunked and retracted study that connected vaccines and autism. That story still refuses to die, and a large percentage of people still believe there's a connection.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:52AM
But is that really a problem with the studies themselves or the poor scientific education of the public at large?
I mean I get confused at the implications of several studies, and I almost, kinda, sorta don't know what I'm doing either. You'd be surprised how many people with a solid scientific background misread statistical information too.
Most of these findings fit within the biases of the people anyway, so it's not like it's going to change much behavior except for people with a predisposition regardless.
And you gotta cut the people some slack. One peer group grew up with the mantra that fat and cholesterol were de facto causes of heart disease, only to be told now that probably wasn't the case, and the margarine they've been using was probably worse. This leads to a suspicion of science in general, in part because people are unaware a large portion of the scientific process is based upon falsifiability. and they don't mentally put in thus far when reading any data.
If anything, it's an argument for making statistics a part of the core curriculum (moreso than programing).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:35AM
But is that really a problem with the studies themselves or the poor scientific education of the public at large?
It's a combination of publish-or-perish environment and media sensationalism. To be published and get a lot of citation (so as not to be fired), scientists overstate their claims. I'm assuming most other scientists are aware of this and take it into consideration when evaluating other research. The media, on the other hand, takes those over the top claims, turns the dial to eleventy hundred and runs with it.
And you gotta cut the people some slack.
As long as they're not actively ignoring facts even when those facts stare them in the face (cf: creationists, anti-vaxxers etc.), I do. I don't blame the ignorant; after all, we're all ignorant in a lot of things. I blame the willful idiots, the media and the suits (university administration, government "science" agencies etc).
If anything, it's an argument for making statistics a part of the core curriculum (moreso than programing).
That'd be nice, but it would ruin the gambling industry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:40AM
denier!