SoylentNews

Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:46AM   
from the back-to-a-bag-phone dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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.

---

Original Submission

• P hacking P hacking (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:03AM

  by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:03AM (#351929) Homepage

  If they're looking for X different things, then you need X-times more convincing results in order to believe any of the associations as real. (OK, it's not quite that simple, but the more you look for the more you'll find, just by chance, defintitely.) These guys were looking at a whole range of different possible effects, yet the numbers are pretty indifferent. I call meh.
  
  Best of all - look at the first actual table of results in the PDF linked to from the article, and draw the following conclusions:
  - With GSM modulation, 6 W/kg is *better* for you than 1.5 W/kg!
  - Humans can tell the difference between CDMA modulation and GSM modulation at 3 W/kg
  
  If the scientists aren't prepared to support those two assertions, then they shouldn't be spouting their own assertions which have the same level of support, given the numbers.
  
  Let's just call this another waste of $25M and try and get on with our lives.

  --
  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:P hacking (Score: 3, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:00PM

  by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:00PM (#352020)

  It is distressing that the results border on statistical insignificance. From TFA:

  Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the number of tumors that developed in the animals exposed to CDMA versus GSM modulations. With both modulations and tumor types, there was also a statistically significant trend upward—meaning the incidence increased with more radiation exposure. Yet, drilling down into the data, in the male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RF radiation the number of brain tumors at all levels of exposure was not statistically different than in control males—those who had no exposure at all.

  In another post [soylentnews.org] Maxwell demon pointed out:

  But was the increase in the number of cardiac tumors larger than to be expected for the increased life span?

  The male rats living longer may be just co-incidence as well.

  I am not sure calling this study a waste of $25M is the right answer. If there is something there, we may want to try to reproduce the results. It will be interesting it see if the parallel study on mice (yet to be published) has similar results.

  Parent