Attack of the killer phones
Q: Did you see mobile phones cause cancer again?
A: The story from the Observer?
Q: No, the Otago Daily Times.
A: It’s the same story, they just don’t say where they got it.
Q: So there’s peer-reviewed evidence that mobile phones are giving us cancer?
A: No.
Q: They say there is
A: They almost do say that, yes. There’s peer-reviewed evidence that sufficiently high doses of phone-frequency radio waves cause cancer in mice — though the microwaved mice actually lived longer. However, there’s also peer–reviewed evidence that mobile phones do not increase the risk of cancer much if at all in people. For example, brain cancers in people haven’t gotten more common except due to the population being older.
Q: Don’t you have a vested interest in this, though?
A: Huh?
Q: Well, the anti-phone story says no-one should trust any research with any commercial involvement.
A: Um, yes?
Q: And the only sensible policy in that case is to spend a lot more public money on academic medical research, which is good for you.
A: I… suppose
Q: And you don’t like phone calls.
A: But phone calls aren’t even what people use phones for nowadays.
Q: So maybe that’s why phones aren’t causing brain cancer.
A: Sigh. Ok, go read the detailed response that the Observer published.
Q: Is that in the Otago Daily Times too?
A: Not so far. I’m sure they’ll get to it.
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »
I saw the original item, and was puzzled. I assumed that because the Observer was publishing the item, there must be something to it, and yet it went against all the evidence I was aware of. Thank god they found someone reputable to absolutely debunk the item. There are various worrying things about this. By drawing a completely specious parallel with the tobacco industry, the authors rather weaken the overall argument to be wary of vested interests. This whole thing undercuts the probity of the Observer, and of environmental critics generally I fear.
6 years ago
xkcd on the matter of cancer causes cell phones:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png
and if embedding doesn’t work in comments here is a link:
https://xkcd.com/925/
6 years ago
xkcd on “cancer causes cell phones”:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png
And in case hot linking doesn’t work in comments the permalink:
https://xkcd.com/925/
6 years ago