Comments for Cell Phones and Tobacco: A Parallel History? at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 12 out of 12 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sat, 18 May 2013 20:53:53 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22406 I wonder if this might be related to the difficulty of correlation. No matter what you're attempting to demonstrate statistically, your results come through with a certain measure of confidence (known, appropriately, as the "confidence interval"). We never become one hundred percent [i]certain[/i] that, say, smoking creates an increased risk of lung cancer; we merely demonstrate it to better and better confidence, until ultimately it becomes perverse to withhold provisional acceptance. On the other hand, it is simple to demonstrate [i]non[/i]-correlation. We can determine with much greater accuracy that a connection does not exist. Take an example from the creationists. We cannot demonstrate with one hundred percent absolute certainty that the accepted age of the Earth -- in the neighborhood of four and a half billion years -- is correct (though, frankly, the amount and nature of evidence at this point makes continuing to withhold acceptance a bit silly). However, we [i]can[/i] show with absolute certainty that an age of six thousand years is [i]wrong[/i]. Much the same can be said of the "smoking causes lung cancer" versus the "cell phone uses causes cancer" debate. It's not that there might be a connection and we're trying to demonstrate to greater confidence exactly what the connection is (e.g., whether the degree that smoking gives rise to lung cancer is statistically significant, and how long that takes); rather, it's that there's no demonstrable connection at all. - addams013 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:04:24 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22324 [b]drg85[/b] wrote[quote]They immediately issued a retraction, as good scientists do. It probably won't surprise any readers here this retraction was not covered by any mainstream publications, despite the best efforts of the team who made the mistake. [/quote] Wellllll.... not always! ;) From the Wikipedia about Andrew Wakefield and his bogus research about vaccines... [quote]On 2 February [i][b]2010[/b][/i], The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's [i][b]1998 [/b][/i]paper.[/quote] During those twelve years a lot of damage was done. :'( From the World Health Orginaization's web site. [quote]21 April 2011 - As of 18 April 2011, 33 countries in Europe have reported more than 6 500 measles cases. Epidemiological investigations and genotyping have confirmed transmission of measles virus among several countries in the Region and to the Americas.[/quote] - Willy K Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:19:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22316 Thank you for the article! In my experience, people are more concerned - and thus more combative - about antennas than the cell phones themselves. And while scientists are still researching the effects of non-ionizing radiation on the human body, one recommendation keeps being brought up: more antennas translates to lower levels of radiation. So, in fighting against the placement of antennas near their homes, offices and schools, these people actually increase their exposure to the almighty "cellular radiation". But we should be honest here too. From the researches I reviewed (by all means not nearly exhaustively) it seems that it is hard to come to a definite conclusion. Keeping aside the fact the science, by definition, cannot rule out possible harm, the researches are problematic. It is hard to extract a particular environmental agent or get clean usage and exposure data over a large population. Some of the researchers went further to recommend cautionary discretion, which for the public translates to evidence of harm. Ironically, the aforementioned research ([url]http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract[/url]) that did show an effect on the brain, showed increased glucose metabolism in the region closer to the cell phone antenna. The same increased metabolism you see when a person is activating brain cells (aka thinking). Maybe cell phone radiation actually makes us smarter? :) - skepticus Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:49:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22284 Thank you for talking about that. You're absolutely right: not a whisper of a retraction was reported in the media. This is the first I've heard of it. - lytrigian Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:57:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22283 I was very heartened to see this; I have a pain in my face explaining this to people, this is a lovely concise explanation! As an aside, I was at a medical physics conference in Reading, UK in 2008 and this very topic came up in relation to EMF - At the time, there were a rake of studies indicating that there was no increase in cancers / tissue damage etc. Specifically, they were looking for non-thermal effects - we all know when we hold a phone, or any electrical device, it produces heat and this is well known, it's called a thermal effect - it's why you feel your ear warm up on a call. This isn't dangerous, so researchers look for nonthermal effects. So far they've found bugger all. Well, in 2008, one paper DID find a nonthermal effect, and the media went insane. They also took some creative license with the facts; instead of just saying that, they boldly concluded that PROVED phones causes brain cancer! FACT! Except, of course, they didn't - the gentlemen who had published the paper were there, and it soon transpired the whole thing was an honest mistake by them, blown out of proportion by media. They were measuring the effects of EMF through slivers of rat brains, and at certain levels detected something. They had taken pains to isolate thermal effects and thus concluded it was nonthermal. However, after submitting this, one of the researchers relised a diode was making contact with the rat brain, this rendering the apparent nonthermal effect a distinctly thermal one. They immediately issued a retraction, as good scientists do. It probably won't surprise any readers here this retraction was not covered by any mainstream publications, despite the best efforts of the team who made the mistake. - drg85 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:33:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22282 I was glad to see this article in the Swift blog. In 2006-2007, the IIG conducted an investigation and a test of a product that claimed to protect consumers from radiation from cellular phones and other electronic devices. The IIG report is here: http://www.iigwest.org/investigations/aulterra/2006_aulterra.html Including as recently as a few months ago, the IIG has received inquiries about whether subsequent studies have changed our opinion about the product; there is no change in our position that the Aulterra Neutralizer has no effect on cellphone radiation nor any other product, and in fact, no change in our position that there is little evidence of any risk associated with the use of cellular phones. In March, 2011, there were 14 hits on IIG's website about the Aulterra investigation, 1% of the hits received by our website. :) Evidently, some people are at least trying to inform themselves against the fear mongering associated with technological innovations. - WendyH Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:37:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22281 Lytrigian is right. The ultraviolet rays from the sun are far more harmful than any signal from a cell phone, and there is medical proof that too much sun can cause skin cancer while there is little to none that cell phones cause brain tumors. I’m far more worried about the aliens from planet Clarion boring into my brain with their coherent tachyon beams as they attempt to control my mind and make me watch Hulu until my brain turns to goo. YUM! Alan - jalfarmer Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:37:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22280 This parallels the current brouhaha in my area over the utility company's move to install "Smart Meters", so that they don't have to send people out to read electrical meters every month -- and also, so they can charge different rates for usage at different times of day. Oh, the hand wringing over the fact these things communicate using "RF RADIATION!!1!" The panic-mongers have about a third of potential users scared to death that these things cause cancer. I bet they never think twice about using a walkie-talkie, cell or cordless phone, Wi-Fi networking, or how their TV and radios work. - lytrigian Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:35:17 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22279 The amount of energy used by a cell phone is very small. Most of these waves are not absorbed by the brain anyway, otherwise move in the wrong direction and you lose the call. So the amount of heat that can be generated by the radio waves emitted by a cell phone in the brain is so small it can ignored. - rjh02 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:16:05 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22278 Even though I am a firm supporter of the scientific method, I still have a small reservation on the possible effects of cell phone use. My question is: "What is the effect of the heat generated by the cell phone radiation?" I have never seen this question raised. Is the effect miniscule? Is the effect significant? I would infer from the statistics that there is little or no effect, but it would be interesting to know. - GusGus Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:35:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22277 Pseudo-market? Like these, perhaps? http://www.rpstore.com/safe-guard.html http://www.sarshield.com/ http://www.electricalbody.com/product/cell-phone-radiation-blocker.htm - garman Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:35:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1278-cell-phones-and-tobacco-a-paralell-history.html#comment-22273 Good article. As with all unsupported scientific claims, the suggestion alone of a cancer link will be sufficient to cause many to believe. However people will carry on regardless of the assumed risk, just as the smokers did with their "filthy habit" and I am sure that there will be a [i]pseudo[/i] market opening up for anti radiation devices for your mobile phone, if there is not one already. >:( - popsaw Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:56:15 +0100