No link between cellphone use and cancer

Seems every year it changes.

Even if cellphones did have a cancer causing risk are you really going to stop using your iPhone/Blackberry/Android :) ?
 
Buzybuy said:
Seems every year it changes.

Even if cellphones did have a cancer causing risk are you really going to stop using your iPhone/Blackberry/Android :) ?
Click to expand...

no, but if there was a causal link, there would be a case for negligence and retrospective prosecution for cancer sufferers. it would be a field day in the usa, the land of litigation.
this would lead to tighter legislation by governments, greater health & safety compliance, better shielding or whatever in order to minimise risk.

so it's not about not using the technology, it's about making the technology more safe. as soon as brand x brought out phones which didn't give you cancer, they would have a competitive advantage in a free market and others would need to follow suit in order to protect profits.

all of which is pretty moot, as the courts hopefully still rely on evidence and not anecdote to make judgements.
 
Of course this also doesn't rule out other negative effects. Cell phones give me headaches for example. Whether this will have any long term effect on my health I don't know, so I keep my usage to a minimum. It was noticeably worse with older model handsets, so there clearly is a lot that can be done design wise to minimize such effects.
 
But among people with the longest mobile phone use — 13 years or more — cancer rates were nearly the same as for non-subscribers.
Click to expand...
They found people in Denmark who haven't used mobile phones for 13 years?? Where?
Either way, both populations have used phones.

Also, they 'found no evidence', that's not the same as finding evidence to the contrary. In fact I have to ask... does that not just mean 'there was lack of evidence'? When you're looking for something and dont find it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
 
Last edited:
twhitehead said:
Of course this also doesn't rule out other negative effects. Cell phones give me headaches for example. Whether this will have any long term effect on my health I don't know, so I keep my usage to a minimum. It was noticeably worse with older model handsets, so there clearly is a lot that can be done design wise to minimize such effects.
Click to expand...
I had the same but conceded eventually that it was the client on the other end who was responsible :p
 
Actually, there has never been conclusive proof of cellphones leading to brain cancer. Cellphones release non-ionising radiation. The science just doesn't make sense for it to cause brain cancer. Wake up sheeple.
 
Ghost29 said:
Actually, there has never been conclusive proof of cellphones leading to brain cancer. Cellphones release non-ionising radiation. The science just doesn't make sense for it to cause brain cancer. Wake up sheeple.
Click to expand...

There have been no causal relation proven, but it also has not been proven using the scientific method that it does not cause cancer*. So for now we're sitting with heaps of stats-based studies, some proving that it causes cancer, other proving that it don't. This simply means that further study is necessary.

*Proving that something doesn't cause an effect is very difficult to do. It is impossible to prove that there are no invisible, undetectable faeries that sometimes, when no on is looking, steals my left socks. The very nature of the hypotheses makes it unprovable. The radiation conundrum is very much the same, though it is much more feasible than the existence of invisible, undetectable, left-foot sock stealing faeries.
 
You cant really blame people for looking for someone to blame when theyre handed a potential death sentence, but the cell phones cause cancer theory is a prime example of faulty thinking .
 
Tacet said:
There have been no causal relation proven, but it also has not been proven using the scientific method that it does not cause cancer*. So for now we're sitting with heaps of stats-based studies, some proving that it causes cancer, other proving that it don't. This simply means that further study is necessary.

*Proving that something doesn't cause an effect is very difficult to do. It is impossible to prove that there are no invisible, undetectable faeries that sometimes, when no on is looking, steals my left socks. The very nature of the hypotheses makes it unprovable. The radiation conundrum is very much the same, though it is much more feasible than the existence of invisible, undetectable, left-foot sock stealing faeries.
Click to expand...

Your argument misses the point that proof of a lack of causality isnt required. Its proof of causality that we're after. Which should be easy to provide considering there have been hundreds of millions of cell phone users for over a decade now.
 
Tacet said:
So for now we're sitting with heaps of stats-based studies, some proving that it causes cancer, other proving that it don't. This simply means that further study is necessary.
Click to expand...

As in any scientific environment, studies should always continue and refine our understanding of the topic under investigation.

But your statement that some studies proof this way and some the other, wants to convey that the results are pretty much 50/50 which is, of course, completely incorrect.
 
Nick333 said:
Your argument misses the point that proof of a lack of causality isnt required. Its proof of causality that we're after. Which should be easy to provide considering there have been hundreds of millions of cell phone users for over a decade now.
Click to expand...

You can only proof causality if it exists. I don't believe that there is a causal relationship between cellphones and cancer, but I cannot prove that, except by using statistical studies. Those are very contradictory, diminishing their credibility.

I agree that we need a proof of causality before I'll be concerned. My argument tried to show that while causality is provable, lack thereof is very difficult. And I've seen a few alarmists on this forum state that they require proof that cellphones does not cause cancer. Their argument (cellphones cause cancer) is provable. Mine (they don't) is much more difficult to proof.

jannievanzyl said:
ABut your statement that some studies proof this way and some the other, wants to convey that the results are pretty much 50/50 which is, of course, completely incorrect.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to say that the results are 50/50. What I mean is that you can do a Google, and find a statistical study to "prove" either hypothesis. To the average Joe who simply reads the article in Huisgenoot, this is very confusing. The WHO's classification of cellphone radiation as a possible carcinogenic doesn't help either. People don't realize that coffee is in that same category.
 
Last edited:
Ghost29 said:
Actually, there has never been conclusive proof of cellphones leading to brain cancer. Cellphones release non-ionising radiation. The science just doesn't make sense for it to cause brain cancer. Wake up sheeple.
Click to expand...
The brain is heated. It isn't necessarily just the radiation.
 
Tacet said:
I don't mean to say that the results are 50/50. What I mean is that you can do a Google, and find a statistical study to "prove" either hypothesis. To the average Joe who simply reads the article in Huisgenoot, this is very confusing. The WHO's classification of cellphone radiation as a possible carcinogenic doesn't help either. People don't realize that coffee is in that same category.
Click to expand...
And pickles :)

I believe you understand how much the studies weigh to one side, merely pointed out that stating there are for and against studies implies a somewhere close to 50/50 distribution.

A better way would be to qualify it by stating that statistically the vast (vast) majority show no effect.
 
jannievanzyl said:
And pickles :)

I believe you understand how much the studies weigh to one side, merely pointed out that stating there are for and against studies implies a somewhere close to 50/50 distribution.

A better way would be to qualify it by stating that statistically the vast (vast) majority show no effect.
Click to expand...

Doing that will have the fear mongers ask you to provide that stat. ;)
 
Tacet said:
Doing that will have the fear mongers ask you to provide that stat. ;)
Click to expand...

Sometimes there are just those prone to believing bullsh*t no matter how much sense you provide them with. The largest study which correlated distance from cellphone masts with the incidence of brain cancer was so riddled with confounding factors that their conclusion was very hard to take seriously. In actual fact, if they moved their arbitrary boundary one metre one way or the other, suddenly they would have lost statistical significance.
 
I don't know if it's just me but reading the article and then the ensuing debate I'm strongly reminded of the movie thank you for smoking, particularly the last scene
 
Tacet said:
Doing that will have the fear mongers ask you to provide that stat. ;)
Click to expand...

:) Yup, easier to ask than to read. Also makes you appear clever when you're just actually lazy.

The studies are all available but they just don't bother to read them. Or even just check that there are literally thousands of them.

added:
Alfroogy said:
I don't know if it's just me but reading the article and then the ensuing debate I'm strongly reminded of the movie thank you for smoking, particularly the last scene
Click to expand...

I rest my case about having an opinion but not reading the studies.
 
Tacet said:
Proving that something doesn't cause an effect is very difficult to do. It is impossible to prove that there are no invisible, undetectable faeries that sometimes, when no on is looking, steals my left socks. The very nature of the hypotheses makes it unprovable.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of religion and the God argument...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X