Study: Cell Phones Don't Raise Brain Cancer Risk in Kids

[HuckleB]

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20110727/study-cell-phones-dont-raise-brain-cancer-risk-in-kids

"Children and teens who use cell phones are not at increased risk of getting brain cancer, according to a new Swiss study.

"We did not find that young mobile phone users have an increased risk for brain tumors when regularly using mobile phones," says study researcher Martin Roosli, PhD, of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel.

Nor did they find a link with longer use. "We did not see that the risk increased after five years or more since the first use of mobile phones," he tells WebMD.

The study is believed to be the first to research cell phone use among youth with brain tumors.

..."


-------------


I still despise cell phones, but FYI...

[TheWraith]

1. The evidence for a statistically significant linkage has always been missing.

And yet, some people will continue to think that cell phones are dangerous.

[HuckleB]

2. Well, uh, they might just be dangerous if one is operating heavy machinery while using a cell phone.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

:hi:

[Divine Discontent]

3. their own study disagrees, of course it was buried down in the bottom of the story.

"researchers found a higher risk of brain tumors in children whose cellphone subscriptions had begun more than 2.8 years ago."


Cancer takes time to develop. I found their pronouncement that it doesn't cause tumors to be misleading when they provide that result above.

[HuckleB]

4. No, it doesn't. In fact, the pull quote you try to use isn't from the article in the OP.

[Divine Discontent]

6. it's a damning fact.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/story/2011/07/Cell-phones-dont-increase-cancer-risk-in-kids-study-says/49684308/1

next to the pink ad for breast cancer -



But the study also produced some mixed signals.

In a subset of children, researchers found a higher risk of brain tumors in children whose cellphone subscriptions had begun more than 2.8 years ago.

[HuckleB]

8. No, it didn't.

If it had, the conclusions would have been different. They were not. In addition, the majority of prior evidence shows no evidence of serious concern. This is how science works. You are trying to push an agenda based on small bites that are dramatically outweighed by the big picture.

In other words, you are acting as the old cliche goes: A little bit of information can be very dangerous.

Try a little more information: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/critique-of-risk-of-brain-tumors-from-wireless-phone-use/

[Divine Discontent]

10. "push an agenda". really? don't accuse me of anything HuckleB. It is a fact within the research

that is interesting to note, which showed that kids that had cell phone subscriptions more than 2.8 years had higher cancer risks. I've never discussed cell phone cancer risks at any length whatsoever on here, and am not part of the group that does, you may be, I don't know, but don't accuse me of pushing an agenda. I saw a piece of the story that your link leaves out, and referenced it, because it shows that kids who have had their cell phones longer had a higher cancer risk. I didn't attack you, so I find your response interesting at the least.





But the study also produced some mixed signals.

In a subset of children, researchers found a higher risk of brain tumors in children whose cellphone subscriptions had begun more than 2.8 years ago.

Concerns about cellphones were renewed last month, when a branch of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, reversed its previous position. In the past, the agency had said there was "no conclusive evidence" linking cellphones to brain tumors. Now, the agency classifies cellphones as "possibly carcinogenic" based on "limited evidence," acknowledging that the few links between cellphones and cancer could be due to chance.

[HuckleB]

11. You like to use the word "fact," but you ignore the fact that most evidence suggests no link.

In other words, you are showing your agenda, and it's loud and clear.

Keep pushing those tiny bites of information, while ignoring the full picture. No one who cares about a true understanding of the world is going to buy what you're trying to sell.

Here's some more big picture for you to ignore: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_bride_of_the_son_of_the_revenge_of_c.php

[Divine Discontent]

12. your behavior and communicaton style are odd. have fun.

[HuckleB]

13. Yes, I suppose calling BS for what it is is odd.

Or wait, maybe not so much.

Nice try.

PS: Even more reality on cell phones for you to ignore: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/romm_echoes_groundless_cell_ph.php

[TheWraith]

5. The key phrase is "statistically significant."

Going from a 0.001% risk to a 0.002% risk is not a statistically significant increase. However, taken out of context, you could say that cancer risks are higher for group B, or even that they're doubled. But that doesn't translate to there being a significant risk.

[Divine Discontent]

7. are those the actual numbers of risk between the subsets?

[TheWraith]

18. No, it's called an example.

And it's why statistics are one of the most misinterpreted forms of information you can find.

[jbnow]

15. Yes, time is the issue. Any cancer triggered by the low levels

exposed to by the phone would not be likely to show up in a decade, let alone in 5 years. It's not like getting an onslaught of radiation like a CAT scan every day... it is small.
Since we will likely still like our kids when they are say in their 30s it is too soon to just breathe a sigh of relief and forget about it.

Even phone instructions say not to place it directly against your skin but keep it some distance (like .25 inch) away from body. Who remembers to do that? Some kind of headset use should just be automatic. Once a study says after 25 years of regular use there is no increased risk then we can be assured...

The effects of radiation exposure are cumulative so for anyone who uses the phone much it is silly to be blase about it and it is easy to take precautions

[TheWraith]

19. Excuse me, but those facts aren't correct.

"The effects of radiation exposure are cumulative so for anyone who uses the phone much it is silly to be blase about it and it is easy to take precautions"

No, the effects are not cumulative. In fact, there is no evidence that there are "effects" at all from a phone's radio transmissions. And that's what it is, radio. People get wacky when they hear the word "radiation" and start imagining ionizing radiation such as from a nuclear bomb. Radio transmissions are NON-ionizing "radiation."

[trotsky]

16. There is also an important bit that goes with that.

"cancer risk was related to the amount of time the youth had a phone subscription, but not to the amount of use"

So just having a phone in your name, sitting on the shelf unused, indicated a slightly increased risk.

Does it make sense, then, to blame the phone? Or maybe that this was an unrelated factor?

[TheWraith]

20. Or more likely, if you've had a phone longer, then you are probably older...

...and therefore you're going to have better chances of getting cancer as time goes on. You'll find more 30 year old cancer patients than 12 year olds, regardless of phone usage.

But once again, people try to take one microscopic bit of information and discard all the rest of the scientific method.

[trotsky]

21. Wait a minute...

are you suggesting that the older we get, the more likely we are to develop a condition that leads to death????

That's crazy talk! :crazy:

[HuckleB]

9. Wow! The woo-meisters really want cell phones to cause cancer!

Research be damned! I yi yi.



"Must unrec all information that goes against my fictional world view! Oooooga. Boooooga. Science bad."

[laconicsax]

14. Well it's just plain dangerous to have all those vapors around.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/entertainment/la-ca-conversation-20110109

You must have done some research into the introduction of things like electric light. People were afraid it emitted poisonous vapors?

I got that from one of my great aunts. She was called Lady Sydenham, and she had this house called Lamberhurst Priory, and she had read somewhere that electricity leaked electric vapors out of the plugs, so a maid had to go round every night and take out the plugs and put in a sort of stopper to stop the vapors seeping out. It wasn't just her being mad; this was a contemporary fear of the new technology. And I just loved the idea of that so much that I gave it to Maggie [Smith].

Some things change, some things http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5ogZxoZ2Y">stay the same.
Edit: Better video link--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A55081TOlbQ

[HuckleB]

17. +1

[peace13]

22. Either way, even though I am not a fan of texting...

I am glad that the young people are. Keeping that thing away from their heads in a good idea!

[LaurenG]

23. I'm sincerely happy that children are safe from cell phones.

Most of the ones I know don't use them to talk anyway, they are texters extraordinaire.