That's not what the study said

It actually said that low volume usage showed a reduced likelihood of cancer, but those who had a higher usage (>30 minutes per day) showed an increased risk of brain tumours.

This isn't exactly surprising as there have been a few studies that have shown that exposure to small amounts of radiation is actually somewhat beneficial. With radiation it's about exposure time as well as amount.

A small dose every day is fine, one big dose all at once can be fatal. Everything in moderation and all that...

Sunday Times: "Heavy Mobile Users Risk Cancer"

Here's the Sunday Times' take on it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7127799.ece

Gotta love the way they've managed to extract a scary headline from that report. Sigh...

Study problems

If you ask a bunch of people who have developed brain cancer about their mobile phone usage over the previous several years, they will of course tend to over-estimate. The control group, without brain cancer, may well under-estimate. The resulting bias could easily invalidate the study to the extent that it looks as if mobiles protect one against brain cancer!

Then there's the issue of dosage. Depending on *where* you use your mobile, it may be transmitting at two watts (one bar reception) or two milliwatts (four bars). It's pretty obvious to me that if there is a risk, it will be to the folks who make heavy use of their mobiles in places with bad reception. Are they able to allow for that in these studies? I doubt it.

I suspect that the mobile companies actually have the data to do a definitive study. Their location data may well even allow for reasonably accurate estimation of transmission power for each call. But put together commercial self-interest and data privacy laws, and will they hand over their data? Barring specific legislation, not a chance.

Finally, the obvious. There's no epidemic of brain cancer out there. The risk, if non-zero, is small. If you are paranoid, look at your signal-strength indicator and don't make or take calls when it's poor. Otherwise, just watch out for buses -- probably a greater risk than mobiles if you are talking on your mobile while you cross the road!

I'm far more worried about...

... My family jewels than my brain! My phone sits in my pocket for most of the day, polling for email and other such things that a connected phone does these days. Maybe they should start researching fertility rates among phone users instead.

What?

Denial of MMBW? ( Man Made Brainal Warming)

Whatever next.....

The team need a break

They should move this team to global warming, much better chance of getting funding, then the global warming team could bring their increased call duration hockey stick curve to mobile phone brain tumour analysis and show them how to alarm people properly.

Better still would be establishing the link between all that extra mobile phone call radiation and global warming and the statistically significant probable tumour growth increase of 2x compared to a temperature of absolute zero.

When will these amateur scientists learn how to secure funding? The phones are smaller, the frequencies have changed, so the risk vectors MUST have changed and there is a strong justification for a 100 strong team to investigate these effects over the next 10 years. Shame there is no money in the government coffers.

Maybe mobile phones can prevent colon cancer too

It's certainly worth investigating, the next time one goes off in a meeting.

So...

They found no statistically significant effects of mobile phone use on cancer rates, just like very other study that has been done. Those studies which found a correlation between phone use and cancer were conducted on very small groups, so have no statistical significance - if you talk to one person, who then happens to get cancer, that does not mean that 100% of people get cancer, it means your sample size is too small.

Having found no statistical effect, they now want more money to further study... what... the noise? The variation in the amounts of exactly how much nothing is going on? Surely it is now time to put this one to bed and start spending the money on something more worthwhile, like, ooh, I don't know, actual funding of cancer research. Although certain cancer types, such as breast cancer, get plenty of funding due to high-profile campaigning, there are plenty of cancer types that do not get enough funding (such as prostate). It is also worth remembering that cancer is not a single diease, but many many different diseases that manifest themselves in a similiar fashion.

Failing that, rather than pissing money up the wall, they can give it to me, and I can conduct a study into the effects of beer on my sobriety. Since there would be a small number of participants in this experiment (one), it would be necessary to repat the experiment several times in order to be assured of a valid result.

Remembering the past

The widow of a very good friend of mine swore that always having the mobile in a shirt pocket was what gave him his fatal chest cancer. Adamantly.

Forgetting the accidentally huge 'therapeutic' dose of radiation 10 years earlier, to the same area, that put him into intensive care with collapsed lungs, and that may have accidentally cured his first, entirely different, cancer. The hospital's mistake cured him and then killed him much much later.

But the accepted wisdom said it was the cell phone.

(The monitor xray films were so overexposed they couldn't get _any_ estimate how _much_ xrays he'd been given. But physical facts can't get in the way of psychological 'truths'. People hate technology.)

buzz words

It's the word "radiation" that people are so affraid of. its been hyped to the point that all radiation at all levels is deemed bad, which is not a good place to start un-biased research. i've been hearing for a while that small doses of radiation may be beneficial, causing cells to repair themselves where they might not ordinarily bother. but, its all about dose, just a shame the stigma surrounding radiation hasn't allowed the research to be conducted.

I'm not an epidemiologist but

I sure like having opinions! This study is rubbish, where do these so-called "scientists" get off, highlighting the limitations of their design like every other study worth its salt does...er...

Or not changing their methodology mid-way through as flaws became apparent despite it being taught from scool onwards that moving the goal posts during a study generally makes comparisons unsound...er... yeah...why not just restart and bin years of research? No-one could criticise that.

Worst of all was highlighting future directions for research based on their results. The nerve of the guy, following scientific report writing 101 so brazenly! Blatant self-aggrandisement if you ask me, unlike when every other researcher does it who's research I happen to agree with.

Of course, the study hasn't been released to the public yet so the wider academic community haven't had a chance to comment on the actual flaws but the ones I've made up just now have got me good and mad.

Cancer risk from a telephone?

Where are the telephone sanitisers when you need one?

The one with the electronic sub-etha signaling device and a small towel in the pockets, thanks.

aaaand another thing....

Yep, so they'll keep spending your money until they PROVE that mobile phones are dangerous.

Erm, what about microwave ovens? CRT televisions? Bluetooth in cars? Military band radio? Airport radar? All the bloody benzene they shove in 'unleaded' petrol? Diesel fumes full of carbon fullerenes? Thorium from burning coal? Mercury in fish?

Why not just save a bit of cash and say 'The whole bloody planet is dangerous, you will likely die someday' and be done with it?

On the other hand..

.. there may be an increased risk but it is swamped by the risk from other causes. If you look hard enough to find something, guess what, you will find it somewhere.