Cancer and mobile phones

"Mobile use increases kids cancer risk"
reports Stuff (New Zealand Herald)

with these claims:
"Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely to develop
brain tumours than those who don't"

"a Swedish study indicated that under-16s were more at risk of radiation
from mobile phones because their brains and nervous systems were still
developing".

"Lennart Hardell, of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, said
radiation from the phones penetrated deeper into children's brains
because their heads were smaller and skulls were thinner than adults'".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4703028a18335.html


Not having the patience to wait for Mythbusters to tackle this one, and
being profoundly skeptical of these claims, we check the source:
http://www.eurjcancerprev.com/pt/re/...8000-00010.htm
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...5431222046709/

"In total, use of analogue cellular telephones gave an increased risk
with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.6).
With a tumour induction period of >10 years the risk increased further:
OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-2.9)".

There are a number of problems with this:
1. Likelihood of acoustic neuroma is 1/100,000 in the general
population. Use of mobile phones in the general population is nearly
100%, so unless I've missed something, prevalence for non-users is
1:500,000.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_neuroma).

2. Acoustic neuroma is a benign condition of the ear, not the brain.
'Acoustic' is a misnomer anyway. The correct medical term is 'vestibular
schwannoma'.

3. The study sample included 1617 patients "with brain tumour
diagnosed". So working with a ratio of 100,000 can we conclude that the
161,700,000 people not diagnosed did not have a tumour?
Of course we can't, but more to the point: if a subset of these
non-diagnosed people did have acoustic neuroma then it may arise from an
entirely different (unknown) source. So testing a select group (those
diagnosed with tumours) is nonsense.

4. OR is a strange measure to use for events with such a small
likelihood as it is highly sensitive to the probability of the event in
the control group.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio)

5. The control group is opposite ear to the one normally used for the
phone. This is a cunning strategy - but unfortunately for the professor
the human population has a distinct bias toward use of the right hand
and there might be thousands of factors affecting brain function arising
from right handedness - and he is assuming that phone usage is the only one.

So NZ Herald quoted the professor accurately, and it is the professor
who is bull****ting the lay public.

Why?

And here is some more:
"Dr. Sam Milham, an epidemiologist who has worked on electromagnetic
radiation effects for over 20 years. 'If cell phones can cause acoustic
neuromas, they can also cause all the other types of brain tumors'"
http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2004.html

But no-one has shown that acoustic neuromas can be caused by cellphones.

> with these claims:
> "Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely
> to develop brain tumours than those who don't"

But mobile telephony gadgets ARE the cancer. They eat away
at our society by encouraging idle chatter, time wasting,
flows of coin from the poor to the rich, and one can be
injured colliding with a person with one stuck in his ear.

Now that these infernal machines are approaching the size of
suppositories, there is light at the end of the tunnel
concerning their abolition.

On Oct 4, 8:13*am, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mobile use increases kids cancer risk"
> reports Stuff (New Zealand Herald)
>
> with these claims:
> "Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely to develop
> brain tumours than those who don't"
>
> "a Swedish study indicated that under-16s were more at risk of radiation
> from mobile phones because their brains and nervous systems were still
> developing".
>
> "Lennart Hardell, of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, said
> radiation from the phones penetrated deeper into children's brains
> because their heads were smaller and skulls were thinner than adults'".http://www.stuff.co.nz/4703028a18335.html
>
> Not having the patience to wait for Mythbusters to tackle this one, and
> being profoundly skeptical of these claims, we check the source:http://www.eurjcancerprev.com/pt/re/...aise_childrens...
>
> "In total, use of analogue cellular telephones gave an increased risk
> with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.6).
> With a tumour induction period of >10 years the risk increased further:
> OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-2.9)".
>
> There are a number of problems with this:
> 1. Likelihood of acoustic neuroma is 1/100,000 in the general
> population. Use of mobile phones in the general population is nearly
> 100%, so unless I've missed something, prevalence for non-users is
> 1:500,000.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_neuroma).
>
> 2. Acoustic neuroma is a benign condition of the ear, not the brain.
> 'Acoustic' is a misnomer anyway. The correct medical term is 'vestibular
> schwannoma'.
>
> 3. The study sample included 1617 patients "with brain tumour
> diagnosed". So working with a ratio of 100,000 can we conclude that the
> 161,700,000 people not diagnosed did not have a tumour?
> Of course we can't, but more to the point: if a subset of these
> non-diagnosed people did have acoustic neuroma then it may arise from an
> entirely different (unknown) source. So testing a select group (those
> diagnosed with tumours) is nonsense.
>
> 4. OR is a strange measure to use for events with such a small
> likelihood as it is highly sensitive to the probability of the event in
> the control group.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio)
>
> 5. The control group is opposite ear to the one normally used for the
> phone. This is a cunning strategy - but unfortunately for the professor
> the human population has a distinct bias toward use of the right hand
> and there might be thousands of factors affecting brain function arising
> from right handedness - and he is assuming that phone usage is the only one.
>
> So NZ Herald quoted the professor accurately, and it is the professor
> who is bull****ting the lay public.
>
> Why?
>
> And here is some more:
> "Dr. Sam Milham, an epidemiologist who has worked on electromagnetic
> radiation effects for over 20 years. 'If cell phones can cause acoustic
> neuromas, they can also cause all the other types of brain tumors'"http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2004.html
>
> But no-one has shown that acoustic neuromas can be caused by cellphones.

Everybody who use mobile phone all know that the mobie phone have
strong radiation to the body ,but the user is increasing sharply year
by year all the same, everything have two coins, so we should learn
the best way to use it, i know a web page which have many beautiful
mobile phones in it , www.gizmograbber.com , but some of them are
very expensive.

yangxia5017009@sina.com wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:13 am, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Mobile use increases kids cancer risk"
>> reports Stuff (New Zealand Herald)
>>
>> with these claims:
>> "Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely to develop
>> brain tumours than those who don't"
>>
>> "a Swedish study indicated that under-16s were more at risk of radiation
>> from mobile phones because their brains and nervous systems were still
>> developing".
>>
>> "Lennart Hardell, of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, said
>> radiation from the phones penetrated deeper into children's brains
>> because their heads were smaller and skulls were thinner than adults'".http://www.stuff.co.nz/4703028a18335.html
>>
>> Not having the patience to wait for Mythbusters to tackle this one, and
>> being profoundly skeptical of these claims, we check the source:http://www.eurjcancerprev.com/pt/re/...aise_childrens...
>>
>> "In total, use of analogue cellular telephones gave an increased risk
>> with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.6).
>> With a tumour induction period of >10 years the risk increased further:
>> OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-2.9)".
>>
>> There are a number of problems with this:
>> 1. Likelihood of acoustic neuroma is 1/100,000 in the general
>> population. Use of mobile phones in the general population is nearly
>> 100%, so unless I've missed something, prevalence for non-users is
>> 1:500,000.
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_neuroma).
>>
>> 2. Acoustic neuroma is a benign condition of the ear, not the brain.
>> 'Acoustic' is a misnomer anyway. The correct medical term is 'vestibular
>> schwannoma'.
>>
>> 3. The study sample included 1617 patients "with brain tumour
>> diagnosed". So working with a ratio of 100,000 can we conclude that the
>> 161,700,000 people not diagnosed did not have a tumour?
>> Of course we can't, but more to the point: if a subset of these
>> non-diagnosed people did have acoustic neuroma then it may arise from an
>> entirely different (unknown) source. So testing a select group (those
>> diagnosed with tumours) is nonsense.
>>
>> 4. OR is a strange measure to use for events with such a small
>> likelihood as it is highly sensitive to the probability of the event in
>> the control group.
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio)
>>
>> 5. The control group is opposite ear to the one normally used for the
>> phone. This is a cunning strategy - but unfortunately for the professor
>> the human population has a distinct bias toward use of the right hand
>> and there might be thousands of factors affecting brain function arising
>> from right handedness - and he is assuming that phone usage is the only one.
>>
>> So NZ Herald quoted the professor accurately, and it is the professor
>> who is bull****ting the lay public.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> And here is some more:
>> "Dr. Sam Milham, an epidemiologist who has worked on electromagnetic
>> radiation effects for over 20 years. 'If cell phones can cause acoustic
>> neuromas, they can also cause all the other types of brain tumors'"http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2004.html
>>
>> But no-one has shown that acoustic neuromas can be caused by cellphones.
>
> Everybody who use mobile phone all know that the mobie phone have
> strong radiation to the body ,but the user is increasing sharply year
> by year all the same, everything have two coins, so we should learn
> the best way to use it, i know a web page which have many beautiful
> mobile phones in it , www.gizmograbber.com , but some of them are
> very expensive.

Gee, you took a whole two weeks to think that up?
Now if you had thought about it for another two seconds, you might have
realised that a handsfree (wristwatch) phone puts the relatively higher
power uWave radiation *further* away from your ear (bluetooth radiation
is at a much lower intensity than GSM).

B J Foster quoted:
'If cell phones can cause acoustic neuromas, they can also cause all the
other types of brain tumors'"
> http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2004.html
>
> But no-one has shown that acoustic neuromas can be caused by cellphones.

It's a wild speculative leap anyway. Even if there were a genunine
correlation between mobile phone use and acoustic neuromas, in the
absence of a demonstrated mechanism by which non-ionising radiation can
cause cancer, there would be no basis for extrapolating from one
particular type of tumour to all the other types.

Sylvia.

Peter Jason wrote:
>> with these claims:
>> "Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely
>> to develop brain tumours than those who don't"
>
> But mobile telephony gadgets ARE the cancer. They eat away
> at our society by encouraging idle chatter, time wasting,
> flows of coin from the poor to the rich, and one can be
> injured colliding with a person with one stuck in his ear.

That latter I suspect as being a much more significant cause of death.
>
> Now that these infernal machines are approaching the size of
> suppositories, there is light at the end of the tunnel
> concerning their abolition.

It does at least increase the options for dealing with one that's in use
by a particularly insensitive user.

Sylvia.