sadpatato-897

Fair enough, I understand. It’s just that you have to understand, when I read a study saying that studies from the 1990s up until today have mostly found that the things we carry about constantly are slowly killing me and my family, I get worried. When a huge meta-analysis finds that categories of studies have overall odds ratios of 1.25 and 1.73 in regard to the risk of cancer in phone users, it’s a big concern to me and to the safety of my family.

Probably everyone I know uses a phone, which is very concerning.

Collectively, probably in the tens of thousands.

A very recent meta-analysis has found some very worrying results. They divided studies into 3 categories, first category was studies from a scientist called Lennart Hardell (A very contreversial, biased resercher whose studies have been critisised by the FDA) that found that cell phones cause cancer, second category looked at studies relating to the INTERPHONE study (A flawed international study) that found phones don't cause cancer, and a third category that looked at 'other studies' that found no stastically significant assosiation. Not that worrying, however they found that users with over 1000 hours of phone use had a 60% higher chance of getting chancer, this risk was calculated using the 3 categories: Overall, 'Cumulative call time (hours) >1000' had a OR of 1.60 (No other category of phone use was staistically significant). The following are the results that made up the OR=1.60 figure: Hardell's studies (Which where either flawed or looked at very old types of phones that aren't in use today) found a OR of 3.65 (Labled statistically significant by the analysis), the INTERPHONE studies found a OR of 1.25 (Not labled significant by the analysis), and the other studies found a OR of 1.73 (Not labled significant by the analysis). I am not a scientist, but I don't think these results warrent concern, do they? The meta-analysis did say that more reaserch is needed to confirm their findings, which dosen't sound very conclusive. Is this study flawed? Or, at least, should we still use phones dispite the analysis results?

By the way, I've been doing some more digging and I found that they only had over 10 year use data on 2G phones (Which we no longer use). They found that for 3G phones, those who used a phone for a year had a OR of 1.2, those who used one for 1-5 years had a OR of 1.2 again, and those who had used a phone for 5-10 years had a OR of 1.6 (Which at first seems like that means phone use is beinging to increase cancer risk, but that OR was calculated from 12 cases and 14 control, which seems like a very small number for calculations. Also, the OR was identicle for the 1 year use and 1-5 year use, but as soon as they began to use small numbers their OR went up). Now, they did have full data on 2G phones, going up to >25 year use, but 3G phones aren't 2G phones, barely anyone uses 2G phones (or 3G for that matter) and although 2G phones did have a increase of up to threefold risk, I don't think it's wise to apply 2G phone data to 3G or 4G phones. Do you think I'm right?

Thanks! The reasercher has done dozens of studies on the link between brain tumors and cancer and he has always found a link, but it's mostly only him finding the links. Again, this could be down to him using more people who have used a phone for more than 10 years.

Thanks! Yeah, the thing is that the reasercher constantly finds links while everyone else dosen't, and he has a financial link to find positive results. Do you think the reason why he found a positive link could be down to his methodology? His studies have more subjects than any other study who used a phone from more than 10 years. Brain Tumors related to radiation take 10-15 years to occour, so do you think his study may be credible because he looked into the most subjects who used a phone for the longest and found a link? Although, other big studies have also looked into >10 year users (just less then this guy) and have found no link between phones and cancer. What do you think?

Thank you so much! May I ask one last question? I would imagine cancer would be at a huge scale right now if phones are harmful. Like, it takes 10-15 years to develop radiation-linked cancer, and right now rates are dropping. Phones became commonplace in the mid 90s, 26 years ago. Most recent data (from 2018) shows a decline in cancer rates, 23 years after phones became popular. Surely if phones did cause cancer we’d see it by now in the rates?

Oh ok, thanks! So, I shouldn’t change my phone use over this? Considering the fact that the study in question had the most 'over 10 year' users than any other study? Thanks! So, you don't think I should stop using a phone?

Thanks! This was a case-control study by the way, but I take your point. What about the fact that this study had more subjects who have used cell phone for over 10 years than other studies, is that a strength for it or is the study still flawed?

Thanks! Do you think the fact that he looked at more people who used a phone over ten years then any other study gives him credit, or so you think we shouldn’t conclude anything from the study?

A researcher has found that cell phones cause triple the risk of Brain Cancer, how worrying are his results? A study done by Lennart Hardell has found that using a mobile phone has a threefold risk of developing a Brain Tumor. The study looked at thousands of people over a 2 year period and found an increased risk of brain cancer amongst the cell phone users. The higher the use, the bigger the risk. Is this a worrying study? Now, there have been bigger and more in-depth studies on Brain Cancer and cell phone use that haven't found a link. Lennart Hardell argues that his study is better, as his had more people who used phones for more than 10 years, therefore his study had the biggest time for Tumors to develop and spread, unlike the other two studies mentioned. However, surely the other studies would have at least found a hint that phones cause cancer, even though they didn't have many subjects who used phones over 10 years? There must have been a sign that phones cause cancer, even if they didn't look at beyond a decade of use? He is also an expert witness in court cases for those who believe that their cell phone caused their cancer, and he is a very outspoken anti-cell phone activist, he has been called out in the past for having a financial interest. Other studies he has done have been criticized for bad methodology and false conclusions, and science writers have said it is peculiar that 'Lennart Hardell seems to be consistently finding data opposite to mainstream studies, and he has a financial incentive to do so', (Although the reason he is finding data contradictory to mainstream studies may be because of the aforementioned fact that Hardell had more subjects how used phones for over 10 years). Also cell phones use has rapidly increased since the 90s but brain cancer is on the decline. What do you guys think, is this a worrying study that warrants action? Or, is it a flawed/inconclusive one? Thanks for reading this!

Thanks!! so I’m right in my assessment?

Studies looked into if battery discarge or RF radiation caused high skin tempreture (like, the battery gets hot which raises temperature). They tried to account for this by doing one round of study with the phone in ‘normal’ mode, and another with the phone in airplane mode (communication disabled). They found that it was worse amount normal mode, which hints that the radiation causes temperature rise. However, in normal mode the battery is in full use, but in airplane it goes into saving mode, so the discharge is less and therefore the temperature is less. I guess this means the whole heating course could be down to a hot battery, as in normal mode the battery is in use more and therefore is hotter than in airplane mode, where the battery is used less. So, the difference between normal and airplane mode could just be down to different battery settings/use, not radiation. Am I right?

Yeah, but as I said they compared RF heating to battery heating in a way that I can see as being possibly problematic, and I wanted to know if my assesment was correct.

Mobile phones have been found to increase skin and brain temperature, sometimes the increase was as bad as 4.5 degrees C. But how much (if any) of that could be down to radiation, and how much down to battery discharge? I’ve only read two studies that have looked into comparing phone battery discharge and radiation. Both done two rounds of tests, one where subjects would hold a phone to their head for a 5 minutes, with the phone in normal mode (communications on). The second round was done the same but with the phone in airplane/standby mode (communications off/battery life saving). Both studies found that the temperature was higher in normal mode then it was in airplane mode, hinting that radiation rose the skin temperature, as well as the battery. However, in normal mode the battery would be used more, therefore it’ll be more warm, where as in airplane/standby mode the battery would be used less, and in one of the studies standby mode would put the phone into a power saving mode, therefore less battery power would be used and less heat generated. Am I correct in thinking that this is a poor way of telling if battery power or radiation causes temperature rise?

So, would you say I shouldn’t avoid using a phone because of this study?

Yeah, I guess that's true, but surely even if putting a phone into pants tighens them, causing poor fertility, surely the fact that the people who put their phones in their waist pouch where better off than phones users, and the fact that shirt pocket users where even better off, suggests that it's a real issue? Or am I wrong? (Thanks for your answer btw!)

100% it’s a problem but the study found that keeping a phone close to the testicles leads to worse fertility then keeping it away from them, so it kinda seems like it’s more to do with the radiation/heat/whatever scientific mechanism as opposed to some trait associated with phone use that causes the infertility.

A study done at a fertility clinic, which had 300 subjects, found that cell phone use harms male fertility. This is obviously very concerning, but is it flawed? Their exclusion criteria was: “Subjects who had undergo surgery for hernia repair, medical diseases as D.M, U.T.I, thyroid disease, patients who were on antipsychotic or antihypertensive drugs, or taking alcohol, azoospermics & those with small sized testes were excluded from the study.” That doesn’t seem like a very extensive criteria to account for the fact that patents where already infertile. Their questionnaire isn’t available, they say they looked into ‘general information’. The study was also done in Iraq, during the Iraq war, I don’t know if that affects the results or not, but I’d imagine people who live in a war zone are more prone to stress and anxiety, although I don’t know if they accounted for that. Fertility health awareness also doesn’t strike me as a priority for the Iraq government in 2011, so that may be another issue. Also, people who use phones will be exposed to more news about the war then those without phones. To me, it seems like a study that investigated if being Catholic leads to greater stress, by conducting the study in Belfast at the height of The Troubles, so of course they are going to have higher stress levels than the general population. There is one thing that I’m struggling to debunk. The study divided cell phone users by where they store their phone, in their pocket (n=112), in a waist pouch (n=127), or in a shirt pocket (n=30). They found that the worst sperm quality was among men how kept their phones in their pockets, with the ‘best’ being those had kept their phone in a shirt pocket. So the closer the phone is to the testicles, the worse the fertility. This seems to be quite convincing. Is it proof that the study isn’t flawed? They also divided subjects into use groups (4 hours of use a day, 3 hours, etc.) and only 30 people made up the non-user category, which doesn’t seem like a lot. Does this seem like a flawed study?

Thank you! So you think that the study isn't that good? They accounted for certian other causes of DNA damage: But I guess many things could have cause the DNA damage that aren't listed but come hand in hand with cell phone use. I also think that the fact that all of the study population where experiencing some type of problem to lead them to use a fertility clinic isn't a good thing, and would proberly hinder the results and create a bias.

I have read a study that has found that cell phones are assositated with increased immature sperm amoung men: I am wondering if this study warrents action, should we change how we use phones? I can only indetify one flaw with this study, and that is that it's population was from a fertility clinic. This seems like a selection bias as they are studying people who are already infertile (The study tried to account for this by only allowing those with normal sperm concentration to participate, however sperm concentration only makes up one of many factors that go into measuring fertility, this leads me to believe that they haven't accounted for the bias very well). I don't know how much of a bias this is, as they did measure the fertility of the population over time, and found that as time went on immature sperm (something that impares fertility) rose amoungst cell phone users, but it still seems biased and flawed. What do you all think, is this a concerning study? Or is it one which is flawed and inconclusive? Here is a link that goes into a bit more detial about the study in question: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/29287

Yes, thank you!

I don't know, I honestly know very little about science. What do you think? I think what they did is they asked fertility paitents how much they used a phone, and found that the higher use of a phone the lower the patients fertility was. I don't know if they still need a non-fertility paitent control or if how they did it was legitimate and non--flawed.