I need some help figuring out if this study is flawed

[Externet]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You need to support that.

Hi StringJunky.

Support?  it is a factual radio frequency.   A microwave oven cooks cells with 2.4GHz.  WiFi emits 2.4GHz at much lower power level;  but is there all the time.  Unsure if I prefer a leaky oven a few minutes a day or a weak emission at all times.

Supporting the other part; the priority pursuit of lazyness and comforts by the modern way of living is obvious. 🤨

[Janus]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Look at this EM chart:

Wifi. and mobile wavelengths are around 3metres  long and the lowest level of ionizing radiation is just into the uv range many, many times shorter. Look where visible light is, I don't think that causes ionizing radiation, so how can microwaves cause the purported issues if ionization starts and increases to  the right of the uv segment? 

Most people don't really grasp that the term "radiation" spans a huge range.  After microwave ovens came out, and people were told that they used microwave "radiation", they started to use the term "nuke" when heating things up in a microwave. After all, "radiation" is something associated with nuclear reactors and bombs.  The fact that microwaves are nearer the opposite end of the spectrum isn't commonly understood.

[CharonY]

22 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

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?

Sorry, brainfart; case-control are retrospective studies.  I meant controlled prospective studies (or similar) where the treatment is controlled.

[sadpatato-897]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, brainfart; case-control are retrospective studies.  I meant controlled prospective studies (or similar) where the treatment is controlled.

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?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Look at this EM chart:

Wifi. and mobile wavelengths are around 3metres  long and the lowest level of ionizing radiation is just into the uv range many, many times shorter. Look where visible light is, I don't think that causes ionizing radiation, so how can microwaves cause the purported issues if ionization starts and increases to  the right of the uv segment? 

Thanks! So, you don't think I should stop using a phone?

Edited January 19, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[StringJunky]

45 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

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?

It never stopped me. As you've seen in that image, microwaves are so far away from uv in energy terms, and that's where the danger starts.

[sadpatato-897]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It never stopped me. As you've seen in that image, microwaves are so far away from uv in energy terms, and that's where the danger starts.

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?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

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?

Yes, this is the kind of rationale that properly answers your question. +1

[sadpatato-897]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, brainfart; case-control are retrospective studies.  I meant controlled prospective studies (or similar) where the treatment is controlled.

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?

Edited January 19, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[CharonY]

I would look into the methodology in much more detail, but fundamentally if an effect is only found in one cohort, and not reproducibly it is generally not sufficient for a call to action. If there was a significant biological effect you would usually find many more studies pointing to various issues and from there a view emerges of potential issues. It takes years of efforts to get to the point and it is indeed strange if no one had found similar effects. That being said, I am not actually familiar with the current state of the lit in that regard.

However, from a layperson's perspective, I would not start to be worried unless it is being reproduced in a broader context by other research groups. That being said, not being physically connected to your cellphone all day long probably has at least some mental health benefits....

[sadpatato-897]

Quote

if an effect is only found in one cohort

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.

Edited January 19, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

gain, this could be down to him using more people who have used a phone for more than 10 years.

Again, I would be highly suspicious if there is only one researcher in the world being able to create a cohort that shows an effect.

[sadpatato-897]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

Again, I would be highly suspicious if there is only one researcher in the world being able to create a cohort that shows an effect.

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?

Edited January 20, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[Danijel Gorupec]

On 1/19/2021 at 6:58 PM, Externet said:

Support?  it is a factual radio frequency.   A microwave oven cooks cells with 2.4GHz.  WiFi emits 2.4GHz at much lower power level;  but is there all the time. 

Hmm... I would say that with the soft radiation, the power level is important, not the 'total dose'' (that is, it is not like with the hard radiation where the damage is proportional to total dose)... Human body has means to regulate its temperature and can keep the temperature within safe limits despite of varying external influences. At least up to the power level where the regulation mechanism gets overwhelmed - only then the temperature can rise and the damage can occur.

[Note that some body parts, like eyeballs, might have less effective temperature regulation ability than some other body parts, like brain. Still, with such low power levels involved, I would not expect problems with temperature regulation.... even inside eyeballs.]

[Sensei]

Even if phone would be made of radioactive materials like Uranium or Plutonium it is extremely unlikely they would cause brain tumour (chances like one to trillions) 1) radioactive particles have barrier of skin and skull 2) people don't hold phone 24/7 close to their head (count how long per day you phoned.. you have it on calling reports from your provider).

UV light from from the Sun (having hundred thousands to millions times more energy than microwaves used by cell phone) don't cause brain tumours. It causes skin cancer. Why? Because particles can't penetrate and reach brain.

However there are some quantum particles which can penetrate, but they are extremely powerful primary and secondary cosmic rays and free neutrons. 

[joigus]

On 1/19/2021 at 8:20 PM, sadpatato-897 said:

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?

Bingo!

[sadpatato-897]

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?

Edited January 24, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

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?

How many people in the study, use cell phones?

[sadpatato-897]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How many people in the study, use cell phones?

Collectively, probably in the tens of thousands.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

Collectively, probably in the tens of thousands.

Let me ask again, how many people do you know, that would qualify to be in the control group?

[sadpatato-897]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Let me ask again, how many people do you know, that would qualify to be in the control group?

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

Edited January 24, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, sadpatato-897 said:

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

We've already been through this with you.

 

[sadpatato-897]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We've already been through this with you.

 

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.

Edited January 24, 2021 by sadpatato-897

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. Please stop opening new threads on this topjc.