Subject: Re Brain Tumor/Cell Phone Epi Study (Fist).
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 062440 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
......From EMF-L......
How about the inclusion of those who died from brain cancer???
......guru.....
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Brain Tumor/Cell Phone Epi Study
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:33:09 +1100
From: Stewart Fist
Reply-To: fist@ozemail.com.au
Organization: Independent writer and columnist
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3A40A26C.D23D3236@emfguru.com>
The protocol being used by the Muscat/American Health Foundation
brain-cancer study and that being used by Repacholi's WHO/brain cancer
study are pretty much the same, and both have very significant defects.
In both cases the researchers proceed in this way:
1) They identify people with brain cancer in a hospital.
2) Interview them to determine basic matching information (age, sex, etc.)
3) Look through hospital records to find a match to each, using a
patient admitted for some other reason (This is a way of establishing a
control group).
4) Interview both the brain-cancer patient and his/her match to
determine cellphone use, asking such questions as:
a) Which hand is used to hold the phone (relying on the reporting)
b) How many hours use a month (relying usually on memory of past bills)
We should know from experience that people are notoriously bad at
reporting such information. Which hand is used, depends entirely on the
situation - and whether the person needs to write, or is driving, etc.
However, if there is no statistical difference between the brain-cancer
group and the control group in this kind of epidemiological research,
the findings are interpreted as meaning that cellphones don't cause or
contribute to the brain cancer.
However this interpretation relies on a number of assumptions that are
just not viable or acceptable:
The first, and most obvious assumption is that both groups have been
using mobile phones for long enough to allow incipient brain cancers to
incubate to a level where they will be detected. And as people have
already pointed out, three years is not enough. You probably need five
to ten at an absolute minimum.
However, another assumption being made here is that the whole population
is equally susceptible to RF-induced brain cancer, in terms of both
absolute numbers, and with the incubation period.
We can see the relevance of this if we were to take the RF exposure to
an extreme in a quick thought-experiment, and assume that everyone in
the community had an equal exposure to RF.
We would still then expect those people who were more susceptible to be
the ones in the hospital with clearly identified brain cancer -- and for
the controls to show the same average exposure.
Of course, in the real world not everyone gets the same RF exposure.
But to completely ignore potential differences in susceptibility in
conducting such research is ridiculous. It is only acceptable in a
research protocol, if any publicity surrounding the release of the
results clearly spells out the fact that there are multiple possible interpretations.
Muscat's finding that there are no significant difference between his
control and exposured groups, could arise from any (or all) of these hypotheses:
a) cellphone use does not normally influence brain cancer development, OR
b) people who get brain cancer are more susceptible to RF damage than
the average, OR
c) people need to use cellphones for more than three years to get
brain cancer.
The Muscat report only deals with the first hypothesis. Yet the second
and third are equally as likely as the first, judging from current
evidence found by other researchers.
The protocol also appears to assume that brain cancer can only be a
related to RF exposure in some direct (one-to-one) way, and not via
intermediary conditions such as the reduction in the immune response.
Nor does it treat multi-causal factors (genetic predisposition, chemical
DNA damage, virus infections, etc.) as a possibility. Nor does it
discuss the possibility of off-setting factors.
For instance.
Say brain cancer rates were much higher in those people who have easy RF
breaches of the blood-brain-barrier (a very likely scenario according to
Salford). I would expect these susceptible people also to get more
discomfort from using a cellphone, and more headaches with longer phone
use ... and therefore tend to use them less.
So it is quite feasible that the group most likely to get brain cancer
will be those who have a natural disinclination to use their phones for
long periods.
Yet this would still fit Muscat's findings.
Scientists always claim that they only test hypotheses as set out in the
research protocols, and produce the results. They loudly protest that
they don't create the interpretations that often circulate around and
are reported by the media.
But they can't shaft the responsibility for interpretation to the media
when they know the media don't have the skills to intelligently
interpret complex results.
Scientists are often very keen to disclaim responsibility for newspaper
headlines of the sort that read "Study finds cellphones don't cause
brain cancer" from their findings, and are quick to protest that no one
can ever prove a negative ... and that we no one can or should draw
conclusions based on just one study.
Yet here we have the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
headlining with precisely the same sort of unwarranted interpretation in
its report or the Muscat study.
"HANDHELD CELLULAR TELEPHONE USE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH RISK OF BRAIN CANCER"
Such conclusions are rubbish.
--
Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
See http://www.australianIT.com.au/opinion/crossroads/
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com