Mobile phone safety?

[anhinga_anhinga]

There were some unpleasant findings a year ago.

Now the new study claims that there is no cancer link, but at the same time finds that

A significantly increased risk was found for tumours which developed on the same side of the head as the phone was reported to have been held but this was mirrored by a decrease in the risk on the opposite side of the head making it difficult to interpret as a real effect.

This finding may be due to people with glioma brain tumours linking mobile phone use to the side of the tumour and therefore over reporting the use of a phone on the same side as their tumour. This results in under reporting use on the opposite side of the head, say the authors.

from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060119232625.htm

On balance it looks to me like we have even more uncertainty about mobile phone safety than before.

Comments

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> Why more? Exactly the same.

Because it is inconclusive again. At least that's how it looks to me.

> The finding of "no overall increased risk" can never be definitive.

Why?

I mean, in the biomed field too many findings are not definitive, but apart from this annoyance, what's so special about the "no overall increased risk" finding compared to other findings?

> As the results are stated, the study is about people assigning blame for their tumors

I am not sure about that...

[(Anonymous)]

Because it is inconclusive again. At least that's how it looks to me.

Still, there was no way to assign probabilities before, and there is no way to do it now. Therefore the level of uncertainty is the same.

> The finding of "no overall increased risk" can never be definitive.

Why?

Because there is no way to prove a negative by observation.

> As the results are stated, the study is about people assigning blame for their tumors

I am not sure about that...

There was voluntary self-reporting of the preferred side to hold a cell phone, what else do you need?

Authorisation lost

[spamsink.livejournal.com]

For uncertain reasons

Re: Authorisation lost

[(Anonymous)]

> Because there is no way to prove a negative by observation.

One can prove statistical upper bounds, which is often good enough.

> what else do you need?

The original of the paper, if I can get my hands on it (we'll see about this).

I am sure more info (including info on authors' biases) can be extracted from more close reading...

Re: Authorisation lost

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Authorisation indeed... The paper is actually available for everyone:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38720.687975.55v1?rss=1

let's see...

Re: Authorisation lost

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

The paper is actually available for everyone:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38720.687975.55v1?rss=1

I am actually getting different Odds ratios from their own tables... weird...