EMF and Protein changes?

[JSFolk]

So, I'm seeing this study posted on a relative's FaceBook, and it looks like typical "OMG CELL PHONES ARE RADIOACTIVE" nonsense, but then I follow the link and it looks to my untrained eyes like they did a legit study. Could someone with better training take a peek at this and let me know if it's BS, and if so, generally why?

"Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine"

Heck, is "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine" even a legit journal? It sure sounds hokey.

The FB article linked was actually this very cheesy looking site.

Thanks,
Jason

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To save others the search, the complete paper is available here for free:

http://media.withtank.com/cac3770262...et_al-2012.pdf

Not my field of expertise (not even close ) so the only point I'll make is that the sample size is rather small.

[Evilgiraffe]

Originally Posted by JSFolk

"Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine"

Heck, is "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine" even a legit journal? It sure sounds hokey.

It appears to be a legitimate journal, but only just.

Web of Science shows it has an impact factor (citations per article) of 1.04. To put that in context, the journal is listed in two categories:

Biology, where it is 55^th out of 86 journals
Biophysics, where it is 61^st out of 73 journals

It's either a place to publish incredibly specialised work, or a journal of last resort for work that can't get in anywhere else.

[paulhutch]

While I'm certainly no expert on biology I did spot one problem with the study that I've also seen in similar studies. They used actual cell phones and cordless base stations for the RF sources. They should be using standards based calibrated RF signal generators, amplifiers and antennas. Using manufactured consumer products instead leaves open the possibility that the mice where affected by other factors than the RF signal.

[Eos of the Eons]

I think we did a podcast on EMR...Legion of Reason

I wrote this in response to some people trying to ban wifi in schools here:

Wifi cannot cause cancer, and WHO stipulates: Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. /quote
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html

Physicists can explain why:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN12/wn031312.html

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn072508.html

Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker. -This goes for WiFi too.
http://www.australianscience.com.au/...-human-health/
In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations./quote


And most of the "experts" listed at the link she sent are Chiros!! NOT a good site, and should be dismissed based on their "about us": http://www.safeschool.ca/About_Us.html

One person (not a physicist) claims their kid is sensitive to wifi, but where is the EVIDENCE?

So, I guess they are getting rid of radios, computers, TVs, etc. as well? My laptop is warming my knees at the moment as I type. If it gets too hot, I know to move it. Claiming it will cause cancer is like claiming sitting in front of a wood burning fire will cause cancer. Nope... and people can tell when temperatures are getting too hot, and we do not get burned from these kinds of wavelenghts that are being emitted by cell phones, wireless, radio, etc.

[JSFolk]

Thanks much. I know just enough of the theoretical side of why cell phones are about as dangerous as light bulbs to discard the concerns as 99% likely to be bunk, but tend to respect papers published in actual journals.

The site linked is, of course, total hogwash, but I was mostly interested in whether "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine" was legit at all, or a pseudo-journal.

Not anything I'm personally that concerned about. If my cell phone isn't sitting next to my head, it's in my front pocket. I'll let you folks know if I start going all Bruce Banner.

[OMGturt1es]

This is an area where I think self-described skeptics are concluding far too aggressively. Anyone with a real interest in this topic should spend considerable time chasing the references listed in this article. If the article is correct, then there's plenty of literature indicating that exposure to some electromagnetic radiation may cause some biochemical changes.

We should not rely on theory to discard empirical data, but that's what we do when we argue that something cannot be true based on current theory. It's not good science. It's not good thinking. It's not good for anything other than reinforcing preexisting assumptions.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

We should not rely on theory to discard empirical data, but that's what we do when we argue that something cannot be true based on current theory. It's not good science. It's not good thinking. It's not good for anything other than reinforcing preexisting assumptions.

You mean, aside from the fact that the empirical, scientific data fully disproves the claim of cell-phone radiation causing cancer; which you can see by scrolling up a few posts?

[Gr8wight]

The anti-wifi groups seem to have given up on the Cancer angle these days, and instead are concetrating on these studies that appear to show that wifi can cause some kind of unspecified "biochemical changes." There is no indication that these alleged "biochemical changes" have any detrimental effect whatsoever, but the wifi wingnuts insist on employing the scaremongering tactics of claiming that they "might". So we should shut down all of western civilisation, just in case...

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

If the article is correct, then there's plenty of literature indicating that exposure to some electromagnetic radiation may cause some biochemical changes.

Only if you count a burn as a 'biochemical change'. Cell phones cannot and do not cause cancer, and they are not anywhere near powerful enough to cause burns.

Do you understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?

Yuri

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight

The anti-wifi groups seem to have given up on the Cancer angle these days, and instead are concetrating on these studies that appear to show that wifi can cause some kind of unspecified "biochemical changes."

I hadn't realised that - it's pathetic really. Just like the anti vaccers deciding that even if vaccines don't cause autism they must cause something else instead because they are BAAAAD!

I like the phrase 'wifi wingnuts' and I'm going to use it whenever an opportunity presents itself

Yuri

[OMGturt1es]

Originally Posted by luchog

You mean, aside from the fact that the empirical, scientific data fully disproves the claim of cell-phone radiation causing cancer; which you can see by scrolling up a few posts?

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

Only if you count a burn as a 'biochemical change'. Cell phones cannot and do not cause cancer, and they are not anywhere near powerful enough to cause burns.

Do you understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?

Yuri

With all due respect, I wish you would read the actual article about which this thread was posted and then re-read my response. The paper summarizes a great deal of peer reviewed, empirical research that indicates electromagnetic radiation may cause some biochemical change. Dismissing these data because they do not fit our current theoretical understanding is not skeptical. It's lazy.

I'm going to quote directly from the article:

Quote:

A number of reports have dealt with possible changes on gene/protein expression,
either at an individual gene/protein level or using the “omics” approaches. The
individual approach has focused mainly on heat shock proteins and their mRNAs
(French et al., 2001; McNamee and Chauhan, 2009), but other proteins and genes
have also been studied with conflicting, so far, results (Fritze et al., 1997; Cleary et al.,
1997; Nikolova et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2007). In order to assess large numbers of
genes and proteins, high throughput approaches have been applied in the last
decade. These “omics” approaches, also used in the present work, have gained
ground in the study of EMF effects mainly on cell cultures. Belyaev et al. (2006),
analyzing by Affymetrix U34 Gene Chips cerebellum of brain samples after whole
body 2 h exposure of rats at 915 GSM in TEM cells, revealed overexpression of
12 genes and downregulation of 1 gene. The same (Salford’s) research group 2 years
later applied Microarray hybridizations on Affymetrix rat2302 chips of RNA extracts
from cortex and hippocampus of GSM 1800 exposed rats for just 6 h within TEM cells
(Nittby et al., 2008). Using four exposed and four control animals they found that a
large number of genes were altered at hippocampus and cortex. The vast majority
were downregulated. In a series of publications by Leszczynski’s research group,
consistently using human endothelial cell lines EA.hy926 and EA.hy926v1, protein
expression changes after exposure to 900 MHz were shown (Leszczynski et al., 2002,
2004; Nylund and Leszczynski, 2004, 2006; Remondini et al., 2006). These effects
have been recently confirmed by the same group in the two types of mobile phone
exposure protocols: GSM 900 and 1800 MHz (Nylund et al., 2009). Another “omics”
group exposing human lens epithelial cells has detected heat-shock protein (HSP) 70
and heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K (hnRNP K) to be upregulated
following exposure to GSM 1800 MHz for 2 h (Li et al., 2007), whereas a third research
group exposed human breast cancer cells MCF-7 to an RF generator simulating GSM
1800 MHz signal at various SAR values and duration of exposures (Zeng et al., 2006a).
They analyzed the transcriptome and the proteome of the cells after continuous or
intermittent exposure and concluded that EMF exposure caused distinct effects on
gene and protein expression. The same authors suggested that the protein
expression changes might depend on duration and mode of exposure and
therefore a number of biological processes might be affected (Zeng et al., 2006b).
Since the above in vitro effects cannot be easily translated into humans, in 2008,
Leszczynski’s group performed a pilot study on volunteers (Karinen et al., 2008)
and showed that mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in
human skin cells. Gene expression changes as revealed using transcriptomics
had not effects on C3H 10T(1/2) mouse cells (Whitehead et al., 2006). However,
and as previously mentioned, such a limited and non systematic number of
publications using “omics” approaches does not allow for any conclusions to be
drawn concerning the impact of mobile phone emitted radiation upon cell
proteome, physiology and function (Nylund et al., 2009), as also pointed out by
Vanderstraeten and Verschaeve (2008).
Concerning research on wireless DECT base and handset radiation exposure
which is potentially harmful to millions of people, no actual experiments have been
conducted, besides the clinical studies reported by So¨derqvist et al. (2009a,b),
Havas et al. (2010) and the epidemiological studies showing increased risk for brain
tumors (Hardell and Carlberg, 2009; Khurana et al., 2009). A recently published
article highlighted the importance of mobile phone epidemiology studies in
properly addressing DECT phone use as a strong and likely confounder (Redmayne
et al., 2010).

I don't have a dog in this fight. I can't pretend to know enough about this subject to offer any commentary. And even if I did, I don't have time to review all the peer reviewed literature summarized in the introduction of this paper. And thus far, this is true of all posters in this thread.

So from where does your confidence come? You can't possibly read this introduction with a skeptical, open mind that respects the scientific process and conclude that this is an open and shut case-- unless you can demonstrate that all these studies were flawed or that this entire paper is an outright fraud. And sure, maybe they are. Maybe it is. But if that's your contention, demonstrate it.

My general rule of thumb is that if serious scientists produce serious research published in serious scientific journals, I'm probably not in a position to argue against their results. My beef isn't with WIFI or cell phones; I use a cell phone and I'm typing at my WIFI computer. My beef is with the disrespect of the scientific process that occurs when non-scientists pound their chests, stick flags in the ground, and proclaim absolute confidence regarding topics of which they have an arm-chair-analyst understanding and about which serious researchers are still uncertain.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

So from where does your confidence come? You can't possibly read this introduction with a skeptical, open mind that respects the scientific process and conclude that this is an open and shut case-- unless you can demonstrate that all these studies were flawed or that this entire paper is an outright fraud. And sure, maybe they are. Maybe it is. But if that's your contention, demonstrate it.

OK, now you need to find out what 'burden of proof' means as well as the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation .

All available evidence suggests that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause the DNA mutations necessary to cause cancers, the epidemiology suggests there is no link between mobile phone use and brain cancer and even if mobile phones did cause cancer we would be seeing an epidemic of skin, not brain cancers as skin is a far more active, labile tissue than brain.

In short the overwhelming evidence is that mobile phones cannot and do not cause cancer. Therefore the 'burden of proof' is for those claiming otherwise to prove their case satisfactorily, not for anyone else to 'disprove' studies which make such claims. It is not necessary to give a detailed refutation of every paper which comes up with conclusions which fly in the face of the overwhelming concensus on any one subject. This is where the 'confidence' comes from.

The text you have quoted has a lot of insinuations and inferences but when they say stuff like:

"They... concluded that EMF exposure caused distinct effects on gene and protein expression"

and:

"protein expression changes might depend on duration and mode of exposure and therefore a number of biological processes might be affected"

without saying what 'effects' they mean, and:

"mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin cells"

"Gene expression changes as revealed using transcriptomics had not [sic] effects on... mouse cells. However... such a limited and non systematic number of publications using “omics” approaches does not allow for any conclusions to be drawn concerning the impact of mobile phone emitted radiation upon cell proteome, physiology and function"

and:

"Concerning research on wireless DECT base and handset radiation exposure which is potentially harmful to millions of people"

I'm afraid it's got 'agenda driven', 'scare mongering', 'unscientific language' and 'weaselly qualifiers' written all over it.

You are suggesting anyone who treats this paper with scepticism is narrow minded; I would suggest that you give people the benefit of the doubt. Many of us have "been here before" with the "ground breaking, paradigm-shifting, establishment rocking paper" scenario, whether it refers to EMF, homeopathy, creationism, etc etc etc... or whatever. This is just more of the same.

Maybe once a few more different people come up with the same conclusion, once the studies are replicated and once they stop trying to squeeze as many hints and inferences out of the data which suit their pre-conceptions as possible then some of the people here might think it was worth a more serious look.

Cheers ,

Yuri

[OMGturt1es]

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

OK, now you need to find out what 'burden of proof' means as well as the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation .

Burden of proof?

Stop for a minute. Think this through. Researchers are simply reporting results from experiments. The methodologies and results have been accepted by and published in peer-reviewed journals.

You are discarding the results. You are ignoring the data.

Who has the burden of proof here?

Quote:

All available evidence suggests that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause the DNA mutations necessary to cause cancers, the epidemiology suggests there is no link between mobile phone use and brain cancer and even if mobile phones did cause cancer we would be seeing an epidemic of skin, not brain cancers as skin is a far more active, labile tissue than brain.

My understanding is that there is no known causal mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Empirical data, however, may challenge that notion. If they do, then our understanding is likely incomplete.

My understanding is that epidemological data clearly indicate that acute exposure to cell phone radiation does not cause cancer. Chronic exposure data, however, are lacking. Increased cancer risk was noted in the highest exposure group (30 minutes a day for 10 years) of the INTERPHONE study. Other studies have also indicated increased risk associated with exposures greater than 10 years (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez). But these data are scant, so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. No matter, the International Agency on the Research of Cancer of the World Health Organization "has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use" (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/p...fs/pr208_E.pdf).

If the epidemological data are uncertain enough for WHO to admit a potential link, I would suggest my posts here in defense of uncertainty are rather benign (get it?).

Finally, I have not argued that cell phones cause cancer. In my brief reading of the article lined in the OP, I did not see claims that cell phones cause cancer. In my brief reading, I saw a quick review of literature indicating that electromagnetic radiation can cause some biochemical changes and some new published data that seem to bolster previous findings.

In my brief reading of responses here, I saw multiple posters discarding this article simply because "non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer." I saw no serious review of the literature. I saw no honest discussion of potential uncertainty.

Quote:

In short the overwhelming evidence is that mobile phones cannot and do not cause cancer.

For exposure times less than 10 years, yes. Otherwise, no.

Quote:

Therefore the 'burden of proof' is for those claiming otherwise to prove their case satisfactorily, not for anyone else to 'disprove' studies which make such claims. It is not necessary to give a detailed refutation of every paper which comes up with conclusions which fly in the face of the overwhelming concensus on any one subject. This is where the 'confidence' comes from.

If you want to throw out data because they challenge your preconceived world view, that's your business. But doing so without honest consideration is not scientific skepticism. It's laziness. And it's exactly this sort of laziness that has allowed you to slip on your understanding of the current epidemological data, which may indicate increased risks for exposure times greater than 10 years.

Quote:

The text you have quoted has a lot of insinuations and inferences but when they say stuff like:

"They... concluded that EMF exposure caused distinct effects on gene and protein expression"

and:

"protein expression changes might depend on duration and mode of exposure and therefore a number of biological processes might be affected"

without saying what 'effects' they mean, and:

"mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin cells"

"Gene expression changes as revealed using transcriptomics had not [sic] effects on... mouse cells. However... such a limited and non systematic number of publications using “omics” approaches does not allow for any conclusions to be drawn concerning the impact of mobile phone emitted radiation upon cell proteome, physiology and function"

and:

"Concerning research on wireless DECT base and handset radiation exposure which is potentially harmful to millions of people"

I'm afraid it's got 'agenda driven', 'scare mongering', 'unscientific language' and 'weaselly qualifiers' written all over it.

Scientific papers are filled with uncertainties. One study doesn't prove anything. A large body of evidence is required to establish causal mechanisms. There simply are not enough chronic exposure data to either reject or establish a correlation at this time. And so the scientific literature is necessarily obligated to acknowledge uncertainty.

I don't understand how carefully acknowledging the uncertain nature of current data can be considered "scare mongering."

Quote:

You are suggesting anyone who treats this paper with scepticism is narrow minded; I would suggest that you give people the benefit of the doubt. Many of us have "been here before" with the "ground breaking, paradigm-shifting, establishment rocking paper" scenario, whether it refers to EMF, homeopathy, creationism, etc etc etc... or whatever. This is just
more of the same.

I am not suggesting that at all.

I am suggesting laziness of those who discard this paper without bothering to read it and assess the wealth of referenced research that bolster its claims. And it's not just that I'm claiming laziness. It is lazy. Discarding data just because they challenge your current worldview is lazy. It is not skeptical. It's cynical. And lazy.

Quote:

Maybe once a few more different people come up with the same conclusion, once the studies are replicated and once they stop trying to squeeze as many hints and inferences out of the data which suit their pre-conceptions as possible then some of the people here might think it was worth a more serious look.

Cheers ,

Yuri

How can you possibly write, "once the studies are replicated..."? Either the authors have incorrectly surveyed the existing scientific literature, or their studies add to an existing body of evidence that electromagnetic radiation can cause biochemical changes.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

This is an area where I think self-described skeptics are concluding far too aggressively. Anyone with a real interest in this topic should spend considerable time chasing the references listed in this article. If the article is correct, then there's plenty of literature indicating that exposure to some electromagnetic radiation may cause some biochemical changes.

We should not rely on theory to discard empirical data, but that's what we do when we argue that something cannot be true based on current theory. It's not good science. It's not good thinking. It's not good for anything other than reinforcing preexisting assumptions.

That was very, very well said. It's like a fresh breath of air. I wish more people would take what you said to heart.

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking. They start with a negative conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe. “It can’t exist, therefore, it doesn’t exist.”

When it comes to any topic that falls under the heading of 'woo', I see too much of one and not enough of the other.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

Burden of proof?

Stop for a minute. Think this through.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

Researchers are simply reporting results from experiments. The methodologies and results have been accepted by and published in peer-reviewed journals.

So anything in a "peer reviewed" journal is above criticism?

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

Who has the burden of proof here?

Like I said, the people who think non-ionising radiation can cause cancer.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

My understanding is that there is no known causal mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Empirical data, however, may challenge that notion. If they do, then our understanding is likely incomplete.

"May challenge" what does that mean? - what empirical data are you talking about, where is the epidemic of skin cancers caused by mobile phones? Empirical data may prove the moon is made of cheese but it hasn't happened yet.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

I have not argued that cell phones cause cancer. In my brief reading of the article lined in the OP, I did not see claims that cell phones cause cancer.

Well, read it again:

Quote:

The observed protein expression changes... might potentially explain human health hazards reported so far, such as... brain tumor long-term induction under similar exposure conditions.

...the clinical studies reported by So¨derqvist et al. (2009a,b),Havas et al. (2010) and the epidemiological studies showing increased risk for brain tumors (Hardell and Carlberg, 2009; Khurana et al., 2009). A recently published article highlighted the importance of mobile phone epidemiology studies in properly addressing DECT phone use as a strong and likely confounder.

Our high-throughput approach challenges the gaps in the literature investigating whether EMFs can provoke... changes that could be correlated with... brain tumor induction.

... since this protein causes... inhibition of proliferation of tumor cells, its decrease could perhaps lead in the long run to a tumor induction.

GFAP overexpression by 15 fold... may in turn cause neurotransmitter uptake dysfunction and induction of gliosis (Ammari et al., 2008), which is a key step towards the epidemiologically suggested brain tumor increase on long use of mobile phones...

Like I said, agenda driven innuendo.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

For exposure times less than 10 years, yes. Otherwise, no.

Sorry? how long have people been using cell phones - the ones 'yuppies' used in the 80's were massively more powerful than current phones - where is the epidemic?

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

the current epidemological data, which may indicate increased risks for exposure times greater than 10 years.

Hey, I think I found your dog!

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

How can you possibly write, "once the studies are replicated..."?

'Cos that's how science works.



Yuri

[Verde]

If you wish to avoid cancer, I suggest not using your cellphone outside when the Sun is shining.

V.

[OMGturt1es]

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

So anything in a "peer reviewed" journal is above criticism?

I'm growing tired of silly antics used to "win" an argument. Obviously I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'd greatly appreciate you showing a little respect and not posting straw.

Quote:

Like I said, the people who think non-ionising radiation can cause cancer.

Some folks have come to the table with empirical data that challenge our current understanding. Scientific health organizations (e.g., the WHO) have taken the data seriously enough to consider cell phones as potentially carcinogenic. But not you. You see fit to discard the data because they challenge your current understanding of the world. And then you have the gall to suggest your approach is reasonable because you don't have the burden of proof.

Lazy.

Quote:

"May challenge" what does that mean? - what empirical data are you talking about, where is the epidemic of skin cancers caused by mobile phones? Empirical data may prove the moon is made of cheese but it hasn't happened yet.

Stop with the antics. You are the one discarding these data because they challenge the notion that cellphones cannot cause cancer. If you aren't sure how these data challenge that notion, I'm not sure why you characterized them as "agenda driven" and "scare mongering."

You are not arguing to understand. You're arguing to win. This will be my last response unless you want to have an honest discussion. I have no interest in preserving my ego. I just want to understand what these data mean. You aren't helping me. You're just wasting my time.

Quote:

Well, read it again:

Thanks. I concede that the paper suggests the observed protein changes may explain increased cancer risk found by other studies.

Will you please concede that these studies... exist?

Quote:

Like I said, agenda driven innuendo.

I suggest you stay far from scientific journals then, as they are filled with agenda driven innuendo honest researchers just trying to figure out how reality works.

Quote:

Sorry? how long have people been using cell phones - the ones 'yuppies' used in the 80's were massively more powerful than current phones - where is the epidemic?

You're again being dishonest. And you know it. I've already explained that very few datasets cover chronic exposure greater than 10 years, and that some of those that do actually indicate statistically significant increased risk.

You are free to demonstrate that I am wrong. You are free to demonstrate that I've misinterpreted the few studies that assess risk for those exposed for more than 10 years. You are free to demonstrate that I am ignoring numerous datasets covering more than 10 years of exposure that do not indicate increased risk. In fact, you are encouraged to do any of these things. These would be constructive demonstrations that I could use to better understand what I should conclude.

But you're not doing that. You are ignoring these data and arguing straw. It's not good for you. It's not good for me. It doesn't actually change reality. It may feel good, but it makes you no less likely to be correct.

Quote:

Hey, I think I found your dog!

I'm sorry that the world is difficult to understand, especially given incomplete datasets. And I'm sorry that it offends you that I refuse ignore uncertainty.

Quote:

'Cos that's how science works.

More dishonesty.

Numerous studies have indicated similar outcomes. This study is duplicating previously reported results.

I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing here. You can type until your fingers blister, but these data still exist, and it's very difficult to understand how they could exist if our current understanding of cell phone radiation is complete. And that's where discussion should focus. You should be trying to explain why these data are unreliable, or how they should impact our current theory. But you're not. You're simply proudly ignoring them. And that's easy. And serious skeptical thinking isn't easy.

When the INTERPHONE study was first published, I was confident cell phones did not cause cancer. The results of the highest use group (30 minutes a day for 10 years) did not offer confidence. In fact, they indicated an increase in risk. It wasn't easy, but I necessarily had to adjust my position to account for these data, because I am committed to evidence, not ego. While my adjustment is ridiculed by self described skeptics like you, I note that I am not alone: WHO did the same.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by Verde

If you wish to avoid cancer, I suggest not using your cellphone outside when the Sun is shining.

V.

Yuri

[monoman]

Unbelievable.

[Dr. Imago]

Gene/protein expression is induced, up-regulated, down-regulated, etc. by all manner of environmental stimuli. It doesn't mean DNA damage occurs, which is the only current, known, and - most importantly - plausible mechanism of cancer formation.

I'm with Yuri on this one.

~Dr. Imago

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Coincidentally I came across two articles today which tie in with this subject but have oodles more plausibility.

This one: - http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/10/...-brain-tumors/, about this article - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...ncr.26625/full, suggests that brain tumours may be caused by dental x-rays. It's not conclusive and no one is panicking (give it time ) but at least it's plausible, x-rays being ionizing radiation, and infinitely more so than the idea that cellphone radiation causes cancer. The study though, still doesn't explain whether the incidence of tumours of the gum or facial bones is also increased by dental x-rays as would be expected, both those tissues being far more likely to develop tumours normally.

The second one is an article discussing how two intracellular proteins, Rab25 and CLIC3 can, in certain circumstances act in combination to promote the development of tumours. The original paper is here. The big difference between this one and the paper in the o.p. is the complete lack of bogus attemts to link the results with any preconcieved notions, namely that cell phones cause cancer by modifying proteins. Whatever its merits, this is just a straightforward paper, without any political 'spin' or "authors' message". That's how it should be done.

Yuri