Jump to content

sadpatato-897

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

sadpatato-897's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

3

Reputation

  1. 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.
  2. Probably everyone I know uses a phone, which is very concerning.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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!
  12. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.