September 28, 2008

Rebuttal to NCI’s Cellphone “Information”

Filed under: Science and Mobile Radio - Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk — omeganews @ 8:36 pm

The following is a precis of the NCI’s Cellphone “information” posted on their website.

Lloyd Morgan

Cell Phones and Brain Cancer: What We Know (and Don’t Know)

A Précis of Dr. Peter Inskip’s Testimony

The beginning emphasis is that there is no risk of brain tumors within the first 10 years of cellphone use.  This amounts to whistling in the dark.  The question to ask is: Would a risk of lung cancer be found in the first 10 years of smoking?

His testimony then shifts to: There is no known biological mechanism.  This is a specious, anti-scientific argument.  It assumes that science already knows every mechanism.  Science is about data (the result of experiments testing how the universe actually behaves).  When the known mechanism of the universe was Newtonian physics, the data showing the precession of the orbit of the planet mercury could not be explained.  The data was not ignored because there was no known mechanism.  The data was considered the scientific reality.  Later, Einstein provided the mechanism.  The sequence of almost all of science is, first there is the data (almost always without an understanding of a mechanism); afterwards there is a mechanism.

He then remarks, “Since then most studies have not found a link between cell phones and cancer.”  Since then there are only two studies (multiple publications, but only two studies), the Hardell studies and the Interphone studies.  The Hardell studies are never mentioned.

The Hardell team found that use of a cellphone or cordless phone significantly increases the risk of brain tumors.  Their findings also have an internal consistency.  That is, their findings are internally consistent if cellphone use is a risk of brain tumors.

·        The higher the cumulative hours of use, the higher the risk;

·        The higher the radiated power, the higher the risk;

·        The higher the number of years since first use, the higher the risk;

·        The higher the exposure (tumor on the same side of the head where the cellphone or cordless phone was held), the higher the risk, and;

·        The younger the user, the higher the risk.

Next he shifts to the argument that no increased incidence has been seen.  The reality is that no increased incidence because the latency time for brain tumors similar to lung and other cancer is several decades.  It is too early to see an increased incidence.[1]

Finally, he turns to future studies.  He remarks, that the “combined analysis of the Interphone study “is not yet complete.”  The analysis was completed by late 2004.  Elizabeth Cardis said it would be published in 2005.[2] He never mentions that the Interphone, like the Hardell studies, always finds a significant increased risk of brain tumor when a cellphone is used for 10 or more years on the same side of the head where the tumor was found.

Lastly, he comments on future studies. By the time these studies are published it will be too late.

[1] The first cellphones, used by a tiny percentage of the United States population, was in 1984.  Thirty years afterwards, a reasonable latency time, is 2014.

[2] I have a copy of her statement if needed.

Blog at