Here we go again. Sometime today (May 18, 2010) a report from a massive study by the Interphone International Study Group of the potential cancer causing effects of using cell phones will be released in the International Journal of Epidemiology. This $24 million United Nations sponsored study spanning a decade and 13 countries was the largest such study in history. It promises to be déjà vu all over again (pace, Yogi Berra). This study, which I presume was intended to be the mother of all such studies, involving as it did over 13,000 participants and a passel of top international specialists, apparently comes to a wheezing conclusion: Do cell phones cause cancer?…uh, we don’t know for sure, uh, maybe some kinds of cancer…probably not for most uses, or most people…uh.
In other words, the results in all their inconclusive glory will be spun by anybody with a half a PR brain into words of pure gossamer and gold in the service of whatever product or point of view they represent. I can hardly wait.
Here’s one tid-bit type of observation found in the study: The combination of all cell phone users (that’s all types from occasional to heavy users) not only does not have more cancer than those people who do not use cell phones – they appear to have less cancer. However, for heavy users of cell phones, there is a different story – they appear to have more risk of cancer. The kicker is: There is no completely satisfactory explanation for these findings; or put another way – there will be many possible explanations. That, my friends, is an open invitation for spin.
Along with the spin, there will apparently be some finger pointing among the scientists. Some are already claiming that the study is ‘flawed.’ This is the semi-polite language of scientists telling other scientists that either they screwed-up, were biased, or took the wrong approach from the get-go. As in previous iterations of this acrimonious debate, the time-line is a persistent problem. It takes 20-30 years for many forms of brain cancer, particularly the nasty glioma types, to develop. Most people have not been using cell phones that long. So in a sense, all data is premature…and that’s just for starters.
Naturally, any dissension in the scientific ranks will find eager amplifiers. Do not be surprised if this study becomes an instant finger-wagging topic for all sorts of anti-science mouthpieces.
Hopefully, buried within the mound of the study, someone will find enough artifacts to draw some relatively novel if not wholly useful insights. The problem – and by problem I don’t mean just the hard proof that using cell phones cause cancer, but the problem of the continual doubt about the technology, combined with what is obviously a problem among those who are trying to put a definition to the problem (What frequencies are bad? What kind of use exposure? Does cell phone design influence the outcome? Does length of each single use matter? What types of cancer?…and so on and so forth.) – the problem isn’t going away. In fact, as cell phone use has grown faster than any other technology in history (over four billion served already), if there is a real problem, even a very small one, the numbers will magnify it.
Even so…even if cell phone use causes a few cases of cancer…will that change the patterns of use? Perhaps. You could expect cell phone manufacturers and the telephone industry to simultaneously downplay the risks, while promoting ‘innovations’ in cell phones that putatively remove the risk. Or you could think of it this way: Driving a car is one of the most dangerous and risky things a human being will ever do. More people are killed driving in almost every country in the world than by any major disease. Therefore most people have given up driving a car. Right?
It is somewhat amazing the degree to which we poor human sapiens are willing to take seemingly remote risks – even with our lives – for things that have a demonstrable benefit in the here and now. (I could add…or have a demonstrable pleasure in the here and now, as well.)
So, who or what takes the blame for this situation? Ah. What blame? No harm, no foul. Or maybe just a little bit of harm, still no foul. And science, doing what science often does with problems having too many data points, too many variables, and too many possible interpretations – science will punt the problem down the road for another study to be held when the techniques of measurement are better, the numbers of people involved are greater, and the results of this study are almost totally forgotten.
Cell phones and cancer: Another inconclusive round of study
Here we go again. Sometime today (May 18, 2010) a report from a massive study by the Interphone International Study Group of the potential cancer causing effects of using cell phones will be released in the International Journal of Epidemiology. This $24 million United Nations sponsored study spanning a decade and 13 countries was the largest such study in history. It promises to be déjà vu all over again (pace, Yogi Berra). This study, which I presume was intended to be the mother of all such studies, involving as it did over 13,000 participants and a passel of top international specialists, apparently comes to a wheezing conclusion: Do cell phones cause cancer?…uh, we don’t know for sure, uh, maybe some kinds of cancer…probably not for most uses, or most people…uh.
In other words, the results in all their inconclusive glory will be spun by anybody with a half a PR brain into words of pure gossamer and gold in the service of whatever product or point of view they represent. I can hardly wait.
Here’s one tid-bit type of observation found in the study: The combination of all cell phone users (that’s all types from occasional to heavy users) not only does not have more cancer than those people who do not use cell phones – they appear to have less cancer. However, for heavy users of cell phones, there is a different story – they appear to have more risk of cancer. The kicker is: There is no completely satisfactory explanation for these findings; or put another way – there will be many possible explanations. That, my friends, is an open invitation for spin.
Along with the spin, there will apparently be some finger pointing among the scientists. Some are already claiming that the study is ‘flawed.’ This is the semi-polite language of scientists telling other scientists that either they screwed-up, were biased, or took the wrong approach from the get-go. As in previous iterations of this acrimonious debate, the time-line is a persistent problem. It takes 20-30 years for many forms of brain cancer, particularly the nasty glioma types, to develop. Most people have not been using cell phones that long. So in a sense, all data is premature…and that’s just for starters.
Naturally, any dissension in the scientific ranks will find eager amplifiers. Do not be surprised if this study becomes an instant finger-wagging topic for all sorts of anti-science mouthpieces.
Hopefully, buried within the mound of the study, someone will find enough artifacts to draw some relatively novel if not wholly useful insights. The problem – and by problem I don’t mean just the hard proof that using cell phones cause cancer, but the problem of the continual doubt about the technology, combined with what is obviously a problem among those who are trying to put a definition to the problem (What frequencies are bad? What kind of use exposure? Does cell phone design influence the outcome? Does length of each single use matter? What types of cancer?…and so on and so forth.) – the problem isn’t going away. In fact, as cell phone use has grown faster than any other technology in history (over four billion served already), if there is a real problem, even a very small one, the numbers will magnify it.
Even so…even if cell phone use causes a few cases of cancer…will that change the patterns of use? Perhaps. You could expect cell phone manufacturers and the telephone industry to simultaneously downplay the risks, while promoting ‘innovations’ in cell phones that putatively remove the risk. Or you could think of it this way: Driving a car is one of the most dangerous and risky things a human being will ever do. More people are killed driving in almost every country in the world than by any major disease. Therefore most people have given up driving a car. Right?
It is somewhat amazing the degree to which we poor human sapiens are willing to take seemingly remote risks – even with our lives – for things that have a demonstrable benefit in the here and now. (I could add…or have a demonstrable pleasure in the here and now, as well.)
So, who or what takes the blame for this situation? Ah. What blame? No harm, no foul. Or maybe just a little bit of harm, still no foul. And science, doing what science often does with problems having too many data points, too many variables, and too many possible interpretations – science will punt the problem down the road for another study to be held when the techniques of measurement are better, the numbers of people involved are greater, and the results of this study are almost totally forgotten.