Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

In article <6p3c33d7fdrsgerlgrn0untnamj5namgnl@xxxxxxx>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
users) has increased dramatically in the same time span.

But most cancers that are related to such thing (not "naturally
occurring" for lack of a better term") have dose-response relationships.
The longer you smoke the more lung cancers you see. Asbestos and radon
are both more likely with longer exposures than with shorter ones. Most
chemical cancers same way.
*IF* (real big if) cell phones are going to cause cancers by the
ways suggested, then you have to wait out lag times, because they will
be there.


It has
increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
use and brain cancer should track.
Right, they should track, but not right away because the
damage with cancers are related to long-term exposures. Their relative
waste hazard has little to do with their health hazard within the
context of their use. .

However, I will grant that the decrease in SAR (specific absorption
rate) may balance the increase in cell phone usage. There may also be
non-linear threshold effects. However, if these were the case, one
would expect to see some variations in the brain cancer rate. There
have been none. The curve is flat.

May (or may not be) just that the cases haven't started showing
up yet. Look at the timeline with women and lung cancer, for example,
where they started smoking in increasing numbers, but the spike in lung
cancer in women did not begin until 20 years later. Cancers work that
way.


What you're suggesting is very common in research, where the mantra
"more research is necessary" is traditionally added to any research
report. 10+ more years of throwing money at a problem that doesn't
exist isn't very useful. However, paranoia and statistical ineptitude
are powerful political motivators. Maybe add a cancer research tax
fund to our cell phone bills and be done with it?

What you are suggesting is very common when discussing epidemiology,
not understanding that cancers and other diseases don't just pop up.
.