WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 25 Jun 2010 Washington, DC
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Furry was Re: Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS wasRe: Baby Gazoo was Re: Adaptation was Re: Hollywood
Next: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jun 2010 22:16 > WHAT�S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 25 Jun 2010 Washington, DC > > 1. CELL PHONES: THE HIGH COST OF SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE. > An opportunity to explain one of the simplest and most powerful concepts of > science to the public is slipping away. A month ago WHO released its long- > awaited Interphone study of cell phones and brain cancer in 13 countries. > The 10 year, $14 million, case-control study reports that "no increase in > risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with the use of mobile phones." > That's the right answer, so why am I pissed? We already knew that cell > phones don't cause cancer. We've known it for years. From the media > coverage you would think these guys just discovered it. Let's go to the > next sentence: "There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at > higher exposure levels, but biases and error prevented a causal > interpretation." So is there a supernatural interpretation? That one > sentence undoes everything in the study. Case-control requires human > recollection; at their best case-control studies are to science as polls > are to elections. They may come out the same, but you can't count on it. > > 2. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: YES, BIOLOGY MUST ALSO OBEY THE LAW. > Ten years ago a group in Denmark published a beautiful epidemiological > study of cell phones and brain cancer in the Journal of the National Cancer > Institute: Johansen C.Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular > telephones and cancer � a nationwide Cohort study in Denmark. J Natl > Cancer Inst 2001;93:203�7. The study was based entirely on existing > public records: the Danish Cancer Registry, mobile phone charges, death > records, subscriptions, etc. The conclusion was unequivocal: There was no > correlation between cell phone use and the incidence of brain cancer. It > was nice to have that fact confirmed, but it was not a surprise. I was > invited to write an editorial on how scientists should respond to the cell > phone/brain cancer question, for the same issue of JNCI JNCI, Vol. 93, No. > 3, 166-167, February 7, 2001. Cancer agents act by creating mutant strands > of DNA. In the case of electromagnetic radiation, there is a sharp > threshold for this process at the extreme blue end of the visible > spectrum. Albert Einstein explained this with the photoelectric effect in > 1905, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1921. Cell phones operate > at a frequency about 1 million times lower than the ultraviolet threshold > and hence cannot be a cause of cancer. It's important to recognize that > it's not the intensity of radiation that makes it a cancer agent, but the > frequency. > > 3. HEAT: BUT CAN�T MICROWAVES COOK YOUR BRAIN? > They can if you disable the interlock on your microwave oven and stick your > head in it, but your cell phone operates on tiny little batteries. They > don't have much power. How hot does your hand get holding your microwave? > Your body uses blood as a coolant to maintain a pretty constant temperature > over the body parts. Especially the brain. It's got its work cut out for > it today in Washington. > > THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. > Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the > University of Maryland, but they should be. > --- > Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org > What's New is moving to a different listserver and our > subscription process has changed. |