What's New Robert L. Park 25 Jun 2010

WHAT=92S 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=20
science to the public is slipping away.   A month ago WHO released its lo=
ng-
awaited Interphone study of cell phones and brain cancer in 13 countries.=
 =20
The 10 year, $14 million, case-control study reports that "no increase in=
=20
risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with the use of mobile phones."=
 =20
That's the right answer, so why am I pissed?  We already knew that cell=20
phones don't cause cancer. We've known it for years. From the media=20
coverage you would think these guys just discovered it.  Let's go to the=20
next sentence:  "There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at=
=20
higher exposure levels, but biases and error prevented a causal=20
interpretation."  So is there a supernatural interpretation? That one=20
sentence undoes everything in the study.  Case-control requires human=20
recollection; at their best case-control studies are to science as polls=20
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=20
study of cell phones and brain cancer in the Journal of the National Canc=
er=20
Institute:  Johansen C.Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular=20
telephones and cancer =97 a nationwide Cohort  study in Denmark. J Natl=20
Cancer Inst 2001;93:203=967.   The study was based entirely on existing=20
public records: the Danish Cancer Registry, mobile phone charges, death=20
records, subscriptions, etc.  The conclusion was unequivocal: There was n=
o=20
correlation between cell phone use and the incidence of brain cancer.  It=
=20
was nice to have that fact confirmed, but it was not a surprise.  I was=20
invited to write an editorial on how scientists should respond to the cel=
l=20
phone/brain cancer question, for the same issue of JNCI JNCI, Vol. 93, No=
.=20
3, 166-167, February 7, 2001.  Cancer agents act by creating mutant stran=
ds=20
of DNA.  In the case of electromagnetic radiation, there is a sharp=20
threshold for this process at the extreme blue end of the visible=20
spectrum.  Albert Einstein explained this with the photoelectric effect i=
n=20
1905, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1921.   Cell phones operat=
e=20
at a frequency about 1 million times lower than the ultraviolet threshold=
=20
and hence cannot be a cause of cancer.  It's important to recognize that=20
it's not the intensity of radiation that makes it a cancer agent, but the=
=20
frequency.  =20

3. HEAT:  BUT CAN=92T MICROWAVES COOK YOUR BRAIN?
They can if you disable the interlock on your microwave oven and stick yo=
ur=20
head in it, but your cell phone operates on tiny little batteries. They=20
don't have much power.  How hot does your hand get holding your microwave=
? =20
Your body uses blood as a coolant to maintain a pretty constant temperatu=
re=20
over the body parts.  Especially the brain. It's got its work cut out for=
=20
it today in Washington.=20

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. To change your subscription
status please visit this link:
http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbobparks-whatsnew&A=3D1