Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:09:05 — 31.7MB)
Cell Phone Redux, A Mouse Heart, TWIWRD, Print Your Skin, Mind On Driving, Unlocking The Locked In, Bloody Chemicals, Planets And Exoplanets, A Leaky Gut, And Much More…
Show Notes:
Some of the stories we discussed…
Cell phones redux
Mouse hearts grow like the Grinch’s
This Week in World Robot Domination:
A helping Robot Hand (Thanks, Monkey)
Slip me some skin… (Thanks, David and Pamela)
Look, Ma! No hands! (Thanks, Monkey)
Get a free audiobook at Audible.com!
And join in with the bookclub: grab your copy of
This Week in Nano Medicine (Thanks, Ed and Monkey)
Planets in the making (Thanks, Ed)
50 billion exoplanets in the Milky Way (Thanks, Dale, David)
Minion mailbag
From minion Davey – “Just wanted to clear up something on Watson, it didn’t have a single microphone. So of course it couldn’t hear what the other contestants were saying and it can’t actually understand human speech. Clues were sent to Watson via text at the same time the clue was read to the humans and then after the question it was sent the right answer by text as well. The break through was in parsing the important parts of the question from all the word play that is used in the clue. There is a real nice documentary about Watson that can be found here”
If you love TWIS, please support us by donating below:
I'm the host of this little science show. 
Justin, I couldn’t agree more! Thank you!
You’re also very right about the commonplace misinterpretation of the word “radiation”.
As Kirsten mentioned, this study implies nothing about cell phones being a risk for brain cancer.
I really like how the issue was treated in
this article.
Kirsten. Cell phones don’t cause an increased risk for brain cancer.
There is overwhelming evidence that no such risk exists.
You wouldn’t say anthropogenic global warming “might” not be real.
Nor would you say that Intelligent Design “might” be the origin of species.
When the science is in, you have to accept it and move on… please. Thank you.
While this EMF link to metabolism is irrelevant in the debate on cancer risk, it is still interesting!
In fact, EMF effects on the brain have been studied a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mind-control-TMS.html (check out the video clip, it’s cool!)
Gendou, it is currently inaccurate to say definitively that “cell phones don’t cause an increased risk of brain cancer”. There is evidence that long term use for SOME cell phone users is linked to a slightly increased risk of gliomas on the same side of the head that cell phones are used. It’s not conclusive evidence. We can’t say that cell phone use caused the tumors, but it’s a significant enough result that researchers think it merits further study. Yes, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary (i.e. no correlations found – For the majority of people, cell phone use is not related to brain cancers), but the fact that it is not an open and closed case should make a skeptic pause before jumping to a certain conclusion. It is entirely plausible that for a certain segment of the population who use cell phones a certain way, neural activation from EMF radiation is linked to tumor growth. We don’t know that for sure, but to dismiss it outright is short-sighted. Please, don’t berate me on this issue. The science is not yet in.
No link:
Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79-86.
Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: Case-control study. British Medical Journal 2006; 332(7546):883-887.
Klaeboe L, Blaasaas KG, Tynes T. Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007; 16(2):158-164.
Takebayashi T, Varsier N, Kikuchi Y, et al. Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: A case-control study. British Journal of Cancer 2008; 98(3):652-659.
Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular telephones and cancer: A nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203-207.
Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: Update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707-1713.
Link:
Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. British Journal of Cancer 2005; 93(7):842-848.
Hours M, Bernard M, Montestrucq L, et al. [Cell phones and risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours: The French INTERPHONE case-control study.] Revue d’Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique 2007; 55(5):321-332.
So, you just copied the sources from:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
Let’s take a look at the conclusions:
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11150357
7. http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/883.abstract
8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297392
9. http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v98/n3/full/6604214a.html
10. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/3/203.abstract
11. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707.full
12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136046
13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851009
Articles 6 through 11, as you’ve noted, show no “link” between cell phone use and an increased risk of brain cancer.
In study 12, notice that the conclusion states their data show no evidence for, but a lack of evidence against long term risk, due to limitations of the study!
It is incorrect to conclude that this study shows a “link” between cell phone use and an increased cancer risk.
Study 13 is infamous and fascinating.
Although these results are not statistically significant, a general tendency was observed for an increased risk of glioma among the heaviest users: long-term users, heavy users, users with the largest numbers of telephones.
The study asked brain cancer patients to describe their use of telephones, including cell phones.
In the paper, potential recall and participation biases and their impact on the results were discussed.
An important follow-up to this study was performed:
13-A. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064187
Conclusions: Refusal to participate in brain tumor case-control studies seems to be related to less prevalent use of mobile phones, and this could result in a downward bias of around 10% in odds ratios for regular mobile phone use.
The use of simple selection bias estimation methods in case-control studies can give important insights into the extent of any bias, even when nonparticipant information is incomplete.
So, in summary, there is only one study that shows a link, and it’s methods are flawed by recall bias.
I would say the science is in!
How can you call this “jumping to conclusions”?
I think anyone who rejects the conclusions of this mountain of results is being radically skeptical; a vice not a virtue!
I’m going to borrow a technique I learned from Ira Flatow:
If this list of studies aren’t evidence enough for you, what would be?
What would be evidence enough?
100 studies showing no link? 1000?
At what point to you call it case closed?
I’m really sorry you feel that I’m berating you on this issue. 🙁
It’s an important issue to me.
I agree with you that, on the face of it, the hypothesis for neural activation from EMF radiation being linked to tumor growth isn’t ridiculous.
As it happens, EMF radiation to the head from cell phone use is safe.
The studies could have shown the contrary, but they ALL happen not to.
You have NOT shown “a lot of evidence to the contrary”.
There is only one study in the list you posted which FAILS to reject the hypothesis that cell phone use increases risk for brain cancer!
This study does NOT show “evidence to the contrary”, but instead shows how recall bias can ruin an otherwise meaningful result.
Regarding the ongoing cellphone discussion.
Are there any studies done on the lives saved by cellphones? I wonder how that would compare to the potential risks of cellphones?
Are more lives saved (or prolonged) with cellphones in comparison to any of the research on cellphone radiation as a risk? (If we add in ability to affect regime change, catch criminals and police in bad acts, etc. the comparison might get ridiculously weighed in one direction.)
Based entirely on personal experience, I think both the increased convenience and increased safety of having a cellphone when needed may be many, many times more valuable than the potential of health risks.
Even taking in the most extreme studies that show potentially great risk, how does that risk compare to the benefits?
Of course, nothing in here takes in to the account the balance to the general environment from producing cellphones and cell towers and such. There may be other risks to life on the planet from the production and lifecycle of cellphones and related equipment. Seems like a big knot to untangle, and not really related to the direct concept of cell phone radiation on the human brain. (It’s possible all the brain-radiation-concern acts as a red herring that distracts us from other, measurably greater costs?)
Good point, Quaid! Though the discussion has been limited to direct biological effects of cell phone use, the device has a major indirect effect on human health. As I understand it, cell phones have improved quality of life the most in the poorest countries, where land-lines never became widely available. After a bit of searching, I found 2 interesting pages:
cell-life.orghttp://bit.ly/fm388T
I read an interesting quote by Sami Grover at treehugger.com which nicely summarizes my opinion on the issue:
She was talking about global warming. Her position is one of healthy (as opposed to radical) skepticism. I hope that my own input can help bring a more healthy skepticism to this and other conversations on TWIS. 🙂
Great to hear that my school (VT) made it into the news this week!
I’d sooner believe green jelly beans cause acne than call phones cause cancer: http://xkcd.com/882/
Hi, I wanted to comment on the Leaky Gut discussion… I searched podcasts for Leaky Gut and stumbled onto yours and listened to it today. Not only can it be an issue for very hard workouts, but your gut can be damaged by antibiotics, like what happened to me.
I went on Avelox, an antibiotic, for ten days. Soon after, everything in my body started to ache to the point that I could barely walk. My Doctor tested me for lyme disease and other blood tests and couldn’t figure it out. My Nutritionist figured out that it was Leaky Gut Syndrome, basically the antibiotics ruined the stomach lining and now what I eat leaks through and gets into my bloodstream, causing aches and pains, I’m very tired, and quite b!tchy sometimes too.
Through diet changes (started out as gluten free, but now I have been more vegetarian) and staying away from yeast, sugar and mold (mushrooms), I am feeling a lot better. But far from where I used to be, an extremely active male in his mid 30’s… Your podcast is the 2nd to mention colostrum, so I think I will give it a whirl.
Thank you, and you have a great show btw!
Dan