Making Sense of Science
   
June 2010
 
 


To unsubscribe:
Reply to the newsletter and place the word REMOVE in the subject line.
 
 
Do You Want Innovation to COST LESS MONEY, TAKE LESS TIME, and involve LESS RISK?  It can be done!  Find out how.  Visit  The Innovation Guru.
 

Why Is There No Link Between Cancer and Mobile Phones?

Two large studies in Europe recently failed to find any link between mobile phones and cancer.  How is that possible?

For years, everybody "knew" that mobile phones were somehow killing us with radiation.  Is this an example of a myth that became an accepted, unquestioned fact through repetition in the media?  Did people jump to this dodgy conclusion without any evidence and in spite of sound, well-established scientific facts?  Yes, my friend, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

To respond or send a personal message to me, please do not reply to this message, but instead please go to my contact page or visit me at www.johnsjacob.com.  Also, you can now see me on YouTube at TheInnovationGuru.

Why exactly does mobile phone radiation have no effect upon us, and how can we be so sure?  It's a question of the radiation's wavelength and power.  Electromagnetic waves around the 10-cm mark don't have enough "kick" to break chemical bonds found in human cells and DNA.  Besides, the amount of energy absorbed by the body from a mobile phone is roughly the amount required to power a digital watch.  We've all heard the statement, "There is no known way for mobile phone radiation to cause cancer."  But what about the ways that are UNKNOWN?  

Are there unknown ways that mobile phones might be damaging our cells and our DNA?  This confused and mistaken belief was created by sloppy communication.  Rather than the above statement, a more accurate statement would be the following, "All of the ways in which cell phone radiation is absorbed by the human body are known, and none of them result in cell damage of any sort, much less cancer.  All of the kinds of radiation that cause cancer are known, and none of them can be found coming out of your phone." 

Can you see how the two versions might be interpreted in opposite ways?  The first statement might be seen to imply that it is happening and we don't know why.  The other statement  more clearly explains that it isn't happening because it doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen because there are no physical means by which it can happen. 

These massive European studies were done using the health records of thousands of people over many years during which time mobile phone usage was exploding.   It is no surprise that they were unable to detect any connection between mobile phones and cancer.  For more information on these studies and the reasons they "failed,"  visit this link

The medical researchers discovered nothing more or less than that which physicists had predicted.  When a "theory" is correct, it makes accurate predictions of things before they are observed.

Maybe there is some kind of radiation we don't know about yet?  If that is so, then maybe there are also some new numbers between 0 and 9 that haven't been noticed yet.  Let's see: there's 1, and of course 2, yes we know about that one already, and 3  . . . . 

All radiation has a wavelength and a frequency, and these are represented by numbers from 0 to as high as you care to measure.  None of them are in any way hidden from our view.  Sure, there are mysteries and things in the universe that are unknown to us at this time, but there are also plenty of things that science has fully exposed, and about which we know all there is to know.

What about those previous cancer studies that said there might be a cancer-cellphone connection?  Those studies were deeply flawed in two ways.  First, the correct conclusion to draw from those studies was not that a link has been found, but rather that a link could not be ruled out with complete confidence using the available data.   There is a vast difference between those two statements, yet using one for the other is a mistake that poorly-trained scientists and untrained journalists often make.

Second, those studies were flawed in that they did not propose or investigate any credible mechanism obeying the laws of nature through which such a link might occur.  They did not address the physical facts about what radiation is and how it works.  Everyone can contribute to scientific accuracy by asking the right questions and holding our scientists and journalists to a high standard of precision in their communication.   When a study claims to reach a conclusion, always ask why and how.

I'm not going to let mobile phones off the hook this easily, however.  It turns out they are in fact quite dangerous,  They kill people all the time.  How?

Real-life tests have proven that drivers talking on a mobile phone while behind the wheel are on average more impaired and more likely to have an accident than someone who is legally drunk.  That's how using a mobile phone can kill you or kill someone's child:  by using it when you really should be doing something else.  Like predicting the movements of cars and pedestrians in front of you.

Finally, while we're predicting things, how many of my readers will react angrily to having yet another cherished belief blown away by facts?  3.6%.  I can virtually guarantee it.  Won't this prediction skew the results?  No.  That 3.6% has stopped reading long before now.

Best Regards,

John

 
 
 
Our mailing address:
Wallingup Research
PO Box 2208
Carlisle North 6101
Western Australia
Australia

Copyright (C) 2010 Wallingup Research All rights reserved.