Perhaps, but the Independent has a long history of posting spurious health and environment articles (e.g., "Mobile phone threat to honeybees", which was a massive press misunderstanding because CCD was such a headline-grabber at the time). Guilt by association is a real and valid reason to dismiss a news article about a complex scientific subject. Even the article itself mentions the general line:
> Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
People talk about the dangers of radiation, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same kind of radiation we generally worry about. Anything that uses electricity and wires creates this kind of radiant energy, including pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.
That doesn't mean there is no potential for health risks, but thus far the science suggests no significant increase in risk. What's more, the mechanism for such health risks is likewise unclear as the wavelengths for cellphone radiation are quite long. It's also unclear why cellphones would cause problems but people living near radio transmitters wouldn't (and we'd have probably seen these effects by now, radio isn't exactly new).
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up long term clinical studies. In the meantime, all we can do is wait.
Dismissing a news article based on association is, for me, not a very good method. Following the link that it provides is a useful method. In this case to the actual paper in question:
If the Register ran an article on a startup company, would that invalidate what is really presented?
"Mobile Operator Association" sends up red flags for conflict of interest in this argument. Not that I dismiss, but would hope for a more independent assessment.
"the science suggests" is, to me, an appeal to the authority of a select number of papers and implies that the paper in question is not "science". I do not see a conflict on interest or false scientific reasoning in the paper in question. If anything, this paper could be considered "newer science with more data" with its 2008 publish date and recently cited studies.
The author directly contests the assumption that the long wavelengths used by cellphones result in less risk to the users. He also mentions a report of an office in the top floor being closed due to the "seventh working in as many years" being diagnosed with brain cancer that he attributes to a cell phone tower directly above the office.
The current body of medical literature is at best ambivalent about the risk of long-term exposure. That's not an appeal to authority, that's just checking on the state of the literature.
Science is always open to revision, and so I don't think it's impossible that this is true (indeed, I use a handsfree religiously to minimize my potential risk). But there isn't any hard evidence, and one study does should not a panic take, especially given the profound and subjectively positive social implications of mobile computing and mobile communication.
The article has nothing new for me, except sensationalist rhetoric and carefully worded (and carelessly paraphrased) "Mobile Operator Association points to these studies", when really that's the gross body of the current medical literature. It's not cherry-picked literature, the bulk of the literature suggests it is not true. That's not a conflict of interest, that's just pointing to the independently funded science.
As for the story about the top floor of the tower, why would only their heads be getting cancer if they're being universally exposed? The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Whenever we have a somewhat difficult to reproduce condition with less-than-certain explanation in terms of the physical method, I demand more solid evidence before taking drastic action. I also think that news outlets like the register should take more responsibility and demand more evidence before pulling out the dramatic horn kicks and warming up a headline like this one.
People have been expressing fear over EMF for a long time now, and in general these fears have been dismissed and unsupported by scientific examination. Until I see some hard evidence, I consider a cellphone is about as harmful as a microwave. That is to say, there are small potential risks (particularly with damaged units), but I'm more likely to be struck by a car while commuting to work.
My point wasn't "guilty by association", though given the reputation of the original source, I can see how it would be read that way.
My point is that progress in the medical sciences isn't charted through "exclusive reports" to newspapers. As anyone who clicks through the link you've helpfully provided will note, this is a story based on a white paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article.
I'm sorry, I don't know offhand what the "DH" code is for the error this newspaper article made. I suspect it's a high number. 23, perhaps.
Sorry, my bad. I tend to confuse one pseudo-science endorsing rag with another. I corrected the article, confirmed that the Independent also ran the story.
Thanks for the time you took to offer the correction!
> Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
People talk about the dangers of radiation, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same kind of radiation we generally worry about. Anything that uses electricity and wires creates this kind of radiant energy, including pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.
That doesn't mean there is no potential for health risks, but thus far the science suggests no significant increase in risk. What's more, the mechanism for such health risks is likewise unclear as the wavelengths for cellphone radiation are quite long. It's also unclear why cellphones would cause problems but people living near radio transmitters wouldn't (and we'd have probably seen these effects by now, radio isn't exactly new).
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up long term clinical studies. In the meantime, all we can do is wait.