Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of the landmark report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern", discusses the flaws in the Interphone study that render it unreliable as a gauge of risk of brain tumors from cell phones.
The 11 design flaws grossly understimate the risk, and even still, the Interphone study, just pubished in the International Journal of Epidemiology, still shows statistically significant increased risk of brain tumors after 10 years of cellphone use. This is ominous because toxicants often take decades to show tumor risks, and we are seeing it at just 10 years. Cell phone usage rates in the Interphone study were just a fraction of cell phone usage rates today among adults and children alike.
Finally, without explanation, results were not pubished for acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors which are the tumors closest to the ear against which one places the cell phone.
International EMF Collaborative Technical Analysis on Interphone Brain
Tumor Study
Why are the results from the Swedish team led by Dr. Lennart Hardell so very different than the Interphone Study?
A Swedish team led by Dr. Lennart Hardell has published results showing substantial risk of brain tumors from cellphone and cordless phone use.
These results are internally consistent to what would be expected, if cellphone are a risk of brain tumors. That is:
The higher the cumulative hours of wireless phone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the number of years since first wireless phone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the radiated power from cellphone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the exposure (use on the same side of head as the brain tumor), the higher the risk, and;
The younger the user at first use of wireless phones, the higher the risk.
Why does this Swedish team consistently find increased risk from brain tumor from cellphone use when the Interphone study does not find similar risk?
The answer is quite simple, the Swedish team does not have the two largest contributors to the systemic-protective-skew found in the Interphone Study: selection bias and treating cordless phone use as a non-exposure.
This Swedish team had an 89% participation rates of cases and controls, while the Interphone study had 77% and 63% participation of meningioma and
glioma cases respectively, and 39% participation of controls.
The Swedish team treated cordless phone use as an exposure, and the Interphone study treated cordless phone use as a non- exposure. (clearly ridiculous since it is an almost identical exposure)
Comment Reply
http://vimeo.com/8109152
Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of the landmark report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern", discusses the flaws in the Interphone study that render it unreliable as a gauge of risk of brain tumors from cell phones.
The 11 design flaws grossly understimate the risk, and even still, the Interphone study, just pubished in the International Journal of Epidemiology, still shows statistically significant increased risk of brain tumors after 10 years of cellphone use. This is ominous because toxicants often take decades to show tumor risks, and we are seeing it at just 10 years. Cell phone usage rates in the Interphone study were just a fraction of cell phone usage rates today among adults and children alike.
Finally, without explanation, results were not pubished for acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors which are the tumors closest to the ear against which one places the cell phone.
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/international-emf-collaborative-technical-analysis-on-interphone-brain-tumor-study/
International EMF Collaborative Technical Analysis on Interphone Brain
Tumor Study
Why are the results from the Swedish team led by Dr. Lennart Hardell so very different than the Interphone Study?
A Swedish team led by Dr. Lennart Hardell has published results showing substantial risk of brain tumors from cellphone and cordless phone use.
These results are internally consistent to what would be expected, if cellphone are a risk of brain tumors. That is:
The higher the cumulative hours of wireless phone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the number of years since first wireless phone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the radiated power from cellphone use, the higher the risk;
The higher the exposure (use on the same side of head as the brain tumor), the higher the risk, and;
The younger the user at first use of wireless phones, the higher the risk.
Why does this Swedish team consistently find increased risk from brain tumor from cellphone use when the Interphone study does not find similar risk?
The answer is quite simple, the Swedish team does not have the two largest contributors to the systemic-protective-skew found in the Interphone Study: selection bias and treating cordless phone use as a non-exposure.
This Swedish team had an 89% participation rates of cases and controls, while the Interphone study had 77% and 63% participation of meningioma and
glioma cases respectively, and 39% participation of controls.
The Swedish team treated cordless phone use as an exposure, and the Interphone study treated cordless phone use as a non- exposure. (clearly ridiculous since it is an almost identical exposure)
May 20, 2010 - 5:07pmThis Comment
Reply