ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th July 2018, 10:24 AM   #321
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
This is the bit in this study that caused me a chuckle:

Quote:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/d1e65ba8eb58...&alloworigin=1

The power density values read by the mobile phone company are extremely low, suspiciously low, compared with measurements taken near other base stations (Ab del-Rassoul et al. 2006). Furthermore, the power density was measured only once by the mobile phone company, whereas this kind of measurement should be conducted several times. Although the power density, as measured by the mobile phone company, was too low to be considered relevant in aggravating the health problems experienced by residents, we have used these measurements as reference levels in this case study.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:32 AM   #322
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
There are studies out there. How about this one? Trouble is that I cannot get access to the papers freely.


Quote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021

OBJECTIVES:
This study is concerned with assessing the role of exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) emitted either from mobiles or base stations and its relations with human's hormone profiles.

DESIGN AND METHODS:
All volunteers' samples were collected for hormonal analysis.
RESULTS:

This study showed significant decrease in volunteers' ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels.

CONCLUSION:
The present study revealed that high RFR effects on pituitary-adrenal axis.
Quote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...330?via%3Dihub

This study is concerned with assessing the role of long-term exposure to high radio frequency radiation emitted either from mobile phones or from base stations and its relations with human's hormone profiles.
All volunteers are followed for 6 years and blood samples were collected regularly every 3 years for time intervals of 1 year, 3 years and 6 years for hormonal analysis and the blood samples were taken at 8.0 a.m.

This study showed reduction in volunteers' plasma ACTH, serum cortisol levels. Also, they showed decrease in the release of the thyroid hormones especially T3. In addition, each of their serum prolactin in young females (14–22 years), and testosterone levels significantly dropped due to long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation.

Conversely, serum prolactin levels for adult females (25–60 years) significantly rose with increasing exposure time. In conclusion, the present study revealed that high radio frequency radiation effects on pituitary–adrenal axis represented in the reduction of ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin in young females, and testosterone levels.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:46 AM   #323
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
There are studies that are trying to correlate health and base stations:

Quote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969711005754

Between 1996 and 2006, 7191 deaths by neoplasia occurred and within an area of 500 m from the BS, the mortality rate was 34.76 per 10,000 inhabitants.

Outside of this area, a decrease in the number of deaths by neoplasia occurred.

The greatest accumulated incidence was 5.83 per 1000 in the Central-Southern region and the lowest incidence was 2.05 per 1000 in the Barreiro region.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:53 AM   #324
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
Here is one that questions the label of hysteria and nocebo effects:


Quote:
http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1454...biomarkers.pdf

By using the battery of biomarkers we have investigated in this study it now seems possible to objectively characterize and identify EHS and MCS
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 12:59 PM   #325
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,405
Are you expecting us to analyse and critique every study you decide to cherry pick?

Once again: cherry picking only the studies which appear to support what you have decided to believe is what crackpots and conspiracy theorists do. For an honest assessment of the evidence you need to look at all of it.

Just for a change, why don't you analyse and critique some of the dozens of studies which show no harm and explain why those results should be discounted?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 01:19 PM   #326
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
There are studies that are trying to correlate health and base stations:
that is weird, the base station is per 10.000 whereas the other numbers are per 1000 and the 5.83 should thus be 58.3, and greater than around the bs!
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Last edited by tusenfem; 11th July 2018 at 01:21 PM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:35 PM   #327
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Here is one that questions the label of hysteria and nocebo effects:

I don't think the study says what you think it says!

Quote:
By using the battery of biomarkers we have investigated in this study it now seems possible to objectively characterize and identify EHS and MCS. Although termed “idiopathic”, IEI has been defined as abnormal responses possibly (!) triggered by exposure to organic chemicals and/ or metals. It is believed that in addition, to MCS several pathological disorders such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, because they may share a similar environment-related intolerance condition, could be part of IEI. We have shown multiple lines of evidence that EHS and MCS share a similar pathogenesis and so might be the same pathological disorder whatever their putative causal stressors. This strongly reinforces the concept that both EHS and MCS must be part of the so called IEI syndrome.

EHS: electromagnetic hypersensitivity (Wikipedia)
IEI: idiopathic environmental intolerance (Wikipedia)
MCS: multiple chemical sensitivity (Wikipedia)

Quote:
A systematic review in 2005 showed no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields. Since then, several double-blind (!!!) experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect.
electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Quote:
Although the symptoms themselves are real, and can be disabling, MCS is not recognized as an organic, chemical-caused illness by the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, or any of several other professional medical organizations. Blinded (!!!) clinical trials show that people with MCS react as often and as strongly to placebos as they do to chemical stimuli; the existence and severity of symptoms is related to perception that a chemical stimulus is present.
idiopathic environmental intolerance]multiple chemical sensitivity (Wikipedia)

In other words, people's imagination and anxieties make them sick. When the study says that "the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism," i.e. that the different values that can me measured by means of blood samples are similar, it simply means that what they have in common is their fears and anxieties!
(People doing actual research wouldn't put it as bluntly as I do!)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 11th July 2018 at 02:42 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:41 PM   #328
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,141
PS
This was probably posted already in this thread, but it deserves to be repeated: Cancer Stat Facts: Brain and Other Nervous System Cancer - 1992-2015
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:41 PM   #329
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Here is one that questions the label of hysteria and nocebo effects:

From the conclusions of your linked article:

Quote:
Whatever the causal origin of EHS and/or MCS, there is compelling evidence that EHS and/or MCS self-reporting patients constitute an unsolved, large and growing health problem worldwide.
As far as EHS is concerned, about 1%–10% of the investigated population, e.g. 5% in Switzerland (13), 5% in Ireland, 9% in Sweden, 9% in Germany and 11% in England are presently estimated to be EHS self-reporting persons (201). Given the seven billion persons worldwide using cordless and/or mobile phone it is expected these percentages may increase in the 50 next years. However, because at the time these estimations were made there was no objective criteria for identifying EHS (21), these data require confirmation by more objective investigations.

EHS is short for electrohypersensitivity. Note that this is talking about persons self-reporting EHS and that the authors are drawing no conclusions, saying that the proposed diagnostic criteria they describe had not been applied to any such persons at least at the time the article was published in 2015.

You blithely throw this over the wal,l expecting us to accept it as evidence. Why? "No claimer" excuse in 3,2,1...

ETA: ninja'd in part by dann
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 11th July 2018 at 04:43 PM.
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:28 PM   #330
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,655
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Do you know which study it was?
The citation is on the podcast page, but you'll actually have to listen to the show for the discussion.

https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/678
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:49 PM   #331
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you expecting us to analyse and critique every study you decide to cherry pick?

Once again: cherry picking only the studies which appear to support what you have decided to believe is what crackpots and conspiracy theorists do. For an honest assessment of the evidence you need to look at all of it.

Just for a change, why don't you analyse and critique some of the dozens of studies which show no harm and explain why those results should be discounted?

So your definition of cherry picking is just what ICNIRP does. This one shows no harm - acceptable. This study shows harm - not acceptable.

Then you say I am cherry picking because I use one study that indicates harm. How many do you need? It is not a matter of 1,000 studies show no harm so I have to present 1,001 studies showing harm in order to prove there is harm.

And the reason for rejecting the studies is very simple. ICNIRP has decided that harm can only come from either heating effects or from ionising effects. How unscientific.

People are beginning to see how biased the ICNIRP and WHO committees are. But you refuse to believe that bias can influence their "scientific" analysis of the various papers - even though they are mostly engineers reviewing medical studies.

Here is a paper that tackles the bias at these organizations:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3527...7-4046-AOP-PDF
Have a look at table 1 on page 4 regarding the commonality of members on different committees.

Also:
https://es-ireland.com/2016/12/20/ha...ked-by-icnirp/
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:50 PM   #332
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The citation is on the podcast page, but you'll actually have to listen to the show for the discussion.

https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/678

Thanks. I eventually got it and downloaded it so I can skip to the discussion which I will do now.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:24 AM   #333
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,405
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So your definition of cherry picking is just what ICNIRP does. This one shows no harm - acceptable. This study shows harm - not acceptable.
Wrong. Trying reading my posts again, and this time don't assume you already know what I mean.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:26 PM   #334
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,655
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So your definition of cherry picking is just what ICNIRP does. This one shows no harm - acceptable. This study shows harm - not acceptable.
No, that's not how it works. You look at all the studies. And when the studies show no harm are more numerous, better designed and show more robust results than the studies that show harm, then you conclude that there is probably no harm.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 12:51 AM   #335
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,405
A disgraceful piece in today's Observer:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...venient-truths

Two BTL comments sum it up:

Quote:
Essentially the article's message is that scientists are split on whether phones cause cancer, but when you remove industry-funded research the balance clearly tips towards the positive. This is likened to what happened with smoking, where the industry funds research in order to keep the argument alive and prevent stronger conclusions being reached.

I'm all for getting industry funding out of this research. But it's important to present an accurate sense of what current literature tells us- and from what I can gather it doesn't resemble the picture painted by the article.

It seems that there are a ton of studies which in aggregate show a mixed picture. But most of those can't be used to draw any firm conclusions because of the nature of the experiments involved. For example, many involve subjecting lab-cultivated cells to radiation rather than cells in a human body, or rats, or much higher levels of exposure. Others involve possible confounding variables which we can't rule out.

But there are a couple of more reliable large-scake cohort studies available and these suggest that there is no link. Add that to a lack of spike in cancer rates in the general population since the spread of mobile technology, plus the lack of a plausible mechanism for how phones would actually cause cancer and the evidence is clearly pointing towards there being no link. More research is needed to be sure, however, hence the precautionary advice.

So while there's nothing outright false in the article or on the level of anti-vaxxer stuff, it is misrepresentating the science in a sensationalist manner- and one which probably is counterproductive to the goal of removing conflicts of interest in science.


Quote:
If Ben Goldacre still worked here he would probably resign in disgust that this nonsense was published.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 10:50 AM   #336
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,901
Back on Sunday. Beach holiday. Weather good - no surprise. Got a drug resistant chest infection last week. Some twists and turns there.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 11:31 AM   #337
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,231
Something from Science-Based Medicine, yesterday:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad...dia-for-fools/
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 11:51 AM   #338
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Quote:
If Ben Goldacre still worked here he would probably resign in disgust that this nonsense was published.

Ben Goldacre: Essex electrosensitivity study results ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 11:59 PM   #339
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,324
There was an interesting story about mobile phones and cancer in the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 02:55 AM   #340
Grashtel
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
There was an interesting story about mobile phones and cancer in the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.
Any chance of a summary for those of us without a subscription?
Grashtel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 03:21 AM   #341
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by Grashtel View Post
Any chance of a summary for those of us without a subscription?
Don't have the magazine with me here at the office, but there were two separate tests of full body irradiating rats and mice and check them for brain and heart cancer (cannot remember the actual names right now).

In one of the two tests they found that only male rats developed a higher number of tumors, however, it could not be excluded that these were more than natural chance of getting tumors. The irradiation was, however, much much higher than one would actually get using a mobile phone or live near a base station, on the order of tens of watts per kg.

But I will have to look it up when I get home today before I write up nonsense.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.