Probability of Brain Cancer from a cell phone?!

[chickened]

Ask him "what doesn't cause cancer?" The whole "this causes cancer or that causes cancer thing is revenue driven, I know people who have it or had it that were never in the risk group and were health freaks. It does sound like he is more concerned about what your responsibility level will be with the phone. A good friend of ours has taken the phones from their girls multiple times for "sexting" and lewd photo use. Maybe discuss the sore spots with him if you have not already.

 

[welsummerchicks]

I don't think it's that black and white.

I do think there are things out there that cause cancer.

And yes, actually, I do think that a 'healthy lifestyle' helps to prevent cancer. By that I mean a low fat diet, maintaining a low body weight via careful eating and exercise...you know...things people don't want to do, LOL. I think a good many people believe they can live an unhealthy lifestyle and just pop a pill, vitamin or supplement to 'cancel it out'.

But I don't think that most studies that show an ASSOCIATION prove cause.

Let's say, for example, that people who eat farkleberries seem to get less nose cancer. Have we shown HOW farkleberries do that? No, we just noticed that for some odd reason, that's how our math looks. Hmmm, that's interesting. Is it because farkleberries really prevent cancer, or is that because of dozens of other things farkleberry eaters also do? The answer is usually, 'hmmmm, that's interesting'.

So some bright young fellow is now selling Farkleberries for 10 dollars a pound, swearing up and down if you get your minimum daily amount of Farkleberries, you can save a lot on medical bills - and forget those painful, expensive tests - you don't need em! Just eat Farkleberries, and um, oh by the way, they prevent ALL cancers, not just nose cancers!

And suddenly, there's a uptick in fatalities from nose cancer especially, but an increase in all cancers in general.

But boy are Farkleberries selling like hotcakes....

Another example is the 'if you keep your brain busy, you won't get Alzheimers' idea.

No one has ever proved that that's true.

People who keep their brain busy seem to get less Alzheimers. Sure. People who are out and about, socializing, doing cross word puzzles, doing demanding jobs that require a lot of memory skills, fewer of them seem to eventually get, or have, Alzheimers.

But is that because people who get Alzheimers, very soon start doing less with their brain, or is doing more with their brain really PREVENTING Alzheimers?

No one can prove that doing stimulating activities PREVENTS Alzheimers. But since it's good to do activities, to challenge your brain in general, because it's satisfying and fun, what could it hurt to plan a few extra activities, take a language course, learn something new?

Another case was really - DAMAGING. Led to a lot of very mixed up ideas and bad decisions - it was this - 'College helps Schizophrenics'. The idea was that college reduced the severity of the disease.

This was a BIG MISS. College did NOT make people well or better, or reduce disease. The simple fact was this - people with milder illness were the only ones who could withstand stress of college. College is incredibly stressful and confusing for a seriously ill person. Some folks have trouble doing basic activities of daily living - college is difficult even for chronically normal kids, it can be a disaster for sicker folks.

As a result I spent much of my college career rescueing kids from window ledges and wrestling big pieces of glass out of people's hands that they were trying to cut their own throats with - they were messed up and sick and parents should not have shipped them off to a strange place and left them there.

For example, a study came out (and it was a joke), and the result read,

'Schizophrenia caused by high heeled shoes worn by mother!'

The study was a joke, but the point the author was trying to make is that showing an ASSOCIATION between two sets of numbers doesn't automatically, by itself, prove a cause.

I could certainly get you some linkage and association studies on cancerm and show you similar flaws of logic.

Many times, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the study, but media and lay readers don't get that the study CAN'T prove what they are saying it proves. It can only do what it was DESIGNED to do, which is usually to make people go, 'Hmm, that's interesting'.

It takes literally thousands of studies, each one going at the problem from a slightly different angle, to PROVE something. That's why medical knowledge is NOT about one study, and an instant success, and sudden blinding-white-light discoveries - usually.

The mathematics of a study can get over-interpreted in the media. I regularly see a conclusion on a study that says, 'This is an interesting association between A and B, but more research is needed'.

The scientists doing the study rarely conclude 'A is caused by B', what they usually conclude is, 'hmmmm, that's interesting, I wonder if anyone else got those results in a similar study, or if that's just because of how I did my study' - it is the MEDIA that concludes, 'A Causes B!'

As far as the 'revenue' thing - that is there, there are a great many companies that LEAP to sell some supplement, herb or vitamin, by jumping the gun on a study that really only finds, 'hmmmm, that's interesting'.