Health
Dr Ben boots old boot-face
Ben Goldacre’s gone after Zelda from Terrahawks Gillian McKeith again, and this time it’s serious: ASA verdicts that she can’t call herself a doctor, selling products in defiance of the law, that sort of thing. So naturally he does what any right-minded person would do: he sticks the boot in. Heh.
Mobile phones are frying our brains - or at least, they seem to be when we write about them
This story is being widely reported in the mainstream media:
An international team of researchers has found new evidence that long-term use of a mobile phone may lead to the development of a brain tumor on the side of the head the phone is used. In a study which will appear in an upcoming issue of the International Journal of Cancer, epidemiologists from five European countries report a nearly 40% increase in gliomas, a type of brain tumor, among those who had used a cell phone for ten or more years. The increase is statistically significant.
Here’s the research the above story refers to. Again, I’ve emphasised the salient points:
For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Now, the “do not indicate an increased risk of glioma” bit seems pretty straightforward to me. Unfortunately I don’t have any grounding in stats (I’m barely numerate) so I’d like to ask for help here - can anyone put the odds ratio stuff in the study abstract into plain English? There seems to be a statistical difference between people claiming to have held their mobiles on one side of their head from the other - but I can barely count to ten, let alone translate ORs and confidence intervals.
(Thanks to David for the links)
Another mobile phone study
This one’s important: it’s looking at long-term use of phones. I interviewed the man behind the proposed new study, Professor Lawrie Challis, for last month’s PC Plus story on electrosensitivity and other tech-related health scares, and he’s a great example of how the “no evidence” side of health issues should be addressed (he’s a great interviewee, too. I could have filled the magazine ten times over with his interview alone). Here’s a quick extract from the PC Plus feature where he talks about the evidence for mobile-related nasties:
“We’ve studied a whole raft of things from blood pressure to memory, attention, hormone levels, balance, inner ear function…” he says. “And so far, we’ve found absolutely nothing, which is consistent with other studies that have been carried out. Ours is the biggest study of its type, and I think it’s fairly clear that there are no short-term effects on the brain’s function… none of the studies we have supported, nor the other studies that have come out around the world, have found any connection between mobile use and brain cancers or brain tumours.”
There’s a fairly big caveat, though. As Professor Challis points out, studies have looked at people who’ve been using mobile phones for fewer than 10 years - largely because mobiles weren’t widespread before then - but “nearly all cancers take more than ten years to develop”. In a few cases, where people have been using mobiles for more than ten years, “there seems to be a very small correlation between brain tumours and mobile phone use.” However, that correlation could be experimental bias or a statistical anomaly.
“There are still holes in what we know,” Professor Challis says.
In essence, then, we’ve looked and looked again and there’s no evidence of any danger, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep looking.
“If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, just imagine what they can do to your skin!”
Various lifestyle mags (GQ and some women’s ones) are running tech-related bullshit from Clarins: artificial electromagnetic waves make your skin go all bobbly or something, and you need to spend your cash on expensive beauty products. Now!
- Magnetic Defence Complex protects skin from the ageing effects of Artificial Electromagnetic Waves.
- Clarins Anti-Pollution Complex of White Tea and Succory Dock-Cress protects skin from indoor and outdoor urban pollution.
- Creates an imperceptible physical film on the skin to reinforce the skin’s own natural protective barrier.
Here’s the science!
the spray contains molecules derived from microorganisms living near undersea volcanoes and from plants which survive in extreme conditions such as alongside motorways and in Siberia.
In a just world, this would be the ad campaign:
[photopress:bullshit.jpg,full,pp_image]
What next? “Remember to breathe”?
The Scottish Executive’s latest wheeze: spending a couple of million quid on this campaign.
[photopress:press3.jpg,full,pp_image]
Mobile phone study proves that phone radiation eats your brain
Only joking: still no evidence of any harmful effects. The study looked at 400,000 people, many of whom have been using mobiles since 1984, and it included both analogue and digital handsets. As The Register notes:
the study found that long-term mobile phone users had a slightly lower incidence of cancer than the general population, though this can be attributed to being from the upper-income demographic, still one of the most important factors in illness and life expectancy.
The report’s conclusion:
We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.
“Mast killers - do you live near a deadly mast?”
The headline comes from yesterday’s News of the World which, along with various other Sundays, decided to scare its readers about mobile phone masts. The story begins:
SIX neighbours from the same floor of a block of flats have all been hit by cancer after two phone masts were installed on the building now dubbed The Tower of Doom.
Now, I have absolutely no idea whether mobile phone masts are dangerous - the evidence so far suggests they aren’t, although there’s still a need for further study - but a few things about this piece ring alarm bells (yes, I know the NotW is hardly famed for responsible reporting, but it’s pretty representative of the way tabloids cover this issue).
All the cases have occurred since the Vodafone and Orange masts were put up 10 years ago…and two women neighbours have already fallen victim to the killer on the roof.
Barbara Wood, who lived at No 42, died two years ago, in her 70s, from breast cancer that spread to her stomach. Two years previously a Mrs Davies, of No 47, died of the same disease.
Two more residents—Bernice Mitchell, 68, and 62-year-old Hazel Frape— have both had breast cancer. An 89-year-old woman moved out after she contracted the same disease.
And 63-year-old John Llewellin, from No 48, is battling bowel cancer.
The story doesn’t say how old the second “victim”, Mrs Davies, actually was, but I’m betting she was in her sixties, seventies or eighties too. That’s important for this story because age is a key factor in cancer diagnosis: according to a paper published in 1999 by the British Geriatrics Society, “about 55% of cancers are diagnosed in patients over 65, and 60% of cancer-related deaths occur in this age group”. The average age for diagnosis of bowel cancer is 65 and it’s relatively rare among younger people; breast cancer is also relatively rare in the under-50s and the highest risk group is the over-60s.
I’m also assuming that the tower block in question isn’t in the nicest area (judging by the photo - I’m not familiar with the area in question). I’m no health expert, but a quick Google uncovers lots of data showing that cancer rates are higher in poorer areas (due to lifestyle, diet, smoking and alcohol consumption, lack of screening, the usual factors that mean richer people tend to live longer).
Does that mean the cancers weren’t caused by the mast? Not at all. But in its rush to show that this tower block is the “tower of doom”, the NotW is ignoring some pretty important stuff. If the mast wasn’t on the roof and the same people had contracted the same cancers, would the newspapers have given a shit?
Oh shit, not again
Those of you who’ve been hanging around these parts for a while will know of the Big Back Saga, where I slipped two discs, spent months in agony (even though I was off my face on horse tranquilisers) and ended up paying for very expensive surgery in order to get my life back. What a crap time that was, etc etc etc.
I’ve done my back in again.
Two UK schools ban wi-fi due to witchcraft fears
OK, maybe not witchcraft. But the decision isn’t based on anything sensible, either. Via The Inquirer:
The Prebendal School in Chichester and a Welsh comprehensive, Ysgol Pantycelen, have pulled the plug on their wireless networks after parents lobbied about potential effects wi-fi could have on their kids.
As the Inquirer rightly notes, there is no evidence of any health risks from wireless networks. Yes, it’s possible that there may be, but on the basis of the evidence so far it’s equally possible that wi-fi will summon Beelzebub from the very depths of Hell. On a skateboard. Wearing a diving helmet and a tu-tu.
On a related note, the next issue of PC Plus magazine has a big article on this very subject by yours truly.
More bans
Junk food ad crackdown announced
Junk food ads during TV programmes targeted at under-16s will be banned, under rules put forward by regulators. Ofcom says these foods include any that are high in fat, salt and sugar.
There will be a total ban on ads during children’s programmes and on children’s channels, as well as adult programmes watched by a large number of children.
Mr Biffo reckons that’s the end of kids’ TV as we know it.