Mobile Phones Cause Tumors, Italian Court Rules, in Defiance of Evidence (theguardian.com) 71
An Italian court has ruled that prolonged use of mobile phones can cause head tumors despite scientists overwhelmingly agreeing there is no evidence to back this up. From a report: The Turin court of appeal on Tuesday upheld a ruling issued by a lower court in 2017 in relation to a man with neurinoma of the acoustic nerve, a benign but disabling tumor. The decision was based on studies provided by two court-appointed doctors that showed an increased risk of head tumours among those who talked on their phones for 30 minutes a day over a 10-year period. Judges concluded that there was a link between the frequent use of a mobile phone by Roberto Romeo, who worked for Telecom Italia, and his condition. Romeo is said to have used his phone for four to five hours a day. "There are solid elements to affirm a causal role between the exposure of the person to radio frequencies from mobile phones and the disease that arose," the judges said in their ruling. Inail, a workplace accident insurance agency, has been ordered to compensate Romeo, although it could take the case to the supreme court.
Kill Phone (Score:2)
Italy should ban mobile phones to protect it's population NOW!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that usage he got a benign (not malignant) growth in the hearing nerve on the side where the phone was.
So the likelihood of this happening to other people is rather low (I should probably re-check my daughter's unlimited contract before saying that).
Re: Evidence? (Score:2)
No, that was never supported with scientific evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget that we also had scientific evidence that tobacco was not harmful to our health only a few decades ago.
Right... And those studies were of short time span for the most part. They really just proved that smoking today didn't effect the death rate a week or a month away enough to measure it. Lung and Oral cancers usually require YEARS of exposure to tobacco, and usually represents only incremental increase in Cancer risks which rises as the duration of use increases.
Cell phones don't cause cancer. Well, the RF from them doesn't. The spectrum used by cell phones already has quite a bit of natural background noise impinging from nearly all directions you see sky. RF may cause heating, but it's not going to cause cancer because it's not ionizing radiation. Of course proving a negative is nearly impossible, but there is plenty of evidence that RF radiation from mobile phone use is not related to brain cancers. Some studies have shown no measurable increase in brain cancer among really large populations, even though cell phone use has gone from almost nonexistent to ubiquitous over the last two decades. One thing is VERY clear from the studies this far, where we've not totally ruled out that cell phones cause brain cancer, we CAN say that the risk is so low that we cannot measure it, even in very large studies where cell phone use is almost as common as drinking bottled water.
Re: (Score:2)
negative is nearly impossible
Not it isn't.
So what are you saying? That proving a negative is really impossible or that proving a negative IS possible?
LOL... Common wisdom says "You cannot prove a negative" which is generally true. It's really hard to prove something doesn't exist. Which is fodder for conspiracy theorists who believe in "Big Foot", or "Alien life on Earth"...
So pray tell, what do you mean?
Correct Ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
The court didn't conclude there is a link. The court decided that, based on the evidence provided, they side with the plaintiff. It seems the "scientific" community should be smart enough to understand this distinction.
Re:Correct Ruling (Score:5, Funny)
It seems the "scientific" community should be smart enough to understand this distinction.
They are. But this is slashdot. This is not the scientific community. This is the sciencey community.
Re: (Score:2)
Dedicated to the search for truthiness!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The decision was based on studies provided by two court-appointed doctors that showed an increased risk of head tumours among those who talked on their phones for 30 minutes a day over a 10-year period.
Remember Italy was an Inquisition system up until not too long ago, and still has its finger prints. Judges and courts play a far more active role then they do in systems like the US.
Re: (Score:3)
The other side said 'nuh uh, that's stupid" and didn't back that up in court.
I don't see where that actual language was used. Nevertheless, when one attempts to prove a negative, one must often resort to disproving the positive hypothesis. Often, to the less scientific minded in the general public (and this includes judges) that can have the appearance of attacking the side making the positive claim.
Re: (Score:2)
based on studies provided by two court-appointed doctors
Can you say "Forum Shopping" kiddies? I knew you could.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck kind of obscure distinction is that? What's even your point, did you think that we, the unwashed masses, thought the court dictated reality and that cell phones now cause cancer?
I'd say it's clear the intent and content of the article. Some dumbass court made a stupid decision. Pretty simple, no? If someone sued a magician and claimed magic wasn't real, but the magician really wowed the jury and they found in his favor and the headline was "Jury rules magic is real" would you pedant-rage and
Same old, same old. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a track record of ignoring the facts.
Well, you could probably extend that to lawyers worldwide and not be far off the mark. Their job isn't to get to the truth of the matter, after all. It's to convince a judge and/or jury that their side is correct regardless of the facts of the matter.
Re:Same old, same old. (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't. There were no Italians in the 1600s, Italy didn't exist as a state until the Risorgimento in the 1800s.
It was the Catholic Church that ordered Galileo to cease.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, maybe.... (Score:2)
Just working off the summary, the decision isn't that implausible.
There's no claim stated that radiation is causing the tumors, and odd postures are known to cause various growths and other problems. Holding an odd posture several hours a day for a decade or so seems a reasonable source of various problems, though I have no idea is this is one of them. A brief web search of neurinoma of the acoustic nerve was not helpful, though wikipedia did note that the rate of occurrence has been increasing, and put t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember in the Olden Days when it was in the news and being studied, and there were studies with slightly higher radiation levels causing confusion in mice.
On slashdot, all the Usual Suspects, some of them who will even post on this story, were bleeting about how it was completely unpossible for anything in the Universe other than ionizing radiation to cause cancer, and how anybody who disagreed was an enemy of science.
And then a few months later, a new study came out, showed that some models of cell pho
thank you (Score:2)
somebody said it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, all those studies ended up being inconclusive. And odd postures are known to cause problems.
I think cell phone design is a likely culprit. Their design is not optimized for being used as a phone, but rather as a micro-tablet that fits in the pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
This was before that. This was during the transition from analog to digital.
Re: Well, maybe.... (Score:1)
Do you have a link? I was in the cellphone industry for over a decade, and I must have missed that, at least the redesign part. What I do recall is that Motorola
Re: (Score:2)
that the rate of occurrence has been increasing
If cell phone radiation was a problem, the rate of occurrence should be DECEASING, since cell phones today emit much less radiation than cell phones of 10 to 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
DECEASING
Freudian slip?
Re: (Score:2)
But we use them more often now
Get ready for even more. (Score:2)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That people are winning lawsuits like this should be expected to appear even more. You only have to look at the Glyphosate lawsuits and the lawsuit wins from when the science says the issue does not exist.
You're completely misrepresenting the science, because you had to simplify it into black and white to fit into your brain. Do better.
Re:Get ready for even more. (Score:4, Insightful)
That people are winning lawsuits like this should be expected to appear even more. You only have to look at the Glyphosate lawsuits and the lawsuit wins from when the science says the issue does not exist.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
In the glyphosate case wasn't the guy basically getting doused in the chemical? Unless you take a shot of Roundup every time you kill some weeds or regularly bathe in the stuff then you are very unlikely to get cancer attributable to the Roundup. But, the guy got a big enough payout that the ambulance chasers were advertising it on TV for a while, just like they currently do with talcum powder.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "were advertising"? They're on EVERY f***ing cable channel.
Re: (Score:2)
just like they currently do with talcum powder.
Which in itself is also a legit thing as talcum from natural sources often comes from the same mineral deposits which house asbestos. Talcum powder itself isn't generally carcinogenic.
Uh, they don't have 5G, 4G... etc. (Score:1)
1G cell phones that you were supposed to hold near your head were extremely dangerous, but now we've got 4G with 5G on the way taking advantage of compression, closer towers, and bluetooth keeping the radiation levels down. That's progress...
Re: (Score:2)
1G cell phones that you were supposed to hold near your head were extremely dangerous, ...
No they where not. Cohort studies and population studies did (do) not show any increase in brain cancer risk. There was one study that showed a possible link, but it wasn't significant enough to claim that for sure. There have been a wealth of studies that have shown no increased risk for cell phone use (except for using them while driving or walking). One outlier study that was inconclusive doesn't prove anybody's point, but a bunch of studies that tend to agree there is no link does argue for their con
Re: (Score:2)
No they where not. Cohort studies and population studies did (do) not show any increase in brain cancer risk (from 1G cellphone use). There was one study that showed a possible link, but it wasn't significant enough to claim that for sure.
I had heard (sorry, old memory, no references, don't recall that significance level was even mentioned in the coverage) that the brain cancer risk actually seemed LOWER with 1G phone use in some of those studies.
If that were a real effect it's not entirely implausible: E
Re: (Score:2)
Or Alzheimer's...
Italian Courts and Scientific Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Italian Courts and Scientific Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
This is incorrect: the sentence clearly states failing to predict the earthquake is not the reason the scientists and authorities were found guilty.
What happened is that there was a prolonged period of earth tremors in the region and the scientists and authorities claimed that there was no danger and gave to the public reassurance there was no big earthquake coming, no need for evaquation and that the tremors would subside with time without giving issues. Except that the big earthquake *did* come, destroying a city, various villages and claiming hundreds of victims who didn't evacuate the affected regions in part due to these reassurances.
TL;DR: scientists were found guilty not for failing to predict the earthquake, but for falsely reassuring the public that the earthquake would not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they were found guilty of being mistaken in their prediction. Tiny difference from the OP.
The end result, of course, will be that nobody will make any prediction anymore since getting them wrong can get you to court and be found guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a huge difference between making a mistaken prediction and making "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken" (text of the sentence), then presenting it to the public as authority, convincing the public there is no risk and no need to evacuate.
Furthermore, the scientists were actually ultimately acquitted, the only guilty remained the civil protection official who misrepresented the risk to the public.
Non-ionizing radiation (Score:5, Interesting)
does not cause cancer. However one thing that a lot of people tend to forget is that it can still be dangerous if the power output is high enough. The power required is pretty great though. Most lasers, microwave ovens etc are all potentially dangerous but aren't ionizing. High powered military radars aren't powered on until the aircraft take off because they can be a safety risk to ground crews. If cellphones were powerful enough to be dangerous when used close to your face then you wouldn't get a tumor. You would get burns.
Known unknowns (Score:1)
non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer according to the same mechanism that ionizing radiation causes it. That's an indisputable fact.
Is there another mechanism? dunno. Maybe unicorns did it, could be anything. Until we have some scientific evidence and a testable theory there is not much action we can take on the things we don't know.
Inventing causes of cancer based on feelings and misunderstood science is a big set back for legitimate research, cancer prevention, and treatment. It's as productive as
Re: (Score:2)
Until we have some scientific evidence and a testable theory there is not much action we can take on the things we don't know.
We have a vast amount of scientific evidence that the RF radiation emitted by cellphones doesn't cause cancer. Specifically, the fact that billions of people use cellphones every day, and we haven't seen a corresponding spike in cancer rates.
Re: (Score:1)
We have a vast amount of scientific evidence that the RF radiation emitted by cellphones doesn't cause cancer. Specifically, the fact that billions of people use cellphones every day, and we haven't seen a corresponding spike in cancer rates.
Well there is a spike in cancer rates. But it's not because of RF. We've gotten better at detecting and reporting cancer, there are persistent contaminants in urban environments that likely lead to the increases in cancer in large numbers.
Also telling is the top 10 nations for cancer rates are all industrialized nations (source wcrf.org):
1 Australia 468.0
2 New Zealand 438.1
3 Ireland 373.7
4 Hungary 368.1
5 US 352.2
6 Belgium 345.8
7 France (metropolitan) 3
Re: (Score:1)
If cellphones were powerful enough to be dangerous when used close to your face then you wouldn't get a tumor. You would get burns.
The proof is in the pudding. If cellphones would cause cancer while on the phone, then there should be a steep increase in tumors since the introduction of cell phones, because a large percentage of users is calling long times on their phones. But there isn't...
Re: (Score:2)
We conventionally think of ionizing radiation (far UV, X-ray, gamma) as causing cancers, and we generally eschew the likelihood of low energy (IR, radio, microwave) causing such things, but that is not necessarily true or known with certainty. I have no idea or opinion if those lower energies cause cancer, but there are hypothetical reasons to keep an open mind.
The biological effects at these opposite ends of the spectrum are different. For high ionizing energies, DNA and other cellular machinery are dire
Judges. . . (Score:2)
Judges are typically good at the law and horrible at science and technical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges are typically good at the law and horrible at science and technical issues.
That's why the judge got two expert witnesses, who told the court that the cancer was caused by phone use. When the judge is told by two expert witnesses that the cancer was caused by phone use, and the defense has no witnesses that say otherwise, then it is absolutely correct for the judge to rule for the plaintiff, as he did.
then what is the incident rate? (Score:1)
If they cause tumors then what is the incident rate? I'll wait.
Implications of national healthcare plans (Score:2)
Is that bad, since parties causing avoidable harm would have less incentive to stop it, or good, since the determination of harm through the legal system is so arbitrary as to be counterproductive? Or does the government simp
Re: (Score:2)
liability lawsuits might reduced by single-payer healthcare, since the same party will be paying either way
Medical liability lawsuits would likely be reduced to zero - because the "single payer" would ultimately be a government agency, and the government would exercise its sovereign immunity to reduce the program's cost by limiting or eliminating such suits.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same italy (Score:2)
where a group of geologists were convicted* because they were unable to predict earthquakes?
yup, seems about right... on the same track record. Italy and science. Galileo must be turning in his grave...
* latter overturnded.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/... [theverge.com]
and this (Score:2)
and this from a country that arrested and convicted a bunch of scientists for manslaughter after failing to predict a major earthquake in 2009.
Judges adjusting the bar (Score:1)
This comes from the same... (Score:2)
Lawyers (Score:2)
Cellphones Do Cause Certain Types of Tumors (Score:2)
ok but the devil is in the dattails (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
2007 metastudy (Score:3)
A number of studies have found that excessive mobile phone use over many years is positively correlated with both benign and malignant tumors on the side where the phone is held. If true, this is probably due simply to heat. Holding a teddy bear to one side of your face for hours every day could likely have the same effect.
Here is a metastudy from 2007 on the studies examining this phenomenon: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
No doubt there are later studies and metastudies that contradict this one. This tells us precisely nothing due to the enormous amount of corruption in medical research, the methodical problems with studies of this nature, and the enormous incentives for mobile phone producers and telecommunication companies to cause confusion IF the result of the above metastudy is correct.
Re: (Score:1)