Originally Posted By: d00df00d
So, let's talk science.
Quote:
A very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumours, researchers reported on Thursday.
Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumours did not become any more common during this time, the researchers
reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
"We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumours from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," Isabelle Deltour of the Danish Cancer Society and colleagues wrote.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobil...91204-kaqs.html
I can't take that link seriously. It merely says (effectively) that where they are detailed in brain tumor documentation ..that no substantial increase in incidents have occurred over the time that cell phones have been in existence. I didn't see anything that shows that cell phones were even in use to any significant degree among the documented population.
This appears to imply that the effects would be showing themselves over a 10-20 year period on a sliding upward curve of usage. Brain tumors are all over the place in terms of when they're going to occur ..though they probably occur in adults at middle age or older. The precursors would have been experienced over a sensibly long term assuming metastasis was the cause. The incidents would be somewhat based on the genetic propensity to develop cancer.
Quote:
Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumours did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Quote:
"We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumours from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," Isabelle Deltour of the Danish Cancer Society and colleagues wrote.
Wow! Rather comprehensive and broad span of evaluation.
So, the time period for the most rapid upswing in usage is used to evidence that it had no bearing on rates.
Quote:
Deltour's team analysed annual incidence rates of two types of brain tumour -- glioma and meningioma -- among adults aged 20 to 79 from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden from 1974 to 2003.
Are these the ONLY types? Why not just say "ALL" brain tumors if it's indeed attempting to inspire confidence in the statistic ..or qualify why some types were excluded?
Quote:
It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.
Yeah ..this doesn't count ..so pay no attention to it.
I don't know one way or another ..again, I'm a walking risk factor so it's a moot point ..but this is not any confidence inspiring factoid. It's more of a comforting promotional item that is the inverted version of "90% of all wear occurs at startup!" ..the only difference is that the statistic in Castrol's case is to compel you to prevent something from happening with purchasing their product ..while this is attempting to compel you to continue using a product since nothing will occur.
