ARTICLE SUMMARY

Cell Phone Use Prevents Cancer. Ha Ha Ha. (article review)

ARTICLE INFO

TITLE

Lessons from the Interphone Study

AUTHOR(S)
Dr. Magda Havas
PUBLISHER

Dr. Magda Havas

PUBLICATION DATE
January 6, 2012
LINK (Dr. Magda Havas, PhD.)

ARTICLE'S INTENDED AUDIENCE

This article is written for people who are worried about cell phone radiation dangers.

ARTICLE'S TONE

The article is written in a conversational tone.

SUMMARY OF ARTICLE

The INTERPHONE study is an insult to science.

ARTICLE REVIEW

This article shows:

  • The INTERPHONE study was so poorly done, some of its data pointed to cell phone use as being protective against head cancers.
  • The INTERPHONE study “demonstrates the flaws with the way we  fund, conduct, review and report on science that deals with products that fetch billions of dollars and place at risk, at least potentially, billions of lives.”
  • INTERPHONE authors removed cordless phone users from the “mobile phone user” group. Cordless phone users who got cancer were not “mobile phone users,” so their cancers were NOT correlated with mobile phone use.
  • INTERPHONE authors set the bar for mobile phone use too low. Just as with cigarette smoking, cancer takes time to develop. Lack of cancer after 6 months of smoking or mobile phone use doesn’t mean these products don’t cause cancer.
  • INTERPHONE authors did not include salivary and auditory cancers, which occur in the head closest to where one holds the phone.
  • INTERPHONE data was so thoroughly massaged that authors found some mobile phone use to be protective against some brain tumors.
  • Authors stated a 40% increase in glimoa tumors for users spending 1640 hours per year on the phone. Authors discounted this finding as selection bias and self-reporting recall errors.

INTERPHONE data was so thoroughly massaged that authors found some mobile phone use to be protective against some brain tumors.

AUTHOR'S CREDENTIALS

Dr. Magda Havas
Dr. Magda Havas

Dr. Havas has a PhD in botany.

Her academic work focused on the health dangers of acid rain. 

She’s advised multiple government agencies on electromagnetic radiation dangers.

She teaches three courses at Trent University, all of which include studying the effective of electromagnetic radiation on humans, animals, and the planet.

  • Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
  • Environmental Communication
  • Pollution Ecology

Recent publications include:

  • Healing with Light Electromagnetic Hygiene
  • Carcinogen effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift
  • When Theory and Observation Collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?
  • The Role of Electromagnetic Pollution in Cancer Promotion
  • Dirty Electricity, Radiofrequency Radiation, Flicker, and Spectral Quality generated by Different types of Energy Efficient Lighting
  • Case Study: Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Therapy Relieves Pleural Effusion Following Open Heart Surgery Pilot Study:
  • Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMFT) Alleviates Symptoms of Osteoarthritis
  • The Role of Electrosmog and Electrotherapy in Diagnosing and Treating Diabetics with Electrical Hypersensitivity
  • Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Germination and Growth of Broccoli, Pea, Red Clover and Garden Cress Seedlings: A Partial Replication Study
  • Monitoring and remediation of on-farm and off-farm ground current measured as step potential on a Wisconsin dairy farm: A case study
  • Dirty Electricity within the Intermediate Frequency Range (IF) may be the Missing Link explaining the increase in Chronic Illness

View Dr. Havas’ websites for more info:

Conclusion

I had so many questions when I read the INTERPHONE study.

What are the authors’ affiliations (are they biased)?

Who funds the funding agencies (are they baised)?

How can a $25 million study conclude that a cancer increase of 40% is a methodological error (intentional misunderstanding)?

I could not find information about the authors.

The funding agencies appeared to be government bodies, but it was impossible to figure out where the study money really came from (in my limited search time).

This study looked fishy as hell.

So I researched other INTERPHONE articles.

Dr. Havas is one of many non-industry-funded scientists who point out how infuriating the INTERPHONE study is.

Which, in my words, is this:

When you find a 40% increase in brain tumors, it’s somewhere between stupid and criminal to dismiss those findings as “probably methodology errors.”

Every methodology error that the authors made reduced the possibility they’d find a link between mobile phone use and brain tumors.

Similar and Extra Info