[kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI

[Khalid Baheyeldin]

Okay then, the term "science" is a bad word these days ...
How about we use a methodology that critiques evidence based on source,
logic, and so on?
"Critical thinking" maybe?

So ... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ..."

That RIM brain cancer case, what evidence was given that it was caused by
the RIM made phone?
Doctors who examined the patient? Researchers testing him and/or the phone?
Why did others using the same model not get cancer?
Too much 'sample of one' here ...

And the company acted like any other corporation that wants something to go
away regardless of whether it has merit or not, to avoid bad PR: throw
money at it. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

What evidence do we have to the contrary?

Here is a short video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju2kcMzALkc> about
cell phones and cancer, ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation, ...etc:

Article: Cell phones do not give you brain cancer
<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cellphones-do-not-give-you-brain-cancer/>
.

Basically, if the incidence of brain cancer increased since cell phones
were widely used, then that would be evidence towards a link between cell
phone usage and cancer. There is no observed increase ...

Here is the research paper <https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1147> that
is quoted:

"Age specific incidence rates of glioma remained generally constant in
1992-2008 (−0.02% change per year ...), a period coinciding with a
substantial increase in mobile phone use from close to 0% to almost 100% of
the US population. If phone use was associated with glioma risk, we
expected glioma incidence rates to be higher than those observed, even with
a latency period of 10 years and low relative risks."

There is some additional nuance there, and reference to something called
the Interphone study.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20221007/87c17330/attachment.htm>