<div dir="ltr"><div>Okay then, the term "science" is a bad word these days ... <br></div><div>How about we use a methodology that critiques evidence based on source, logic, and so on?</div><div>"Critical thinking" maybe?</div><div><br></div>So ... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ..."<div><br></div><div>That RIM brain cancer case, what evidence was given that it was caused by the RIM made phone?</div><div>Doctors who examined the patient? Researchers testing him and/or the phone?</div><div>Why did others using the same model not get cancer?</div><div>Too much 'sample of one' here ... <br></div><div><br></div><div>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. <br></div><div><br></div><div>What evidence do we have to the contrary?</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju2kcMzALkc">short video</a> about cell phones and cancer, ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation, ...etc:</div><div><br></div><div>Article: <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cellphones-do-not-give-you-brain-cancer/">Cell phones do not give you brain cancer</a>.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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 ...</div><div><br></div><div>Here is the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1147">research paper</a> that is quoted:</div><br><div>"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." <br></div><div><br></div><div>There is some additional nuance there, and reference to something called the Interphone study. <br></div></div>