23-08-2016, 01:26 PM
Hi Phil.
Interesting about the radon thanks. Not sure whether to check my area or not
.
“For mobile phones (microwave radiation) and power lines (magnetic fields) multiple studies have been inconclusive. That means too low to measure accurately - inconclusive unless you cherry pick the data”
Some of the evidence to which I refer is hard to dispute, eg oxidative stress,
“In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of….” [long list of serious illnesses] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress</a><!-- m -->
The last time I looked at this a few years back, EVERY study I could find that investigated mobile signals and oxidative stress found (or perhaps noted generally) that the mobile signals cause the oxidative stress. At least thirty. There is no controversy over this, there are only cherries on the one side to pick. it’s spoken of by all the researchers as ‘a given’. It’s widely studied - not because any researchers believe this is in doubt, but (eg) to find treatments that might alleviate it.
I just took another look in Pubmed for mobiles and oxidative stress – the most recent studies to date, so these are new ones:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22mobile+phone%22+%22oxidative+stress%22">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?ter ... +stress%22</a><!-- m -->
Browsing through these it looks like there another twenty, on the same side. By what rationale would anyone not conclude that oxidative stress is caused by mobiles?
For the other 'mobile effects' I mentioned (like melatonin reduction) the picture is more ‘mixed’. Because of political issues, something subjectively described as inconclusive by scientists can be (objectively) statistically overwhelming, even though the numbers might as usual need interpretation.
The p-value of less than 5% (ie 1 in twenty chance) that applies in most medical studies (as you obviously know of course :-) ), means that you should not necessarily count ‘the cherries’ equally as because the positive is harder to attain than the negative (and negative often means 'not proven') strong evidence can be counted on the other side. From previous posts, I expect you know all about this kind of thing too..
For example, if ten out of twenty comparable studies find a particular effect and ten don’t, it would surely be erroneous to conclude that the picture is unclear, as you would be extremely unlikely to get ten ‘one in twenty’ outcomes out of twenty attempts by chance – this outcome would have something like 1 in a billion probability of occurring by chance. Were the subject not so politically charged, it would be routinely chalked up, if not absolutely conclusive then at least 'almost conclusive' would be the working assumption that had to be made, at least as far as the numbers are concerned.
I won't put a figure on the melatonin outcomes etc from memory but I do think it was in the balpark of fifty-fifty. Just 'adding up' can oversimplify the picture of course, but the numerical findings and their statistical significance should not be lost in the crosstalk! I rather suspect you know much more about statistics than I do so I'd be interested in your comments.
Cheers
Interesting about the radon thanks. Not sure whether to check my area or not
.“For mobile phones (microwave radiation) and power lines (magnetic fields) multiple studies have been inconclusive. That means too low to measure accurately - inconclusive unless you cherry pick the data”
Some of the evidence to which I refer is hard to dispute, eg oxidative stress,
“In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of….” [long list of serious illnesses] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress</a><!-- m -->
The last time I looked at this a few years back, EVERY study I could find that investigated mobile signals and oxidative stress found (or perhaps noted generally) that the mobile signals cause the oxidative stress. At least thirty. There is no controversy over this, there are only cherries on the one side to pick. it’s spoken of by all the researchers as ‘a given’. It’s widely studied - not because any researchers believe this is in doubt, but (eg) to find treatments that might alleviate it.
I just took another look in Pubmed for mobiles and oxidative stress – the most recent studies to date, so these are new ones:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22mobile+phone%22+%22oxidative+stress%22">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?ter ... +stress%22</a><!-- m -->
Browsing through these it looks like there another twenty, on the same side. By what rationale would anyone not conclude that oxidative stress is caused by mobiles?
For the other 'mobile effects' I mentioned (like melatonin reduction) the picture is more ‘mixed’. Because of political issues, something subjectively described as inconclusive by scientists can be (objectively) statistically overwhelming, even though the numbers might as usual need interpretation.
The p-value of less than 5% (ie 1 in twenty chance) that applies in most medical studies (as you obviously know of course :-) ), means that you should not necessarily count ‘the cherries’ equally as because the positive is harder to attain than the negative (and negative often means 'not proven') strong evidence can be counted on the other side. From previous posts, I expect you know all about this kind of thing too..
For example, if ten out of twenty comparable studies find a particular effect and ten don’t, it would surely be erroneous to conclude that the picture is unclear, as you would be extremely unlikely to get ten ‘one in twenty’ outcomes out of twenty attempts by chance – this outcome would have something like 1 in a billion probability of occurring by chance. Were the subject not so politically charged, it would be routinely chalked up, if not absolutely conclusive then at least 'almost conclusive' would be the working assumption that had to be made, at least as far as the numbers are concerned.
I won't put a figure on the melatonin outcomes etc from memory but I do think it was in the balpark of fifty-fifty. Just 'adding up' can oversimplify the picture of course, but the numerical findings and their statistical significance should not be lost in the crosstalk! I rather suspect you know much more about statistics than I do so I'd be interested in your comments.
Cheers