Monday, October 26, 2009

New York Post: Sloppy Journalism in Report of Cellphone-Cancer "Link"

In another media *facepalm* moment, the New York Post is reporting of a supposed “link” between cellphone use and cancer…

Study: Cell Phone Cancer Link

A groundbreaking, $30 million study into cell phones has found a link between long term use and brain tumors.

The World Health Organization is about to reveal that its decade-long investigation has found the devices can lead to cancer — and the internationally-respected body will soon issue a public health message with its findings, London’s Daily Telegraph reported today.

The conclusion goes against years of assurances by cell phone companies and scientists that cell phone use is safe.

But last month, Sen. Arlen Specter (D – Pa) organized Senate hearings to examine health implications of talking on-the-go.

elizabeth lippman/N.Y. Post CAN YOU KILL ME NOW? — A groundbreaking, 10-year study will show that long-term cell phone use can lead to brain tumors.

The WHO’s Interphone investigation’s results showed, “a significantly increased risk” of some brain tumors “related to use of mobile phones for a period of ten years or more,” the Telegraph reported today.

The study’s head, Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, said, “In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radiofrequency radiation, precautions are important.”

The project carried out studies in 13 countries, talking to tumor sufferers as well as healthy cell phone users, It interviewed 12,800 people.

The results will be officially published before the end of the year, according to the Telegraph.

This is a perfect example of how some in the media misuse science to make headlines, while at the same time spreading misinformation.  Notice that the article is citing research which hasn’t even been published yet! So, if the research isn’t yet published for scrutiny, how in blazes do the morons at NY Post know what the research says?  I always thought that a good journalist was supposed to check their facts before reporting a story, not the other way around.  Apparently, the folks at the NY Post live in an alternate universe.

In addition, some other tidbits that pop up in this article:

1. It references a “significantly increased risk” of cellphone use causing cancer – but what does “significantly increased risk” even mean?  Is it a higher risk by 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.0001%?  The fact that this info isn’t even reported just fuels wild speculations that – despite any actual evidence – whatever it is, it’s really bad.

2. I also want to make particular note of this paragraph in the article:

The study’s head, Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, said, “In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radiofrequency radiation, precautions are important.”

Note that the head of the study states that the results are not definitive, and the studies which are there (she refers to them as “limited”, which is science-speak for “we don’t have enough research to support a solid claim”) suggest only a possible effect.  And this is the research heading the study saying this, but she’s a scientist – the goofballs who wrote the NY Post headline are not scientists.

3. Lastly, there’s this part of the article:

The project carried out studies in 13 countries, talking to tumor sufferers as well as healthy cell phone users, It interviewed 12,800 people.

Ummm… I’ve got a bad feeling about this.  From what this states, it seems the study is based upon interviews with people.  Interviews?  As far as medical studies go, that’s pretty thin stuff, folks.  It’d be much more convincing if someone could actually provide some kind of clear-cut evidence of a physical mechanism by which cellphone radiation can cause cancer.  The problem is – for reasons I’ve outlined in an earlier blog post – no such mechanism exists that can be studied.

It’ll be interesting to see what comes out at the end of the year when the actual study is published, and I’m wondering how close to reality the NY Post’s depiction of the study will be.  I’m going to guess now: not much.

So, in the end, this is a classic case of sloppy journalism which, though it might grab some people’s attention with the scary sounding headline, ultimately serves to spread fear & ignorance of science.  Way to go, NY Post!  I give you a grade of FAIL.

No comments:

Post a Comment