A little alarmist fella.
The study (Localized effects of microwave radiation on the intact eye
lens in culture conditions, A. Dovrat et al., Bioelectromagnetics
26:398-405, 2005) it references is based on in vitro data (which is
dodgy anyway and never correlates well to in vivo), and exposes the
lenses to radiation for 36 hours none-stop, and does mention that
recovery occurs if there's a break in the radiation (who would ever
talk on a mobile phone for 36 hours without a break? Is there a phone
thats battery would last that long? Where did the cows get these
phones?).
The research bears proper investigation, but this study alone does not
prove anything; the weight of scientific evidence indicates that there
is no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly
or epidemiologically.
Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
phone exposed eyes.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:00:24 -0800, cool_and_funky wrote:
> A little alarmist fella.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The research bears proper investigation, but this study alone does not
> prove anything;
No perhaps that one does not.
> the weight of scientific evidence indicates that there is
> no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly or
> epidemiologically.
Rubbish.
> Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
> phone exposed eyes.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:00:24 -0800, cool_and_funky wrote:
> A little alarmist fella.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly or
> epidemiologically.
let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
may overturn any number of negative studies. So called "weight of
scientific evidence" is illusory unless you are adding apples to apples
and as far as most research goes you are adding apples and oranges because
even so called replication studies in this field are rarely so.
> Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
> phone exposed eyes.
hairydog@despammed.com - 30 Oct 2005 20:36 GMT
>let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
>may overturn any number of negative studies.
Er, no. A single well-designed and well-conducted test might overturn
positive ones just as easily.
In this case, we are hearing second-hand about a very dubious
experiment that has not yet been properly peer reviewed or replicated.
If it were the case, where is the statistical data of all thee
cataracts?
If these results bear scientific scrutiny, we may have to say goodbye
to broadcast TV.

Signature
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
cool_and_funky@yahoo.com - 30 Oct 2005 23:20 GMT
>Rubbish
Trying to open an intellectual discourse there. Should've known better
on the newsgroups, but I'll try nonetheless.
>let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
>may overturn any number of negative studies.
No, in the real world it would need to be replicated several times by
several independant laboratories before it was even taken seriously by
the scientific community at large. Especially an in vitro experiment
such as this one. Cultured anythings (lenses included) are unreliable
at best, you should know that.
>So called "weight of
>scientific evidence" is illusory unless you are adding apples to apples
>and as far as most research goes you are adding apples and oranges >because
>even so called replication studies in this field are rarely so.
Weight of scientific evidence is just how things are done. If something
is true, then the weight of evidence will tend to turn in it's
direction, albeit slowly at times. A single positive study proves
absolutely nothing other than a possibility.
I read the original paper (its online via Wiley interscience) and it's
a different species and ex vivo, so I wouldn't be anywhere near
convinced let alone worried just now.
And I really don't get the apples and oranges analogy fella.