The report makes multiple claims of a correlation between wireless phones and cancer, but claims of a causal relationship are weak.  As I explained here, correlation and causation are two different things, and we must be careful not to confuse the two.

If you read the report (a big 'if' when it comes to the majority of the population, unfortunately),  you'll find that a large portion of it is a critique of the so-called and still-not-fully-published "Interphone Study," implying that the study's "design flaws" make the data unreliable.  Besides the fact that the authors are evaluating this study before it's published in its entirety, their analysis has a few flaws of it's own.

Many of the "flaws" in the Interphone Study (it's actually a large group of studies) result from the fact that they are retrospective studies rather than prospective ones.  This, however, is true for the studies that show a positive correlation between phones and cancer as well.  Most (and probably all) studies of cell phone radiation on humans are retrospective.  The only prospective ones seem to have been done on rats.

The authors stake many of their claims on the fact that studies which show no correlation between cell phone use and cancer are typically funded by the Telecom industry, and this is supposed to make them suspect.  Well, even if the researched was biased in this way (another big 'if'), the peer-review process prior to publication takes care of that.  You see, once a research study is completed, its findings are written up and submitted to professional journals for publication (such as the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the New England Journal of Medicine, the European Journal of Epidemiology, etc.).  There, disinterested professionals in the field (i.e. those who stand to neither gain nor lose from the research) review the research, it's methodologies, and data.  If these are sound, the article is published.  If errors, bias, or faulty methodologies are discovered, it's not.  The research criticized by this report's authors has been subject to peer review.  Their report itself has not.

The authors ignore the benefits of peer review when studies do not support their conclusion.  However, they boast about the value of peer review on page 15 of the report when citing research that supports their argument.  This is a type of bias itself: selection bias, selecting information that supports your hypothesis and ignoring that which doesn't.

Another example of this selection bias is when the authors, on page 17, cite a study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility as conclusive evidence that cell phones reduce male fertility.  However they fail to acknowledge that two of that study's co-authors published a follow-up article in another professional journal, Reproductive Biomedicine, just four months later, which stated

Evidence of detrimental effect of mobile phones on male fertility is still equivocal as studies have revealed a wide spectrum of possible effects ranging from insignificant effects to variable degrees of testicular damage. Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear. EMW can affect the reproductive system via an EMW-specific effect, thermal molecular effect or combination of both. Studies performed on human males are scarce and therefore further studies with a careful design are needed to determine the effect of cell phone use on male-fertilizing potential. [Reprod Biomed Online. Sep. 2007;Vol. 15, No. 3, pages 266-70.]

And other supposed "evidence" that cell phones cause cancer?  The authors cite one Israeli study to support their claim.  The trouble is, it was a study of the effects of x-rays on children's scalps.  Hardly comparable to cell phone radiation.

Inconsistencies like these should set off your baloney detector.

Don't be fooled by alarmism.  So a few dozen medical professionals endorsed this?  With the millions of oncologists, epidemiologists, neurosurgeons, fertility specialists, pediatricians, chemists, and physicists in the world, you'd think the authors would've garnered a few more endorsements than this!

Anyway, don't listen to them.  Don't listen to ME!  Read these studies yourself!  Many are online.  All are available at the library.

Beats being scared unneccessarily.

Yours truly,

skepticalthinker

"To Blog is To Know." or  "How To Abandon Critical Thinking and Become a Credulous Wannabe."

I'm sorry, Maxi.  You just don't seem to get it.  You caution readers not to "follow" me.  This says a lot.  You may have noticed that I implored readers NOT to listen to me, but rather to do the research themselves.

Your ...uh, warning...that the information that I posted is somehow tainted because I have "never posted blogs" reveals that you are all too willing to place trust in random internet chatter rather than take the time to do any actual research.

What a sorry little sheep.

But I understand.  You are obviously undereducated.  You probably found higher education to be too difficult and time consuming.  So you missed an exposure to critical thinking, where questions are answered by investigation and information is gathered by going to the source rather than by trolling the internet for the latest sensationalistic gossip.

But, again, I understand.  Why spend all those boring hours studying, reading textbooks, or using the library when there's a whole blogosphere in which you can simulate intelligence?  I'm guessing in person you're pretty much a douchebag that everyone tries to avoid.  So you go join any blog site that will have you.  When you post on a blog, you feel the whole world is paying attention to you!  This is where you feel like you have real friends.  You may even come across as a chivalrous hero when you come to the defense of a poor maiden who's suffered under the Secret Government Plots and Conspiracies.

So your world view is shaped not by textbooks, libraries, professional journals, and critical thinking.  It's downloaded from YouTube and the Living section of Huffington Post.

But that makes you feel powerful.  Like you are "in the know."  You know what all these poor "schleps" don't.  You can come to the rescue!  Of course, if you just took a few minutes away from your precious blogs to do some actual research, you'd discover that your opinion are naive, and you come across as paranoid and uneducated.  Who wants THAT??!! 

So it's back to YouTube.

I suppose your only hope of getting people not to consider the recommendations I present is to try and paint me as some sort of right-wing ideologue.  Tell me...is doing independent research, looking at the science, and basing your opinions on the totality of the research a mark of right-wing ideology?  If so, why was the Bush administration on the WRONG side of stem cell research, birth control, abortion rights, etc.  I'm sorry little man...you come across as a paranoid, credulous little lemming.

If anyone is still following this thread: Think for yourself!  The information is out there!  Visit the library as much as you do the blogs!  Question authority...but follow up with actual research!  YouTube is not a reliable source of truth!

Yours truly,

skepticalthinker

To Legitimate RealNeo Contibutors and Readers:

To all legitimate RealNeo contributors and readers.  In regards to my comments and other sensibilities relating to the already proven Cellphone = Brain cancer link, please see my post and comment above.

To those @ RealNeo who wish to address me, revealing their full identity and credentials, I will gladly consult and communicate with you freely.  This includes Norm Roulet, Susan Miller, Jeff Buster and many others.  To those who have no legitimacy, no credentials, who are too ashamed of themselves to sign their own work (instead using an alternative secret name) I direct you to Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Bill O'reilly and all the other asswipes of this world.  They will gladly embrace you, your willful ignorance, intellectual myopia and your  Blackwater-styled, Mossad-like, corporate-whore venom.

Now it should be mentioned, for those who may not yet be aware, as with all members to RealNeo, whether fully legit or full of shit, I too have a RealNeo profile.  My profile represents a very detailed, very public papertrail that is overflowing with an abundance of texts, links, videos and other cross-referenced material.  I even provide a bit of original poetry and original art. 

View my profile is here.

I live a fully transparent life and I'm very proud to call myself an actively engaged, contibuting blogger @ RealNeo.

Yeah! Go RealNeo Go!!!

Eternity