Comments:Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer risk
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
13,000 deaths a year isn't important? That's HUGE! I think it's absurd that this article tries to trivialize brain cancer in this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Where did you see the article trivializing brain cancer? It's simply a very rare thing, despite the fact that cancer is still a MotherFucker. Booticon - (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Give it a few
- 2 Trivializing?
- 3 Results poorly understood by author
- 4 Comments from feedback form - "Thanks"
- 5 Comments from feedback form - "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi..."
- 6 Discrete risks are not "cancelled" out because they're less than some other risk.
- 7 Comments from feedback form - "On May 31, 2011, the WHO's pos..."
- 8 Comments from feedback form - "bad"
Give it a few
I apologize to readers who perceive this as trivializing a rare disease. That was not my intention. On Wikipedia I created a featured list about brain tumors. Durova - (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense to the author here, but he seems to be either deliberately misrepresnting facts or is misunderstanding Khurana. Comparing the amount of current Tobacco deaths to brain tumor deaths is non-sensical, because cigarette smoking has been going on for a long time now, and there is a significant percentage of the population who has been doing it ALL their lives.
This would be the equivalent to saying smoking isn't dangerous a mere ten years after cigarettes became popular, because not many people were dying of lung cancer at that point. So whether or not Khurana is correct, you ARE either misrepresenting or misunderstanding. Because after sixty years of cell phone usage, your risk is going to rise a lot, and so are the deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "Thanks"
Comments from feedback form - "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi..."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Full_Star_Red.svg/25px-Full_Star_Red.svg.png —220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Discrete risks are not "cancelled" out because they're less than some other risk.
"So if cell phone use actually doubled the brain tumor casualty rate, a United States resident would still be 20 times more likely to die from tobacco than from a primary brain tumor."
This is irrelevant and misleading.
Comments from feedback form - "On May 31, 2011, the WHO's pos..."
On May 31, 2011, the WHO's position on radiofrequency (particularly mobile phone) EMF health effects changed, in support of Dr Khurana's findings. As the prevalence of smoking declines, and the prevalence of mobile phone usage increases exponentially (currently more than 5 billion mobile phone users), brain tumour incidence rates need to be monitored closely in the years to come. —18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)