|
As a rule, I don't trust anything I read about science that isn't written by a scientist with firsthand knowledge of the relevant disciplines, and even then, I don't trust too much. It's too easy to misconstrue results.
I think that the WHO makes sense in context. The context is: we don't know whether cell phones cause cancer- it isn't possible for us to know right now, however, some studies have suggested that it's possible, so, you know, check yoself. In other words, We're not sure if there's a link, we'd really have no way of knowing if there was, but we're not ready to rule it out. I'm pretty sure this is the only implication of WHO's classification.
Which makes sense to me. This is the type of causal link that, even if it did exist, would be difficult to support with data and nearly impossible to prove. Even with exposures that are pretty starkly associated with adverse outcomes, like tobacco smoke, it took decades for the link between exposure and outcome to become widely accepted.
I think that the media has been doing a good job with this story. I haven't read or heard or seen a single story on it that didn't also quote a credentialed public health scientist claiming that WHO's decision doesn't mean that cell phones cause cancer.
|