A Cosmopolitan Commenting from Athens Says That Bill Singer’s Head May Explode from Cellphone Use. Or May Not.

I read Bill Singer’s article on Forbes about cell phones. Bill attempted to appear as a frank journalist who has done his homework and employs humor to explain away all the fuss about IARC's (IARC stands for International Agency for Research in Cancer) announcement that classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Having read the announcement myself, I have to disagree with Bill's take on the issue. In fact, I'd be so bold as to suggest that either Bill lost some of his reading skills (possibly due to age; did you know he is turning 60 soon?) or he is trying to do some damage control for the mobile phone companies and carriers.

What does the announcement say?

The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers.

So, the evidence so far is inadequate for "other types of cancers" but for glioma and acoustic neuroma is described as limited.

And they continue:

The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).

So, we do have one study that shows a 40% increase for gliomas...

The keyword here is "limited". What does this mean in IARC jargon?

'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

So, the scientists in IARC are considering a casual link between glioma and acoustic neuroma and cell phone use to be credible, but they can't rule out chance, bias or confounding yet. So, further research is needed.

Announcements like that serve a dual purpose: first, they inform the public of possible dangers. Second, they ask for more money. However, a "it seems that way, but we can't be sure yet" statement shouldn't be taken lightly. After all, it's brain cancer we are talking about, and there are five billion users of mobile phones.

Let's see how Bill reads the press release:

Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

And here's how I read it:

Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans(Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

And lest Bill gets consumed with agony over whether he should be using his brand new iPhone (did Forbes get their fees for that ad?), let's give a reply to his burning questions:

I mean, are they kidding me? What the hell does “possibly carcinogenic to humans” mean? Is it or isn’t it?

No, the announcement wasn't made to mess with you. Really. Honestly. They are serious scientists. As serious as serious people are these days. And they made an announcement to inform their colleagues and the public that they think mobile phones possibly cause gliomas and acoustic neuromas. There are serious studies that suggest this link, but because serious studies are not infallible, more research is needed before we can be conclusive that this link exists.

To insist on a black-and-white approach on any matter in a complex world is naive at best, and suspicious at worst. Personally, I wouldn't like the experts to announce in ten years' time that they had indications that cell phones were carcinogenic all this time, but they waited till they were 100% sure to let us know. In a complex world, you get lots of grey areas of data and you get to be responsible for the decisions you make. It's never easy. Even when you read Forbes.

evening walk

Spring

How Some Serious Thinking Could Have Saved Us From A Lot Of Trouble

The current crisis can be described by the triptych: Superficial Understanding, Uncertainty, Panic.

There is no excuse for the high-profile analysts, whether academics, bankers, or government advisors, not foreseeing the mess we are in at the moment. The methods employed to resolve the banking crisis, prepared the national debt crisis with mathematical certainty. The governments increased their deficits and public debts in order to bail out the banks and protect the banking system from collapse. This way, the problem was moved to a higher level, creating a global public deficit bubble that was ready to burst.

This means that the current crisis should have been forecasted. However, instead of analyzing things rationally, the markets were doing business as usual, assured in their dogmas that big countries don't go bankrupt, just like they were doing business as usual before the banking crisis erupted, assured in the dogma that big banks don't collapse. This irrational assurance, this superficial thinking led to awe and surprise when a country actually collapsed. When Dubai World announced on November a debt standstill, the markets run amok, and decided Greece would be next.

The pressure put on the Greek bonds made it impossible for Greece to borrow money from the markets. In this sense, the markets' fear became a self-fulfilling prophesy, and Greece would have to announce a debt standstill were it not for the high-level diplomacy of the Greek Prime Minister (and President of Socialist International) George Papandreou, who managed to get political and economical support from the rest of the Eurozone in an unprecedented 110 billion euro package.

While Greece took a reprieve, uncertainty rose with regards to the economies of Portugal and Spain, which led the Eurozone leaders to decide upon a historic 750 billion euro package, at the dawn of what would otherwise have been a Black Monday. The panic was averted, for now.

Yet many economists, instead of making insightful analyses of the crisis, they speak of a "Greek disease" or try to explain how the economies of the UK and the US are not like Greece's because they can devalue their currency. Their superficial understanding of both the Greek and the global economy is part of the problem. Instead of helping the markets form a rational approach, the lack of serious thinking adds to the fear and poses a danger to world economy.

The Greek problem

Greece faces grave challenges. A series of mistaken political decisions made by the previous government, along with issues that have been troubling the Greek State since its foundation in the nineteenth century, culminated in the recent crisis that threatens the stability of Europe.

How can Greece unloose this Gordian knot? Well, since it's political decisions that created it in the first place, it will take political decisions to unloose it. After all, it's not a metaphysical problem nor one of Fate's games. The Gods are not to blame for this sad state of affairs. It's about politics. And political problems are solved with the right political decisions.

Thankfully, the current government appears to have what it takes to deal with the monster the previous government created. It has already begun reforming a State on the brick of collapse. Let the wind of change blow! As long as Greece moves with determination and decisiveness towards the right direction, we need not fear the beast.

"If Norway's all right, that's enough for me!"

I took my staff, therefore, slung a rucksack over my shoulders, and headed for the mountains. It was the time when the Germans were forcing their way into Norway and fighting to subjugate it.

One midday I heard a savage voice high above me as I was traversing the foot of Psiloriti.

"Hey, neighbor, wait a minute! I want to ask you something!"

Lifting my head, I perceived a man draw away from a boulder and come tumbling down. He descended with giant strides from rock to rock; the stones rolled away under his feet, a great clamor began, the entire mountain seemed to be tumbling down with him. Now I could distinctly see that he was an immense, elderly shepherd. I stopped and waited for him. What could he want with me, I asked myself, and why such eagerness?

He came close to me, halting on a rock. His uncovered chest was hairy and steaming.

"Hey, neighbor, how is Norway getting on?" he asked with panting breath.

He had heard that a country was in danger of being enslaved. He had no real idea what Norway was, where it was located or what kind of people lived there. The one thing he clearly understood was that liberty was in danger.

"Better, grandpa, better. No need to worry," I answered.

"Thank God," roared the old shepherd, making the sign of the cross.

"Want a cigarette?" I asked him.

"Bah! What do I want with a cigarette? I don't want anything. If Norway's all right, that's enough for me!"

Saying this, he swung out his crook and climbed up again to find his flock.

excerpt from "Report to Greco", by Nikos Kazantzakis, translated by Peter A. Bien