Stelios A Zinelis
The Interphone Study Group (2010)1 conducted a study on mobile telephone use has made this conclusion:
“Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with the use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and errors prevent a causal interpretation.”
This study was completed in 2004, but for unknown reasons, the results were published six years later, upon demand by scientific organisations such as the European Environment Agency and the European Union (2009)2 (which partially funded the study, along with the International Union against Cancer [Mobile Manufacturers Forum and GSM Association]), who were concerned about the effects of mobile phone use on public health.
Culling through the more than 1100 news headlines generated in the last few days, you would not be alone in wondering what the bottom line is from the 10-year, 13-country INTERPHONE study of cell phone use and brain tumors.
An interesting trend emerged over the course of 24 hours the day before the study was officially released. If you wondered how there could be so many opinions in the press days BEFORE its release, its because selected people got the report last week. Ignoring IARC pleas for a complete embargo on jumping the media gun, many did.
Science News Janet Raloff and the Los Angeles Times fairly ranted about having to observe IARC’s media embargo, while watching the not-so-compliant issuing torrents of opinion pieces.
Those who know the media cycle know you only have a few hours to get your work out there and covered, and these stories can heavily influence the message the public gets. You miss the 24-hour news cycle, and it is gone.