2011
DOI: 10.1002/bem.20679
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comments on de Vocht et al. “time trends (1998-2007) in brain cancer incidence rates in relation to mobile phone use in England”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such changes may not be due to chance occurrence. [ 19 ] Regardless of risk association,[ 11 14 16 ] these data reflect an ongoing need for incidence trend monitoring of both malignant and nonmalignant tumors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such changes may not be due to chance occurrence. [ 19 ] Regardless of risk association,[ 11 14 16 ] these data reflect an ongoing need for incidence trend monitoring of both malignant and nonmalignant tumors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It does, however, provide relevant information regarding population cancer risks, especially where triangulated with information from other study designs; it provides boundaries on the plausibility of results from the latter [Deltour et al, 2012]. It has further been pointed out that the results of mobile phone use on incidence trends may not be observable in national data because only a very small proportion of the population may be susceptible, or insufficient time has elapsed since the introduction of mobile phones for incidence to rise [Kundi, 2011]. Although the former may be true, this further strengthens the argument that RF exposure from mobile phones would be of relatively limited public health importance with respect to cancer (although it would be important to identify such vulnerable groups if these exist), while the latter is becoming increasingly implausible with time progressing; note, for example, that asbestos has an average induction period of several decades, but was already observable in national data after 10-14 years [Walker, 1984].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%