POLL: How far were you living from a mobile phone base station mast when your ME/CFS first appeared?

[barbc56]

There was an apparent huge 5-fold to 8-fold increase in ME/CFS during the 1980s, which was around the time when cellular networks were first nationally introduced. Seethis thread.

Correlation is not causation.
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=9224

 

[Hip]

The poll will uncover nothing but people with ME/CFS live at different distances from cell phone towers which they obviously do. You can't make any determination re: the risk of developing of ME/CFS is associated with cell phone towers and the poll is totally skewed.

Kina, have you been able to understand the methodology I am using, and have you now changed your mind regarding your earlier statement that "You can't make any determination re: the risk of developing of ME/CFS".

I hope I was able to explain it clearly in my earlier post.

 

[Valentijn]

At the moment, the poll results show that you have 3 times the risk of developing ME/CFS if you live within 300 meters of a base station, compared to those who live in the 300 to 500 meter zone around the base station.

No, to show increased risk, you'd have to show how many healthy people (or people without ME/CFS) live in the same areas. That's why science favors using controls.

The size of the areas involved is grossly insufficient for making a determination of relevance.

 

[Hip]

No, to show increased risk, you'd have to show how many healthy people (or people without ME/CFS) live in the same areas.

It sounds like you have not read and understood my methodology detailed in this earlier post. Criticism is most welcome, but please make it relevant to the methodology, not just some random generic criticism that has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Undisclosed]

Kina, have you been able to understand the methodology I am using, and have you now changed your mind regarding your earlier statement that "You can't make any determination re: the risk of developing of ME/CFS".

I hope I was able to explain it clearly in my earlier post.

Yes, I understand your methodology. No I haven't changed my mind related to your determination re: the risk of developing ME/CFS.

It's pointless to discuss anything further with you because you don't appear to understand very much about scientific method, correlation vs causation, sample size, confounding variables, the value of polls, confirmation bias, skewing your research to agree with your hypothesis etc, etc and you refuse to consider that you are making spurious associations/correlations. If you were a student in a Research and Statistics course and you were marked for it, you would receive an F- and that would be a gift.

I am seriously thinking of asking for this thread to be deleted, so that I can set up a better version, with more annuli. If I could get say 50 to 100 votes, and if I had one or two more annuli, that would certainly reach statistical significance, so the result would carry some weight, insofar as any forum poll can carry weight.

No, we won't delete this thread.

It sounds like you have not read and understood my methodology detailed in this earlier post. Criticism is most welcome, but please make it relevant to the methodology, not just some random generic criticism that has no bearing on the issue.

@Hip at this point I would likely to kindly point out, that you are disregarding everybody's comment in favour of your own opinions. A lot of people have made very good points related to your ideas on this thread and you just treat them as generic criticisms or disregard them if they don't jive with what you are saying. So really, it's pointless to try and discuss this with you so I won't. It's a huge waste of my time.

 

[Hip]

Yes, I understand your methodology. No I haven't changed my mind related to your determination re: the risk of developing ME/CFS.

If you have not changed your mind, I suggest either you must have found a specific flaw in the methodology, or you don't understand it properly. If you have found a specific flaw, please point it out, as I would like to hear it. I very much welcome engaging criticism that addresses the issues and the fine details.

It's pointless to discuss anything further with you because you don't appear to understand very much about scientific method, correlation vs causation, sample size, confounding variables, the value of polls, confirmation bias, skewing your research to agree with your hypothesis etc, etc and you refuse to consider that you are making spurious associations/correlations.

That's not only a patronizing comment, but typical of the generic criticism that does not really address the issues at hand. It's also comes across as an ad hominem attack, where instead of criticizing the specific issues and details, you criticize the person's competence or abilities. It is also wrong, because I understand all those issues.

I could have said the same things about you, as you don't appear to know about some of the basics of bioelectromagnetics, like the fact that power level is not the only factor that determines the effects on biological systems. But I didn't; instead I politely explained those basic details of bioelectromagnetics to you.

It's laughable to say that I don't know the difference between correlation and causation; it is such a basic fact, it does not need to be mentioned.

A lot of people have made very good points related to your ideas on this thread and you just treat them as generic criticisms or disregard them if they don't jive with what you are saying.

The only relevant point I could see so far was the one made by arewenearlythereyet, who pointed out the possible issues with statistical significance. Which I agreed with.

If you can genuinely find a specific flaw in the methodology, I am very pleased to hear about it. I understand that not everyone has the time and patience to sift through the fine details, and then provide apt and relevant criticism; good criticism is hard work. But if anyone does have the patience, I really welcome what they have to say.

 

[Valentijn]

It sounds like you have not read and understood my methodology detailed in this earlier post.

I understand what you're saying, but it's highly flawed. You don't know how many people in general live in each area, and that is probably not something which be calculated merely upon size of the area.

 

[barbc56]

@Hip

There are multiple posts in three pages that cite problems with your methodology. We shouldn't have to keep repeating these points.

Since you started this post it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to support your hypothesis. I'm even confused about your hypothesis. In one post you mention you don't think the hypothesis will pan out yet reading other posts it seems that you do. I may be misinterpreting what you mean as it's not clear from what you wrote.

My suggestion is that you start with the hypothesis. If this is your opinion, just state that and cite some references. If you are trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis , I'd think the format of a forum would make it almost impossible to definitely prove or disprove any hypothesis

Good luck.

 

[Undisclosed]

If you have not changed your mind, I suggest either you must have found a specific flaw in the methodology, or you don't understand it properly. If you have found a specific flaw, please point it out, as I would like to hear it. I very much welcome engaging criticism that addresses the issues and the fine details.

I have already pointed out your flaw as have others. Well, actually others are pointing out different flaws.

At the moment, the poll results show that you have 3 times the risk of developing ME/CFS if you live within 300 meters of a base station, compared to those who live in the 300 to 500 meter zone around the base station.

The poll results show no such thing -- it shows 17 members lived 500 meters or further, 3 members lived less than 500 meters, 3 members lived less than 300 meters, and 2 members lived less than 150 meters from the nearest base station when they first experienced symptoms. That's it.

That's not only a patronizing comment, but typical of the generic criticism that does not really address the issues at hand. It's also comes across as an ad hominem attack, where instead of criticizing the specific issues and details, you criticize the person's competence or abilities. It is also wrong, because I understand all those issues.

I am not meaning to attack you as a person, I am definitely making a statement from the content that you have posted that you appear not to understand scientific method very well (don't know how to say that any other way) and the criticism is that no matter what your methodology is, you are making a spurious association/correlation.

I could have said the same things about you, as you don't appear to know about some of the basics of bioelectromagnetics, like the fact that power level is not the only factor that determines the effects on biological systems. But I didn't; instead I politely explained those basic details of bioelectromagnetics to you.

I will totally admit that I don't know much about bioelectromagnetics, I never said I did. What I do know about though is Research and Methodology. I don't need to understand one thing about bioelectromagnetics to make a statement that what you producing on this thread -- is very flawed. I am capable though of reading studies related to EMF's and can comprehend the results.

It's laughable to say that I don't know the difference between correlation and causation; it is such a basic fact, is does not need to be mentioned.

Again, you said earlier in the thread:

At the moment, the poll results show that you have 3 times the risk of developing ME/CFS if you live within 300 meters of a base station, compared to those who live in the 300 to 500 meter zone around the base station.

You are drawing a correlation here as well as making a statement of causation drawn from 25 members saying they lived X amount of meters from cell phone towers when they got sick. If you can't see that I can't say anything else to you because it's pointless even trying to have a conversation with you.

The only relevant point I could see so far was the one made by arewenearlythereyet, who pointed out the possible issues with statistical significance. Which I agreed with.

That's the point - the only relevant points YOU see... . The confirmation bias is strong in you. Please don't tag me again on this thread. I just don't have the time for this. It's a waste of time.

 

[wdb]

I'd be concerned about selection bias, this is not a random sample of PWME, those who know they live near a mast may have been much more inclined to click on this thread.

 

[Hip]

I understand what you're saying, but it's highly flawed. You don't know how many people in general live in each area, and that is probably not something which be calculated merely upon size of the area.

Thank you for taking the time read and understand the methodology. It is genuinely appreciated. I really do welcome criticism that addresses the specifics, and criticism that may uncover specific flaws in the method.

To take you up on your point, which is a good point: when I was thinking this through in my mind, as far as I can see, it does not matter what the population density is within each 500 meter radius circle. The only thing that matters is that on average, there is a uniform population density within each 500 meter circle.

A 500 meter circle in the center of a city will tend to have a higher population density than the same circle in the suburban areas. But in either case, the population density will likely be uniform inside the 500 meter circle, on average. That's the key assumption I have based my analysis on.


When you are dealing with a 500 meter circle with uniform population density, you would expect that on average, the incidence of ME/CFS in the inner 300 meter circle would be proportional to its area, and likewise for the outer 300 to 500 meter annulus, the incidence would be proportional to its area.

As I mentioned, the ratio of these two areas is 0.56, so you would expect the ratio of incidence of ME/CFS in these areas to be 0.56 (assuming the null hypothesis, that proximity to base stations is not a risk factor for triggering ME/CFS).

But if you get results that differ from this ratio, with a higher than expected incidence of ME/CFS in the inner 300 meter circle, then by the logic of my analysis, that indicates proximity to base stations may be a risk for ME/CFS.

I'd be concerned about selection bias, this is not a random sample of PWME, those who know they live near a mast may have been much more inclined to click on this thread.

I agree, and I did think about that shortcoming. The self-selecting nature of forum polls responses is problematic in this respect, and I agree, people who know they live near a mobile phone mast may be more inclined to respond to this poll, thereby introducing bias.

But the method I've used should to an extent prevent this bias: because I am only analysing the data of people who live close to (within 500 meters) a base station anyway. I am discarding the data of people who live 500 meters or further from a base station.

 

[wdb]

Also in very densely populated areas like central London nobody is more than 150m from a mast, this will completely skew the calculation you are proposing.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Just another couple on design.

Structure of questionairre should really include a " I didn't live near a telephone mast" option By not including this you are potentially missing out on some respondents or skewing results by introducing a forced choice. This will give you a positive bias.

I also agree that by not screening your respondents you are probably almost certainly introducing a positive bias to the "data" since by the question posed only those more interested in giving you a positive answer will respond regardless of how close they live to the mast.

Key thing though is you can't avoid using a control group since there are too many variables not to (catch all to cover biases and factors you may not have considered)

but small sample size is the biggie as I've previously mentioned.

 

[Sushi]

I'd be concerned about selection bias, this is not a random sample of PWME, those who know they live near a mast may have been much more inclined to click on this thread.

And, another potential bias: only those who believe that electromagnetic radiation can affect your health are likely to respond. I don't think any forum polls means much as the sample is always very small and it will always be biased by the interest level and beliefs of forum members.

 

[Hip]

Also in very densely populated areas like central London nobody is more than 150m from a mast, this will completely skew the calculation you are proposing.

True, in those very central areas, nobody is more than 150m from a mast, but I don't think this will skew the calculation, because that central area of London with dense mast concentrations is only around 10 square miles by my measurement, which is a small faction (1.6%) of the 610 square miles that comprise Greater London. And even a smaller fraction of the 94,058 square miles that comprise the United Kingdom.

There is also the reverse situation, where a some places, particularly outside of the main cities, base stations are located out of town, or in a non-residential industrial park, which can mean that in those locations, everybody is further than 150 meters from a mast. So you will have a various situations like this, but hopefully one can assume on average it balances out.

Structure of questionairre should really include a " I didn't live near a telephone mast" option By not including this you are potentially missing out on some respondents or skewing results by introducing a forced choice. This will give you a positive bias.

In effect that response is already included in the questionnaire: it is the "500 meters or further from the nearest base station" response.

Key thing though is you can't avoid using a control group since there are too many variables not to (catch all to cover biases and factors you may not have considered)

You'll have to explain a bit more about what you have in mind when you say using control group, because I can't really see how you would do this in an epidemiological study. In a medical study of a disease treatment, a control group is given a placebo, and then compared to the other group given the actual treatment. But how would you set up a control study where all the base stations were "placebos", and did not emit any electromagnetic radiation?

And, another potential bias: only those who believe that electromagnetic radiation can affect your health are likely to respond. I don't think any forum polls means much as the sample is always very small and it will always be biased by the interest level and beliefs of forum members.

That could well be the case, but I cannot see how it would skew the results, because even those people would still have to respond to the poll by giving the correct distance between their home and the nearest base station (unless they are pathological liars!).

 

[Hip]

There appears to be a major problem with one of the US maps: I got people to use this US map of base station locations for use in this poll, but that map appears to have a huge amount of missing of base station compared to the other US map (in which you first need to enter your city).

So unfortunately this duff US map would have very badly skewed the results of this poll, because the duff map has so many base stations missing, that people will have voted for being much further from a base station than they actually are.


I have now changed the voting instructions for US patients so that they use the other better map, but with 26 people having already voted in this poll so far, the results will be badly skewed — and skewed away from supporting the idea that base station proximity is a risk factor for ME/CFS.



For anyone from the US who previously voted in this poll, please can you once again measure the distance to the nearest mobile phone base station, using the updated US instructions and map given in the first post in this thread, and then if necessary change your vote (you are allowed to change your original vote).

 

[me/cfs 27931]

I know of at least a dozen smaller cell antennas closer to me than anything that appears on either of the US maps listed above. They are quite easy to spot at the top of power poles, and have signage designating them as cell antennas.

Not sure if you wanted to include or exclude antennas in the poll.

"Towers are tall structures (typically over 200 ft) used for Cellular, Paging and other radios services. Towers can contain multiple antennas owned by various companies."

"Antennas are the actual signal emitters for cellular, paging and other radio services. Antennas can be placed on towers or be stand alone and placed on top of offices, condos, churches, light poles, signs, etc. Stand alone Antennas are small and difficult to spot as they are easily hidden/camouflaged."

A good search site is http://www.antennasearch.com

 

[Sean]

If mobile phones are a possible suspect via temporal correlation, then so are microwave ovens and video cassette recorders, just to pick two examples, which also became common household appliances in the 1980s (indeed, they did so before mobile phones took off, most homes in that era would have had one or both of those appliances before they had mobile phones).

No doubt there are many other possibilities. Electromagnetic emissions generally have increased rapidly in the last few decades. So if they are a problem, then it could be from any one of a number of sources.

Two other examples of plausible alternative explanations for the increase in reported cases in the 80s are increased recognition of the problem (even if still completely misunderstood), and far more opportunity for infectious vectors to spread globally.

It's a long list.

There are so many confounders in your question that cannot be controlled for in a simple self-selected survey. The sample size alone needed to even start answering your question would probably be at least tens of thousands.

Then there is the historical evidence that ME/CFS like illnesses have been reported going back before the industrial age. This alone restricts the possible role of mobile phones to an additional causal or exacerbating factor.

I don't want to discourage people from asking questions. But they also have to propose methodologically sound ways to answer them.

 

[Hip]

A good search site is http://www.antennasearch.com

That's a really great map Webdog, many thanks.

As you say, your antennasearch.com map seems to show far more cell towers (not mention even further numbers of cell antennas) than the US map I provided.


If we search for cell towers in San Francisco using the antennasearch.com map, it shows these:

Searching for antennas in San Francisco using antennasearch.com, it shows an insane amount of antennas:

Whereas using the map I provided, it shows far, far fewer cell towers, and no antennas at all:

So clearly a lot of these cell phone base station maps cannot be trusted to be complete.

 

[Hip]

No doubt there are many other possibilities. Electromagnetic emissions generally have increased rapidly in the last few decades. So if they are a problem, then it could be from any one of a number of sources.

There are indeed lots of different sources of electromagnetic radiation that we are increasingly exposed to, but each particular type and source of electromagnetic radiation may have its own unique ill-health effects, so it may be possible to disentangle the effects of one EM source from the effects of another.

This similar to our exposure to toxic environmental chemicals: we are all exposed to multiple such toxic chemicals, yet it is still possible to conduct studies that focus in on the ill health effects of environmental exposure to a specific chemical.

The ill health effects potentially arising from the relatively low level (but constant 24 hour) exposure to microwaves from mobile phone base station masts / towers may be quite different and distinct to the ill health effects potentially arising from the much higher level (but short duration) exposure to microwaves from mobile phones held next to your head.


I don't think video cassette recorders emit any appreciable electromagnetic radiation, by the way, at least as far as I am aware.