Jim, I'm with you on this. The thing I find of interest in this article is that the researchers were able do replicate previous results by making similar assumptions (that they considered flawed) used in the previous study. That, at least, is somewhat meaningful. If this pushes a trend towards study using the same assumptions, that is an improvement.
However, I'm not sure it is going to matter much. From what I have read, I have real doubts about the accuracy of the incidence and prevalence rates currently used. I have some ingrained biases against medical research because of sample sizes that are much smaller than I use in education research and because the data are often collected for a different primary purpose. I don't think anyone really knows which are the best estimates.
In 32 years of practice, I was the first patient with a brain tumor, that my PCP had. Or at least knew that he had. There is a lot more information available now. In 2004, the Brian Tumor Registry was created, but it seems to me to be under-utilized and a long ways from being an optimal design. More information, better diagnostics, better training, are all likely to lead to more diagnoses. Once those issues are addressed, maybe then I will worry about cell phones. At that point, I can probably start worrying about WiFi networks at home, work, the bookstore, and Starbucks.
Or not. I spend a lot of time in the woods - I don't spend much time worrying about wild animals, after all, the weather is a much greater threat. Even then, I believe there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad gear. I drive about 24,000 miles a year...that is far more serious to worry about than cell phones.
Excepts for the bozos talking on cell phones while they drive.
-Tod
