Faktencheck 04: ohne Reim, kein Problem (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr @, München, Sonntag, 15.12.2019, 21:23 (vor 1648 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Sowohl Repacholis Mäusestudie als auch die beiden Replikationsstudien lösten etliche Kommentare von Wissenschaftlern in Fachjournalen aus. Wer wann kommentierte ist in den oben verlinkten Einträgen der Studien im EMF-Portal zu sehen (z.B. Lin J., Goldstein L. S., Kundi M., Lerchl A.). Leider sind für Zaungäste die ausnahmslos englischen Kommentare nicht gratis einsehbar, davon ausgenommen ist (aus technischem Grund) nur der Kommentar von Kundi.

Ersatzweise zur Leserbriefdiskussion folgend ein Auszug aus dem Übersichtsartikel "Mobile phones and health: A literature overview", den Christian P. Karger, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, 2005 in dem Fachjournal "Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik", 15(2005) 73–85, veröffentlichte. In dem Auszug geht es um Widersprüche in Utteridges Replikationsversuch:

[...] Recently, the experiment of Repacholi et al. [79] was replicated by Utteridge et al. [97], indicating that long term microwave radiation does not increase lymphoma incidence. The experiment included 1600 mice and in contrast to the initial study, the animals were fixed during exposure and 4 different dose levels between 0.25 and 4 W/kg were used. Two groups of sham-treated animals were used, one with fixed and one with free moving animals. The experiment was performed for the initial transgenic strain as well as for the wild-type of the same strain. Great effort was spent on precise SAR measurements and in contrast to the initial study, all animals were necropsied. The publication was controversially discussed [35,36,63,66,67,98,99]. Since some exposure conditions were not exactly the same as in the initial study, the comparability of both studies was questioned [63,66,67]. The most important objection, however, was that the lymphoma incidence for the sham-treated transgenic mice in Utteridge et al. was significantly higher than that in Repacholi et al. (74 % vs. 28 %) [35,67]. In his reply [98], Utteridge solved this discrepancy by reprinting the survival curves as a function of age instead of the initially used days of exposure (which excluded weekends and publicholidays). After that, the incident rates agreed with those of Repacholi et al. In additional communications [36,99], some more details have been clarified. Finally, two recently published studies with similar experimental design also showed no significant effect [1,64]. In conclusion, the weight of evidence does not prove that microwave radiation adversely affects tumor promotion or progression [23]. [...]

Die beiden Studien mit ähnlichem Design [1,64] waren:

[1] Anane, R., Dilou P.-E., Taxile, M., Geffard, M., Crespeau F.-L., Veyret, B.: Effects of GSM-900 microwaves on DMBA-induced mammary gland tumors in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Radiat. Res. 160(2003) 492–497

[64] La Regina, M., Moros, E. G., Pickard, W. F., Strambe, W. L., Baty, J., Poti Roti, J. L.: The effect of chronic exposure to 835.62 MHz FDMA or 847.74 MHz CDMA radiofrequency radiation on the incidence of spontaneous tumors in rats. Radiat. Res. 160(2003) 143–151

--
Jedes komplexe Problem hat eine Lösung, die einfach, naheliegend, plausibel – und falsch ist.
– Frei nach Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956) –

Tags:
Repacholi, Replikation, Scheidsteger, Faktencheck, Veyret


gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum