1st issue, Dr. Melnick doesn't disclose he is the author of the studies in the article body. He frames it FDA vs NTP, when its FDA vs his own work. It doesn't invalidate everything, but its not very honest to the readers who think they are getting impartial expert opinion (2/6)
The next issue is the studies themselves were designed to test toxicity and not to establish if human use was dangerous. co-author John Bucher has said the dose of radiation was way above human exposure. (3/6)
3rd issue is they found male rats developed brain tumours, they did not find this with female rats, male mice, or female mice. Also they found it with only one signal type (CDMA), when they tested GSM phones they found no brain tumours. Not a clear story. (4/6)
4th, the IARC argument I would have ignored, BUT Melnick is intelligent and knows its based on same data. You don't have 2 sources if your 2nd source is just quoting the 1st. IARC has already received scientific backlash on its #glyphosate cancer ruling (FDA also ignored) (5/6)
5th and last, the NTP study also showed the cell phone male rats lived longer than the controls. but in the words of Christopher Labos "Most likely “cell phones cause #cancer” was felt to be a more eye-catching headline than “cell phones make you live longer.”" (6/6)
