The notion that brain surgeons are automatically qualified to conduct and evaluate complex biomedical research in oncology and neurology strikes me as approximately as valid as the idea that skilled software developers are automatically qualified to evaluate cryptosystems, compression algorithms, or semiconductor process technology.
But I am qualified! I designed a cryptosystem just last week, and nobody's broken it yet!
Moreover, the PDF that I published on my personal website sounds very erudite, and doesn't contain any obvious spelling errors. I have over fifteen years' experience in the lab [1], have authored nearly a dozen scientific publications in prestigious journals such as Physical Review Letters and Cancer Research [2], and have seven years' experience as a semiconductor process technologist. [3] So I don't see how you can dismiss my work out of hand, particularly since you, as a security professional, have an obvious conflict of interest. [4]
[1] At least two years of which involved making photocopies, washing glassware, and ordering pizza.
[2] This is actually true, for reasonable values of "nearly" and "prestigious". You must also remember that being Nth author counts as "authoring".
[3] Also true. And so relevant, too!
[4] Notice that "the desire to toot your own horn" never seems to count as a "conflict of interest".
While noting that nobody else is going to toot your horn for you, I'll say that cryptography was just the first thing to come into my head, for obvious reasons. I can't tell from the tone of your comment, but if you've worked in semiconductors, cancer research, and cryptography, let me be the first to proclaim that you have a bad-ass resume.
Oh, I totally lied about the cryptography. :) I have a copy of Schneier on my shelf that I occasionally put under my pillow at night... does that count?
All that I know about cryptography is that anyone who claims to have written their own unbreakable system, but hasn't had that system vetted by other cryptographers, is nearly 100% likely to be completely full of it.
The semiconductors and cancer research are true. It sounds so much more impressive than it actually is, though, which is kind of my point. Yeah, I've worked in several fields, and I like to think I learned something from all of that time, but if I wrote a crypto paper I would still be talking out of my ass. Hell, if I wrote my own cancer research paper I'd be talking out of my ass -- my role in the cancer lab was mainly "physics guy who knows how to change the light bulbs on the multiphoton microscope".
Well, I want to avoid insulting, e.g., my former co-author, a neurosurgeon who also does oncological research... but I don't think your analogy is bad at all.
It's generally true that the skills, the approach, and the techniques of surgeons and researchers are completely different. Surgery is a specialty. For example, I've had the head of surgical oncology at a very prestigious hospital tell me that he doesn't know much about chemotherapy -- there are other experts for that. And none of those clinical guys are necessarily experts in the causes of cancer, nor in its rate of incidence.
The stereotype, of course, is that every surgeon thinks that being a surgeon makes you an expert in everything. Sometimes that mold fits: Tremendous self-confidence is almost a requirement for being a great surgeon, and the side effect can be... an excess of confidence. And sometimes the mold is unfair. The field I briefly worked in -- antiangiogenesis -- was founded by the late Judah Folkman, a famous surgeon who did his even-more-famous research as his second job. Folkman had to spend a lot of years gathering data before other researchers were convinced that he wasn't just another surgeon with delusions of grandeur. But, as it happens, he wasn't.
In the end, you've got to show the data, and it has got to survive real criticism. That's the metric.
But more than a little more qualified than you are in this area, if you want to play that game.
At least the guy giving the "warning" argued from something a little more substantial than "look where this was published." And now your entire argument has further devolved to "look at the resume of this guy", instead of on the paper itself.
No wonder PG has to tutor some of you on logical thought.
Correct, but your statement assumes that there is some other field that is better attuned to "brain cancer and tissue interaction with EMF over prolonged periods." I dont know.
It does mean that he is most probably aware of trends in brain cancer, such as certain increases. He is also in the front lines in dealing with the possible results of cell phone EMF damage. He also could possibly have very good communication with other brain surgeons dealing with similar problems.
The field is called "epidemiology" or "biophysics", depending on whether you are studying the rate of brain cancers or the mechanism by which EMFs interact with tissue.
It does mean that he is most probably aware of trends in brain cancer, such as certain increases.
Not at all. To a brain surgeon, the world is full of brain tumors. They see lots of brain tumors every day. Meanwhile, cancer patients are even closer to "the front lines" than surgeons, yet they know even less about what causes tumors. In fact, they quickly seize upon whichever half-baked explanation the media offers them, which is why so many cancer patients now run around complaining about their cell phones, instead of cigarettes or environmental chemicals or obesity or -- just possibly -- sheer random chance.
What you're looking for is a paper by an epidemiologist -- a person who is trained in statistics -- that talks about the rate of incidence of brain cancer. The paper needs to be peer-reviewed, because even the people who are trained in statistics tend to make mistakes occasionally, particularly when the mistakes make their research more interesting or more personally profitable.
The field is called "epidemiology" or "biophysics", depending on whether you are studying the rate of brain cancers or the mechanism by which EMFs interact with tissue.
The study of interactions of radiation with biological materials is called radiobiology. Generally, the people who study these kinds of effects on populations are health physicists and epidemiologists.
The doctors website and the article in question: http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html
The doctor appears competent to me, but I haven't actually performed any brain surgery so cannot rate his work, but at least he claims "success".
http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/c_a.html
Another similar article: http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/media/MobilephoneCT27-3-08.p...