Comparison of Hypotheses on Criteria of Adequacy
Testability
Of our three hypotheses we have determined that 2 are easily testable. These are our claim that EMFs can cause cancer and Alternative Hypothesis 2 (Cancer is hereditary). Alternative Hypothesis 1 (weak immune systems make people vulnerable for developing cancer) we have determined is not easily testable because the strength of the immune system fluctuates over time depending on a person’s health and well being at any given time. A weakened immune system is likely to be a symptom of some other factor and if cancer does develop in those individuals the factor causing the weakened immune system is really the causal factor. For example, we know that EMF exposure causes cellular damage and stress which in turn could cause a weak immune system. Thus Alternative Hypothesis 1 (weak immune systems and cancer) is not as strong as our other 2 hypotheses on the Criteria of Testability.
Fruitfulness
Since Alternative Hypothesis 1 (weak immune systems and cancer) does not make any fruitful predictions. We consider it to be the weakest of the three hypotheses. Both our claim ( EMFs can cause cancer ) and Alternative Hypothesis 2 (Cancer is hereditary) are fruitful because both provide novel predictions about situations than can cause cancer.
Scope
Alternative Hypothesis 1 (Weak immune systems) claims to predict that a person with a weak immune system is more vulnerable to the development of cancer from EMFs. However, as we consider it not very testable it’s scope is questionable. Our claim ( EMFs can cause cancer) predicts the phenomena that EMFs can cause cancer and other health issues in human beings and therefore has scope. Alternative Hypothesis 2 ( Cancer is hereditary) also has scope because it predicts the phenomena that hereditary genetic factors can be causal for cancer. However, it does not predict how cancer is caused where hereditary factors do not play a role and cannot explain the reasons why persons exposed to EMF’s would develop cancer. We consider our claim (EMFs can cause cancer) to have the greatest scope of our three hypotheses.
Simplicity
Alternative Hypothesis 1 (weak immune systems and cancer) makes the assumption that weak immune systems are causal when in fact they are more likely to be symptomatic and thus this hypothesis lacks simplicity. Based on effect to cause studies and scientific experimentation, our claim (EMFs can cause cancer) does not make assumptions and has simplicity. Alternative Hypothesis 2 ( Cancer is hereditary) does not make assumptions in explaining that cancer can be caused by hereditary factors. However, according to alternative hypothesis 2, we would have to assume that hereditary factors were the only phenomenon causing these cancers and in this way it has less simplicity than our claim that EMFs can cause cancer.
Conservatism
Alternative Hypothesis 1 (weak immune systems and cancer) is lacking in conservatism because it cannot be easily tested and therefore yields no useful information that is consistent with our well founded beliefs. Alternative Hypothesis 2 (Hereditary factors and cancer) is conservative in its own right since it is consistent with our well founded beliefs that hereditary factors can be factors that cause one to develop cancer. However, it cannot fully explain the cancers that develop when individuals are exposed to EMFs because factors other than hereditary factors are playing a role. Well established theory indicates that there are other factors that also play a role in causing cancer. Our claim ( EMFs can cause cancer) is the most conservative because it is the most consistent with our well founded beliefs. Trustworthy observations and scientific tests have been made and they are part of well established theory stating that exposure to different wavelengths of the electromagnetic field are known to be causal for cancer.
Conclusions
Based on our evaluation of the Criteria of Adequacy we consider that our claim is the strongest explanation for the cancers caused in the studies that we examined. Most of the studies we looked at are non-experimental cause-to-effect, and these are the least strong in terms of determining causation in populations. However, it is the only possible option for the studies since it would be unethical to experimentally expose individuals to large doses of potentially harmful EMFs. Though inductive arguments only provide a most likely or most probable explanation we consider that the inductive argument made by these studies, that is, EMFs are the most likely cause of cancer, is strong. This is because the expertise of the individuals performing the studies is highly rated and their methodology is also well respected amongst their peers.
The one study that discredited our claim (Interphone - looking at cell phone EMFs) which stated there was not enough evidence to claim EMF exposure from cell phone was causal for cancer was found to be flawed in methodology and was biased but despite this it found that long term exposure to EMFs was found to be significant in relationship to an increase in cancers.
A further supporting factor for our claim is that there have been several studies performed by experts corroborating these results not only for the effects of cell phone EMFs but also exposure to EMFs from power lines and cell phone towers. Besides studies on population, we discovered scientific research from a well respected expert source that demonstrated the cellular damage from exposure to EMFs that subsequently lead towards the development of cancer.
One of our discoveries has been that many of the studies funded by the cell phone companies tend to show that there is not enough evidence to say that EMFs are linked to cancer compared to independent studies. Thus bias is playing a role in preventing the establishment of reliable data.
Although additional studies and research will further corroborate these findings, we may not be able to afford to wait because there is enough evidence to show that there is a risk for EMF exposure. Typically tumors may not develop for up to 10 years after exposure and children are much more vulnerable to the effects of EMFs particularly from cell phones because their skulls are thinner allowing the EMFs to penetrate much more deeply. Countries in Europe such as France and Britain are already providing some legislation to protect the public and are posting warnings of the potential dangers.
