Hi, as my title say, in the question Do mobile phones have anything to do with brain cancer? the answer accepted refer to two studies from 2006 and 2001 absolutely valid. Nevertheless, the answer from @ghoppe cite a 2011 WHO study who says the opposite...

I have flagged and notified the OP but nothing has changed. Do we need a policy for this type of situations since science evolve and some time answers change?

  • 1
    The recent study is not necessarily better just because it is more recent. So is the answer.
    – user288
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 18:23
  • It's important to note that the WHO study does not "state the opposite". The WHO did not find evidence to support mobile phones having anything to do with cancer. They merely concluded that it was a topic worth looking into. Commented Jun 13, 2011 at 17:29

2 Answers 2


Here's the general rule:

Are you the OP?

  • Yes: select the best reply based on current information, same as always.
  • No: upvote and downvote, same as always.

BTW, flagging doesn't help—it doesn't notify the OP, just the mods, and there's nothing the mods can do in this sort of case. Well, they could delete the currently accepted answer, but a different answer would not then be auto-accepted.

  • 1
    totally agree :-)
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 14:10

I dismissed the flag as I saw no reason to intervene. It is not our job to decide which answer is right or wrong. That is what voting is for. We only intervene in case of non-answers, which don't even try to answer the question.

In this specific case I also disagree that the WHO study means the old answers are wrong. I personally have a problem with the WHO conclusion as many studies found no link between mobile phones and cancer and they didn't take the plausibility of the physical mechanism into account.

You can of course add a new answer yourself if you notice that new evidence has been found.

  • I didn't act either because, as you point out, recency itself does not make a study better. Simply favoring the WHO's because it's more recent is missing the point.
    – Borror0
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 13:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .