JB wrote:

After reading 1/4 of the "Biological studies..." it is interesting. But we
need to remember that experiments only become valid when repeated numerous
times. As these are only summaries, they are hard to compare and we loose
that without having the full experiment laid out before us. I have tended
to throw away those that didn't describe the frequency and field strength in
some way as less than anecdotal.


I'm still not convinced that use of tobacco products are bad for you,
and I've got scientific evidence from tobacco industry lawyers to back
me up. ;^) No relation to this issue except there are people who stand
to profit by both being harmless.


There is always the question of how many studies it takes to make
something "real". I always like to mention the book from the 1870's that
mentions how smoking causes lung cancer; chewing causes oral cancer. But
it wasn't until almost a hundred years later that it really did, because
it took that long to be "proven".

All we can do is make an informed guess, and stick with it. I choose to
limit my cell phone use.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
I'm still not convinced that use of tobacco products are bad for
you, and I've got scientific evidence from tobacco industry lawyers to
back me up. ;^) No relation to this issue except there are people who
stand to profit by both being harmless.
...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I don't think the nicotine in a cigarette is going to "calm richards'
condition."

Perhaps some Thorazine would help, but that is only by prescription ...
"getting laid" has always helped me ... GRIN

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

In the loose, dataless environment of this debate, spontaneous
combustion from the use of a cell phone is now a reality supported by
dialog. That it is a fiction is overwhelmed by it inhabiting debate
about real worry.

Of course I introduced this tar-baby and it worked. There is no way
to back out of its grip without data now.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a productive
discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What is really going to "cook your noodle" is when you realize this is
how cigarette smoking was determined to actually be good for you.
Remember the old ads with doctors, of actors who looked like doctors,
telling how studies had actually determined smoking improved/enhanced
your health?

Now class, can you find any examples of this/these "disinformation
methods" still in use today? Any suspected examples?

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:45:12 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

so the only
conclusion I can make is that the sensation I felt, I did not feel.

Let's see, if one were to take a cubic inch block of dry air-chilled
sodium straight out of the fridge and dump it into a bath tub with 4
orders of more magnitude volume of water, no heat should be possible
because of the massive heat sink of that water at room temperature and
that same cold block of material. The same could be said of
Phosphorous going in the reverse direction.

No bang would be heard, if you weren't there to hear it.

You willing to witness this test (sodium or phosphorous) to confirm
the supposition? Take a bigger bite of an apple size Chipotle and
report about the absence of blistering instead.

Better yet, can you prove that the jalapenos don't lead to CNS tumors.
Are you willing to accept the responsibility for your stand that they
don't.

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

Admittedly, this is the first time that I have heard "not likely"
turned into certitude. I would at one time have said that wasn't very
likely.

One might begin to think that there is bit of a difference between
scientific discourse and English discourse. That is likely. Whereas I
highly doubt that it would happen, you use that doubt as a springboard
to add to the issue.

All without answering my question!

I doubt that using a cell phone wil cause me to crave lutefisk either.
So we add another possibility to the mix.

Ask a scientist if a singularity might show up and start spitting to
coffee cups S/he will probably say "not likely", when indeed it is
almost impossible, yet not eliminated. Something like almost infinitely
unlikely, depending on if we ascribe to the big crunch eventually
following the big bang, or even the big cigarette. But at least take a
shower. But I digress.....

It doesn't ipso fatso mean they accept that as a real possibility. But
the odds, as scientists look at them, make it difficult to state 100
percent yes or no. We see it all the time on TV cop shows when they go
to court. They even give odds on DNA evidence.

Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a
productive discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What is really going to "cook your noodle" is when you realize this is
how cigarette smoking was determined to actually be good for you.
Remember the old ads with doctors, of actors who looked like doctors,
telling how studies had actually determined smoking improved/enhanced
your health?


I remember Arther Godfrey.

http://www.bigsmilehealth.com/blog/6/war-on-smoking/

http://www.blujay.com/?page=ad&cat=7170000&adid=1449506

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

.... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

.... well, I certainly going to have to re-check my spelling and words in
my posts. GRIN

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:15:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Admittedly, this is the first time that I have heard "not likely"
turned into certitude. I would at one time have said that wasn't very
likely.

See how this grows? We are now engaged in debating what is "not
likely," but of course that is how it started out anyway. What is
embraced as a real risk is equally dismissed by the same logic. Anyone
who worries about CNS tumors induced by cell phones, must allow that
they could suffer spontaneous combustion from the same source, same
risk. Risk, after all, is not a thing, it is a number. Without data,
employing risk as rhetoric automatically elevates everything that was
once inconsequential to life threatening.

However, as to your literal statement above, I feel it is "very
likely" that you HAVE heard "not likely" turned into a certitude:
"...due to the nature of Improbability calculations,
that which is Infinitely Improbable is actually very
likely to happen almost immediately..."

And I feel it is "very likely" you can name the author.

QED

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC