| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:
Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped breathing there would be no cancer, no aging. Although meant humorously, it should be noted that oxidation is a process that doesn't necessarily involve oxygen at all! Oxidation is the process of losing one or more electrons by an atom (which may form part of a molecule) - the species that gained the appropriate electrons is said to be 'reduced'. Redox reactions are a basic part of chemistry. The real oxidation damage to human cells comes from the action of 'free radicals' - molecules that have gained a lone electron. These electrons are highly reactive, and the transfer of this electron to a molecule in a cell can cause (chemical) damage. If this happens to be part of the cell's DNA, then the 'message' encoded by the DNA has been altered.....which can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and reproduction, and hence The Big Casino. Where do free radicals come from? Currently they are though to arise through pollution, fried foods, alcohol, sunlight, solvents, ionising radiation, the sources are many and varied. What can you do to prevent free-radical attack? Avoid free-radical producers, and ensure you take enough anti-oxidants through dietary supplementation.... The interested reader is encouraged to find out more through, e.g. web searches. There's a lot of info out there. I've laboured this a bit because there are people on this ng whose level of understanding is such that they believe things like 'dehumidifiers absorb heat.....you can use this to warm up your shed'. -- from Aero Spike |
Prometheus wrote:
I do not expect anything a simplistic as a step function at the ten year threshold, perhaps this like your previous post is also omitting essential information? I didn't say there was a step function at the ten year threshold and I'm certainly not going to type in the entire article. It is much more likely that it is a ramp function roughly emerging from the average after around ten years of use. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Brian Reay wrote:
Have other factors in the 'life style' of phone users been ruled out? For further information, please contact Stefan Lönn at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:49:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years spent working with binary circuits? That was the gist of what I got out of reading the article the title and header of which is: "CELLPHONES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY'RE BENIGN; THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THEY'RE THERE." Your gist may vary. I assume one argument from the "no energy in RF waves" guys will be "no energy = no tumor". Anyone done a survey on ham radio & tumors? Is a 700 milliwatt phone signal, next to the ear, that much worse than a 100 watt signal radiating from a screwdriver antenna about 10 feet away? Bob k5qwg |
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ... Isn't Orange an offshoot of Hutchinsion Telecom which was, I think, from Hong Kong? That was the company that created it, then sold it to British Aerospace, who in turn sold it on again. It is now French (spit) owned. Actually Dave, Cecil's use of "already" was quite appropriate. That was why I included the smilies. I find it kinda cute that English in this country has modernised, but that English spoken over the pond is stuck in the 17 century. Languages change. In fact, there is some evidence the US English is nearer to old English than current UK usage. Once again, I find this fact hard to understand, when the world's fastest growing technology, with the worlds largest budget etc can't up-grade the language it speaks, to what the rest of the English speaking world use. Regards Dave |
In article , Cecil Moore
writes Prometheus wrote: I do not expect anything a simplistic as a step function at the ten year threshold, perhaps this like your previous post is also omitting essential information? I didn't say there was a step function at the ten year threshold and I'm certainly not going to type in the entire article. It is much more likely that it is a ramp function roughly emerging from the average after around ten years of use. Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y 10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the study that lead to such a conclusion I do not expect you to type in the entire article, but you only stated "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" which provide no information about any association after ten years. -- Ian G8ILZ |
Prometheus wrote:
Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y 10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the study that lead to such a conclusion Your basic ignorance of statistical data is showing. What if, starting at ten years of use, 1% of cell phone users suffered 1% more tumors than non-cellphone users and a year later, 2% of cellphone users suffered 2% more tumors than non-cellphone users, and a year later 3% of cellphone users suffered 3% more tumors than non-cellphone users .... That is certainly ***NOT*** a step function, to which you objected, but a ramp function that is certainly something to be concerned about. Hint: I'm surprised that you don't know that nothing changes instantaneously in reality, i.e. a 'step function' is purely an invention of the human mind. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
In article , Cecil Moore
writes Prometheus wrote: Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y 10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the study that lead to such a conclusion Your basic ignorance of statistical data is showing. What if, starting at ten years of use, 1% of cell phone users suffered 1% more tumors than non-cellphone users and a year later, 2% of cellphone users suffered 2% more tumors than non-cellphone users, and a year later 3% of cellphone users suffered 3% more tumors than non-cellphone users ... That is certainly ***NOT*** a step function, to which you objected, but a ramp function that is certainly something to be concerned about. Hint: I'm surprised that you don't know that nothing changes instantaneously in reality, i.e. a 'step function' is purely an invention of the human mind. If, as you state, it went from nothing below ten years to two times after then there was a step, it is that I object to; perhaps you do not understand that it is a step {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y 10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group) Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single value for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I have to draw a graph of your statement. t 2 ---------------------- 1 --------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 y Can you see what happened? Of course I object to the function you quoted as being improbable. Your example of a proportional relationship is not justified from your quotes, is irrelevant, and being a deception has no place in a discussion of this nature. -- Ian G8ILZ |
Prometheus wrote:
Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single value for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I have to draw a graph of your statement. No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities, like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently like yours, certainly not in reality. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
In article , Cecil Moore
writes Prometheus wrote: Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single value for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I have to draw a graph of your statement. No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities, like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently like yours, certainly not in reality. It was you who described a step function and I am disputing it precisely because it can not be as you describe, why don't you admit that your description is wrong instead of pretending that you are not, or are you to stupid to understand that you are wrong. -- Ian G8ILZ |
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Cecil Moore writes Prometheus wrote: No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities, like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently like yours, certainly not in reality. It was you who described a step function ... Sorry, until you choose to tell the truth, I have nothing further to say. What I described was a ramp function starting at 10 years of use. It was *you*, not I, who introduced the *step* function concept. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
In article , Cecil Moore
writes Prometheus wrote: In article , Cecil Moore writes Prometheus wrote: No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities, like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently like yours, certainly not in reality. It was you who described a step function ... Sorry, until you choose to tell the truth, I have nothing further to say. What I described was a ramp function starting at 10 years of use. It was *you*, not I, who introduced the *step* function concept. It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", that you subsequently present a hypothetical ramp function of your own creation and not attributed to the original article does not change the quote from the article in to a ramp function. There is no point attempting deception by omitting my quotes from your replies since everyone can read them and see that you are a liar. Can you even recognise the truth, presumably not since you are not telling it. -- Ian G8ILZ |
Prometheus wrote:
It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", ... Again, It's more than obvious that I said absolutely nothing about any "step" function. That you believe a tumor can appear instantaneously as a step function is a mental problem for which you probably should seek professional help. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
In article , Cecil Moore
writes Prometheus wrote: It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", ... Again, It's more than obvious that I said absolutely nothing about any "step" function. That you believe a tumor can appear instantaneously as a step function is a mental problem for which you probably should seek professional help. If you believe stating "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" as you have does not describe a step at ten years then you are stupid. I do not believe it can be a step function as you proposed. -- Ian G8ILZ |
Prometheus wrote:
If you believe stating "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" as you have does not describe a step at ten years then you are stupid. "No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use." Translation for feeble-minded people: The graph of brain tumors was the same for users and non-users for the first ten years of use. "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users." Translation for feeble-minded people: The graph of brain tumors for users and non-users started to diverge after ten years with twice as many tumors in the user group as there were in the non-user group. Statement of fact for feeble-minded people: The above two graphs were single-valued functions, i.e. no vertical steps existed. Must be really hard for you to type with that straightjacket on. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:
Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped breathing there would be no cancer, no aging. Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle", specifically used to limit or halt future crisis. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing that affects health. The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello. I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies ability to either use or produce "T" cells. Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and there isn't likely to be enough) |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:55:20 -0500, default
wrote: On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote: Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped breathing there would be no cancer, no aging. Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle", specifically used to limit or halt future crisis. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing that affects health. Sunlight is Electromagnetic radiation and hardly anybody seems to mention this when talking about cell phone sand RF safety. Sunlight also causes heating effects and lots of it. (I know I enjoy it) 1000W per square metre of radiation hitting the earth on a nice day. That's a bit more than a cell phone emits I believe AND it contains the ionizing type of radiation too which is known to cause cancer of course. I believe that if there is something to this cell phone thing that it may be from the electric part of the near field. I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway. my 2 cents. R.F. The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello. I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies ability to either use or produce "T" cells. Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and there isn't likely to be enough) |
R. F. Burns wrote:
I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway. How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
In message , Cecil Moore
writes R. F. Burns wrote: I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway. How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time. It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous. Surprisingly, people are suing tobacco companies on the grounds that 'they didn't know' that smoking was bad for you. I suspect that these are the same type of people who want to ban phone masts, but not the phones themselves, of course, ie pretty thick! Ian. -- |
Ian Jackson wrote:
It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous. That is only a time displacement. In 1900, after hundreds (thousands?) of years of tobacco use, the link between smoking and lung cancer was "at best tenuous". -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Ian Jackson wrote: It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous. That is only a time displacement. In 1900, after hundreds (thousands?) of years of tobacco use, the link between smoking and lung cancer was "at best tenuous". and at worst...... "Tumor(ous)" KW |
In article , Ian Jackson
writes In message , Cecil Moore writes R. F. Burns wrote: I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway. How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time. It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous. Surprisingly, people are suing tobacco companies on the grounds that 'they didn't know' that smoking was bad for you. I suspect that these are the same type of people who want to ban phone masts, but not the phones themselves, of course, ie pretty thick! The are probably also quite happy to have a TV transmitting mast at a thousand or more times the power. -- Ian G8ILZ |
"Prometheus" wrote in message
... Surprisingly, people are suing tobacco companies on the grounds that 'they didn't know' that smoking was bad for you. I suspect that these are the same type of people who want to ban phone masts, but not the phones themselves, of course, ie pretty thick! The are probably also quite happy to have a TV transmitting mast at a thousand or more times the power. It is a well know fact that RF modulated with naff TV (East Enders, Big Brother etc) is rendered safe and has no adverse effects (unless you watch the programmes). For those with limited technical knowledge of EM radiation (eg at a level where they believe in heat bands) the above is intended as humour. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 |
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ... For those with limited technical knowledge of EM radiation (eg at a level where they believe in heat bands) the above is intended as humour. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com