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