Cell phone use causes tongue cancer

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:37:31 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:18:21 -0700 (PDT),
> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 10:45:09 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:58:37 -0700 (PDT),
> >> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> >And why would a pill not touch the roof of the mouth??? 
> >> >Rick C.
> >> 
> >> I just tested this with my morning ration of overpriced prescription
> >> drugs.  When I shovel the pills into my mouth, they immediately
> >> gravitate to the back of the tongue by tilting my head back.  They are
> >> then swallowed with the aid of some water.  As far as I can tell
> >> without using a dye tracer, the pill pile never touched the roof of my
> >> mouth.  Even if they did, the elapsed time that they might touch the
> >> roof of my mouth is much shorter and with less pressure than the
> >> elapsed contact time the pills are in contact with the tongue,
> >> oropharynx (upper back of mouth) and tonsil area.  
> >> 
> >> I presume that there are other styles for swallowing pills.  For
> >> example, if you take pills while standing on your head, then perhaps
> >> the contact time with the roof of the mouth might be extended.
> >> Sometimes, I have problems swallowing a large load of pills and
> >> require additional water, which causes the pills to begin dissolving
> >> on my tongue.  There are probably other methods and variations.
> 
> >I know when I take a pill I can usually taste is for some time.
> 
> Not me.  Before going to sleep, I take 10 pills, 2 of which are
> somewhat foul tasting.  Add one more if I crunch down on the pill
> between my teeth.  If there's any after taste, it only lasts a few
> seconds as I usually wash down any residue after swallowing.  I'll
> check tonight.
> 
> >Some pills like Ibuprofen have a bit of a taste (in this case 
> >soapy) which I still taste until it is washed out by eating or 
> >drinking something, even if I took the pill with water.  
> 
> I rarely take Ibuprofen, so I wouldn't know.  
> 
> >You should not assume your method of taking pills is at all 
> >common.  
> 
> Please read what I wrote.  I gave plenty of consideration for
> alternate styles.
> 
> >Even your method where you say they start dissolving on your 
> >tongue clearly would put them in contact with all the other 
> >parts of your mouth. 
> 
> That's possible, but I think I prevent the pill pile from moving
> forward or upward with my tongue between drinks.  I'm not sure.  It's
> possible that as I'm moving the pills around the back of my mouth with
> my tongue, I might loose control of one or two pills that will then
> hit the roof of my mouth, but that's unusual.

The pill doesn't need to *touch* the roof of your mouth.  I'm not even sure why you are obsessing over the roof of the mouth rather than all the other tissues the pills touch.  I learned very early in chemistry that as soon as a substance starts to dissolve some of that material is literally everywhere in solution, even on the other side of a swimming pool.  This goes spades for gasses.  The liquid in your mouth is moving everywhere carrying the pill material to every part of your mouth.  That's why you can taste it even though there are few if any taste receptors on the back of your tongue. 

Rick C.

On 16/07/18 11:31, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> Cursitor Doom is the kind of gullible twit who believes that kind of nonsense.

He appears to be an attention-seeking troll[1], in which
case it wouldn't be necessary for him to believe what
he posts.

[1] or Putin propagandist, which isn't so different.

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 10:59:20 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 16/07/18 11:31, bill.sl...ieee.org wrote:
> > Cursitor Doom is the kind of gullible twit who believes that kind of nonsense.
> 
> He appears to be an attention-seeking troll[1], in which
> case it wouldn't be necessary for him to believe what
> he posts.
> 
> [1] or Putin propagandist, which isn't so different.

Don't let your buddy there suck you into his modus operandi, writing more comments on posters than posts. It is childish no matter if he is 90 years old. 

Note that though I can't stand him I didn't call him a name. I said his posts are childish - "it is childish" not "he is childish". 

As far as a troll, I have yet to discover an actual definition that holds water. It seems he is a bit trollish sometimes but he is also on topic sometimes. 

Attention seeking ? There's alot of that going around, and really if I write an OP and it gets 300 responses in 2 days, I would have to admit some satisfaction at hitting a nerve. 

And Putin is nowhere near as bad as he is made out to be. If you can, look at it objectively. Many of the accusations about him are simply rumors. Like political opponents disappearing. Who ? Nobody has ever come up with a name. And it is not illegal to be Gay there, is is illegal to promote it to minors. As it should be - I think that in most cases, reasonable laws against giving minors (regular straight) porn is wrong. But you can teach them about anal sex and fellatio ? Ridiculous. They don't take youir driving rigths away, especially for child support. you don't need a fishing license there. You qualify with a firearm (yes) and get you hunting license for life. No paying the state of Montana thousands per year to do something that Man has been doing for thousands of years. And any state park, you can camp in it as long as you want. Nothing per day, unlike here. when Pussy Riot got busted for disrupting an international event and got thrown in jail Putin said he thought the sentence was too harsh, but did not intervene. To say that when all they do is bitch about him, what do YOU think ? And they didn't disappear either. They are alive and well. Why, when he could wipe them out with a phone call. And BTW the US President can do that now as well, all nice and legal. It is part of an extension to the PATRIOT ACT I believe. I could look it up, or you could. 

So all I just wrote, every word the truth, am I a Putin propagandist ? I know he operates on the best interest of Russia and a few allies, what do people expect ? They expect Russia to be buddy buddy with everyone after the way they treated him ? Would Trump ? Would Obama ? Would Bill Clinton ? Would FDR ? They did things and what did FDR do ? Sent the boys in and a big boom boom (2 in fact) and the black rain fell. Russia has never used a nuke on anyone. Russia bitched abuot a US missile base in Poland. they had no right ? What about the Cuban missile crisis. It almost happened in reverse but concessions were made. Russia didn't like it because it hurt their SECOND strike capability. Of course the world takes that to mean first strike, but they are not the only country in the world which committed a first strike. Only the US holds that distinction. 

And the election. Posted on social media. Did the y kidnap the President and install their puppet ? The US did that in Venezuela. And when it didn't work because they sprung Chavez the US dumped millions into the campaign of Chavez' opponent, who got a bunch of voted but did not win. Yeah, a dictator who went out among the people without bulletproof glass. How about that ? So a bunch of Facebook posts and they are evil ? And hacking the election ? How about some IPs and other evidence of hacking. It is almost always there. Hacking into the DNC computers ? Proof ? And if they did how do you know it want a bunch of whiz kids trying to make a name for themselves ? And why aren't they too poor to afford computers ? Sanctions didn't work ? What a shame. 

I know people who have done alot of traveling. They have nbo reason to lie to me and I have no reason to lie to you. One entity in this country does have a reason to lie to you, and in other western aligned countries. The reason is that the truth would not impel you to support their actions in the world arena. 

Consider the content more than the source, and check things out. See if what they say jibes with other sources. (and the word is JIBE, not JIVE)

If I am a propagandisst, I will be the best damn propagandist you will ever see. But using the word propaganda implies lies. How about defender from bull fucking shit ? 

Do your own REAL research before you form opinions. 

Like Trump, he has done some wrong shit, but they got him looking like Stalin. I mean not even as good as Hitler. Bullshit. A hundred accusations and not one sticks. A ton of lawsuits, did they mention that Trump is the plaintiff in over half of them ? Or did they conveniently leave that out ? They must have forgot to mention it. Yeah right. 

If I were to leave this country Russia would be pretty high on my list of where to go. They got jobs. They got friendly people who like to drink. They got hot babes. They got rock concerts, they had one a couple decades ago that was so big it made Woodstock look like the basement of a bar. 

You think I would say that if I didn't know what the fuck I am talking about ? Hell, the North Korean chamber of commerce (if any) could say anything they want but I know better. I know about enemies, why Qadaffi ? Why Saddam ? Why Assad ? 

The US never gave a flying fuck about human rights and all that, only money and some strategic locations for wars to keep that money coming. If you think they are altruistic you got another thing coming. 

And they are a bunch of fucking liars.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:02:51 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>And here we are in an idiot thread.

Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread.  Would you like
to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?

>Not one MF here has even asked about the mechanism by which these 
>phone cause this cancer.

The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
articles on the topic:
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cell+phone+RF+exposure+DNA+damage>
Some problems:  Obtaining statistically significant positive results
is difficult.  Those that have succeeded seem to be cherry picking
their samples and populations by using cancer prone lab rats and
disqualifying unfavorable results.  Even if DNA breakage were true,
nobody has discovered a way of reducing or preventing DNA damage or
reversing the effects.  Such research has also been used for
ammunition by which to sue deep pockets for medical bills.  Much of
the research is sponsored indirectly by the telecommunications
industry, which is sufficient to treat the result with suspicion.

Here's an interesting report.  Did you know that DNA is really a
fractal antenna?
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09553002.2011.538130>

>But as far as I can see, nobody has asked just how the microwave
>affect human tissue, or asked for or provide links to any research 
>be that. 

Yep.  Since I'm basing my discovery on what is obviously faulty logic,
I see no need for relevant or useful research.

>What does that ell you?

It tells me that you're attempting to change the topic (again).

>Even here with a quite distilled contingent, they don't know how 
>to look for answers on their own.

That assumes that if they look, there will actually be an answer to
find.  In the case of RF exposure causing cancer, there is currently
no definitive answer.

>The book tells then how to handle thing like on Star Trek m- Piece 
>Of The Action. They accept it without considering the content, 
>only the the source. "Oh he is a Harvard grad, he must be right".
>Did they miss when a bunch of them got caught cheating on the tests?
>No wonder why nobody knows shit. 

I suggest that you judge the information content, not the source. Some
of the best revelations have come from scientific heretics.

>You're one of the last vestiges of common sense on Usenet.

Hardly a problem.  I can be easily replaced by a topic drifting bot.

>You are not allowed to die.

That will happen anyway.  The good part is I know exactly where and
how it will happen.  Safeway's parking lot, run over by a shopper
driving diagonally across the parking lot, thinking that common
courtesy and rules of the road do not apply in the parking lot.

>This place would go to hell.

In some ways, it already is hell.  You just haven't noticed.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

>"Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread. Would you like
to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?"

Not quite sure how to do that satisfactorily. 

>"The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
articles on the topic: "

I'll look at that later. 

>"Here's an interesting report.  Did you know that DNA is really a
fractal antenna? "

Not right now. 

>"I suggest that you judge the information content, not the source."

I do. 

>"Hardly a problem.  I can be easily replaced by a topic drifting bot. "

With some thought I could challenge that bot. 

>"In some ways, it already is hell.  You just haven't noticed. "

There are deeper circles of hell, at least according to Dante. 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:25:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:02:51 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>And here we are in an idiot thread.
>
>Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread.  Would you like
>to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?
>
>>Not one MF here has even asked about the mechanism by which these 
>>phone cause this cancer.
>
>The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
>damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
>articles on the topic:
><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cell+phone+RF+exposure+DNA+damage>
>Some problems:  Obtaining statistically significant positive results
>is difficult.


Right.

I wrote a program that starts with a blank screen and then turns on
random pixels. After a couple thousand are up, you can see all sorts
of structures: bright clusters, dark holes, lines, curves, circles.

If you analyse enough data from a modestly-sized sample set, all sorts
of patterns will appear, and you can publish the best ones. That's the
problem with science nowadays.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:30:41 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>>"Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread. Would you like
>to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?"
>
>Not quite sure how to do that satisfactorily.

1.  Apologize.
2.  Edit your statement and repost a revised version.
3.  If that doesn't work, throw money in my direction.

>>"The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
>damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
>articles on the topic: "
>
>I'll look at that later. 

Let me know when you can see RF or DNA molecules and how you did it.

>>"Here's an interesting report.  Did you know that DNA is really a
>fractal antenna? "
>
>Not right now. 

You ask, I delivered, and now you stall.  You can do better than that.

>>"I suggest that you judge the information content, not the source."
>
>I do. 

Do what?  Judge the information content or the source?  Please try to
be less ambiguous.

>>"Hardly a problem.  I can be easily replaced by a topic drifting bot. "
>
>With some thought I could challenge that bot. 

Think again:
"Google Duplex"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXUQ-DdSDoE>
When you can't tell the difference between talking to a human and
talking to a robot, the bot has passed the Turing test.

>>"In some ways, it already is hell.  You just haven't noticed. "
>
>There are deeper circles of hell, at least according to Dante. 

Nine circles of hell with various sublevels.
"Dante's Inferno"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)>
Abandon your hope at the door.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> I have discovered definitive proof that talking on a cell
> phone use causes cancer.  It's not the usual cancer of the
> brain, or central nervous system.  It's cancer of the tongue.
>
> https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic=1&year=201801&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&cancer=6
>
> Notice the steady increase in new cases of tongue cancer
> since 1990, and the corresponding increase in cell phone use
> over the same time period:
>
> http://historyofthecellulartelephone.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/9/5/49959297/8533326_orig.png
>
> The two graphs correlate quite nicely, thus conclusively
> proving that yacking on a cell phone causes tongue cancer.
>
   Too bad no study was done WRT "yakking" in general...(AKA gossip).

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:02:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:25:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:02:51 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>And here we are in an idiot thread.
> >
> >Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread.  Would you like
> >to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?
> >
> >>Not one MF here has even asked about the mechanism by which these 
> >>phone cause this cancer.
> >
> >The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
> >damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
> >articles on the topic:
> ><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cell+phone+RF+exposure+DNA+damage>
> >Some problems:  Obtaining statistically significant positive results
> >is difficult.
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> I wrote a program that starts with a blank screen and then turns on
> random pixels. After a couple thousand are up, you can see all sorts
> of structures: bright clusters, dark holes, lines, curves, circles.
> 
> If you analyse enough data from a modestly-sized sample set, all sorts
> of patterns will appear, and you can publish the best ones. That's the
> problem with science nowadays.

Maybe I'm not like John because I have training in science rather than just engineering.  In chemistry we learned how to analyze data and tell if it is statistically significant.  Clearly John has missed something significant in his education.  When he tried to make analogies between visual patterns in random data and scientific research... well, lets just say he is reaching a lot further than any of the research he is trying to denigrate. 

Rick C.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:02:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:25:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:02:51 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>And here we are in an idiot thread.
>>
>>Ummm... since I started this thread, it's my thread.  Would you like
>>to take this opportunity to rephrase your comment?
>>
>>>Not one MF here has even asked about the mechanism by which these 
>>>phone cause this cancer.
>>
>>The consensus seems to be that RF breaks DNA structures, causing
>>damage to the reproductive mechanism.  Google Scholar finds 21,300
>>articles on the topic:
>><https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cell+phone+RF+exposure+DNA+damage>
>>Some problems:  Obtaining statistically significant positive results
>>is difficult.

>Right.
>
>I wrote a program that starts with a blank screen and then turns on
>random pixels. After a couple thousand are up, you can see all sorts
>of structures: bright clusters, dark holes, lines, curves, circles.
>
>If you analyse enough data from a modestly-sized sample set, all sorts
>of patterns will appear, and you can publish the best ones. That's the
>problem with science nowadays.

I beg to differ.  In order for those patterns to be deemed valid, they
must be reproducible.  In other words, if the same experiment were
repeated, it should produce the same patterns.  Of course if the
random dots on the screen were reproducible, then the random number
generator is defective.

While an infinite number of monkeys banging on typewriters may
eventually produce Shakespeare and some interesting looking patterns
of dots, the inability of any single monkey to produce anything
repeatable shows that the results are random and not deterministic.  

In my limited experience, most RF exposure experiments do not produce
identical results when repeated by another researcher.  When compared
side by side, the result often appear random.  While not exactly proof
that the results and conclusions are invalid, the inability to
reproduce results certainly suggests that the experiment might be
problematic.  If you build an overview of the entire body of RF
exposure research (I haven't done this), you'll probably find that
almost researchers have a unique, new, or different way to run the
tests, which makes comparing two or more sets of results rather
difficult.




-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558