Cell phone use causes tongue cancer

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:46:47 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 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.

In computer programs there is no such thing as a random number generator.  Doesn't matter.  John has already made up his mind.  Nothing you can say will change anything but the analogies he picks to describe his mistaken ideas. 


> 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.

I've yet to hear a rational for how non-ionizing radiation can result in chemical bond changes.  Radio waves and even IR energy just don't have enough energy in the individual photons to cause chemical reactions. 

I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but in the examples I saw that wasn't apparent. 

Rick C.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:46:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>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.

But in many "sciences" the majority of statistics-based scientific
publications are not reproducible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine

"In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant
working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued
that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be
replicated.[44][45]"



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> But in many "sciences" the majority of statistics-based scientific
> publications are not reproducible.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine
> 
> "In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant
> working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued
> that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be
> replicated.[44][45]"

And now you know why science is not determined by individual studies.  

Do you really not even understand the scientific method??? 

Rick C. 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT),
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:

>I've yet to hear a rational for how non-ionizing radiation can 
>result in chemical bond changes.  Radio waves and even IR energy 
>just don't have enough energy in the individual photons to 
>cause chemical reactions. 

<https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html>
    Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms 
    in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not 
    enough to ionize (remove charged particles such as electrons).

There are threshold and catalytic effects, where the ingredients for a
reaction are all present, but are at the borderline energy level
necessary to start the reaction.  RF gives the reaction the necessary
boost needed to start.  There's also some hysteresis effects involved,
where once started, it becomes self sustaining at lower energy levels.

>I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but in the 
>examples I saw that wasn't apparent. 

I can't easily supply examples of the aformentioned.  I'm not a
molecular biologist and don't have the time to become one so that I
can answer your question.

-- 
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

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:17:33 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>But in many "sciences" the majority of statistics-based scientific
>publications are not reproducible.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine
>
>"In a paper published in 2012, Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant
>working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, at the University of Texas, argued
>that only 11% of the pre-clinical cancer studies could be
>replicated.[44][45]"

I haven't read the study but I would guess that many of the studies
that could not be reproduced were big, expensive, and required a large
population of subject for extended periods.  These could be
reproduced, but only with considerable expenditure of time and money.

What you're discussing is epidemiology:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology>
The controversy over the validity of such statistical studies has been
running since epidemiology was somewhat accepted as a valid scientific
method.  With epidemiology, the researchers allegedly do not care
about what might be causing an effect, only that the effect is
present.  For RF causing brain cancer epidemiology, it is only
necessary to find a large population of cell phone users, calculate
their exposure time and rate, and compare cancer rates with a similar
population of cell phone abstainers.  In theory, it can be done and
produce interesting results.  In reality, cherry picking the
participants for a tendency to produce the desired result is very
common.  For example, here's a graph of the incidence of brain cancer
versus age:
<https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic=3&year=201804&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&cancer=76>
If I wanted the result to demonstrate that RF does NOT cause brain
cancer, I would simply select a predominantly younger test group.  If
I wanted a high incidence of brain cancer, I would select a much older
test group.  If I were to repeat such an experiment, there's little
chance of verifying the original results unless I carefully select the
age of the participants.  If I decide to use lab rats, I can easily
specify lab rats that tend to develop cancerous tumors, or not.
<https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/lab-rats-cancer.htm>

There's also a problem with understanding the meaning of the
statistics and results.  Peer reviewed papers are allegedly impartial.
However, in RF exposure studies, many of the papers are sponsored by
various cellular industry companies.  They correctly claim that they
do not influence any aspect of the study, which is generally correct.
However, any researcher that produces results that contradict the
desired outcome is unlikely to get any further funding.  To get past
this problem, parts of such papers are divided between the paying
sponsor and the researcher.  The researcher own the main body of work
and all the numbers accumulated.  The sponsor owns the abstract,
summary, and conclusions.  Occasionally, there are divergent, where
the data says one thing, but the conclusion are quite different.
That's fine because all the sponsor wants is a favorable conclusion
that can be delivered to the media, which doesn't have the time or
understanding to actually read the body of the paper.

What we have here is a layer cake.  At every level of the production
of a research paper, there are outside influences that can seriously
affect the results.

Sometimes, all this is uncovered by "survey" papers, where a grad
student or independent pundit decides to review the data, methods, and
results of one or more papers on a given topic.  Sometimes, when the
results are unfavorable, a "peer review" that resembles a tribunal is
organized.
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths>
If you read the original 2016 preliminary report:
<https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf>
it proclaims:
   These studies were conducted in rats and mice using a 
   reverberation chamber exposure system with two signal 
   modulations [Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global 
   System for Mobile Communications (GSM)] at two frequencies 
   (900 MHz for rats and 1900 MHz for mice), the modulations 
   and frequency bands that are primarily used in the United 
   States.  
Incidentally, the US frequencies are 800 and 1900.  Now, why would
they use two different frequencies for rats and mice?  Why not test
both rats and mice at both frequency bands?  Well, it seems that a
previous similar test did that and found that only 900 MHz and rats
produced barely usable results. 

-- 
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

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:33:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT),
> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >I've yet to hear a rational for how non-ionizing radiation can 
> >result in chemical bond changes.  Radio waves and even IR energy 
> >just don't have enough energy in the individual photons to 
> >cause chemical reactions. 
> 
> <https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html>
>     Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms 
>     in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not 
>     enough to ionize (remove charged particles such as electrons).
> 
> There are threshold and catalytic effects, where the ingredients for a
> reaction are all present, but are at the borderline energy level
> necessary to start the reaction.  RF gives the reaction the necessary
> boost needed to start.  There's also some hysteresis effects involved,
> where once started, it becomes self sustaining at lower energy levels.

RF energy doesn't provide any more energy to a chemical reaction than does heat.  Talking about thresholds crossed by RF energy shows you don't actually know anything about the topic.  Chemical reactions are actually statistical in nature because the energy of molecules are randomly distributed.  Higher energy molecules (from heat) may have enough energy to cause the reaction but there are fewer of them so the rate may be so slow that it is not observed.  Add heat and the population of molecules with sufficient energy increases and the reaction rate increases.  

In this regard RF is no different from heat.  So unless enough energy is used to cook the tissues, no chemical reactions are happening.  

From your reference: 

"Most lab studies done so far have supported the idea that RF waves don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it&rsquo;s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer."

Btw, the term "ionizing" radiation is used because unless catalyzed, most chemical reactions require enough energy to break a bond which is the same order of magnitude as ionization.  The energy from a quantum of RF is far, far below that and only manifests as heat.  

Some bonds can be broken and rearranged by such low levels of energy, but they will happen from thermal agitation near room temperature as well. 


> >I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but in the 
> >examples I saw that wasn't apparent. 
> 
> I can't easily supply examples of the aformentioned.  I'm not a
> molecular biologist and don't have the time to become one so that I
> can answer your question.

You are in luck then.  I am a biochemist and from the reading I did of the references you provided there is no evidence RF radiation causes cancer rather than directly cooking tissues. 

Rick C.

On 07/16/18 23:37, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
> 

Not good enough.  Google "p-hacking".  Also see the recent demise of a 
metric buttload of brain studies that turned out not to prove what they 
purported, due to the law of small numbers.

The National Association of Scholars has a useful brief on the problem, 
<https://www.nas.org/projects/irreproducibility_report>.  Really worth a 
read.

The undergraduate method of 'disproving the null hypothesis' is at the 
root of it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On 07/16/18 23:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 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. 

Right.  But very very often studies aren't reproducible at all, 
including studies forming the basis for lots of public policy, e.g. the 
low-fat, high-carb diet that the government has been pushing.  You 
should see some of the crapola that reputable journals send me for review.

See the NAS study I referenced just upthread,
<https://www.nas.org/projects/irreproducibility_report>.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

>"1.  Apologize. "

I never intended to say you were idiotic. I am sorry if it sounded that way. I was pretty sure you were joking. 

>"2.  Edit your statement and repost a revised version. "

I don't know what software you're using but I can't edit anything. 

>"3.  If that doesn't work, throw money in my direction. "

If a penny for your thoughts is enough fine. Even two cents. Any more than that I can't afford. Let's "see" what happens after the 23rd when I can see. 

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

I didn't make the hypothesis. See RF or DNA ? I can barely see the screen and it is one of the biggest laptops I ever saw. Also kinda heavy. It's a 17" wide, and it is 16:9 not 25:9 so I got more pixels :-) i like the 23" downstairs much better, and I looked into getting like a 3" but it was a bit too rich for my blood, and it included a TV which is the last thing I need. 

>"You ask, I delivered,..."

I didn't ask about DNA's fractal antennalism. (add that to your spell check, you might see it choke) I might have to have a look at that though. Maybe I stall but I am busy picking on liberals. 

>"Do what?  Judge the information content or the source?"

The content. I thought I said that. Of course the content from more than one source is possible. There is only one issue about which I can only find one source. A pretty reliable source but it has not been publicized. That Assad did not use the gas - THE FIRST TIME. that's why Obama didn't start dropping bombs, he likely figured his political enemies would publicize it along with the fact that he knew. It wasn't weakness, he didn't want to be accused of attacking without good reason. The ONLY source for that is Porton Down, a company in Britain. They are the expert on this stuff and not widely known of, and hell they might be the ones who sell that gas. that would explain why they knew Assad didn't use it, it was different than the type he was known to have. 

Content - how did they know ? You know now that I think of it there were a few other things about which I could only find one source. Why would anyone in England tell a lie like that ? 

>"When you can't tell the difference between talking to a human and
talking to a robot, the bot has passed the Turing test. "

I don't feel like a video right now but is that about Watson ? My Uncle worked for IBM and he told me a few things, they are seriously advanced. Like Tektronix or something. An internally powered IC, he said it's kinda scary, you can't turn it off. They are no slouch when it comes to technology. He was a tech specialist. He was one of the last guys they called when nobody else could fix something. You should have seen some of the cool junk he gave me. Who else do you know who had a 25 8" floppy disk changer ? 

>"Nine circles of hell with various sublevels.
"Dante's Inferno" "

I read Infernoland which was an abridged paperback adaptation of  it. I started reading the real thing and got bored with it. I prefer the short version and non poetic. Or whatever style that is. 

Not to be a pest, but just what would a DNA fractal antenna receive ? 

>"Abandon your hope at the door. "

Decades ago. Actually I am much happier for it, or at least less unhappy.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:46:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

====snip====

> 
> While an infinite number of monkeys banging on typewriters may
> eventually produce Shakespeare

====snip====

 I'm always reminded by that saying that there is an equivalent one for 
the sight impaired community involving an infinite number of the 
following:- rednecks, shotguns and road signs. :-)

-- 
Johnny B Good