On 17/07/2018 04:13, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> > Let me know when you can see RF or DNA molecules and how you did it.Actually direct imaging of DNA molecules has fairly recently become possible with 0.1nm resolution and 80keV HTREM. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/7/e1500734.full I don't suppose the dose of 80keV electrons does the DNA much good at all but it does mean that it really can be studied directly at a molecular level as can some enzymes and repair mechanisms. The technique has been made to work it is down to the biologists to use the new kit. On the subject of cell phone use causing tongue cancer I wouldn't entirely rule it out as a weak possibility although stepping out into the road whilst texting would seem to have a higher mortality risk. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Cell phone use causes tongue cancer
Started by ●July 15, 2018
Reply by ●July 17, 20182018-07-17
Reply by ●July 17, 20182018-07-17
Reply by ●July 18, 20182018-07-18
On 17/07/2018 18:38, Phil Hobbs wrote:> 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.The brain is hard wired for pattern matching. It has served us well. The ancients spent a lot of time looking at the sky and seeing patterns that they gave fanciful names too. Some like Orion even look like a hunter with his bow and hunting dogs, and Pegasus the flying horse - others you have to wonder "what were they smoking?".>>> >>> 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.HEP require a 5 sigma detection before they consider it to be real. Science has advanced now to the point where some of the measurements that can be done look like magic to the general public - detecting gravitational waves for instance. Einstein never imagined that would be possible within the confines of the experimental constraints on Earth.>> >> 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.It has always been true. When I was at university we were briefly worried by a study that claimed to show drinking lots of real coffee caused liver cancer. A full study later found that coffee was freely available on the wards and having liver cancer makes you very thirsty. Correlation does not imply causation. Length of asteroid name correlates very well with the faintness of the object but does not cause it.> 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.The converse is that sometimes the null hypothesis is accepted even when there is a small but noticeable effect if you were to do the full Bayesian analysis (or use enough data to get the noise right down). One of my professors used to delight in going through frequentist statistics teaching books finding questions where a full Bayesian treatment could find that real signal in the noise. It makes the real world difference between wasting money on regular preventative maintenance to avoid any service failures whilst tolerating immediate burn in failure of the new part without a second thought. Full analysis requires that at the optimum you do have some in service failures as well as infant mortality ones. The correct ratio being determined by the cost of replacement and the inconvenience of having the thing fail suddenly and unexpectedly. Changing filament light bulbs was a classic for this sort of bimodal failure distribution. If it lasted the first couple of hours the chances are it would exceed its MTBF since the normal MTBF is polluted by those early failures in the naive analysis that fails to take account of the probability distribution of the true failure rate with time. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●July 18, 20182018-07-18
On 17/07/2018 18:41, Phil Hobbs wrote:> 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>I'd be prepared to believe that high power VHF RF might cause brain tumours. I have known slightly too many people working with that kit die young of brain tumours to completely ignore the possibility. It could be coincidence as the numbers are not large but it made me think.>>>> 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,Or if they were would not produce quite the same precision of results as the original trials. Mendel's peas would have been very unlikely to produce results in the almost exact ratios that they did in his experiments based on modern state of the art analysis by Fisher in 1960 and long before that by Weldon. Even so Mendel was basically right and his detractors were wrong to claim that genetics failed to explain the results. F1 hybrids are now commonplace to get the best traits.> including studies forming the basis for lots of public policy, e.g. the > low-fat, high-carb diet that the government has been pushing. YouHaving the right number of calories in relation to the amount of exercise is probably much more important. When I lived in Japan we were on a high carbohydrate low fat, low protein diet for about 3 years. The expat allowance seemed to assume an 8oz steak for every meal! During the same period my Western colleagues waistlines ballooned up to the extent that they saw me as under nourished and would take me out for big Western meals to "build me up". The problem was I had a normal healthy weight and it was their idea of the "new normal" that was wrong.> 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>.10% of everything in the peer reviewed literature is typically wrong. But the methodology of science is ultimately self correcting when someone does an experiment that refutes the established view. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●July 18, 20182018-07-18
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:02:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>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.Just another form of the Rorcharch test. People seeing things that do not exist.> >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.Yup. soft science == no science. John John DeArmond http://www.neon-john.com http://www.tnduction.com Tellico Plains, Occupied TN See website for email address
Reply by ●July 18, 20182018-07-18
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 1:38:23 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:> 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.https://xkcd.com/2020/ :^) GH> > 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
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
>"Correlation does not imply causation."Actually it does, but only imply. It does not prove it, mean it, equal it or anything else, but there is always that possibility. However, with logic most would deduce that cellphones, if the hypothesis on this is true, then it should cause ear cancer, brain cancer, pituitary cancer, pineal cancer, ... and so forth. Would it not be logical that the most severe effects would be on parts of the body in closest proximity to the radiation ? Or is the tongue like a ground plane ? LOL
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
Here we go. I have this charm in my pocket that keeps the alligators away. Since I have had it I have never seen an alligator. The only one I ever saw was like over 20 years ago in a swampy field next to his house in Longwood, FL. Nessie. I got video and have been looking fervently (well not really) for it. I figure I'll be about 70 when I find it.
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On 19/07/2018 04:53, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:>> "Correlation does not imply causation." > > Actually it does, but only imply. It does not prove it, mean it, > equal it or anything else, but there is always that possibility. > > However, with logic most would deduce that cellphones, if the > hypothesis on this is true, then it should cause ear cancer, brain > cancer, pituitary cancer, pineal cancer, ... and so forth. Would it > not be logical that the most severe effects would be on parts of the > body in closest proximity to the radiation ? > > Or is the tongue like a ground plane ? LOLIt might be about the right length to be a whip antenna for some bands. I very much doubt that cell phone use causes anything more than pedestrians stepping out in front of traffic without looking or to crash into things when driving because sending that txt was *so* important. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 5:02:27 AM UTC+2, 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.Not if you confine yourself to scientists who have some appreciation of statistics. John Larkin doesn't, and doesn't seem to understand that there are many people with a better grasp of statistics than he has. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
