On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:17:40 AM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:> 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]"One of the problems i pre-clinical cancer staudies is that they are mostly carried out by peole who have had a medical education, rather than a scientific education. Medicine is an art, and medicos are trained to make up their minds rapidly, and not brood about the occasions when they have coe to wrong conclusion. This minimises the chance that they will kill themsevles (which happens rather a lot) but makes them bad scientists. Some medicos learn to think differently about scientific questions as opposed to clinical choices, but my limited exposure to the medical literature on the dangers of diagnostic ultrasound suggested that very few manage it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Cell phone use causes tongue cancer
Started by ●July 15, 2018
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC+2, 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.Fat chance. Radio frequency quaata are a lot less energetic than the moleuclar vibrations that are active at room temperature.> There's also some hysteresis effects involved, > where once started, it becomes self sustaining at lower energy levels.Twaddle.> >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.And what you did post was misleading. I can't claim to be an up-todate expert, but I did my Ph.D. in Chemical kinetics from 1965 to 1970, and your proposal strikes me as exceedingly implausible. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 7:11:29 PM UTC+2, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> 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.Even in epidemiology, correlation doesn't prove causation. If you get a correlation you bhave to be able to point to a plausible chain of causation and folow it up with a more tightly selected group of patients. The classical catch is that the effect you are seeing may correlate with a third factor which also correlates with the variable you were looking at. If mobile phone use and cigar smoking correlated, the excess of tongue cancers might well have been cause by cigar smoke. 80% of mouth and tongue cancers show up in cigar and pipe smokers. http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/content/0B772789897EB39BCA257A0D001F1239/$File/cigar_mouth.pdf -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 01:44:21 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:>On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC+2, 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. > >Fat chance. Radio frequency quaata are a lot less energetic than >the moleuclar vibrations that are active at room temperature.The original question was to "hear a rational for how non-ionizing radiation can result in chemical bond change". The rational was what was used as a justification for further study in one study, that of course I can't find right now. I guess I should have mentioned that I don't believe this rationalization. Incidentally, the reactions would need to occur at body temperature, not room temperature.>> There's also some hysteresis effects involved, >> where once started, it becomes self sustaining at lower energy levels. > >Twaddle.Sure, but research into RF induced biological effects continue. Some of these are statistical studies, where the same experiment (put mice or rats in a box and add RF at cellular frequencies) with minor variations in the hope of producing statistically significant results. Others, are large population studies of cell phone and non-cell phone users over several years in the hope of finding a pattern. Due to the low incidence of cancers, chances are slim for both types of tests. Still they persist despite the lack of success. The best that has been done strikes me as carefully selecting the test subjects or mice/rats, or invalidating results that don't follow the expected result, so that they will produce a large enough cancer incidence to make the research worth publishing. Notice that none of these tests and statistical studies bother to supply a mechanism by which RF causes cancer. That makes sense because they're not looking for such a missing link. They're trying to determine whether there is a connection, and then ask for more funding to research why RF causes cancer and what mechanism is involved. In my never humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with this approach.>> >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. > >And what you did post was misleading.Guilty as charged. My original posting was certainly misleading. My further responses attempted to answer the questions exactly as they were asked. If you think my answers to be misleading, perhaps the questions might also have problems?>I can't claim to be an up-todate expert, but I did my Ph.D. in >Chemical kinetics from 1965 to 1970, and your proposal strikes me >as exceedingly implausible.Please note that RF is magic and magic can do anything. -- 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
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 01:54:02 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:>On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 7:11:29 PM UTC+2, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >> 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.>Even in epidemiology, correlation doesn't prove causation.Correlation does cause research, which is probably the main effect. If the research proves causation by finding the missing link, then it's justified tolerating this logical fallacy. Many discoveries started with someone doing something rather mundane and noticing that things did not go as expected or follow scientific dogma. A sane person should follow the consensus and submit to the logic of the day, because if correlation and causation were disconnected, then the observed anomaly could not have happened and therefore probably a mistake. Only the insane will go against the prevailing wisdom and dig deeper. I passed the observations to a friend loosely associated with cancer research on the coincidence that John Larkin observed in the rise of tongue cancer coinciding with cell phone use. She's looking into it which is an order of magnitude better than her usual reaction to my theories. We shall see where this goes.>If you get a correlation you bhave to be able to point to a >plausible chain of causation and folow it up with a more tightly >selected group of patients.No, I don't. I just theorize the initial correlation and back it up with probability. If there is sufficient coincidence, I then ask for more funding to find the specific connection and cause. While correlation is certainly not proof of causation, it's sufficient to justify some research into a possible connection.>The classical catch is that the effect you are seeing may >correlate with a third factor which also correlates with the >variable you were looking at.Sure, but the selection of test subjects is allegedly designed to reduce or eliminate any such unrelated, unplanned, and potentially influential factors. Usually this is done by randomizing those factor in the test population. For example, selecting test subjects who have immediate relatives who have had cancer would not be very fair, but a group of test subject some of whom have relatives with cancer would reduce the effect of such a bias.>If mobile phone use and cigar smoking correlated, the excess of >tongue cancers might well have been cause by cigar smoke. 80% of >mouth and tongue cancers show up in cigar and pipe smokers. > >http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/content/0B772789897EB39BCA257A0D001F1239/$File/cigar_mouth.pdfSounds good. Since cigar and pipe smoking has been around for much longer than cell phones, then why do we suddenly see a increase in the number of tongue, back of throat, and tonsils cancers, and not elsewhere in the mouth starting in 2000? Cancer of the oral cavity looks quite stable: <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=3> Try different parts of the mouth on the above URL and notice that the pattern is limited to the tongue and connected areas of the mouth. Very strange methinks. -- 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
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 4:25:59 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> 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.John has said he doesn't believe math is as important as having a "feel" for the results. Well, he may have a "feel" for statistics, but it is a wrong feel that gets him wrong results. Rick C.
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 11:34:57 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 01:54:02 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >If mobile phone use and cigar smoking correlated, the excess of > >tongue cancers might well have been cause by cigar smoke. 80% of > >mouth and tongue cancers show up in cigar and pipe smokers. > > > >http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/content/0B772789897EB39BCA257A0D001F1239/$File/cigar_mouth.pdf > > Sounds good. Since cigar and pipe smoking has been around for much > longer than cell phones, then why do we suddenly see a increase in the > number of tongue, back of throat, and tonsils cancers, and not > elsewhere in the mouth starting in 2000? Cancer of the oral cavity > looks quite stable: > <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=3> > Try different parts of the mouth on the above URL and notice that the > pattern is limited to the tongue and connected areas of the mouth. > Very strange methinks.Yes, but you are looking at very limited data. Given there are a number of data sets to choose from, it is not a surprise to find one with something that is loosely correlated to cell phone use. But the data is very limited. It only goes back to 1975. From '75 to '82 I see a similar slope to the data. Maybe if you had data from earlier years it would show an increasing rate of cancer is the norm and the exception is the flat period from '82 to '01. So what data set would this non-increasing rate of cancer be correlate with? Another point to consider is that if anyone actually measures the RF exposure of cell phone users. I think you might find this has decreased over the last few years as text messages and web surfing have increased and the use of phones held next to the head has dropped. I can hardly get anyone to hold the damn things to their ears and mouths like a phone. Everyone wants to use the speakerphone which I often find much harder to hear clearly. Maybe they've read a study... Rick C.
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 5:10:17 PM UTC+2, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 01:44:21 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC+2, 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. > > > >Fat chance. Radio frequency quaata are a lot less energetic than > >the moleuclar vibrations that are active at room temperature. > > The original question was to "hear a rationale for how non-ionizing > radiation can result in chemical bond change". The rationale was what > was used as a justification for further study in one study, that of > course I can't find right now. I guess I should have mentioned that I > don't believe this rationalization. Incidentally, the reactions would > need to occur at body temperature, not room temperature.In Australia they can be the same. The difference is rarely worth worrying about.> >> There's also some hysteresis effects involved, > >> where once started, it becomes self sustaining at lower energy levels. > > > >Twaddle. > > Sure, but research into RF induced biological effects continue.Because medico's are anxiety makers. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c3c3/3dc54a44efce3a0a7f6cbd89be6dc094537c.pdf They can make people anxious about the - non-existent - effects of low level radio-frequency radiation by setting up poorly designed experiments and publicising the misleading results, so some of them do. It's more stupidity than deliberate deception, but that kind of stupidity gets rewarded when it ought to be reviled. <snip>> Still they persist despite the lack of success. The best that has > been done strikes me as carefully selecting the test subjects or > mice/rats, or invalidating results that don't follow the expected > result, so that they will produce a large enough cancer incidence to > make the research worth publishing.The ultrasound experiments I ran into just made stupid mistakes that happened to give them results that they could publish.> Notice that none of these tests and statistical studies bother to > supply a mechanism by which RF causes cancer. That makes sense > because they're not looking for such a missing link. They're trying > to determine whether there is a connection, and then ask for more > funding to research why RF causes cancer and what mechanism is > involved. In my never humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with this > approach.Apart from the fact that it's a total waste of time and money.> >> >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. > > > >And what you did post was misleading. > > Guilty as charged. My original posting was certainly misleading. My > further responses attempted to answer the questions exactly as they > were asked. If you think my answers to be misleading, perhaps the > questions might also have problems?The questions come from the "anxiety making" aspect of the medical persona.> >I can't claim to be an up-to-date expert, but I did my Ph.D. in > >Chemical kinetics from 1965 to 1970, and your proposal strikes me > >as exceedingly implausible. > > Please note that RF is magic and magic can do anything.There's nothing magical about radio-frequency radiation, and magic does seem to be a business of deluding the customers rather than doing anything positve for them. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 19, 20182018-07-19
On Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 5:34:57 PM UTC+2, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 01:54:02 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 7:11:29 PM UTC+2, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >> 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. > > >Even in epidemiology, correlation doesn't prove causation. > > Correlation does cause research, which is probably the main effect. If > the research proves causation by finding the missing link, then it's > justified tolerating this logical fallacy. Many discoveries started > with someone doing something rather mundane and noticing that things > did not go as expected or follow scientific dogma. A sane person > should follow the consensus and submit to the logic of the day, > because if correlation and causation were disconnected, then the > observed anomaly could not have happened and therefore probably a > mistake. Only the insane will go against the prevailing wisdom and > dig deeper.Don't be silly. Saying "that's odd" at the right moment is paradigm busting, and the royal road to scientific fame and fortune. It's insane to ignore the opportunity. My scientific education was salted with legendary cases of people noticing something odd and doing very well out of it. http://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/bodies/xray/roentgen.html> I passed the observations to a friend loosely associated with cancer > research on the coincidence that John Larkin observed in the rise of > tongue cancer coinciding with cell phone use. She's looking into it > which is an order of magnitude better than her usual reaction to my > theories. We shall see where this goes. > > >If you get a correlation you have to be able to point to a > >plausible chain of causation and follow it up with a more tightly > >selected group of patients. > > No, I don't. I just theorize the initial correlation and back it up > with probability. If there is sufficient coincidence, I then ask for > more funding to find the specific connection and cause. While > correlation is certainly not proof of causation, it's sufficient to > justify some research into a possible connection.Sometimes.> >The classical catch is that the effect you are seeing may > >correlate with a third factor which also correlates with the > >variable you were looking at. > > Sure, but the selection of test subjects is allegedly designed to > reduce or eliminate any such unrelated, unplanned, and potentially > influential factors. Usually this is done by randomizing those factor > in the test population.Tongue cancer is a little too rare for this to be practical.> For example, selecting test subjects who have > immediate relatives who have had cancer would not be very fair, but a > group of test subject some of whom have relatives with cancer would > reduce the effect of such a bias. > > >If mobile phone use and cigar smoking correlated, the excess of > >tongue cancers might well have been cause by cigar smoke. 80% of > >mouth and tongue cancers show up in cigar and pipe smokers. > > > >http://www.quitnow.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/content/0B772789897EB39BCA257A0D001F1239/$File/cigar_mouth.pdf > > Sounds good. Since cigar and pipe smoking has been around for much > longer than cell phones, then why do we suddenly see a increase in the > number of tongue, back of throat, and tonsils cancers, and not > elsewhere in the mouth starting in 2000?Cigars are expensive, and the incomes of upper class Americans have gone up a lot faster than those of the lower classes in recent years. There a lots of other potential confounds.> looks quite stable: > <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=3> > Try different parts of the mouth on the above URL and notice that the > pattern is limited to the tongue and connected areas of the mouth. > Very strange methinks.Cancers get much more common as you get older. Look at the rates as function of age group affected. For the below 50-year-olds, the rate is below 1 per 100,000, but it's more than ten times higher for the 50+, 65+ and 75+ groups but starts rising from 2000 for the 50+, from about 2006 for the 65+, and from about 2010 for the 75+. So the year 2000 and the rapid rise in the number of cell phones is a feature of the way you look at the data. It may be that the younger people were early adopters, or it may be that something completely different - such as oral sex and the papiloma virus - might come into it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 20, 20182018-07-20
>"Try different parts of the mouth on the above URL and notice that thepattern is limited to the tongue and connected areas of the mouth. " Sick of links. But in the past they said cellphones cause brain cancer. Either whatever real data existed has disappeared, or has been refuted. The tongue differs in its composition. The brain is a bunch of mushy cells, very specialised. There is flesh in the head all over the place and even an array of facial muscles. but the tongue is almost all muscles, some blood vessels to feed them and the taste buds which are constantly renewed. It is a bit different. This could conceivably cause it to have a higher vulnerability. I have no idea of what kind of research protocols that could possibly put the issue to rest. Nothing means anything on dead tissue. And like, vaccines cannot be double blind tested conveniently because of moral issues, neither can this even moreso. You don't want to refuse someone a vaccine on moral grounds, purposely trying to harm them with RF or whatever is even worse. All that means that there may never be a real resolution.
