Cell phone use causes tongue cancer

On Friday, 20 July 2018 04:42:17 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com  wrote:

> >"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. "
> 
> 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.

In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data samples should then give us many clues.

It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns: the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease as several causative factors are discovered & individual high risks can be flagged & managed.


NT

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:53:44 -0700 (PDT), 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 ? LOL

Maybe caused by talking too much?  Some folks seem to be talking on
the thing for all waking hours.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:42:13 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>>"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. "

>Sick of links.

I have a link that might cure your fear of URL's.

>But in the past they said cellphones cause brain cancer. Either 
>whatever real data existed has disappeared, or has been refuted. 

Getting my hands on the original raw data is quite difficult.  I often
end up with data that has been normalized, adjusted, tweaked,
compensate, filtered, cherry picked, and massaged.  Researchers are
also hesitant to release original data to the GUM (great unwashed
masses) as they might actually discover something the researcher has
missed.  However, if you want raw data, I get you some.
  Garbage in -> Amazing revelations out

>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. 

If the tongue were not made of muscle, it would be either rigid and
inflexible, or weak and mushy.  Not very useful for eating.  It's also
not the only muscle in your body.  

>I have no idea of what kind of research protocols that could 
>possibly put the issue to rest.

Rust never sleeps.  Research never rests.

>Nothing means anything on dead tissue.

Wrong.  Everything and Anything means something.  There may be some
things that are subject to debate, but none are meaningless.

>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. 

The RF exposure tests that I've read are double blind, where the
researcher does not know if the rats or mice are getting exposed to
RF, or if the signal generator was turned off.

>All that means that there may never be a real resolution.

At the end of each research report is the line "More research is
necessary" which really means "send money".  However, you're right. As
long as there is a possibility of profiting from lawsuits for cancer
and other health issues allegedly caused by RF exposure, as in the
Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, research will continue.

-- 
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 Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
>rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
>samples should then give us many clues.

Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
"Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
scientist"
<https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>

>It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
>the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
>as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
>risks can be flagged & managed.

By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
probably redundant.  Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.




-- 
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 Friday, 20 July 2018 23:56:55 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:

> >In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
> >rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
> >samples should then give us many clues.
> 
> Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
> causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
> "Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
> scientist"
> <https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>

that someone has managed to sell a bad product is beside the point

> >It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
> >the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
> >as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
> >risks can be flagged & managed.
> 
> By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
> the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
> probably redundant.

DNA testing tells us almost nothing about how toxic all sorts of chemicals are, and what things improve life expectancy etc.


> Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
> the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.

The upside to such monitoring is already obvious


NT

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:56:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
>>rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
>>samples should then give us many clues.
>
>Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
>causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
>"Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
>scientist"
><https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>

"according to lawsuit scientist" says everything that needs be said.

>>It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
>>the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
>>as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
>>risks can be flagged & managed.
>
>By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
>the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
>probably redundant.  Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
>the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.

Complete bullshit.

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 11:58:17 AM UTC+2, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 20 July 2018 23:56:55 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
> 
> > >In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
> > >rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
> > >samples should then give us many clues.
> > 
> > Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
> > causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
> > "Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
> > scientist"
> > <https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>
> 
> that someone has managed to sell a bad product is beside the point.

The interesting question is whether the manurfacturer knew, or could have known, that it was a "bad product" before it went on the market.
 
> > >It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
> > >the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
> > >as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
> > >risks can be flagged & managed.
> > 
> > By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
> > the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
> > probably redundant.
> 
> DNA testing tells us almost nothing about how toxic all sorts of chemicals are, and what things improve life expectancy etc.

Toxicity can only be tested by exposure to particular chemicals. Some chemicals are toxic to everybody, but where individual difference exist they are likely to reflect differences between individual genomes, and whole genome DNA testing is likely to be able to predict which individuals might be at risk.

Improving life expectancy is a slightly different problem. Lots of factors influence when you finally drop dead.

There have been studies that suggested the population divides into two different groups of life expectancies - if males survive beyond 80 in good health and females beyond 85, they were claimed to be quite likely to members of the longer-lived distribution. This may not be correct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986979

I don't know that anybody is looking at the genomes of centenatians, but it might well be worth doing, and could give an insight into what's going on.

This might even translate into useful therapies.

> > Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
> > the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.

Only if it is cheap.
 
> The upside to such monitoring is already obvious

Obviously. Whether it is going to be cost effective is a different question.

And there's the point that people don't like having the fingerprints recorded. Whole genome testing is an even better way for the government to work out exactly who you are.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:07:31 PM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:56:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
> >>rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
> >>samples should then give us many clues.
> >
> >Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
> >causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
> >"Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
> >scientist"
> ><https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>
> 
> "according to lawsuit scientist" says everything that needs be said.
> 
> >>It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
> >>the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
> >>as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
> >>risks can be flagged & managed.
> >
> >By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
> >the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
> >probably redundant.  Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
> >the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.
> 
> Complete bullshit.

Which means that krw is too ill-informed to be aware that it isn't.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:07:09 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>>On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:58:26 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for 
>>>rf exposure & numerous other things, the billions of data
>>>samples should then give us many clues.

>>"Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
>>scientist"
>><https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>
>
>"according to lawsuit scientist" says everything that needs be said.

In case you missed my point, the problem is not designing, building,
and selling medical devices to consumers.  The problem is the
slightest error in such medical devices will result in ambulance
chasing plaintiff lawyers intent on bankrupting the company for their
own enrichment.  Today, if some medical equipment company wants to
sell cellular radiation dosimeters to the GUM (great unwashed masses),
they run the risk of being sued for failing to prevent cancer,
insufficient accuracy, putting the user at risk.  Even at the
historical average rate of about 7 new brain cancer cases per 100,000
population per year, with a population of 326 million, that's 3,000
new cell phone causes brain cancer lawsuits per year.

However, let's ignore the litigatory risks and pretend we're going to
design an RF dosimeter for the masses.  What frequencies should it
cover?  DC to light or do you want to include ionizing radiation?
Where should the sensors be located?  RF field strength and density
vary radically with location, source, frequency, pulse rate, nearby
reflectors, nearby absorbers, etc.  All that is going to require
multiple sophisticated sensors and a central data collector that make
todays wearable medical devices look like a toy.  

I have no doubt that a whole body RF sensor network can be built, but
whether Joe Sixpack is willing to have it done to his body is somewhat
questionable.   As an added inducement to having it done, the
insurance companies are likely to consider it a cost saver, much like
the ODB2 data collectors that inform your insurance company of your
driving habits.  Want insurance?  Just have yourself wired for
everything.  Don't think the trend will stop at RF monitoring.  Most
likely your diet, vital signs, exercise patterns, and unhealthy habits
will also be monitored if you want health insurance.  Want to have
medical insurance while continuing to smoke, eat crap, drink, or play
couch potato?  No problem, just pay more, or live with exceptions for
known diseases and maladies caused by your unhealthy bad habits.  I
suspect that there have been a few science fiction dystopia stories
written on the topic.

>>>It's easy to morally justify fitting such equipment to newborns:
>>>the result will be they will live longer & suffer less disease 
>>>as several causative factors are discovered & individual high 
>>>risks can be flagged & managed.
>>
>>By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
>>the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
>>probably redundant.  Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
>>the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.

>Complete bullshit.

You can do better than that.  Why is it bullshit?  Of course you have
a right to having an opinion, but please note that I consider it
worthless without substantiation.

We're already testing for genetic disposition to various diseases
today.  For example:
"Center for Inherited Heart Diseases"
<https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/clinical_services/specialty_areas/center_inherited_heart_diseases.html>
"Mayo Clinic - Genetic testing"
<https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/genetic-testing/about/pac-20384827>
In the distant future, you apply for employment with one of the
mega-corporate monopolies that our government currently seems to enjoy
building.  Since the People's Republic of America will by then
guarantee your employment for life, hiring you is considered an
investment and the interview process is an exercise in risk
management.  I'm sure they will look at your medical history and DNA
tests with great interest.  If your DNA shows a high likelyhood of
future medical problems, you're less likely to be hired.  If you had
voluntarily submitted to having a medical sensor network and data
logger installed prior to the interview, I suspect that the employer
might be less likely to accept the numbers it produces as you could
have tampered with the data, while DNA is much more difficult to
change.

Ok, enough science fiction and futurism for today.
  



-- 
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 Sun, 22 Jul 2018 02:58:13 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, 20 July 2018 23:56:55 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
>> Not if the manufacturers of such monitoring equipment get sued for
>> causing the same problems they are trying to prevent.
>> "Fitbit heart rate tech 'puts consumers at risk' according to lawsuit
>> scientist"
>> <https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-hrm-heart-rate-tech-health-risk-2764>

>that someone has managed to sell a bad product is beside the point

It's not a bad product.  It just doesn't meet the expectations of the
plaintiffs attorneys.  Methinks that I recognize the problems from the
vague description in the article.  A few years ago, my heart decided
to go nuts and produce an irregular heart beat as in PVC (premature
ventricular contractions).  I'll spare you the details.  Every
automated heart rate instrument, pulse oximeter, and wearable fitness
device would produce either random numbers for the heart rate or
refuse to deliver a number.  The better devices had some kind of
algorithm to deal with the problem, but most of the cheap stuff that I
own would display garbage or nothing.  The problem is that PVC's are a
very common type heart arrhythmia.  Different people show it to
varying degrees, especially when doing heavy exercise, such as when a
Fitbit is used.  My guess(tm) is that Fitbit didn't do a very good job
of dealing with the PVC problem.  

Incidentally, my PVC problem when away by itself after about 2 years
after doing absolutely nothing to treat the problem.  Weird(tm).

>> By then, DNA testing will also be able to predict susceptibility to
>> the same diseases and maladies.  Monitoring might be interesting, but
>> probably redundant.

>DNA testing tells us almost nothing about how toxic all sorts of 
>chemicals are, and what things improve life expectancy etc.

In the distant past, I proposed a company based on people's paranoia
and fears.  The company was to be called something like "Paranoia
Industries".  It would sell testers and instruments to measure
anything that people might fear.  No cures, no antidotes, no lab
tests, and no remedies, just electronic testers.  At the time, floppy
disks were all the rage, so my first prototype was a magnetic field
sensor with alarm levels set when the field was high enough to erase
the floppies.  I built a pH meter to measure coffee acidity (pH from
5.0 to about 4.0), temperature and "darkness".  And so on.  The idea
and funding died when the principle investor became worried about
getting sued if someone died because of something that an instrument
failed to detect.  Judging by the Fitbit lawsuit, little has changed
over the years.  Fortunately, that hasn't stopped other companies from
trying:
<https://www.chemsee.com/residential/>
<https://www.chemsee.com/commercial/>
Want a personal device that will detect toxic chemicals?  It just
might happen.

I'm not so sure extending life expectancy is a problem or a desirable
benefit.  The average lifespan is steadily climbing:
<http://www.roperld.com/science/lifeexpectancyus.htm>
and does not appear to need much help maintaining the rate of
increase.  Meanwhile, the aging population (baby boomers) and insane
public retirement benefits are putting a financial strain on the
system.  Financially, we would do better to encourage people to smoke,
drink, over eat, engage in unsafe work practices, and drive like
maniacs, which tend to reduce the life expectancy long before the more
expensive chronic geriatric diseases become a problem.

>> Of course, as soon as something beneficial from
>> the monitoring is discovered, then it will be made mandatory.
>
>The upside to such monitoring is already obvious

So are the downsides, such as loss of privacy, tracking your
activities in minute detail, use as blackmail by insurance providers, 

-- 
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