29 years of data shows no mobile phone brain cancer link
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/06/29_years_of_data_shows_no_mobile_phone_brain_cancer_link/
Steep increase in phone use produces 'no increase in brain cancer incidence'
6 May 2016 at 02:29,
An Australian study has found no increase in brain cancers over the last 29 years, despite enormous increase in use of mobile phones.
The study, relies on the fact that all cases of cancer are recorded in Australia. That means the study's authors were able to examine “the association between age and gender-specific incidence rates of 19,858 men and 14,222 women diagnosed with brain cancer in Australia between 1982-2012.” The authors also tossed in data on mobile usage data from covering 1987-2012.
Lead author Simon Chapman, emeritus professor in public health at the University of Sydney, explains at The Conversation offers the following conclusion:
In summary, with extremely high proportions of the population having used mobile phones across some 20-plus years (from about 9% in 1993 to about 90% today), we found that age-adjusted brain cancer incidence rates (in those aged 20-84 years, per 100,000 people) had risen only slightly in males but were stable over 30 years in females.
The study did find “significant increases in brain cancer incidence only in those aged 70 years or more,” but that increase began in 1982, five years before mobile phones arrived in Australia. Chapman therefore attributes that rise to better diagnosis, rather than the advent of a new cancer-inducing agent.
Chapman also tackles the argument that brain cancer rates will eventually increase, as exposure to mobile phones increases. His response, and that in the paper, is that for that argument to hold we should already be seeing an increased incidence of brain cancer. That we are not, and that phones emit non-ionising radiation that is not generally held to damage DNA, means he confidently puts his name to the assertion that mobile phones are not causing brain cancer and won't be shown to have done so in the future. ®
My Jokes of the day:
1-.T. did show me HOW TO wear a tinfoil hat a long time ago..
2-I keep my tinfoil hat on hand, when my wife nags me about money and bills on payday. I will reinforce my shielding with a six pack of aluminum beer.
3- My tinfoil hat has a GPL register.
OK, cell-phones don't cause cancer.
Cancer causes cell-phones.
I am a member!
I remember when people were really concerned about cell phones causing brain cancer. So it is interesting to me that this concern didn't in any way abate the ubiquitous adoption of them!
"These may kill you"
"Can you prove it?"
"No"
"Great! I'll take three!"
To be fair, I also forgot about this concern that cell phones could lead to brain cancer. There probably was some media campaign to counteract this fear.
It was never a valid concern to begin with. Cell phones use non-ionizing radiation (microwaves, specifically). Non-ionizing radiation is simply not capable of causing molecular changes, ergo, not capable of causing cancer. All it can do is generate heat.
I am a member!
Just as there are those who use facebook and the like, even though they know it threatens our freedom, there were those who used cell phones even though they thought they may cause brain cancer!
Many people have a short-term perspective when it comes to technology. They value convenience above all else. So I suppose it shouldn't be 'interesting' to me at all. Rather, it is 'expected'. If people can embrace technologies when they know those technologies threaten our freedom, how much more so when the threat is unsubstantiated (as with the brain cancer--cell phone myth)
What was funny to me (funny as in strange not funny as in haha) is that there were people who believed they could get brain cancer from cell phones and used them anyway!
Actually, all of this is ridiculous. We live in a society where people smoke cigarettes even though they are proven to cause cancer. True, they are addictive. But there are a myriad of tools/methods/programs/medications to ensure successful quitting.
Some people are OK with living with such glaring contradictions.
I know people who had to flee because of electronic radiation and some who have healed so now they can be in cities but use head phones and normal phones to be on the safe side.
They did know asbestos was bad in 1920s but had the lid on until 1970 is when ever. Just around 50 years... Aspartame is bad but the lid is on. Teflon is the same. Amalgam in the teeth is very bad but the lid was on a very long time (Have heard a story from one guy who pulled out all teeth will metal in them. He was blind because of oral galvanism and got his eye sight back.). Same with things in hospital treatments today. Their will always be bad things out their that will hurt people.
A doctor in Sweden called Erik Enby has found connections with peoples diseases and things in the patients blood but he being attacked by many fronts with lies and more lies. Why? I dont know but when a lot or people are attaching something (defending something old) Im interested. Same with religions in history because they often attack people who say they truth because it makes the religions less powerful to control the people.
I know people who had to flee because of electronic radiation
Because of psychological problems. Mobile phones radiations only produce heat, i.e., they do not break any molecule, just agitate them. And the strength of those radiations is such that only the skin near the mobile phone has its temperature increased by a fraction of degree. An increase of temperature in the brain is barely measurable. And serious (in particular: large-scale) clinical studies confirm that mobile phones cause no effect on the health.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is like homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology, etc.: bullshit with no scientific basis and, more importantly, no result (only a placebo effect).
Magic Banana said:
Because of psychological problems. Mobile phones radiations only produce heat, i.e., they do not break any molecule, just agitate them. And the strength of those radiations is such that only the skin near the mobile phone has its temperature increased by a fraction of degree. An increase of temperature in the brain is barely measurable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I have the proof that cell phones cause a lot of heat and yes my stomach was agitated!
It did happen once; I was sleeping in top of my cell phone drunk! and my stomach was already agitated by my excessive wet flatulence that my toilet was in extreme demand AND duress through the rest of the nigh. I end UP disinfection my cell phone the next day. VIVA TEQUILA WORM!
magic banana
I dont call it a psychological problem when one I know was in her worst state could out in the woods can feel a mobile phone from 200 meters away.
Their is more too this world then science believe they know. Nikola Tesla talked about that if we wanted to know the truth we would have to think in energy and frequency. This is the area where homoeopathy is, frequency of the water if I understand it correct. The sad part is the science today is acting as Christianity did before, a cult that believe it is correct and everyone ells is wrong so it ok fuck up their life. One example this cult is attacking is Erik Enby in Sweden and they want this soon 80 year old doctor in prison. One of todays witches...
I have not used homoeopathy but it is just wrong for one group that believes one thing thinks it is ok to ban something other people use for their one use.
Science today isnt driven by truth but by an ideology. Look at people who identify with this kind of thinking (The younger ones) often look very pale, often glasses and looks like computer nerds in their body. As I did write in other posts some weeks ago (When I was a bit drunk) peoples personality shows in their body. Personality is something that can change if you dont is too drawn in to it and identify with it. I am not saying that a geeky look is the same as false but when a group is forming with a identity to defend I get warning flags.
Here comes placebo in to the picture. As I pointed out that what personality people have and identify with it shows in their body. Same with people who have a lot of self confidence and energy to take decisions (Bosses, capitalists...) have other looks and politicians often look slimy. So the placebo is in part connected in what people believe. One story is of Morris Goodman who crashed a plane and broke lots parts in his body and could only blink his eyes. His believed that he would walk out of the hospital and that was his focus, and he did almost one year later. Placebo?
To say that science today is only searching for the truth is just false. It is like saying that government wants to make cars more fuel efficient and reduce CO2 emissions. When something becomes an identify for people they will defend what they identify with and not the truth (Just look at religions)
(I would not be surprised that there were scientific papers in the 1950-1960 that said asbestos wasnt a problem at all for human health.)
> one I know was in her worst state could out in the woods can feel a mobile phone from 200 meters away.
She may claim this, but what evidence do you have? My guess is if you told her that there was a cell phone 100 meters away when there really wasn't a cell phone or any non-visible electromagnetic radiation for miles, she would still "feel" a mobile phone. That is the power of the nocebo effect. I'm sure she really did feel symptoms from it, but it was all a product of her expectations.
> One story is of Morris Goodman who crashed a plane and broke lots parts in his body and could only blink his eyes. His believed that he would walk out of the hospital and that was his focus, and he did almost one year later. Placebo?
Similar, but not quite the same: that's willpower. And yes, what you think does have real, very significant clinical outcomes. The placebo effect has been measured to really assist people in recovering. Conversely, the nocebo effect has been measured to really cause harm to people. That is why you are doing a terrible disservice to people who believe something harmless is harmful by feeding their belief.
> (I would not be surprised that there were scientific papers in the 1950-1960 that said asbestos wasnt a problem at all for human health.)
I've seen a nice documentary about that from a series called "Late Lessons from Early Warnings". The one on asbestos is called "The Evil Dust". You can currently find it on YouTube by searching "history of asbestos".
In fact, that asbestos is hazardous was understood even by the ancient Romans, and there were a lot of lawsuits against the asbestos industry throughout the 20th century. The main thing that wasn't understood was the full extent of the harm asbestos could cause, and that these effects can extend to the general population rather than just people who work in asbestos mines.
She could feel people coming to their house out in the woods if their phones were switched on. No, not car noise because they live in thick woods that blocks car noise very well. I dont know how she did it but cant do it no more but can now use mobile phones.
Morris Goodman story for be shows how peoples intent helps their body to heal. People who want to heal and take care of them.
So I do believe that some people who think they can get hurt by mobiles and wifi "feel" something with their imagination. Personality/believe create body symptoms. People who believe they are worthless and very unhappy create a look and body language and I would not be surprised that blood and organs also change because of peoples long term mood.
Thanks for the asbestos information.
> She could feel people coming to their house out in the woods if their phones were switched on.
There are all kinds of factors that could be at play here, the simplest of which is confirmation bias (if you're expecting someone, you might make dozens of predictions on when they arrive, but only remember the last one; attributing these predictions as "feeling" something is not that far of a stretch from that).
Scientists just randomly switch on (or not) an antenna on the other side of a wall and ask the auto-claimed "electromagnetic hypersensitive" (who is on the other side) whether it is on or off. Repetitively. His or her hit rate always is around 0.5, no different from a random guess. Call that ideology if you wish. It is actually called "the scientific method".
Similarly, all well-designed large-scale clinical studies have all failed at showing any significant difference between homeopathy and a placebo.
I am a member!
Regarding 'alternative medicine':
1.) Advocates often ignore the possibility of a negative outcome.
i.e. "this will help or you will be no worse off". Often people are worse off. One of the worst ways it hurts people is it gives them hope and then dashes those hopes. Then there is time, effort, money, pain, etc... invested in the 'treatment'. And those are just the "you will be no worse off" outcomes. People also get physically injured by some of these 'treatments'. Some of the proponents of these treatments are just sleazy selfish people who are trying to benefit off people with incurable illnesses. "well, there is no cure anyway, they might as well try this--hey, it might even work! who knows...and look at how much money I can make!!"
2.) It assumes that there is an answer for everything.
Science couldn't figure it out? Well, there has to be a cure--maybe this is it! You often see this in religion too:
person A: "How did the world get here?"
person B: "we don't know"
person C: "nonsense! there is an answer for everything--god created the world".
person A: "OK, I'll accept that--at least it is an answer. I'll go with god unless a better explanation comes along"
person B: "we don't know, and I accept that. We do not have to know. I'm not so arrogant to think that there are answers to everything and humans can understand them all."
person C: "Whatever. Think what you want. Everything has an answer and everything has a cure. My back hurts, I'm going down the street to buy some snake oil--I hear it can cure anything!"
"Oh, the Humanity!"
Herbert Morrison, the Hindenburg disaster news breaker on the radio from Lakehurst in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Morrison_%28announcer%29
In excitement, he yelled on broadcast radio "Oh, the Humanity!" It has been a staple overstatement ever since whenever anything mind-boggling happens. It's somewhat similar to when in a concert somebody yells "Play Paranoid!"
I am a member!
alternative medicine humor from Seinfeld: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCZFsXV8Pnc
*Strictly off-topix (for a reason)*
Any news or progress on your Fluxbox setup?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios