Prev: The REAL Pauli Particle Principle
Next: Howz about a plank force?
From: guskz on 27 Jun 2010 15:02
On Jun 25, 10:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > WHAT S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 25 Jun 2010   Washington, DC
>
> > 1. CELL PHONES: THE HIGH COST OF SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE.
> > An opportunity to explain one of the simplest and most powerful concepts of
> > science to the public is slipping away.   A month ago WHO released its long-
> > awaited Interphone study of cell phones and brain cancer in 13 countries.
> > The 10 year, $14 million, case-control study reports that "no increase in
> > risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with the use of mobile phones.."
> > That's the right answer, so why am I pissed?  We already knew that cell
> > phones don't cause cancer. We've known it for years. From the media
> > coverage you would think these guys just discovered it.  Let's go to the
> > next sentence:  "There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
> > higher exposure levels, but biases and error prevented a causal
> > interpretation."  So is there a supernatural interpretation? That one
> > sentence undoes everything in the study.  Case-control requires human
> > recollection; at their best case-control studies are to science as polls
> > are to elections.  They may come out the same, but you can't count on it.
>
> > 2. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: YES, BIOLOGY MUST ALSO OBEY THE LAW.
> > Ten years ago a group in Denmark published a beautiful epidemiological
> > study of cell phones and brain cancer in the Journal of the National Cancer
> > Institute:  Johansen C.Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular
> > telephones and cancer a nationwide Cohort  study in Denmark. J Natl
> > Cancer Inst 2001;93:203 7.   The study was based entirely on existing
> > public records: the Danish Cancer Registry, mobile phone charges, death
> > records, subscriptions, etc.  The conclusion was unequivocal: There was no
> > correlation between cell phone use and the incidence of brain cancer.  It
> > was nice to have that fact confirmed, but it was not a surprise.  I was
> > invited to write an editorial on how scientists should respond to the cell
> > phone/brain cancer question, for the same issue of JNCI JNCI, Vol. 93, No.
> > 3, 166-167, February 7, 2001.  Cancer agents act by creating mutant strands
> > of DNA.  In the case of electromagnetic radiation, there is a sharp
> > threshold for this process at the extreme blue end of the visible
> > spectrum.  Albert Einstein explained this with the photoelectric effect in
> > 1905, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1921.   Cell phones operate
> > at a frequency about 1 million times lower than the ultraviolet threshold
> > and hence cannot be a cause of cancer.  It's important to recognize that
> > it's not the intensity of radiation that makes it a cancer agent, but the
> > frequency.
>
> > 3. HEAT:  BUT CAN T MICROWAVES COOK YOUR BRAIN?
> > They can if you disable the interlock on your microwave oven and stick your
> > head in it, but your cell phone operates on tiny little batteries. They
> > don't have much power.  How hot does your hand get holding your microwave?
> > Your body uses blood as a coolant to maintain a pretty constant temperature
> > over the body parts.  Especially the brain. It's got its work cut out for
> > it today in Washington.
>
> > THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
> > Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
> > University of Maryland, but they should be.
> > ---
> > Archives of What's New can be found athttp://www.bobpark.org
> > What's New is moving to a different listserver and our
> > subscription process has changed.

Meaningless, if (A) one million use a cellphone for 1/2 hrs/day =
nothing, but perhaps (B) 10 that use it for 16 hrs/day = 40% fatality.
Thus (A) might increase risk by 30% for those already with weak
immunity, etc...

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: The REAL Pauli Particle Principle
Next: Howz about a plank force?