More on mobile phones & other wireless devices

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >> >Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
> >> >known that any risks to human health actually exist".
> >>
> >> Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:
> >
> >Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
> >claim.
>
> Probably for the same reason that you deliberately deleted the text I
> sent. What are you aftraid of, that you have to remove information?

I commented that it was a newspaper article and suggested that you
find the original material.

> >> >By Nancy McVicar
> >> >South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
> >> >Posted February 1 2006
> >
> >LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
> >a newspaper?
>
> "Musings". Tell the truth (I know, you can't). She was reporting the
> results of research studies. Obviously, you don't want information you
> don't like, whatever the source.

You can't be serious. I know plenty of people who have been interviewed
by the press regarding various research projects and it is not uncommon
for the reporter to mess up critical details.

>
> >> >Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
> >> >and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
> >> >One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
> >> >phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
> >> >and more research should be done.
> >
> >I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
> >less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
> >radiation and not something else.
>
> That's not what they said. It's purely routine to ask for more
> research.

Your own quote said, "the study group was small". Do you understand
the implicatoins of that statement.


> >Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
> >explain what was done to control for the following:
> >
> > 1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
> > given that some people turn the volume up way too far
> > with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
> > they use earphones.
>
> That's ludicrous.. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock
> musicians would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before
> now. You are grasping at straws.

Rock musicians don't get nearly the sound levels that their
fans do (and can wear earplugs as long as it doesn't show). In addition,
the tumors in question are very rare, whether cell phones are used or
not.

> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
>
> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.

"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
It is by one ear or the other.

> > 3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
> > that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
> > in?
>
> Ludicrous. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock musicians
> would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before now. You
> are grasping at straws.

Not so. Rock musicians do not stand in front of the speakers, and of
course Vandeman has presented no data about these individuals.

> >If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
> >for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
> >with cell phone use.
>
> You are grasping at straws, and obviously know NOTHING of this
> subject. You aren't even aware of the research that has been done. You
> are just another egomaniacal electronics nerd.

Translation - Vandeman would make a very sloppy researcher.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 20 Apr 2007 16:22:07 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >The effects of electromagnetic radition on matter is, however, and that
> >was the issue.
>
> You still haven't even DISCUSSED the effects of cell phone radiation
> on matter. All you said is that it's not "ionizing radiation". That
> doesn't say what it DOES.

We had this discussion last year and I went through it in some
detail. I see no reason to repeat the same "conversation" just
for your benefit. The short version is that you'll get a very
small amount of heat, but not localized due to the wavelength
being comparable to the size of one's head, and if the head was
a good absorber, you'd see noticable attenuation as you do a
360 degree turn, putting your head between the phone and the
base station, and you simply don't see that in practice.


> >> No, I don't. I see a lot of cell phone users, but they always end the
> >> call if it gets noisy. They don't "turn up the volume". Besides, there
> >> is no evidence that noise causes TUMORS.
> >
> >Care to cite any study that even tried to see if that was the case? You
> >were, after all, talking about benign tumors on an auditory nerve, and
> >you have simply not shown any physical mechanism that would explain how
> >electomagnetic radiation might be responsible.
>
> I don't need to. It happened. YOU explain it. And NOT from loud noise,
> which is absurd and laughable.

You mean you can't back up your statements.

Loud noise is not absurd as a possible cause - the response of the ear
to sound is to send a signal along the auditory nerve, and there is a
lot of complex chemistry involved theere. So it is something you
simply have to check before coming to any definitive conclusion.

Also, people who use cell phones heavily may also be heavily into
using MP3 players, portable CD players, etc., and it is well known
that these tend to be played at volumes high enough to cause hearing
damage. Do you know if the reaction to that damage might lead to
tumors or not?

Of course, you don't know, which means you are simply speculating.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 20 Apr 2007 16:04:28 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
> >> phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.
> >
> >Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
> >know nothing about.
>
> There you go, LYING again. I know enough to know that you are
> bluffing. You know NOTHING about health impacts. You just like to show
> off your nerdiness.

Vandeman, you are an idiot (and a dishonest one at that).
>
> And the URL you cited to back up your claim
> >stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!
>
> Scientists are cautious, and ALWAYS say that.

Yes, we know about being cautious, but scientists don't "ALWAYS" say that.
They only say that when they know they don't have definitive results.

> Research on effects that
> take decades to occur is inherently difficult, due to the short
> lifespan of the researchers. That's why many of them use fruit flies
> instead of human subjects.

In other words, nobody knows at this point.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:45:45 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 20 Apr 2007 16:04:28 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
>> >> phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.
>> >
>> >Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
>> >know nothing about.
>>
>> There you go, LYING again. I know enough to know that you are
>> bluffing. You know NOTHING about health impacts. You just like to show
>> off your nerdiness.
>
>Vandeman, you are an idiot (and a dishonest one at that).
>>
>> And the URL you cited to back up your claim
>> >stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!
>>
>> Scientists are cautious, and ALWAYS say that.
>
>Yes, we know about being cautious, but scientists don't "ALWAYS" say that.
>They only say that when they know they don't have definitive results.
>
>> Research on effects that
>> take decades to occur is inherently difficult, due to the short
>> lifespan of the researchers. That's why many of them use fruit flies
>> instead of human subjects.
>
>In other words, nobody knows at this point.

Right. We also don't know that tomors aren't caused by the bite of
fruit flies. Idiot.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
>> >> >known that any risks to human health actually exist".
>> >>
>> >> Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:
>> >
>> >Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
>> >claim.
>>
>> Probably for the same reason that you deliberately deleted the text I
>> sent. What are you aftraid of, that you have to remove information?
>
>I commented that it was a newspaper article and suggested that you
>find the original material.

Why don't YOU? You are the one who is skeptical of the results.

>> >> >By Nancy McVicar
>> >> >South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
>> >> >Posted February 1 2006
>> >
>> >LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
>> >a newspaper?
>>
>> "Musings". Tell the truth (I know, you can't). She was reporting the
>> results of research studies. Obviously, you don't want information you
>> don't like, whatever the source.
>
>You can't be serious. I know plenty of people who have been interviewed
>by the press regarding various research projects and it is not uncommon
>for the reporter to mess up critical details.

But you have no evidence to suspect that.

>> >> >Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
>> >> >and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
>> >> >One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
>> >> >phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
>> >> >and more research should be done.
>> >
>> >I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
>> >less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
>> >radiation and not something else.
>>
>> That's not what they said. It's purely routine to ask for more
>> research.
>
>Your own quote said, "the study group was small". Do you understand
>the implicatoins of that statement.

It only means that more people will be skeptical.

>> >Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
>> >explain what was done to control for the following:
>> >
>> > 1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
>> > given that some people turn the volume up way too far
>> > with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
>> > they use earphones.
>>
>> That's ludicrous.. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock
>> musicians would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before
>> now. You are grasping at straws.
>
>Rock musicians don't get nearly the sound levels that their
>fans do (and can wear earplugs as long as it doesn't show). In addition,
>the tumors in question are very rare, whether cell phones are used or
>not.

Which makes it all the more unusual and suspicious to find tumors in
cell phone users.

>> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
>> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
>>
>> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.
>
>"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
>It is by one ear or the other.

So what? Are you saying that handedness causes neuroma? You make no
sense.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >Also, people who use cell phones heavily may also be heavily into
> >using MP3 players, portable CD players, etc., and it is well known
> >that these tend to be played at volumes high enough to cause hearing
> >damage. Do you know if the reaction to that damage might lead to
> >tumors or not?
> >
> >Of course, you don't know, which means you are simply speculating.
>
> Notice that NO ONE mentions loud noise as a cause of acoustic
> neuromas:

Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
possibilities, including sound levels.

> Dr Michael Clarke, a spokesman for the National Radiological
> Protection Board, the UK's advisory group, said it was a "good study
> from a well respected institute".
>
> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."

I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.

I.e., you don't know what you are babbling about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:45:45 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 20 Apr 2007 16:04:28 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >In other words, nobody knows at this point.
>
> Right. We also don't know that tomors aren't caused by the bite of
> fruit flies. Idiot.

Lack of data is not grounds for a moron like you to jump to conclusions
without any proof.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
> >> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.
> >
> >"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
> >It is by one ear or the other.
>
> So what? Are you saying that handedness causes neuroma? You make no
> sense.

What I'm saying is that a careful researcher would check that
possibility - to rule out that for unknown reasons there is some
correlation between the side these tumors appear and whether one is
left or right handed (or with whatever else determines which hand you
use to hold a cell phone).




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:13:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
>> >> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.
>> >
>> >"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
>> >It is by one ear or the other.
>>
>> So what? Are you saying that handedness causes neuroma? You make no
>> sense.
>
>What I'm saying is that a careful researcher would check that
>possibility - to rule out that for unknown reasons there is some
>correlation between the side these tumors appear and whether one is
>left or right handed (or with whatever else determines which hand you
>use to hold a cell phone).

Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
phases of the moon? Idiot.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:07:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >Also, people who use cell phones heavily may also be heavily into
>> >using MP3 players, portable CD players, etc., and it is well known
>> >that these tend to be played at volumes high enough to cause hearing
>> >damage. Do you know if the reaction to that damage might lead to
>> >tumors or not?
>> >
>> >Of course, you don't know, which means you are simply speculating.
>>
>> Notice that NO ONE mentions loud noise as a cause of acoustic
>> neuromas:
>
>Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
>actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
>can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
>GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
>possibilities, including sound levels.

You obviously have no idea what science is about. You don't have to
EXPLAIN something, for it to be a FACT. Quantum mechanics is FACT, but
no one can "explain" it. QED

>> Dr Michael Clarke, a spokesman for the National Radiological
>> Protection Board, the UK's advisory group, said it was a "good study
>> from a well respected institute".
>>
>> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
>> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."
>
>I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.

For now, this is the best we've got -- the most probable explanation.

>I.e., you don't know what you are babbling about.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:13:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
> >> >> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.
> >> >
> >> >"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
> >> >It is by one ear or the other.
> >>
> >> So what? Are you saying that handedness causes neuroma? You make no
> >> sense.
> >
> >What I'm saying is that a careful researcher would check that
> >possibility - to rule out that for unknown reasons there is some
> >correlation between the side these tumors appear and whether one is
> >left or right handed (or with whatever else determines which hand you
> >use to hold a cell phone).
>
> Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
> phases of the moon? Idiot.

You mean like the time Irwin Shapiro tried to test the General Theory
of Relativity by looking at the angular separation of two quasars
that were at nearly the same (angular) coordinates in the sky? As
they appeared to move behind the sun, and because gravity deflects
light, one can predict how the angular separation changes. Just
to be sure, he measured the position of the two quasars well after they
had passed the sun and found, much to his surprise, that the angular
separation had changed. In fact, it changed so much that it looked
like the quasars were moving away from each other at more than the
speed of light. Obviously what we thought were two separate objects
were not that at all, and several theories (none of which required
velocities higher than the speed of light) were proposed to explain
this completely unexpected phenomenum.

*That* is why you check what would naively seem to be "obvious".
Sometimes your preconceptions are simply wrong. A less careful
researcher would have assumed that something was wrong with
general relativity. Instead, Shapiro avoided that mistake and
discovered something very interesting.

The fact that you don't seem to understand the need to check all of
your assumptions is a good indication of why you should not comment
on scientific research.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:07:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
> >actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
> >can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
> >GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
> >possibilities, including sound levels.
>
> You obviously have no idea what science is about. You don't have to
> EXPLAIN something, for it to be a FACT. Quantum mechanics is FACT, but
> no one can "explain" it. QED

You are mixing metaphors. Quantum mechanics is a theory (as far as we
know, a very good one).

> >> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
> >> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."
> >
> >I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.
>
> For now, this is the best we've got -- the most probable explanation.

For now, the "best we've got" is insufficient data to draw a conclusion,
so the right thing to say is that we simply don't know the cause or even
if the effect is real. It does suggest the need for a larger and more
expensive investigation into what is going on.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 21 Apr 2007 23:31:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:07:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
>> >actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
>> >can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
>> >GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
>> >possibilities, including sound levels.
>>
>> You obviously have no idea what science is about. You don't have to
>> EXPLAIN something, for it to be a FACT. Quantum mechanics is FACT, but
>> no one can "explain" it. QED
>
>You are mixing metaphors. Quantum mechanics is a theory (as far as we
>know, a very good one).

I can see that I went right over your head, and I have to spell it out
for you. Yes, quantum mechanics is a good theory, but, as Nobel Prize
winner Richard Feynman said, no one understands quantum mechanics.
Similarly, research has shown that cell phones cause tumors. But no
one understands why. SO WHAT? This is like global warming. For
decades, naysayers like you said that it "wasn't proven", just as you
say there's "insufficient data to draw a conclusion". You don't even
admit the POSSIBILITY that it's right, just because you don't want to
believe it.

>> >> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
>> >> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."
>> >
>> >I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.
>>
>> For now, this is the best we've got -- the most probable explanation.
>
>For now, the "best we've got" is insufficient data to draw a conclusion,
>so the right thing to say is that we simply don't know the cause or even
>if the effect is real. It does suggest the need for a larger and more
>expensive investigation into what is going on.

There's no other plausible cause. Because acoustic neuromas are so
rare, it makes it even more suspicious that they are associated with
cell phone use.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 21 Apr 2007 23:28:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:13:17 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
>> >> >> > one is right handed or left handed in the general population?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
>> >> >It is by one ear or the other.
>> >>
>> >> So what? Are you saying that handedness causes neuroma? You make no
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> >What I'm saying is that a careful researcher would check that
>> >possibility - to rule out that for unknown reasons there is some
>> >correlation between the side these tumors appear and whether one is
>> >left or right handed (or with whatever else determines which hand you
>> >use to hold a cell phone).
>>
>> Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
>> phases of the moon? Idiot.
>
>You mean like the time Irwin Shapiro tried to test the General Theory
>of Relativity by looking at the angular separation of two quasars
>that were at nearly the same (angular) coordinates in the sky? As
>they appeared to move behind the sun, and because gravity deflects
>light, one can predict how the angular separation changes. Just
>to be sure, he measured the position of the two quasars well after they
>had passed the sun and found, much to his surprise, that the angular
>separation had changed. In fact, it changed so much that it looked
>like the quasars were moving away from each other at more than the
>speed of light. Obviously what we thought were two separate objects
>were not that at all, and several theories (none of which required
>velocities higher than the speed of light) were proposed to explain
>this completely unexpected phenomenum.
>
>*That* is why you check what would naively seem to be "obvious".
>Sometimes your preconceptions are simply wrong. A less careful
>researcher would have assumed that something was wrong with
>general relativity. Instead, Shapiro avoided that mistake and
>discovered something very interesting.
>
>The fact that you don't seem to understand the need to check all of
>your assumptions is a good indication of why you should not comment
>on scientific research.

That'e exactly what the researchers already DID! You still haven't
given any explanation of your absurd proposal that acoustic neuromas
are caused by being left-handed or right-handed.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 21 Apr 2007 23:28:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
> >> phases of the moon? Idiot.
> >
> >The fact that you don't seem to understand the need to check all of
> >your assumptions is a good indication of why you should not comment
> >on scientific research.
>
> That'e exactly what the researchers already DID! You still haven't
> given any explanation of your absurd proposal that acoustic neuromas
> are caused by being left-handed or right-handed.

Moron - I didn't say they were caused by that, but rather that you
need to check such things. Did you consider that handedness is
correlated with how you hold things or where you place earphones
such as those on MP3 players (portable music players have been known
to cause ear damage due to being played too loudly).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 21 Apr 2007 23:31:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:07:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
> >> >actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
> >> >can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
> >> >GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
> >> >possibilities, including sound levels.
> >>
> >> You obviously have no idea what science is about. You don't have to
> >> EXPLAIN something, for it to be a FACT. Quantum mechanics is FACT, but
> >> no one can "explain" it. QED
> >
> >You are mixing metaphors. Quantum mechanics is a theory (as far as we
> >know, a very good one).
>
> I can see that I went right over your head, and I have to spell it out
> for you. Yes, quantum mechanics is a good theory, but, as Nobel Prize
> winner Richard Feynman said, no one understands quantum mechanics.

Actually, he did understand it and was joking. He had a wonderful
sense of humor.

> Similarly, research has shown that cell phones cause tumors. But no
> one understands why. SO WHAT? This is like global warming. For
> decades, naysayers like you said that it "wasn't proven", just as you
> say there's "insufficient data to draw a conclusion". You don't even
> admit the POSSIBILITY that it's right, just because you don't want to
> believe it.

No, they haven't shown that - the data is only suggestive of some
correlation for unknown reasons.


> >> >> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
> >> >> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."
> >> >
> >> >I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.
> >>
> >> For now, this is the best we've got -- the most probable explanation.
> >
> >For now, the "best we've got" is insufficient data to draw a conclusion,
> >so the right thing to say is that we simply don't know the cause or even
> >if the effect is real. It does suggest the need for a larger and more
> >expensive investigation into what is going on.
>
> There's no other plausible cause. Because acoustic neuromas are so
> rare, it makes it even more suspicious that they are associated with
> cell phone use.


You mean you don't want to think about any other explanation because
you have a thing about cell phones. BTW, not only are they rare, but
they are rare among cell phone users as well.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:26:18 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 21 Apr 2007 23:28:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
>> >> phases of the moon? Idiot.
>> >
>> >The fact that you don't seem to understand the need to check all of
>> >your assumptions is a good indication of why you should not comment
>> >on scientific research.
>>
>> That'e exactly what the researchers already DID! You still haven't
>> given any explanation of your absurd proposal that acoustic neuromas
>> are caused by being left-handed or right-handed.
>
>Moron - I didn't say they were caused by that, but rather that you
>need to check such things. Did you consider that handedness is
>correlated with how you hold things or where you place earphones
>such as those on MP3 players (portable music players have been known
>to cause ear damage due to being played too loudly).

You STILL haven't established any relationship between handedness and
what we are talking about: acoustic neuromas. I have no idea why you
are so hung up on handedness, which has nothing to do with it. As you
said, maybe you should stick to things you know something about....
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:29:07 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 21 Apr 2007 23:31:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:07:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >Nor electromagnetic radation because nobody knows the cause, if there
>> >> >actually is one and it is not simply a statistical fluke. If you
>> >> >can't explain how low levels of electromagnetic radiation at about 1
>> >> >GHz might cause a benign tumor, then you better rule out all the other
>> >> >possibilities, including sound levels.
>> >>
>> >> You obviously have no idea what science is about. You don't have to
>> >> EXPLAIN something, for it to be a FACT. Quantum mechanics is FACT, but
>> >> no one can "explain" it. QED
>> >
>> >You are mixing metaphors. Quantum mechanics is a theory (as far as we
>> >know, a very good one).
>>
>> I can see that I went right over your head, and I have to spell it out
>> for you. Yes, quantum mechanics is a good theory, but, as Nobel Prize
>> winner Richard Feynman said, no one understands quantum mechanics.
>
>Actually, he did understand it and was joking. He had a wonderful
>sense of humor.

Yeah, but he wasn't joking. It's STILL true. And you, least of all,
understand it.

>> Similarly, research has shown that cell phones cause tumors. But no
>> one understands why. SO WHAT? This is like global warming. For
>> decades, naysayers like you said that it "wasn't proven", just as you
>> say there's "insufficient data to draw a conclusion". You don't even
>> admit the POSSIBILITY that it's right, just because you don't want to
>> believe it.
>
>No, they haven't shown that - the data is only suggestive of some
>correlation for unknown reasons.

The research shows that acoustic neuromas are caused by cell phone
use. There is no other plausible possibility, much as you'd like to
believe otherwise..

>> >> >> He said: "It is suggestive rather than conclusive but we will
>> >> >> obviously take it into account when we issue guidance in the future."
>> >> >
>> >> >I.e., the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> For now, this is the best we've got -- the most probable explanation.
>> >
>> >For now, the "best we've got" is insufficient data to draw a conclusion,
>> >so the right thing to say is that we simply don't know the cause or even
>> >if the effect is real. It does suggest the need for a larger and more
>> >expensive investigation into what is going on.
>>
>> There's no other plausible cause. Because acoustic neuromas are so
>> rare, it makes it even more suspicious that they are associated with
>> cell phone use.
>
>
>You mean you don't want to think about any other explanation because
>you have a thing about cell phones. BTW, not only are they rare, but
>they are rare among cell phone users as well.

Statistics proves that cell phones cause them. You haven't been able
to come up with any other plausible cause.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:26:18 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 21 Apr 2007 23:28:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Right. An while you are at it, why don't you correlate it with the
> >> >> phases of the moon? Idiot.
> >> >
> >> >The fact that you don't seem to understand the need to check all of
> >> >your assumptions is a good indication of why you should not comment
> >> >on scientific research.
> >>
> >> That'e exactly what the researchers already DID! You still haven't
> >> given any explanation of your absurd proposal that acoustic neuromas
> >> are caused by being left-handed or right-handed.
> >
> >Moron - I didn't say they were caused by that, but rather that you
> >need to check such things. Did you consider that handedness is
> >correlated with how you hold things or where you place earphones
> >such as those on MP3 players (portable music players have been known
> >to cause ear damage due to being played too loudly).
>
> You STILL haven't established any relationship between handedness and
> what we are talking about: acoustic neuromas. I have no idea why you
> are so hung up on handedness, which has nothing to do with it. As you
> said, maybe you should stick to things you know something about....

Vandeman, read what I said. Which side of your head you hold a phone
is dependent on whether you are right handed or left handed. So is
where you put in the earphone for an MP3 player, portable CD, etc.
People who use cell phones may use any of these other devices as well,
and for younger people, they probably do.

Even if the correlation you mentioned is real, it is not clear if it
is due to the cell phone or to something else. Do you know whether
heavy cell phone users also tend to spend a lot of time listening to
loud music with MP3 players or portable CD players? Can you show that
the benign tumors you are ranting about are not the result of ear
damage due to loud noise?

The fact is that you have simply not provided a convincing argument.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:29:07 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> I can see that I went right over your head, and I have to spell it out
> >> for you. Yes, quantum mechanics is a good theory, but, as Nobel Prize
> >> winner Richard Feynman said, no one understands quantum mechanics.
> >
> >Actually, he did understand it and was joking. He had a wonderful
> >sense of humor.
>
> Yeah, but he wasn't joking. It's STILL true. And you, least of all,
> understand it.

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics). A friend in
graduate school who had taken a class that he taught told me about how
he was once going through a calculation really fast, just to show how
it was done. Some kid sitting in the front row said, "Excuse me,
Professor Feynman, but didn't you drop a factor of 2 pi". Feynman
reportedly said, "F___ the 2 pi", and everyone else in the room
(excep, presumably, this earstwhile student) roared with laughter!

>
> >> Similarly, research has shown that cell phones cause tumors. But no
> >> one understands why. SO WHAT? This is like global warming. For
> >> decades, naysayers like you said that it "wasn't proven", just as you
> >> say there's "insufficient data to draw a conclusion". You don't even
> >> admit the POSSIBILITY that it's right, just because you don't want to
> >> believe it.
> >
> >No, they haven't shown that - the data is only suggestive of some
> >correlation for unknown reasons.
>
> The research shows that acoustic neuromas are caused by cell phone
> use. There is no other plausible possibility, much as you'd like to
> believe otherwise..

The research does not show that. It shows at best a correlation for
unknown reasons.
>
> Statistics proves that cell phones cause them. You haven't been able
> to come up with any other plausible cause.

Statistics proves no such thing. To prove it, you'll need to identify
the physical mechanism that causes this alleged problem.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB