Re: Cell phone use causes tongue cancer

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.

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.

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.

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: 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 increasin g 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 corre late with?

Another point to consider is that if anyone actually measures the RF exposu re 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 h old 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. Ma ybe they've read a study...

Rick C.

In Australia they can be the same. The difference is rarely worth worrying about.

Because medico's are anxiety makers.

They can make people anxious about the - non-existent - effects of low leve l radio-frequency radiation by setting up poorly designed experiments and p ublicising 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.

The ultrasound experiments I ran into just made stupid mistakes that happen ed to give them results that they could publish.

Apart from the fact that it's a total waste of time and money.

The questions come from the "anxiety making" aspect of the medical persona.

There's nothing magical about radio-frequency radiation, and magic does see m to be a business of deluding the customers rather than doing anything pos itve for them.

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.

Sometimes.

Tongue cancer is a little too rare for this to be practical.

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.

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.

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. Eit her 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 a n 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 i s a bit different. This could conceivably cause it to have a higher vulnera bility.

I have no idea of what kind of research protocols that could possibly put t he issue to rest. Nothing means anything on dead tissue. And like, vaccines cannot be double blind tested conveniently because of moral issues, neithe r 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.

ither whatever real data existed has disappeared, or has been refuted.

s, 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 blo od 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 vulne rability.

the issue to rest. Nothing means anything on dead tissue. And like, vaccin es cannot be double blind tested conveniently because of moral issues, neit her can this even moreso. You don't want to refuse someone a vaccine on mor al grounds, purposely trying to harm them with RF or whatever is even worse .

In the distant future people can be monitored life-long for rf exposure & n umerous 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 f actors are discovered & individual high risks can be flagged & managed.

NT

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

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

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

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.

Rust never sleeps. Research never rests.

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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

The upside to such monitoring is already obvious

NT

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

Complete bullshit.

The interesting question is whether the manurfacturer knew, or could have k nown, that it was a "bad product" before it went on the market.

s are, and what things improve life expectancy etc.

Toxicity can only be tested by exposure to particular chemicals. Some chemi cals 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 diff erent groups of life expectancies - if males survive beyond 80 in good heal th and females beyond 85, they were claimed to be quite likely to members o f the longer-lived distribution. This may not be correct.

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.

Only if it is cheap.

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 record ed. Whole genome testing is an even better way for the government to work o ut exactly who you are.

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

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.

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" "Mayo Clinic - Genetic testing" 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.

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).

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

I'm not so sure extending life expectancy is a problem or a desirable benefit. The average lifespan is steadily climbing: 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.

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

no might about it. As electronics gets ever cheaper & technologies improve it'll end up being standard equipment.

We already have primitive forerunners such as CO detectors.

of course. I don't think that will stop the majority improving their life expectancy.

NT

These gas detectors don't look so primitive. They'll detect combustible gases, oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide:

I have one of these: Essentially a dust detector. I sometimes use it to locate which machine in my office is trying to catch fire, or which server in a crowded server room is producing that distinctive burning smell.

What's missing is something that will detect toxic chemicals (as you mention). The aforementioned gasses are only toxic in high concentrations. It's the low level stuff, over long exposure periods, that causes the most problems. Also, mechanical or electronic food tasters that look for bacteria or decomposition.

Really? When Obamacare was first proposed, there was talk of "death panels" which would decide if an elderly or very sick person would receive treatment. The majority may want to increase their life expectancy, but the same majority might not want to pay for the required effort. As the average age becomes older, seniors will vote themselves the additional benefits needed to extend their life expectancy. 2026 should be an interesting year:

Of course. However, a FitBit _IS_NOT_A_MEDICAL_ device. Any idiot lawyer who says it is, is an ambulance chasing fraud. That said, mine did a really good job of identifying when I went into arrhythmia.

Are we talking about a medical device or a parlor game? If it's a medical device, I'd expect the specification would have all that information.

I think we're talking about something *way* different than a FitBit.

Every word. - DNA tests replace monitoring - Confusing susceptibility with existence - Monitoring _might_ be interesting - (monitoring) is redundant - Beneficial => mandatory All bullshit - every word.

None mandatory. None replaces monitoring.

More bullshit.

At least you admit that your whole point is bullshit.

As a member of the clueless majority and consumer of American modern medicine, how would I recognize the difference between a genuine medical instrument and a consumer medical device?

I had one of these before I lost it somewhere: Is that a medical instrument or a consumer device? How about a pulse oximeter: or maybe one of many self test kits for everything from blood in the stool to cholesterol.

Where do YOU draw the line? My crystal ball indicates that after the internet has run its course and become a mundane part of daily life, the next big thing will be do-it-yourself medicine. Such little things, such as the distinction between genuine and not so genuine medical devices will surely become an issue.

Ditto here. Most of mine identified the problem by not displaying a pulse rate. My Omron HEM-775 was nice enough to display an icon indicating an erratic heartbeat. Looking in the instructions, I think it said something about not trusting the numbers if the icon appears.

Are those the only choices? I'm talking about a crude version of a medical device designed for use by consumers, not medical professionals. Do you have any objection to those?

You might read back a few messages and notice that the original comment by Tabbypurr was "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." I'm talking about what can be done with the data (good and bad) and what simple products like Fitbit can eventually morph into.

Well, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this. So, I'll use your method. I disagree with your assessment. No reasons given, just a simple disagreement and pontification. I can explain every one of the points you listed above, complete with extrapolations of past history. However, I won't, because you'll simply reply with your favorite tag word.

Repetition is a rather poor substitute for explanation.