That's unusual. Commonly they're owned by Chinese but unoccupied, to keep them new. The Chinese are obsessed with "new shiny". I don't know why we allow them to store their (probably ill-gotten) gains here, in shitty apartment blocks that will need to be demolished in ten years because they're falling apart already...
Show me where you found data that shows an increase attributable to cell phone use.
For your benefit: That's the rate new cases of brain and central nervous system cancers in 9 major metropolitan hospital areas. It's essentially flat from
1975 to 2006. During this time period, the use of cell phones has increased dramatically, mostly in the 1990's. However, there's no corresponding increase in brain cancer incidence. If you can show me some statistics that show an increase, I would be very interested. If you don't like my numbers, you can grind your own at:Incidentally, the slight peak in the middle of the graph is due to the introduction of positron emission tomography diagnostics, which resulted in an increased number of early detections. After its use became fairly widespread, the incidence rate returned to the previous rate.
-- 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
I was attending a cell tower ordinance hearing last year. The speaker at the podium was ranting about the horrible biological effects of cell phones when the cell phone in her pocket rang. The audience had a good laugh. What happened was when the speaker announced her name at the podium, somone in the audience had looked it up in an online directory, found her phone number, and called it from their phone. I wished I had thought of doing that.
-- 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
How could a hospital possibly know whether or not a cancer was caused by cell phone use?
John
There are certain types and locations of of cancers, such as Gliomas on the right side of the head, typically related to microwave exposure from cell phones.
There is a 10-20 year latency period. Things are not going to get better. And that is only cancer. There are other adverse effects. This information is all online in the form of reputatble scientific papers.
Richard Clarke
It depends on where you look, and what you want to find. The telecom industry would prefer you found nothing. I would rather play it safe than trust people who are making huge amounts of money, and have a history of skewing related research.
Richard Clarke
Buy that person a beer!
Bullshit.
Aluminum foil causes cancer of the brain.
My method is a bit more brutal. I favor studies where the those involved do not have a vested interest in the outcome. That eliminates all industry sponsored studies, government sponsored studies, and some university studies. Unfortunately, that also eliminates almost all the very large and long term studies, leaving very few that can be trusted. Also, I suggest you drill down to the source of the original data used to draw the authors conclusions. I'm finding that my analysis of the original data, and the conclusions of the various authors sometimes don't correlate well.
That's easy: The Swedish study found large increased incidence of astrocytoma, the most common form of a malignant brain tumour type called glioma, in those who had been using mobiles for over 10 years. The problem is that the "self selected" population of victims probably came from the oncology wards, which are predominantly populated by seniors. I call to your attention this graph showing the incidence of brain and CNS cancers versus age: Unless the study provided a study population across the entire span of ages, any victims over the age of about 50 will seriously skew the results.
Same problem as the Swedish study. In GBM patients in the >65-year group, a significantly increasing incidence for men and women combined... The increased incidence could just as easily be attributed to advanced aging as it could to cellular usage. Advanced age causes brain cancer?
Ah... pure lurid sensationalism such as: Brain cancer is up 25% since cell phones became popular. with no sources for that statistic. So, let's see what is really happening (in the USA not Australia): For brain (and CNS) cancers, it looks flat. Also click on the "Trends in Rates" to see the rate of change which is also flat.
So, what's different? Well, age-adjusted incidence rates are the big difference. If the authors of the above studies used non-age adjusted rates, they could easily show an increase in cancer simply because we're living longer and the population distribution is moving toward becoming older, who have a higher incidence of cancers even without the benefit of cell phone exposure: An age-adjusted rate is a weighted average of the age-specific rates, where the weights are the proportions of persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard population. The potential confounding effect of age is reduced when comparing age-adjusted rates computed using the same standard population.
-- 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
Is 29% considered typically? "Incidence of gliomas by anatomic location" The gliomas were located in the frontal lobe in 40% of the cases, temporal in 29%, parietal in 14%, and occipital lobe in 3%, with 14% in the deeper structures.
"Location of gliomas in relation to mobile telephone use: a case-case and case-specular analysis." These results do not suggest that gliomas in mobile phone users are preferentially located in the parts of the brain with the highest radio-frequency fields from mobile phones.
Cell phone use has been on an upswing for about 30 years (since about
1990) so we've had more than 10-20 years of exposure. Where's the latency on the incidence graphs? Kinda looks flat to me. Even if there were a 30 year latency, there would also be a normal distribution about the 30 year point, with some people producing cancers immediately, while others many years after the 30 year latency point. That would show as a ramp up in incidence, which isn't happening.True. Statistics are not improving. More research is necessary.
Such as?
Yep.... where? How about: "Biggest ever study shows no link between mobile phone use and tumors" Note the flat graphs of glioma incidence in Sweden 1970 - 2010. See any indications of a delayed onset?
Conclusions: Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults.
-- 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
Keep looking Jeff. There is a lot more online. Check PubMe for example.
But I would play it safe at the same time. Looks like another tobacco and asbestos scenario to me.
It serves industry to maintain an aura of doubt over the whole issue when a lot of reputable evidence is not going in their favor.
Regarding studies, it pays to look at where the funding is coming from. I've played that game myself ;-)
Richard Clarke
In early cellular systems, the cell sizes were quite large due to the low number of paying customers. Thus, the handset had to operate at maximum power most of the time, draining th batteries fast and exposing the brain to a significant power densities.
However, later on, when a huge number of paying customers, especially in city centers and in the interest of cell reuse, base stations are built all around the place. The base station commands the handsets to a low power level, which is still sufficient for the base station to receive the voice grade signal. Thus, the human exposure is greatly reduced.
However, in rural and some suburban areas, quite large cells are still used, requiring considerable handset transmit power and hence significant human exposure.
Assuming for a moment that the cancer or other illness rates are proportional to RF exposure levels, there should be a large peak in early cellular adaptors, who have ever since lived in rural areas with still large cell sizes.
However, those who have lived in city centers with small cell sizes, should not suffer for a higher cancer rates, even if they started using cellulars in late 1990s.
I haven't seen any reports addressing this aspect.
I've done quite a bit of reading and was somewhat active in RF exposure research. One humorous anecdote should suffice. About 10 years ago, a researcher was testing the effects of RF exposure on various small animals using a test chamber to control exposure. He had obtained about 9 months of data which allegedly showed a good statistical correlation between exposure and various animal maladies (using cancer prone lab rats). He was ready to public, but one of the peer reviewers wanted verification of the uniformity of the exposure levels inside the approximately 1x1x0.5 meter test chamber. Since I had the expertise and equipment, I was selected to do the measurements.
I arrived with a collection of test probes, a bolometer probe, and a borrowed portable spectrum analyzer. A probe was inserted, the RF source was activated, and the spectrum analyzer showed nothing. I thought my equipment was broken, so I checked it with my cell phone and directly from their RF source, which worked normally. However, there was no RF inside the test chamber.
The lab assistant and I decided to investigate and found that instead of a proper coax barrel connector feed through entering the test chamber, someone had solder the coax cable to the copper outer shield instead. The coax was shorted. 9 months of data down the proverbial drain. An ohmmeter would have found the problem in seconds. I don't want to discuss what happened after that.
Fortunately, this anecdote is both extreme and not typical. However, it is common in some RF exposure research, where the researchers are more adept at dealing with the biological, statistical, and political aspects of the test, than with the RF. I also have some derogatory comments about epidemiological research.
Actually, it looks more like marijuana research from the 1960's to me. To avoid any accusation of undue influence, the Nixon administration simply kept repeating essentially the same experiments over and over again with different researchers until eventually one researcher produced the politically desirable results.
Actually, it's worse than that. My guess(tm) is about 1/3 of the RF exposure studies are sponsored by industry groups or companies. These have a vested interest in the results, which I'm sure the researchers are fully aware. If they fail to produce the expected results, they will never get another research grant or contract from that industry group or company. So, a compromise needs to be reached. The researcher is expected to do things honestly and accurately and therefore "owns" that data and analysis parts of the research report. However, these paying the bills own the summary and conclusions. The media and politicians pick up on the summary and conclusion, while other researchers and academics pick up on the raw data and analysis. Neither group seems to be very concerned about any contradictions. Dr. Devra Davis touches on this in her book "Disconnect". While I don't agree with much of the book, but she got that part right.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, it usually does. Many web sites that have an agenda or sales pitch often intentionally misinterpret test data and results from research reports. I found this out the hard way when I was dealing with prostate cancer. I found impressive looking web sites, selling a procedure or potion, that provided copious footnotes pointing to research that allegedly substantiated their claims. However, when I actually read the cited research, it usually said quite the opposite. That works because most readers of the web site will never drill down to the original data, or understand it should be actually read it. I've also seen some of that in RF exposure web sites dedicated to selling various RF meters and countermeasures.
Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.
True, but that also applies to those that believe RF is unsafe. It's very easy to prove that something is unsafe. You only need to provide a few examples of real or imaginary damage to one's health. However, to prove that something is safe is nearly impossible. There will always be a line of prospective victims awaiting their turn at litigatory relief, publicity, or whatever.
Agreed. My method is to look for an agenda, or what inspired the research in the first place. If the funding is coming from someone with a vested interest, or has something to sell or push, I become very suspicious and usually discount the results. I also look to see if the researchers are really competent in performing tests and evaluating the results. That makes me very suspicious of epidemiological studies and surveys of existing research. (I have a good example of where those went awry, but this rant is far too long already).
I had some comments on that article about 4 years ago, but can't find them right now. In deference to brevity, the problem was that it discusses everything EXCEPT was actually in the Interphone study, and offers no additional evidence that the data, methods, or conclusions of the study were in any way erroneous or improperly conducted.
-- 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
How many people use the right ear rather than left ear? Personally, I use my left ear so I can keep my right hand free to take notes. What about you?
Some police departments have issued advisories that cops don't always carry their TETRA phones on the same place on their body, e.g. strapped to their upper chest.
Next I suppose they will be issuing Maxwell Smart style shoe phones.
When is industry going to admit they have a problem with human EMR exposure and stop profiteering long enough to do something about it?
Even world governments are starting to issue warnings and ban certain uses of wireless devices, particularly for children under a certain age.
Richard Clarke
On Fri, 02 May 2014 09:00:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote
That might be a bit gratuitious. "Victims" are obviously not scientists. But still the victims of tobacco company propaganda were eventually vindicated.
You have probably seen it Jeff, but for those here who haven't, check out this report.
The issue with the Interphone study was the data they chose NOT to look at or include.
Because of this sort of thing, I don't trust either side, which is why I minimize my exposure to any form of EMR wherever practical.
Same goes for a lot of other things in our increasing polluted unnatural environment. It's just common sense.
Where vast sums of money are involved, guilty until proven innocent. The "precautuionary priniciple".
Richard Clarke
It sure does. I notice that you dismissed, or is that dissed, Jeff's links. Isn't the data from the government good enough for you?
This study is so flawed that even i cannot ignore it.
I haven't really gone through this one. It is a bit challenging as they do not describe the experimental techniques clearly. Not a quality source.
Fact free fear mongering.
Yes, of course, the "government" never gets it wrong.
If you are all that interested in the full spectrum of evidence, search PubMed.
Richard Clarke
Please note that they were vindicated only after it became profitable for plaintiff attorneys to sue on their behalf. Prior to such successful litigation, the victims were largely ignored. It was much the same when legal action on behalf of brain cancer victims was initially successful, and it again appeared to be profitable to sue on behalf of the victims. Convincing a jury of one's peers is not quite the same as proving a scientific principle (hopefully after a proper peer review).
Actually, I hadn't read it. 1479 pages is a bit much to read in one sitting. I just did a quick skim of the section for the general public and found that the missing data was in relation to ELF (extremely low frequency) which is mostly power line radiation. The Interphone study chose to ignore ELF because it has nothing to with cell phone radiation, all of which is in the UHF and microwave region. The authors could just as easily have discounted the Interphone study because it didn't include the alleged effects of magnetic fields, cosmic rays, near field communications, and the earths magnetic field. The Interphone study did what it was originally intended to do, which was to study the effects of cell phone radiation and ignore everything else.
I really like this comment on Pg 6: It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death. We should therefore study what type of information (speech, music, data, language, advertising, spam, etc) delivered via a cell phone produces the greatest biological damage. I want to be first in line for the research grant.
I think you might do as well limiting your exposure to dubious research reports and claims. You seem to have the knack for finding those. If you're unsure of the science and trust no one, then fear, paranoia, and avoidance are the proper defenses. Had this been a few hundred thousand years ago, and the value or danger of fire to the tribe was being debated in the same manner, I'm fairly certain you would have dug yourself a cold dark cave in which to hide until it was clear whether fire was a benefit or a danger. I don't believe that there has been a single modern invention where someone failed to declare it to be unsafe. Even the computah was viewed as a potential monster that would eventually surpass and then dominate mankind.
However, you're absolutely correct. RF is dangerous, to a small percentage of the population. Without debating whether this is real or in the imagination of the victims, would you consider it good policy to shut down all the radio transmitters on the planet to accommodate these few people and their problem? How many victims out of 7 billion people would consider the threshold for such an action? Where would you draw the line?
No need to answer with a number as it's obviously a difficult calculation. I spent some time working for an insurance actuary putting price tags on people and body parts, so this doesn't bother me much. I could grind out a preliminary answer by determining how much the CTIA would contribute to an RF victims relief fund to make the problem go away. Probably billions. Take that number and divide it by the cost it would take to purchase and operate a radiation free part of the planet for the victims, and we have a preliminary number. I'm sure the general public wouldn't mind paying for it as part of their cell phone bill so that the unhindered cellular companies can provide them with the connectivity that they so obviously crave.
Have you ever considered the reason why the environment is getting trashed? Hint: Too many people. We'll probably spend the rest of this century floundering around with various solutions as the population continues to increase. Eventually, we'll need to face up to the question nobody dares ask in public... what are we going to do with all the people? As it stands today, you have a choice. Unlimited growth with the attendant environmental pollution and depletion. Or, you can save the environment through wholesale depopulation. Today, we have this miserable choice. In another century, I suspect we'll be forced to decide.
I would call it the "paranoia principle". However, now that you mention it, money does inspire fear. Question: Who's picture is on the front of a $10 US bill? (Assuming you live in the USA). Extra credit for a description of the back of the $10 bill, or any other paper currency. Most people can't recall what's printed on their money. Yet they see these documents many times every day of their lives. No single document is so common, yet nobody can remember what it looks like. Even worse, if you ask someone to carefully inspect a $10 bill, and then wait several days to ask them again to describe it, they will have already forgotten.
So, why don't we remember money? It's because money represents authority, power, responsibility, and other agents of change. Most people don't know how to handle those, fear them, and therefore avoid thinking about their symbols.
It's even worse for large sums of money, where few are able to make the proper distinction between million and billion, or have a functional image of what a million or billion of something would look like. That's also why small company operators fail badly when the company grows rapidly. They're still thinking in small numbers and can't correctly handle the big ones.
Yep, where vast sums of money, large numbers, global issues, and big science are involved, it's "guilty before proven innocent" rather than thinking about the problem and acting based on a workable and logical conclusion.
I can go on forever with this rant, but it's 2AM and I think it's time to give this a rest.
-- 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
Yep, by those who for some reason consider TETRA a danger:
Naw. Implanted cell phones will probably be he next big thing. You no longer carry a cell phone. Like a cyborg, you become part of the machine.
Is the problem exposure or profiteering, or would you prefer the cell phone companies to operate at a loss? I'm always amazed at how profitable companies are considered evil, and money losers are considered victims.
It's always fun to solve a non-existent problem: Note that the incidence of brain cancer in children is quite low.
(Also note that the lowest incidence is for teenagers and 20 something age brackets, which are probably the heaviest users of cell phones. I guess that means using a cell phone reduces the risk of brain cancer?)
2:15 AM. Yaaaaaawn...-- 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
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.