On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Although meant humorously, it should be noted that oxidation is a
process that doesn't necessarily involve oxygen at all!

Oxidation is the process of losing one or more electrons by an atom
(which may form part of a molecule) - the species that gained the
appropriate electrons is said to be 'reduced'. Redox reactions are a
basic part of chemistry.

The real oxidation damage to human cells comes from the action of
'free radicals' - molecules that have gained a lone electron. These
electrons are highly reactive, and the transfer of this electron to a
molecule in a cell can cause (chemical) damage. If this happens to be
part of the cell's DNA, then the 'message' encoded by the DNA has been
altered.....which can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and
reproduction, and hence The Big Casino.

Where do free radicals come from? Currently they are though to arise
through pollution, fried foods, alcohol, sunlight, solvents, ionising
radiation, the sources are many and varied. What can you do to prevent
free-radical attack? Avoid free-radical producers, and ensure you take
enough anti-oxidants through dietary supplementation....

The interested reader is encouraged to find out more through, e.g. web
searches. There's a lot of info out there.

I've laboured this a bit because there are people on this ng whose
level of understanding is such that they believe things like
'dehumidifiers absorb heat.....you can use this to warm up your shed'.
--
from
Aero Spike

Prometheus wrote:
I do not expect anything a simplistic as a
step function at the ten year threshold, perhaps this like your previous
post is also omitting essential information?

I didn't say there was a step function at the ten year threshold
and I'm certainly not going to type in the entire article. It is
much more likely that it is a ramp function roughly emerging from
the average after around ten years of use.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Brian Reay wrote:
Have other factors in the 'life style' of phone users been ruled out?

For further information, please contact Stefan Lönn at the
Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Isn't Orange an offshoot of Hutchinsion Telecom which was, I think, from
Hong Kong?

That was the company that created it, then sold it to British Aerospace, who
in turn sold it on again. It is now French (spit) owned.

Actually Dave, Cecil's use of "already" was quite appropriate.

That was why I included the smilies. I find it kinda cute that English in
this country has modernised, but that English spoken over the pond is stuck
in the 17 century.

Languages change. In fact, there is
some evidence the US English is nearer to old English than current UK
usage.

Once again, I find this fact hard to understand, when the world's fastest
growing technology, with the worlds largest budget etc can't up-grade the
language it speaks, to what the rest of the English speaking world use.

Regards

Dave

In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
I do not expect anything a simplistic as a step function at the ten
year threshold, perhaps this like your previous post is also omitting
essential information?

I didn't say there was a step function at the ten year threshold
and I'm certainly not going to type in the entire article. It is
much more likely that it is a ramp function roughly emerging from
the average after around ten years of use.

Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not
linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with less
than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of
cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users"
describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y
10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain
tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this
simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the
study that lead to such a conclusion

I do not expect you to type in the entire article, but you only stated
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use"
which provide no information about any association after ten years.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus wrote:
Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not
linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with less
than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of
cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users"
describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y
10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain
tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this
simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the
study that lead to such a conclusion

Your basic ignorance of statistical data is showing. What if, starting
at ten years of use, 1% of cell phone users suffered 1% more tumors
than non-cellphone users and a year later, 2% of cellphone users
suffered 2% more tumors than non-cellphone users, and a year later 3%
of cellphone users suffered 3% more tumors than non-cellphone users
.... That is certainly ***NOT*** a step function, to which you objected,
but a ramp function that is certainly something to be concerned about.
Hint: I'm surprised that you don't know that nothing changes
instantaneously in reality, i.e. a 'step function' is purely an
invention of the human mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
writes
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:45:17 +0000, Prometheus ,
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:

I refrained from pointing out just how large "mobile phones" were in
1907, and that was after ten years of development.

As I understand it, mobile phones actually had wheels back then...
Together with a huge drum of cable.

Wheels, yes; drum of cable, no: they would have been spark transmitters,
see the experiments of Maxwell and Hertz.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
Of course a proportional function is more likely although perhaps not
linear however your statements that "No tumors were associated with
less than 10 years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10
years of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone
users" describes a step function at ten years {t = 1 for y 10 and t
= 2 for y 10, where y is the number of years and t the base rate for
brain tumours in a non-mobile phone using control group). Given this
simplistic step function I must have doubts about the accuracy of the
study that lead to such a conclusion

Your basic ignorance of statistical data is showing. What if, starting
at ten years of use, 1% of cell phone users suffered 1% more tumors
than non-cellphone users and a year later, 2% of cellphone users
suffered 2% more tumors than non-cellphone users, and a year later 3%
of cellphone users suffered 3% more tumors than non-cellphone users
... That is certainly ***NOT*** a step function, to which you objected,
but a ramp function that is certainly something to be concerned about.
Hint: I'm surprised that you don't know that nothing changes
instantaneously in reality, i.e. a 'step function' is purely an
invention of the human mind.

If, as you state, it went from nothing below ten years to two times
after then there was a step, it is that I object to; perhaps you do not
understand that it is a step {t = 1 for y 10 and t = 2 for y 10,
where y is the number of years and t the base rate for brain tumours in
a non-mobile phone using control group)

Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single value
for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I have to draw
a graph of your statement.

t

2 ----------------------

1 ---------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 y

Can you see what happened? Of course I object to the function you quoted
as being improbable.

Your example of a proportional relationship is not justified from your
quotes, is irrelevant, and being a deception has no place in a
discussion of this nature.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus wrote:
Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single value
for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I have to draw
a graph of your statement.

No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities,
like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently
like yours, certainly not in reality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single
value for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I
have to draw a graph of your statement.

No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities,
like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently
like yours, certainly not in reality.

It was you who described a step function and I am disputing it precisely
because it can not be as you describe, why don't you admit that your
description is wrong instead of pretending that you are not, or are you
to stupid to understand that you are wrong.
--
Ian G8ILZ