I knew it! Cell phones do cause cancer

[B@tfinkV]

If you had to give up everything in your life completely except four things every true animal is going to choose eating, sleeping, mating and adrenalin. fine art goes out the window long before any of those four.
  Everything else on this planet that manages to perform those four succesfully in a relaxed and relatively safe environment is truly living to it's potential and considers itself blessed with heaven on earth...except humans. every creaure that has this ultimate luxuary is living on a level so far above human society they've come back around and are lapping us, yet we see them as behind because we can store 5000 songs on our mobile phone?

sure, humans are very succesfull at achieving those four but with all the other luxuries of civilized life we created almost all of humanity's suffering.

hey did you ever here about the great dolphin war of 1652? no? of course not. my dad sailed round the world, he once told me about ocean waves you cannot imagine, mountains and valleys of water bombarded with wave after wave of never ending raw energy. he saw dolphins surfing at the top of a wave they were sailing along and they would swim to the boat smiling then jump and drop 80ft to the valley before the next crest. you tell me dolphins dont eat sleep screw and get stoned on their own adrenalin better than us?

those guys can scan prey for cancer with their minds.

we strap potential cancer threats to our heads.

[AquaShrimp]

Uhhhhhh wtf.  

If you are going to talk for an extended period of time, just use a regular phone.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
aren't siblings in the same generation?

dependw on your definition of generation.
I know someone who's older sister is 20 years older then him.

Then again he also has an uncle 2 years younger then he is. LOL

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Uhhhhhh wtf.  

If you are going to talk for an extended period of time, just use a regular phone.

I always say like my father used to say to my mother when she spent exended periods of time on the regular phone.

"If you have to talk to someone for that long and they dont live 100 or more miles away.
Just go visit them"

[moot]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
If you had to give up everything in your life completely except four things every true animal is going to choose eating, sleeping, mating and adrenalin. fine art goes out the window long before any of those four.

No.. My brain would be first, a body to execute my brain's will second, and third and fourth are both accessory to the first two.  Fine art doesn't go out the window at all.  I don't want to get into an argument longer than needed... Look at the Omega Man.  The vampires are what you seem to suggest we should tend towards.

 

Everything else on this planet that manages to perform those four succesfully in a relaxed and relatively safe environment is truly living to it's potential and considers itself blessed with heaven on earth...except humans.

No.. Plenty of humans do it just fine.  From average joes to professional Zen eggheads.

every creaure that has this ultimate luxuary is living on a level so far above human society they've come back around and are lapping us, yet we see them as behind because we can store 5000 songs on our mobile phone?

Yep.. Just because something great is used below potential doesn't make it crappy. I don't see what you mean by a level above ours.. What's the criteria?  Mindless ignorance?  Yeah, that's bliss alright...

sure, humans are very succesfull at achieving those four but with all the other luxuries of civilized life we created almost all of humanity's suffering.

No.. Suffering is a basic reaction that kids are too often conditioned to flip into anytime they're in danger, perceived or real.  If you've acted according to what your conscience says is best, there's no reasong for any (self-inflicted) suffering.  "Self-inflicted" because (believe it or not) all emotions are your own doing.
It's another thing when one's conscience is mistaken (KKK, extreme example).

hey did you ever here about the great dolphin war of 1652? no? of course not. my dad sailed round the world, he once told me about ocean waves you cannot imagine, mountains and valleys of water bombarded with wave after wave of never ending raw energy. he saw dolphins surfing at the top of a wave they were sailing along and they would swim to the boat smiling then jump and drop 80ft to the valley before the next crest. you tell me dolphins dont eat sleep screw and get stoned on their own adrenalin better than us?

Fairy tale idealism.. sorry.  I've been in drunken parties (cough orgies cough) where people acted like the stupidest most animalistic retarded zombies I've seen to date...  They got their basic insticts out of the closet alright!

those guys can scan prey for cancer with their minds.
we strap potential cancer threats to our heads.

The human brain isn't done evolving, but it's already ahead of any other animal's.  Maybe not in some of the lower animals' specialities, but easily so on the whole.
Scanning for prey and cancer is nothing new for us.

[B@tfinkV]

it's ok for us to disagree

personaly i still believe that all our luxuries and consumer markets are what causes all the suffering of humans. think about it for a while, i dont have the will to try and make you understand my view.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
it's ok for us to disagree

personaly i still believe that all our luxuries and consumer markets are what causes all the suffering of humans. think about it for a while, i dont have the will to try and make you understand my view.

Would you prefer the workers paradise of the Soviet Union, gospodin?  That was a society based on your assertion, 1917-1991.  I think someone wrote a book about it.

[B@tfinkV]

hardly chairboy. there has very rarely, if ever, been a period when a large group of humans lived with absolutely no material wealth. if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war. it is the greed and possesion of our material world that causes every unjust act humans perform on other humans.

no matter how much good material gain you see in the developed human spieces of the currect epoch or indeed any age you cannot claim its worth without observing Newton's law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. you think that doesnt apply to material happiness and currency?

[myelo]

Things that cause cancer you should worry about:

-- tobacco
-- sun
-- viral infections: HIV, hepatitis B, papilloma virus
-- high fat, low fiber diet
-- certain long-term, high level occupational exposures, such as asbestos

Things you shouldn't worry about:
-- cell phones
-- power lines
-- aspartame
-- lipstick
-- deodorant
-- underwire bras

[AquaShrimp]

How do you know we shouldn't be worrying about cellphones?  They've only been in heavy use for the last 18 years.  It takes longer than that for cancers to develop with other carcinogens (smoking, sun overexposure, etc).    

Let me just give you a brief lesson on cancer.  When a carcinogen damages our DNA, it has to do two things in order to give us cancer.  It has to change our DNA (in a single cell) to destroy a tumor-suppressor gene.  It also has to knock out the regulatory controls for a cell (found in proto-oncogenes).  Since DNA damage is random, its kind of a pot-luck on when (or even if) it will cause cancer.

[myelo]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
How do you know we shouldn't be worrying about cellphones?  

Because most of the controlled studies published in peer-review scientific journals have failed to find an increased risk of cancer with cell phone use.  For example:

A large Danish study looked at cohort of 420,095 persons whose first cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995 and who were followed through 2002 for cancer incidence. Cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (Standardized incidence ratio = 0.97), acoustic neuromas (SIR = 0.73), salivary gland tumors (SIR = 0.77), eye tumors (SIR = 0.96), or leukemias (SIR = 1.00). Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.95), and there was no trend with time since first subscription. There was no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded. (Schüz J, et al. .Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.)

In a population-based case-control study, the authors identified all cases aged 20-69 years diagnosed with parotid gland tumor during 2000-2002 in Denmark and Sweden. For egular mobile phone use, regardless of duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5), respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years' duration of mobile phone use. The risk estimate did not increase, regardless of type of phone and amount of use. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of parotid gland tumors. (Lönn S, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Oct 1;164(7):637-43. Epub 2006 Jul 3.)

Let me just give you a brief lesson on cancer...

Dang! I wasted all that time taking medical oncology, epidemiology, mechanisms of disease, and pathology when I could have just gotten free lessons here.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
if we cut everything completely so that all we could do was eat, sleep, reproduce and run around to get our blood pumping then there would be no more war.

Do tell, how would you do that?  You'd put together squads that go around 'liberating people of their possessions'?  Once again,

Soviet Union (noun) - soe'vee'et yoo-nyun - Definition: A failed experiment in bringing the concept of a mugging to the national level.

[AquaShrimp]

Originally posted by myelo
Because most of the controlled studies published in peer-review scientific journals have failed to find an increased risk of cancer with cell phone use.  For example:

A large Danish study looked at cohort of 420,095 persons whose first cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995 and who were followed through 2002 for cancer incidence. Cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (Standardized incidence ratio = 0.97), acoustic neuromas (SIR = 0.73), salivary gland tumors (SIR = 0.77), eye tumors (SIR = 0.96), or leukemias (SIR = 1.00). Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.95), and there was no trend with time since first subscription. There was no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded. (Schüz J, et al. .Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.)

In a population-based case-control study, the authors identified all cases aged 20-69 years diagnosed with parotid gland tumor during 2000-2002 in Denmark and Sweden. For egular mobile phone use, regardless of duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5), respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years' duration of mobile phone use. The risk estimate did not increase, regardless of type of phone and amount of use. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of parotid gland tumors. (Lönn S, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Oct 1;164(7):637-43. Epub 2006 Jul 3.)


 

Dang! I wasted all that time taking medical oncology, epidemiology, mechanisms of disease, and pathology when I could have just gotten free lessons here.

The time period of your study is a mere 2-10 years.  The more elapsed time, the more findings there will be.  Plus, your study is older than the one that I posted.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Do tell, how would you do that?  You'd put together squads that go around 'liberating people of their possessions'?  Once again,

Soviet Union (noun) - soe'vee'et yoo-nyun - Definition: A failed experiment in bringing the concept of a mugging to the national level.

once again you assume i want to change something or cause an effect with my words. assumptions based purely on trying to proove im a communist? i said we screwed up our evolution because of our ways, i didnt say there was still a chance.

[myelo]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The time period of your study is a mere 2-10 years.  The more elapsed time, the more findings there will be.  Plus, your study is older than the one that I posted.

The 1st study involved persons who were using cell phones since 1982, that's 20 years. The 2nd, over 10 years.

Sadetzki et al was a much smaller study and  for the entire group, no increased risk of cancer was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. It was only when the considered certain groups that they were able to show a statistical correlation, which by the way does not prove causation. Besides a number of other studies have shown no correlation.

You can't pick out one study, you have to look at all the data. And so far there's no compelling evidence that cell phone use is linked to cancer.