Posted By: davidfreeborough

Posted By: fostertom

Posted By: GBP-KeithI thought cancers were on the increase not decrease?

five-fold - now why could that be?

"The number of global cancer deaths is projected to increase 45% from 2007 to 2030 (from 7.9 million to 11.5 million deaths), influenced in part by an increasing and aging global population"

http://www.who.int/features/qa/15/en/index.html

The rate of population growth over this period is similar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

David

If you fancy a good read about cancers and health look at "The China Study by T C and T M Campbell" available from amazon (no mention of radio waves)

I have been researching Cancer for the last 10 months, my wife is one of those statistics.

Posted By: BrianwilsonHave we compared cancer rates in Countries embracing modern technology against those without?

Cancer rates in developed countries are higher than those in less developed countries. Mostly because people in less developed countries die of other stuff before they have time to get cancer:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper13.pdf

Cancer was estimated to account for about 7 million deaths (12% of all deaths) worldwide in 2000 (1), only preceded by cardiovascular diseases (30 % of all deaths), and by infectious and parasitic diseases (19%). Cancer was also estimated to account for almost 6% of the entire global burden of disease in that same year (1). More than 70% of all cancer deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries and, although the risk of developing/dying from it is still higher in the developed regions of the world, the control of communicable diseases as well as the ageing of the population in developing countries, point to an increasing burden of cancer worldwide. In fact, Pisani et al (2) have projected a 30% increase in the number of cancer deaths in developed countries, and more than twice this amount (71%), in developing countries, between 1990 and 2010, due to demographic changes alone. Rising incidence will only add to this burden.

You choose.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>So no one has tripped over a wire then.

My favourite correlation is below:</blockquote>

Shades of Marianne Faithful at Redlands?

Marianne Faithful worked in a brick works?

Posted By: DamonHDmore likely to be pertinent to cancer death figures per capita is that we're living long enough to be affected by them ... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fostertom

Not so extraordinary - commonplace, common knowledge, many peoples' experience. How about this:

"... extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago ... yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers."

from:

"We also know quite convincingly, and all nonsensical prehistoric arguments aside, that the incidence of cancer has increased dramatically over the last century. The numbers are there. The data is there. Certainly, doctors can better diagnose tumors now than 50 or 100 years ago, but that's diagnosis before death. After death when the body is opened up, any pathologist in the last century would recognize a grapefruit sized mass in the colon as cancer. The death would be recorded as cancer. Is it 100% certain? No. It's certainly possible that doctors as recently as the 1940's and 50's were totally incompetent and never noticed tumors when they performed autopsies or treated battlefield wounds when soldiers' insides lay exposed before them. It's also possible that the extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago have made a difference. And yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers. Perhaps the risk of cancer really does increase fivefold in that small handful of extra years "adults" now live versus 100 years ago. Yes, these things are possible…but not very likely. They can only be argued because as unlikely as they are, you can't prove that they're not true -- like perpetual motion.

And finally, we absolutely know that the dietary and lifestyle choices we make and our exposure to toxins affect our chances of getting cancer. Again, arguments to the contrary are like arguments for perpetual motion. How do we know this? Quite simply, cigarettes! We know for a fact that in any sample population, cigarette smokers have a far higher incidence of numerous cancers as opposed to non-smokers. Can you absolutely prove the connection (perpetual motion) between cigarettes and cancer? Nope. You can always find someone who's smoked two packs a day for 50 years and never got cancer. But any rational person knows that if you smoke heavily, your "odds" of getting cancer are dramatically higher.

And likewise, we know that certain dietary choices, chlorinated water, radon gas in our homes, and exposure to numerous toxins and xenoestrogens in our environment significantly increase our risk of cancer."

Lots more like that (and not even mentioning EMFs). And lots of things that can be done about it other than submitting completely to the National Disease Service's devoted selfless (no irony intended) delivery of profits to big biz.

In May 2011 the WHO "raised" the cancer risk status of Radio Frequency devices to 2B, mainly due to limited evidence that mobile phones may cause cancer. Other things also in class 2B include Coffee and according to this web page..

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4273

"the crafts of carpentry and joinery. Pickled vegetables, coconut oil, and even the Earth's magnetic field"

I certainly would not recommend smoking pickled vegetables nor holding them close to your ear for extended periods.

Rgds

Damon

But despite the strong evidence, from your own pukka research

Posted By: JSHarrisit seems reasonable to conclude that any such effects are small and don't present a significant health risk

nevertheless

Posted By: JSHarrisI too take a precautionary approach to RF emissions, I tend to avoid using my mobile phone, try to use it hands free when possible (which keeps the field strength right down around me)

Posted By: JSHarrisLike pretty much any radiation (or medicine or poison, come to that), any effect of non-ionising radiation is probably dose-specific

Unacknowledged is

Posted By: fostertomWhat if it's not, in fact sometimes, smaller the dose bigger the effect e.g. by the mechanism I outlined? Wd that change anything?

I don't have to have peer review before allowing myself to consider a 'what if'. I'm poking at a fundamental assumption of your research. Just like Dr Feist's assumptions 25yrs back (as mentioned above) seemed obvious and acceptable then but are now in question, and it changes everything in PH.

I have explained, above, but if it still seems meaningless, can I help clarify?

''Marianne Faithful worked in a brick works? ''

No, she'd just spent a night on the tiles.

Nick -

Thank god you got it at least!

Slighty off topic but have you heard about the growing numer of people who are building home made tDCS machines? These are electronic devices designed to pass electricity through your head to stimulate the brain! New Scientist had a story back in February.

Colin, instead of building their own, why don't they go on ebay and pick up an old ECT machine!

Posted By: JSHarris"What ifs" are fine, helpful even, but if dressed up as proven they become misleading

Any 'what if' is by definition far from proven. Perhaps my style looks like I think I'm presenting facts, but actually just inviting engagement and debate. None of that in this thread, just scorn and kindly reproof, which I find unconvincing. So, till next time .... (unless someone says something interesting).

We're scornful Tom, because you appear to be talking complete bollocks with a distinctly 'homeopathy' bent. I haven't got much time for anyone who thinks that double-blind tests are a bad thing, or posits that our immune systems resonate with infinitesmally small EM radiation levels. There is enough crap and nonsense in the world with out making up more of it and then asking people to disprove it.

Stick to building design - you seem quite good at that. And your ideas there are only somewhat radical, not nutcase-grade.