Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe

In article <fb8k89$5eg$2@news.datemas.de>, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi>
writes
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:14 +0200, xxy wrote:
>
>> In article <i7WPM0Ancz1GFw9j@ntlworld.com>, mike.swift@yeton.co.uk says...
>>> In article <fb79k5$ls4$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
>>> <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>> >>Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
>>> >
>>> >No, that is not what scientists believe. Either you or the Daily Mail
>>> >is making it up.
>>>
>>> This is bad for you, that is bad for you, perhaps at birth we should be
>>> sealed in an airtight box pumped with scrubbed oxygen and fed with safe
>>> irradiated nutrients intravenously.
>>>
>> A better plan would be to never read some of the absurd shite that is
>> printed in the Daily Mail.
>
>If you were to read a bit more you'd realise that it was a New Scientist
>story reported in the Daily Mail and I would not be surprised if it wasn't
>carried in other papers (Telegraph for example).

The New Scientist article (1 Sept. 2007 P18) reported research by the
Wiezmann Institute of Science in Rehovot that showed low levels of
875MHz caused activation of the ERK1/2 pathways in cell cultures, the
power level was too low for them to measure a thermal effect. It was
stated that mutations in these pathways had been linked to certain
cancers, although there is no evidence that these mutations cause the
cancer. It was also stated that transient activation of these pathways
is a normal cell physiology.

A far better plan would be to read the original article and learn what
the words mean, relying on the scribbling of a jobbing reporter summing
a page of science with a populist paragraph is not wise.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:41:46 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband , lenny
<lenny@say.no.wifi> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:14 +0200, xxy wrote:
>
>> A better plan would be to never read some of the absurd shite that is
>> printed in the Daily Mail.
>
>If you were to read a bit more you'd realise that it was a New Scientist
>story reported in the Daily Mail

the word you're searching for is "mangled" or possibly "hyperbolised"

Come on, you're not seriously suggesting the Mail is a source of
actual info are you?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:E0BbIbcXAI2GFwRX@spam.newbrain.demon.co.uk...
> In article <fb8k89$5eg$2@news.datemas.de>, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi>
> writes
>>On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:14 +0200, xxy wrote:
>>
>>> In article <i7WPM0Ancz1GFw9j@ntlworld.com>, mike.swift@yeton.co.uk
>>> says...
>>>> In article <fb79k5$ls4$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
>>>> <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>> >>Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
>>>> >
>>>> >No, that is not what scientists believe. Either you or the Daily Mail
>>>> >is making it up.
>>>>
>>>> This is bad for you, that is bad for you, perhaps at birth we should be
>>>> sealed in an airtight box pumped with scrubbed oxygen and fed with safe
>>>> irradiated nutrients intravenously.
>>>>
>>> A better plan would be to never read some of the absurd shite that is
>>> printed in the Daily Mail.
>>
>>If you were to read a bit more you'd realise that it was a New Scientist
>>story reported in the Daily Mail and I would not be surprised if it wasn't
>>carried in other papers (Telegraph for example).
>
> The New Scientist article (1 Sept. 2007 P18) reported research by the
> Wiezmann Institute of Science in Rehovot that showed low levels of 875MHz
> caused activation of the ERK1/2 pathways in cell cultures, the power level
> was too low for them to measure a thermal effect. It was stated that
> mutations in these pathways had been linked to certain cancers, although
> there is no evidence that these mutations cause the cancer. It was also
> stated that transient activation of these pathways is a normal cell
> physiology.
>
> A far better plan would be to read the original article and learn what the
> words mean, relying on the scribbling of a jobbing reporter summing a page
> of science with a populist paragraph is not wise.

Shh.. its more fun when Lenny posts links that actually disprove all his
claims.. and he doesn't even know.
I bet he wonders what all the sniggering behind his back is.

"Roger" <rfm@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1188591339.274236@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>
> Suddenly lenny reminds me of the Simpsons!
>


Oh no.

The Simpsons reminds me of myself, so by association ....

Eric

--
Remove the dross to contact me directly

In message <13di74cg0eqkp16@corp.supernews.com>, Eric Parker
<newsnet@thedrossericparker.plus.com> writes
>
>"Roger" <rfm@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:1188591339.274236@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>>
>> Suddenly lenny reminds me of the Simpsons!
>>
>
>
>Oh no.
>
>The Simpsons reminds me of myself, so by association ....
>
>Eric
>
Lenny, Most clueless usenet poster. EVER.
--
Clint Sharp

In article <243hd3tilh98rkbk5b2p2od67io3b0e6kg@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> writes
>the word you're searching for is "mangled" or possibly "hyperbolised"

I can not imagine ever looking for the word "hyperbolised"!

>Come on, you're not seriously suggesting the Mail is a source of actual
>info are you?

I would not trust a 'red top' to get the date right.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:04:07 +0100, Clint Sharp wrote:

> In message <13di74cg0eqkp16@corp.supernews.com>, Eric Parker
> <newsnet@thedrossericparker.plus.com> writes
>>
>>"Roger" <rfm@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1188591339.274236@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> Suddenly lenny reminds me of the Simpsons!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh no.
>>
>>The Simpsons reminds me of myself, so by association ....
>>
>>Eric
>>
> Lenny, Most clueless usenet poster. EVER.

unpleasant truths are always ridiculed/attacked prior to acceptance.

you lot are sooooooooooooooo easy to wind up.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:07:10 UTC, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:04:07 +0100, Clint Sharp wrote:
>
> > In message <13di74cg0eqkp16@corp.supernews.com>, Eric Parker
> > <newsnet@thedrossericparker.plus.com> writes
> >>
> >>"Roger" <rfm@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:1188591339.274236@leri.aber.ac.uk...
> >>>
> >>> Suddenly lenny reminds me of the Simpsons!
> >>
> >>Oh no.
> >>
> >>The Simpsons reminds me of myself, so by association ....
> >>
> >>Eric
> >>
> > Lenny, Most clueless usenet poster. EVER.
>
> unpleasant truths are always ridiculed/attacked prior to acceptance.

But you *are* clueless, lenny. You quote all these wonderful articles as
it they are the only thing out there, ignoring the 99% of studies that
contradict one study you quote. Or you quote a paper that says something
totally different if read in depth - which implies either that you
haven't read it, or you haven't understood it.

That's clueless.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

lenny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:25:18 +0000, Tesla wrote:

> 4. White European and American is in decline as is shown by the sharp
> fall in fertility in this group....<

Yes, well, the reason that births are in decline in this group ( utc ) is
because the posters here prefer to spend their time talking about their new
mobile phones, rather than having sex.

Either that, or they've all gone gay.

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:07:10 +0100, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi> wrote:

>unpleasant truths are always ridiculed/attacked prior to acceptance.

When you get around to telling the truth we may find out.

As it stands your original post is entirely incorrect

"Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer,"

The study you apparently quote not only didn't find this it wasn't
investigating it.

"scientists believe"

No they don't, especially the studies authors who quite specifically
stated this wasn't what the study showed or was capable of showing.

So where is this "truth" you are so enthusiastic about?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"lenny" <lenny@say.no.wifi> wrote in message
news:fbe91d$qso$1@news.datemas.de

[snip]

: : unpleasant truths are always ridiculed/attacked prior
: : to acceptance.

But you haven't given any evidence that they *are* truths.

: : you lot are sooooooooooooooo easy to wind up.

You're not winding me up, Lenny. Just severely testing my self control.


Ivor

In article <fb8k89$5eg$2@news.datemas.de>, lenny@say.no.wifi says...
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:14 +0200, xxy wrote:
>
> > In article <i7WPM0Ancz1GFw9j@ntlworld.com>, mike.swift@yeton.co.uk says...
> >> In article <fb79k5$ls4$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
> >> <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
> >> >>Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
> >> >
> >> >No, that is not what scientists believe. Either you or the Daily Mail
> >> >is making it up.
> >>
> >> This is bad for you, that is bad for you, perhaps at birth we should be
> >> sealed in an airtight box pumped with scrubbed oxygen and fed with safe
> >> irradiated nutrients intravenously.
> >>
> > A better plan would be to never read some of the absurd shite that is
> > printed in the Daily Mail.
>
> If you were to read a bit more you'd realise that it was a New Scientist
> story reported in the Daily Mail and I would not be surprised if it wasn't
> carried in other papers (Telegraph for example).
>
>
>
>
Lenny, you're not the smartest are you?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"George Weston" <geoweston@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>"Graham" <graham@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:46d7dd55$0$21099$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk.. .
>>
>> "Retired" <anon@privacy.com> wrote in message
>> news:13dfku6hubjq351@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "lenny" <lenny@say.no.wifi> wrote in message
>>> news:fb79tv$h39$1@news.datemas.de...
>>>> It will be interesting to see how this one plays out:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...0&in_a_source=
>>>>
>>>> Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believ
>>>
>>> I worked on high power radars in my twenties and thirties, long before
>>> people started to worry about radiation and, along with those collegues
>>> that I'm still in touch with, am going strong in my seventies.
>>> Only point of interest is that all of our children are girls.
>>> No doubt some "scientist", carrying out "research" would use this info
>>> to prove something, but even I, as an engineer, know that there were not
>>> enough of us to make this information statistically significant.
>>
>> This is a well-known "urban fact" - that men who worked with radar or
>> other VHF/UHF/SHF high power transmitters fathered only girls - people I
>> worked with in the 1970's recognised this.
>
>There must be a "reverse-radar effect" in my village then.
>With the exception of two girls, all the local kids are boys.
>This has been noted as strange by many folk around here - including the
>youth club leader.
>

Yup that is odd. We've noticed round here in Lincolnshire, that with the exception of
those children that were born boys, all the others were girls!

Odd or what...

Must be the oxygen in the atmosphere..................

Spooky.



--

Andrew Sayers

In message <fbe91d$qso$1@news.datemas.de>, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi>
writes
>unpleasant truths are always ridiculed/attacked prior to acceptance.
>
>you lot are sooooooooooooooo easy to wind up.
>
>
Ahh, Lenny the liar too if I'm not mistaken, though you'd KF'd me.

Still waiting for the proof that you've been involved in scientific
research as anything other than a subject. Although, come to think of
it, that would explain a lot....
--
Clint Sharp

I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when lenny
<lenny@say.no.wifi> opened his gob and said:

>White European and American is in decline as is shown by the sharp fall
>in fertility in this group and the rest of the world may follow as they
>catch us up economically.

So it's a black plot, eh Lenny?

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.