[ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use and physics
radiation at noos.fr
Thu Jun 2 12:57:43 CDT 2011
how about abandoning this baloney of epidemiology of cell-phone cancers,
carried out by those who have very vague notions of statistics and
correlations. If you have gathered data you can correlate anything with
everything, especially if you try to correlate as possible source of
cancer electromagnetic radiation from cell-phones.
This reminds me of the epidemiology of cancer in the post war era on a
correlation of eating meat and cancer frequency. It turned out that
eating a lot of meat is a likely cause of cancer. Yes they made
correlation to one parameter: eating meat.
They forgot to consider that those who did not die of cancer, did die
for other reasons, such as malnutrition or starvation: those never had a
chance to eat meat ! Those who ate meat, where rich, had access to
medical treatment and eventually would die of cancer or a cardiovascular
accident. Remember the sum-rule in statistics: you can change your
chances of dieing of cancer somehow, but then you will die of another
disease. The sum of all possible causes of your death will always be 1,
whatever you do. Maybe we would like to choose what we want to die of.
Back to science: the energy in an electromagnetic field is transmitted
in what are called energy quanta, and their quantity is E=h*f where h is
Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the electromagnetic
radiation. Any energy quantity smaller than the quantum required to
break-up a bio-molecule has absolutely no effect on that molecule, or
the probability that something happens to that molecule is practically
nil. Now go and calculate the energy required to break up the
bio-molecules and compare it with the result of E=h*f when using the
frequency of your cell phone. Once you have done this, and I recommend
WHO/OMS, to go through this exercise it will take them a few seconds,
they will discover that all the meetings of so called "experts", the
cost of travel, hotel, dinners, supporting staff, salaries, meeting
rooms, champagne, collecting 'epidemiological data', reprocessing it
doing non-sense correlations are a way of financing a bunch of what some
consider to be "charlatans" or persons with dubious ethical behaviour.
Or as the farmers from my home village say: "the world is like a
haystack, the more you eat from it, the more you have!"
Stop the nonsense with this irrational and wrong use of statistics: you
can use statistics in this way to prove exactly what you wanted to say:
whatever, and it works ! In this case a fundamental physical law gives
the answer without needing an epidemiological study. Stop this abuse and
Enrico Sartori, PhD.
On 02/06/2011 19:00, radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu wrote:
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:59:17 +0200
> From:<franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Cc: "Brennan, Mike \(DOH\)"<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Message-ID:<20110601195919.PBV7U.97875.root at viefep21.chello.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Dear Mike,
> I have already mentioned, that I am not at all an expert on NIR. But how can y o u dare to question the scientific qualification of our expert for everything - let it be nuclear power, radiation protection, radiation damage, radioecology, nuclear disasters, now NIR and what else is associated with these topics? Do you really expect that he understands, what you write? In the best case he will accuse you of not having defined your questions precisely enough or he will simply ignore it or give an answer to something you have not asked for - as happened only recently to me.
> Is there really anybody on RADSAFE who believes anything this Chris Busby writes? Please look at my previous post on his claims.
> Good luck for you!
More information about the RadSafe