Electricity is involved in the functioning of human cells. Most of the population is in constant physical contact with a device that is receiving and emitting electricity. That this could cause human cells to become cancerous is not an unreasonable speculation.
I’ve heard you won’t catch electricity cancer if you make people put their cell phones in your mailbox before they enter your home. You should definitely start doing do this
2 Likes
Thanks for the health tip.
Let’s keep the discussion friendly here. The WHO is investigating cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, so it’s not that farfetched.
However in 2024, the National Cancer Institute says there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer.
2 Likes
The Ethical Skeptic covers this topic extensively. He’s x-NavyIntelligence and he’s way smarter than I ever thought about being. He does sophisticated statistical and operational analysis and frequently uses the term “pull forward effect”. I pointed out to him that marketing people use that term and that statisticians use the term “displaced mortality”. He took umbrage at my perceived disparagement and blacklisted me:)
Twitter @EthicalSkeptic
WebSite: theethicalskeptic.com
Twitter: x.com
see WebSite for further info:
1 Like
Alright explain the graph.
The reason why I ask is I don’t believe you know what you’re looking at. It’s strange to share things you don’t understand, because how do you know it’s true?
What is a ‘BLS PPI-Neoplasm CARES-adjusted Index’ – for example?
What is a “CARES act (discrete) price escalation” adjustment?
Or a 'BLS Medical Care Services (economic) cost inflation" adjustment?
How do you know he hasn’t cherry picked statistical methods to show what he wants to show? Which one did he exclude? And in the end – correlation is not causation.
1 Like
You’re right I don’t fully understand it and I have my qualms about some of what I do understand. However ES picked up on this several years ago when it first began. I don’t know anybody else that was on it so early. But it could be coincidence, He’s a bit of a doom-sayer and a broken clock is right twice a day. The screenshot was just to give an indication of the kind of stuff he does.
You can prove a correlation between vaccine uptake and cancer in a way less convoluted way which makes me think he is schizophrenic.
Even if you presented such a graph – correlation is not causation. It makes sense to me that cancer rates increases could be because of delaying treatment or other confounding factors.
3 Likes
Yes, those were some of my qualms also. He does address them occasionally, but I don’t fully agree with his arguments, perhaps I don’t fully understand them:) But if I only read things I fully understood I’d be stuck with old Dilbert cartoons, and even they sometimes take me awhile to figure out.
4 Likes
Was electricity invented 30 years ago?
I understand that BCS reference.
Since we’re posting graphs, there’s quite a few pretty ones in this article. It’s soft-paywalled, but 12ft.io takes care of that
Two I found enlightening:
Looking at the cancer rates that are increasing, and the ones that are shrinking, my money is on something entering through the digestive system.
3 Likes
Processed red meat, red meat, and processed meat, would be my bet. Already linked with colorectal cancer. That has been talked about for a long time and which made me avoid it long ago. Low fiber consumption.
When this came out I already had heard about it for years.
3 Likes
Apparently I hit a nerve: got the horse laugh from one poster and instruction in logic from another. I’m not suggesting the elimination of cell phones. They are an integral part of everyday life and indisputable evidence that they cause harm wouldn’t cause people to stop using them.
The rise in obesity seems to have some correlation with the rise in cell phone use too. Maybe the brain’s electricity is affected in a way that changes eating habits. That’s not something I can prove either, just another random thought.
Cell phones aren’t going away. Neither are shoes, which in common with cell phones, are in constant contact with the body.
1 Like
Why would gastrointestinal cancer be most affected then? The 16-year old from China in the first post also had that. I can think of many anecdotes of gastrointestinal cancer, and the statistics also is aligned with this.
Sodium probably plays a role too.
I think this makes the case for colonoscopies earlier in life.
1 Like
Sure. Bad diet may be it. Or plastics, or tensions of modern life, or a toxic stew of all these.
And I’ll happily withdraw my suggestion that cell phone use could cause cancer or any other unpleasantness. But I’m still suspicious of corporate, non-profit or governmental research on the topic.
1 Like
It makes sense to me that whatever is in direct contact with the gastrointestinal tract could increase the risk of the disease.
If you dismiss research based on that, it is a logical fallacy.
1 Like
Here in this forum, there’s a theme of skepticism about research, not dismissal, but skepticism when there may be conflict of interest, when there’s something to gain by the research turning out a certain way. It’s no secret that revolving doors exist among corporations, non-profits and government.
If I felt you needed a lesson in logic, I’d point out that suspicion and dismissal are not the same. But I won’t do that.