Dementia, Tumors, DNA mutations from WIFI, Cellphones, Laptop etc.

If that was directed toward my post, it was not a serious answer.
You never had an attack of the sillies because you were way way way to tired?

sharpeimom

My post was not directed at my particular person or post. I was just voicing my thoughts on the situation at large.

I took sharpiemom's post as sarcasm and had a good laugh. After all, she was "sitting on the recliner just waiting for the symptoms to kick in!"

Please look at your Denmark study you mentioned earlier with a skeptical eye and how it was funded by the cell phone industry, of course they would skew the data in favor of no harm to the cell phone user, what would they gain from solid scientific research!?

http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp
Website with a non industry current August 2009 study!
"The exposé discusses research on cellphones and brain tumors and concludes:

Remember your statistics class that you had to take to become a RN?




You must avoid the logical fallacy of correlation = causation:

Here are some examples:

Reverse Causation Failure:
Correlation: The worse the patient, the more nurses come to the trauma bay.
Causation: Therefor nurses make the patient worse.

Lurking variable example:
If the grass turn green when it is humid, the grass didn't make it humid. The rain caused both.

Falling asleep with your shoes on may correlated with a headache.
Crackpot: Shoes cause headaches!
Scientist: Passing out from the alcohol caused both.
True Crackpot: I'm burning my shoes as a precaution!

Coincidence

Crackpot: The lack of pirates is causing global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientist: Well, what are you waiting for? Go to Somalia and become a pirate already!
Crackpot: I will! Pirates don't have to worry about cellphone radiation either!

Applied to Cell phones

Correlation: "Cancer diagnosis are up! Cell phone usage is up too!"

Crackpot Claim: "Therefore Cell phones cause cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" <-This is not supported by the correlation. Statistical analysis is required for that... something your expose didn't have ANY of.

Real Scientists Outlook: "Well, what else could explain cancer diagnoses being up? Let's make a list then try to run some statistical analysis to see which it is, if any (or many)"

So the scientist asks:
"If we wish to assume the higher cancer Cancer in a large population have a related etiology, then the carcinogenic agent should be widespread... perhaps environmental:"

"Is it a chemical in the water? air? food supply? consumer product like sunscreen?"
"Is there something that has been removed from our environment that used to protect us?
"Is it due to the widespread increase in pharmaceuticals?"
"Is it due to low level non-ionizing radiation?"
"Are the cancer numbers really up or are we just getting better at diagnosing them due to higher screening rates and better diagnostic tools?"
"Are the cancer numbers higher because people are not dying of other diseases that would normally kill them before the cancer kicked in?"

Some of those possibilities are entirely likely and others are very unlikely. "Is it due to increased exposure to low level non-ionizing radiation?" is just one possible correlation that could be found to have causal relationship (it hasn't). An honest scientist has to ask those questions and then groups test each hypothesis.

AND WHEN THE TESTS FAIL TO SHOW A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP?

When someone has an emotional attachment to a hypothesis and won't let it go even when the shows that there is NOT a causal relationship and nobody has come up with an underlying theory to support the idea, nothing but correlation, holding the hypothesis true is delusional thinking, not scientific thinking. Believing that there is a massive conspiracy to hide that truth and only a select few can see past the smoke is the hallmark of the uneducated trying to feel like they have a leg up on the rest of the world.

If you read the websites of the people pushing the "cellphone cancer" agenda, you quickly find that they think it's not just cellphones. It other unrelated radiation types: cordless phones, power lines, wifi, radio stations, etc etc etc. Then you'll find that it's not just cancer that they think it causes: Alzheimers, parkinsons, autism, CFS, schitzophrenia, depression, deafness, ADD, insomnia, headaches, eye aches, tooth aches... EVERYTHING. What is their basis for these thoughts?

It is an extension of the "correlation implies causation" illogic.

"More cancer and more cellphones, therefor cell phones cause cancer... therefor cell phones are bad! Therefor other bad things that happen are caused by cell phones! Therefor cellphones cause my migraines... and my insomnia... and my dog's smelly smelly farts!"

Don't fall for that kind of stupidity.

Actually the consensus is out there if you'd care to look rather than reason your way out of the facts! Are you a telecommunication stockholder, by the way?