MQ + X = 2C Now we have eye melanoma! sunday-times.co.uk
I can't find a link to the study or the relevant epidemiology Journal [there are lots of them].
All they have found is correlation. Correlation is nothing to do with causation. But it does give a good place to start looking to see if there is a causal relationship.
<MOBILE phones have been linked to human cancer in a scientific study for the first time. The research suggests there is a threefold increase in eye cancers among people who regularly use the devices.
The results will cause concern within the mobile telecoms industry. The radiation emitted from mobile phones has long been known temporarily to alter the workings of brain cells but there was previously no evidence of permanent damage to health.
If confirmed by subsequent research, the finding could lead to thousands of costly lawsuits by people with eye and possibly brain cancers.
More than 20m people in Britain have mobile phones. The research, published in the journal Epidemiology, was carried out by a team from the University of Essen, in Germany. It investigated a form of eye cancer called uveal melanoma, in which tumours form in the layer that makes up the iris and base of the retina.
Dr Andreas Stang, who led the research, said he had examined 118 people with uveal melanoma and obtained details about their use of digital mobile phones. This was compared with a control group of 475 people without the disease.
To prevent bias, the researchers were not told if the person they were examining suffered from cancer or was healthy. When the results were analysed they found the cancer victims had a much higher rate of mobile phone use, though Stang cautions that his study needs confirmation.
The mechanism by which the radiation might cause cancer is uncertain but it is known that the watery contents of the eye assists the absorption of radiation.
Other research showed that cells called melanocytes found in the uveal layer started growing and dividing more rapidly when exposed to microwave radiation.
Since uveal melanoma starts within such cells, there is a ready-made mechanism by which mobile phone radiation might help to initiate cancer, especially in people with a genetic predisposition to the condition.
Last year the Stewart inquiry into mobile phone safety, appointed by the government, found no evidence to link the devices with brain tumours or any other disorder.
However, last month saw the launch of multi-billion-pound lawsuits against Verizon Horizon, an American mobile phone company 45% owned by Vodaphone, [sic] the biggest British provider.
Customers claim they got brain tumours and other conditions from using the devices.
Vodaphone [sic] said it welcomed new research but there was still no positive evidence that mobile phones harmed health. >
Andreas had 118 people with uveal melanoma.
Did he check which eye it was in and how that correlated with which ear they hold their phone to?
Did he allow for people who use mobile phones being outside a lot, away from wired phones, so they will see a lot more daylight [and ultraviolet], which causes melanoma as melanin-deficient New Zealanders can attest?
They wrote 'the watery contents of the eye assists the absorption of radiation'. A head is a watery puddle which absorbs microwaves. So an eye in a head has no special absorbing mechanism for microwaves that I can see. It would absorb its share, same as the other watery parts. But it's the cells in the uveal part of the eye, not the watery part, which matters, so the absorption there is not related to the watery fluid in the eye.
First, they need to discount the extra time that people with mobile phones spend around hotel swimming pools, on golf courses, on snow fields, walking along the road, squinting into the sun. People with cellphones go on sunny holidays [they are wealthier]. Once they establish that mobile phone users get no more sunlight than those who don't use mobile phones, then they are getting closer to something.
In this instance, they claim that cellphone users get uveal melanoma at three times the rate of non-users. Since about 3/4 of people hold mobile phones on the right side of their head, we should expect many more right-eye melanomas because absorption of radiation is four times as high for the eye closer to the aerial. If it's true that the rate of uveal melanoma for cellphone users is three times the rate for non-users, we are dealing with serious numbers, because cellphone users would have been about quarter of the population [in the years leading up to the study].
So there should be a large preponderance of right-eye melanoma if uveal melanoma is largely due to cellphones. The preponderance of right-side uveal melanoma would be a guide to how much is caused by cellphones. Or it could be how much people wink with one eye, sleep on their right side with one eye open, have better focus in one eye than another, or which is the dominant eye...
Of those 118 people, suppose 3/4 said they used cellphones regularly. That's 90 people. They get uveal melanoma at three times the rate of non-users, so if nobody used cellphones there would have only been 30 of them, [25%], which was about the percentage using phones a few years ago, when I suppose the patients were using their phones, plus the remaining 30 nonusers for a total of 60.
So I think what the statistics mean is that there are 60 extra people with melanoma in the eye, correlated with cellphones, out of that 118 group. Since about 3/4 hold phones on the right side, there should be about 45 right side melanomas and 15 left side in that group. So, of the total 118, there should be about 90 in the right eye if the cellphone causation theory is right. I wonder if they counted. [Or I got my numbers wrong].
The MQ + X = 2C theory makes good sense here. A person walks along, looking into bright sunlight while talking on the phone. The microwaves and not-quite bond-breaking ultraviolet light form interference patterns or simply near enough to coincident absorption into particular DNA bonds and hey presto, bond breaking and melanoma occur where the wave peaks match and absorb or where the bond is over-stressed by almost coincident energy of the two beams even if not interfering.
This could be much more important than brain tumours because there is no ultraviolet light getting into the brain to coincide with microwave absorption and brain cells are only affected by deep-penetrating high energy radiation of nearly bond-breaking energies.
Mqurice
PS: The main question this study raises is should people wear ultraviolet-absorbing sunglasses to avoid uveal melanoma or should there be genetic modification of people when zygotic so that we naturally have ultraviolet protection in our eyes? I'd rather have eyes which automatically adjust to polarized light, ultraviolet and brightness than having to wear sunglasses. Bring on CDNA [TM] for eyes! |
