Mobile phones cause brain tumours-confirmed

All I know is I have some interesting pea sized polyps under the lobe of my left ear. I am L handed. Spent 8 yrs managing a home dialysis company and heavy cell usage. From '91 to '97. I won't own one today. I remember it heating and just an underlying feeling it was not good. Now I suffer from frequent, alway L ear infections and pops in my ear. Circumstantial at best. But those are the facts.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I was thinking of your magnet theory that everything that attracts can be considered a magnet, and I think you are right. My dogs are attracted to each other and the female dog attracts the male. So from now on I am going to to start calling dogs magnets. THANK YOU SO MUCH for this new way of thinking, come to think of it I am going to call everything magnets, that really is your reasoning, Attraction is the way of life so from now on everything will be known as magents. "hell magnet this is my magnet and this little one is my cute magnet, the magnet is 6 months old, and over there is magnet and I drive a magnet magnet. Magnet magnet magnet."
Marlkar from Marklar maybe those south park guys had it right but got the word wrong.

Has anyone thought about all the cell towers that are continuously broadcasting as well? Looks like everyone in the U.S. are going to be inflicted with brain cancer. I believe genetics have more to do with someone getting cancer than anything else. Just my .02.

Originally posted by Stumpy1
I was thinking of your magnet theory that everything that attracts can be considered a magnet, and I think you are right. My dogs are attracted to each other and the female dog attracts the male. So from now on I am going to to start calling dogs magnets. THANK YOU SO MUCH for this new way of thinking, come to think of it I am going to call everything magnets, that really is your reasoning, Attraction is the way of life so from now on everything will be known as magents. "hell magnet this is my magnet and this little one is my cute magnet, the magnet is 6 months old, and over there is magnet and I drive a magnet magnet. Magnet magnet magnet."
Marlkar from Marklar maybe those south park guys had it right but got the word wrong.

Yes the Law Of Attraction.
..and the Law Of Repulsion but dont think about that!

www.youtube.com...

And to get back on topic a bit... the video above, well the full version of it, has several example of cancer patients being able to cure themselves with their own bodies. It's worth a watch, there is x-rays I think. They even talk about "The Miracle Man" who was in a bad aircraft accident.




[edit on 7-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Big deal. I just use my Blue-Tooth ear piece. Although I've heard that wearing a blue-tooth during an electrical storm can increase your risk of getting struck by lightning.

Originally posted by Marked One
Big deal. I just use my Blue-Tooth ear piece. Although I've heard that wearing a blue-tooth during an electrical storm can increase your risk of getting struck by lightning.

By all accounts, the EM radiation put out by bluetooth devices is every bit as bad for you as any EM from a cellphone, so really, by using it, you've essentially doubled your exposure.

I'm fairly certain that it's harmless though. I wouldn't take the word of any body that is funded by cellphone companies, but every major independent, and government funded medical body also states that there is negligible risk from low level exposure to low energy EM radiation. There is also no plausible mechanism for it to cause cancer. Frankly, the devices have been around more than twenty years, and we've been exposed to low level 2.4ghz radiation from other sources for longer than that, and the rate of cancer isn't exactly epidemic. I'm calling bull#. This study isn't even published. The guy is going straight to the press, trying to get attention. That is a classic mark or someone who knows his work won't pass rigor. It's not like peer review groups simply ban articles saying cellphones increase the risk of cancer; there are a few published. It's just that the overwhelming majority show no effect, and the ones that do don't amount to statistical significance.

The author otherwise seems like a pretty qualified guy. It's just that there's far, far more work by equally qualified people showing the opposite effect. (and also a large body of work by equally qualified people who happen to be funded by interested parties, but even if we discount all that, the consensus would still seem to indicate that it's harmless).

Besides this one sentence I've quoted, everything and I DO mean EVERYTHING that ALLisONE said in this thread is complete drivel. And I mined this sentence slightly out of context in order to make it correct.

"You don't have to seperate the atomic structure of the cancer like nuclear fission. You only have to seperate at the molecular level, like electrolysis, and fire. That will kill cancer."

Personally, I don't carry around my cellphone most of the time, but that's just because I don't really need to talk to people over it on a daily basis. I leave it at home because I don't own a home phone. I'm afraid I'll lose the lil' thing.

reply to post by mdiinican


I quoted straight from your every day science. It is a FACT this entire universe is built with electromagnetic force. Actually this fact has been passed down for at least 3000 years now, since the ancient times. This fact is known by world rulers, and hints of it are in the dollar bill, the streets of washington dc. all of masonic symbols, all the way back to Egyptian times. The Sun is the main source of electromagnetic force, Photons carry every type of electromagnetic force known to man. These photons when collided and arranged in certain ways create matter. This is what created US. This is why they warship the Sun, because with out it, there would be darkness, we wouldn't see. Neither would anything physical on this Earth exist.

If you knew ANYTHING about the destruction of cancer, you would see that I am correct. The electromagnetic force is the key. But you wan't to pass it off ass "drivel", so be it. Why would I help someone that doesn't care?

How about YOU do the research. I already pointed the way for you people. I already gave you the cure for cancer, its called Vitamin B17. Or you can kill it with electromagnetic force, but so far I don't think anyone in these forums has the brain capacity to understand the technical aspects of it. Maybe ill have to speak with people with higher IQ's.

In the mean time, while you guys slowly die of age and wait for scientists to totally confirm stuff so that you can believe it, watch this movie:

Google Video Link

[edit on 17-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I honestly don't know what to say except: No. That's incorrect.

And I'd LOVE to see a citation for that quote.

Radiotherapy treats cancer through a well known effect. It uses ionizing EM radiation. This ionizes what it strikes, which has a deleterious effect on DNA. It kills cells of all kinds, but especially quickly dividing cells, such as hair cells and gametes. Cancer divides as fast as possible, so it is effected especially hard by ionizing radiation. Radiotherapy kills cancer, but it also kills human cells. It's usually a good tradeoff, but not in all cases.

Plans are underway to develop cyclotrons to fire electrons with a specific energy level into the affected area, so that they can be targeted to a specific depth. Electrons certainly aren't EM radiation (for that matter, cancer isn't either. Cancer is malfunctioning versions of YOUR CELLS), they are elementary leptons, yet they'll do just as well as ionizing photons.

The problem is the nature of cancer cancer is YOUR OWN CELLS. They are, save for a single DNA error, indistinguishable from healthy cells. That is why they are so hard to kill. Almost anything that kills cancer will kill your own cells. so far, there aren't any chemicals that can specifically hunt down cells with a specific error in their DNA. The mechanics of such a task are mind boggling.

Not only is Vitamin B17 NOT a vitamin (it's makers only claim so, as part of an aggressive marketing strategy.), it has very dubious medical efficacy. It's just repackaged laetrile, which was evaluated and found ineffective against any and all forms of cancer.

The sun is imporant to life as we're used to thinking of it, and the earth would not have formed had the sun never formed, but if the sun were to simply magically go away, life would continue on earth for billions of years.

Not life on the surface, of course, all surface life would freeze to death, and the oceans would freeze solid. But life is hardier than that. There is life that feeds on chemicals that live around vents at the bottom of the sea. There is life that lives in solid rock which EATS HARD IONIZING RADIATION for energy.

Good luck with your superiority complex, see if it ever helps anyone.

Originally posted by mdiinican
And I'd LOVE to see a citation for that quote.

Reread every post I entered in this thread. You will see I quoted straight from wikipedia who got their source from other creditable places.

ALL MATTER IN THIS UNIVERSE = ELECTROMAGNETIC

Originally posted by mdiinican
Radiotherapy treats cancer through a well known effect. It uses ionizing EM radiation.

Do you understand what you are saying? My argument is that you can kill cancer with magnetism. Then you go and tell me that they use ionizing "eletroMAGNETIC radiation".

duh!! Do you even know what "electroMAGNETIC radiation" REALLY is????

Geez man, everything I said must have went right over your head some how.

Originally posted by mdiinican
This ionizes what it strikes, which has a deleterious effect on DNA. It kills cells of all kinds, but especially quickly dividing cells, such as hair cells and gametes. Cancer divides as fast as possible, so it is effected especially hard by ionizing radiation. Radiotherapy kills cancer, but it also kills human cells.

You said the word "kill" three times in the above quote, AND YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT "KILL" MEANS!!! Energy can not be created or destroyed... what on Earth does KILL mean to you huh?? What happens when something is "killed"? What is lost when something is killed?

I know the answer to these, and you don't.

Originally posted by mdiinican
Plans are underway to develop cyclotrons to fire electrons with a specific energy level into the affected area, so that they can be targeted to a specific depth. Electrons certainly aren't EM radiation (for that matter, cancer isn't either. Cancer is malfunctioning versions of YOUR CELLS), they are elementary leptons, yet they'll do just as well as ionizing photons.

Look what you are saying... "electrons certainly aren't EM radiation they are elementary leptons".

Did you know that "leptons" carry "electric charges"? Do you know what an "electric charge" is?

en.wikipedia.org...

Electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction.

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules.

All matter is made of atoms. Even CANCER. These atoms are held together by MAGNETISM. Yes, only magnetism.

Originally posted by mdiinican
Not only is Vitamin B17 NOT a vitamin (it's makers only claim so, as part of an aggressive marketing strategy.), it has very dubious medical efficacy. It's just repackaged laetrile, which was evaluated and found ineffective against any and all forms of cancer.

You are wrong. It is technically a vitamin. Look up the definition of vitamin.

en.wikipedia.org...

Vitamin B17 (Amygdalin, Nitrilosides, or laetrile) – A substance found in a number of seeds, sprouts, beans, tubers and grains. While toxic in large quantities, proponents claim that it is effective in cancer treatment and prevention.

The only reason it is not considered a vitamin to others, is because they THINK it's not important. But thats a lie.

It can be found NATURALY in apricot seeds, and I wasn't talking about any "makers" except mother nature. Also, I never said it kills cancer, I said it cure's it. Which it does. When everyone in the world has their needed amount of vitamin B17, cancer will fade away, and technically not exist, and be cured. If everyone today had B17 as part of their diet for the rest of time, I'm sure cancer would be a thing of the past. It probably can't kill existing cancer, but it could prevent it from happening if you don't already have cancer.

I said dichloroacetate kills cancer, and it has already been proven to kill human cancer outside of the body.

Originally posted by mdiinican
The sun is imporant to life as we're used to thinking of it, and the earth would not have formed had the sun never formed, but if the sun were to simply magically go away, life would continue on earth for billions of years.

NOPE, it would not. There would be no Sun to GIVE life. Your soul, the force, the HEAT around your body is givin to you by the Sun. All LIFE is givin by the Sun. I'm not just talking physical. Go read about Ankhs.

Originally posted by mdiinican
Not life on the surface, of course, all surface life would freeze to death, and the oceans would freeze solid. But life is hardier than that. There is life that feeds on chemicals that live around vents at the bottom of the sea. There is life that lives in solid rock which EATS HARD IONIZING RADIATION for energy.

You contradict yourself, and you have no clue what you are talking about. If the Sun did not exist, there would be no "sea" for life to feed on chemicals. Also, you are talking about a fungi that eats ionizing radiation. Well news flash, that fungi can not exist without the Sun, im sorry it would die since the Sun is the prime source for electromagnetic radiation (ionizing radiation). Also, since there is no radiation to make new radiation, they would die, because they would run out of radiation. LOL. Also, that fungi can only exist in high temperatures, not low temps. If the Sun didn't exist the Earth's core would slowly freeze over (hell freezes over), so they would just die.

You are wrong on all accounts. Without the Sun, Earth and all life on it would not exist, or continue to exist without it.

Originally posted by mdiinican
Good luck with your superiority complex, see if it ever helps anyone.

Good luck with your lack of knowledge, see if it ever helps anyone.


[edit on 18-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

I can't figure out why you're argueing with AllIs0ne. He's just going backwards and calling everything magnets -

All I know is I have some interesting pea sized polyps under the lobe of my left ear. I am L handed.

All I know is I have some interesting magnet sized magnets under the magnet of my left magnet. I am left magnet. It's like saying, to get rid of cancer you get rid of cancer. Or.... to get rid of magnets you demagnetise them.

It's rediculous.



But seriously, JPM, I used to get those too JPM, and I'm too, left handed! The pea sized polyp was almost like a calcium deposit - hard as bone... but now it's completely disappeared!? Hmmmm, maybe I should post this in the Alien board... Very strange... However, I got this way before I had EVER used a mobile phone, or even an ipod.

[edit on 19/4/2008 by C0bzz]

All of your wikipedia quotes are out of context, or irrelevant. For example, above the section you quoted about vitamin B12/Amygdalin/Laetrile, it says

Many of the following substances have been referred to as vitamins because they were believed to be vitamins at one time, and they are relevant to vitamin nomenclature in that the numbers that were assigned to them form "gaps" in the series of B-vitamin names. Some of them, though not essential to humans, are essential in the diets of other organisms; others have no known nutritional value.

It's clear to anyone reading the section in wikipedia that it isn't a vitamin, but was merely once thought to be a B vitamin, but later had it's status revoked because it isn't really a vitamin.

Furthermore, off the same wikipedia you seem to love quoting:

Reviews of available clinical evidence published in 2006 concluded that the claim that laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound clinical data,[11] or by data from controlled clinical trials,[12] and that there is that there is considerable doubt about its safety.[11]

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors selling laetrile for cancer treatment, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer."[22]

Your other citations were:
1. an irrelevant quote of wiki's article on electric charges, that notably did not agree with what you were saying.
2. the SAME page, which STILL did not agree, or have any relevance to your point.
3. radiation theory and ionizing radiation, and then you managed to completey butcher all understanding of them in your post.

I'd need more words to cover it all


All matter is not "electromagnetic." All mater, more or less, save stray neutrons, affects, or is affected by electromagnetic forces, of course, but matter is certainly not made of electromagnetic forces. Nothing that makes up a proton carries a charge. It is a characteristic of the structure of the proton. Electrons are fundamental charged particles, and they play a huge role in electromagnetic interactions. The charge is a property of electrons. Electrons are not made of negative electric charge. To say so would be stupidity on par with saying plants are made of green.

Atomic nuclei are NOT based on electromagnetic interactions. In fact, electromagnetic interactions are CONSTANTLY TRYING TO RIP THE ATOM APART. Don't give me that bull# about the strong force and the electromagnetic force being the same thing. They are completely different. The strong force drops off differently with distance than the electromagnetic force does. Electromagnetism can act at a much far greater distance than the strong force can, but the strong force is FAR, FAR STRONGER than the electromagnetic force over the distance it acts. Like charges repulse, and the nucleus is full of protons. which are all positively charged. By the electromagnetic force, they constantly repel each other. The strong force holds the atom together, despite this.

Nuclear energy, in fact, results when the electromagnetic force overcomes the strong force in a large or otherwise unstable atom, tearing the atom apart.

Electromagnetic interactions do play a key role in making up matter as we know it, as it keeps the electrons generally clustered around the nuclei of atoms, which keeps the atoms distant from each other. it allows for molecular bonding in general. But it's not what matter is made up of. That is an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

Individual atoms can't be magnetized. Cancer isn't magnetism, it is mutated cells. Gravity isn't magnetism, it is another of the fundamental forces, and has completely different properties.

Furthermore, you don't even seem to know the difference between an electric charge, an electric field, and magnetism, and just conflate all three together. I assure you, they are distinct, though closely related.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

Do you understand what you are saying? My argument is that you can kill cancer with magnetism. Then you go and tell me that they use ionizing "eletroMAGNETIC radiation".

I read what you were saying, all right. The fact of the matter is that what you're saying is completely wrong. Just because the word "magnetic" is in the name doesn't mean it is related to the movement of charges. It's painfully obvious you don't even know what EM radiation is. Like that post where you thought that prolonged exposure to radio would be equivalent to exposure to X-rays. No. Just No. EM radiation is, by maxwell's equations, a self-propagating, transverse oscillating waveform, composed of an electric and magnetic field. Light does, however, also exhibit the properties of quantized particles composed of energy. Certainly, though, we can say many things for certain about EM radiation of all kinds.

1. It is not affected by electric or magnetic fields that do not contain enough energy to actually warp space time itself, the way mass does. Such fields have not been observed.

2. It is quantized, and comes in discrete units, referred to as photons.

3. It's energy is determined by it's frequency, and it can transfer that energy to what it hits, which usually heats up matter, but if it is high enough energy, EM can knock electrons to higher energy states around atoms, or even knock them off entirely, ionizing the atom.

4. EM will not "magnetize" anything. It can potentially give things a net electric charge, by knocking off electrons, but things on the scale we're used to will generally remain electrically neutral, since the electron won't get far.



You think I don't know what death means? It's even simpler than the OP's question in this context. It's easy to tell when a cell dies. It's dead when it's metabolism stops. That's pretty much the damn definition. Take it up with world at large if you want it to match what goes on in your damn fool mind.

When it dies, it ceases to function, and is absorbed by your body and broken down by leukocytes and the liver, among other things. You use what you can, and the rest is waste. Thinking the death of a cell means energy was destroyed is as retarded as thinking energy is destroyed when you turn off your car. The cell is USING UP ENERGY to live. when it dies, it ceases using up energy, and is fair game to be consumed by other living things, too. The death of an organism means a net gain in the energy available for everything else.

Nothing is really lost when something dies. The process by which the organism was alive has stopped. We, of course, care more about the process than the physical makeup of the organism itself. Through general metabolism, the atoms of orgaisms are generally completely swapped out for new ones over a period of time. Reductionistly speaking, the orgaism is slowly replaced by a completely new one. Only the process and structure stays the same. With death, that ends, and it stops renewing itself, allowing it to decay away. There's nothing hard to understand about it.


You are wrong, even with sources in front of you. Atoms are held together by the interactions of electric charges, not magnetism. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Related, of course, but different. An eighth grader should know that.


Even your wiki citation says it isn't a real vitamin. Don't take things out of context. It's lying. And all kinds of things kill cancer cells in vitro. BLEACH, for instance. the trick is not killing human cells. since this crap gives people cyanide poisoning, I'd say it does kill human cells.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

NOPE, it would not. There would be no Sun to GIVE life. Your soul, the force, the HEAT around your body is givin to you by the Sun. All LIFE is givin by the Sun. I'm not just talking physical. Go read about Ankhs.

You contradict yourself, and you have no clue what you are talking about. If the Sun did not exist, there would be no "sea" for life to feed on chemicals. Also, you are talking about a fungi that eats ionizing radiation. Well news flash, that fungi can not exist without the Sun, im sorry it would die since the Sun is the prime source for electromagnetic radiation (ionizing radiation). Also, since there is no radiation to make new radiation, they would die, because they would run out of radiation. LOL. Also, that fungi can only exist in high temperatures, not low temps. If the Sun didn't exist the Earth's core would slowly freeze over (hell freezes over), so they would just die.

You are wrong on all accounts. Without the Sun, Earth and all life on it would not exist, or continue to exist without it.
[edit on 4-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

You speak madness. Ankhs?, The Force?, Souls? My soul doesn't come from the sun. It is between myself and God. The sun is a ball of incandescent, fusing gas that provides the energy for life as we normally think of it. Nothing more, nor less.

The sun, of course, provides all the heat and energy I depend on. Were it not for the sun, we would all die, within a week, probably within just a few days. But humans aren't the only life on earth. The sun is not responsible at all for geothermal energy. If you knew a damn thing about thermodynamics, you'd know that it isn't the sun keeping our core warm. It's far warmer inside the earth than it is out here, after all. The sun is only the major determinate of temperature of the inside of the earth down to a few dozen meters.

If it were the suns' heat keeping the earth's core molten, then why isn't the moon's core molten? It's just as close to the sun as we are. Or how about Venus? Or Mercury? They're much closer and hotter. And they're all cold and dead inside.

The earth is kept warm inside most likely due to an abnormally large concentration of radioactive substances in our molten iron core. The earth will remain largely hot and molten inside for several billion years yet, sun or no sun.

If the sun went away, the oceans would, of course, largely freeze over. There are, however hot vents powered by geothermal energy which would keep small parts of the bottom of the sea molten. This alone is enough to support life. In fact, it is speculated that a similar thing is going on on the moon Europa, which likely has a warm core because of internal friction caused by tidal forces.

You are a fool if you think it must take radiation (ostensibly from the sun) to make new radiation. Especially in radioactive material buried under miles of rock, which has never, in the history of the universe, seen so much as a photon from the sun. The radiation will continue until the radioactive material has all decayed away. The half life of Uranium 238, which is a major contributer is 4.5 billion years, or, about as long as the world has been around. Five times more common is Thorium, with a half life of over 14 billion years, or about as long as the UNIVERSE HAS EXISTED.

This bacteria (Not a fungus. don't know where you got that.) could survive until the earth is cold and the radioactives it feeds on are all decayed away too far to live off of, which could easily be five to ten billion years.

You seriously underestimate how hardy and resourceful life is. The world is a cool place.

Originally posted by C0bzz
I can't figure out why you're argueing with AllIs0ne. He's just going

Oh I'm not really arguing with AllIsOne. He's secure in his beliefs. I'm just having fun, and hopefully, putting out some useful information so lurkers can have a different, less insane, point of view to read.

Originally posted by mdiinican
Nothing that makes up a proton carries a charge.

After you said this above quote I can instantly just ignore you now. It is true you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. You are trying to tell me nothing that makes up a proton carries a charge LOL!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, the proton (Greek πρώτον / proton = first) is a subatomic particle with an electric charge of one positive fundamental unit (1.60217653(14)×10−19 C), a diameter of about 1.65×10−15 m [1], and a mass of 938.272309(28) MeV/c2 (1.6726×10−27 kg), 1.007276466(13) u or about 1836 times the mass of an electron.

Protons are spin −1/2 fermions and are composed of three quarks[2], making them baryons. The two up quarks and one down quark of the proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons.

Not only does the proton have 3 quarks with electric charges, but the proton itself has an electric charge. SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

It's obvious you have NO CLUE.

Once again Vitamin B17 is what you should have small amounts of in your diet. The fact that it is not considered a vitman is because lying nutritionists (FDA) tell you that you don't need it. But we do need it. Just like our body's need Vitamin C, they need Vitamin B. It's common fact that lack of Vitamin B will cause diseases.

I'm not saying Vitamin B17 will kill cancer, I'm saying it will prevent cancer if you don't already have it and you introduce A SMALL AMOUNT of B17 to your diet.

The substance that KILLS cancer is dichloroacetate (DCA). It has already been proven to kill human cancer out side of the body.

So B17 to prevent, DCA to kill. If you didn't watch the movie I posted earlier well shame on you. They did TEST ON B17. But you are too ignorant to watch the video. Well good luck to you..


As for thermodynamics, I know everything about them.

You asked:

Originally posted by mdiinican
If it were the suns' heat keeping the earth's core molten, then why isn't the moon's core molten? It's just as close to the sun as we are. Or how about Venus? Or Mercury? They're much closer and hotter. And they're all cold and dead inside.

The Sun's heat is NOT keeping the Earth's core molten LOL!!!! The Sun's GRAVITY IS. The Earth follows a path around the Sun, this path is GRAVITY. Earth inherits the gravity from the Sun, and this gravity is temporarily stored inside of Earth and dissipated by heat. Think of Earth like a filament to a light bulb and the Sun as the battery or power source. The electrons or in the Sun's case "neutrinos" pass to the center of Earth, hit its core, and then with centrifugal force the "neutrinos" are ejected from Earth, creating heat. This is why Earth is growing from the inside out, not from the outside. Just like electrons in wire, how they are spun around and ejected from the wire to create electromagnetism.

The reason the moon is not "molten" in the center, and there reason the moon has less gravity, is because the moon gets its gravity from Earth. The moon is not on a Sun path, it is on the Earth path, and the Earth is on the Sun path. The gravity goes from the Sun, to the Earth, to the Moon. If the Sun was gone, so would the gravity that is being stored in the center of Earth. Earth does NOT make gravity, it inherits it from the Sun.

Just like a magnet does not make magnetism, it just stores the magnetism.

Even then, I have much to say about that.. No human on Earth has EVER been past the "crust" of Earth. No human or even device has been to the core of Earth to prove what you THINK you know.

You all are being taught in schools that the Earth has a moving iron core, and that creates the heat and gravity. LOL, they expect you to believe that stuff, even though no human or device has EVER been deep enough to even know. So you are using THEORY as FACT, which is a disgrace to me.

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

Video 4


Video 5


I think the weakest argument of all is that "too much of this medicine will poison you". Well, to much chemo/radiation therapy will kill you too!


AT LEAST WATCH THE FIRST VIDEO.

reply to post by ALLis0NE



I was mistaken. Though I'll have you note that the part of the article you quoted did not actually mention the point I think you're trying to say, Quarks do carry a electric charge. I concede that point. Oddly, it's not in the same units as electrons and protons. Quarks carry a fractional charge, of 2/3 or negative 1/3.


Yes the body needs vitamin B. But Laetrile is not one of the B-vitamins, no matter what your disinformation would have us believe. It's a useless, slightly toxic substance. It's been heavily marketed, especially on the internet by people in Mexico who prey on desperate cancer patients. I'm as liable to trust them as I am to trust politicians.

I don't doubt dichloroacetate kills cancer in vitro, and even in rats. What I'm saying is that's not necessarily significant. It's got a fair amount of promise to it, but I'd definitely wait for more testing, especially in humans, before I would consider using it. There are countless thousands of substances that kill cancer cells outside the human body. The key is finding ones that kill cancer cells inside the human body that do not kill human cells too. There are many drugs that can kill cancer in culture, and even a good few that work in animals. Many of them don't work on humans, or have other adverse effects. I advise patience.

You know EVERYTHING about thermodynamics, do you? I seriously doubt that. You're illucid.

The sun's gravity is in no signifigant way the source of the heat of the earth's core. The force of gravity can heat the insides of planets and moons through tidal effects. The earth, however is very far from the sun, and so it is pulled rather evenly by the sun's gravity. It doesn't deform the earth significantly, rather it pulls the whole planet towards itself. The moon causes a greater tidal effect, but even that isn't enough to keep the earth hot inside.

Only in places like Io or Europa do tidal effects keep geologic activity occurring. But in those cases, the planet they are orbiting is very large and, more importantly, very close, so there is a significant difference in the force of gravity at the close side of the moon from the far side. This deforms the moons, and the friction keeps it warm. Eventually this will slow the spin of the moons, and they will be tidally locked to jupiter the way our moon is tidally locked to the earth - they will always have the same side facing the planet they are orbiting.

Eventually the earth would be tidally locked to the moon, but the sun will engulf it before that can happen.

The moon is pulled by the sun every bit as hard as the earth is. More, in fact, when the moon is closer to the sun than the earth, which happens half the time.

Your theory is inconsistent, and bizarre. Mercuy orbits the sun, just like the earth does, but it's closer to the sun, so it is pulled harder by the sun's gravity. It is, however, a geologically dead planet. Nothing "recieves and stores" gravity. Gravity is produced by mass, of any type. The sun produces the most gravity in the solar system because it's by far the largest thing here. Neutrinos carry very little energy, and penetrate so much that they are not really any more likely to hit the center of the earth than any other part, including the crust we live on.

There are several ways to find out what's inside the earth. You can, for instance, wait for a seismic event, or nuclear explosion, on one side of the earth, and use seismographs all over the world to extrapolate the speed of sound through different paths through the earth. using this, you can extrapolate the composition of the earth.

It's certainly more intuitive, direct, and understandable than the methods for detecting subatomic particles, which you obviously trust science unquestioningly about.

Hell, you don't even seem to know the meaning of the word "theory".

ETA: It's unknown if Venus is dead.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by mdiinican]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Without going into too much detail:

Two gene classes play very important role in how cancer arises. Proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Essentially one class encourages growth and one suppresses it. These two groups are pretty much the major implicated participants in uncontrolled cellular proliferation. Signaling systems fall out of coordination and can become deregulated. These signaling pathways tell a cell when to grow and when to stop. For example, a stimulatory pathway could incorrectly tell the cell to keep going even in the absence of a proper ligand in the receptor sight. Inhibitory signals on the other hand could fail to stop cells from dividing when the signal can't sort of cascade down into the nucleus to inactivate genes.

Side Note: All of your genetic information is not active at the same time, of course.

Check points so to speak in the life cycle of a cell via the cell clock, which is an interesting apparatus, cant function properly.

Examples of genes and their role in some cancers:

ONCOGENES

PDGF encodes for a platelet derived growth factor ....implicated in glioma

Ki-ras genes for cytoplasmic relays that move things along the signaling pathway

RET a cell receptor involved in thyroid cancer

Tumor Suppressor Genes

NF-2 codes for cytoplassmic proteins .... involved in meningioma and ependrymoma and schwannoma

MTS1 codes for the p16 protein, an important stop component in the cell cycle clock. A ton of cancers are implicated in this.

Another side to this situation is the necessary death and destruction of a cell for the overall health of the immediate community or the larger organism called apoptosis. Cellular suicide is the fail-safe/backup system

These are some of the same ways they sort of exploit cells in biotechnology to immortalize cell lines. However, they're dangerous for a ton of reasons and they are hardly a path to immortality when used in a living multi-cellular organism. In my opinion, perfect regulation, robust waste management, metabolic enhancement would yield better fruit. Cancer's message is pretty clear.

Some further reading:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23-6-2008 by Kluge]

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Kluge]

The dangers have been well known since at least 1998. In that year, Dr. George Carlo released the results of a massive research project that had been funded by the cell phone industry itself in an attempt to downplay cancer fears. To the industry’s dismay -- and also to their surprise, since they selected him assuming he was an industry shill, rather than the honest scientist he proved to be -- he came to the exact opposite conclusion from the one they were hoping for. His results included findings of:

* A nearly 300 percent increase in the incidence of genetic damage when human blood cells were exposed to radiation in the cellular frequency band

* A significant increase in cell phone users’ risk of brain tumors at the brain’s outer edge, on whichever side the cell phone was held most often

* A 60 percent greater chance of acoustic neuromas, a tumor affecting the nerve that controls hearing, among people who had used cell phones for six years or more

* A higher rate of brain cancer deaths among handheld mobile phone users than among car phone users (car phones are mounted on the dashboard rather than held next to your head)

These findings, which came well over a decade after cell phones were first introduced (before that there was no safety research at all), caused a shake-up in the scientific world. Soon, many more scientists confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings.

In 2000, Swedish researchers found that cell phone users were almost two and a half times more likely to develop tumors near where they held their cell phone antenna than in any other portion of their brain. Similar studies were conducted in subsequent years on ever-larger groups of people, always with the same result.

An Italian study in 2002 found that radio waves caused leukemia cells to replicate ferociously after long exposure. In 2004, the massive REFLEX report on DNA damage from radio waves found that cells exposed to electromagnetic fields similar to those of cell phones showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks. If I wanted to, I could list a mountain of research studies all pointing to the same conclusion -- exposure to cell phone radiation can cause brain cancer.


The Industry Strikes Back.

The cell phone industry, of course, has long since corrected the “mistake” it made with Dr. Carlo, and funded a number of studies purporting to prove that cell phones are safe. For example, in 2006, they made sure headlines blared reports that an epidemiological study had “proven” cell phones can’t cause cancer.

However, a cursory reading of the study shows that it excluded heavy cell phone users from consideration, failed to differentiate between frequent use of cell phones and almost no use, and declared an improbably low rate of overall cancer that contradicts known statistics. After all that, it proudly concluded that it had found no increased risk for cell phone use. Well, no wonder.

Don’t be fooled by their lies. Holding a cell phone next to your head is as foolish as drinking a bottle of pesticide.
Even if you manage to avoid brain cancer, you may find yourself faced with other health problems both major and minor, such as headaches and dizziness, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and even impotence.


The safety of cell phones has been brought into question once again by research that suggests radio waves from the devices could promote the growth of tumors. Paradoxically, the study suggests that the radiation makes tumors grow more aggressively by initially killing off cancer cells.

Cell Biologist Fiorenzo Marinelli and his team at the National Research Council in Bologna, Italy, decided to investigate whether radio waves had any effect on leukemia cells after previous studies indicated that the disease might be more common among mobile phone users. The life cycle of leukemia cells is well understood, making it relatively easy to spot changes in behavior.

The team exposed leukemia cells in the lab to 900-megahertz radio waves at a power level of 1 milliwatt and then looked at the activity of a gene that triggers cell suicide. Many European mobile networks operate at 900 megahertz, and maximum power outputs are typically 2 watts, although they regularly use only one-tenth of this power.

After 24 hours of continuous exposure to the radio waves, the suicide genes were turned on in far more leukemia cells than in a control population that had not been exposed. What is more, 20 percent more exposed cells had died than in the controls.

But after 48 hours exposure, the apparently lethal effect of the radiation went into reverse. Rather than more cells dying, Marinelli found that a survival mechanism kicked in. Three genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in a high proportion of the surviving cells, making them replicate ferociously. The cancer, although briefly beaten back, had become more aggressive.

DNA damage?