A surprising cause of cancer?

[c1ue]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Or why are sharks successful against cancer? They have an organ for detecting electric fields called Ampullae of Lorenzini, so sleeping near a sea cable would probable irritate them.

A: While it is not true that sharks do not develop cancer, they do have a remarkable cancer shield. Of the thousands of fish tumors in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, only about 15 are from elasmobranchs (The Smithsonian is an amazing place - where else can one go to see thousands of fish tumors?), and only two of these are thought to have been malignant.
http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa..._on_cancer.htm

Sharks are also extraordinarily stable evolution-wise.

It is quite possible that this evolutionary stability is related (or vice versa) to their cancer resistance.

[aaron]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

This was a silly article.

If there is really a higher rate of cancer on the left side of the body, it could more easily be explained by most people being right handed. More blood to the right side of the body = less cancer.

Can I get a PHD and published in a magazine now?

[Starving Steve]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

I have heard the rubbish about electro-magnetic radiation and a possible cancer link for my entire life, but the interest fact is that no such link has ever been proven scientifically.

Why would a link not exist between electro-magnetic radiation and cancer? And the answer is that the Earth is bathed in electro-magnetic radiation from the Sun, so life on Earth has evolved to tolerate such radiation. Otherwise, life would have gone extinct eons ago.

For your interest, I used to stand under 12KV electric lines (6 x 12KV per tower) and light-up old florescent light tubes during the middle of the night with my ex-wife. We had great fun doing this. Neither of us has cancer now. But the eco-frauds are still trying to scare the public with may-bes about what causes cancer. Unfortunately, these frauds have the good jobs in government and the attention of the media as well.

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

If there is really a higher rate of cancer on the left side of the body, it could more easily be explained by most people being right handed. More blood to the right side of the body = less cancer.

To be fair to the authors, the left/right bias is supposedly not observed in Japan, but I think right-handed people are just as prevalent there.

[mesyn191]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Why would a link not exist between electro-magnetic radiation and cancer? And the answer is that the Earth is bathed in electro-magnetic radiation from the Sun, so life on Earth has evolved to tolerate such radiation. Otherwise, life would have gone extinct eons ago.

Yea, whenever I point out to someone who spouts this nonsense that the sun bombards you with more energy every day than a cell phone or TV the look of shock on their face is priceless.

IIRC, the only way for radiating energy to effect you is if its either ionizing or causes enough heating for chemical reactions or phase change (ie. liquid to vapor conversion) to occur. The total amount of energy being discussed is so low (maaaybe a fraction of a milliwatt under pathological conditions?) and dispersed that it isn't worth even talking about seriously.

[aaron]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

To be fair to the authors, the left/right bias is supposedly not observed in Japan, but I think right-handed people are just as prevalent there.

OK, fat, right-handed people who like to hang out in the sun get cancer on their left sides. Now can I get published?

Or, even better... Americans like to drive more than the Japanese, thus exposing their left side to the sun more. The Japanese drive less, and they tend to try to avoid the sun. Oh, and they drive on the left side of the road.

Actually, somebody beat me to it:

http://www.techjackal.net/other/2010...-side-of-body/

In true fairness ... it is a "guest blog".

[nedtheguy]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

redacted

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

It irritates me when people spout off about the dangers of radiation from power lines, cell phones, TV towers etc. From a radiation perspective

Fret not. While yes I'd quite agree with you that people can do such things as confuse various forms of power and energy, if their confusion reaches even that level of misunderstanding, however our current understanding of these matters is sufficiently muddled that we cannot be certain there are no genuine and even important connections. I suspect our current quantum mechanics, string theory, relativity, etc physics and cosmology will look as quaint to our descendants as flat earths and Gods roaming the skies on powerful steeds looks to us now, and as needlessly complicated as Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Case in point: I am confident that you cannot provide a clear explanation for the mechanisms of gravity and how those mechanisms relate to electro-magnetic fields. The affects of gravity are understood in considerable detail, but its cause is a mystery to mainstream science of our times.

[reggie]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Correlation is not causality. I guess the bedding industry should be thankful. I wonder who sponsored this "research"?

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Case in point: I am confident that you cannot provide a clear explanation for the mechanisms of gravity and how those mechanisms relate to electro-magnetic fields. The affects of gravity are understood in considerable detail, but its cause is a mystery to mainstream science of our times.

I'm confused. Don't believe in general relativity? No, I can't "explain" GR -- at best I can describe the theory in broad terms. My study of relativity in school stopped with special relativity; I don't have the higher math chops to tackle GR. But then again, neither can I "explain" quantum electrodynamics in anything better than broad detail, yet QED matches experimental observations with exquisite accuracy. The fact that I personally am not an expert theoretical physicist doesn't mean that humanity as a whole doesn't understand these things quite well.

Our understanding of physics will advance, but mainly in areas of (1) complex phenomena (new combinations and interactions of known phenomena), and (2) phenomena at distance/energy density scales not currently accessible experimentally. Physics in the modern era hasn't really advanced by "overturning" prior ideas; it has merely revealed prior ideas to be approximations of limited accuracy and applicability -- otherwise, we wouldn't still teach our physics students Newtonian mechanics. It has been a long time since there was a "flat earth" or Keplerian moment. You are right to anticipate new discoveries and more complete physical understanding, but that doesn't mean we're going to learn a lot new about physical processes at the distance/energy density scale of interest to this thread. If you think our understanding of physics at the scale of interest here is muddled, then you must not be aware of how much we understand, and how cohesive the knowledge is.

I tend to agree with Steve, mesyn, and Ned -- and have written the same before about cell phones -- that breaking chemical bonds is the known mechanism by which EM radiation can influence cancer rates (and that the microwave/radio wave portion of the spectrum isn't ionizing). I don't go so far as to absolutely rule out an indirect link for non-ionizing radiation because there could be some coupling at lower energies to molecular conformation affecting, say, transport properties through membranes or chemical reactivitiy. This, in turn, might expose genetic material to teratogenic agents already present in the body, or somehow affect the fidelity of transcription. Biochemistry is too complex to rule out damage from non-ionizing radiation entirely on the basis of a single "basic physics" heuristic. However, the photons of a VHF signal at 100 MHz carry about 4.14E-7 eV of energy (hv). At body temperature, the characteristic thermal energy is about 0.027 eV (kT). In other words, any biochemistry that might be activated by 100-MHz radio waves is already bathed in energy at this level; there would be no specific chemical impact except for dielectric heating... just like the others are saying.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Yes, QED and Relativity are quite accurately verified by experimental results (so to a lesser degree are Kepler's laws of planetary motion.)

But they may be missing some of the big picture, as were Kepler's laws. Science, unless fraudulent, is seldom wrong, but science often has a bit of "curve fitting" to it, requiring too much apparatus to explain something less than it hopes to explain.

And as you note, nothing in QED or Relativity precludes other mechanisms than ionizing radiation from harmful biological affects.

In other words, any biochemistry that might be activated by 100-MHz radio waves is already bathed in energy at this level

If I were an alien creature who had no particular sensitivity to what humans call visible light, then I might observe that since planet Earth is bathed in visible light, therefore it seems likely that there would be no specific chemical (or other?) impact on the plants and animals of Earth from this light other than its dielectric heating and ionizing radiation affects. I would have trouble viewing the Mona Lisa or understanding the purpose of a computer or TV screen or explaining the navigation capabilities of the bald eagle.

I suspect that more than just the cones and rods of our eyes are sensitive to certain electrodynamic frequencies. Try a Google search for Fritz-Albert Popp to get an idea of the possibilities. A recent article I enjoyed reading on this subject is at Are humans really beings of light?.

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Yes, QED and Relativity are quite accurately verified by experimental results (so to a lesser degree are Kepler's laws of planetary motion.)

Does that mean you agree gravity is understood as well as anything?

But they may be missing some of the big picture, as were Kepler's laws. Science, unless fraudulent, is seldom wrong, but science often has a bit of "curve fitting" to it, requiring too much apparatus to explain something less than it hopes to explain.

The fact that science as a whole is incomplete has nothing to do with whether the science governing the interaction of light with matter is incomplete; as regards radio waves and the type of matter in our bodies, I'd say it is adequately complete to be confident in our conclusions. (This is not a claim that the biological aspect of this problem is complete, but rather that you can bound the "inputs" to the complicated biological system associated with radio waves using known physics.)

And as you note, nothing in QED or Relativity precludes other mechanisms than ionizing radiation from harmful biological affects.

But, as I also note, we can rule out the possibility of a measurable impact on cancer rates resulting from the proposed mechanism, when no impact on cancer rates is found based upon proximity to the transmitters AND the energy supplied is negligible relative to ambient thermal energy. This is a matter for which both theory and experiment align.

If I were an alien creature who had no particular sensitivity to what humans call visible light, then I might observe that since planet Earth is bathed in visible light, therefore it seems likely that there would be no specific chemical (or other?) impact on the plants and animals of Earth from this light other than its dielectric heating and ionizing radiation affects. I would have trouble viewing the Mona Lisa or understanding the purpose of a computer or TV screen or explaining the navigation capabilities of the bald eagle.

True, but I don't see the relevance. My point is that the only thing the radio waves could be doing is supplying energy to some very low-energy transition, yet the barrier to such a transition is so far below the average thermal energy of the environment that supplying additional energy from radio waves would have no meaningful effect upon the system. There is no higher cultural or aesthetic meaning here for us to decode. The alien is an interesting hypothetical, but he would correctly conclude the same thing as I as regards the potential here for carcinogenic effects.

I suspect that more than just the cones and rods of our eyes are sensitive to certain electrodynamic frequencies. Try a Google search for Fritz-Albert Popp to get an idea of the possibilities. A recent article I enjoyed reading on this subject is at Are humans really beings of light?.

"I had this same experience this week when I was sent an article where a Russian (again) scientist, Pjotr Garjajev, had managed to intercept communication from a DNA molecule in the form of ultraviolet photons -- light! What's more, he claimed to have captured this communication from one organism (a frog embryo) with a laser beam and then transmitted it to another organisms DNA (a salamander embryo), causing the latter embryo to develop into a frog!"

This is not off to a good start!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Does that mean you agree gravity is understood as well as anything?

It's described as well as anything; we know its affects quite accurately.

But what causes it, and how that relates to any of the other fundamental forces, is still quite a mystery in some ways.

This is not off to a good start!

Yeah - rather as I expected.

If I persist in posting too much in this vein, poor overworked FRED will have to create an other sub-forum of Rant & Rave, for Whacko Theories. I'll happily post there if he does so, along side my occasional Conspiracy Theories posts.

My present take is that there is substantially more fine biological structure that is sensitive to and even emits by design electrodynamic radiation at various specific frequencies than our current main stream biology realizes.

If you "enjoyed" that link, then you might also try another such mind stretcher, at the vast cosmological end of the scale: THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS. This video claims that the large scale structure and behavior of the Universe depends far more on electro-magnetic fields and currents and on plasmas, rather than being predominantly structured just by the forces of gravity.

Studying this stuff for me is like doing good software design and development. One first has to master the present technology; if one is going to code something, then one is best served by having expert knowledge of each of the several layers of technology on which ones work depends, and one needs to work with ones materials, be that code or copper or whatever, with the hands of a skilled craftsman.

But when it comes time to understand that which is still mysterious, or to design that which is not yet realized, then one needs to tune into a very different world of intuitions, feelings, metaphors and such, which may come to you from a variety of sources. It is best not to worry too much over some detail that seems to be blocking the path during this phase in a design.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

I'd say it is adequately complete to be confident in our conclusions.

My present hunch is that it (modern science) is not adequately complete for this purpose.

I realize, with a bit of amusement, that most sensible people, including those here at iTulip and including myself in former years, would find nothing credible in my present hunch.

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

It's described as well as anything; we know its affects quite accurately.

But what causes it, and how that relates to any of the other fundamental forces, is still quite a mystery in some ways.

If you won't be satisfied that anything has been "explained" until you are no longer able to ask "why" about the next layer of the onion, then I fear science has no answers for you. Describe to me, by your standard, what level of information could satisfy you as an "explanation" of anything. (I'm pretty impressed by the revelation that gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass, and the "force" of gravity is just a pseudo-force caused by motion through curved space-time. The fact that, to my knowledge, we don't know why mass curves space-time isn't a defect in my view... if you follow anything in physics far enough you get to a set of as-yet unexplained observations.)

Yeah - rather as I expected.

Yeah... I too think my reaction was predictable; I'm behaving to type. Part of my problem with the article you linked is that it contains "explanations" of how stuff works that are just plain wrong. It would be one thing if it was hypothesizing "crazy" stuff in the grey areas of science where we don't entirely know what is going on, but when the author displays his ignorance in areas that are very well understood, that detracts substantially from his credibility. Here is one howler I found particularly egregious:

"When we consume broccoli, for example, and digest it, it is metabolised into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, plus the light stored from the sun and photosynthesis. We extract the CO2 and eliminate the water, but the light, an EM wave, must be stored. When taken in by the body, the energy of these photons dissipates and becomes distributed over the entire spectrum of EM frequencies, from the lowest to the highest.

This energy is the driving force for all the molecules in our body. Before any chemical reaction can occur, at least one electron must be activated by a photon with a certain wavelength and enough energy."

This is just crazy wrong. Crazy goat-*******, drooling, insipid wrong.

If you "enjoyed" that link, then you might also try another such mind stretcher, at the vast cosmological end of the scale: THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS. This video claims that the large scale structure and behavior of the Universe depends far more on electro-magnetic fields and currents and on plasmas, rather than being predominantly structured just by the forces of gravity.

Actually, by chance I was aware of the "plasma cosmology" types.

Studying this stuff for me is like doing good software design and development. One first has to master the present technology; if one is going to code something, then one is best served by having expert knowledge of each of the several layers of technology on which ones work depends, and one needs to work with ones materials, be that code or copper or whatever, with the hands of a skilled craftsman.

But when it comes time to understand that which is still mysterious, or to design that which is not yet realized, then one needs to tune into a very different world of intuitions, feelings, metaphors and such, which may come to you from a variety of sources. It is best not to worry too much over some detail that seems to be blocking the path during this phase in a design.

The thing I worry about is that folks might not actually understand the present technology (current known science) and therefore be ill equipped to probe the next layer of the unknown. The passage above about energy transfer when eating food is an example of what I'm talking about. It's clear to me this guy doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about, so why would I trust him to lead me into the unknown?