Brain cancer and cell phone use

The Finding the Link Between Ted Kennedy's Cancer and Cell Phone Use
Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor is, once again, stirring debate over the safety of cell phones. Kennedy’s brain tumor, called a glioma, is the type critics have associated for years with the use of cell phones.

Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do not use cell phones held next to their ears. “I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent researcher and an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University. “I do not hold it to my ear.” Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital admitted that, he too, used an earpiece.

CTIA – the Wireless Association and the FDA both say that studies show cell phones are not a health risk. Other experts disagree. They point to research that indicates a link between cell phones and three types of tumors: glioma (the type Senator Kennedy has); cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid; and acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the ear. An Israeli study published last year found a 58 percent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after ten years of heavy use.

Since cell phones are relatively new, there hasn’t been a chance for long-term studies that will settle the question of whether there is truly a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. Some critics express particular concern for children who begin using cell phones as kids and continue throughout their lives. “More and more kids are using cell phones,” said Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly and their skulls are thinner.”

Dr. Khurana admits that cell phones are convenient and can save lives in an emergency, but he says that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors,” adding that malignant brain tumors are “a life-ending diagnosis.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” he said.

Food Additive To Avoid

Food Additive To Avoid

Being concerned about my health I always promote eating fresh. While I recognize that organic food is the best because there is no pesticide, and the products contain more vitamins and minerals because of the way they have been grown any fresh food will limit your intake of food additives.
I would also advise you to drink water and use soft-drinks only for parties which will limit your food additive intake to a more reasonable level.


On this page I decided to focus on the food additives dangerous for our health and not banned by the FDA yet. Did you know that eating less than 20 chips containing olestra could be dangerous?

You will find here the 14 most dangerous additives and their potential effects on your health. Are you sure you want to eat them without knowing or do you wish to learn "who they are" and be able to preserve yourself from their dangers?


ACESULFAME-K

Used as a sugar substitute in packet or table form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts...
Tests indicate that this additive causes cancer in animals. It had been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits and dogs.Acesulfamine-K was also associated with lung tumors, breast tumors, and several forms of leukemia and chronic respiratory disease in rats studies even when less than maximum doses were given Another effect would be the stimulation of insulin secretion in a dose dependent fashion aggravating reactive hypoglycemia (low blood sugar attacks)


Artificial Colorings: Blue 1

This chemical was inadequately tested and there is a suggestion of small cancer risk.


Artificial Coloring: Blue 2

The largest study suggested but did not prove that this dye caused brain tumors in male mice.
Artificial Coloring: Green 3

A 1981 industry-sponsored study gave the hints of bladder cancer.


Artificial Coloring: Red 3

There is evidence that this dye cause thyroid tumors in rats.


Artificial Coloring: Yellow 6

It may cause allergic reactions. Also industry-sponsored animal tests shows that this dye causes tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.


Aspartame

In some reports aspartame has been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including panic attacks, mood changes,visual hallucinations, manic episodes and isolated dizziness. A 1970 study suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats. In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, conducted a study which indicated that in rats who were first exposed to aspartame at 8 weeks of ages aspartame caused lymphomas and leukemias in females. In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero. This study found that aspartame caused leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer.


Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)

Some studies shows that it causes cancer in the forestomach of rats, mice and hamsters . Humans do not have a forestomach but a chemical that causes cancer in at least one organ in three different species indicates that it might be carcinogenic in humans.


Olestra (Olean)

Olestra has an avidity for certain fat-soluble substances and will remove fat-soluble nutrients from your body.It is linked directly to olestra being a non-absorbable lipid-like substance.
Olestra will cause a dramatic depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoids. Olestra depletion of carotenoids is a great concern because evidences indicate that they may confer important health benefit, like lowering risk of cancers (lungs, esophagus, pharynx, mouth, stomach, colon, rectum, and bladder). Olestra is highly effective at reducing serum level of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Supplementing olestra with those vitamins would not completely solve the problem which means that blood clotting, bone formation in fetal development and childhood and retention of bone in older women could be affected. A more immediat effects would be diarrhea, fecal urgency, and more frequent and looser bowel movements as well as anal leaking. Olestra gastrointestinal effects are comparable to those caused by eating larger amount of dietetary fibers except that you body will adapt to increased fibers but won't adjust to olera. The only way to stop the intestinal effect of olestra is to stop its intake. Risk of macular degeneration and possibly cancer and heart diseases are also associated with olestra.

Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Trans Fat)

Vegetable oil, usually a liquid can be made into semi-solid shortening by reacting it with hydrogen. Partial hydrogenation reduces the levels of polyunsatured oils also creating trans fats which promote heart diseases.The Institute of Medicine has advised consumers to eat less than 2 grams a day. Beware of the marking on the boxes: 0g trans fat are permitted to contain 0.5g per serving while no trans fat means none at all.


Potassium Bromate

Potassium bromate is used to strenghen bread dough. Bromate was first found to cause cancer in rats in 1982. Subsequents studies on rats and mice confirmed that it causes tumors of the kidney, thyroid and other organs. It had been banned virtually worldwide except in the US and Japan. In 1991, California declared bromate a carcerigen under the state's proposition 65. Baked good sold in California would have to bear a cancer warning if they contain more than a certain level of bromate. As a result most California bakers have switched to bromate-free processes.


Propyl Gallate

Propyl gallate or propyl 3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoate is an ester formed by the condensation of garlic acid and propanol. It is an anti oxidant added to foods containing oils and fats to prevent oxidation. As a food addictive it is used under the number E310. Recent studies show that propyl gallate mimic oestrogen similar to other xenoestrogens. This may result in male developing female traits. Increased estrogen load is often associated with increase risk of developping cancer in estrogen-sensitive tiissues such as ovary, breat, prostate...


Saccharin

Saccharin is 350 times sweeter than sugar and is used in diet foods or as a tabletop sugar substitute. Many studies on animals have shown that saccharin can cause cancer of the urinary bladder as well as cancer of the uterus, ovaries, skin, blood vessels, and other organs. Other studies have shown that saccharin increases the potency of other cancer-causing chemicals. The best epidemiology study (done by the National Cancer Institute) found that the use of artificial sweeteners (saccharin and cyclamate) was associated with a higher incidence of bladder cancer. The industry acknowledges that saccharin causes bladder cancer in male rats, but argues that those tumors are caused by a mechanism that would not occur in humans. Many public health experts respond by stating that, even if that still-unproved mechanism were correct in male rats, saccharin could cause cancer by additional mechanisms.


Sodium Nitrite, Sodium Nitrate

Sodium nitrite stabilizes the red color in cured meat (without nitrite, hot dogs and bacon would look gray) and gives a characteristic flavor. Adding nitrite to food can lead to the formation of small amounts of potent cancer-causing chemicals (nitrosamines), particularly in fried bacon. Several studies have linked consumption of cured meat and nitrite by children, pregnant women, and adults with various types of cancer. Nitrite is used primarily in fatty, salty foods, consumers have important nutritional reasons for avoiding nitrite-preserved foods.


Preserve Yourself

The best way to preserve yourself from these additive is to eliminate them from your diet. The less you will eat of them the better it will be for you. If you can't stop just try to limit your intake to the minimum possible.

iPhone could raise brain tumor risk

iPhone could raise brain tumor risk
By Ben Wasserman
Nov 19, 2008 - 11:47:23 AM

News broke that the search giant Google announced on Nov 18 that it just launched a new version of Google Mobile App which allows users to enter their search query by voice. But this new feature comes in U.S. English and for iphone only.



Mobile phone or cell phone is convenient to use, but carries a risk. The industry does not want you to know about it and always down play the adverse effect. Many people have already known that use of cell phone for a long term would increase risk of brain cancer. It does not matter you use iphone or another type. Google Mobile App cannot reduce the risk!



Hardell L and colleagues from University Hospital in Orebro Sweden published a study in the May 2008 issue of International Journal of Oncology saying that evidence is convincing that long term use of the wireless stuff drastically increases risk of brain tumors.



Hardell and colleagues reviewed 10 studies and found that long term use defined as more than 10 years increased the tumor risk by 20 percent. When used on the same side of the head, wireless phone increased the risk of brain tumor by 100 percent.



When you use any modern technology, always consider there might be a risk associated with the application. Google voice recognition technology can’t reduce the risk, not just yet.

This isn't really surprising.

No Way to Hide Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor

No Way to Hide Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 by: Chanyut Phrukkumwong (see all articles by this author)
Reducing Electromagnetic Frequency Exposure May Improve Your Health
(NaturalNews) Long-term exposure to electromagnetic radio waves at certain strengths does cause brain tumors. Just like in the case of cigarette smoking, which nobody realized could damage your health until the era where lung cancer caused by regular smoking showed up. Such warnings about the dangers from electromagnetic radio waves from cell phones have been around for some years now. But the reporting has not been very widespread because of the attempt to hide this truth from those who hold the stake, which is certainly the cell phone industry (manufacturers).

Dr. George Carlo is among the first scientists who warned the public about this danger. He refused a billion-dollar bribe from the cell phone industry who told him to keep quiet about the research results that he conducted. Take a look at his website, (http://www.safewireless.org) .

Other honest doctors and health advocates have helped this warning to become more widespread and more understandable by comparing such dangers with the ones associated to smoking. Everybody mistook, at first, that smoking was healthy but we have later come to know that it is dangerous.

More warnings about cell phones can be found here (http://www.naturalnews.com/cell_phone.html) .

We may notice that such warnings about the danger of cell phone is usually put out by honest doctors, health advocates, health-related people while hidden by cell phone industries or technology-related people. Until recently, this issue was mentioned about by the technology-related web site like CNET or ZD net.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/...
http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5741203...
Even though an objection against the research finding is also there, we know that it is only a voice from cell-phone industry who has tried its best to conceal this fact and to protect itself from losing the profits. This shows that the industry itself has already realized this truth simply because there is no way to hide it.

So what’s the deal? Is it possible to stop using cell phone? No way. Cell phone has become part of our daily lives. It helps us in case of emergency or while being in the place where we need to talk and no other safe communication device is available. We should take action to minimize such risk and to be responsible for our own health. Simply be smart. Take moderate practice. Make use of it but do not let it harm us. Use headset, use handsfree feature, use it only when a wired phone is not available, do not go for a long conversation, send a message instead of talking. There are quite a number of techniques to minimize the risk.

Also, we can be selective by choosing a cell phone model that emits minimum strength of electromagnetic waves possible. Check out here http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#6.

Details about the concentration of electromagnetic waves at home noted in the following article is also of interest http://www.naturalnews.com/023307.html.

Since cell phone has become a world-wide public issue, everyone in the world uses it while its long-term use does cause some diseases, there should be a public law that helps administer the marketing, selling, and the use of cell phone the same way as on cigarettes or sports drinks. The law that enforces the labeling of warning message on every cell phone and/or cell phone shop like “Long-term use of cell phone causes cancer”, “Cell phone causes autism”, that prohibits children under the age of 15 or so (whose physical development is still not so endured as adult) to buy a cell phone is strongly encouraged.

Want more live evidence? Take a look at this now! >>> http://www.fitnesssavedmylife.com.

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 21 September 2008
null

Getty

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health

* Photos enlarge

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share

* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Stumbleupon

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.

The study, experts say, raises fears that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.

Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the "highest priority".

Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be "minimised", the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it.

Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health.

It sprung from a further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. Professor Hardell told the conference – held at the Royal Society by the Radiation Research Trust – that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma", a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher.

Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness.

By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.

Professor Hardell told the IoS: "This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions." He believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market.

The research has shown that adults who have used the handsets for more than 10 years are much more likely to get gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but he said that there was not enough data to show how such relatively long-term use would increase the risk for those who had started young.

He wants more research to be done, but the risks to children will not be studied in the MTHR study, which will follow 90,000 people in Britain. Professor David Coggon, the chairman of the programmes management committee, said they had not been included because other research was being done on young people by a study at Sweden's Kariolinska Institute.

He said: "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in.

But David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork – who also attended the conference – said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use."

In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".

But almost nothing has been done, and their use by the young has more than doubled since the turn of the millennium.

From: