Beware, exorbitant cell phone use may cause brain tumor

Beware, exorbitant cell phone use may cause brain tumor

Though the cell phone phobia is taking over the youth and over 91.4 million Pakistanis use cell phones today, experts are of the opinion that the cell phones emit Radiofrequency (RF) energy which may increase the risk of cancer for cell phone users.



To date, many of the studies have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant or benign brain tumors. The experts opine that the cell phone users are exposed to the radiofrequency (RF) energy, a non-ionizing form of radiation, emitted by the cell phones and due to the widespread use of this technology, there is understandable concern about the health implications of cell phone use.

“The animal experiments investigating the effects of Radiofrequency energy (RF) exposures characteristic of wireless/cell phones have suggested that low levels of RF could accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals. However, many of the studies that showed increased tumor development used animals that had been genetically engineered or treated with cancer-causing chemicals so as to be pre-disposed to develop cancer in the presence of RF exposure,” said Dr. Masood Ahmad, an expert, while talking.

He said the studies investigated any possible association between the use of wireless phones and primary brain cancer, glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers.

“Though some studies demonstrated the existence of harmful health effects from wireless phone RF exposures. However, none of the studies can answer questions about long-term exposures, since the average period of phone use in these studies was around three years,” he added.

A “Cell Phone Facts” document for consumers developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reviews the research on cell phones that has been completed to date.

The document recommend additional research and noted the challenges of completing the laboratory and epidemiological studies that might offer conclusive data on risks of cell phones.

The agencies note that animal studies investigating cell phone use would need to be very large to offer meaningful data, and epidemiological studies might require ten or more years of follow-up.

Finally, the agencies note difficulties in measuring actual RF exposure, including which model of phone is used and the angle of the cell phone during the use.

The North American Brain Tumor Coalition (NABTC) has for a number of years carefully monitored the research related to the potential adverse effects associated with cell phone use.

The NABTC urges these precautions in absence of definitive studies regarding the risks of cell phones. The coalition urges the most expeditious possible completion of research studies, including one sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), to provide consumers better information about the risks created by their use of cell phones.

In the absence of conclusive studies, it is recommended that individuals take simple precautions to limit their cell phone use and that they impose restrictions on the use of cell phones by children.

The WHO published a fact sheet on cell phones in the Year 2000, which stated, “Given the immense numbers of mobile phones, even small adverse effects on health could have major public health implications.”

A recently published meta-analysis by an Australian neurosurgeon has also intensified concerns about the risks of cell phone use and created great interest in the completion of ongoing studies.

Although public health authorities are not in agreement regarding the issuance of public health advisories about cell phones in light of the inconclusive data regarding their risks, most governments have issued precautionary warnings regarding cell phone use.

The United Kingdom in 2000 urged that cell phone use among children be limited and undertook a leafleting campaign to distribute information about limiting use by children.

In 2006, the Canadian government urged adults to moderate their cell phone use and the cell phone use of their children until the science regarding the risks of cell phones is clear.

“If you must conduct extended conversations by wireless phone every day, you could place more distance between your body and the source of the RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with distance. For example, you could use a headset and carry the wireless phone away from your body or use a wireless phone connected to a remote antenna,” advised Dr. Masood.

In a July 2008 memo to the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute faculty and staff, institute director Ronald Herberman, M.D. offered “Practical Advice to Limit Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted from Cell Phones.”

Dr. Herberman said that release of the ten “prudent and simple precautions” to reduce exposure was based on the recommendations of an international panel of experts convened by the University of Pittsburgh.

Those experts stated that, “electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones should be considered a potential human health risk.”

Cell Phone Health Dangers

Cell phone health dangers

BACKGROUND: Cell phones are everywhere. It is estimated that more than 90 percent of the Western world uses cell phones. Some recent estimates show that more than 3 billion people have cell phones worldwide. As the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, its usage will likely increase among adults and children. While the device is undoubtedly convenient, several new studies show that cell phones may be harmful.


CANCER LINK? A recent study published in the Journal of Epidemiology found heavy cell phone users were subject to a higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland. Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50 percent for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland compared to those who did not use cell phones.


FERTILITY PROBLEMS: A study conducted by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic found cell phone use may be linked to infertility problems. Men who used their cell phones for more than four hours per day had the lowest quality of sperm.


SKIN ISSUES: Nickel allergy is common, and people who are allergic to nickel may get a rash on their cheek or ear if they spend a lot of time talking on a cell phone containing nickel. They might also get a rash on their fingers if they send lots of text messages, according to the British Association of Dermatologists. Not all cell phones contain nickel. Recently, researchers at Brown University tested 22 wireless communication devices and found 10 of them contained nickel.


AFFECTING SLEEP: Researchers at Loughborough University in England found that after a 30-minute exposure to cell phone signals in talk mode, people took nearly twice as long to fall asleep as they did when the phone had been off or in standby mode. The scientists believe the effect probably reflects the time it takes the brain to relax after being agitated by the phone's electrical field.


LIMITING USAGE: Experts from the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute suggest limiting cell phone exposure. Some of their tips include not allowing children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. They also suggest keeping your cell phone away from your body as much as possible, avoiding using your cell phones in places like on a bus where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic field and switching sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure.

* Share this:
* Del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Reddit
* StumbleUpon
* Digg
* Google
* Propeller
* Seed Newsvine

2 Comments on this Story
Post a comment (+)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; they are not reflective of the views or opinions of Barrington Broadcasting, KRCG, its directors or employees. If you believe a comment violates the Barrington Terms of Use, please report it here.
cell phones

Posted by messenger messenger, messenger - Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 5:27 a.m.

Hearing aid disruption is the least of our problems.

Our government intelligence agencies are using the cell phone network as well as other signal transmitters to experiment on and tap into people brains and nervous systems, disrupting their thinking and/or read their minds REMOTELY. They can turn your life upside down and to date there's not a damn thing most people can do about it. Dennis Kucinich tried to pass a bill in 200,1H.R. 2977 "The Space Preservation Act of 2001" to among other things, (B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons, etc...

Don't believe it, google, electron mind control, "Robert Duncan", mind control, HAARP, Nich Begich.
Wake up as many people as possible to this extremely dangerous technology. God or aliens help us.
Cell phones cause hearing aid interference

Posted by Donna Hoaglin, Michigan - Saturday, March 07, 2009 at 1:27 p.m.

I do not own a cell phone, but I am harmed by other people's cell phones. If I get within several feet of someone who is carrying a cell phone, my hearing aid will start buzzing and sounds are so distorted, that I can't understand anything that is said to me. This means that I can not go out in public, because so many people are carrying cell phones that I can not avoid them. This also applies to cell towers and Wi-Fi hotspots. Even cordless digital phones cause hearing aid interference, so I use analog corded phones in my home. I can't even go to a doctors office and understand anything that is said, because of the infernal cell phones that are everywhere. This problem has been known for many years by the FCC, hearing aid and cell phone manufacturers, yet nothing has been done about it, and it looks like nothing ever will. So people who wear hearing aids that are useless around these devices that cause hearing aid interference are SOL. I guess the Americans With Disabilities Act doesn't apply to us. We are on our own, with no help in sight. Prisoners in our own homes. I have talked to other hearing aid users, who have the same problems I do, with other people's cell phones interfering with their aids. Sad state of affairs, to say the least.

Source

Cancer from cell phone use in cars

Cancer from cell phone use in cars

The Belgian Foundation Against Cancer warns that intensive use of a mobile phone can increase the risk of contracting cancer in certain situations.

The Belgian Cancer Foundation has picked up on the concerns of the World Health Organisation regarding mobile phones. “The first results of an international interphone study are quite alarming,” writes the Foundation on its website. Although the results of the study are not yet definitive the Foundation says there is definitely reason for concern.

To limit the risk of exposing yourself to an increased chance of contracting cancer the Belgian Cancer Foundation gives a number of tips including: children younger than 12 should not use a mobile phone; using a mobile phone as an alarm clock is not desirable because the phone is in close proximity to the head the entire night.

The Cancer Foundation also strongly advises people not to use a mobile phone in the car or train because the intensity of the signal from the antenna masts is stronger.

This is the first time the Belgian Foundation Against Cancer has openly advising people of the danger of using mobile telephones.

Source

Important info about cell phone use

Important info about cell phone use

Important Precautionary Advice Regarding Cell Phone Use...here are 2 articles:

University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, 8/12/2008

An international expert panel of pathologists, oncologists and public health specialists recently declared that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones should be considered a potential human health risk (see The Case for Precaution in Cell Phone Use, attached). To date, a number of countries including France, Germany and India have issued recommendations that exposure to electromagnetic fields should be limited. In addition, Toronto's Department of Public Health is advising teenagers and young children to limit their use of cell phones, to avoid potential health risks.

More definitive data that cover the health effects from prolonged cell phone use have been compiled by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. However, publication has been delayed for two years. In anticipation of release of the WHO report, the attached prudent and simple precautions, intended to promote precautionary efforts to reduce exposures to cell phone electromagnetic radiation, have been reviewed by UPCI experts in neuro-oncology, epidemiology, neurosurgery and the Center for Environmental Oncology.

Practical Advice to Limit Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted from Cell Phones

1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The amplitude of the electromagnetic field is one fourth the strength at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100th of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone. Use of a hands-free ear piece attachment may also reduce exposures.

3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.

4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on "flight" or "off-line" mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.

5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, make sure that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from your rather than through you.

6. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes, as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.

7. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure.

8. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.

9. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body.

10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by different manufacturers are available by searching for "sar ratings cell phones" on the internet.

Scientists revive debate on cellphones and cancer
(Following is an article published in the International Herald Tribune which is the global edition of the New York Times)

Scientists revive the debate on cellphones and cancer
By Tara Parker-Pope
Published: June 3, 2008

What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don't?

Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. "I think the safe practice," said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, "is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain."

Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: "I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear."

And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Black he used an earpiece.

Along with Senator Edward Kennedy's recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors' remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer. That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors "defies credulity," said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA (the Wireless Association), the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk."The FDA notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn't answer questions about long-term exposures.

Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer. But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can't explain the mechanism doesn't mean one does not exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone. Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship.

The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe. Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare.

Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use. Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure. The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.

Source

November 6th, 2008 Cell Phone Radiation Effects, Brain Tumors and Chidren

November 6th, 2008
Cell Phone Radiation Effects, Brain Tumors and Chidren

With 3 billion cell phone users worldwide and more than 260 million in the United States alone—among them 46% of U.S. children aged 8–12, according to Nielsen Mobile figures released 10 September 2008—human exposure to low-energy radiation in the 800- to 2,000-megahertz range is at an all-time high. The most recent attempt to systematically review the epidemiologic evidence for increased risk of brain tumors related to cell phone use indicates that repercussions from this global experiment are coming to light. In a meta-analysis published in the May 2008 issue of the International Journal of Oncology, Swedish researchers found significant associations between long-term cell phone use and brain tumor risk. In July 2008 market research firm MultiMedia Intelligence reported that more than 16 million U.S. teens use cell phones.

“We found that cell phone use is linked to gliomas [malignant brain tumors] and acoustic neuromas [benign tumors of the brain's auditory nerve] and are showing up after only ten years,” says lead author Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at University Hospital in Örebro, Sweden. Specifically, for studies that included at least 10 years of exposure, there was a doubling in the risk of gliomas for ipsilateral (same-side) but not contralateral (opposite-side) exposures to the head (as reflected by which hand the subject typically used to hold his/her cell phone). A 2.4-fold increase in risk was seen for acoustic neuromas due to ipsilateral exposures, whereas no increased risk occurred for meningiomas (tumors that occur in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord).

Source

Study Links Cell Phones To Brain Cancer Risk

Study Links Cell Phones To Brain Cancer Risk
By Dr. Mercola
Provider
2008-11-11 10:43 AM
Fonts Size: A+
E-Mail This Email
Printer-Friendly Printer
+ Enlarge This image
Concerns have been raised about whether cell phone use can be linked to the development of brain tumours. Now, a study from Swedish researchers provides evidence backing the claim.
Provider
Concerns have been raised about whether cell phone use can be linked to the development of brain tumours. Now, a study from Swedish researchers provides evidence backing the claim.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, based their findings on questionnaire and interview data obtained from 209 persons with brain tumours and 425 healthy control subjects. In a 2-year study, the team found an increased risk in anatomical areas of the brain exposed to microwaves during a mobile phone call. This risk holds even when statistical adjustments are made for other risk factors including ionizing radiation and laboratory exposures

The researcher pointed out, however, that most of the people in the study used the older analog system, which gives two to three times higher exposure than the digital system, which is now mostly used -- at least in Europe. Larger studies are necessary to make firm conclusions. The investigators have a much larger brain tumour study ongoing with about 1,500 incident patients and 1,500 controls and the results are expected within one year.

In light of their current findings, the authors offer several suggestions about cell phone usage. Use an earpiece to reduce exposure to the brain and, in a car, use an external fixed antenna. Otherwise, your exposure to microwaves might even be higher than using the phone outside the car. In addition, extended conversations should be conducted on a regular corded telephone.

Insofar as children are concerned, since the developing brain might be more sensitive to microwaves, children's exposure should be limited. One useful tip is to find out the specific absorption rate (SAR) value of various cell phone types. The SAR may differ by as much as a factor of 20 between different brands.

Commentary:

It is reprehensible to even consider that someone would allow a child to use a cell phone. The danger is far too great. We all need to reduce our exposure. The best way is to minimize their use to the smallest amount possible. Secondly, only use digital rather than analog phones, as the radiation dose is reduced by up to 90%. Thirdly, only use them with a head set. Please review the other articles for further information.

Source

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.

Do Cell Phones Increase Brain Cancer Risk?

Do Cell Phones Increase Brain Cancer Risk?

ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2008) — Major research initiatives are needed immediately to assess the possibility that using cellular phones may lead to an increased risk of brain tumors, according to an editorial in the November issue of the journal Surgical Neurology.
See also:
Health & Medicine

* Brain Tumor
* Cancer

Mind & Brain

* Brain Injury
* Intelligence

Computers & Math

* Mobile Computing
* Communications

Reference

* Mobile phone radiation and health
* Brain tumor
* Brain damage
* Metastasis

Recent studies have raised concerns that long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (ELF) from cell-phone handsets can increase the risk of brain cancers and other nervous system tumors, according to the editorial by Dr. Ron Pawl, a neurosurgeon at Lake Forest Hospital, Lake Forest, Ill. He calls for collaborative research initiatives to determine whether the link between cell phones and brain cancer is real.

Scientists have long been concerned over the possibility that ELF exposure may increase the risk of brain cancers. Until recently, however, research has shown no clear link between cell phone use and brain tumors.

Earlier this year, a Swedish research group published an epidemiologic study suggesting an increased risk of brain cancers (gliomas) as well as acoustic nerve tumors (neuromas) in people using cell phones for ten years or longer. Tumors were more likely to develop on the same side as the cell phone was used. Other studies by the same group suggested that the use of wireless handsets in cordless home phones posed the same risk.

After reviewing the evidence, one author even suggested that long-term cell phone use is "more dangerous to health than smoking cigarettes." Other recent commentators have raised similar concerns.

The findings are alarming in light of the exponential growth of cell phones—now including widespread use by children and teenagers. The damaging effects of ELF, if any, might be even greater in the developing brain.

If the link is real, then rates of brain cancers should have increased over the last two decades. Some studies have reported that this is the case, particularly for the most malignant brain cancers. However, other studies have found a stable tumor rate.

Some commentators have suggested that apparent increases in the number of brain cancers might reflect the use of sophisticated imaging techniques like computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. "However, the fact that the incidence of gliomas, especially the more malignant varieties, is increasing […] warrants action on this issue," Dr. Pawl writes.

The problem, according to Dr. Pawl, is that no other research groups have performed actual studies showing a clear relationship between brain tumors and ELF. He calls on scientific societies to play a leading role in designing and conducting studies that will definitively determine the risks of brain cancer associated with ELF exposure, particularly from cell phones. "It seems that a cooperative effort by both the scientific community and state governing bodies will be needed," writes Dr. Pawl. "Some spearhead is now necessary in view of the magnitude and seriousness of the situation."

From Science Daily

Cell Phone Towers, No Risks?

Experts: Cell towers don't pose health risks
JARED PABEN - THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
Add to My Yahoo! email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Text Size:
tool name
close
tool goes here

BELLINGHAM - Some Columbia neighborhood residents are concerned about the health risks of a proposed 100-foot cell phone tower, which would go in close to houses near Kulshan and North streets.

There's no conclusive evidence about the health impacts of the towers and whether they cause cancer, but the American Cancer Society thinks they probably don't.

"Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects," according to the society. "There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of (radiofrequencies) have not suggested a risk of cancer."

*
related story Bellingham residents up in arms again over proposed cell tower

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrote that radiofrequency exposure is much less on the ground than if you were near the tower at the height of the antenna. "In fact, ground-level exposure from such antennas is typically thousands of times less than the exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations," it wrote. "So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins."

For more information, go to www.cancer.org. From there, click on "Environmental & Occupational Cancer Risk," then "Radiation" and "Cellular Phone Towers." The article has links to other sources of information.

Cell Phone Tower Risks

It is hard to tell who these "experts" are and what company they actually represent sometimes.

Wireless & Cell Phone health risks

Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA

Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA, New Study Finds

Radio waves from mobile phones harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions, according to a new study majority-funded by the European Union, researchers said on Monday.

The so-called Reflex study, conducted by 12 research groups in seven European countries, did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is needed to see if effects can also be found outside a lab.

The $100 billion a year mobile phone industry asserts that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

About 650 million mobile phones are expected to be sold to consumers this year, and over 1.5 billion people around the world use one.

The research project, which took four years and which was coordinated by the German research group Verum, studied the effect of radiation on human and animal cells in a laboratory.

After being exposed to electromagnetic fields that are typical for mobile phones, the cells showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks. The damage could not always be repaired by the cell. DNA carries the genetic material of an organism and its different cells.

"There was remaining damage for future generation of cells," said project leader Franz Adlkofer.

This means the change had procreated. Mutated cells are seen as a possible cause of cancer.

The radiation used in the study was at levels between a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of between 0.3 and 2 watts per kilogram. Most phones emit radio signals at SAR levels of between 0.5 and 1 W/kg.

SAR is a measure of the rate of radio energy absorption in body tissue, and the SAR limit recommended by the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is 2 W/kg.

The study also measured other harmful effects on cells.

Because of the lab set-up, the researchers said the study did not prove any health risks. But they added that "the genotoxic and phenotypic effects clearly require further studies ... on animals and human volunteers."

Adlkofer advised against the use of a mobile phone when an alternative fixed line phone was available, and recommended the use of a headset connected to a cellphone whenever possible.

"We don't want to create a panic, but it is good to take precautions," he said, adding that additional research could take another four or five years.

Previous independent studies into the health effects of mobile phone radiation have found it may have some effect on the human body, such as heating up body tissue and causing headaches and nausea, but no study that could be independently repeated has proved that radiation had permanent harmful effects.

None of the world's top six mobile phone vendors could immediately respond to the results of the study.

In a separate announcement in Hong Kong, where consumers tend to spend more time talking on a mobile phone than in Europe, a German company called G-Hanz introduced a new type of mobile phone which it claimed had no harmful radiation, as a result of shorter bursts of the radio signal.



Source: Worldhealth.net, 12/04

Take from: Annie Appleseed

Taken from: Annie Appleseed

Cell Phone Anti-Radiation Belt Clip- they've arrived!

I'm pretty happy to get these anti radiation belt clips I ordered. I'm repacking and sending them out early for my Christmas gifts. It's never fun to lose packages in the Christmas rush.

Radiation Detox

I just found a website dedicated to getting rid of radiation from the body.

Radiation Detox

Here's How to Help Heal the Harmful Effects Caused by Radioactive and Radiation Exposure ...
Full Documentation on the Medical, Homeopathic,
Nutritional and Naturopathic Ways to Help Yourself


Dear Radiation Sufferer,

You are not crazy to be worried about radiation ...

Radiation syndrome, radiation toxicity, radiation illness, radiation damage, radiation sickness and excessive radiation exposure are all known facts that can make you ill or KILL YOU!

For instance, you may undergo a series of X-ray exams but that excess radiation actually increases your chances for contracting unless you do something to repair the damage and detoxify yourself. In a moment, we'll tell you how.

You might undergo cancer radiation therapy and firsthand suffer the direct effects of radiation exposure with nausea, anemia, hemorrhaging and fibrosis. In that case you don't need anyone to tell you of the devastation that radiation exposure can do. All you need are remedies to help counter its destructive effects.

If you live at high altitudes or take a lot of airplane flights you are naturally exposed to higher doses of ionizing radiation, too, so what do you do to prevent succumbing to radiation sickness and illness?



Okay, now the really big problems...

Living near a nuclear power plant, coal burning plant or near old government radiation testing grounds (such as in Nevada or New Mexico) also gives you higher than normal radiation exposure and that there are still radioactive contaminants in the environment blowing around ... and guess who gets to ingest them?

If you've worked in uranium mining, uranium or plutonium processing or in weapons manufacturing, your radioactive exposure is definitely off the charts and ill effects are not far behind. Plenty of Gulf War veterans have been exposed to "depleted uranium" military sources and know for a fact that it's responsible for their health problems.

Working at a nuclear power plant, in a submarine, or with certain types of diagnostic medical equipment are all ways to become sick from radiation exposure without knowing it.

If you're ever the victim of a nuclear attack, well you know the rest there ...

Frankly, if you don't heal yourself of the effects of radiation exposure and if you don't bind radioactive particles and flush them out of your body if you've ingested them, then they'll just stay there and slowly destroy your health. Eventually you will succumb to unexplained symptoms of fatigue, lethargy, a weakened immune system, tumors, unexplained illnesses, anemia, excessive bleeding, genetic damage, cancer, leukemia, cataracts, possibly having children with severe birth defects. You can develop all sorts of conditions that just don't seem to respond to medicine ... and for which there doesn't seem to be any explanation.

If you've heard of friends suffering this way, you know what I mean.


I once saw the hair analysis of a 50-year old man who worked at mining exploration in his 20's, and thirty years later a hair analysis still showed signs of uranium contamination that were well off the charts! That's how long uranium can stay in the body if you don't detoxify yourself of prior exposure. All he did for his summer job (way back) was set the blasting caps for mining exploration in our Western deserts, but the contaminated dust he ingested has stayed inside him for years!

Radiation and radioactivity are everywhere ... in the air, water, and in the food we eat. Every time there's another nuclear test explosion or accident in the world, our total exposure to radioactive contamination increases once again. Every time there is a radioactive accident somewhere, our toxic load just keeps getting greater.

How about this likely scenario now that we've declared a war on terrorism ...

BOOM! ... a "dirty bomb" goes off somewhere in the world and people thousands of miles away are on the same day affected by the radioactive contamination!

Or, a nuclear power plant suffers an unexpected accident -- such as with Chernobyl (Russia), Three Mile Island (USA), or Tokaimura (Japan) -- and the food we eat and air we breathe instantly becomes contaminated.

Gosh, "that won't ever happen" is what government officials says and those are three cases already -- at least the ones we know about. What about the potential for terrorist incidents? What happens when we do atomic weapons testing?

Here's the short of it ...



If you've been exposed to radioactive particles, including a soldier exposed to depleted uranium, I'm going to tell you about all the published, proven, documented, scientific ways to detoxify yourself -- which you can do at home. I'm also going to tell you about all the stages of acute radiation syndrome in case -- God forbid it -- there ever is another nuclear accident.

Furthermore, I'm not just going to tell you how to detoxify the effects of radiation and radioactive particles from your system but how to rebuild your body to better health, and what natural supplements to take to help you survive through hematopoietic and gastrointestinal radiation syndromes that might prove fatal if there ever were an atomic incident.

For years all I ever read were million dollar government studies that told us that "radiation is bad for you," but not a single study was done telling us what natural ways we could use to help ourselves if we were ever exposed.

Imagine that: hundreds of millions spent every year related to radiation and radioactivity but not a single peep about this crucial topic -- what to do if you are exposed to radioactivity. Since the government hasn't done anything about it, several years ago I swore I would to help the nation. Everyone has to contribute, and this is my contribution.

Now with American soldiers returning from overseas wars where they've been exposed to depleted uranium dusts, the problem is finally rearing its head as many have feared. But there is something you can do about it.

A yet bigger problem will arise if some large scale nuclear emergency ever hits the country. You can imagine the frantic chaos that result because there is no "what to do" information avialable other than "stay at home and take potassium iodide" or go to the hospital, which will no doubt be swamped with hundreds of thousands of people.

You can see why when I was getting my Master's Degree in Clinical Nutrition I swore this would be one of the two health topics I'd write about to contribute to the nation. If the government wasn't doing anything about these national security risks, then it was up to me to step up to the plate and follow Benjamin Franklin's practice of creating a solution and filling a void, just as he did in establishing the first libraries, street lights, fire companies, public solution for lightning caused fires, and so forth in Philadelphia.



Do you know what the first thing you should eat is when there is radioactive fallout in your area? Do you know what you should do if potassium iodide is not available to block the absorption of radioactive iodine in your thyroid gland? Do you know what must you purchase well ahead of time to protect yourself from the effects of radiation? Do you know what foods or supplements will detoxify radioactive exposure and flush contaminants right out of your body?

Can you tell me what has actually worked in Chernobyl, Tokaimura, Nagasaka and Hiroshima -- what the doctors used to help people with radiaiton exposure? Do you know what decontamination and emergency detoxification steps, involving drugs, that government military sources and the CDC or Homeland Security offices suggest you follow?

Well I've collected all this information and more, and put it in a book to help you.



If you have been exposed to too many X-rays or work with diagnostic medical equipment or are environmentally sensitive and have ingested elevated levels of radioactive contaminated food, air or water, you also want to check out this detoxification information as well. You'll learn about the foods you can eat that will literally build up your immune system and help you recover from the RNA/DNA damage caused by radiation exposure. You'll find out about the substances that will actually chelate radioactive heavy metals from your body.

What more can anyone do?

In this 121-page book (the only one of its kind, and certainly the largest compendium of information on natural methods for detoxifying radiation and radioactive particles in existence that will still be available if the hospitals are jammed full), you'll find out how to protect yourself from radiation in case of a terrorist incident or some other form of nuclear or atomic exposure. You will learn various ways to detoxify yourself of radiation exposure AT HOME to get rid of its effects.

If I came back from a war zone, I'd get this this el pronto.

If you're undergoing cancer therapy you need this information, too because inside this manual you'll learn how to safely and quickly rebuild your health.

Are you undergoing cancer therapy and your blood figures are off? You'll learn which supplements will rebuild platelet, WBC and RBC counts rather quickly. There are certain oils you should take, amino acids to protect your GI tract, certain foods that prevent nausea, and certain mushrooms and immune stimulants that rival cytokines in rebuilding your immune health.

More importantly, there are three or four very specialized nutritional substances that will lock on to radioactive particles and escort them out of your body.

Inside this 121-page manual, How to Help Heal Your Body of Radiation Damage and Detoxify Away Ingested Radioactive Dusts, you'll learn:



* There is potassium iodide KI or KIO3, which you should take in some (but not all) nuclear emergencies to block radioactive uptake by the thyroid! Find out how much to take, when to take it, and what to do (what to take as an alternative) if it isn't available.

* There are 3 types of baths you can soak in at home to pull out the effects of radioactive heavy metals from the cells of your body. Don't forget to drink certain teas when you do this, because teas of a certain type can bind some radiatioactive particles and help excrete them as well! There's a delicious way to drink radiation exposure away!

* There are special algae and seaweeds you can eat which are clinically proven to bind radioactive particles and escort them out of the body. Urine, blood and radioactive tests have all proven these effects, for which patents have been granted, and they have been successfully used at Nagasaki and most recently at Chernobyl. They are known for their effectiveness, but do you know what they are, where to get them, how to use them, and what recipes makes them palatable and delicious or where to go and eat them if cooking isn't your thing? I have one word for you: Modifilin, perhaps the best seaweed chelator (containing anti-cancer properties, too) than anything else out there. Even if you don't get this ebook, look into this product.

* There are special nutritional products you can take to rebuild your blood, intestines and immunity so that you don't die from hematopoietic or gastrointestinal radiation syndrome. If you are suffering from anemia or cancer radiation therapy, this information can save your life.

* There is a special soup you can drink that is the basis of all Eastern nutritional radiation therapy. Survivors of the Nagasaki atomic bomb, who were just one mile from the blast, never succumbed to radiation poisoning because they avoided sweets and sugars and made this soup the staple of their diet.

* There are special anti-radiation homeopathic formulas you can use (both "drainage" remedies and opposing remedies) that work to remedy the harmful effects of radiation, including the ionizing radiation of X-rays. Anti-radium, uranium, plutonium, ... all have homeopathic remedy antagonists. This is your only place to find out which ones to use and when.

* There are special nutritional supplements -- sulfur containing thiol compounds -- that can help rebuild your body from radiation exposure ... and which are especially important for those who work in the nuclear reactor or processing industries because of their specific protective effects. For those who have been exposed to depleted uranium, the importance of alkalinizing agents and kidney protectorants cannot be underestimated.

* There are 9 special foods you should eat to help rebuild your blood and body extremely quickly, because they contain a high content of "nucleotides" that promote health and anti-aging. There are also special fish oils to consume in order to maintain the proper fatty acid balance content of your blood (olive oil works, too!), otherwise you are likely to die from severe radiation poisoning even if you were to get a bone marrow transfusion. Ever hear of an "oxalic acid index" test? Most doctors haven't either, which is why they're flying blind with useless bone marrow transplants without this understanding.

* There are emergency radioactive contamination procedures to follow -- developed by the Military -- for every type of expected radioactive isotope exposure, and medical protocols you should become familiar with to understand the step-by-step progression of radiation sickness and your prospects of survival. If you know this information, you'll know how to survive and what you must do to assist yourself and your loved ones so that if there ever is a nuclear disaster, no one in your family becomes another one of the radiation statistic amidst the thousands.

* There are also a variety of pharmaceutical drugs and medications doctors will most likely give you to protect you from radiation toxicity, but more importantly, there are various herbs and nutritional supplements you can ingest (which the doctors don't know about) in addition to those drugs to maximize your chances of recovery and survival. Best of all, many of them have been studied for their radioprotective effects and cited in medical studies!

* There are two plants you should grow around your house as "protectors" for radiation emergencies. One is helps heal radiation burns (even for cancer radiation therapy), and the other change colors as a natural warning signal at the first signs of excess radioactivity in the environment.



If you are a Gulf War veteran, a cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy, someone who works in the nuclear power or processing industry, or someone who lives in a high radiation environment or has just been exposed, you need to get this information on the curative, remedial measures available for radiation exposure and exposure to radioactive contaminants.



"I'm originally from Russia and I spent 2 years in high school learning how to put on military gas masks, check an old meter for radiation and other things that seem so surreal at this time. I remember I asked my teacher, 70 year old retired general, what I should do if I actual get exposed to radiation. I remember he just looked at me and said "I think a prayer would help". For years I tried to find practical sources of information on the subject in Russia, and later in America. All the experts kept repeating: "Radiation is bad. And don't forget to take your iodine tablets!" That was before I got your book. As I was reading it, I realized the whole new level of information put together I never knew existed. It's like you took tons of medical and scientific research published in those never-read scientific journals no one knows about, and transformed it into practical info you can actually apply in real life. Thank you so much for all your work." Maxim S., New York




I can guarantee that your doctors don't know half this information -- it is truly the most extensive book on medical, nutritional, naturopathic and homeopathic radiation detoxification and radioprotective procedures in existence.

If it has even one-quarter or one-eighth of the information guaranteed, in today's world wouldn't it still be worth the effort to get it ... now, before some mad rush of people shuts the server down?

Protect yourself from even more exposure and start reversing the insidious effects of silent, invisible radiation by ordering risk-free " How to Detox Away Radioactive Particles and Help Heal Physical Radiation Damage" right now by clicking the ordering button below.

And in case you're thinking no, let me tell you one simple story about John Wayne and the cast of a movie he starred in, The Conqueror, which was filmed in Snow Canyon, Utah....



In 1953, the US military tested eleven atomic bombs at Yucca Flats, Nevada, which produced radioactive fallout clouds. The town of St. George (where the cast and crew of The Conqueror spent much of their time) and Snow Canyon, where much of the movie was shot, were about 100 miles downwind from the original Nevada Test Site and received part of this fallout. For thirteen weeks the actors and crew were exposed to minor levels of radioactive dusts on location, and to make it worse, the director even shipped 60 tons of the "hot dirt" back to Hollywood so that they could do convenient retakes of the film.

The result?

By 1980, when People magazine wrote a story on the matter and did a head count, at least 91 members of the original 220 member cast and crew who worked on location had contracted cancer. Statistically you'd expect about 30 of these people to get cancer. However, 91 had contracted cancer as of the early 1980s and 46 died of it, including John Wayne (he died of stomach and lung cancer), Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and the director Dick Powell. Pedro Armendariz, upon learning that he had contracted cancer, committed suicide while dying of it.

People magazine never discovered how many of the Indian extras were afflicted, which would also have added significantly to the totals! All this from being exposed in a town 100 miles downwind of atomic tests. (I pity our vets who've been exposed to depleted uranium, and the locals who continue to live in those areas). The town of St. George itself suffered a similar fate -- the residents eventually contracted cancers in staggering numbers.

What can you do about it? You can try to detoxify away the buildup of any radioactive heavy metals that have collected in your body, and help your body rejuvenate. You can also eat certain substances that will help trap these particles as they're being ingested so that they're excreted before they can do any damage.

I'll read it in detail later. I hope it helps

Letter: Disguises can't mask cell tower health risks

Saturday, October 4, 2008

By now, most of us have heard about the news reports of the dangers of cell phone use and link to brain tumors. Cell phone towers are no different in causing health risks.

What really disturbs me is the installation of disguised cell phone equipment on the water tower right next to the Sebastian River Middle School, technically the same as having it on the school’s roof.

It is very unhealthy to live near cell phone towers and even worse to send children to a school underneath a cell phone tower or a water tower strapped with color-matched cell antennas.

The county government is responsible for allowing cell antennas next to Sebastian River Middle School. Are they knowledgeable about the possible health risk that may result from such a decision?

I imagine the county gets several decades of monthly lease payments on the cell phone equipment, which apparently is more important than health risks of those students, teachers and surrounding residents.

Now the students at Sebastian River Middle School and the nearby residents get to drink microwaved water. There are two more water towers with cell antennas in the county: State Road 60 and 58th Avenue, and U.S. 1 and 49th Avenue.

In March 2006, parents became concerned about possible harmful radiation at Flushing’s St. Mel’s School in Queens, N.Y., from the 23 cell antennas on the roof of the school. They started a drive to have them removed. Early this year and after two years of protests, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile disconnected the cell antennas and terminated the 30-year lease. The lease was a way for the Catholic diocese to raise money.

City Councilman Tony Avella, D-Bayside, said, “Public schools are prohibited from erecting antennas by federal law.” �

Gary Ingwersen

Vero Beach

From:

I just wanted to share this. It's a serious threat that people fail to see or are made not to see, so I encourage people like Gary to keep doing what their doing and hopefully open the eyes of the people about dangers like this that the cell phone companies would not want people to know about!

Cell Phone Anti-Radiation Belt Clip

I just purchased this for myself and some family and friends today, I think it is a fantastic buy:

http://www.rfsafe.com/abelt_shield.htm
The BeltClip Shield is made of see-through rf fabric embedded by hand into clear lamination. It is designed to safely attach a cell phone to your body via any swivel clip accessory. We recommend you keep the 4x7in shield as large as possible, and trim it only when absolutely necessary for comfort! The more rf shielding between you and a cell phone - The Better! There is no magic to this protection, it uses that same deflection technology as the screen door in a microwave oven and it works!

If you don't use a swivel clip and just slip the phone in your pocket or handbag - See Our Pocket Shields!

BeltClip Shield
Apparel shields to deflect radiation

Price: $9.99

Cancer.gov on Risks

Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk

Key Points

* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, which is another name for radio waves (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Exposure to high levels of RF energy can heat body tissue, but RF energy exposures from cellular telephones are too low to cause significant tissue heating (see Question 2).
* Concerns have been raised that RF energy from cellular telephones may pose a cancer risk to users (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system (CNS) and other sites of the head and neck because cellular telephones are held next to the head when used (see Question 5).
* Studies have not shown any consistent link between cellular telephone use and cancer, but scientists feel that additional research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn (see Questions 6 and 7).

1. Why is there concern that cellular telephones may cause cancer?

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cellular telephones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer.
* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation and is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1).

* Cellular telephone technology is relatively new and is still changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1).

* The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2007, there were more than 255 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005.

For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy from cellular telephones affects human health.
2. What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?

RF energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two types: ionizing (high-frequency) and non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy is a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can pose a cancer risk at high levels of exposure. However, it is not known whether the non-ionizing radiation emitted by cellular telephones is associated with cancer risk (2).

Studies suggest that the amount of RF energy produced by cellular phones is too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger (2).
3. How is a cellular telephone user exposed to RF energy?

A cellular telephone’s main source of RF energy is produced through its antenna. The antenna of a hand-held cellular telephone is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head when the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure is to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed by a person decreases significantly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. The intensity of RF energy emitted by a cellular telephone depends on the level of the signal sent to or from the nearest base station (1).

When a call is placed from a cellular telephone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cellular telephone, another base station, or to the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cellular telephone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance determines, in part, the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
4. What determines how much RF energy a cellular telephone user experiences?

A cellular telephone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors, including:

• the number and duration of calls
• the amount of cellular telephone traffic at a given time
• the distance from the nearest cellular base station
• the quality of the cellular transmissions
• how far the antenna is extended
• the size of the handset
• whether or not a hands-free device is used
5. What parts of the body may be affected during cellular telephone use?

There is concern that RF energy produced by cellular phones may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head because hand-held cellular telephones are usually held close to the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in glial cells, which surround and support the nerve cells), as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1). The salivary glands also may be exposed to RF energy from cellular phones held close to the head.
6. What studies have been done and what do they show?

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of developing brain cancer, but results from long-term studies are still limited.

Several studies have investigated the risk of developing three types of brain tumors, namely glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cellular telephone use and the risk of brain cancer (3–8); however, some, but not all, long-term studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (9, 10). Further evaluation of long-term exposures (more than 10 years) is needed.

A series of multinational case-control studies (comparing individuals who have a disease or condition [case subjects] with a similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition [control subjects]), collectively known as the INTERPHONE study, are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (11). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of malignant or benign brain tumors and other head and neck tumors. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (12). Several reports describing data from individual countries have been published independently by researchers involved in the INTERPHONE study; however, these reports represent only a portion of the entire INTERPHONE dataset. The combined INTERPHONE analysis is underway and will provide more comprehensive and stable risk estimates than analyses from the individual countries.

Two reports published in November 2004 by researchers from individual countries that are participating in the INTERPHONE study described results of assessments of cellular telephone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. One report described a Danish case-control study that showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users compared with short-term users, and there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (13). The other report described a Swedish study that examined similar populations and found a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users but not in short-term users (14).

A pooled analysis of data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom did not find relationships between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the duration of cell phone use, cumulative hours of use, or number of calls; however, the risk of a tumor on the same side of the head as the reported phone use was higher among persons who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more (9).

Other reports from the Danish and Swedish researchers who are collaborating in the INTERPHONE study investigated whether a relationship exists between cellular telephone use and the risk of meningioma or glioma. These studies from Denmark and Sweden compared individuals with meningioma or glioma with a control group of disease-free individuals and found no link between these conditions and cellular telephone use (15, 16).

Pooled analyses of data from four Nordic countries and the United Kingdom did not show overall associations between the risk of glioma or meningioma and the cumulative hours of cell phone use or the number of calls (17, 18). There was a slightly increased risk of glioma occurring on the same side of the head as the reported phone use among persons who used a cell phone for at least 10 years (17).

In an attempt to avoid the issue of biases associated with case-control studies, investigators defined a cohort of 420,095 persons in Denmark with cellular phone subscriptions and linked this roster with the Danish Cancer Registry to identify brain tumors occurring in this population (7, 8). Cellular phone use was not associated with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among persons who had been subscribers for 10 or more years. This type of prospective study has the advantage of not having to rely on peoples’ ability to remember past cellular phone use.

Incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute have shown no increase between 1987 and 2005 in the age-adjusted incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers despite the dramatic increase in use of cellular telephones (19).

There are very few studies of the possible relationship between cell phone use and tumors other than those of the brain and central nervous system (20–23).
7. Why are the results of the studies inconsistent?

There are several reasons for the discrepancies between studies:
* Information about cellular telephone use, including the frequency of use and the duration of calls, has largely been assessed through questionnaires. The completeness and accuracy of the data collected during such interviews is dependent on the memory of the responding individuals. In case-control studies, individuals with brain tumors may remember cellular telephone use differently from healthy individuals, which can result in a problem known as recall bias.

* Cellular telephone use is relatively new (mostly since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). Although older studies evaluated RF energy exposure from analog telephones, most cellular telephones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and power level than analog phones.

* The interval between exposure to a carcinogen and the clinical onset of a tumor may be many years or decades. Scientists have been unable to monitor large cohorts of cellular telephone users for the length of time it might take for brain tumors to develop (1).

* Other limitations of current epidemiologic studies on cellular telephone use and brain cancer include a lack of verifiable data regarding cumulative RF energy exposure over time (the total amount of RF energy individuals have encountered) and potential errors in the exposure information reported by study participants after individuals are diagnosed with cancer, a problem known as reporting bias (24, 25). In addition, participation rates are frequently different between case subjects and control subjects in brain tumor studies, a problem known as participation bias. Some studies have indicated greater participation by individuals diagnosed with brain tumors compared with controls, and participation rates may be related to cellular phone use.

* The use of “hands-free” wireless technology, such as Bluetooth®, is increasing and may contribute to variation in cellular phone exposures.

Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).
8. Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?

There are currently no data on cellular telephone use and risk in children because no published studies to date have included children. Cellular telephone use is increasing rapidly in children and adolescents, and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1). In addition, children may be at greater risk because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure.
9. What can cellular telephone users do to reduce their exposure to RF energy?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested some steps that cellular telephone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks from cellular telephones:
* Reserve the use of cellular telephones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone is not available.
* Switch to a type of cellular telephone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the antenna and the head of the phone user.

Hands-free kits reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head (2). However, most studies conducted on cellular telephone use and cancer risk have focused on hand-held models not equipped with hands-free systems because they deliver the most RF energy to the user’s head.
10. Where can I find more information about RF energy exposure?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates interstate and international communications, provides consumers with information about human exposure to RF energy from cellular telephones and other devices at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet. This Web page includes information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cellular telephones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cellular telephone user. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone.
11. What are other sources of RF energy?

The most common use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cellular telephones operate in a frequency range of about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In this range, the electromagnetic radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. AM/FM radios, VHF/UHF televisions, and cordless telephones (telephones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) operate at lower radio frequencies than cellular telephones. Other sources of RF energy, including radar, satellite stations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, industrial equipment, and microwave ovens, operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).

More info here:

5 Tips to reduce Cell Phone Risks

Here are some more good points on reducing cell phone risks:

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- "I hope you're talking to me on a speakerphone," Devra Davis barks at me when I call her on my cell phone. "You'd better not be holding that phone up to your head."
Cell phones do emit radiation. No one knows definitively whether it's enough to worry about.

Cell phones do emit radiation. No one knows definitively whether it's enough to worry about.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

Indeed, I'm not. This is a good thing, because you don't want to get into an argument with Davis on this subject. She's the director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Environmental Oncology, and her group recently put out recommendations that we should be using a speakerphone or ear piece. The report says children, who have thinner skulls and developing brains, should use cell phones only in case of emergency.

And heaven forbid anyone should carry a cell phone in a pocket or clipped to a belt. "You're just roasting your bone marrow," Davis said.

Oh, boy. Another thing to worry about. Or maybe Davis is an alarmist. It's so hard to tell. Although there are many large studies showing no connection between mobile phones and cancer, there are a few that do. As Davis puts it, do you really want to play Russian roulette with your head? Explainer: Radiation fields and the brain »

But if you do buy the cellphones-cause-cancer argument, you have to figure out the best way to talk on a cell phone, seeing as how most of us can't live without them. Should you use the wired headset that came with your phone? A Bluetooth earpiece? iReport.com: Does your kid have a cell phone?
Don't Miss

* Cancer expert warns staff on cell phone use
* In Depth: Empowered Patient

I embarked on a journey this past week to answer these questions and at many points have been very sorry I did. This is the mother of all "the jury is still out" issues.

Cell phones have been wildly popular for only a matter of years, and it can take at least a decade for cancers to show up. Studies contradict each other, and scientists bicker: Some will tell you with great conviction that there's nothing to worry about. Others will tell you with equal conviction that an epidemic of brain tumors may be just around the corner.

The cell phone industry itself says "the overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk." You can Video watch the experts go at it on "Larry King Live" » this week.

So what are we all to do until they figure it out? After enough interviews with physicists, engineers and doctors to make me want to stick my head in a microwave oven, one common line of reasoning emerged. Cell phones do emit radiation. No one knows definitively whether it's enough to worry about. Mobile phones meet federal safety limits, but if you're still worried, there are some simple steps you can take to lower your exposure to radiation. Video Watch more on limiting your risk »

1. Use the speakerphone

This was, without question, the favorite alternative of the experts I talked to. Nothing is near your head. "Hold it away from a minimum of a few inches. A foot or two is ideal," said Magda Havas, an associate professor with the Institute for Health Studies at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.

Havas gives me a little math lesson. Every inch you can get away from your body, the radiation reduces very quickly. "Hold it out two inches, and the radiation drops by a factor of four. Hold it out four inches, and it drops by a factor of 16," she says.

In other words, said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, "every millimeter counts."

2. Use a wired headset with a ferrite bead

No, this is not a piece of jewelry. A ferrite bead is a clip you put on the wire of a headset. The concern is that the wire itself emits radiation into your ear. The bead is designed to absorb the radiation so you don't. They're inexpensive and available at stores or online.

These clips are a favorite of Slesin's. "It's the way to go," he said.

Another fan: Lawrie Challis, physicist and former chair of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, a government panel in Britain. "They did tests at the University of York and found that under even the worst conditions, if you use a ferrite bead, you can't even measure the radiation coming off the wire. This common device kills the radiation."

Of course, if the phone is in your pocket or clipped to your belt, all bets are off, because the phone itself will be radiating into your body. So if you're worried about radiation, keep the phone as far away as possible, and Challis adds to do your best to make sure the wire isn't touching your body.

3. Use a Bluetooth earpiece

A Bluetooth earpiece still has radiation, but it's at least 100 times less than the radiation you get when you hold a cell phone to your head, Havas says.

Our experts were split on which was better: a Bluetooth headset or a wired one. Israeli government recommendations issued this week specifically suggest a wire; Havas likes the Bluetooth. But even she says not to wear it when you're not talking; it still sends out a signal.

"Bluetooth is only whispering radiation into your ear. The problem is, some people wear it all the time," she says. "At the very least, switch it from ear to ear so you don't have too much exposure on one side."

Michael Foley, Ph.D., executive director of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group, says Bluetooth earpieces radiate 200 times less energy than cell phones. "There is no evidence that a Bluetooth headset has any adverse effects on its users," he said.

4. Use a "hollow tube" earpiece

It's just like a regular wired earpiece, except the last six inches or so -- the part next to your ear -- is a hollow tube. There's no wire under the plastic.
Health Library

* MayoClinic.com: Health Library

"You're getting the sound through the air. You're not dependent on radiofrequency waves," said Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany.

Hollow tube earpieces can be purchased on several Web sites.

5. Get a phone with less radiation

Phone radiation is measured in specific absorption rate, or SAR. To look up the SAR for your phone, check this list on CNET.com.

You might think the experts mentioned above all use earpieces or a speakerphone. Not so. Several said they hold it right up to their heads because they use their cells so infrequently, they're not worried about radiation.
advertisement

"I use it maybe once or twice a week, no more than 10 minutes," said Challis, the former head of the British committee that studied cell phones and radiation. "I use a land line whenever I can."

It's the exposure, day after day, year after year, that matters. As Challis, who's retired, puts it, "If I were younger, I'd take this much more seriously.