HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » “Game-Changing” Study Lin...

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:01 AM

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer

Source: Mother Jones

It's the moment we've all been dreading. Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency (RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.

The findings from a $25 million study, conducted over two-and-a-half years by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), showed that male rats exposed to two types of RF radiation were significantly more likely than unexposed rats to develop a type of brain cancer called a glioma, and also had a higher chance of developing the rare, malignant form of tumor known as a schwannoma of the heart.

The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to when they use cell phones, said Chris Portier, former associate director of the NTP, who commissioned the study.

<snip>

The NTP first decided to investigate the carcinogenicity of cellphone radiation in 2001, partly in response to epidemiological studies showing a correlation between gliomas and cellphone use. Some of the studies even showed that the cancers were ipsilateral—meaning they tended to appear on the same side of the head where users held their phones. But other epidemiological studies haven't found links between cancer and cellphones.

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/federal-study-links-cell-phone-radiation-cancer

124 replies, 11221 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 124 replies Author Time Post
Reply “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer (Original post)
groundloop May 2016 OP
Silver_Witch May 2016 #1
cstanleytech May 2016 #4
hobbit709 May 2016 #5
cstanleytech May 2016 #24
SCantiGOP May 2016 #31
hobbit709 May 2016 #61
cstanleytech May 2016 #77
yourpaljoey May 2016 #102
proverbialwisdom May 2016 #79
cstanleytech May 2016 #81
proverbialwisdom May 2016 #85
cstanleytech May 2016 #87
Silver_Witch May 2016 #88
proverbialwisdom May 2016 #91
One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #98
madokie May 2016 #14
99th_Monkey May 2016 #33
MgtPA May 2016 #45
elljay May 2016 #59
Silver_Witch May 2016 #89
elljay May 2016 #90
JesterCS May 2016 #92
yallerdawg May 2016 #2
Javaman May 2016 #3
99th_Monkey May 2016 #34
MowCowWhoHow III May 2016 #6
reddread May 2016 #19
MowCowWhoHow III May 2016 #20
Loudestlib May 2016 #29
Ex Lurker May 2016 #7
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #9
madokie May 2016 #15
NJCher May 2016 #109
madokie May 2016 #110
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #22
tavernier May 2016 #54
OnlinePoker May 2016 #76
LiberalArkie May 2016 #8
Scientific May 2016 #10
still_one May 2016 #32
GreatGazoo May 2016 #48
-none May 2016 #103
Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #114
GreatGazoo May 2016 #119
glowing May 2016 #41
SomeGuyInEagan Jun 2016 #124
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #11
trudyco May 2016 #16
tavernier May 2016 #56
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #12
mac56 May 2016 #18
Locrian May 2016 #13
LineLineReply .
Guy Whitey Corngood May 2016 #42
AtheistCrusader May 2016 #52
Guy Whitey Corngood May 2016 #55
mac56 May 2016 #17
fasttense May 2016 #21
former9thward May 2016 #116
fasttense May 2016 #121
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #23
Orrex May 2016 #36
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #65
Orrex May 2016 #70
One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #95
William Seger May 2016 #68
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #83
Humanist_Activist May 2016 #100
Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #115
groundloop May 2016 #25
Skwmom May 2016 #26
Matt_in_STL May 2016 #27
still_one May 2016 #28
Major Nikon May 2016 #30
SheilaT May 2016 #37
daleo May 2016 #112
SheilaT May 2016 #117
daleo May 2016 #120
Bernardo de La Paz May 2016 #38
Lucky Luciano May 2016 #40
LiberalArkie May 2016 #43
AtheistCrusader May 2016 #49
C Moon May 2016 #53
Jemmons May 2016 #62
Major Nikon May 2016 #80
Jemmons May 2016 #84
Major Nikon May 2016 #86
sofa king May 2016 #93
Ned Flanders May 2016 #35
AtheistCrusader May 2016 #51
jtuck004 May 2016 #39
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #63
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #64
jtuck004 May 2016 #66
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #67
jtuck004 May 2016 #69
Frank Cannon May 2016 #71
One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #106
AlbertCat May 2016 #44
Major Nikon May 2016 #50
-none May 2016 #104
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #46
One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #47
restorefreedom May 2016 #57
vkkv May 2016 #58
geardaddy May 2016 #60
truthisfreedom May 2016 #72
Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #73
groundloop May 2016 #74
Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #75
One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #107
Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #108
valerief May 2016 #78
Jesus Malverde May 2016 #82
Sunlei May 2016 #94
whistler162 May 2016 #96
mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #105
whistler162 May 2016 #97
Humanist_Activist May 2016 #99
cantbeserious May 2016 #101
Name removed May 2016 #111
Kashkakat v.2.0 May 2016 #113
athena May 2016 #118
GoneOffShore May 2016 #122
WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2016 #123

Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:05 AM

1. Darn rats! Who got them cellphones in the first place!

 

Seriously people will not give up their cellphone no matter what! Hell most still are driving cars daily even though they are killing us all!!!

Thanks for sharing though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:18 AM

4. They probably won't have to give them up if the companies can improve the shielding

on the phones but the downside is phones will probably end up being alot heavier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:24 AM

5. Can't shield the antenna or it won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #5)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:09 PM

24. Who knows, maybe they can redesign the antennas or use somthing like a bluetooth

external antenna but either way something will have to be done or the cellphone manufacturers are going to see a heck of alot of lawsuits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #24)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:20 PM

31. speaker phone mode

except everyone around you can hear both sides of the conversation, but at least the device is not next to your brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #24)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:58 PM

61. Bluetooth has a range of not much more than 30 ft or so.

Kind of hard to reach a cell tower several miles away with that power level.

When I was I the Air Farce, we used to sleep behind the 50-100KW power amplifiers in the same frequency range on our 16 hour overnight shifts because it would be the only warm place in the building in the winter on top of the mountain. None of us ever had any problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #61)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:29 PM

77. I was thinking more along the lines of a cheap little external antenna

that you connect to via Bluetooth which then connects you to the cell tower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #61)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:22 AM

102. 100KW -- did that have water-cooled tubes

There is one unit where when they say "no user serviceable parts inside"-
they aren't kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #79)

Fri May 27, 2016, 04:51 PM

81. I would have to see an independant study done on them to see if they actually

reduce it to a safe level before I would feel comfortable rendering an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #85)

Fri May 27, 2016, 06:18 PM

87. Interesting, still the cases arent designed for every phone so i suspect

cellphone manufacturers are going to probably have to look at improving their shielding at the very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #79)

Fri May 27, 2016, 10:42 PM

88. thinking it more for protecting like RFID Case

 

Got one for my cards - and many people carry them in their phone cases now. Not really for protecting human brains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #88)

Sat May 28, 2016, 12:20 AM

91. You didn't read the material carefully enough. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #79)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:29 AM

98. Why not just turn it off?

Easy enough to design a small Faraday cage for the phone or to wrap it in a Ferrite based RF absorber material. But that just prevents you call phone from being able to transmit out. The power button and/or airplane mode does the same thing.

I can design a sleeve (or antennae) to make the phone directional so it does not transmit directly into the head. But can the user keep it pointed toward the Cell Tower as when they turn the call will be lost. And from a liability standpoint what is my exposure as a manufacturer if one side of the phone is a risk if placed against the head, even if it is the back side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:46 AM

14. Very seldom do I put my cell phone up to my head

most times I leave it on the table and talk that way. the other times I use my earphone thingie. Not so much because I worry about the cancer part but because I only have one ear that works and its on the same side as I take notes with and many times I'm taking notes as I converse. Mostly I use Text to my friends, family and wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #14)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:30 PM

33. That's me too.

 

My remote speaker function works just fine, which I use 95% of the time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #14)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:53 PM

45. Me too. My left ear is toast and I'm right-handed. Mostly, I just text.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:48 PM

59. Rats are also terribly susceptible to leisure suits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elljay (Reply #59)

Fri May 27, 2016, 10:44 PM

89. See there is evidence that Rats are afterall quite wise

 

Perhaps I should listen to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #89)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:20 PM

90. Certainly about wearing leisure suits

I still have nightmares about powder blue polyester!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #1)

Sat May 28, 2016, 03:55 AM

92. Rats are insanely prone to cancer

Without any stimulus from anything that could cause it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:17 AM

2. I had a sister-in-law died from brain tumors.

Worked from home for WorldCom/MCI at turn of the century.

Always on a cell phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:18 AM

3. let me text my friend and tell her...oh wait. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #3)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:31 PM

34. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:27 AM

6. There's a massive ongoing human study

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Can't the patient data from neurologists/oncologists be used in an epidemiological study to prove or disprove a link? (similar to smoking proof, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MowCowWhoHow III (Reply #6)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:58 AM

19. no controls?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #19)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:04 PM

20. However the smoking study I linked to was carried out

I can't see how that wouldn't translate to mobiles.

Not everyone smoked then, not everyone uses a mobile (esp to talk) now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #19)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:15 PM

29. This would be a correlational study not an experiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:27 AM

7. Nobody uses cell phones for voice any more anyway. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:37 AM

9. My fellow passengers on Metrorail and Metrobus must not have heard about this development. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:49 AM

15. I'm a mostly text kind of guy myself

if I had to chose between the talk or text I'd pick text.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #15)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:27 PM

109. if I had to choose between talk or text

I'd choose neither. 'Cuz I don't want to talk/text to anybody.

I also lose these devices, so it's really not practical for me.

I think cell phones are a convenience for other people, so since that's the case, I think other people should pay for it if they want to talk to me.

Still waiting for someone to buy my cell service and phone.

People are horrified when they find I don't have a cell phone. They think it's dangerous!

Just out of curiosity, for a few years I kept track of how many times I'd have used a cell phone if I had one. It came out to about 2x a year. So if I paid $40 a month for cell phone service, that's $480, which means each phone call would cost me $240.

No thanks.


Cher





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NJCher (Reply #109)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:19 AM

110. At my wife and I's age

68 for me and 64 for her I'd totally feel wrong if we don't have our cell phone when either of us leave the house. Shit happens and a person needs to be on top of it as quickly as possible when or if it does. We've weighted the cost and feel it is a necessity in our lives at this point in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:08 PM

22. I certainly don't-- or I use headphones

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:10 PM

54. Especially most children and teens.

If they are required to actually converse, it's usually with their parents, and those are very short conversations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ex Lurker (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:25 PM

76. Wouldn't the radiation effect all cells in the body?

I expect the next we'll see is cancer in the fingers from people holding the phones in their hands all the time. My brother lives on the bloody thing (though primarily texting) and has had other forms of cancer in the past so I would suspect he would be susceptible to these cancers as well. When I say I don't have a cell/smartphone, people look at me like I have two heads. I had to get the nurse to show me how to turn on my Mom's phone in the hospital a few months back to call the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:35 AM

8. Thanks..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:39 AM

10. Gotta do the headphone thing

...on a wire...

I can feel it when I hold the cell next to my ear,
so I always use either headphones or speakerphones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scientific (Reply #10)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:22 PM

32. On a wire, Bluetooth no good. Speakerphone should be fine also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #32)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:58 PM

48. yes, I encourage all who read this to spend $5 to $15 to get a wired headset for your phone

you're worth it, your brain is worth it.

My mother died of a massive GBM tumor (softball sized). Her doctors, plus Ted Kennedy's doctor, refused to put cell phones near their heads. I asked her doctor why. He said simply "because they cause cancer." This was a brain surgeon who specializes in cancers, same for Kennedy's.

Israeli studies linked cell phones to salivary gland cancers also.

symptoms:
http://www.signsofbraintumor.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #48)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:37 AM

103. I wear hearing aids in both ears. How am I supposed to use a headset or ear buds?

There have been a massive increase of cell phone use, but no corresponding increase in tumors or cancers.
Wasn't there another cancer scare about cell phone a decade or so ago? If cell phones causes cancer, there should be a quite noticeable increase in tumors and cancers. There is not. This in just more recycled BS to scare the unwary. Part of the "All Fear, All the Time".
Blue tooth is also a digital radio device. Only this is plugged into your ear all day long, every day. Why is it not a problem, but is touted as a solution?
And as someone else noted, where is the increase of finger cancer? If people are worried about cancer, they should be more worried about their granite counter tops and the bricks in the nearby public grade school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #48)

Sun May 29, 2016, 11:13 AM

114. Please share your source of $5-$15 wired headset- preferably comfortable (not buds) and

with decent sound quality. And one that's assured to work on my particular phone - they seem to have all kinds of connections that aren't necessarily interchangeable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kashkakat v.2.0 (Reply #114)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:16 PM

119. For any cellphone batteries, chargers, headset, etc

I would shop ebay.

Put the acronym OEM in the search -- it means 'original equipment manufacturer' and has become shorthand for accessories made by the same company that made your phone.

So for a Samsung phone something like:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xsamsung+headset+oem.TRS0&_nkw=samsung+headset+oem&_sacat=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scientific (Reply #10)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:41 PM

41. Me too, I can't stand the vibe of the phone next to my head.

 

If I'm not wearing my ear bops, I won't bother to take the call. Mostly, I text. I wish I had time to sit around talking on the phone... Lol. What a luxury that is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scientific (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:41 PM

124. My wife insisted on a handset which plugs into an iPhone ...

... for our daughter, any time she is on one of our phones (which is rare). It is purple.

Been reading this in European press for at least a decade now. I still remember the title of the segment on "This American Life" about it five or six years ago, called "Sleeper Cell." A bit chilling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:41 AM

11. adding a link

Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

Multiyear, peer-reviewed study found ‘low incidences’ of two types of tumors in male rats exposed to type of radio frequencies commonly emitted by cellphones

By Ryan Knutson
ryan.knutson@wsj.com
@Ryan_Knutson

May 27, 2016 12:42 a.m. ET

A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects. ... The multiyear, peer-reviewed study, by the National Toxicology Program, found “low incidences” of two types of tumors in male rats that were exposed to the type of radio frequencies that are commonly emitted by cellphones. The tumors were gliomas, which are in the glial cells of the brain, and schwannomas of the heart.

“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to [radio-frequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health,” according to a report of partial findings from the study, which was released late Thursday.

A spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health, which helped oversee the study, wasn’t immediately available for comment. Earlier in the week, the NIH said, “It is important to note that previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cellphone use.”

While not all biological effects observed in animals necessarily apply to humans, the National Toxicology Program’s $25 million study is one of the biggest and most comprehensive experiment into health effects from cellphones.

The National Toxicology Program is holding a media briefing at noon today to discuss the results

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #11)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:52 AM

16. Ha!

And my spouse always claimed I was being weird when the kids and I prefer texting over phone calls. Lots of us parents taught our kids to text rather than talk on the phone precisely because of the radiation potential.

I also keep my laptop off my lap.

Didn't Edward Kennedy and Biden's son die of brain cancer

I still remember the Colbert skit on cell phones. It was funny but dismissed something a lot of us suspected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trudyco (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:13 PM

56. Johnny Cochran was highly suspected

Of this since he had multiple tumors, and was a 24/7 cell phone user.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:44 AM

12. The National Toxicology Program is holding a media briefing at noon today to discuss the results

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #12)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:54 AM

18. I'll be sure to listen in on my smart phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:46 AM

13. where did they get the teeny tiny little cell phones?! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #13)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:43 PM

42. .







.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #42)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:10 PM

52. Beat me to it, but I was going to make the 'how are they even supposed to fit in the building' joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #52)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:11 PM

55. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:52 AM

17. ---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:05 PM

21. And cell phone corporations come out with never-before-heard-of scientist and science

 

that claims their results show No Cancer. Just wait for it. The cell phone corporations are going to attack in herds or at least small groups. Then there will be a group called "cell phone deniers" who claim their brains will die if not exposed to cell phone radiation. They force their children to attach cell phones to seven parts of their body. They all soon die out.

Just wait for it. The deniers are coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #21)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:07 PM

116. Where is the cancer in humans?

Billions of people use cellphones all of the time. If they caused cancer you would be seeing massive increases in the rate of brain cancers (or heart tumors as this study suggested). This is not happening. Brain cancers have been around forever, long before cell phones were ever invented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #116)

Mon May 30, 2016, 06:57 AM

121. They're here. N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:09 PM

23. this has been suggested for quite a while now but many were in denial

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #23)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:34 PM

36. That's not quite it.

Rational people weren't in denial about it. Instead (and appropriately) they said "the data available at this time do not support that claim." That's how science works, and that's how science should work.


And now that this study has been completed, we can discuss the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #36)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:05 PM

65. I know what you are saying

 

but there was a guy I debated with on FB about this sometime back, and he was as "rational" as they come, good liberal, etc. He would not even consider the possibility, didn't believe cell phone radiation could possibly cause cancerous mutations. I call that denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #65)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:49 PM

70. I've likewise been skeptical, but...

there are skeptics and then there are contrarians, and the latter is decidedly anti-science.

Your pal on FB sounds like the latter, alas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #65)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:16 AM

95. Many thought that because

the mechanism is still unknown. The SAR measurement itself is based upon heat. We don't know if the affect is caused by the power or field strength or rate of change? How frequency dependent is it? We really need to figure out what it is we do not know that allows an electro-magentic wave to cause cells to become cancerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #23)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:21 PM

68. No convincing evidence AND no scientific reason

Call that "denial" of the "suggestion" if you will, but if this study holds up, then it indicates an entirely new category of cancer causes. Cancer is caused by DNA damage, and the only known causes are chemical carcinogens, certain viruses, and ionizing radiation -- i.e. electromagnetic photons that are energetic enough to knock electrons out of molecules, which are high-frequency ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays. But ultraviolet photons that have that much energy are almost a million times more energetic than the photons used by cellphone frequencies, and the effect is not cumulative: Either an individual photon has enough kinetic energy to knock an individual electron out of an atom, or it doesn't. If not, then whatever energy it has is simply absorbed as heat, and absorbing more of them just means more heat, not ionization.

If this study holds up, then current science has no explanation, but if it holds up, then I feel confident that the scientific method can handle it. Until then, I'll continue to "deny suggestions" that haven't been through that process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #68)

Fri May 27, 2016, 05:19 PM

83. fair enough... I know what you are saying

 

but just because we don't have a mechanism, or don't understand the mechanism, doesn't mean it's not a real effect. And yeah, it could be some novel pathway, maybe some low level inflammation is induced that causes DNA damage, rather than a direct effect of the radiowaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #68)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:53 AM

100. I don't think it will, read the study yourself, no biological significant effects for female rats...

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

Either radio waves only effect male rats in specific ways, which is highly unlikely. I mean, if we are talking about male specific problems, such as testicular cancer, sure, but heart and brain lesions/tumors? I don't think so.

They also don't name a possibly avenue for causation here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #68)

Sun May 29, 2016, 11:19 AM

115. Your last sentence is where we fundamentally disagree. I take whatever evidence there is

on any given suspected health hazard - run a cost (eg health cost)-benefit analysis and do what I can to lessen the risk until such time as its proven safe

Scientific method is only one way to prove/disprove - as we all know its not the be all and end-all - it is itself subject to cultural bias and bias of whoever is paying for the study and selecting the researchers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:09 PM

25. My hunch is that this is a cumulative problem, more likely to harm those who grew up with cellphones

My guess is that those of us who grew up pre-cell phone are much less likely to experience problems than our kids who have had cell phones from early on. I'd also guess that kids who started exposing themselves to cell phone radiation while they were still developing would likely have more issues.

I'll also make a prediction that the cell phone industry will fight any findings linking cell phone usage with cancer just as fiercely as big tobacco fought the smoking-lung cancer link and the petroleum industry is fighting their link to climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:10 PM

26. My husband gave me a hard time when I made the SAR rating the #1 criteria for selecting a phone

years ago.

I wish he had been right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:10 PM

27. Looks like I am safe

 

I don't like people enough to talk to them in person, let alone on the phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:12 PM

28. I think this will have some major consequences to the industry

At a very minimum a lot of potential lawsuits will result from this

Hopefully, this will result in the use of speaker or wired earphones to limit ones exposure.

Not sure what the industry can do to shield users, but this needs to be taken seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:16 PM

30. New brain cancer diagnoses linked to reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:35 PM

37. That chart does not exactly show a huge increase

 

in brain cancer that can be correlated with cell phone usage. If anything, it shows something of the opposite.

Or maybe that's exactly what you meant by your header, and I'm just obtuse.

I think that if cell phones REALLY were connected to brain cancer, it would be obvious to the most casual observer by now. And (although this anecdote isn't a valid statistic) the only two people I've ever known who died of brain cancer, both died well before cell phones even came about.

The bigger problem with cell phones is that people feel free to engage in loud personal conversations in public spaces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #37)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:50 AM

112. The uptick at the end is interesting

It seems to me, that's about when the iphone/smart phone really took off. But, other than that, there is no correlation in the rest of the time series. So, the bit at the end could be meaningful, or just some random noise in the data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #112)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:14 PM

117. Notice that rates of diagnosed brain cancer fell

 

from 1991 to 1995, when people were first getting cell phones. That's when I got one. Then there's some up and down, a few years where rates pretty much held steady, and then another decline.

In fact, brain cancer rates are still not back to where the were in 1991. Cell phones cause brain cancer? There's not even correlation here, let alone any evidence of causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #117)

Sun May 29, 2016, 03:03 PM

120. Of course there may be a lagged covariance, once we get more data

But we will need a much longer time series for that to show up, if it does. Even then, it would be correlation, as you say, not clear-cut evidence of causation.

Plus, the rat experiments only showed evidence of an effect on male rats. It is hard to see any biological basis for that, other than the general tendency of females to be less prone to many diseases, in most species (as far as I know).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:38 PM

38. Interesting correlation at end (where we would expect it). Need data newer than a decade old.

We would expect the correlation to be strongest in the time of highest use, as we see in the 2007 and 2008 points.

However, there is probably a cumulative effect so that new data may show diagnoses continuing to rise. It may also indicate a lag of some duration between usage and diagnoses.

2008 is 8 years ago. Thanks for posting, but it would be good to see more recent data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:41 PM

40. Delete this post - people might not panic!!! We want panic!!!111!!!1

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:50 PM

43. Way back in the 90's the cell phones transmitted with a lot more power than they do now.

Look at 1998. The newer cell phones are really low power and even less when close to a cell site. So if you are in the city with good cell coverage your cell phone will be transmitting with lower power than if you are in an area with weak coverage (lees bars). Back in the early cell phone days the frequencies used were in the 800 mHz range. The 800 mHz frequencies are now supplemented with 1900 mHz frequencies. Generally it has always been thought that the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is at a given power level and distance to the body. Around 2006 is when the move to the higher frequencies really took off with a vengeance. When the cell companies start using the 600 mHz and 700 mHz frequencies things might start getting better.

Now when you are thinking about a police car or most mobile radios in the 800-900 mHz range the power output is in the range of 10 -50 watts of power compared to the average cell phone of around .05 watt at maximum power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #43)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:08 PM

49. I think the 600mhz spectrum just went up for, or is about to go up for auction.

Sprint and T-Mobile are hoping to get in on it. They're mostly stuck in the 900mhz range, which is why their coverage sucks.

Honestly, AT&T and Verizon should be broken up. Together they're hurting people who go with other cell providers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #43)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:10 PM

53. I was going to say, it drops at 2006. That's around the time the iPhone came into being.

I think 2007?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:59 PM

62. As I recall gliomas need a few years to get from a few cells to something that will be disruptive to

function. As in the cancer being a small but real thing in your late forties will be diagnosed say 15 years later and perhaps kill you in 20 years later.

The best quote i could find in less than five minutes is this:

The latency period refers to the time between initial asbestos exposure and when a doctor definitively diagnoses the cancer. The long period of time between exposure and illness is one of the hallmarks of mesothelioma.

The typical mesothelioma latency period is 20 to 50 years, with recent studies finding a median of 30 to 45 years. Under normal circumstances, the shortest possible latency period is 10 to 15 years, while the longest is more than 50 years.



If the time frame for gliomas caused by mobile phone radiation is comparable and if mobile use is starting to be a strong factor around 2000, it would mean that 2020 is a good guess for when you would see something that would correlate to that. And hence outside your otherwise very suggestive chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jemmons (Reply #62)

Fri May 27, 2016, 04:44 PM

80. glioma isn't mesothelioma

But even if one were to assume the latency of those two completely different cancers were the same, you're still talking about new cases starting to show up in 10 years by the quote you just found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #80)

Fri May 27, 2016, 05:49 PM

84. You have the requirements for relevance lined up the wrong way round. If and only if you can be sure

that damage from radiation would only lead to pathology that can be diagnosed within a ten year time frame should you expect any correlation in your snapshot. That is a very hard assumption to make, let alone prove. Hence your nice chart is of very limited relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jemmons (Reply #84)

Fri May 27, 2016, 06:01 PM

86. Nobody is saying they are sure of anything

If you are looking for absolutes, good luck with that. What plenty of people are saying is there's no apparent causal or even correlative link between cell phone use and cancer based on a pretty well defined usage history for the past 20 years or so.

Citing the latency period of a completely different form of cancer has very little relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #30)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:59 AM

93. Interesting.

That precipitous drop in cases from 04 to 06 seems to coincide with the arrival of cheap LCD screens, which replaced cathode ray tube monitors....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:32 PM

35. Now can we study wireless access points?

 

Especially since our kids' schools are so full of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ned Flanders (Reply #35)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:09 PM

51. Very different frequencies/power levels.

The mortality rate difference between the control and male rat groups suggests this might not be problem at all. And wifi is even less power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:39 PM

39. I wonder how much RF is being broadcast along all those big power lines bringing us the

 

juice for our phones.

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are demonstrable health hazards." [5]

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html



...
In 1995, the American Physical Society (APS) spoke out on the question of power-line EMFs and health effects. The APS policy statement reads, in part: "The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields. While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated." (See APS Policy Statement 95.2 reaffirmed in 2005.)
...
In conclusion, there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines. But science is unable to prove a negative, including whether low-level EMFs are completely risk free. Most scientists believe that exposure to the low-level EMFs near power lines is safe, but some scientists continue research to look for possible health risks associated with these fields. If there are any risks such as cancer associated with living near power lines, then it is clear that those risks are small.
...


https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.html

At least that's what they say...

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/EHS/radiation/rf.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #39)


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #39)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:03 PM

64. Anecdotally, shortwave reception has been wiped out.

I suspect it's the noise generated by the switching power supplies found in every desktop, every laptop, and every flat screen TV. In the late 70s or mid-80s, Texas Instruments said that the breakeven point for deciding whether a design should have a linear power supply (the kind equipped with fairly hefty transformers) or a switching power supply was 75 watts. Well, costs for switching power supplies have plummeted. I bought a Kindle Fire tablet in February. It has a switching power supply.

I guess microwave ovens are the last thing you see still equipped with transformers, or have they changed too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #64)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:11 PM

66. Such as that on my sw radio or...? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #66)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:20 PM

67. Right. 1.711 MHz to 29.999 MHz

The international broadcasting. Or domestic, if you're listening to Alex Jones.

The spectrum is covered with electronic trash. Even when you power a receiver with cells (aka flashlight batteries, or AAs, or AAAs), the noise is coming in over the antenna.

The country- or organization-sponsored SW is mostly a form of AM broadcasting. SSB is there too, and there's code being sent, mostly too fast for me to have any idea what they're saying.

Too bad. I used to enjoy listening to it. First the Internet knocked off the European broadcasters, and now EMF noise is taking its toll.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #67)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:23 PM

69. I used to do that as well, and had noticed the reception wasn't near what it used to be.

 

Like many other things.

Anyway, that explains part of it. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #67)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:52 PM

71. That's a content problem. Not EMF.

Shortwave is dying because radio in general is dying. People are seeking their information and entertainment online in the space of the Internet. Shortwave used to be the go-to source for the kind of information that you couldn't just get in the "usual" places, like radio and TV.

I am a longtime DXer, and it's sad to see what has happened. Shortwave is a wasteland, but Alex Jones and any number of religious crazies still tune in just fine. I hear them clearly. The extra "noise" on the shortwave bands you're hearing is from the lack of carrier signals from anyone else who gives a shit about shortwave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #64)

Sat May 28, 2016, 01:06 PM

106. FCC Stopped accepting China Lab data

FCC ET Docket No. 13-44; FCC 14-208 has been published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2015. The rules will become effective 30 days after publication

http://www.nwemc.com/news/2015/04/23/fcc-will-no-longer-recognize-emc-testing-performed-by-chinese-labs

Not every product is bad. But it appears the problem is big enough that the FCC took action. Non compliant devices are going to be a bigger part of the problem than just the topology of the power converter. They can be designed quiet or not. Depends upon what one is willing to spend on R&D and the Skill/Experience of the Engineer or lack of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:53 PM

44. The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to ...

 

... when they use cell phones,


And of course the rats were "not very different" from the size of the average human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #44)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:08 PM

50. Except they are much higher, distributed across the entire body, and were for 9 hours per day

They were given this level of exposure even while still in their mother's womb and throughout their entire life.

So yeah, not much different than sticking your head in a microwave after disabling the interlock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #44)

Sat May 28, 2016, 12:01 PM

104. Also the cell size in humans and rats are different.

Humans have larger body cells than the smaller rats. Just as elephants have larger cells than we do. How can that not affect how the body handles radio frequency radiation?

Radiation, now that word itself is the real problem. People conflict non-ionizing radio radiation with ionizing radio active decay. They think if one is dangerous, the other must be also, because the same word covers both.

Where is the critical thinking people don't use that they should be using here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:56 PM

46. About overhead power lines

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 01:57 PM - Edit history (6)

Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides. I am not expressing support for Paul Brodeur's position by linking to his book. I do so in the interest of getting the information out to you.

I read the first book about this, "Currents of Death," by [strike]Martin[/strike] Paul Brodeur, when it came out.

Currents of Death: The Great Power Line Cover-Up

Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon, did some work on this that did not support the book's conclusions, IIRC.

Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception

M. Granter Morgan, Paul Slovic, Indira Nair, Dan Geisler, Donald MacGregor, Baruch Fischhoff, David Lincoln, and Keith Florig

Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer

What have studies shown about possible associations between non-ionizing EMFs and cancer in children?

Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children. (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.

Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia, more recent studies have had mixed findings. Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences.

ETA: Amazingly, I have a copy of Paul Brodeur's book on my desk right now. I had it in my file cabinet. Why, I do not know. It was published in 1989. I thought it was several years older than that. Part of the material originally appeared in The New Yorker, so that must be where I first read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:58 PM

47. Hand women the Cell Phones guys

Page 15 (conclusion)
No biologically
significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.


Looks like the full details of the study (affects on other organs etc) will not be available till late 2017. On the bright side for us "Life of Brian" fans. The survival rate was slightly lower in the control group than for the exposed groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:24 PM

57. they knew this already without killing the rats

poor rats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:45 PM

58. Fire hot..burns.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:51 PM

60. My Schwannoma

Ahhh little malignant one, cancer one.



Sorry, I saw the name for the heart tumor and that song popped into my head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:55 PM

72. I read a study years ago

That said earbuds could concentrate radiation inside your head rather than make phones safer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

73. It's time to develop phone cases that shield the radiation from users. The phone industry should

have done this a long time ago, they knew!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #73)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:15 PM

74. Unfortunately, if you shield the user you'll also shield the cell tower (i.e. won't work)


Anything to reduce RF energy to the user will also reduce RF energy to the cell tower antenna. There would need to be work along the lines of moving the RF transmission further from the user's body and/or further reducing the amount of transmitter power needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #74)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:19 PM

75. Where there is a will there is a way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #75)

Sat May 28, 2016, 01:22 PM

107. Offhand three solutions

Not that users/public will like them but three ways to cut the SAR.

1) Bulk up the phone such that the antennae cannot be placed so close to the flesh. That is make it much thicker to force the antennae away from the body.

2) Make the antennae directional so when the phone is used the RF Pattern is away from the body. People will need to always hold the phone so the antennae is pointed toward a tower. Turning will result in disconnections.

3) Increase cell tower density so that the transmit power of the Cell Phone can be reduced while maintaining coverage area's.


Given a little time there will be many mire. Most will either inconvenience or cost more money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #107)

Sat May 28, 2016, 01:41 PM

108. The rich will have the problem solved for themselves at our expense. :-/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:45 PM

78. I wonder if this is the same with DECT cordless phones. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:59 AM

94. woah causes Schwannomas'? They're usually benign but cause a lot of problems to nerves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:23 AM

96. This also is linked to cancer and it must be corrected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #96)

Sat May 28, 2016, 12:03 PM

105. Good luck taking on Big Water. Their contributions to Congress fall like rain.

Last edited Sat May 28, 2016, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

While we're at it, will we ever get the full story about their involvement in the "Titanic" affair?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:28 AM

97. Hopefully they used

a proportional amount of radiation exposure and not the exact number that humans are exposed to. Since rats, unless they where genetically engineered, are slightly smaller than the average human being and rats have proportionally smaller brains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:44 AM

99. Interesting, apparently it only effects male rats, as the study itself concludes....

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

Its interesting that non-ionizing radiation can be so selective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:07 AM

101. Cell Phone Free ForEver

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 11:10 AM

113. MEANWHILE... just try to find a functioning, well made & comfortable wired headset preferably

having some sort of universal connection that plugs in to all types of cell phones.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT...

And as an aside to yall who think capitalism is some sort of creative engine that sees a need and always fills it - yer just plain WRONG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 12:26 PM

118. Bad reporting of statistically insignificant results.

We're talking here about two or three rats out of ninety, compared to zero rats with cancer in the control group. If the expected number of rats that get cancer, with no cellphone radiation, is 2 or 3, then there is a 14% or 5% probability, respectively, that no rats would get cancer in the control group. In other words, you could easily get this study's results through pure chance.

Given that there is no known physical process through which non-ionizing electromagnetic waves can cause cancer, there is good reason to doubt the results of this statistically weak study. I expect that these results will not be upheld by subsequent studies.

For additional reasons to doubt the study's results, see:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 02:56 PM

122. No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer,

... no matter what Mother Jones and Consumer Reports say"

I'll take Gorski any day and I'm not putting my phone down.
And here's another link from Steven Novella - http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/underwhelming-cell-phone-rat-study/

There are certain myths that are frustratingly resistant to evidence, science, and reason. Some of these are basically medical conspiracy theories, where someone (industry and/or big pharma and/or physicians and/or the government) has slam-dunk evidence for harm but conspires to keep it from you, the people. For example, despite decades worth of negative studies, the belief that vaccines are harmful, causing conditions ranging from autism to sudden infant death syndrome, to all varieties of allergies and autoimmune diseases, refuses to die. Fortunately, this myth is one that, after more than a decade of hammering by scientists, skeptics, and public health advocates, has finally taken on enough of the patina of a fringe belief that most mainstream news sources no longer feel obligated to include the antivaccine side in stories about vaccines for “balance.” It is a zombie myth, one that, no matter how often it is “killed,” always seems to rise again. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the myth that cell phones cause cancer, as some very credulous reporting late last week demonstrated in the form of headlines like this:

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer (Mother Jones)
Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study (WSJ)
Questions abound after study links tumors to cellphone radiation (Science)
Major US study links cellphone exposure to cancer — at least in rats (STAT)
“It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert”: Major cell phone radiation study reignites cancer debate (Salon.com and Scientific American, the latter under a less inflammatory, but still overblown headline.)
Government study finds link between cell phones and cancer in rats (Yahoo! Finance and Consumer Reports
Massive government study concludes cell phone radiation causes brain cancer (NaturalNews)

Yes, I know that NaturalNews.com is not a mainstream news site. Rather it’s a quack site run by Mike Adams. Just search this blog or my not-so-super-secret other blog for numerous posts about the contortions and abuse of science and medicine by Mr. Adams. I included his article, quite simply, to illustrate that some headlines from mainstream news articles on the study don’t sound all that different from Mike Adams.

Also notice how many of these headlines leave out an important fact, namely that this study was not done with humans, but with rats.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:31 AM

123. So, if you have to use a smart phone, what would you consider a "best practices" to safeguard

yourself as best you can?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread