Kennedy cell phone use may be the cause of his tumor

[mac2]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Kennedy_cancer_cell_phone/2008/06/04/101466.html?s=sp&promo_code=63DF-1

Use the speaker option or Blue Tooth device. If you hold a cell phone up to your computer screen you will see interference. It is doing that to your brain. Better safe than sorry.

[MnFats]

1. newsmax carries anti-credibility.

not dismissing it but a reliable source is needed.

[pnwmom]

6. This was covered all over the media during the last several months.

The first long term research (10 years) HAS shown increases in brain cancer that weren't shown in the short term studies.

[ashling]

21. so why use newsmax?

I realize that it is an issue, but newsmax?

[pnwmom]

22. I don't. I prefer sources like the National Cancer Institute.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

[ashling]

23. I realize that you don't

When there are so many good sources for things, why use a crappy one? It makes the original posters message suspect.

I guess I should have made it clear that I was questioning the use of the original post .

Sorry

[cosmik debris]

28. A good quote from the site you linked to.

"Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect."

[pnwmom]

35. In other words, the results of research have been INCONSISTENT.

That is, mixed. And there has been very little long term research (over ten years).

Which is why more long term research is needed.

[cosmik debris]

38. The reports FAIL

to support the position that cell phones cause cancer.

If you wish to read more into it, that's up to you. But it says what it says, not what you want it to say.

[pnwmom]

44. The bottom line is that the NCI says more long term safety research is needed,

because very little has been conducted so far.

And in the meantime, I'm with the neurosurgeons who've decided to use simple precautions. But maybe that's because I've known five people who've died from brain cancer, and I know that the number of cases have been inexplicably rising over the last decade.

[cosmik debris]

47. If you wish to read more into it, that's up to you.

But it says what it says, not what you want it to say.

[madeline_con]

2. Newsmax?

[pnwmom]

3. There will be many people who will dispute this, but

I'm with you. When the risk is undefined -- but the consequences possibly catastrophic -- AND the solution is simple -- then "better safe than sorry."

[Skittles]

5. I know cell phone use makes people stupid, that's for sure n/t

[keep_it_real]

14. That's a nice logical way to put it

[seemslikeadream]

4. Have you seen the vids of popping corn with three cell phones?

I'll go find them



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAd0aWxs7kQ

The American Test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI

The Japanese Test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8

If it does this to pop corn, just think what it does to our bodies and brains


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLS2WJERQ0

[seemslikeadream]

11. OOOOOps it's a fake

sorry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3399354

[CoffeeCat]

7. Have you seen this???

This freaked me out today. I don't know if it's legitimate, but it appears so.

Apparently, you can pop popcorn with cell phones.

You gotta see this.

http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4969270/

[keep_it_real]

12. Let's all get 4 cell phones and try it

[varkam]

24. It's fakery. eom

[LeftyMom]

8. You know what else causes radiation and interferes with electronics?

The sun.

I'm moving to the Oort cloud, just to be safe.

[lapfog_1]

9. some studies have shown that blue tooth earpiece is

possibly just as bad as a "flip phone". Richard Branson has gone to a wired headset and a shielded hip carrier for his phone... plus, in his car, he places the phone in a holder away from his body.

Not conclusive that cell phones can cause brain tumors, but... I know mine can get very warm on long calls (or even if I'm a long ways from the nearest tower). I have started using wired headsets. And I don't use it very much at all.

[BearSquirrel2]

17. Current and resistance

Your phone gets warm because current is passing through the resistance of the battery. You want to study the affect of strong EM, study people who work under AM transmitting towers. That EM is so strong that incandescent lightbulbs will glow without be connected to a power.

[enki23]

10. oh lord not this horseshit again...

.

[RC]

13. I'm with you here, Only I call it Bull Shit.

The only thing greater than infinity is human stupidity and there are examples on this thread.

[pnwmom]

20. The National Cancer Institute disagrees with you.

They say that the results of the studies are mixed and that long term research needs to be carried out to prove the safety of long term use.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

[RC]

27. I have worked at radio and tv transmitter sites and have helped at microwave relay

sites. The audio monitor in the tuning shack at the radio transmitter was a RF diode, a audio output transformer and a speaker. No other parts. I spent years working around broadcast and microwave equipment. Why am I not riddled with cancer?

Also my cell phone does NOT affect either my CRT or my LCD computer monitors that I can see.

The low power that cell phones use can not pop pop corn, even if several phones are arranged in close proximity. Besides cell phones are designed to be non-directional, which spreads the raditated power. If cell phones could pop corn, then don't you think your hand and your head would get uncomfortably warm when using your cell phone? I stand by my statement about human stupidity exceeding infinity.

BTY, are you one of these people that lets their food set in the microwave for a minute or so after it stops so the radiation can die down to a safe level before you remove the food? Just asking.

[Orrex]

31. You don't understand anytyhing

Your evil cell phone and your evil CRT and LCD monitors operate on sympathetic frequencies, so obviously there'd be no visible effect when you use one in the presence of the others. Duh!

I don't know why you scientistic types can't accept the reality that's so obvious to others.

:crazy::evilgrin::crazy::evilgrin::crazy:

[pnwmom]

33. You have the exact same logic as the people who say

"I've smoked two packs a day for twenty years. Why am I not riddled with cancer?"

Your individual case proves nothing.

[Orrex]

40. His individual case mirrors countless other individual cases

Along with numerous studies specifically designed to test the dubious cellphone/cancer link. In the agregate, these demonstrate that no causative link has been shown.

[cosmik debris]

29. They also say:

"Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect."

[pnwmom]

34. Which is NOT the same as to say:

research has shown that there is no link between cellular telephone use and cancer . . . "

The overall point, if you read the whole article, is that the research is inconsistent -- that is, the results are mixed. And that more long term research is needed.

[pnwmom]

18. You must not keeping up with the research -- or the lack thereof.

Fortunately, there are scientists who are. The problem is that so far, results are mixed, and very little research has been done on long term effects. Scientists are particularly concerned about possible risks to children.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

SNIP

Why aren’t the results of the studies consistent?
Scientists have had to assess how much RF energy people have been exposed to by interviewing individuals involved in a particular study about their cellular telephone habits (including frequency of use and duration of calls). Because of this, the accuracy of the data collected is subject to the memory of the people interviewed. Recently, however, RF-energy-measurement meters have been developed that will accurately measure RF energy exposure (1).

Additionally, cellular telephones have only been widely available for a relatively short period of time (since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). For example, older studies evaluated RF exposure from analog telephones; today, most cellular telephones use digital technology. (Analog and digital telephones operate at different frequencies and power levels.) Another new technology is Bluetooth, a wireless technology that allows devices, such as cellular telephones and headsets, to communicate with each other using short-range radio frequency.

Furthermore, brain tumors develop over many years. Scientists have been unable to follow cellular telephone users consistently for the amount of time it might take for a brain tumor to develop (1).

Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).

Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?
There is no evidence that cellular telephone use poses more of a threat to children than to adults (2). However, no study populations to date have included children, who are increasingly heavy users of cellular telephones and are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1).

In addition, children are at greatest risk from agents known to cause brain and nervous system cancers because their nervous systems are still developing. If RF energy from cellular telephones is proven to cause cancer, researchers would expect children to be more susceptible than adults. Again, however, there is no evidence of this to date (1).

SNIP

[Lint Head]

15. Interesting.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0d_1186872224 :dem:

[BearSquirrel2]

16. You cannot apply statistics to individuals ...

You cannot apply statistics to individuals only populations. And of course, you can't apply faulty discredited statistics to anyone.

There is no correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer.

[pnwmom]

19. You're half right.

You're right that we'll never know what caused Kennedy's cancer.

You're wrong that there is no correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. The fact is, the results of studies have been mixed, and there is not enough long term research to be able to prove either the safety or the degree of risk.

From the National Cancer Institute:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

SNIP


Why aren’t the results of the studies consistent?
Scientists have had to assess how much RF energy people have been exposed to by interviewing individuals involved in a particular study about their cellular telephone habits (including frequency of use and duration of calls). Because of this, the accuracy of the data collected is subject to the memory of the people interviewed. Recently, however, RF-energy-measurement meters have been developed that will accurately measure RF energy exposure (1).

Additionally, cellular telephones have only been widely available for a relatively short period of time (since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). For example, older studies evaluated RF exposure from analog telephones; today, most cellular telephones use digital technology. (Analog and digital telephones operate at different frequencies and power levels.) Another new technology is Bluetooth, a wireless technology that allows devices, such as cellular telephones and headsets, to communicate with each other using short-range radio frequency.

Furthermore, brain tumors develop over many years. Scientists have been unable to follow cellular telephone users consistently for the amount of time it might take for a brain tumor to develop (1).

Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).

Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?
There is no evidence that cellular telephone use poses more of a threat to children than to adults (2). However, no study populations to date have included children, who are increasingly heavy users of cellular telephones and are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1).

In addition, children are at greatest risk from agents known to cause brain and nervous system cancers because their nervous systems are still developing. If RF energy from cellular telephones is proven to cause cancer, researchers would expect children to be more susceptible than adults. Again, however, there is no evidence of this to date (1).

SNIP

[varkam]

25. Results being "mixed" is a nice way of putting it.

Generally negative is a more accurate way of putting it, as mixed sounds more 50/50. From your link:

Many studies have already been done, and research is ongoing. A study funded by Wireless Technology Research LLC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was conducted in five academic medical centers in the United States. The study analyzed the possible link between brain cancer and cellular telephone use between 1994 and 1998. The study compared a group of 469 men and women with brain cancer to a group of 422 men and women who did not have brain cancer. Results of the study, published in 2000, found that the use of hand-held cellular telephones was unrelated to the risk of brain cancer, but additional studies covering longer periods of cellular telephone use were recommended (3).

The results of another large NCI-funded study of cellular telephones and brain tumors were published in 2001. It focused on 782 patients with one of three types of brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma) at three medical centers between 1994 and 1998. The control group consisted of 799 patients at the same hospitals who did not have brain tumors. The researchers did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among cellular telephone users. The results showed no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use, or average minutes of use per day. The study also found that brain tumors did not occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which participants reported using their phone (4).

More recently, a series of multinational case-control studies (studies that compare two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases), and a very similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition (controls)), collectively called INTERPHONE, have been developed and are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The participating scientists are also exploring other possible causes of brain tumors besides RF energy, including external (environmental) and internal (endogenous) risk factors. Genetic (inherited) factors will be studied in collaboration with the NCI consortium of brain cancer studies. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (5).

The results of the INTERPHONE study are now being published. The first two articles, both published in November 2004, examine the use of cellular telephones and the risk of the benign tumor acoustic neuroma. A Danish study compared 106 individuals having acoustic neuroma with a control group of 212 people without this condition. The study showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users when compared to short-term users. Additionally, there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (6). A Swedish study, however, compared 148 individuals with acoustic neuroma to 604 healthy individuals. This study suggests there is an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users, but not in short-term users (7).

Other studies from INTERPHONE investigated whether there is a relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of the brain tumors meningioma and glioma. A Danish study, published in 2005, compared 175 people with meningioma and 252 people with glioma to a control group of 822 disease-free individuals. This study demonstrated no link between meningioma or glioma and cellular telephone use (8). A Swedish study, published in 2005, compared 273 individuals with meningioma and 371 people with gliomas to 674 people who did not have these conditions. This study also showed that people who use cellular telephones are not at an increased risk of meningioma or glioma (9).

Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect.

I bolded the results that were negative, and underlined the positive results. If my math is correct, that's one study that found an association.

[pnwmom]

36. The major point, however, is that very little long term research has been

carried out -- over ten years -- and most cancers develop over the long term.

[varkam]

39. Most research has been retrospective in nature...

and has covered fairly lengthy time periods as such. I agree that long-term research is needed, but again to call the current state of research "mixed" is a bit much, don't you think?

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Forget the source is Newsmax. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. did a piece about cancer and cell phones

a few weeks back on his show, Ring of Fire. You can go to his website http://goleft.tv and do serch for Cell phones + danger and hear his interview.

[Orrex]

30. Yeah, well. RFK Jr also jumped on the Thimersoal-causes-autism bandwagon

He doesn't have particular credibility in matters of epidemiology, so adding his name to a list of believers does little except to make the other believers feel better about their belief.

[no_hypocrisy]

32. Again with due respect, less attention on the speakers, more attention on the premises.

Kennedy provided scientific and medical authorities both both the mercury-autism premise and the cell phone-cancer premise. All you need to do is find reliable contrary authority to rebut it, not attack Kennedy for reporting it.

[Orrex]

41. That's an entirely reasonable objection; allow me to clarify

Too often I've seen RFK's put forth put forth as an objective authority unto himself, as though his statement on an issue is sufficient to call the matter settled. I attack Kennedy for reporting in an irresponsible manner, and I attack those who cite him because they're trying to pass off a dubious authority as legitimate.

All you need to do is find reliable contrary authority to rebut it, not attack Kennedy for reporting it.

But he's not an authority at all, and that's part of the problem. He's a celebrity figurehead and a propagandist, and he's put forth as though he has some special expertise. Jenny McCarthy is likewise given a lot of airtime to talk about autism, and she is likewise no expert.

Many in this Health Forum have repeatedly cited real "contrary authorities" only to have them dismissed outright as being in on the coverup. Hell, even DU'ers here have been condemned as shills for big pharma.

Kennedy's position on the Thimerosal/autism link (along with his selective summary of relevant data) has been debunked by numerous sources and has in fact been criticized for its methodology, its conclusions, and even its inaccuracy. Yet still his work is cited as significant and/or definitive by those who wish to believe that vaccines are responsible for autism.

Additionally, Kennedy's position on the cellphone/cancer link nearly duplicates the assertions of those who believe in such a link, despite the absence of objective supporting data and, in fact, despite the presence of numerous contrary findings.

[pnwmom]

37. Epidemiologists research has been hampered by the CDC, which won't

give them access to all the data they've collected.

But none of the chemists I know thought it was a good idea to give infants a series of injections containing thimerosal, especially since single use vials never required a preservative.

[Orrex]

42. Of course, those chemists' views are now moot

Since Thimerosal is no longer found in infant-specific vaccines.


Do you have a link for the complaint by epidemiologists re: the CDC's refusal to disclose? If true, then that's definitely an issue worth further discussion and investigation.

[pnwmom]

43. Yes, I do. But you have already dismissed it as meaningless.

Did you actually read Kennedy's article?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line. "We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

SNIP

____________________________________

So, the answer to your question is in the last paragraph: "to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers."


Kennedy didn't need any particular epidemiological expertise to write this article. It's about politics and a cover-up more than about science.

[mac2]

46. So did Thom Hartmann

Meria Heller,etc. More than one source had concerns over cell phone use. Like cigarettes...better safe than sorry.

[Tumbulu]

45. I started using a cell phone 20 years ago

and started to get huge headaches lasting 1-2 days after talking on the cell phone about a year ago. Now I just use the speaker phone option or the ear piece as I do not suffer the headaches from using those.

So, who knows about cancer, but mine sure gives me a headache if I put it up to my ear anymore.