Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic?

[norml]

Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? (Part Two)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Egwele
The Epoch Times
Jul 11, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Several studies indicate that there may be physiological effects from exposure to the type pf radiation emitted by cell phones. (Photos.com)(Photos.com)



In 1995, Henry Lai and N.P. Singh published a study demonstrating how cell phones damaged DNA in the brain cells of lab rats. While Lai stated that the study provided no solid answers, he did state that more studies needed to be done. Immediately after the study was published, the cell phone industry criticized Lai’s research techniques and stated that the results were never duplicated.
About a year later in Australia, Dr. Michael Repacholi turned up similar results. His study looked at 200 mice, half of them exposed to digital phone radiation and half of them not. Dr. Repacholi found that cancer rates doubled in those mice that had been irradiated. The exposed mice were subjected to pulsed microwaves at a power density similar to a digital cell phone transmitting for two 30-minute periods each day.

Significantly, a study done by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland found that exposing human cells to an hour of cell phone radiation triggers a response, that normally occurs when cells are being damaged.

The report’s conclusion warns: “The possible RF radiation-induced breakage of the blood-brain barrier, if occurring repeatedly over a long period of time, might become a health hazard because of the possible extra-capillary accumulation of molecules that might cause tissue damage.” Many considered this study in itself a landmark in cell phone research, because it proved that biochemical changes, which were only observed in lab animals previously, can occur in the cells of cell phone users.


snip


http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-11/30200.html

[the_spectator]

1. I certainly hope so!

And viagra makes you go blind.
Both so karmically satisfying.

[Melodybe]

2. Great, I use my cell all the time.

At this point I'm just wondering what kind of cancer I'm going to get, will it be the smokes, the food I eat, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and now my cell!?!

Anyone want to take bets?

[evlbstrd]

3. Exactly.

I have enough risk factors going for me to add another.
And they're damned expensive.

[norml]

5. Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? Part One

Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? Part One

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Egwele
The Epoch Times
Jul 04, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




UNSEEN DANGER: Studies demonstrate potential risk of cell phones.
Photos.com
High-resolution image (1596 x 2400 pixels, 300 dpi)



Cellular phones have become an essential part of our lives today. Most people can’t live without these devices and really can’t remember what life was like before their creation. Everyone is encouraged to have one of these devices, even our children. Cell phone towers are being erected right and left with little or no objection from the public.
Most people assume that because cell phones are in general use, they must be safe. Any independent research showing the potential dangers is quickly discredited. Are there reasons to be concerned?

In August 2000, Dr. Christopher Neuman, a neurologist, filed a suit alleging that his prolonged cell phone use was responsible for the brain tumor that was slowly killing him. He accused the cell phone industry of knowing that these gadgets were unsafe and deliberately misleading the public into thinking that cell phones are harmless. Neuman demanded $800 million from seven cell phone manufacturers and cellular service providers. The malignant tumor in question was discovered in March 1998 behind Neuman’s right ear, the same ear that he used when on his cell phone. He claimed that he used a wireless phone several times daily between ’92 and ’98.

This case became a catalyst responsible for general mistrust of cellular technology. Several similar cases have been brought to the courts, but like Neuman’s, were defeated. Of course, many studies were done to show the public that what happened to Neuman and others were anomalies, and that there was no correlation between cell phone use and cancer of any kind. In an effort to combat the cellular backlash, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that there was no evidence that radiation from cell phones posed a health risk. However, the FDA also concluded that there was no proof that cell phones are risk free, either. The above position and a few studies portraying cell phones in a positive light were all that was needed to quickly diffuse public tension, and the Neuman case was ultimately forgotten.

Some studies have been done before and after the Neuman case showing that cell phones emit a radio frequency (RF) that may be harmful to frequent users. The RF that cell phones emit is very similar to those in microwave ovens. Microwave (MW) energy oscillates at millions of cycles per second. The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry states that these frequencies cause cancer and other ailments by interfering with cellular DNA. Between 20 and 80 percent of the RF given off by cell phones is absorbed into the user’s head. The amount of RF absorbed depends on how close the antenna is to the user, the duration of time the user is exposed to the RF and the power level of the cell phone. The longer one is exposed to RF, the better chance one has of becoming ill. How many people are aware of this information? Not many, because findings of this nature are all but ignored by the mainstream media.


snip


http://theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-4/30022.html

[rooboy]

4. Yes!!! I stopped eating them 2 years ago... n/t

[kick-ass-bob]

6. This has been around for going on 10 years.

Why is this new? (July 11, 2005)?

[WeRQ4U]

7. No. WHo's sponsoring the study?

I sold cell phones during my college years. Every now and again a "hardcopy" or "dateline" or something like that would do a story about this exact thing. People would come into my store so up in arms about their cell phones giving them brain tumors and the like. Well, what's funny is that it didn't desuade them from cell phone use, it simply made them want to buy "hands free" shit. So I would sell them a 50 dollar set of earphone for their phone. It was so strange.

Perhpas the companies who produce those little 50 dollar earphone jacks, are the ones promoting the brain tumor stories.

<This tin foil hat is itchy>

[norml]

11. Effect of microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat.

1: Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 1997 Nov;94(5):465-70. Related Articles, Links


Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat.

Fritze K, Sommer C, Schmitz B, Mies G, Hossmann KA, Kiessling M, Wiessner C.

Department of Experimental Neurology, Max-Planck-Institute for Neurological Research, Cologne, Germany.

We investigated the effects of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on the permeability of the blood-brain barrier using a calibrated microwave exposure system in the 900 MHz band. Rats were restrained in a carousel of circularly arranged plastic tubes and sham-exposed or microwave irradiated for a duration of 4 h at specific brain absorption rates (SAR) ranging from 0.3 to 7.5 W/kg. The extravasation of proteins was assessed either at the end of exposure or 7 days later in three to five coronal brain slices by immunohistochemical staining of serum albumin. As a positive control two rats were subjected to cold injury. In the brains of freely moving control rats (n = 20) only one spot of extravasated serum albumin could be detected in one animal. In the sham-exposed control group (n = 20) three animals exhibited a total of 4 extravasations. In animals irradiated for 4 h at SAR of 0.3, 1.5 and 7.5 W/kg (n = 20 in each group) five out of the ten animals of each group killed at the end of the exposure showed 7, 6 and 14 extravasations, respectively. In the ten animals of each group killed 7 days after exposure, the total number of extravasations was 2, 0 and 1, respectively. The increase in serum albumin extravasations after microwave exposure reached significance only in the group exposed to the highest SAR of 7.5 W/kg but not at the lower intensities. Histological injury was not observed in any of the examined brains. Compared to other pathological conditions with increased blood-brain barrier permeability such as cold injury, the here observed serum albumin extravasations are very modest and, moreover, reversible. Microwave exposure in the frequency and intensity range of mobile telephony is unlikely to produce pathologically significant changes of the blood-brain barrier permeability.

PMID: 9386779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9386779&query_hl=2


snip

[WeRQ4U]

12. I haven't the foggiest clue what the fuck that says.

Does that study show no findings of bad stuff?

[ComerPerro]

8. Mine is, but that's because I had it custom made that way

Would you like to use my cell phone?

LOL

:evilgrin:

[madinmaryland]

9. Absolutely YES.

If you are eating the components and the LCD display. Lots of lead and other highly toxic components inside a cell phone.

:puke:

[MissMillie]

10. Important to understand

that if a person's risk of cancer is already very low, if it doubles, that doesn't mean that the chance becomes significant.

For example: if you buy a lottery ticket where the odds are 1 in 14 million that you will win, you can double your chances by buying a second ticket. But this still only means you have a 2 in 14 million chance of winning.