Cell, Cordless Phone Disaster: 2 times Malignant Gliomas, 2 1/2 times Acoustic Neuromas!

[Dems Will Win]

Don't Phone Home! Cell Phones will make you deaf, give you brain and ear cancer and kill you. And they will kill your kids and make them deaf even faster. After 10 years, long-term addicts on the side of the head use for the phone suffered 2 times the Gliomas and 2 1/2 times the neuromas!

Those fuckers. This is ANOTHER COVER-UP and the fucking media in this country is NOT reporting this!!Tell everyone you know and stop using them or at least use the cords! Check the radiation output! And cordless phones too! We should all go back to landlines.

And I just bought new cordless phones...

Just take them away from your kids no matter what. The smaller the skull, the more the microwaves cook the tissue and cause cancer in the brain and the nerves leading to the ear.

We need a revolution to overthrow our corporatist overlords ...

The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk – and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised".

They conclude that "caution is needed in the use of mobile phones" and believe children, who are especially vulnerable, should be discouraged from using them at all.

The study, published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, is important because it pulls together research on people who have used the phones for long enough to contract the disease.

...

The scientists pulled together the results of the 11 studies that have so far investigated the occurrence of tumours in people who have used phones for more than a decade, drawing on research in Sweden, Denmark Finland, Japan, Germany, the United States and Britain. They found almost all had discovered an increased risk, especially on the side of the head where people listened to their handsets.

Five of the six studies of malignant gliomas, cancers of the glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells, found an increased risk. The only one that did not still found an increase in benign gliomas. Four of the five studies that looked at acoustic neuromas – benign but often disabling tumours on the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness – found them. The exception was based on only two cases of the disease, but still found that long-term users had larger tumours than other people.

The scientists assembled the findings of all the studies to analyse them collectively. This revealed that people who have used their phones for a decade or more are 20 per cent more likely to contract acoustic neuromas, and 30 per cent more likely to get malignant gliomas.

The risk is even greater on the side of the head the handset is used: long-term users were twice as likely to get the gliomas, and two and a half times more likely to get the acoustic neuromas there than other people.

The scientists conclude: "Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for more than 10 years give a consistent pattern of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma." They add that "an increased risk for other types of brain tumours cannot be ruled out".

Professors Hardell and Mild have also themselves carried out some of the most extensive original work into tumours among long-term mobile phone users and have come up with even more alarming results. Their research suggests they are more than three times more likely to get malignant gliomas than other people, and nearly five times more likely to get them on the side of the head where they held the phone. For acoustic neuromas they found a threefold and three-and-a-half-fold increased risk respectively.

They have also carried out the only study into the effects of the long-term use of cordless phones, and found this also increased both kinds of tumours. Their research suggests that using a mobile or cordless phone for just 2,000 hours – less than an hour every working day for 10 years – is enough to augment the risk.

Professor Mild told The Independent on Sunday: "I find it quite strange to see so many official presentations saying that there is no risk. There are strong indications that something happens after 10 years." He stressed that brain cancers are rare: they account for less than 2 per cent of primary tumours in Britain, though they are disproportionately deadly, causing 7 per cent of the years of life lost to the disease. "Every cancer is one too many," he said.


...

Neil Whitfield, a 49-year-old father of six, developed an acoustic neuroma in 2001 after years of heavy mobile phone use, on the left side of the head, to which he had held his handset. He says he had no family history of the disease and that when he asked a specialist what had caused it, the doctor had asked him if he used a mobile.

...

"It has had a devastating effect on my family," he says. "Mobile phones are the smoking of the 21st century; they should have health warnings on them. You would never buy a child a pack of cigarettes, but we give them mobiles which could cause them harm."

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3036005.ece

While you were distracted by Iraq, they were killing you and your kids with cell and cordless phones. Please recommend to fight the media blackout on this!!

[poverlay]

1. My family texts a lot. Should I worry about finger cancer? Not to poo poo a potential

danger, but I would like to know more about the study's methodology, variables, baselines and range before I take my kid's cel phones from them...

Thanks for the heads up though. I will definitely keep an eye on forthcoming info.

[Radio_Lady]

29. Interestingly enough, I have had several hand and finger operations attributed to overuse.

Of course, this isn't cancer, but it's still pretty debilitating.

I've been keyboarding since I was 13 years old. (We used to call it typing them... but typewriters are now gone, as you know!)

I had two operations for carpal tunnel syndrome (one on each hand) in 1983, and later developed four "trigger fingers" in the 1990s and 2000s (nodes on the tendons causing them to snap through their range).

Nowadays, I've read reports about all kinds of problems because of overuse of the human thumbs in new text editing devices.

In peace,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[Catch22Dem]

2. You don't think you're overreacting a little?

I don't think "they" are out to kill us and our kids with telephones.

[Dems Will Win]

5. You must not have seen the movie "Thank You for Smoking"

At the end corporate bastard Nick Naylor tells his cell-phone PR clients: "Repeat after me - cell phones do not cause brain cancer"

Looks like they listened to him.

How many thousands of children are going to die or go deaf from this? Brain cancer is a tough one too to treat.

In addition, the cell phone companies commissioned a Dr. Carlo to investigate safety and when he found that the phones cause cancer, they fired him brought in a new leader, who fudged the data and put out a well-known study stating they were safe.

[One_Life_To_Give]

145. Two orders of magitude difference

Smoking kills over 450,000 people in the US every year. Gangliomas are only 3000/yr regardless of cause.

There are plenty of people trying to find a method wherby EM (non-ionizing) radiation is able to cause such changes in cells. But nobody to date has been able to identify a mechanism.

[AdHocSolver]

52. The danger from microwave radiation is real and has been known for years.

Many years ago I repaired microwave ovens. These, like cell phones, operate in the UHF spectrum in the 1000+ MHz (MegaHertz) range. The service manuals described the safety features built in to prevent "leakage" of the microwaves outside of the oven chamber.

There are safety switches on the door to shut the microwave generator off should the door be opened, even slightly. Their are door seals surrounding the opening to prevent microwave leakage where the door contacts the box, similar to door seals on a refrigerator that prevent the cold air from escaping.

Any problems with the safety switches or door seals were to be repaired before returning the unit to the customer. Although we weren't given details, we were told explicitly that this was a health hazard.

The microwave oven works by using radiofrequency energy that penetrates into the food thereby generating heat internally by "vibrating" the molecules. It will "cook" you internally in the same way. I tell people who have microwave ovens that if the plastic door seals look damaged, or opening the door even a crack doesn't shut it off immediately, stop using it and get it repaired. I also suggest staying at least six feet or more away from any microwave oven while it is cooking something, just to be safe. As someone else pointed out here, the radiation field, and hence its penetrating ability, decreases rapidly with distance. A microwave oven puts out about 500 to 600 watts.

A cell phone puts out about one-half watt of power depending on signal strength of the base station. While this doesn't sound like a lot, it is a considerable amount considering that this energy is radiating from an antenna that is right next to your head. The depth of penetration into your skull could be considerable. The way to avoid this is to always keep the cell phone several inches from your body, the farther the better. If required to use a cell phone for long periods of time, then use an earphone and place the cell phone away from your body. This includes not putting it on your belt where the cell phone antenna is next to your liver, kidneys, etc. The earphone will not conduct any significant radiation to your head. Exposure to the radiation is cumulative so occasionally using a cell phone for only a few minutes a day probably would not pose a health hazard. Any more usage than that is a gamble.

By the way, with some cell phones you can see a distinct antenna on top of the unit. In the case of the folding units, the antenna is there, but it is inside the case. Every transmitter has an antenna of some type.

[D23MIURG23]

94. I think the question here is the Magnitude of the danger

Microwave and radio waves have the lowest wavelength, and therefor the lowest energy of any radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwave works mostly by causing rotational and translational motion in molecules, making it the least likely, and least potent damager of DNA in the EM spectrum. This can be contrast with UV which you are exposed to every day from the sun, and which can actually fuse some of your DNA bases together by initiating processes called pericyclic reactions. Links between sun exposure and melanoma are well documented, however most people consider the appropriate response to be putting on sunscreen and limiting exposure, rather than hiding obsessively from the sun.

[truedelphi]

138. Then please explain why the top expert in the field of EMF

exposure, a man named George Carlo, did a very detailed study, costing 12 MILLION dollars, for the cell phone industry that reported that brain tumors and other potential health hazards would be on an exponential rise if people were to start using cell phones on a daily basis. At that time (the mid - 1990's) he was considered the best mind to accomplish the study.

Once you read his research, you still might not be willing to give up the cell phone, but you'll probably wanna invest in the cheap equipment that allows you to use a headset connecting to the phone via a long wire.

My son, usually a skeptic of his mom's pet health worries, has even complied with this on his own.

BTW, Carlo was blacklisted from the group of scientists that cell phone industry now uses to report on the field. ALthough they had gladly handed him 12 Million dollars for the study, when the research proved to be the opposite of what industry wanted to hear, they claimed that he had gone senile.

[D23MIURG23]

157. Caution is probably warranted; panic not so much

My post was directed at the tone of the thread as I perceived it. Lots of stuff can cause cancer, so I don't see any reason to become overly excited. Equipping one's phone with a headset is exactly the sort of thing I would call a reasonable reaction to these implications.

My personal sense of the science involved leads me to believe that the increase in risk for cancer from a cell phone is probably less pronounced than the sort of risk involved in smoking or being overly exposed to sunlight. I would not assert that there is no danger associated with cell phones, or exalt myself to the level of an expert. I have no specific opinion on Dr. Carlo's work as I have never encountered it.

[Catch22Dem]

158. And that's all I'm sayin'

However, no matter the issue, some will be all to willing to burn their Beatle records the second someone screams danger in their direction.

[truedelphi]

159. Maybe we are on the same page??

:-)

[D23MIURG23]

162. sounds like it

:hi:

[Andy Canuck]

90. It has been known for years that they cause cancer

and yet, like it was for tobacco, there is systemic denial on the issue. Whether that denial is a conspiracy is another matter. It certainly was a conspiracy with the tobacco companies.

[progressive_realist]

3. Seems like this is easily mitigated...

Simply by using a headset so the phone is nowhere near your head. Of course, then you have to decide whether it being in your pocket is more desirable...:evilfrown:

[Dems Will Win]

4. Not so easily mitigated - Men using cell phones more than 5 hours a day

suffered a marked decrease in viable sperm, even though the scrotum is far from the ear. Also depends on the output of the actual phone.

Point is we were told they were safe by the corporations and gummint but they are quite deadly, like cigarettes.

[NashVegas]

18. Where Do They Store Their Phones?

Near the belt, you think?

The last time I saw any hard data, the studies said analog-style phones were the worst.

[Trillo]

25. What about cell phone towers' radio emissions?

That exposure seems near constant, i.e. 24/7 for many. Here's the FCC on the matter:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html

Here's a PDF I bookmarked some time ago, there are references at the end:

Radio Wave Packet
by
ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG
President, Cellular Phone Taskforce
September 2001

Contents
1. Some Biological Effects of Radio Waves
2. International Radio Wave Exposure Standards
3. Radio Wave Sickness
4. References
>snip<
RADIO WAVE SICKNESS
Symptoms
Insomnia, headaches, dizziness, nausea, memory loss, difficulty concentrating, irritability, respiratory illness (bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia), flu-like illness, asthma, fatigue, weakness, pressure or pain in the chest, increase in blood pressure, altered pulse rate (usually slowed), pressure behind the eyes, other eye problems, swollen throat, dry lips or mouth, dehydration, sweating, fever, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, tremors, pain in the legs or the soles of the feet, testicular or pelvic pain, joint pain, pains that move around the body, nosebleeds, internal bleeding, hair loss, digestive problems, skin rash, ringing in the ears, impaired sense of smell, pain in the teeth (especially with metallic fillings)
>snip<
PDF: Radio Wave Packet

Who is Arthur Firstenberg?

While I was looking for that PDF, I saw mention of wireless networking cards...!

[One_Life_To_Give]

147. A fraction of what a hand held at 1mm gives off

At any distance your talking mV per meter. The 600mW cell phone could be pushing into the Volts per meter at a few millimeters distance from the ant.

[Trillo]

173. I wonder how much the voltage matters

relative to the frequency, and the various octave harmonics of it? Are there resonance frequencies that effect DNA with less amplitude, or even area under and over the curve, (curve under and over the zero volt axis)? What is the chaotic effect of hundreds, even thousands or tens of thousands, of separate frequencies of individual low power all mixing together? Can two or more chaotically combine to provide some pulses of greater amplitudes? Do they disrupt our natural, evolution-based comfort of Gaia's natural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance">Schumann frequency?

Even if there is little known about all of this, or what negatives are known are suppressed by political power, and the incidence of malignancies perhaps caused by man-made electrical transmissions are small relative to the total population exposed, then what of our individual 'pursuits of happiness'?

Those physical symptoms (from Radio Wave Packet), while some may seem relatively minor, when they occur often enough, I would think that in affected individuals they certainly would decrease the pleasure and joy of life itself. Being ill or perceiving personal illness is not 'happiness', I would think.

[AdHocSolver]

58. Reduced sperm is wide spread in young men and is believed caused by chemicals in the food and water.

I have seen information that attributes low sperm count among other problems to using a laptop computer on one's lap for extended periods. This is because modern computers operate in the microwave range (1000+ MHz or 1.0+ GHz range) where even a few inches of circuit board wiring can act as a very effective antenna. I would strongly suggest that people (men or women) not use a laptop computer directly on their lap.

[LSK]

136. who the hell uses a cell phone 5 hours a day?

:wtf:

[Truthy Nessy]

6. My son and friend both had brain tumors.

My son was 26 when he died from fast growing Glioblastma Multiform . He was using a cell phone as a salesman extensively and the tumor was on the right side where he listened to his calls. My friend is still alive and her tumor is deep inside of her brain and is a slower growing tumor. She worked for the same cell phone company, the provider for national service as I did. I am not a big user of my cell phone nor of the cordless. She was diagnosed in 2002 and now the tumor is growing more extensively. My friend definitely believes she was exposed highly, especially since she worked with the police in a tracking van with all the other highly suspect equipment.
My son lasted 17 months with his. My son used his cordless a lot as well.

It is quite true that cellular companies emphasize how safe these phones are and that there is no danger. I believe there is a danger. Use them but don't use them frequently. You are risking your life.

[Dems Will Win]

8. I'm taking my 19-year old daughter's phone away - she has a thin head.

So sorry to hear this, I think your story is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm also going to go to landlines.

I'm a musician and I don't want to go deaf. Dying would be even worse! To talk on a phone when landlines are perfectly safe??

FUCK IT!

[Sequoia]

118. The sad thing is you can hardly find a landline phone in public.

This past summer I went to the county fair to do some work there and was looking for a phone when I was told they had all been ripped out but there was just one public phone by another gate. Sure enough I go there and some person is acting like it's their very own phone, just sitting down and smoking a cig laughing away while next to him was an empty ripped out phone area.

[MelissaB]

31. I'm so sorry! My mom died of the same form of cancer.

It's fast and furious. She was diagnosed in Jan. and died in June four years ago. :(

[spinbaby]

45. My father died of glioblastoma, too

His tumor was right above the right ear. I'm sure we would have blamed his cell phone had he ever used a cell phone. Just because there is a phone and a cancer doesn't mean that one caused the other.

[MelissaB]

73. I agree, and I'm not blaming cell phone use. From all the reading I did at the time

exposure to chemicals, radiation from the fallout of nuclear weapons, and many other things are thought to be the cause. I did find out that we were living in a "cancer belt". After Mother died I told hubby he could start applying for jobs. We've been in this new location since the summer. It was hard leaving, but many, many people had cancer in north Alabama and I didn't want that for my children.

[One_Life_To_Give]

148. Sorry for your loss

Lost a couple of classmates to Brain Tumors back in the early 80's. There is speculation that some of the chemicals used on the local orchard that surrounded the middle school may have been to blame. The people who ran Cross Country which went thru the orchard appear to have a higher rate of brain tumors than would be expected.

[WillowTree]

7. One word...........

Bluetooth.

[OzarkDem]

10. Is Bluetooth safer?

Just wondering.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Bluetooth isn't up against your head. I would think it's much safer.

Just a guess though.

[Greyskye]

26. Not against your head?

Haven't you seen the Borg people wandering around talking to themselves while a blue light blinks in their ear? I know people who wear their bluetooth enabled earbuds practically 12 hours a day. If anything, that's going to be a more dangerous option then just talking on a hand held cell phone a lot. :scared:

[Radio_Lady]

30. Quote of the day, Greyskye: Cellphone or crazy???"

"Haven't you seen the Borg people wandering around talking to themselves while a blue light blinks in their ear?"

Yes, and it makes me laugh every time. I've even gone up to people and tried to answer them, thinking they were talking to me!

Some reporter came up with a cute catch-phrase about them... Let's see: What was it?

Something like:

CELLPHONE or CRAZY???

On edit: Yeah, that's it... here's one blogger who mentions it!

From: http://sethgitter.blogspot.com/2007/10/cell-phone-or-crazy-person.html

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Cell Phone or Crazy Person -- Posted by Seth Gitter at 6:15 AM

My wife and I like to play a game called crazy person or cell phone. In our game we try to tell if someone is talking to themselves (crazy) or talking to themselves with someone on the other end pretending to listen (crazy cell phone person). The problem with these blue tooth devices is that people go around announcing their conversations to the world. This annoys the heck out of me, I do not need to hear about sending the plans to Boston or how your contractor didn’t put the right tiles in the bathroom. In economics we call the impact of someone else using or making something on an innocent bystander an externality. I thought of this yesterday after reading an article in Salon: “Why are Bluetooth headsets so lame? In search of a hands-free phone headset that won't make people hate you.” I hope we continue to shun people who use these things in public, to limit their externalities.

[Mojambo]

80. Here's how you handle the annoying bluetooth people.

Courtesy of resident comedic genius, Larry David.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXp1R1RPNU

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. Oh...those. MINE isn't against my head..it's integrated Bluetooth in my car and works through my

speakers. I suppose those ear things permanently attached to some heads would be bad.:scared: I was talking about hands-free integrated systems. Those shouldn't be a danger.

I stand corrected.:)

[bedazzled]

87. isn't that a scary thing to see? these folks who wear phones all day?

it always makes me do a double take to see that.

i've warned my son about cell phones. told him no one ever has enough brains that they can afford to lose any.

[vickitulsa]

127. One of those Borg-men was at my corner convenience store this morning.

He was taking forever to fill his cappucino cup at the spigot, all the while yammering away with that Borg-fixture in his ear and totally oblivious to the line that was forming behind him at 8 am, the busiest time for morning commuters on their way to jobs.

When he finally finished puttering with his cappu and turned around, he bumped into me and another lady standing behind him. She and I hadn't said a word but "the look" passed between us, rolled eyes and all, because it was so obvious the Borg-guy was oblivious to the real world he was moving around in. His mind was somewhere else, and he was accordingly rude to the rest of us who had to wait much longer than necessary in the line.

I'm never surprised anymore, however, when people are so willing to believe that early reports of the possible harmful effects on their health of new gadget products they yearn to embrace are "blown out of proportion and flawed or just wrong."

(Note some similar responses in this thread to this well-documented longitudinal study in the OP.)

I remember quite clearly -- as probably do most of you -- when cellphones were just catching on, and there were quite a number of research projects on the harm the radiation next to the head could do. But these responsible scientists were mocked and out-shouted by the ad-men of the megacorporations which stood to gain so much from massmarketing of cellphones and all that goes with them. Like with other products in the past (most famously cigarettes), the manufacturers and sellers simply hire their own bought-and-paid-for "scientists" who are perfectly willing to sell out and ignore their conscience to produce "studies" which supposedly disprove the conclusions of other studies by real scientists who found troubling connections between a product and medical problems by its users.

One of their biggest fallback tactics is to label those of us who have concerns as "conspiracy theorist wackos." By the time we "wackos" are proven correct, much harm has been done already -- and immense profits have already been raked in by the megacorporate mob. Their pals in the healthcare industry are happy to rake in big profits of their own to treat the ailments of the injured -- while still another of their megacorporate pals in the insurance industry wheel and deal to get their own slice of that huge pie.

And who pays? In every respect, just who is it that pays the very real prices of the gullibility of the people in these matters? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Folks really do hate to cop to their own gullibility -- especially when they were warned but ignored the warnings!

I've come to believe there is no getting through to people who simply don't want to hear the bad news or admit they're doing something incredibly stupid. I picture the guy in his hospital bed dying of brain cancer, saying even as the IVs drip into his arm, "But it wasn't my hundred hours a week on my cellphone that gave me this brain tumor! I was just unlucky!"

[kisserofsinners]

135. Blue tooth is worse!!!

The signal is stronger and it blasts constantly from whatever is activated, ear piece, phone, computer, etc. I'm an audio technician by trade. The bluetooth signal is so strong it interferes with recording equipment.
Most people just have them sitting on their heads all day. They don't realize that every minute or so the device just blasts out a fat signal that penetrates everything that can conduct, through impressive amounts of insulation.
DO NOT EVER USE A BLUETOOTH HEADSET!!!! If you have it in any device DISABLE IT!!!!
I'm not usually the one running around with tin foil in my head, but this is really real talk right here!
You've been warned...

[DemoTex]

21. NO! Bluetooth itself is a RF (radio frequency) emitting device!

The answer is a simple wired headset/earbud. Since the strength of the cell/cordless/Bluetooth RF signal (and it is a relatively weak RF signal, to be sure) basically reduces with the square of the distance from the antenna, all you need to do is get the device a few feet from the delicate tissue of the head to gain some increased modicum of safety.

Amateur radio operators are required to do RF Density calculations to assure that their transmitters and antennae are safe to all people and animals in the vicinity. I run up to a kilowatt on the HF bands, and I have never had any problem with RF Density legality.

http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/rfsafety/

[OzarkDem]

77. Thanks, DemoTex

I suspected as much.

[jayctravis]

123. What about an iPhone?

Instead of a bluetooth headset, you can use the same white earbuds to speak on the phone - no wireless transmission.

Yes, the phone is still in your pocket, but noplace near your head.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

I don't have a cell phone.

I had one for a short time, but I came to the opinion that cell phones are The Tools of Satan and are best used for testing sledge hammers.

[bluerum]

9. Cordless or cell phone? Television, radio, computers, every electronic device on the planet

emits and/or receives some kind of radiation in order to function. If you could see the various electromagnetic radiation that is present around you every second of every day you would likely be very shocked. Most of it is very low intensity and relatively harmless.

However, reducing expose to high intensity radiation should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately most people have little or no desire to educate themselves of these things. Even more unfortunate is that the fox are guarding the hen-house when it comes to manufacturers providing detailed exposure profiles for their devices. If you don't make exposure limits easy to understand then no one will understand them.

A radiation tag attached to your phone can provide some kind of visual cue to indicate exposure levels. This is a technically simple and inexpensive. No moving parts!

[gateley]

34. Microwaves ovens. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Now that's scary! I'm glad I rarely use my cell phone and when I do it's hands free in my car. My

son use to have a cell phone until he broke it (twice), so he hasn't had a cell for about a year and won't ever have one now.

So now I have to get rid of all my cordless phones in the house???:cry::cry: Those too???? I love my cordless phones! I can't imagine being attached to the phone base again! I've been using a cordless phone for more than 10 years.:scared:

[Dems Will Win]

14. Me too, but its better than going deaf or dying

[appal_jack]

93. use a wired headset or put them on speakerphone (n/t)

[Felinity]

96. Wire it up!

Wired earbuds for house phones are pretty inexpensive. I have one and use it for any extended conversation. Most phones have a connect option built right in.

[vickitulsa]

133. That's absolutely correct, and it's so damned easy.

People needn't get rid of cordless phones -- just get one that has the little plug-in for a headset and then use the headset whenever you're going to chat for awhile on the phone! It's likely the cordless phone you already have has the option built in; but if not, newer models that do are quite inexpensive now.

I had to ask my best pal not to keep me on my cordless phone for the hours-long conversations he and I both enjoyed because my hands are painfully crippled and I couldn't hold the phone that long. This was after my old pc died a few months ago and we had to talk by phone instead of using our computers as we'd been doing.

His response was to buy and send to me a new cordless phone that had the plug-in for a headset, and he even included a headset to boot! Total cost to him was less than $30, he said. It works great -- but then as I was changing out the cordless phone and stand with my old one, I looked closely and discovered my old cordless phone also had that capability! I just hadn't known to look for it, and he took matters into his own hands quickly before getting me to examine the phone I had.

Now another friend gave me her old pc when she got a new one, and I'm back up on the puter. But I'm still so glad Jay changed my way of using my cordless phone. I'm not on it much now except for those rare times when I do end up talking for quite a while with a very few special people. But when one of them calls, I just say, "Hold on a sec, will you? I want to plug in the headset," then resume the conversation with a lot more comfort and ease and NO worry about being irradiated too heavily.

Since you plug the headset in to the phone receiver (the part you hold and talk into) rather than the base, you can still move away from the base freely. You do, however, have to carry the cordless phone handset around with you if you are moving a lot. I don't move that much when on the phone since I'm virtually bedridden anyway; I just put the cordless on the counter across the aisle from my bed (I live in an old motorhome).

Some people have become accustomed quite rapidly to having near-total free mobility while engaging in phone conversations and fight any remedy which would make them surrender the tiniest bit of that "freedom." Kids these days cannot imagine being "tied" to any option short of a cellphone -- but whose fault is it that they're so completely adapted to this modern appliance? I'll bet that to many people, the very term "landline" has connotations of a ponderous, old-fashioned and very lame way of telephoning!

And don't think the cellphone megacorporate entities haven't pushed that notion in the media for years already. They love it that youngsters think they just have to have a cellphone! Not just any cellphone, either. They want the best, the most versatile and powerful (and therefore more dangerous re radiation) cellphones available!

It's the older adults of the last few generations, who wanted to believe that their smoking habits were NOT harmful to their infants and children, who gave those kids many of the asthma and allergy problems they'll have for life. Not discounting other types of air pollution, of course. But parents just didn't want to give up their own tobacco "pleasures" and so were all too willing to believe that passive smoke was harmless to their offspring.

Same kind of thing with the cellphones.

And really, isn't it just common sense that warns us we're engaging in hazardous behavior and passing along the harm to our children? Little wonder the kids of today are burdened with so many medical problems that were not a concern for past generations....

[DFW]

12. My brother in law was an electronics expert

He was using cell phones way before they were standard.

He now has a stage four glioblastoma. He will be 51 in December.
He is not expected to see 52 (first diagnosis last year said he
wouldn't even see 51).

We take this kind of thing very seriously, although probably not
seriously enough.

[Radio_Lady]

19. DFW, thanks for posting. That is so sad.

Please accept my condolences. I'm passing this article along to friends and family list.

Our neighbor's child in Massachusetts died of cancer while she was in college. I think she was 20 or 21. To this day, her mother believes she got cancer because they lived so close to high-voltage electrical lines. This girl had the cancer develop in her back.

What kind of radiation brings that on?

[DFW]

51. We are coping

When it gets worse--and it's a question of when, not if--it'll be less
easy to handle, but we're in no rush.

Who knows what brings cancer on? External factors and hereditary susceptibility
are factors for sure, but my dad got pancreatic cancer at age 77 after beating
prostate cancer at 70, and he was the image of health until then. Had a body like
a 30 year old model and beat guys 25 years younger at tennis, and then one day he
didn't look so good, and boom--sorry my friend, you're shit outta luck. Even then,
he hung around for 11 months, and who manages that after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis?
Maybe 2%, if that.

My wife had breast cancer 6 years ago. She lives as healthily as can be imagined, but
EVERY woman ancestor of hers has had cancer (her mom twice). They all beat it, and
lived to be 90, so who the hell knows?

You do what you can, try not to expose yourself to unnecessary dangers, and the trouble
is we all know that there will always be the proverbial smoker who smoked 4 packs a day
and lived to be 104, and there will always be the proverbial vegetarian health nut who
ran ten miles a day through the forest and got cancer in six different organs and died
at age 41.

The only thing I know is that I'm in the high danger category, but what else is new?
I had a date with the Grim Reaper 3 years ago, and escaped having a fatal heart attack
by sheer dumb luck (and not ignoring a faint twinge in my shoulder, since both my dad's
parents dies of heart attacks).

Back to the ranch: I have to use cell phones for work, can't always have a cord around,
and try to keep it to a minimum. Not the best I can do, not the worst. I refuse to use
old model cell phones or the new ones that have more buttons than the Space Shuttle navigational
console and a battery that my car would drool over. But I was supposed to be dead 3 years ago, so
the worst fate can do to me anyway is to come back and claim the rain check.

I'm in no hurry.

[Radio_Lady]

13. That is one astounding article, DemsWillWin. Here are some other questions:

How will cellphones -- used with earphones out on a wire -- affect the body? For that matter, don't mp3 players have some background radiation? Furthermore, I wonder what the radiation level is of the wireless headsets we use at the radio station. (The engineer in my family is out with our grandson!)

I am going to sleep almost every night with an mp3 player on my left wrist and a headset connection (using a wire) to listen to downloaded music.

My husband used his cellphone and mp3 players in this way for audiobooks.

The good news: We didn't start using cellphones until 2000, but we did use cordless phones quite a ways back. Hey, we're old. We probably won't last the decade anyway.

Seriously, this will be an important issue now and in the future. This article came out in early October. Perhaps someone in the media would follow up -- Keith Olbermann? Other newspeople?

Thanks for posting.

[DemoTex]

22. See my post #21

Basically, RF density decreases with the square of the distance. The wired headset/earbud is an excellent idea for reducing RF exposure to head tissue.

Now, if I can just keep from putting the cell phone in my lap when I drive ..

[Radio_Lady]

27. Yes, I understand. There are other body organs that might be affected...

Are you male or female??? :sarcasm:

[Phentex]

16. Lucky for me I'm already too old to die young....

everything can kill you!

[SpiralHawk]

17. Pay close attention to this

More and more troubling reports are coming out.

[Radio_Lady]

20. Kicked & recommended.

[CountAllVotes]

23. K&R

:kick:

[flashl]

24. K&R n/t

[riverdeep]

28. One part I don't understand-

"While you were distracted by Iraq, they were killing you and your kids with cell and cordless phones."

This doesn't make much sense to me. They use cell phones as much as any one else. Have you ever seen executives, they're on the phone always. The studies done on this are highly contradictory. One says it does, another one says no. Studying this kind of thing conclusively is really difficult. Also, as the article points out, brain cancers are rare, and the amount of radiation from most cell phones has decreased over ten years ago.

But here's something to consider, what if the risk of getting brain cancer went up slightly, would it be a worthwhile trade-off? Imagine someone invented a traveling device that weighs 1500-3000 lbs. Imagine these devices rapidly moving against each other a mere two feet apart. Imagine if control of these devices were left to bare bones trained individuals of whom the other controllers had no awareness of state of mind, or impairment. Imagine they killed more young people than anything else. Wouldn't these devices be banned and then sued out of existence? Don't you go in one practically everyday?

I'm all for recognizing and reducing risks, but let's keep some perspective, you're not going to eliminate it entirely.

[semillama]

110. good post! n/t

[shadowknows69]

32. I have always thought this would be so

There have been too many tests showing the detrimental effects of large doses of electromagnetic fields on tissue. We don't own one and probably never will. I probably stepped over some "uncle" line but I even told my niece that she shouldn't wear her newest gizmo (probably iphone) anywhere near her womb basically if she ever wanted to have children some day. The damage these things cause will become painfully more apparent in the next few years I predict. Then deftly covered up for as long as possible.

[RC]

33. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Quick, run for the hills! Just avoid the high ones with the radio towers on top.

How many died from the EMF of the 60 cycle power lines a few years ago?
At this rate only the Luddites will be left to carry on.

[Gin]

35. I use my cell phone just for emergencies...it is rarely turned on....but

the instruction booklet stated not to wear it next to the body. I thought that was a clue when I read it.

[Vilis Veritas]

116. I once used a rock...

Then science determined that rocks to the head were a major cause of serious brain injury and death...

I have since switched to smoke signals...

[qanda]

37. My husband uses his cell phone all the time

It worries me so much because when I talked to a friend of mine, who is a nuclear physicist, she said that the jury is still out on the effects of cell phones (basically we're all guinea pigs). However, she said that children should NEVER use cell phones because they are more susceptible to the radiation. My children don't and won't have cell phones.

[WinkyDink]

38. MANY of your fellow Americans refuse to believe this. It HAS been in the media.

Nope, don't own any, myself.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Threads like this give me a headache

Oh no! Maybe it's a brain tumor. :scared:

[Basileus Basileon]

40. So your lifetime odds double from 0.001% (per AMA) to 0.002%. Calm down. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

48. Thank you

Even if this article is correct, the risk is still very very low.

Doubling a very small number gives you another very small number.

[Dems Will Win]

53. Tell that to Truthy Ness (#6), whose son died from cell phones

I'm sure she will be glad to hear your low number rationale...

[Basileus Basileon]

56. "Died from cell phones" is incorrect.

"Died from a rare form of cancer which heavy cell-phone users have an 0.002% chance of developing, and which people that never touch a cell phone have an 0.001% chance of developing" is correct.

[Dems Will Win]

59. On the side of the head where he used the phone

He was a heavy phone user too, constantly on the phone, but you don't care do you? You would rather protect the right of cell phone companies to kill.

[Basileus Basileon]

78. Well, I presume that's where the 0.001% of people who develop Cell-Phone Cancer

over their lifetimes would. However, if he's in the other 0.001% who get it naturally, there's a 50-50 shot it'd be on that side. Still doesn't change the fact that the morbidity rate is extremely low. Each time you step into the car you deal more damage to yourself.

[trotsky]

112. That's a horrible and false accusation

and the fact that you have to fall back on it says all I need to know about the integrity of your position.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. But you're presuming

he "died from cell phones" when that's not really a rational conclusion.

[alarimer]

67. This article and countless others are a prime example of the misuse of statistics

Most science reporting is abysmal.

They are talking about a very small increase in risk, like you said. And it most certainly does not mean that you will get cancer if you use a cell phone. It means that, in the population they studied, it caused a minuscule increase. It may not even have been statistically significant.

I have the same problem with almost all science reporting. And people also assume the reverse: that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer because they (or their relatives who smoke) did not get lung cancer or emphysema. That is not what all the years of studies mean at all. It does not mean that if you smoke, you will get cancer for sure. All they mean is that smoking increases the chances of cancer and contributes to other diseases IN THE POPULATION OF INTEREST.

Someday I need to write a post on statistical literacy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

113. that would be welcome, please do!

90% of us could use a good dose of stats and reality. The other 30% might learn something, and the remaining 24%, well, there is no hope.

[Snarkturian Clone]

142. you need to post this in every thread that has statistics NT

[SoCalDem]

82. Percentages are meaningless UNTIL you are affected.. then it's 100%

There are SO many toxins/dangers in our daily lives, "they" are perfectly secure in introducing newer, slicker,shinier, faster, bigger,smaller, whatevers to market to us, whether they are truly safe or not.. Try proving in court which "one" got you..

I guess we all just have to moderate what we do and cross our fingers:eyes:

[nvme]

84. chances are still very low

im curious to know how many people have died from asbestos exposure in relation to the general population? this way i have an understanding of what the statistics mean. i wonder in relation to the general population, using the same #'s, what if that many people die as a result of airplane crashes. what would the reaction be then? at least with airplanes they go quick right? just a thought

[MLFerrell]

41. Yes, because a small increased risk of extremely rare cancers...

Is worth banning cellphones and returning to the dark ages.

Luddite.

[MelissaB]

42. I'm not for banning cell phones, but when somebody you love dies from one

of these cancers, it makes you at least think about using them.

[populistdriven]

44. I think it is prudent to minimize use and use a speaker phone whereever possible

[Radio_Lady]

72. My doctor stated it this way:

"If you get cancer, you could find yourself at 100% likelihood of getting cancer. We don't know exactly what causes some cancers -- especially stomach and pancreatic cancer. (I think brain cancer is in this group, too.) There's not much you can do -- and there are no screening no tests available. Just live as healthy as you can and try to minimize your chances. And do get tested for the other, more treatable cancers such as colorectal and breast cancer."

(This is from a really sharp gastroenterologist whom my husband and I had several screening exams over the past three years.)

[Dems Will Win]

75. Doctors are part of the problem, because the good science has shown

that cancer used to be rare. Research conclusively shows it is the chemicals and the other pollution we are exposed that has caused the 1 in 3 cancer epidemic.

Doctors often don't want you to think about that it seems, for they are protecting the old Mechanistic paradigm, the 19th Century science we suffer under today.

[Spinzonner]

83. People also used to die young (on average)

before the ages when cancers become more likely because of accumulated DNA damage (presumably) or reduced resistance to damage.

Don't want to be more susceptible to cancer? Die younger of something else.

[LeftishBrit]

102. Cancer used to be rare, because people didn't live long enough to get it!

A hundred years ago, average life-expectancy was below 50, and one-sixth of babies died in their first year of life.

I own a mobile phone, but am careful about how much I use it, as I happen to be particularly phobic of brain cancer (a friend died of it). But the level of possible threat to life caused by mobile-phones is nothing compared with the threat to life that would be caused by the rejection of modern medical science. I will fight to the death against any attempt to destroy or prevent access to modern medical science - and I fear that if its opponents, whether religious fundamentalists, those who are anti-science on other grounds, or cost-cutting governments, ever succeed in such destruction, it WILL literally mean my death! I'd have died at birth, if not for modern medicine.

[trotsky]

111. Thank you for that dose of common sense and reason.

Didn't want you to think it was wasted in here. I share your fear at how quickly the world will change - for the much, much worse - should the anti-science types succeed in changing public policy with their fearmongering.

[D23MIURG23]

175. Unless you have a good background in science...

You aren't qualified to say what is and isn't good science. Quality derives from the cogency of the argumentation alone in science. Furthermore, all science derives from the mechanistic paradigm, even the toxicological reports identifying carcinogens we are exposed to in pollution.

[Dems Will Win]

132. Cells have been around for so short a time, this study found double the cancer for 10 yrs

But what about 15 and 20 yrs which is what it usually takes cancers to grow!

That's where a larger part of the population dying, not just 1 in 500 medium users die. Those heavy users will be dropping like flies after 20 years.

That's the real problemo.

[populistdriven]

43. store your brain inside a microwave oven - it is best protected from phone radiation there!

unplug the oven first of course ;)

[Dems Will Win]

55. Uh - are you saying we were in a Dark Age several years ago before widespread use of cells?

Don't seem to remember that. Cell phones are going to decline.

[Alexander]

46. Never liked the damn things to begin with.

The fact that I now have a piece of equipment I never even wanted in the first place should be a huge indicator of how peer pressure has caused everyone and their mother to get a cell phone. I learned quickly that people expect me to have one, no matter what I do for a living or how much I need it for myself.

As it is, I try to rarely use it, I keep my conversations brief (I hate phone chatting) and generally try to keep it away from my body when I'm not using it.

[KharmaTrain]

47. Ah...Boogie Man Radio Waves Are Back

Now does the chances of having your brain fried increase if you're at an Olive Garden? :sarcasm:

This reminds me of the trick we'd play to keep people out of the transmitter room (which cranked out thousands of more watts than a cellphone)...that getting too close would make one sterile. It wasn't true, but enough believed it to be.

I think a far greater problem is those who talk on cellphones constantly rather than RF from the phones can do. I'm sure if exposed to these waves in highly consentrated amounts over decades it could warp your ear...but that's nothing compared to the asshat who cuts me off on the highway at 60mph while blabbing on his damn phone.

[Dems Will Win]

49. ANOTHER WAY CELL PHONES KILL-- CAUSING CAR ACCIDENTS

[fenriswolf]

54. probably a higher death rate then cancer

hay what about moniters? they have radiation too, oh yeah and the earth has a huge background radiation, watchout your spouse is radioactive too. jk but i do notice that their is alot of fear mongering without any helpfull statistics like how many people have died from cancer in 2007 from cellphone usage. My condolences to those of you who have lost someone though, i know any kind of death is a tragedy but like berkley breathed says "the surgeon general states doing anything at anytime with anyone can lead to death"

[BlueIris]

50. No shit—this is why I don't have a cell phone.

And none of the phones in our home are cordless.

I've been reading about the health risks of habitual cell phone use since the late '90s.

[MissDeeds]

57. The risks must be credible

I read several years ago that Keith Richards refuses to use a cell phone, stating that "I wouldn't put my head in a microwave oven, either". Now if Keith Richards - a man who has arguably taken every drug known to man - thinks cell phones are unsafe, the evidence must be pretty damning.

[fenriswolf]

60. not to dismiss your point, im sure cell phones are a health hazard

but someone whos brain is already fried from every drug known and unknown to man is not really a credible source of information.

[MissDeeds]

62. Agreed

Point well taken, but I thought it was kinda funny.

[riverdeep]

61. Keith is a great rhythm guitarist,

but not exactly my first choice for ascertaining reality.

I heard that John Lennon was detailing his diet to someone, how he would only eat pure macrobiotic stuff; the listener noted he said this with a cigarette in his hand.

[TZ]

63. This is not so clear cut actually

Cell Phone Use Not Linked To Brain Cancer, Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070912111310.htm

Mobile Phone Use Not Linked To Increased Risk Of Glioma Brain Tumors, According To New Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060119232625.htm
Cell Phone Use Not Linked To Cancer Risk
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061206085942.htm

There are more studies showing no significant link. There are some studies that suggest a link, but many more that suggest there are no correlation.
This reminds me of the old (now completely discredited) theory about power lines causing cancer to people who lived in the vicintiy

[Dems Will Win]

64. If a study was paid for or conducted by researchers from a university supported by

industry, I would not stake my life on it. They are protecting their meal ticket, like Exxon Mobil scientists on global warming. This was a meta-study of 11 studies by the way, so is more accurate than any one study.

[TZ]

66. those AREN't the only studies btw

I just pulled the ones I was most familiar with.
Google them. Most of the ones I posted are published in sound medical journals (peer reviewed) unlike most of the oil industries studies.....And I DO know whats legitimate and whats not (I am in science and I have read these articles from time to time) BTW rats get brain tumors if you cough on them (I worked with rat health studies as well so its not hard to make a rat sick). They actually aren't that great for models with humans (mice are better actually). Primate comparison is what should be tested
BTW all Universities take funding from private industry so by that light ANYTHING can be considered "polluted". You don't think the studies that show dangerous effects aren't published by people with agendas, either? That's pretty naive.

[Dems Will Win]

76. Now what could possibly be "the agenda" of someone who says

cell phones are dangerous and the cell phone manufacturers are covering it up?

They are not going to make a lot of money selling landlines with their plea, they are simply alerting people to a danger. Or maybe you think they are just obsessed Luddites who want to rid the world of all technology.

It is the cell phone companies who lie at any despicable cost to protect their profits.

Your argument does not hold up in any way.

[Dems Will Win]

65. THis is how they fudge data by the way:

A significantly increased risk was found for tumours which developed on the same side of the head as the phone was reported to have been held but this was mirrored by a decrease in the risk on the opposite side of the head making it difficult to interpret as a real effect.

This finding may be due to people with glioma brain tumours linking mobile phone use to the side of the tumour and therefore over reporting the use of a phone on the same side as their tumour. This results in under reporting use on the opposite side of the head, say the authors.



See?

[trotsky]

114. That's not a fudge at all but an honest and real effect.

Confirmation bias. You're told you have a tumor on one side of your brain - naturally, in looking for a cause, you're going to "remember" using your phone on that side of your head more. This is not deceit or intentional, it's just how our brains work in trying to spot patterns.

[Trillo]

69. self-deleted

[Trillo]

70. That first link of yours is criticized as "possibly" not of sufficient time length

to assess carcinogenesis according to the study's own chairman. IOW, the cancer takes some time to grow and many studies are of too short a duration. It's mentioned in the OP's article.

This study is of a duration equal to or greater than 10 years (this may not be the same as in the OP's article, but I believe it is).

[WheelWalker]

79. Link to the instant study that birthed this thread?

[Trillo]

122. I think so, but not sure what you mean by "instant study"

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[femrap]

71. This was discussed on 'Ring of Fire'

on Air America last Sunday, I think. The scientist said cell phone usage today is where cigarette usage was in the '60's.

[DemoTex]

74. And the telecoms today are where the tobacco companies were in the '60s ..

Lying about a very, very dangerous product with the full knowledge and backing of the US Government.

From my post #21:

The answer is a simple wired headset/earbud. Since the strength of the cell/cordless/Bluetooth RF signal (and it is a relatively weak RF signal, to be sure) basically decreases with the square of the distance from the antenna, all you need to do is get the device a few feet from the delicate tissue of the head to gain some increased modicum of safety.

Amateur radio operators are required to do RF Density calculations to assure that their transmitters and antennae are safe to all people and animals in the vicinity. I run up to a kilowatt (1000 watts) on the HF bands, and I have never had any problem with RF Density legality.

http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/rfsafety/

[femrap]

106. This 'device' you speak of

could be of great help to many. If you need help in marketing it, please let me know.

I don't use a cell phone, but do have a cordless phone. Think I'll go dig out my old 'princess phone.'

I wonder if there is a lawyer somewhere already working on a Class Action case on this.

[silverojo]

81. We only use our cell phone in emergencies

I figure, there are enough potential causes for tumors in this world, without exposing oneself unecessarily to a new one. :scared:

[Blue Gardener]

85. My cousin died of brain cancer at 40 years old

Several months after he started using one of the older styles of cell phones he developed brain cancer. He was dead in a few weeks. No proof it was the cell phone, but you have to wonder.

[Divine Discontent]

86. my head feels "buzzy" inside, where the cell is rested on

at times when I use them for more than an hour straight... I've started using my bluetooth, and headphone receiver, and more than anything, put people on speaker phone. as long as people aren't yelling no one should be offended by normal volume conversations in public, I'm sure most of us would agree, it's just those who could care less what others think.

that is sad about your cousin... a sibling of mine used a mid 90's phone that was a bit bulky and he said it made his head extremely hot and the phone was very hot also. he traded it in for a different copy of the same model, it wasn't as bad - I'm sure back when they started out with making them in the millions, the quality was not very good.


this story DOES worry me, considering all the comments of deaths, and my own experiences - do ANY of you who are questioning this study not comprehend that corporations LIE to us all the time to make billions? of course they use them, but they don't worry about us or their own health, they enjoy the 'here and now' and figure they got insurance for any medical probs. how many bad stories of crappy corporate scandals involving products do the naysayers need to hear before they accept that this story certainly has SOME effect on cancer rates, ya know?

God bless us all

[Connonym]

89. that buzzy feeling is tinnitus from noise exposure

you're not going to improve it by using headphones. Unless you're causing nerve damage to your ear from pressing the phone against the ear, what you're experiencing is ear trauma caused by sound exposure. Stick with the speaker phone.

[Connonym]

88. Acoustic neuromas are not cancer, I'm just saying

Not saying that there's not a connection with cell phone use but an acoustic neuroma is not cancerous. Generally speaking if you value your hearing at all it's not a good idea to be sticking sound right into it -- firing weapons, listening to loud music, even using a freaking power lawn mower, all cause damage to the auricular nerves.

[Basileus Basileon]

115. They're benign tumors, yeah. People see "-oma" and think OMG CELL PHONES WANT TO KILL US.

[Trillo]

121. Study also mentions highly malignant "gliomas",

and the study participants were registered at "cancer registries".

[Basileus Basileon]

125. Assuming this study is correct, it raises your odds of malignant glioma from

0.0030% to 0.0039%.

I'll take it.

[Trillo]

126. Whatever the "odds", Why should I and others subsidize

the cost of cancer treatment for those who do get it, instead of the industry itself? Seems to me like this is a case where those health-insurance costs are passed down to users by the cell phone corporations, without advance warning to the consumer. It appears to be another "market" failure.

[Basileus Basileon]

128. Because the economic value of cell phones far outstrips the costs of care for 0.0009% of people.

[Trillo]

129. HR 676 is the solution, some "non-profit" healthcare coverage.

By your logic is found some profit for the corporatist. It's also a strong argument for eliminating "profit" from healthcare costs, if the "profit" from cell phones far outstrips the costs when "cancer" caused by the usage is passed down to the user and is coupled with cell phone corporations unwillingness to pay for those "few" cases. (poor sentence, sorry)

The cell phone corporations don't appear to be lining up behind HR 676 (I haven't seen it), and it would further appear to be to their advantage to do so at this time.

Call it good PR. Some extended, saturation television commercials in prime time, synchronized with magazine, newspaper, and direct mail advocacy.

[Vinca]

91. I do not own a cell phone and do not want one.

I may copy the article and hand it out to all the people who annoy the hell out of me with their loud, insipid conversations in public places. Maybe I'll trail the drivers who nearly kill me and put one on their windshields. Life evens out.

[RoccoR5955]

92. Strange... One of the ads here is for a Blackberry! n/t

[Eurobabe]

95. I gave up my cell 2 years ago, don't even miss

or the bills out the ass. :hi:

[Turbineguy]

97. OK, well let's say

that the phone companies actually want us all to get cancer and die and are covering up the dangers of cell and wireless phone use (this may explain why they charge so much, gotta make it while you can).

People talk on their phones and do other things. So let's say you are on your cell phone and are in the process of negotiating some sort of deal. How does the person you are talking to benefit from your getting cancer? Would not other interests want to know what the risks are?

The whole thing may be linked to drunk driving. Anything that causes deaths at a lower rate than drunk driving is considered benign.

Last week it was pointed out that MRSA kills more people than AIDS now.

[progressoid]

98. Aren't you worried about the electromagnetic radiation from the computer monitor in front of you?

It's probably slowly killing you.

You should throw away your computer right now.

Bill Gates and Best Buy are out to kill you.

[BrklynLib at work]

99. Not at all surprising....What is horrible is that this info is being kept from the public.

Children should not be using cell phones...

[GoneOffShore]

100. More likely to get knocked over by a bus

Than get this type of cancer.

Ah, and it's the "Independent" - the "Daily Mail" of the left.

Sorry didn't mean to go for the "Attack the source" but their "science" section consistently seems to publish articles of doubtful provenance.

I'll keep using my cell phone. And I have a wireless network. And I cook with :scared: non stick pans.

[The Backlash Cometh]

101. Anyway some newspaper can condense this and make it easier for

teens to read?

[quiet.american]

103. I've noticed a mini-epidemic of super-powered Wall Street types dying young of brain cancer.

-- I wonder if this could tie into that.

[Dems Will Win]

131. If it was on the side of the head where they phoned, most likely

[ramapo]

104. and people worry about cell towers

I always laugh when people become outraged at the prospect of a cell tower in their town. They don't want to be exposed to all that dangerous RF. Yet they think nothing of spending hours with a little RF generator glued to the side of their head.

I'm not a big cell user but there is a simple solution. Use an ear piece w/microphone.

I don't know that cell phones are responsible for an epidemic of brain cancer but better safe than sorry.

There is in general a significant increase in recorded brain tumors. My son had one removed at age 14. Fortunately it was the "good" kind. But I learned a lot during the process and brain tumors are not nearly as rare as you might think.

[mod mom]

105. I wonder how WIFI fits into this equation. Should we limit kids using laptops

w wifi?

[Vilis Veritas]

107. Bedpan, Remote Flatulence Disaster: 100 times more likely to die after continual usage!

The above graphic clearly shows that the sanitary use of Bedpans significantly raises the risk for death! While the unusually high risk associated to HVAC is attributed to Alzhiemers patients setting the thermostat to high on hot days...

The scientists who conducted the research say using a Bedpan device for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk – and that the international standard used to protect users from the methane emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised".

They conclude that "caution is needed in the use of bedpans" and believe children, who have especially small butts, should be discouraged from using them at all.

...

The scientists assembled the findings of all the studies to analyse them collectively. This revealed that people who have used their bedpans for a decade or more are 100 per cent more likely to die at some point in the future.

And who knows what could happen if you use the new 'Bluetooth' models!



While you were sleeping, I snuck in and put a bed pan under your pillow!

[GoneOffShore]

155. Oh, you are an evil person

And a shill for the telecoms. :sarcasm:

Beware the flying woo.

:rofl:

[Vilis Veritas]

171. Must have been something I ate...

on Sunday...



They made a mean Moo Poo Gai Bedpan...

[tridim]

108. Off topic, but I was watching "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" yesterday, the 1978 version..

and there was one scene where Donald Sutherland was being warned by everyone over the phone to not investigate what he was witnessing. It was so strange to think that the coolness of that scene, dialing phones and ringing bells, can never be filmed again. Too bad.

Cell phones suck, I hate everything about them. I can say that because I don't own one and I won't own one until I'm forced to comply. Hasn't happened yet, and I'm a tech guy!

[snooper2]

109. Run for the hills!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_Rtk2.SVHDbAA_wSjzbkF/SIG=12din4lg4/EXP=1193757366/**http%3A//

[DS1]

117. That dude is chiseled!

[Froward69]

119. I read a british study once

that found people driving high on pot were safer than sober drivers. Who were safer than drunks, who in turn were safer than people using cell phones. while this was a study of drivers. i wonder if the cancer rates for cell phones are as high or higher than cigarette smokers???

[kestrel91316]

120. I happen to hate the cell phone addiction that has taken over our culture.

I rarely use mine. It's for emergency use, basically. I MUCH prefer landlines for quality of signal - static and signal break-up are completely unacceptable to me in a phone because this is the 21st century and not late in the 19th.

Somehow I suspect that even TEN TIMES the rate of cancer won't get the cell phone addicts to hang up and shut up. They are as bad as cigarette smokers in that it appears to be an addiction with no redeeming social value (except when used in a bona fide emergency). I still see at least one in four drivers here with their hand stuck to their head while driving, or worse yet trying to dial while driving. They probably won't care about cancer risk either.

[5446]

124. You needed a super-science report to fill you in...

You needed a super-science report to fill you in on this?

Hell, I had this figured out years ago through this amazing thing called "common sense."

[NeedleCast]

130. Some of you worry about some silly shit

n/t.

[Evoman]

134. Sorry guys....this is my fault.

Whenever I hear one of those damn things ring when I'm at a theatre, I wish brain cancer upon them.

Now, what I really want to know is if people who walk slowly and block off highways have a statistically higher chance of being hit by a "big ass bus".

[California Griz]

137. I'll try and make this simple

If you put a microwave on its lowest setting it still cooks the food slower yes but it still gets cooked. My last cell phone was a Sanyo. You could only use it for about 15 minutes before it would get so hot you could hardly hold it. These stats may seem small but you must take into account the brief period of time cell phones have been used at the level of saturation they now enjoy. You can't get realistic numbers of the effect over an entire lifetime. I got a microwave endorsement for my 1st class FCC license in 1977 and have worked in microwave communications for over 20 years. To say there is a safe level of microwave exposure is in my opinion absurd. The original motorola bag phone put out 5 or 6 watts would you put your head in a 90 watt microwave and turn it on even at 5% power? The FCC reduced the maximum output of cell phones because they knew it was dangerous.

[Dems Will Win]

139. One ringie-gingie!

[One_Life_To_Give]

152. FCC reduced power to accomodate more phones.

The FCC reduced the maximum output of cell phones because they knew it was dangerous.
No the FCC reduced power to allow a higher density of mobile phones to be used in a given area.

5 Watts is the same transmit power used in Commercial/Emergency service handhelds and CB radios. With fixed mount systems going up to over 100W. Although the real paret that matters would be the field density. A 5W transmitted gives a field of 10V/m at a distance of 6in. Which is about the same as the Cell Phone at less than 1in.

[California Griz]

160. I would refer you to the 1999 FCC OET bulletin 56

It states that the reason handheld devices such as CBs and such pose little health risk is due to the push to talk nature. That the limited length of exposure is so short. It states that long term continued exposure does pose potential health risks.

[yurbud]

140. kick

[Rosa Luxemburg]

141. I'm one of the 'corded' phone gang

we have old corded phones

[Dems Will Win]

143. Two ringie-dingies!

[riverdeep]

163. Corded here, too.

And I got sick of the cheap plastic phones of today and got those phones from the '70s. Those are damn solid. You could throw those things across the room and they'd be fine. With you-know-who in office, that's an issue.

[Mike03]

144. Scary. Cordless phones?

Because they only transmit a matter of feed, why are they as dangerous as cellular phones? Shit, this is not good news.

[California Griz]

149. They keep raising the frequency

The faster you excite the electrons the more heat you develop. I have an old 900 MHz cordless it’s a little big compared to today’s phones but I plan on keeping it a long time. Now they have 5.8 Gig phones it's just crazy. I got shocked by a high power microwave generator we used to test transmitter filters it burned a hole in my thumb all the way to the bone in less than a heartbeat.

[Mike03]

150. Thanks for the info.

I'll have to check and see what frequency my cordless is. Whoa, I had no idea the power had escalated that much.

To tell the truth, I never feel very good after long conversations on my cordless phone.

ON EDIT

Yup, mine's a 5.8 GHz, from Panasonic. Great.

[Mike03]

146. Cordless phones have been around for decades, haven't they?

Were they not tested before? Was there an increased risk in brain and head tumors approx. ten years after they were introduced? By now, shouldn't we have very strong evidence that cordless phones cause cancer or other types of head/neck tumors?

I'm bewildered by the physics of why cordless phones would cause cancer. Are they really as dangerous as cellular phones?

[Trillo]

169. I don't remember cell phones prior to the mid 80s.

Interesting article about how the National Cancer Institute allegedly manipulates statistics. It claims brain cancer has increased 28% over some unprecise time period referred to as "Over recent decades".

Other sources of information claim brain cancer rates have been relatively steady.

Sharp Rise in Brain Cancer Rates Found Among Americans Under 45

By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: December 11, 1990

>snip<
The study, which will appear next week in The American Journal of Industrial Medicine, is an analysis of epidemiological data from tumor registry centers around the nation. It concludes that the number of new cases of brain tumors in younger people has been mounting at a rate of about 2 percent a year from 1973 to 1986, the last year for which data are available.

Although brain cancer remains quite rare, the incidence jumped from around 2.2 new cases for every 100,000 people in 1973, to 3.1 cases per 100,000 people 13 years later, the study reported.

But other researchers attribute much if not all of any apparent rise to improved diagnosis, rather than to a genuine surge in the number of cases. Since the 1970's, the introduction of CAT scans and other advanced imaging devices have made it far easier for physicians to detect brain tumors at the earliest stages. Debate Over Findings
>snip<
But Dr. Devra Lee Davis, scholar in residence at the National Research Council in Washington and the lead author of the new report, insists that the rise is too great to be dismissed as the byproduct of improved diagnosis, although she said that she did not know why brain cancer was increasing among younger people. She noted that other researchers had implicated electromagnetic radiation as a possible cause of brain tumors, but the theory is fiercely disputed.

read more...

I don't remember cell phones prior to the mid 80s.

[Mike03]

151. Anyone? Would listening to satellite radio on headphones cause any

kind of cancer? Is it only devices that transmit, or could devices that receive exotic frequencies also cause cancer or tumors?

[California Griz]

153. You should be ok with the headphones

I was in an RV park during the 4th of July weekend and the guy next to me had a skynet satellite dish on a tripod at waist level. I told him he had to get it up in the air I asked him if he read the directions. Your supposed to be required to take a short course on the internet before you are allowed the installation numbers that will turn on the transmitter if you want to install one yourself. It's one thing to throw up a receiving dish but microwave transmitters are dangerous. I wondered how many people his transmitter had damaged. If you were standing in the right spot to catch the focused signal in your eye it might cause some damage fairly quickly. When you go to work on a ground link like those used by TV stations and ATT, you often find a lot of dead birds at the base of the tower.

[Mike03]

154. You know a lot about this stuff. Glad you are here.

By the way, Welcome to DU!

[GoneOffShore]

156. You really think you're going to get an answer

from the electro smog folks.

They haven't figured out the inverse square law yet.

Or that correlation is not causation.

[Mike03]

161. Who knows?

I find it hard to trust anybody anymore.

[GoneOffShore]

164. Are you using wireless headphones?

Doesn't matter what you're listening to on headphones. They're only transmitting sound waves, which, unless you've got the volume cranked to eleven or are listening to Fox, aren't going to do you any damage.

Unless, of course you're sitting inside a microwave oven or in front of an X-ray machine.

[Dems Will Win]

166. has to have an antenna to be dangerous

[MiniMe]

165. But can you get out of your cell phone contract if you die?

[Dems Will Win]

167. Legally, that's the only way out of your cell phone contract!

[Dems Will Win]

168. Three Ringie-Dingies!!

[Dems Will Win]

170. 4 Ringie-Dingies!

[Dems Will Win]

172. 5 Ringie-Dingies!! Kick for Nokia!

[Dems Will Win]

174. 6 Ringie Dingies!

[Dems Will Win]

176. 7 Ringie Dingies!

[Dems Will Win]

177. 8 Ringie Dingies!

[Dems Will Win]

178. Will someone please get the toxic phone????