Quality Control

WHO should put an end to this controversy by publishing its findings in all languages all over the world and by TV programmes. Why not the UN starts its own TV station?.

Cell phone radiation directly affects the part of the brain necessary for properly steering an automobile. I have seen this affect first hand many times.

Is It Safe to Use a Cell Phone?

It should be kept in mind that we have only been holding microwave radiation devices to our brains for a relatively short time. The long term effects will not be know for quite some time. That is the way it was with tobacco and lead paint.

Cell phones use microwave beams. Research studies have shown that this radiation can penetrate an inch into an adult's skull. In the case of a child's head, it penetrates even further. It goes halfway through a 5-year-old's brain and and almost a third of the way into a 10-year-old's brain (O.P. Gandt, G. Lazzi, C.M. Furse, "Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 mhz," in Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 1996, 44(10) 1884-1897).

Dr. Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D. of Sweden conducted a series of case-control studies, in which his group examined long-term cell phone users. He discovered a marked increase in brain and auditory nerve cancer on the cell-phone side of the head (L.Hardell, K.H. Mild, M. Crillberg, "Further Aspects on cellular and Cordless Telephones and Brain Tumors," International Journal of Oncology (cancer), 2003:22(2):399-407).

Another research study found a 3.9 fold (390%) increase in the risk of auditory nerve cancer on the same side of the head where the phone was normally used by those who used a cell phone for more than 10 years (S. Lonn, A. Ahlbom, P. Hall, M. Feuchting, "Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma (nerve cancer), Epidemology 2004 15(6):653-659).

Then there is a Interphone Case Study, which was carried out in five European countries. It found an 80% increased risk of a tumor on the same side of the head where the phone was used in individuals who had used cell phones for more than 10 years (M.J. Schoemaker, A.J. Swerdlow, A Ahlborn, A. Aivomem, K.G. Blaasas, E, Cardis, et al., "Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma, Results of the Interphone Case-Control Study in Five North European Countries, "British Journal of Cancer 2005: 93(7)842-848).

Apparently there is a connection between extensive use of cell phones, over a lengthy period of time and brain and/or nerve tumors.

Then there is Dr. Jerry Phillips, Ph.D. Motorola sponsored him to do research studies which would exonerate their products. He discovered only horror stories and negative research conclusions. He published his findings in a research report (J.L. Phillips, O. Ivaschuk, T. Ishida, R.A. Jones, M. Campbell-Beachler, W. Haggren, "DNA Damage in Molt-4-t-lymphoblastold Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radio-Frequency Fields in Vitro," Biochemistry and Bioenergetics 1998; 45:103-110). Phillips is a outspoken critic of the "all is safe" public image, nor does he trust the studies sponsored by the cell phone industry.

George Carlo Ph.D, epidemiologist and medical scientist headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. This may be the largest industry backed study to date. His work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.

In December 2006 an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute hit the media with headlines such as "Danish
Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe". This was good news for the cell phone industry. Dr Carlo has done extensive work that shows this Danish study was very flawed.

So why are cell phones dangerous? A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier generates two types of radiation fields: near-field plumes and a far-field plumes. Living organisms also generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ and organism level: this is called bio-field. Both near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones can wreak havoc with the human bio-field, and when the bio-field is compromised says Dr. Carlo so is the metabolism and physiology. Dr. Carlo explains that the near-field plume is the one we are most concerned with. This plume is generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna and is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station. A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and does no harm. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz similar to the body. Your heart for example beats at two cycles per second or 2 Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intercellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communications and an increase in the risk of tumor.

The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.

Here is what happens in your body… In an effort to protect them selves, cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.

Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.

Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This says Dr. Carlo is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.

Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cell can't communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can't keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.

The effects from near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electro-sensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electro-sensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise and headaches. There has been, in recent years, a large increase in conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD), autism and anxiety disorder.

Certainly the cell phone is a very useful tool with a special ability to make an emergency call. There are a variety of techniques that can minimize these issues. The above information was taken from our Natural Remedies Encyclopedia 7^th edition. It is available online at www.pureandsimpleways.com. This valuable reference book covers over 11,000 inexpensive home remedies, 730 diseases and disorders with more than 7,000 cross references.

It's no different than the earlier CRT (Computer monitors), which I often wondered back in the 80's, how this was going to effect me: 20, 30, 40 years down the road. I am glad there are now lower radiation emmissions LCD monitors now.

Other than that, until more information and data is gathered, I'll just get some mileage out of this, which is appropriate.

Even though your post reads like an advertisement for the 'pureandsimple' website, and despite the dubious 'explanations' following 'So why are cell phones dangerous' and 'Here is what happens in your body', I decided against dismissing your entire message outright.

.

I wanted to review the same studies you had reviewed and subsequently referenced in your lengthy comment. Alas, it may not be possible (but not because the studies are unavailable for review).

.

At first, when I searched for the studies you referenced, the only things Google returned were the three other times you have posted this comment, exactly word for word, in other websites.

.

Eventually, removing the authors (several misspellings might have been causing problems), removing numbers, and sometimes searching the named journal directly, most of the articles were available (many only as an abstract, but a few were complete).

.

After reviewing the studies I still would not be comfortable telling someone that I had reviewed the same studies you had reviewed, because your comment gives me no confidence you have actually review these studies.

.

Here is an example of a reference to a study in your comment:

'....Then there is Dr. Jerry Phillips, Ph.D. Motorola sponsored him to do research studies which would exonerate their products. He discovered only horror stories and negative research conclusions. He published his findings in a research report (J.L. Phillips, O. Ivaschuk, T. Ishida, R.A. Jones, M. Campbell-Beachler, W. Haggren, "DNA Damage in Molt-4-t-lymphoblastold Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radio-Frequency Fields in Vitro," Biochemistry and Bioenergetics 1998; 45:103-110).....'

.

and the following is from the abstract of the study you reference:

'...Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells have been exposed to pulsed signals at cellular telephone frequencies of 813.5625 MHz (iDEN signal) and 836.55 MHz (TDMA signal). These studies were performed at low SAR (average=2.4 and 24 W g1 for iDEN and 2.6 and 26 W g1 for TDMA) in studies designed to look for athermal RF effects. The alkaline comet, or single cell gel electrophoresis, assay was employed to measure DNA single-strand breaks in cell cultures exposed to the radiofrequency (RF) signal as compared to concurrent sham-exposed cultures. Tail moment and comet extent were calculated as indicators of DNA damage. Statistical differences in the distribution of values for tail moment and comet extent between exposed and control cell cultures were evaluated with the KolmogorovSmirnoff distribution test. Data points for all experiments of each exposure condition were pooled and analyzed as single groups. It was found that: 1) exposure of cells to the iDEN signal at an SAR of 2.4 W g1 for 2 h or 21 h significantly decreased DNA damage; 2) exposure of cells to the TDMA signal at an SAR of 2.6 W g1 for 2 h and 21 h significantly decreased DNA damage; 3) exposure of cells to the iDEN signal at an SAR of 24 W g1 for 2 h and 21 h significantly increased DNA damage; 4) exposure of cells to the TDMA signal at an SAR of 26 W g1 for 2 h significantly decreased DNA damage...'

.

So the 'horror stories and negative research conclusions' that were the exclusive findings, were a determination that 3 out of 4 of the cellphone radiation exposure regiments tested resulted in a 'significantly decreased DNA damage'?

.

In the end I can rule out neither the possibility that you actually reviewed (albeit poorly) the studies you referenced, nor the possibility that a very small but statistically significant increase in cancer risk results from excessive cell phone use....

However, I do find the probability of either exceedingly remote.

Actually, this is not "more" controversy. This is the same controversy over again: Cell phones cause/do not cause cancer. My ten year old study is right and your ten year old study is wrong. Here are links to the studies that categorically support my position and here are some allusions to studies that do not support them or may contain information that doesn't support my position.

premature conjecture.