No, Cell Phones Don’t Cause Cancer

'Suggests' 'noticable'
I'm glad it's conclusive.
I'd be more impressed with a headline which mentioned 'statistically significant'. After all it would be very strange if the incidence was exactly the same as previous studies, so was it higher or lower? Hmmm, I'll bet it was higher else they'd have said "lower" in big bold type.
Del (baaad cynical kitty)

I concur - a couple of other thoughts occur to me....

also 'analyzes nine years' worth data from the U.K.'
and 'reasoned, Britain would have seen a significant increase in brain cancer during the last 20 years'

Without more information these statements could conflict.

Also what criteria did they use, what exclusions? for example did they exclude all cases with a family history of brain cancers? - ie all those with a known chance of being susceptible .... if they did that could invalidate their conclusions.

Also who funded the research?

I am convinced that all the people who permanently duct tape a cell phone to the side of their head, and do not move it for 10-15 years, except to renew the batteries, will, in time, develop some type of medical condition of the brain.

I'm pretty sure of that

Why don't they do test on rats or other animals by enclosing in an atmosphere containing RF waves and take periodical measurements of cancer growth.

I think you can make the same correlation to the use of diesel fuel and at least a dozen other phenomenon. My study suggests that "Correlation does not establish causation".

It's always worthwhile to hear an opposing view.

I was having a conversation with folks in the electronics shop at the university where I work about this and their staff engineer said he had a friend who is a cell biologist or biophysicist -- whichever -- and HE said that as long as you aren't too far away from a relay tower, that most cell phones radiation was low enough to not be detrimental. It's when you get out in the boonies and the phone automatically increases it's transmission power, that it can become significant enough to worry about... makes me think of the discussion of "facts" in another thread. After hearing some of the above linked video, you have to wonder where the truth lies (odd phrasing isn't it). And you have to ask yourself, does anyone in this debate have an agenda? I don't think Ms. Davis does. I'm always skeptical of "medical" research since so much of it is ultimately funded by "entities" with an agenda.

There is also the issue of how close the cell phone is clamped to the side of the user's head since, assuming isotropic radiation, it reduces with the cube of the distance ... less in reality because the transmission pattern is not isotropic ..... note also that because the transmission pattern is not isotropic the transmit power is also related to the orientation of the phone with respect to the tower....

We are living in an age of expanding information and declining knowledge. It should be kept in mind that we have only been holding microwave radiation 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-fields. 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 inter-cellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of inter-cellular 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.

Got to go...I have an incoming call on my cell phone.

Thank you for the informative post. I take a lot of "studies" with a grain of salt until I know who sponsered the study, who paid for it, etc. Sadly, too much "science" is tainted. Just ask the tobacco companies.

In addition, I saw Devra Davis on BookTV a year or so ago (video here) and I think she would still stand by her research into the subject.