Largest Cell Phone Study Finds No Cancer Risk

Who dreams up these titles? Cancer finds no risk?

I am not an expert on the English language, but my feeble knowledge says "Largest Cell Phone Study finds no Cancer Risk" is somewhat more readable.

It has probably been translated literally from the Danish.

I need another coffee because I hadn't noticed until I saw your comment. Now I keep laughing over how ridiculous it is.

It would appear more coffee is needed all around

Hello:

I'm not an expert either, so I actually imagined a bully carcinoma walking down dark streets, finding no one who dares to give him a good stare. It was pretty funny, my partner on the side looks at me as if I was on drugs or something.

Well, I hope it (absurd titles) never ends, we will always have something to laugh about.

Regards

P.S. I assume that the fake videos of people cooking pop-corn with a cell-phone are near their end too; I'm glad, their stupidity was insulting.

One more into the I told you so column. No common sense applied in the previous studies. Common sense: pop your battery, remember the talking time promised, figure some efficiencies, and come up with some multiple of 10 milliwatts effective radiated power. Not X-ray, warming only. Put it that way, you cannot convince a soul, that harm is coming from it!

So, the "studies" needed to do some heavy and fast shuffle with the facts, to stir the pot. Simple.

New research: Electropollution can cause diabetes (type-3) - Most people are familiar with type-1 diabetes and type-2 diabetes, but did you know researchers have discovered a third type of diabetes? Type-3 diabetes, as they are calling it, affects people who are extra sensitive to electrical devices that emit "dirty" electricity. Type-3 diabetics actually experience spikes in blood sugar and an increased heart rate when exposed to electrical pollution ("electropollution") from things like computers, televisions, cordless and mobile phones, and even compact fluorescent light bulbs. Dr. Magda Havas, a PhD from Trent University in Canada, recently published the results of a study she conducted on the relationship between electromagnetic fields and diabetes in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. In it, she explains how she and her team came to discover this about why electropollution is so dangerous for many people.

Blood sugar goes haywire: One of the most interesting finding in her study was that electro-sensitive people whose blood sugar decreases when they go for a walk outdoors actually experience an increase in blood sugar when walking on a treadmill. Treadmills, you see, are electrical devices that emit electrical pollution. But interestingly, even the physical exertion of walking on the treadmill did not make up for the blood sugar spiking effect of the EMFs emitted by the treadmills. Despite the exercise, in other words, type-3 diabetics experienced significant spikes in blood sugar when walking on the treadmill. Dirty electricity is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for people who are type-3 diabetics. And Dr. Havas explains in her study that even having an electrical device plugged into the wall near someone who is type-3 diabetic can cause them problems.

One of the most interesting finding in her study was that electro-sensitive people whose blood sugar decreases when they go for a walk outdoors actually experience an increase in blood sugar when walking on a treadmill. Treadmills, you see, are electrical devices that emit electrical pollution. But interestingly, even the physical exertion of walking on the treadmill did not make up for the blood sugar spiking effect of the EMFs emitted by the treadmills. Despite the exercise, in other words, type-3 diabetics experienced significant spikes in blood sugar when walking on the treadmill. Dirty electricity is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for people who are type-3 diabetics. And Dr. Havas explains in her study that even having an electrical device plugged into the wall near someone who is type-3 diabetic can cause them problems.

I call all out BS on that one!

There is a type 3 diabetes but is simply a combined effect relating to type 1 and type 2 combined. No mention of dirty electricity that I could find mentioned as a cause.

http://www.lifescript.com/health/centers/diabetes/articles/the_double_whammy_what_is_type_3_diabetes.aspx

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2582

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus

Go peddle your snake oil else where. You are dealing with actual somewhat educated folks here who can do right and proper online searches.

I understand that the source was not academic.

Here is what I should have posted: Dr. Magda Havas, PhD

http://www.magdahavas.com/biography/

http://www.magdahavas.org/

Scholarly Publications:

http://www.magdahavas.org/?s=diabetes

Havas, M. 2008. Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and May Explain Brittle Diabetes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Vol. 27( 2), pp. 135-146.

No, reciting a research gets you not far here. Researches are a dime a dozen. 99,xx% is barely worth the paper it is written on. Not bad, nor good, simply nothing remarkable.

Let's deal with the remainder (a fraction of a single%), that has the potential to become good or bad.

A prime problem is, when an author wanders off its professional area of competency. The general experience is, that a quite competent author in one field, is not different from a common man in another. The fact in itself is not particularly remarkable, except when an authority thinks, that competency extends into other, unrelated fields. That is the very reason for solid multidisciplinary teams. And that is expensive. Additionally, it takes an exceptional character for a team leader to endure ideas to be shot down by team members.

The upshot is, that it is not done, normally. With predictable results. There were a couple of scientific scandals recently, mostly attributed to inbreeding and bad statistics, beyond human frailties, as ego and lack of crosschecking.

Additionally, it is quite disturbing, that such real or apparent problems taint then research, that otherwise would show real hope.

As a competent electronic engineer, who learned biochemistry, I am compelled to say, that this is the work of a dilettante.

On such a narrow reading I would be wrong to pass any iudgement on her life's work, and I firmly refuse to do so.

Cell phones cause diahrea of the mouth.

This study has been discussed before on CR4. I think this is an excellent post from that thread worth repeating here.

(In the end, very few people will change their habits with cell phone usage and like Windows OSs, the real study is being done planet-wide. I would err on the side of precaution. My main use of a cell phone is for emergencies. I don't use one more than a couple of times a month, for casual use.)

The posting is excellent, and detailed. I will use it as a general warning, you did not intend.

For decades there was a bloody serious concern with claims, that the soviet may be able to communicate with their submarines via ESP. It gave the US navy an ongoing headache, They were unable to disprove. As disproving something new and different is inherently difficult to flat impossible.

After the fall of the Soviet Union they became more alarmed, as scientific delegations came back with affirmation of ESP communications.

Finally, they sent over a delegation of professional magicians headed by the great Randi (winner of the Mc Arthur genius award). They controlled the conditions of the demonstrations, and ESP failed promptly, and ever since.

Now, did I accuse any experimenter there or here with outright fraud? Not at all. But, science is full with people, who after a while believe their experiments or theories too much. They become wedded to them. That is the reason, that at the most basic, no research is considered valid until independent groups (as in multiple) repeat and report it. A famous case was, when somebody discovered structures in water. After a long suffering, it turned out to be contamination. Subtle, nonetheless.

Recently, 2 issues came up, and still pending. The case of the faster than light neutrinos, and the harder than normal diamond. While vastly different in their import, neither will be resolved on the quick.

A claim, of extra, extraordinary sensitivity is such a maior import to basic physiology, that simply reporting it only establishes the originality, if any. That is necessary for attribution. It is not any kind of proof, until sceptics, like me repeat it, and find it worthy. There is only one condition (and that is large), that the sceptics are not intent to slant their experiments.

As far as to the likelihood of this passing the hurdle, I would be very much surprised. Having a passing familiarity with electrical potentials in the cells, I would be greatly surprised, if there is anything to it. Sorry.