Damn, that's much better

Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review, 2005



You can strike that one out. Maybe one should look at studies from 2005-present. Also reviews are much better to read and understand.

Here's one from 2012:

Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors

http://onlinelibrary.wil....1002/bem.20716/abstract

And another one, this time from the WHO, 2011. The same WHO, that deems DMT & LSD bad for your health.

Playing devils advocate here, its crucial to note that statistical significance doesn't necessarily mean clinical significance; rather it refers to the acceptance/rejection of the null hypothesis, whatever that may be.

Who ever said that UV isn't ionizing? The more energetic portion of the UV spectrum is ionizing. But radiation doesn't have to be ionizing to cause photochemical reactions. We have an ozone layer due to the creation of oxygen radicals when elemental oxygen is bombarded by UV radiation in the stratosphere.

One interesting idea that I've come across is that electromagnetic radiation decomposes oxalic acid, a natural acid found in trace concentrations in the human blood and in many fruits and vegetables. This compound is very sensitive to a variety of radiation types. This compound has also be shown to have many health benefits with antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties.

There are hypotheses that the rise in cancer rates seen in modern times are partly due to a lack of oxalic acid in the human diet.

Here is an interesting website by a guy who patented a "cure for cancer" that uses a diet rich in oxalic acid.

http://coljoe.net/

Some of the info on the website is a little wrong (the guy doesn't believe smoking causes cancer) and it does have a manic, unprofessional vibe, but the stuff about oxalic acid is pretty well researched and seems legit to me. It's at least interesting enough that more research should be done to test the validity of this guy's claims.

If this guy is right, then cell phones definitely increase your risk of cancer, along with all other major source of EMF.

Also, many of the materials used to manufacture cellphones are definitely carcinogenic and/or extremely poisonous. I know that people don't usually eat cellphones, but these dangerous compounds make it into the environment at some point and sooner or later hurt someone or something.

You have more to worry about eating a banana or just living on Earth.

Classic blacklo.

2006...I don't think I've ever seen a thread this old!

I actually got 4 bars the other day...Are my nuts gonna fall off?

do people still talk on the phone? I think hand and thigh cancer could be real problems tho, if cell phone radiation is just as bad as ionizing radiation.

Yes, better wrap them in tinfoil.

Not according to the World Health Organization or the American Cancer society. I did some research recently to reassure a tenant (and myself) regarding the uproar surrounding the installation of smart meters, and discovered a lot of information (and misinformation) about cell phones and microwave ovens.

There are currently no credible studies, according to these sites, that link cancer with the low emittance of RF radiation from hand held devices or other household appliances or devices. The problem is, there are none that prove they do not - but proving a negative is nigh impossible.

One interesting study found that in the last 15 yrs, since cell phones have become all but ubiquitous (not to mention wifi), the type of brain cancer they allegedly promote has actually decreased in frequency in the population in North America and several european countries. Unlikely that the two are linked at all, but given this data it would almost be more correct to conclude they don't cause cancer than to conclude they do! (Ok, technically, it would be less INcorrect to conclude so. )

Anyway, it's good to be concerned, but ignorant to let the concern govern your choices without good reason, and good sources to back up bandwagon claims.

Cheers,
JBArk

Cell Phone Dangers | Dr. Devra Davis

Some useful information. The absorption of EM radiation is highest when a phone is touching the skin. Also young children absorb more than adults and elderly.

Somewhere I once saw a claim that living cells react to pulsing EM signals with a molecule from the membrane to the nucleus as a message to protect DNA. This was in a german documentary and I don't have the link anymore.

The problem seems to be the kind of signal, it's pulsing and spread on frequencies close to each other. This kind of signal is hard for a cell to adapt to. Usually when an EM field is constant cells will easily adapt. However short bursts will confuse the mechanism and a cell will have trouble to cope with it.

If it causes cancer is hard to say. A lot of things cause cancer. Though there is no hair on my head willing to believe it's harmless. Maybe if the density of cell towers were a little less it could be.

Why is this your de facto belief? Better safe than sorry? A reasonable tact I suppose, but it's a leap for me from being cautious to BELIEVING something is dangerous when there is no hard evidence to suggest it is so.

I did not watch the entire video you linked - I turned it off after 26 mins when I realized she was veiling anecdotes, cherrypicking and misrepresenting studies. She was also cautious in her wording, to her credit, employing phrases like "may be damaging", "we think that possibly..."

The bit I watched was inconclusive, and used graphics and images in highly suggestive but scientifically irrelevant ways. The suggestibility of showing red and orange traces of emf radiation measured on the head of an adult holding a cell phone to their ear is verging on irresponsible. We know they emit radiation, we know we can measure it, the question is whether the quantity, and as she points out the nature (pulsing, information bearing), of the radiation is harmful. Showing a graphic of a test in dangerously suggestive colours with no context whatsoever to an audience of intelligent people is insulting at best and irresponsible at worst. That was just one of many...

Then she cites a study in which they demonstrate that EMF radiation "inhibits the formation and differentiation of neural stem cells during embryonic development in the hippocampus" of mice, without going in to critical details like dose, frequency, pulsing etc. In other words, she conveniently trots out a study to underscore her point that says (in likely high dose) EMF radiation CAN be harmful, which is tantamount to saying and about as conclusive as asserting, in context: HEAT CAN BURN. We already know that in high enough quantities, EMF radiation and RF radiation CAN be harmful. The question is whether the quantity and nature and proximity of use is detrimental with theses devices. Correlating studies that irradiate mice (with unspecified quantities of unspecified em frequencies) with cell phone use, without even bothering with the formality of comparison, is misleading, manipulative and irresponsible.

This is the danger with this type of thing in my opinion: Phds and academics standing in front of audiences and posting on youtube speeches that are highly conjectural, anecdotal, manipulative and quite frankly dishonest (posting pics of her colleague, and his family, who died from brain cancer last year after having had it 16 yrs previous: she posts a pic of him presumably post surgery, then reads the preface he wrote to her book about cell phone radiation, correlating his brain cancer to his cell phone use, but never saying directly that anyone believes, or that it was proved conclusively, that his cell phone use led to a recurrence of brain tumours sixteen years after a pre cell-phone first bout with cancer. Misrepresentative and dishonest. And anecdotal - with all her credentials, she should know better.)

Anyway, I had to turn it off after 26 mins because I found her insinuations and correlations, and yes, manipulations, irritating.

For the record, I am not saying any of these things are not harmful. But I tend to side with the credible research that's out there that indicates it is not, over all the viral, bandwagonning conjecture that it is actually deleterious. For the record also, I mostly text and use facetime almost exclusively when I can, actually speaking with the phone to my head maybe 20 mins a week at most.

Better safe than sorry. Though I do keep my cell phone in my front pocket, but I already have a kid.

Cheers,

JBArk

Perhaps all the viral, bandwagonning conjecture is a sign of something deeper than fears of cancer of body. Perhaps it is a cry for help from the collective subconscious. Maybe cell phones and EMF don't cause cancer in the way that we use them, but it's arguable that cell phones and other technologies are leading to a dissolution of our instinctual societal values. No one can credibly deny that technology has lead to much unnecessary destruction and to an increase in mental and physical pathologies as a whole. In a way, technology is a social cancer.

Technology can cause a lot of problems and I think it is smart to be wary of allowing new technologies to have such a central role in our lives. Technology is often used to exert power over others, but it is ironic that technology is also the only way we are going to easily solve the problems that we've created with technology.

I see the upheaval against cell-phones to be a symptom of a much deeper social critique, a critique that sadly hasn't swayed the thoughts of enough people in my opinion.

Well could someone explain the phantom leg vibrations I get as if my cell phone was vibrating, but its not in my pocket ? That kind of disturbs me.

I have a relative who is a doctor. He went to a medical conference where he was told that those phantom leg vibrations are a conditioned fight/flight reaction. Every time your phone buzzes, you get a small kick of adrenaline, whether you realize it or not.

Apologies for necro-ing this thread but heres an interesting study which, whilst not conclusive, is suggestive of the link between mobile/cordless phone use and glioma, a type of brain tumour:

http://www.pathophysiolo...l.com/article/S0928-4680(14)00064-9/fulltext

This thread also lacks the cancer.gov cellphone fact sheet: http://www.cancer.gov/ca...actsheet/Risk/cellphones

mutagenic radiation is ionizing radiation...microwaves are non-ionizing.
moreover, amplitude is too low to harm tissues from thermal effects