- Jul 31, 2011
- 5,441
- 2,016
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #26
I don't know about the others but Mercola is batshit insane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
I wouldn't believe a god damned thing that clown told me.
Xfiles News Mobile phone usage is shown to increase your risk of a brain tumor
- Thread starter Didga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't know about the others but Mercola is batshit insane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
I wouldn't believe a god damned thing that clown told me.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Mercola has some pretty good things to say about fasting; he advocates fresh juicing and a paleo diet has merit . So there is some good advice amongst his stuff.
rayven
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 9,955
- 1,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PC racing
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/01/07/3665436.htm?site=northwestwa
At three, your skull is going to quite thin, compared to an adult who we know is at risk of brain tumas from the phones, is it not?
Dr? orlando doesn't mention anything about any of the health risks associated with there use. You could be forgiven for thinking there was none.
below is the articles headline of the article written on monday. You would expect there to be something about the health risks, with a headline like that.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/01/07/3665436.htm?site=northwestwa
Should you let your kids use your smart phone?
By Sharon Kennedy
I wonder who funded the study?
At three, your skull is going to quite thin, compared to an adult who we know is at risk of brain tumas from the phones, is it not?
I think this person is not a doctor.
Dr? orlando doesn't mention anything about any of the health risks associated with there use. You could be forgiven for thinking there was none.
below is the articles headline of the article written on monday. You would expect there to be something about the health risks, with a headline like that.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/01/07/3665436.htm?site=northwestwa
Should you let your kids use your smart phone?
By Sharon Kennedy
I wonder who funded the study?
kaysee
Rising From The Ashes
10k Posts
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
I'm not arguing one side or the other... merely stating that the topic needs a lot more research before anything conclusive can be made about the health risk. There are plenty of studies on both sides, but nothing conclusive... which is why I linked to the actual National Cancer Institute (you know... those people who are legitimately worried about cancer related health topics)... and not to a GQ article (2010), a Blog (Jan 2012) and a medical company's website (Dec 2012) who're only interested in drawing crowds in to flog a product (and who often refer to the above NCI when it suits their web "broadsheets").
So I will state again what the NCI states...
But those yanks are probably corrupt... right??? What about the Europeans? From the European CanCer Organisation:
www.ecco-org.eu/Global/News/Latest-News/2011/06/Mobile-Phones-Possibly-Carcinogenic-to-Humans.aspx
So the above research (Jun 2012) states their could be some risk with wireless telephones.And from the largest study on mobile phone use ever carried out on ~350,000 users ...
www.ecco-org.eu/Global/News/Latest-News/2011/11/Largest-study-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer-finds-no-link.aspx
Take from that what you wish.
My position is undecided and that more studies are needed... and that air/food/water pollution and treatments are effecting our health more so than anything wireless comms can throw at us.
But ultimately...
Cancer is bad... right??? Whilst we're all running around researching and finding out what causes all different types of cancers... there are armies of researchers out there at the same time looking in to cures. That whole genome project wasn't for nothing. It is a realistic expectation that at some point in the future cancer will become less of a, or a zero, health issue. It's like fearing that we're going to run out of petrol for our cars whilst other researchers work on solutions to that problem.
Blood-brain barrier leakage
Frey’s 1975 study shows that microwaves could cause leakage through the blood-brain barrier. This is a major concern, as this barrier allows nutrients from blood to enter the brain, but not toxic substances:
Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, 'Neural Function and Behavior,' Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433439
In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves could induce “leakage” in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter. It means that bacteria, viruses and toxins from the blood can enter the brain. It means the brain’s environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in other dangerous ways. Frey’s method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats’ brains.
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=594
Later, Leif Salford also studied blood-brain barrier leakage after Frey – see great quote in red
In laboratory rats, Salford’s team has demonstrated that blood-brain barrier leakage occurs after only two minutes of exposure. Further, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, even at reduced power, was shown to damage or destroy up to two percent of an animal’s brain cells.
In other experiments in Salford’s laboratory, long term exposure of rats to a cell phone caused memory impairment, and a single six-hour exposure at extremely low power levels caused genetic damage. Exposure to a low-frequency magnetic field (low frequencies are also emitted by cell phones) caused disturbances of calcium transport in cells.
Salford has called the use of cell phones by human beings “the largest biological experiment ever,” and he calls the potential implications of his laboratory results “terrifying.” “Those who might normally have got Alzheimer’s dementia in old age could get it much earlier,” he said. “Perhaps putting a mobile phone repeatedly to your head is something that might not be good in the long term.”
Various studies listed here
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=579
Frey’s 1975 study shows that microwaves could cause leakage through the blood-brain barrier. This is a major concern, as this barrier allows nutrients from blood to enter the brain, but not toxic substances:
Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, 'Neural Function and Behavior,' Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433439
In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves could induce “leakage” in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter. It means that bacteria, viruses and toxins from the blood can enter the brain. It means the brain’s environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in other dangerous ways. Frey’s method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats’ brains.
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=594
Later, Leif Salford also studied blood-brain barrier leakage after Frey – see great quote in red
In laboratory rats, Salford’s team has demonstrated that blood-brain barrier leakage occurs after only two minutes of exposure. Further, a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone, even at reduced power, was shown to damage or destroy up to two percent of an animal’s brain cells.
In other experiments in Salford’s laboratory, long term exposure of rats to a cell phone caused memory impairment, and a single six-hour exposure at extremely low power levels caused genetic damage. Exposure to a low-frequency magnetic field (low frequencies are also emitted by cell phones) caused disturbances of calcium transport in cells.
Salford has called the use of cell phones by human beings “the largest biological experiment ever,” and he calls the potential implications of his laboratory results “terrifying.” “Those who might normally have got Alzheimer’s dementia in old age could get it much earlier,” he said. “Perhaps putting a mobile phone repeatedly to your head is something that might not be good in the long term.”
Various studies listed here
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=579
DNA damage
Henry Lai’s original study showing that a single 2 hours of exposure to low intensity 2.4 Ghz microwaves causes brain cell DNA damage:
Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(3):207-10.
Levels of DNA single-strand break were assayed in brain cells from rats acutely exposed to low-intensity 2450 MHz microwaves using an alkaline microgel electrophoresis method. Immediately after 2 h of exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds width, 500 pulses/s) microwaves, no significant effect was observed, whereas a dose rate-dependent [0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body specific absorption rate (SAR)] increase in DNA single-strand breaks was found in brain cells of rats at 4 h post exposure. Furthermore, in rats exposed for 2 h to continuous-wave 2450 MHz microwaves (SAR 1.2 W/kg), increases in brain cell DNA single-strand breaks were observed immediately as well as at 4 h post exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677797
Henry Lai’s original study showing that a single 2 hours of exposure to low intensity 2.4 Ghz microwaves causes brain cell DNA damage:
Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(3):207-10.
Levels of DNA single-strand break were assayed in brain cells from rats acutely exposed to low-intensity 2450 MHz microwaves using an alkaline microgel electrophoresis method. Immediately after 2 h of exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds width, 500 pulses/s) microwaves, no significant effect was observed, whereas a dose rate-dependent [0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body specific absorption rate (SAR)] increase in DNA single-strand breaks was found in brain cells of rats at 4 h post exposure. Furthermore, in rats exposed for 2 h to continuous-wave 2450 MHz microwaves (SAR 1.2 W/kg), increases in brain cell DNA single-strand breaks were observed immediately as well as at 4 h post exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677797
Brain and head tumours
Hardell 2010
Hardell and his team find increasing evidence of brain tumour risk associated with mobile phone use
A new study by Hardell, published in June 2010, found that using a mobile phone for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of developing a brain tumour, and the more hours the phone was used, the higher the risk. For those who had used their phone for more than 2,000 hours in total since they first started using the phone, the risk was more than tripled. More than 2,000 hours on a cordless phone was also associated with nearly a doubling of brain tumour risk.
http://www.emfields.org/news/20100821-mobile-phones-hardell.asp
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Mobile phone use and the risk for malignant brain tumors: a case-control study on deceased cases and controls. Neuroepidemiology. 2010 Aug;35(2):109-14. doi: 10.1159/000311044. Epub 2010 Jun 15.
Use of mobile phones gave an increased risk, highest in the >10 years' latency group yielding odds ratio (OR) = 2.4, and 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4-4.1. The risk increased with cumulative number of lifetime hours for use, and was highest in the >2,000 h group (OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.6-7.1). No clear association was found for use of cordless phones, although OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.8-3.4 was found in the group with >2,000 h of cumulative use. This investigation confirmed our previous results of an association between mobile phone use and malignant brain tumors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551697
Hardell 2010
Hardell and his team find increasing evidence of brain tumour risk associated with mobile phone use
A new study by Hardell, published in June 2010, found that using a mobile phone for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of developing a brain tumour, and the more hours the phone was used, the higher the risk. For those who had used their phone for more than 2,000 hours in total since they first started using the phone, the risk was more than tripled. More than 2,000 hours on a cordless phone was also associated with nearly a doubling of brain tumour risk.
http://www.emfields.org/news/20100821-mobile-phones-hardell.asp
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Mobile phone use and the risk for malignant brain tumors: a case-control study on deceased cases and controls. Neuroepidemiology. 2010 Aug;35(2):109-14. doi: 10.1159/000311044. Epub 2010 Jun 15.
Use of mobile phones gave an increased risk, highest in the >10 years' latency group yielding odds ratio (OR) = 2.4, and 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4-4.1. The risk increased with cumulative number of lifetime hours for use, and was highest in the >2,000 h group (OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.6-7.1). No clear association was found for use of cordless phones, although OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.8-3.4 was found in the group with >2,000 h of cumulative use. This investigation confirmed our previous results of an association between mobile phone use and malignant brain tumors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551697
Mobile phones affect sperm
Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic noticed the between low sperm counts and men who kept their phones on the bodies longest, usually in their pockets.
Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 May 4.
RESULT(S): The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all four cell phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell phones increased.
CONCLUSION(S): Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic noticed the between low sperm counts and men who kept their phones on the bodies longest, usually in their pockets.
Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 May 4.
RESULT(S): The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all four cell phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell phones increased.
CONCLUSION(S): Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
Salivary gland cancer
An Israeli study reports that people who used cell phones for 22 hours a month or more were 50 percent more likely to develop parotid gland cancer than those who used cell phones infrequently or never.
http://www.health24.com/news/Enviro_Health_/1-1308,44705.asp
An Israeli study reports that people who used cell phones for 22 hours a month or more were 50 percent more likely to develop parotid gland cancer than those who used cell phones infrequently or never.
http://www.health24.com/news/Enviro_Health_/1-1308,44705.asp
Children and mobile phone exposure
2012 - Gandhi et al shows that the SAR/SAM massively under estimates exposure for children:
Om P. Gandhi, L. Lloyd Morgan, Alvaro Augusto de Salles, Yueh-Ying Han, Ronald B. Herberman, Devra Lee Davis. Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, March 2012, Vol. 31, No. 1 : Pages 34-51.
The existing cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989 and greatly underestimating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones. In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the “guidelines” of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non governmental agency. Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical properties are considered, a child's head's absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull's bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults. Therefore, a new certification process is needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.622827?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528om%2Bgandhi%2529&searchHistoryKey=
Five times the risk of a brain tumour – children and teenagers and long term use of a mobile phone
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.Int J Oncol. 2011 May;38(5):1465-74. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2011.947. Epub 2011 Feb 17.
Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlson and Kjell Hansson Mild have further studied the association between use of mobile and cordless phones and malignant brain tumours. This new study has been published in the International Journal of Oncology. They concluded that there was a significantly increased risk for glioma from the long-term use of a mobile or cordless phone.
The risk increased with latency time and cumulative use in hours and was highest in subjects with first use before the age of 20 - in this group there was almost 5 times the risk after 10 years mobile phone use….For older people the increased risk was between 1.3-fold and 1.5-fold if they had used any type of wireless phone for more than ten years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331446
2012 - Gandhi et al shows that the SAR/SAM massively under estimates exposure for children:
Om P. Gandhi, L. Lloyd Morgan, Alvaro Augusto de Salles, Yueh-Ying Han, Ronald B. Herberman, Devra Lee Davis. Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, March 2012, Vol. 31, No. 1 : Pages 34-51.
The existing cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989 and greatly underestimating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones. In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the “guidelines” of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non governmental agency. Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical properties are considered, a child's head's absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull's bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults. Therefore, a new certification process is needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.622827?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528om%2Bgandhi%2529&searchHistoryKey=
Five times the risk of a brain tumour – children and teenagers and long term use of a mobile phone
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.Int J Oncol. 2011 May;38(5):1465-74. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2011.947. Epub 2011 Feb 17.
Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlson and Kjell Hansson Mild have further studied the association between use of mobile and cordless phones and malignant brain tumours. This new study has been published in the International Journal of Oncology. They concluded that there was a significantly increased risk for glioma from the long-term use of a mobile or cordless phone.
The risk increased with latency time and cumulative use in hours and was highest in subjects with first use before the age of 20 - in this group there was almost 5 times the risk after 10 years mobile phone use….For older people the increased risk was between 1.3-fold and 1.5-fold if they had used any type of wireless phone for more than ten years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331446
The fact of the matter is that in this age of vested intrests deliberately distorting scientific information like the Tobacco Lobby did and the fossil fuel lobby did with climate change it is hard to know. To make this harder to figure out the nutters who think anything and everything is going to cause them damage, such as the nutters behind the anti imunisation lobby, so as a non-expert it is extremely difficult to know what is true.
kaysee
Rising From The Ashes
10k Posts
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Your link is from an organisation who's mission is to educate about the potential dangers of mobile phones:
Basically, every article they publish will be biased towards their agenda.
My link was from an organisation who's mission is to educate and achieve the best results for cancer patients:
Of the two organisations who do you think would be more concerned with oncology and who is more concerned with mobile devices?
As I said, there are many studies from many researchers out there for both sides. You can Google all you like to find ones to suit your disposition (still can't believe you used GQ), but I'll take the advice of the impartial cancer organisations.
In the end... who really cares?
Did you actually read it?
Obviously not you.
I would never wish a brain tumour on anyone - instead I just hope you become electrohypersensitive like friend of mine - that would be amusing.
As to who really cares? Quite a few of us, including a mate of mine who used to train sales teams for a major multi-national. Haven't seen him for a while, but he told me quite a few of the sales folk who spent hours on mobiles have died from brain tumours.
Apparently you also know more than Charlie Teo too, here's something from a couple of years ago
kaysee
Rising From The Ashes
10k Posts
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Yep. Do you believe 100% in everything you read?
So you would never wish a brain tumour on anyone, but you want me to develop EHS for your own amusement. Whatever rocks your boat!!
My "who cares" comment is in relation to if society really cares at all. How does it differ from other health risks that exist within our society? It doesn't... it is the type of sensationalist topic that is show on Today Tonight every couple of months to draw in viewers.
You're obviously emotionally compromised by the subject, but research removes the emotion and is still inconclusive despite what you think or what your mate tells you.
I have never claimed knowing anything. Instead I have repeatedly stated that studies are inconclusive as pointed out by most Cancer Organisations (the ones who read and filter all the related studies on the matter) from around the world.
What does the Cancer Council Australia have to say?
http://www.cancer.org.au/about-canc...-causes/unknown-carcinogenic-risk.html#jump_4
Situation - Hazard presented by cell (mobile) phones
Exposure - Cell (mobile) phone users
Carcinogen - Electromagnetic fields
Principal route of exposure - Irradiation
Target organ (or tumour type) - Brain
Comment - Risk associated with long term use remains to be established
Further article:
http://www.cancer.org.au/news/media...le-link-between-mobile-phones-and-cancer.html
So here is what I know about subject:
- the National Cancer Institute (USA)... states it is inconclusive and needs more research.
- the European CanCer Organisation (EURO)... states it is inconclusive and needs more research.
- the Cancer Council Australia (AUS)... states it is inconclusive.
But don't worry @Dryrot and his mate states it as fact.
Most of the research conducted has been sponsored by organisations with ties to phone companies therefore studies that say 'mobiles don't cause brain cancer' are conflicted. (The user manuals that come with mobile phones, issue warnings that their product increases the risk of brain cancer and suggest using them 2 feet away from you.)
Mobile usage has grown over the last 10 years which means there are more radio-frequencey electromagnetic fields which the WHO recognise could cause cancer. The reality is the damage it's doing to us is unknown because they haven't been around long enough.
LukasTheGreat
Brownlow Medallist
It's a risk I'm willing to take
