Tag Archives: brain tumour

Cellphones ‘possibly carcinogenic,’ WHO says – Washington Post

users might consider common-sense precautions such as texting more instead of talking and using a headset to keep the phone farther from the head to minimize exposure.

By Rob Stein, Published: May 31

An international panel of experts has weighed in on the controversy about cellphone safety — and come to a conclusion that falls far short of recommending that consumers put down the devices, although it may make them more anxious.

Cellphones are “possibly carcinogenic” to humans, according to the panel organized by the World Health Organization. But an exhaustive, eight-day review of hundreds of studies concluded that the existing evidence is insufficient to know for sure. And because cellphones are so popular, further research is urgently needed, the experts said.

“Possibly carcinogenic” is the WHO’s third-highest rating, falling below “carcinogenic” and “probably carcinogenic” but above “not classifiable” and “probably not carcinogenic.” Other substances that the group has categorized as “possibly carcinogenic” include talcum powder, which has been possibly linked to ovarian cancer, and low-frequency magnetic fields, which are emitted by power lines and appliances and have been possibly associated with childhood leukemia. Continue reading


Insurance Companies Do Not Cover Harm Caused by Non-ionising Radiation



Great cancer risk increase in the vicinity of a GSM base station

Health risks from Base Station radiation

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)

A German study found a threefold higher frequency of cancer among people living in the vicinity (400 m) of a GSM base station compared to people living further away from the antenna. The risk for mammary cancer was 3,4 times greater and the average age of contracting this disease was considerably lower, 50,8 years than in the control group (69,9 years). The frequency increased also the longer people had been exposed to the radiation. The study covered a ten year long period (1994-2004), starting the year after the installation of the base station. Before the installation of the base station, there was no difference in cancer incidence between people living in the vicinity of the (future) base station and the control area.

“The result is a quite concrete epidemiological proof of a connexion between exposition to radiation from GSM Base stations and Cancer. This result is, considering the available documentation about the effect of highfrequency electromagnetic radiation not only plausible but probable.”

Source (in German): Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit, Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz. Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft | 17 | 4/2004

Comment by PSRAST

There exsists ample and uneqiuvocal evidence today that microwave radiation damages DNA. It has also been established beyond doubt in experimental studies that DNA damage increases cancer risk. This study adds to several others indicating that the DNA damage from microwaves brings about a considerable increase of cancer risk among people exposed to the radiation.

This study is just one of several indicating various health disturbances in people living or working close to base stations (see below). Continue reading

“BlackBerry Torch ….says, ‘If you keep the phone in your pocket, it can exceed the FCC exposure guidelines’.”

“Well, it has in France. Bills passed both houses of the French national government this spring that ban the marketing and creation of phones uniquely for children. It’s also had an impact in Israel, a country that is very sophisticated in its use of radar and microwaves, and Finland, both of which have issued warnings.”

“But think about the fine print warning that comes with BlackBerry Torch. It says, If you keep the phone in your pocket, it can exceed the FCC exposure guidelines. What’s that supposed to tell you? It sounds like that phone cannot safely be put in your pocket — well, where do they expect people to keep them?”

“I recently spoke to someone at Bell Canada who was just given his new phone and was asked to sign a statement that he had read the manual. He said: “Why am I supposed to sign this statement? So when and if I develop cancer years later I can’t sue them?” The manual tells him “hold the phone .9 inches from the body,” which nobody does.”

“I think it might have started out as nothing more than companies wanting to make profits, and wanting to keep their products in a positive light. Companies are allowed to make profits; I’m not opposed to that. And I imagine people genuinely thought these kinds of dangers from radiation weren’t possible, because the physics paradigm [at the time] said it wasn’t. But it has since been morphed into something worse.Now even the insurance industry is listening to scientists. Many companies are no longer providing coverage for health damage from cellphones.”

Continue reading

New Book Claims Cell Phones Are Unhealthy

by Anna Attkisson

A new book titled “Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family” by toxicologist and epidemiologist Devra Davis connects cell phones with a variety of health problems. Salon recently talked to the National Book Award finalist for “When Smoke Ran Like Water.” The author, who has spoken before Congress on the effects of smoking on cancer, uses some relatively recent studies that have tied cell phone use to rises in brain damage, cheek cancer, and malfunctioning sperm as the basis for her claims. She also points to a new small-print warning on cell phone packaging that says phones should be kept at least one-inch from the ear. And she uses the fact that many insurance companies refuse to insure cell phone companies against health-related claims as proof of her assertions as well. She is not alone in her claims of cell phone dangers, with the World Health Organization indicating that more than 10 years of use could cause brain cancer. The problem with that is proof, considering most of us haven’t been using phones for 10 years yet.

However, there’s nothing wrong with a little caution, just in case. Surprisingly she doesn’t recommend throwing out your phone. She does recommend you use a headset, text more, and keep your phone in a purse or other bag, instead of in your pocket. We have five recommendations of our own.

Read more: http://blog.laptopmag.com/new-book-says-cell-phones-are-unhealthy#ixzz12Wb5kGyQ

October 11th, 2010


Is there a link between cell phone technology and Brain Tumour?:Findings of the The INTERPHONE Brain Tumor Study

Cindy Sage, Editorial Perspective, BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

For at least three years, the largest brain cancer/cell phone study in history has languished under wraps at IARC because of bitter squabbling among contributing researchers over presentation, meaning and conclusions. Implications of the study are truly incendiary.

While we were all waiting, the number of cell phone users doubled to over four billion in 2009. What a great waste of time that could have been used to moderate the rollout of new, potentially dangerous wireless technologies. The wall of denial about whether low-intensity radiofrequency radiation can harm health has collapsed. If cell phones can cause cancer, and INTERPHONE statistics that show they can, then none of these other applications of wireless can be presumed safe either. The standards of ICNIRP and the FCC are obsolete, and the INTERPHONE results substantiate this. But for this inexcusable delay, we could have perhaps prevented millions from giving up their safe landline phones, prevented thousands of classrooms from going wireless, pushed R&D forward into safer product designs, and given parents fair warning about how and where their children may be suffering from the world’s newly recognized cancer-causing agent.

There may be another way we should look at this, however. Anyone who watched the WHO EMF Program leadership, and its ‘process’ from the outside – between about 2003 and 2009 – would have given up all hope of a fair reading of the scientific situation, regardless of the actual data.

Strong industry ties, murky funding and obligations to sponsors, a moving target in its research designs and protocols, shifting obeisance among research teams, stealthy attacks on independent researchers and their work, wondrous and inexplicable changes in attitude on the part of key investigators rising through the scientific ranks, and the usual academic upheavals and personal dramas – all contributed to the general ennui that the ‘fix was in’.

However, something else entirely happened. We would not be seeing this at all if some INTERPHONE members had not resolutely dug in, holding out for fair and forthright coverage of the incriminating evidence for risk. One can almost feel the smoke coming off some pages.

So, in balance, and at the end of a harrowing ride, I think we should do two things. Continue reading