‘Unequivocal’ cell phones cause cancer

RT

Video

Mobiles ‘cooking the brain’; brain tumors become children’s number one killer illness; and leaked industry memo admits ‘wargaming’ the science.

Seek truth from facts with former senior White House adviser Devra Davis, Storyleak editor Anthony Gucciardi, ‘cell phone survivor’ Bret Bocook, Microwave News editor Louis Slesin, top radiation biologist Dariusz Leszczynski, and Ellie Marks, whose husband Alan’s suing the industry for his brain tumor.

Cell phones are “[t]he next public casualty catastrophe.”

The Truthseeker: ‘Casualty catastrophe’ – Cell phones & child brains

RT

Insurers stop covering for cell phone use, called the next ‘casualty catastrophe’ after tobacco and asbestos; phone manufacturers hit with a class action and personal lawsuits; and the warning deep inside your mobile. Seek truth from facts with Ellie Marks, whose husband Alan is suing the industry for his brain tumor, ‘cell phone survivor’ Bret Bocook, leading radiation biologist Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, Microwave News editor Dr. Louis Slesin, Storyleak editor Anthony Gucciardi, and former senior White House adviser Dr. Devra Davis

What the Cellphone Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know About Radiation Concerns

AlterNet
by Brad Jacobson

In her 2011 book Disconnect, National Book Award finalist, former senior White House health advisor and internationally regarded epidemiologist Devra Davis revealed that the cellphone industry is knowingly exposing us to dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation. No small problem when you consider that of the roughly 7 billion people on this planet, about 6 billion of us now use mobile phones.

In a recent analysis for the Huffington Post, Davis examined the cellphone industry’s long-term strategy, devised in the early ’90s, to deal with studies showing cellphone radiation damages DNA: “war-game the science.” Noted in a 1994 Motorola memo, this strategy, wrote Davis, “remains alive and well” today, the latest example occurring just last month. When the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published newly detailed documentation for its yearlong 2011 expert review—which declared cellphone radiation a “possible human carcinogen” (same as lead and DDT)—the multi-trillion-dollar cellular industry responded by citing a new dubious report out of Taiwan.

Davis, the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, pointed out that the online abstract concludes “with some highly unscientific language that sounds as though it was crafted for the PR section of Foxconn, the Taiwanese producer of phones for Apple, Motorola, and Sony:

‘In conclusion, we do not detect any correlation between the morbidity/mortality of malignant brain tumors and cellphone use in Taiwan. We thus urge international agencies to publish only confirmatory reports with more applicable conclusions in public. This will help spare the public from unnecessary worries.'”

In a recent phone interview with AlterNet, Davis, founder and president of the Wyoming-based Environmental Health Trust, discussed the cellphone industry’s longstanding covert battle against inconvenient science, strategies it has learned from the tobacco industry, our chemical addiction to mobile devices, and simple ways we can limit our exposure without losing touch with civilization.

Brad Jacobson: You’ve written that the cellphone industry’s long-term strategy for responding to studies showing its products damage DNA is to “war-game the science.” What exactly does this strategy entail?

Devra Davis: The example in the 1990s, which is documented in my book, was that [University of Washington researchers] Henry Lai and Narendra N.P. Singh found significant evidence of DNA damage caused by cellphone light radiation comparable almost to the damage you would get from X-rays, which is ionizing. At the time, it was generally believed by some people that non-ionizing radiation, which comes from a cellphone, could not possibly be physically damaging because it was so weak.

Well, it’s true that non-ionizing radiation lacks the power to have damage. But its damage seems to come from its modulated signal. So every 900 milliseconds, if you have a cellphone in your pocket, it’s getting half of that radiation which is getting into you as it seeks the signal from the tower.

So the industry understood this could be of enormous consequences, so they did three things. First, they wrote to the university and tried to get the scientists fired for violating the rules of the contract that they were working under at the time. They then wrote to NIH [National Institutes of Health]—and all of this has been documented in my book and there’s been no lawsuits filed about any of the statements I’m making to you—and they accused the scientists of fraud for misusing funds to do the study. Then, when that didn’t work they actually had somebody meet with the journal editors to try to get the article accepted for publication unaccepted.
Continued

Related:  New concerns over cell phone radiation

Campaigners’ anger at the mobile phone for 4 year olds

Telegraph
by Claire Carter

The phone does not allow access to text messaging or the internet, removing risks associated with mobile phones, and, the makers say, makes it easy for parents to stay in touch with their children .

But experts warned the ‘1stFone’, which costs £55 and is available on a contract or pay as you go basis, risks playing on parents’ fears of abduction and represents a worrying commercialisation of children. Concerns have also been raised about the health implications for very young children using mobile phones.

The phone was launched by OwnFone on Thursday, which has previously collaborated with Age UK on a telephone for the elderly. It is available on a made to order basis through the company’s website. Instead of a screen it just has the names of people to call on the front of it, which can be pre-programmed and older children can have 999 pre programmed.

Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said marketing a phone for children so young was “just another way of trying to make money out of children and their parents.”
However Mrs Palmer, a former headteacher, and other childcare experts have said the idea behind the phone, aimed at four to nine year-olds, in an era where children want mobiles and the latest technology, could be a positive step.

Mrs Palmer said parents felt more comfortable if they could contact their child easily in all situations, and in principle a simple phone – that removed the dangers of the internet – could be a good idea.

She added: “It’s a very tricky one. I would love to see a phone marketed for children under the age of 14 with no access to the internet. But four years old is extremely young. The point is it’s once they are going out on their own.The point is to look at what’s sensible, healthy and reasonable for children.”

“The marketing of technology to very young children is just a hook to get them into techno-consumerism,” she added.

Dr Agnes Nairn, the author of a Unicef report which compared childhood in Britain with that other European countries, said the phone needed to be marketed sensibly. She warned if it becomes popular it could put pressure on parents who think they need to buy one for their four year olds. But she said, for a phone that helped parents remain in contact with their children easily without the usual dangers of mobile phones, it was a “very good idea.”

She said: “You get this arms race of having to have the latest technology and there are big safety issues with being on the internet. You would give your child a phone if they are somewhere you are not, but four does seem a little young.”

Siobhan Freegard, founder of the UK parenting site Netmums.com said while a phone can be useful, children of four should not need one because they ought not be separated from their parents. She said: “It’s sadly yet another example of firms ringing up profits before children’s welfare.

“Marketing mobiles to pre-school children is wrong. No four year old needs their own phone as they should never be left alone or in a situation where they need to ring an adult.”

Thomas Sunderland, founder and inventor of OwnFone said: “Parents can stay in touch with their child even if they are as young as four without putting them at risk from sexting, text bullying, stumbling across inappropriate images on the internet or even being mugged for their smartphone.

“It’s up to the parent at what age they feel their child needs to be contactable, we just want to ensure when that time comes, there’s a product that minimises usage and poses no threat or danger to their safety.”

Mr Sunderland said the limitations of the phone means the health risks associated with a lot of mobile use is reduced.

Why Children Should Not be Using Cell Phones

Natural Society
by Mike Barrett

The issue of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is increasingly becoming a societal concern. Present where ever electricity flows, these invisible waves are causing damage to the health of all living organisms. Due to advancements in technology, EMFs can be found in bedrooms, classrooms, playgrounds, and basically anywhere thanks to our wireless world.

Cell Phones Especially Dangerous for Children

Technology is attaching early in younger generations, causing the youngest of kids to partake in heavy cell phone and TV activity. It is unfortunate, as growing children are more susceptible to the dangers brought on by EMFs. Cell phones in particular have become a major concern, with kids as young as 10 years old having them.

A recent report with lead author John Wargo, Ph. D. professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University shows just how damaging EMFs can be for children. Research shows that due to developing organs, lower bone density of the skull, lower body weight, and a less effective blood brain barrier, children are very vulnerable to cell phone radiation. This is especially true for unborn children, with research showing that microwave radiation emitted by cell phones negatively influencing fetal brains.

It was also revealed in a study conducted 4 years ago that 54 percent of children born from mothers who used cell phones had behavioral issues. What’s more, the percentage jumped to 80 if the children grew up talking on cell phones frequently.

Your brain is made up of water, sugars, and fats. Microwaves exuded by cell phones agitate these substances and penetrate the brain, causing negative alterations.

Researchers from a recent Greek study found that important areas of the brain such as the hippocampus, cerebellum, and frontal lobe – all important for learning, memory, and other functions – are negatively impacted by microwave radiation, even at levels below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines. Specifically, 143 proteins in the brain were negatively impacted by radio frequency radiation over a period of 8 months.

Although completely limiting exposure is near impossible, taking steps to avoid exposure to cellphone radiation is important. Simply talking on your cell phone less will result in less radiation exposure. Even placing your cell phone far away from you instead of in your pocket at all times limits exposure. Although it is a small amount, it is a very simple solution. Reducing exposure to children is especially important, as they are quite vulnerable. Another solution for limiting exposure would be to invest in an EMF protector or other similar and very available technologies that reduce exposure.

Indian Government Acknowledges Cell Phone Risks United States Doesn’t

Intel Hub

It is widely know amongst well researched individuals that cell phones emit radiation.

However, the FCC and the US Government continue to do everything in their power to not let this issue come to light by claiming tests are flawed (therefore we don’t know the truth).

ABC reports:  A government test used to measure the radiation people absorb from their cellphones might underestimate the levels to which most adults and children are exposed, according to a group of doctors and researchers whose stated mission is to promote awareness of environmental health risks they believe may be linked to cancer.

Researchers from the Environmental Health Trust released a report this morning noting that the Federal Communications Commission test to determine radiation exposure is flawed.

The reason for the discrepancy, the group says, is that the process to determine radiation exposure from cellphones involves the use of a mannequin model that they say approximates a 6-foot-2, 220-pound person. Because the model represents only about 3 percent of the population, the authors report, the test will not accurately predict the radiation exposure of the other 97 percent of the population, including children. The group is pushing for a new testing system to measure radiation exposure in a wider range of consumers.

“The standard for cellphones has been developed based on old science and old models and old assumptions about how we use cellphones, and that’s why they need to change,” said Dr. Devra Davis, former senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services under the Clinton administration and one of the report’s authors.

Apparently the government of India gets it. India is issuing a mandatory requirement to cell phone manufactures requiring them to document the dangers of radiation emissions from mobile devices.

A ZD Net article reports: The debate on whether cell phones and cell towers are injurious to health has no decisive winner. The companies say it’s all good; the skeptics say these companies have deep pockets that make it appear all good. The role of a government in this discussion therefore becomes more important and the Indian government has decided not to sit quiet on this topic. The government has directed cell phone manufacturers to display radiation information on the cell phones.

Earlier this year, the government came out strong on the topic of cell phone radiation and instructed all phone manufacturers to limit the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) to 1.6 Watt/Kg. SAR is the rate at which a human body absorbs energy due to an electromagnetic field. The rate set by the government of India is 1.6 Watt/Kg per 1 g of human tissue. The Federal Communications Commission in the US has prescribed the same levels for cell phone manufacturers in the US; the EU, however, is different.The new SAR levels will be in effect starting September of this year and OEMs are expected to have the SAR mentioned on the handsets going forward. The rule applies to all handsets sold in India irrespective of where they are manufactured.