cell phone
3 ratings since posting on Friday, December 16, 2005|
in Everywhere
|
Overall Rating   based on 3 ratings |
|
|
Advertisement
|
||
|
Feel free to forward and post :> Copy / paste Subject: Cell Phones & Brain Tumors - NYT story with comments on ignored research To: George Noory Coast To Coast To: George Noory Coast To Coast National Radio www.coasttocoastam.com/ My Uncle Jack Krohmer (deceased) was one of the leading authorities on the effects of radiation on human health. His daughter, died of a brain tumor. radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/co...1/2/562 Several factors that have been ignored with the research of brain tumors and cell phone use the effects of EMF's on other toxic chemicals, in tissue. And the tissue itself. My comments on "ignored factors" are given after this article - TR Debate over cell phones, cancer revived By TARA PARKER-POPE NEW YORK TIMES Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 4:30 a.m. Last Modified: Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cell phones next to their ears. "I think the safe practice is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain," said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cell phones, said: "I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear." And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that, like Black, he used an earpiece. Along with Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy's recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cell phone use, the doctors' remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cell phones and cancer. That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cell phones cause brain tumors "defies credulity," said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center. According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk." The FDA notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn't answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use. Cell phones emit nonionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how nonionizing radiation might lead to cancer. But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can't explain the mechanism doesn't mean one does not exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cell phones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone. Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cell phone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe. Some of the research suggests a link between cell phone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cell phone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low. Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cell phone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cell phone use. "What we're seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years," says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. "There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it's much too early to reach a conclusive view." Some doctors say the real concern is not older cell phone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure. "More and more kids are using cell phones," said Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. "They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner." For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn't always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear. The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cell phone is low, with 3 billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern. "We cannot say with any certainty that cell phones are either safe or not safe," Black said on CNN. "My concern is that with the widespread use of cell phones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation." -- ...-- End Of Forwarded Message ----- Additional study: Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation. The study, by Dr. Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks. *Mobile Phones 'More Dangerous Than Smoking'* Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation By Geoffrey Lean, The Independent news Sunday, 30 March 2008 www.independent.co.uk/life-st...602.html ______________________________________________ Comment (copy / paste): RE: www.pressdemocrat.com/article...91044446 My Uncle Hack Krohmer (deceased) was one of the leading authorities on the effects of radiation on human health. His daughter, died of a brain tumor. radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/co...1/2/562 Several factors that have been ignored with the research of brain tumors and cell phone use the effects of EMF's on other toxic chemicals, in tissue. And the tissue itself. The majority of Americans are out of balance with Omega Fatty Acids 3, 6 and 9. Cells are then made with the wrong lipids, causing confusion with in the immune system, when the cell dies. Of which is why (I suspect) that so many studies have shown the benefits of Omega 3 therapy (fish oil) that Garth Nicolson PhD calls, "lipid replacement therapy". Reference www.immed.org It has been shown the EMF's can alter the vibration of radon and increase it's "toxic impact". In reference: Title: Are pylons and radon a lethal cocktail. By O'Brien-Claire. New-Scientist. Feb 17, 1996. v149(n2017). p4(1). The physics of this should also be applicable to other toxic chemicals and other common Volatile Organic Compounds.'s as well as what I term, "the toxic lotto". The following is an excerpt from, "Toxic Revelations" A Congressional Report states that of the 1,400 chemicals known to cause cancer, less than 6% are tracked (145B). The huge transnational companies that produce toxic chemicals found in pesticides, herbicides and industrial and household products profit not only from the sale of these products, but also from the symptoms and chronic illnesses that they can trigger (157). To simplify the complexity of the controversy (14), I will give this example. Bill Moyers of the Public Broadcasting System did a show named Trade Secrets and has created a web page of the same name (26). There is to much documentation there to list, in regard to "industry" covering up the damage to OUR HEALTH from toxic chemicals, for over fifty years. Bill Moyers was tested for over 800 toxic chemicals and over 80 chemicals (at various levels of exposure) were found, in him (26). That presents the potential for more viable chemicals reaction variations than the pick six lottery in one patient from the perspective of the Low Dose Cumulative Effects of Toxic Chemical's ! But regardless of this, many of the "tolerable levels of exposure" to a (singular) toxic chemical have been fraudulently produced for decades. But it is well documented in the book "Toxic Deception (81) that they have known this since the 1970's. In the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, Industrial Bio- Test Laboratories (IBT) performed about 35-40% of all U.S. Toxicology testing. Of the 867 audits of IBT performed by the FDA under the 1962 law, 618 were found to be invalid because of numerous discrepancies between the study conduct and data. FDA flexed its muscles and found four IBT managers guilty of fraud." Yet the EPA has still been accepting these "studies" that are financed by industry, with out any real review !!! www.westgard.com/guest16.htm .............. Next excerpt: Quote from the Vets at "Beyond Treason, " What you don't know about your government could kill you... Department of Defense documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act expose the horrific underworld of the disposable army mentality and the government funded experimentation upon US citizens conducted without their knowledge or consent.". End of quote. Mycoplasma's have been studied by the United States government for decades, as a type of biological weapon known as "incapacitating agents". www.immed.org/illness/bioterrorism.html Your immune system is only as strong as the weakest gene. One might pop at a heart attack and another at macular degeneration, from the same influences. Toxic chemical exposures can reduce the immune systems ability to deal with sub-clinical (not acute) "stealth" infections, such as mycoplasma's. A simple Google search: toxic influence immune system Also see: Scholarly articles for toxic influence immune system In many instances, toxic chemicals can multiply in their "Toxic Impact", rather than add (16).. A recent example of a study that I heard about is rather simple. They gave 100 rats the LD50 of lead. (The LD50 stands for Lethal Dose 50 stands for 50 out of 100 of the rats die). They also gave the 100 rats the LD50 of mercury and guess what? All of the 100 rats died. In many instances, the multiplication is much high. Hundreds of times more toxic, when certain chemicals mix. I have heard thousands of times, in some circumstances. More information about the "toxic mix" multiplying in toxicity rather than adding, in many instances can be found at (16) Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm In correspondences with Garth Nicolson Ph.D.. it became clear that the same can be said of infectious diseases. Such as mycoplasma's and viruses having a much higher combined impact that one of them alone (73). The Medical Sentinel is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. They published an article titled, "Mycoplasmal Infections in Chronic Illnesses: Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndromes, Gulf War Illness, HIV-AIDS and Rheumatoid Arthritis", by Garth Nicolson Ph.D. Medical Sentinel 1999;4:172-176(73) . And to further complicate the issues, the toxic chemicals can cause a predisposition for sub-clinical infections with mycoplasma's (67). 171: ANALYSIS OF MULTIFACTORIAL ILLNESSES OF THE GULF WAR; THE ROLE OF CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURES IN GULF WAR ILLNESSES, CHRONIC DISORDERS AND MENTAL HEALTH, by Garth Nicolson PhD. www.angelfire.com/nm/redcol...eplyN.html The mycoplasma's are discussed in far more detail in the Biological Weapons section of this posting. But you will need a simple basis to comprehend the operating sequence of the toxic chemicals and how they work with these infectious agents (mycoplasma's). Of which has been with held from even the medical community. Please note that toxic chemicals can also have an impact on other infectious agents, too. End of the excerpt from the posted ROUGH DRAFT of Toxic Revelations www.puppstheories.com/ToxicRe.../tr.html -- Special Issue: The Center for Disease Control on Mycoplasma's Infectious Causes of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases and Cancer Gail H. Cassell, Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/v...3/cassell.htm More confirmation on this can be found at the 1991 Gulf War vets web page, at www.gulfwarvets.com Beyond Treason www.beyondtreason.com/ The Sunshine Project; Oversight of Research Involving Biological Weapons Agents Regulation, Committees, Safety, and the Law (and Lack Thereof) www.sunshine-project.org/ Nutritional therapies used for treating mycoplasma infections that have been published in "peer reviewed medical journals" :> www.immed.org/illness/tre...rations.html The simple facts are that chemical companies developed chemical and biological weapons for our country. Back in World War One and Two, they made things like nerve gas. At some point, the watered down the nerve gas and started calling them "pesticides". The chemical companies and the pharmaceutical companies are really controlled by the same people. Now that is a business plan, called "Poison for Profit". Even more disturbing is what is termed "the revolving door" from these companies and their executives into many of the high ranking administration offices of our government, in Washington DC. From the National Institute of Health to the Food and Drug Administration and beyond. "The revolving door" is easily shown with an Internet www.google.com search term, "revolving door washington DC drugs chemical companies". . Of which brings us to CODEX and the pharmaceutical industries attempts to "out law supplements" In reference: CODEX: pharmaceutical industries attempting to outlaw nutritional supplements is well documented at www.iahf.com/ Regards, Tom Krohmer Environmental Technologist toxicreverend.blogspot.com/ aka The Toxic Reverend www.myspace.com/toxicreverend aka Justice Is Homeless www.myspace.com/justiceishomeless Who's a criminal ? people.tribe.net/toxicreverend Homicide Charges For Corporations (Rough draft posted with active reference links) www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime PLEASE NOTE::> Peer Reviewed Medical Journal on Chronic Illnesses, cancers and Stealth Infections from Bio-weapons of the non-lethal variety www.immed.org Note: The Gulf War Vets have posted "Beyond Treason" www.gulfwarvets.com Toxic Revelations; Censored information on biological weapons and the health care industry The censored rough draft has been reposted www.puppstheories.com/ToxicRe.../tr.html Reference material www.puppstheories.com/ToxicRe...bib.html - Toxic Reverend , posted 06/19/08 |
|
Hi Adrian, I've had all three and there are pros and cons to all of them. But just to clear up a couple of things. Rogers has bought Fido, but under the terms of their legal contract they have to let Fido continue to run independently, at least for a while longer. What tis means in practice is that Rogers users will have access to the existing Fido network (towers etc,) but Fido users don't have access to Rogers infrastructure. So of those two Rogers looks like the better deal. However Fido's rates were pretty good and you only get charged by the second, whereas all the others charge you by the minute. I had a Rogers phone originally as it seemed like the best bet and the only reason I left them was because I had terrible reception at home because of a blackspot. So i went to Fido and was fairly happy with them until I got into a customer service dispute and they were so useless that i dumped them like a hot potatoe. So now I'm with Telus whom I hate. A million different packages, constantly changing, and lots of little charges which meen you end up paying more than anyone else. My advise: Go with Roger and either sign up for the shortest contract or use Pay as you go. This depends on you anticipated useage and only you can guess at that. Hope this helps.. Steve - lightningbird , posted 12/18/05 |
|
Best Cell Phone?
Okay. Rogers did NOT buy Telus. They bought Fido. Fido should be getting better as they can now use Rogers' GSM 850 band. Fido also offers plans without contracts but then you have to buy the phone upfront. I'd recommend Rogers' prepaid service as their service seems to be the best out there right now. Sure, Telus may have a better network, but their customer service suuuuuuuuucks. Virgin Mobile is piggybacking off Bell Mobility;'s network. If you want any of your questions answered, the best site to go to is www.howardforums.com - Saint Marie , posted 12/18/05 |
|
Unsu...
|
i'd say go with rogers...if you want a 2 for 1 plan, which is great for families and kids or just friends (calling circles are free), altho virgin mobile is worth checking out too as it has no contract obligations. rogers bought sprint, not telus, to my knowledge... i might be mistaken..? - Unsubscribed , posted 12/16/05 |
