Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33
  1.    #1  
    Seems there's a book out from late last year with a new afterword coming soon; in a nutshell, get a bluetooth ear piece.

    CounterPunch.org April 12, 2011
    An Interview with Devra Davis
    Cell Phones and Cancer: the Risk is Real

    By RUSSELL MOKHIBER

    There is a book you ought to buy.

    It's called Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family by Devra Davis (Dutton, 2010).

    Buy it from a book store – if you can find a book store that carries it.

    Davis said that when the book was published in September 2010, she traveled to San Francisco, a hot bed of calls for right to know legislation when it comes to cell phone radiation.

    "When I went there, I found out that no book store in the city had my book," Davis told Corporate Crime Reporter last week.

    Has there been an explanation for that?

    "The publishers are saying the book stores just aren't buying it," Davis said.

    "This book has sold the fewest copies of any book I have written. And for non fiction, my books sold reasonably well."

    "I don't have the time to know what is happening, but I smell a rat."

    Davis is convinced that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.

    She is convinced by the evidence.

    "Today, there is no debate that x-rays directly disturb electrons, break their bonds, disrupt the making of proteins, and impede the ability of cells to fix damage," Davis writes. "And yet there has not been much debate about the potential dangers of radiation from cell phones. It's been assumed that they are safe."

    Thus, the "disconnect" from the title of her book.

    What is your explanation as to why there is that disconnect?

    "We know there is a big difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation," Davis says. "And cell phone radiation is non-ionizing."

    "There is a paradigmatic conflict between the way the world of physics and the way the world of biology understands the nature of non-ionizing radiation."

    "At its core, the physics paradigm believed as a matter of faith that it was physically impossible for the weak radiation from cell phones to have any biological effect."

    "This belief was wrong 40 years ago. And that was shown by the work of Allan Frey. But because of this belief and because it was convenient to believe it, cell phones have never been tested for safety."

    So, your explanation for the disconnect is money and power?

    "Those are terms you can use," Davis said. "I can say that it proved to be very convenient because there is just about 100 percent use of cell phones for adults. In fact, in Australia, there is more than one phone per person. These are convenient devices. And it proved to be too inconvenient to deal with the fact that holding a small microwave radio next to your brain for hours a day is not a good idea."

    "We know that brain cancer can take at least ten years to develop from the first exposure," Davis said. "It has a latency period of at least ten years on average. We know that because a few studies have been done on heavy cell phone users. And those studies have found that they have a doubled or greater risk of brain tumors after ten years of use."

    What convinces Davis that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer?

    "The first is the compelling biological studies done in cell cultures – human cell cultures – and looking at how they respond to pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation," Davis says.

    "And in particular, recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is negative in large part because the preponderance of the evidence has been sponsored by industry."

    "In the upcoming paperback edition, my book will have an afterward. In it, I say that in 1994, after Henry Lai and his colleague Narenda Singh produced a finding that pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation could damage DNA in the brains of animals exposed to cell phone radiation, the industry mounted a full court press."

    "When the abstract of that finding showing DNA damage from pulsed digital signals was produced, the industry went to the agency that funded the work – the National Institutes of Health – and accused the investigators of fraud and misuse of funds.

    Davis says that this story has been told by Louis Slesin of Microwave News – before her book was published.

    But it didn't make it into her hard cover book.

    She says the story will appear in the afterward to the soon to be published paperback edition of her book.

    We ask her why it didn't make it into the hard cover edition of her book.

    She hesitates.

    Then says – "I can't answer that."

    She won't explain what she means.

    But the hard cover book is filled with stories like that of Franz Adlkofer – a former tobacco researcher who had a falling out with the tobacco industry.

    He too didn't believe that cell phone radiation could damage living cells – until he did the tests.

    "They first got results suggesting that cell phone radiation could have an effect on the DNA inside certain types of cells," Davis says.

    "Adlkofer thought for sure there was a mistake. Adlkofer believed that it was physically impossible for cell phone radiation to have a biological effect. That was the dogma. And that dogma was shared widely. But he relished the opportunity to set up these big lab studies. He coordinated twelve labs looking at the basic functioning of cells."

    "They repeated the tests and got the same results."

    "So, he thought – we must have the wrong equipment – our equipment isn't good. So, having a lot of money, they went out and bought new equipment to do the testing."

    "After repeating the results – these were twelve different labs working independently – he concluded that it looked like the radiation was having an effect. He concluded it had a very damaging effect on DNA, causing it to unravel."

    Davis tells the somewhat complex story of how the industry went after Adlkofer, how he fought back to vindicate his study.

    Davis says that brain cancer is a rare disease – right now it's 6 in 100,000 in the United States – still twice the rate of the developing world.

    "But if the rate of brain cancer goes from 6 per 100,000 to 18 per 100,000, well, that's a tripling of the rate."

    And you are expecting that, right?

    "Yes," she says. "But it is not going to happen until I'm dead. That's why I wrote the book."

    So, in a nutshell, what is your advice for consumers?

    "Do not keep the phone on your body," Davis says. "Men should not keep it in their front pocket or in their breast pocket. Fine print warnings come with all of these phones. Nobody reads them. They toss them away."

    "Never hold a cell phone next to your head. Use a speaker phone. Use an ear piece."

    What about policies the government should pursue?

    "The government should be issuing safe use guidelines about this right now. Other governments have done this."

    What about our government, why hasn't our government done this?

    "I'm filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today. I am requesting information about why the FCC changed its web site overnight to correspond to the position of industry."

    "I was told that there were two memos explaining the reasons – but they said they weren't going to give them to me. Jim Turner is filing the lawsuit for us pro bono."

    [For the complete Interview with Devra Davis, see 25 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(11), April 11, 2011, print edition only.]

    Russell Mokhiber edits the Corporate Crime Reporter.
  2. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #2  
    I suggest tin foil. You just shape it into a conical shape and place it on your head. Not only will it protect you from brain cancer, but **** Cheney will no longer be able to hear your every thought!

    P.S. Here is this urban legend debunked for you:
    http://www.livescience.com/9428-phon...-debunked.html

    "Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation can knock an electron loose, break a chemical bond, cause a DNA mutation, and cause cancer. Radiation isn't ionizing, however, until it reaches ultraviolet energies. UV causes skin cancer; X-rays and gamma rays are well-known carcinogens.

    Visible light and lower-energy forms of radiation such as infrared and radio waves aren't ionizing. This is a basic property of quantum physics. Light particles, called photons, are like little balls. An X-ray is like a golf ball; it will break a window. Microwaves, the kind emitted by a cell phone, are like puff balls. You can throw a million at the window. It won't break."
    Last edited by jkeitz; 04/13/2011 at 01:19 PM.
  3. #3  
    I like the bit about brain cancer being twice the rate un the USA as in the developing world. In africa they are probably more worried about the 2800 deaths a day from Malaria. I doubt they bother diagnosing the few that get brain cancer.

    the fact that its proving so hard to pin down any conclusive evidence to say phones are dangerous tells us that we should probably worry more about the things we know are killing millions.

    cell phones may be relatively new but radio is not and people have been working with high power radio for over 100 years.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by hagster View Post
    I like the bit about brain cancer being twice the rate un the USA as in the developing world. In africa they are probably more worried about the 2800 deaths a day from Malaria. I doubt they bother diagnosing the few that get brain cancer.

    the fact that its proving so hard to pin down any conclusive evidence to say phones are dangerous tells us that we should probably worry more about the things we know are killing millions.

    cell phones may be relatively new but radio is not and people have been working with high power radio for over 100 years.
    And yet when you climb a high output communications tower, such as an FM transmitter, they have to turn down the output, lest you fry, 100,000 Watts is not something to mess around with.

    I realize 100,000 watts of FM power is enormously greater, but there is still a danger factor when dealing with it. Same goes for the microwave dishes that are on the same towers, riggers do NOT work in front of those things, regardless of whether it's a 1 foot or 12 foot dish for ANY reason.

    It will probably be another 20 years or more before side effects of cell phones can really be proven. Especially with the way we use them now(constantly), compared to 20 years ago(not nearly as much as today).

    I never had the luxury of wearing an RF suit in my time, in the air up there, and pretty glad that I didn't, (was never in a zone which required them), they don't look to comfortable, or light for that matter. (And when you're climbing 800' + in the air, every ounce counts).

    KW-GARDͺ RF Radiation Protective Suit
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2’ about anything. I may however, give a nickel
  5. NitOxYs's Avatar
    Posts
    191 Posts
    Global Posts
    215 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by sledge007 View Post
    And yet when you climb a high output communications tower, such as an FM transmitter, they have to turn down the output, lest you fry, 100,000 Watts is not something to mess around with.

    I realize 100,000 watts of FM power is enormously greater, but there is still a danger factor when dealing with it. Same goes for the microwave dishes that are on the same towers, riggers do NOT work in front of those things, regardless of whether it's a 1 foot or 12 foot dish for ANY reason.

    It will probably be another 20 years or more before side effects of cell phones can really be proven. Especially with the way we use them now(constantly), compared to 20 years ago(not nearly as much as today).

    I never had the luxury of wearing an RF suit in my time, in the air up there, and pretty glad that I didn't, (was never in a zone which required them), they don't look to comfortable, or light for that matter. (And when you're climbing 800' + in the air, every ounce counts).

    KW-GARDͺ RF Radiation Protective Suit
    It's all safety precautions taken because you could kill yourself on that wattage by touching anything or being exposed to the RF will cook you.
    Sprint Palm 2 - Developer Mode - 2.1.0
  6. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #6  
    Wow, for an urban legend, this sure is a hot topic here!
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by NitOxYs View Post
    It's all safety precautions taken because you could kill yourself on that wattage by touching anything or being exposed to the RF will cook you.
    Yep you're right. We just never climbed into hot zones, ever. This in turn forced us to climb at night(after 11PM), the only time they would turn down power. This was ok in the summer, but there was a few times I had to go 800' up in the winter and where I live, that's not fun
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2’ about anything. I may however, give a nickel
  8. #8  
    I think there is a lot to it.

    Things we take for granted now as unsafe, were passed off as urban legends years ago.
    We tend to believe what our government tells us is safe:

    lead paint
    lead pipes
    asbestos
    ethyl gasoline
    bpa
    pvc
    ddt
    numerous toxic waste dumps .....
  9. Freshyz's Avatar
    Posts
    905 Posts
    Global Posts
    926 Global Posts
    #9  
    I happened to catch a Dr Oz show where he showed that bran activity is increased when a cell phone is next to your head but as to what the reaction is is still unclear.
    Couldn't find a video of it but here he chats about some recent studies. Not liking hearing about potential sperm count decreasing from keeping a cell phone in my pocket.
    Interesting OP topic though..

  10. #10  
    [QUOTE=Freshyz;2936843]Not liking hearing about potential sperm count decreasing from keeping a cell phone in my pocket.
    Interesting OP topic though..
    QUOTE]

    Don't believe the hype....I have lots of friends that work in way higher RF fields, than a cell phone in your pocket, daily and they don't seem to have any problem in procreation
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2’ about anything. I may however, give a nickel
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by jkeitz View Post
    I suggest tin foil. You just shape it into a conical shape and place it on your head. Not only will it protect you from brain cancer, but **** Cheney will no longer be able to hear your every thought!
    The CIA won't be able to hear your every thought anymore.

    From **** Cheney on the other hand you cannot run, and cannot hide.

    Neither can you run or hide from any new technology being said to kill you. People had to carry red lanterns ahead of cars so they wouldn't kill people. I wasn't born then, but my parents tell me there was word about TV sets causing cancer in the 60s. I remember talk about microwaves causing cancer in the 80s, and printer ink causing cancer in the 90s.
  12. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by cglaguna View Post
    I think there is a lot to it.

    Things we take for granted now as unsafe, were passed off as urban legends years ago.
    We tend to believe what our government tells us is safe:

    lead paint
    lead pipes
    asbestos
    ethyl gasoline
    bpa
    pvc
    ddt
    numerous toxic waste dumps .....

    I never believe the government, but you list a few questionable items. Asbestos is only a problem if you stir it up. Lead paint is only a problem if you eat it. PVC is a very valuable item, as long as you don't burn it. Finally, and most crucially, DDT was proven to be harmless to humans at anything less than swimming in it. Nevertheless, based upon a flawed scientific study (which the scientist corrected 6 months later, but Rachel Carson didn't care) of eagle eggs, we banned DDT and directly caused 30,000,000+ deaths from malaria!

    You see, in most cases, the scare is more potent than the actual danger. We need to stop, take a deep breath, and examine the actual dangers before running off half-cocked.
  13. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Freshyz View Post
    I happened to catch a Dr Oz show where he showed that bran activity is increased when a cell phone is next to your head but as to what the reaction is is still unclear.
    Hmmmm, could that be because YOU'RE TALKING AT THE TIME?
  14.    #14  
    Not sure why skeptics about this are so hyperbolic--not to mention just plain hyper, but even Dr. Weil urges caution just to play it safe:
    ****************
    Are Cell Phones a Cancer Risk?
    DrWeil.com 4/13/2011
    Are Cell Phones a Cancer Risk - Dr. Weil's Daily Tip

    Should you be worried about your cell phone causing cancer? We don't really know yet. Formal studies on potential cell phone hazards have been contradictory - some find a link between cell phone use and brain tumors and some do not - and it seems prudent to me to take commonsense precautions. Brain tumors can take 30 to 40 years to develop, so it could be a long time before we know for sure whether cell phone use is safe or, if not, how great the risks may be.

    I recommend:

    1. Using earpieces, headsets or speakerphone mode.
    2. Saving long conversations for conventional phones.
    3. In your car, using a cell phone that has a Bluetooth connection. Many new dash-mounted GPS units have a Bluetooth mode, so that your phone works through the GPS unit's microphone and speaker. This has the added advantage of keeping your hands free for safer driving.
    4. Limiting the time children spend on cell phones - they may be more vulnerable than adults to adverse effects.
    5. Finding out how much radiofrequency energy your cell phone emits. Called the SAR measurement (Specific Absorption Rate), 1.6 watts per kilogram is currently what is permitted in the United States. Visit the Federal Communications Commission website for more information.
  15. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Pre in MN View Post
    Not sure why skeptics about this are so hyperbolic--not to mention just plain hyper, but even Dr. Weil urges caution just to play it safe:
    ****************
    Are Cell Phones a Cancer Risk?
    DrWeil.com 4/13/2011
    Are Cell Phones a Cancer Risk - Dr. Weil's Daily Tip

    Should you be worried about your cell phone causing cancer? We don't really know yet. Formal studies on potential cell phone hazards have been contradictory - some find a link between cell phone use and brain tumors and some do not - and it seems prudent to me to take commonsense precautions. Brain tumors can take 30 to 40 years to develop, so it could be a long time before we know for sure whether cell phone use is safe or, if not, how great the risks may be.

    I recommend:

    1. Using earpieces, headsets or speakerphone mode.
    2. Saving long conversations for conventional phones.
    3. In your car, using a cell phone that has a Bluetooth connection. Many new dash-mounted GPS units have a Bluetooth mode, so that your phone works through the GPS unit's microphone and speaker. This has the added advantage of keeping your hands free for safer driving.
    4. Limiting the time children spend on cell phones - they may be more vulnerable than adults to adverse effects.
    5. Finding out how much radiofrequency energy your cell phone emits. Called the SAR measurement (Specific Absorption Rate), 1.6 watts per kilogram is currently what is permitted in the United States. Visit the Federal Communications Commission website for more information.

    This is the "if it just caves one life..." argument, and it is easy to pick apart. First, if you'll note, the original article recommends not even keeping the phone in your pocket. Second, most "conventional phones" today are cordless, and transmitting an even more powerful, albeit just as harmless signal. As for kids, how often do you see them actually talking on a phone now? They spend most of their time texting on the phone. I'm waiting to hear about the health risks associated with texting now...

    The point is, unless your hair is on fire and your skull is melting, your brain is completely safe from the radiation in your phone. The reason I react so quickly is that one person's irrational fear leads to more people's irrational fears. In a free society, I'd have no worry, since you would be perfectly free to fear your phone, but we don't live in a free society, so that isn't enough. Once certain people fear their phones, they start fearing my phone (after all, I must just be too stupid to weigh the safety myself) and after they start fearing my phone, they go right to the government to restrict/ban my phone. Don't believe me? It is being fought over in San Francisco right now.

    Do you live in a place where driving while talking on the cell phone is banned? Then you're a victim of similar scare campaigns. So called "distracted driving" accidents with cell phones are identical statistically to those from having passengers, eating, or listening to the radio. Look back to when radios were first put into cars, and you will find movements to ban them as distractions. Unfortunately, these nanny-state regulations also snowball, since they never solve the intended problem. People on cell phones and distracted accidents happen, so ban using you cell phone unless hands-free. Wait a couple of years, and the accident rate stays the same. Uhoh, what happened? Oh, I know, it is the phones period, so now we have to ban the hands free kits too. Then when the accident rate fails to comply, we look at portable jammers in cars to prevent all talking (again, don't believe it? Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary has already proposed it.) Think the problem is texting? OK, that one is really fun, since the idiots who were texting while driving are still texting, but they now have to hide their phones while texting, so they have to take their eyes from the road even longer to text. What happens? Accident rates INCREASE. Uhoh, better find something else to ban...

    You see, every scare campaign ends in a loss of freedom (or as in the case of DDT, even lives). We can't afford any more loss of freedom, so we have to fight irrational fears before they can turn into movements!
  16. #16  
    There was a probe up here in Canada about Wifi use in public schools and kids complaining that they were getting headaches because of those signals. I can't remember if it was over in Vancouver or here in Calgary. It made me laugh, though. Kids are smart..... they thought they came up with a pretty good solution to not have to go to school, because of said "dangerous, headache-causing signals". Aside from that one news story I saw on the evening news, I think that's the last time I heard about it
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2’ about anything. I may however, give a nickel
  17. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by sledge007 View Post
    There was a probe up here in Canada about Wifi use in public schools and kids complaining that they were getting headaches because of those signals. I can't remember if it was over in Vancouver or here in Calgary. It made me laugh, though. Kids are smart..... they thought they came up with a pretty good solution to not have to go to school, because of said "dangerous, headache-causing signals". Aside from that one news story I saw on the evening news, I think that's the last time I heard about it
    Here it is... BE AFRAID!!!

    PossibleHealthConsequencesof Wi-Fion Children: LATEST WARNING: Wi-Fi Dangerous to Children and Pregnant Women - Must Read!

    Of course, it ignores the fact that we have been surrounded by radio waves over the past century and our life expectancy has grown substantially during that time.
  18. #18  
    It's the New World Order way....live under fear.

    Don't let the radiation from Japan get you in California

    Go get your vaccination for Swine Flu

    Get your survival kit for Y2K

    Better get the WMD out of Iraq



    People, in the masses, are stupid and believe anything you tell them, thanks to the holy internet that knows all and NEVER lies.

    Somebody is making a LOT of money off of the rest of the world's paranoia and ignorance.

    And they aren't getting a dime out of me
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2’ about anything. I may however, give a nickel
  19. Freshyz's Avatar
    Posts
    905 Posts
    Global Posts
    926 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by jkeitz View Post
    Hmmmm, could that be because YOU'RE TALKING AT THE TIME?
    Not likely. The increased activity shown was only on the side of the brain next to the ear that had a mobile device next to it for that study.
  20. jkeitz's Avatar
    Posts
    318 Posts
    Global Posts
    614 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Freshyz View Post
    Not likely. The increased activity shown was only on the side of the brain next to the ear that had a mobile device next to it for that study.
    How did they take that test? You can't be in an MRI with a phone. An EGK would be affected by leakage from the phone itself. So how did they show brain activity with a phone next to it?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions