General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKucinich's Brain Afflicted by Cell Phone Radiation Horseshit
This just in from Bob Park's Whatsnew newsletter:
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced the Cell Phone Right to
Know Act (H.R. 6358) requiring radiation warning labels on mobile
communication devices. If passed, the warning labels will inform consumers
of the SAR (specific absorption rate) of their device. But knowing the SAR
of their cell phones will be no help to consumers anyway, since numerous
studies find no evidence linking SAR to actual health effects. However, the
Kucinich Bill also calls for new research into cell-phone health effects
since past research found zip. The bill would also compel the Environmental
Protection Agency to review and update its radiation-emission guidelines,
despite the absence of any problem. Weve been down this road before. The
power-line-radiation fiasco in the 1990s terrified millions of people who
thought the fields from electric power lines in their homes might lead to
childhood leukemia. It took years to convince the public that power-line
fields are completely harmless. Many of those misled the public on power
lines are at it again on cell phones.
Source: http://www.bobpark.org
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... for exactly what reason?
Or were you just trying to take cheap shot at one of actual Democrats on the nation scene?
Please explain.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)However, I think a strong case could be made that cellphone use leads to catatonic states in adolescents.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Nowadays, when you see a car weaving in and out of a lane, the driver is probably not drunk.
More likely he's talking on a cell phone.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)j/k I'm no swimsuit model and I don't wear make-up.
However, the OP is about radiation. Apparently, there's no consensus if there is a danger or how much is dangerous. It seems kind of like saying, "Don't swim after you've eaten" without declaring how long you should wait. A half-hour? An hour? Three days?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)between radiation that can, and cannot, cause cancer. The scientific community is nearly unanimous in scoffing at the suggestion that cell phone radiation can harm you.
I supported Kucinich when he was the peace candidate for President. Earlier I had supported Gene McCarthy and George McGovern for similar reasons.
The Republican War on Science is well known. I hate to see an actual Democrat declare war on science.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Dr. Sanjay Gupta, neurosurgeon, won't put a cell phone against his head.
Adam Yanuach, MCA, heavy cell phone user, died at 48, cancer of the salivary gland.
Thanks for your input as a physicist but I'm going with brain surgeons on this one.
btw, there is an easy way to avoid the risk: wired handsfree headpiece for $5
Experts are splaining things!
NickB79
(19,233 posts)It's quite the stretch to call him the best surgeon in the country:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/where-does-sanjay-gupta-register-on-the-quackometer/
And the FDA's website lists numerous studies, all carried out by cancer experts, that have failed to find a link between cell phones and brain cancer:
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/Cellphones/ucm116335.htm
RZM
(8,556 posts)Remember him?
Not that Gupta's a bad guy or a quack, but his status as an 'expert' is as much due to his telegenity and ability to market himself as anything else.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)...
"He works hard, but that's not it," (his colleague) said. "I don't know. What makes a Mozart? What makes a Michael Jordan?"
http://www.newsobserver.com/2008/06/29/88741/kennedy-chose-mozart-of-brain.html#storylink=cpy
But Gupta has impressive credential in neurosurgery:
"American neurosurgeon and an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine and associate chief of the neurosurgery service at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia."
The Israeli study was well constructed and found correlation with salivary gland cancer. Many studies have found correlation between cell phone use and glioblastoma cancer in the left brain. That's what killed Kennedy and Johnnie Cochran.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)That said Michael Moore was lying re sicko?
And then had to retract those same words?
That sanjay Gupta?
Oh, and one doesn't have to be an expert to be on the TV, just have a big mouth and think they are always right.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You're probably being slowly killed by the toxic chemicals they use to make that thing.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. then why does it bother you that this information be made available to consumers so they can make their own decisions? I'd prefer to make my own choice in the matter, although I'm sure that an internet scientist whom I've never met is way better at doing it for me.
So, what field of medicine is your PHD in, anyway?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)apparently becoming less rare in people in their thirties and forties. Her doctors do not know what causes it yet, but they have told her that there are theories in the medical field right now that the use of Cell Phones may be a factor.
I guess we don't need food labeled either, because it's difficult to know if eating food that has been genetically altered causes cancer. Still, I'd like food to be labeled so I can make that choice.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Good vibes to your friend.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)doctors say they are 'seeing more of it' lately in people who are in their 30s and 40s. We are very worried about her as the prognosis for this cancer is not good, with only a 5% survival rate at this point. Thank you for your good wishes.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I really think that's uncalled for. Are you looking for a flame war here?
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)I actually like Kucinich. Mostly.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)None are perfect and none are right 100% of the time.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Well I'll give it to you:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/229054/cell_phones_may_cause_cancer_says_the_who_what_to_do.html
The study was commissioned by the Israel Dental Association and directed by Avi Zini of the community dentistry department at the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine. The study included examination of the incidence of oral cavity cancers in Israel from 1970 to 2006. Among salivary gland cancer cases, researchers found a worrying rise in the number of cases of malignant growth in parotid glands - the salivary gland located under the ear, near the location where cell phones are held during conversations.
By contrast, the incidence of salivary cancers in glands of the lower mouth - the so-called submandular and sublingual salivary glands - remained stable.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-study-sees-link-between-oral-cancer-cell-phones-1.280073
Want 10 more ?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Here are some excerpts:
several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.
Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case-control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people free of brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use.
In general, these studies have yielded similar results:
In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.
Most studies do not show a "dose-response relationship," which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
A few studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)many scientists...most studies...most of these studies...most of these...in general, these studies...in most studies...most studies...most studies...
And you conclude with "a few studies have found a possible link".
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Absolute unanimity is rare. When there is a large number of studies, some will usually find a positive result (according to the authors). All I claimed was near unanimity.
This is especially true for epidemiology. But even in the physical sciences, false positives occur. The celebrated MichelsonMorley experiment was repeated many times. Some of the experimenters thought they had found an ether drift, showing that Einstein's theory of special relativity was wrong!
It's the preponderance of evidence that is, or should be, convincing.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)...
The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most.
...
The IARC has classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Here is the context:
"There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed."
This suggestion of a possible increased risk is so far from convincing that we can safely ignore it.
KT2000
(20,572 posts)(American Cancer Society) works so hard to get rid of cancer causing chemicals in our environment. They are always front and center, helping public health advocates and environmental health advocates get rid of those chemicals. They are never afraid to offend powerful corporations........ and so ends this fairy tale.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. yes please, he'd like 10 more.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Industry should have to prove cell phones are safe. The standard of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply when it comes to things like this.
Kucinich is probably dead right as usual.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)worry about chemicals in the environment.
No one will ever prove that cell phones are safe. If they are not safe, someone will prove that eventually. It hasn't happened yet.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)P.G.and E. the electric company had a lot of money to discrete the studies.. but many that went to Slater Elementary were poor so didn't have money for the lawyers to fight. Yes, I do believe these power lines did cause cancer. These were kids who went to the same high school I went to.
And when they tried to put these power lines in MInneapolis across another poor area, I wrote letter after letter to the County Commissioners to required them to put them underground.
In the winter of 1990, teachers at the Slater Elementary School in Fresno, California, began to worry about the high rate of cancer among the staff. First-grade teacher Patricia Berryman recalls, "We originally started to worry when we began to realize that an abnormal amount of cancer cases had been on one side of the school.
Then we saw the EPA report on electromagnetic fields and cancer and we realized that that was the side of the campus near the high-voltage lines. We had some leukemia and brain cancer, just like in the studies. We also had some children with leukemia. Well, we started to research everything we could find." Berryman herself was particularly concerned because, "I've spent sixteen years teaching near those power lines."
The teachers began to gather information about cancer cases within the school. "We couldn't trace the whole student body, but we were able to trace the teachers. We went back through all the old yearbooks, made lists of everyone who taught here since the school opened in 1972. We had previous teachers call up and tell us of more cases. Then we made a map and presented it to the parents, to show them where the teachers had been working. Well, their mouths hung open."
Berryman and her group discovered nine cases of cancer in a group of fifty-seven teachers, aides, and lunchroom staff who had worked in two pods (A and B) on the southwest side of the school. That side of the building lies only 110 feet away from a set of two high-voltage power lines-one a 230-kilovolt (kv) line, the other a 115-kv line. One teacher who had worked on that side of the campus for fifteen years had died of brain cancer in 1990, another of melanoma. They also found four cases of children with cancer, but, since the state didn't keep any records of the disease in that area until 1987, it's been difficult to trace the children. There were no cases of cancer in teachers who worked in the two pods on the other side of the campus, further from the lines.
According to the California Department of Health Services, the "conditions" among the school staff that have been diagnosed between 1982 and 1991 include nine invasive cancers (two cases of breast cancer, two cases of uterine cancer, two cases of ovarian cancer, one brain cancer, and two melanomas); one case of skin cancer; one nonmalignant brain tumor; two cases of cervical dysplasia; two cases of pre-cancer of the uterus; three cases of benign breast tumors or cysts; one case of keratosis; one case of sarcoidosis, and a number of basal cell carcinomas. Among the students who attended those pods, the state found three cancer cases and four possible cancer cases, as well as two nonmalignant tumors and one cervical dysplasia.
Besides worrying about cancer, some of the teachers were also concerned that the electromagnetic fields had bad effects on the children's learning and behavior. "For years, we had noticed the behavior of the children in those classrooms. They couldn't pay attention, they fidgeted, they just couldn't keep their feet on the floor. We kept a journal while we were still there and knew we were going to be moving to the trailers. In those days, we really thought first graders simply could not sit still. It all changed when we moved away from those lines."
When word of the problem started to get around in the spring of 1991, many teachers refused to work in the classrooms near the power lines. Fourteen teachers requested transfers to other schools. There was even talk of a teachers' strike. But, still, nobody seemed to be listening to the teachers-until the parents became involved. Patricia Berryman explains, "1 remember a parent came up to me one day and asked, What can we do to help? The parents picketed and invited all the news media to attend. After that we got immediate action. "
More than a hundred parents and children picketed Slater in May 1991. They carried placards that read "SAVE THE CHILDREN" and "PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES MAKE COMMON SENSE." The demonstration kicked off a school wide boycott that had been organized by parents like Lynn Stetson, who is currently the president of the PTA and one of the co-chair people of an ongoing EMF task force at Slater. The parents demanded that classrooms and a portion of the playground near the power lines be closed.
The Fresno Unified School District responded to their demands immediately by closing the ten classrooms, placing the children in ten portable trailers on the other side of the campus at a monthly cost of $695 per trailer, and closing off an area of the playground that was nearest the power lines.
Donald Beauregard, Fresno area administrator for the FUSD, said, "We told everyone it was a temporary thing. We had to do something. We had teachers who were refusing to teach in those classrooms. This was about human health, teachers, and kids. There was a tremendous amount of fear and, as you realize, fear can interfere a lot with the overall educational process. Something that bothers me is, right now, we still have schools around the county that are being built right near transmission lines."
Beauregard serves on the EMF subcommittee with Berryman, teacher Sandra Craft, and Lynn Stetson. The committee meets regularly to grapple with the overall issue of whether or not there is a danger from the power lines and, if so, what to do about it. Stetson refers to the committee as "our little group," adding that she always feels they are the "underdogs" at public meetings.
Berryman concurs. "It's terrible. There are only three of us and Mr. Beauregard. On the other side of the table PG&E [Pacific Gas and Electric] has all these engineers who keep telling us there's nothing to worry about from the power lines. Then the state health department keeps telling us there's no funds to do a study of our school.
The state brought in epidemiologists from the county health department. The first was a or Stall worth and he just got up and told us we were all wrong; there was nothing to it. Well, after that one meeting, we never saw him again. They told us his report got lost in the computer. Now we have a woman named Betty Carmona. She tells us she doesn't know much more about this than we do ourselves, but she seems sympathetic."
Or. Raymond P. Neutra, chief of the epidemiological studies section of the California Department of Health Services, hedges a lot when he discusses this and other EMF public health scenarios around the state. Despite the fact that or Neutra is directly involved in two major California studies of childhood cancer and EMF exposure, and is privy to all the latest information on the subject, he argues that studies haven't really proven there is any connection between electromagnetic fields and cancer.
He also disputes whether or not there really was a high incidence of cancer at Slater, saying that nine cases were a "little higher than the expected four cases" for the entire teaching staff, although the incidences had only occurred among the fifty-seven teachers who had worked in two pods of the building. He also said his cancer surveillance unit was determining whether those teachers really worked in the classrooms they said they did and that his department didn't have the funds to do a study of the children to track cancer cases.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Your lengthy post contains no evidence that "many had cancer from the powerlines".
The experts are pretty much in agreement on the harmlessness of radiation from power lines. See, for example, the peer-reviewed article:
Myths and Realities: Do Power Lines Cause Cancer?
May 20, 2009
Aditya Mattoo MD
Here is an excerpt concerning studies attempting to draw a correlation between EMFs and a variety of cancer types in differing age groups:
For more, browse
http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=1425
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)one friends mother died from cancer (teacher's aide at the school)
and another classmate died of leukemia (went to Slater).
I don't care if you believe it or not. We knew it. There was no doubt.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)and someone wants to dog him for it!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ted Kennedy was one of the earliest cellphone adapters. He died of a tumor in his brain right near where he held the phone. I just lost an in law to the very same thing, he was an early adapter who lived on the cellphone for work.
Correlation is not causation, but hey...smoke, could be fire. No harm in knowing. I use my cellphone sparingly, and I always use the speakerphone unless using it would be rude.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Post removed
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)building you walk into here.
It states something like...
"WARNING: This building contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
jonthebru
(1,034 posts)It is RF radiation not from some radioactive element.
An antenna when transmitting creates a voltage and a current. If the antenna is resonant the current and voltage though very slight work to create an efficient signal. At resonance they meet with as strong a force as they can create approximately 1 wavelength away from the antenna. At the frequencies we are talking about that is 1 or 2 inches, its a field that oscillates.
Now a full power radio transmitter or a radar antenna has a lot of power possibly 20 amps and 7,000 volts so there is a strong field created. High power electric lines also create a strong field but these are not antennas so there is no established resonant frequency as it is a long line, 60 hz isn't really the resonance of the wire but of the alternating current.These devices are a ways up in the air or far away from people generally. Your cell phone has a very low amount of power comparatively but as you hold it up to your ear, the resonant point could be just inside your head. If you use it a lot then there is a distinct possibility that there could be microwave created damage to tissue.
Could, because it really is not determined. Motorola and the other manufacturers created the phones with antennas that tilted away from your head, remember those? That was to move that resonant area away from your cranium. Personally I have not seen current information regarding the phones we use these days. Antennas are on the back of the phone and may have been designed to radiate away from the head.
Also I might add, a Bluetooth device on your ear though very low powered is also a transmitter and some folks wear them all day... I use a wired ear phone thingy because I find Bluetooth eats the battery to quickly.
As usual I have no ego in this discussion so if anyone has any corrections, feel free.