Warning: CELL PHONES MAY TURN YOUR BABY INTO A BLIMP!

[Lionel Mandrake]

Once again Robert Park, the author of Voodoo Science, weighs in on the cell phone radiation scare.

EPIDEMIOLOGY: IT'S NOT "BAD SCIENCE," IT'S NOT SCIENCE AT ALL.

Childhood obesity ... has reached epidemic portions. Diet and sedentary lifestyle
are not enough to explain the steep increase, according to a Nature Scientific Report:
"A Prospective Study of In-utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood
Obesity."

The study reveals the shocking truth: mom was overdosing on her cell phone during her
pregnancy. ... According to the report, prenatal exposure to high magnetic field level
was found to be associated with increased risk of being obese. The article concluded:
"Maternal exposure to a high magnetic field during pregnancy may be a new and
previously unknown factor contributing to the world-wide epidemic of childhood
obesity."

It's clear ... that the study was initiated sometime in the mid-1990s, before the
National Academy of Sciences released of its exhaustive three-year review of health effects
of residential electromagnetic fields in 1996. The NAS review effectively ended the foolish
power-line/cancer scare, but the fear of electromagnetic radiation has worked its way up
the spectrum to microwaves, including cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi etc.

Perhaps epidemiologists thought they could add to their publication count by labeling
this long-since discredited work as "prospective." Who knows how many other faded
manuscripts will reemerge as "prospective" studies.

Read more: http://www.bobpark.org

[Politicalboi]

1. Finally

Someone else to blame. LOL!

[villager]

2. "Health Risks From Cell Phones Needs Review, GAO Says"

"Limits set in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission may not reflect recent research on radio-frequency energy from phones, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all usage conditions, the agency said in a July 24 study released today. The FCC doesn’t test for devices carried against the body, a practice that may lead to exposure that exceeds the FCC’s limit, the GAO said."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-07/health-risks-from-cell-phones-needs-review-u-dot-s-dot-gao-says

[SoCalDem]

3. The "truth" is this

While we have eliminated many of the dreaded diseases that killed so many people before they matured,or during their young lives, we have also added innumerable (and impossible to isolate) "new" factors into our lives.

Chemicals, pollutants, food-additives, "slightly" tested medicines, unseen "waves"/lasers/etc, too numerous to list "gadgets" HAVE to have SOME effect on all of us, and "could" have MAJOR effects on "some" of us.

The "beauty" of it all is that there can rarely ever be a definitive "cause" for most of what ails us, and by the time years of "exposure" has occurred, it;s impossible to isolate that one tipping point that started the cascade of symptoms that led to demise.

Humans have been evolving slowly, and the environment for us all remained pretty consistent until quite recently, in an evolutionary sense.

[villager]

4. Well said. And of course, what's rarely/never studied is the *cumulative* effect of the...

...multiple, repeated exposures to "safe" levels of radiation, pollutants, et al.

As you point out, what we don't really know is how all these new aspects of our "ecosystem" affect each other, when residing in -- and passing through -- our bodies...

[RobertEarl]

8. Plutonium too? Yep.

According to the US government claims:

Due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the '40s and '50s; there are about 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment.

[Lionel Mandrake]

9. Plutonium emits alpha particles, which are ionizing radiation.

If you breathe the dust, those alpha particles can give you cancer.

Unlike cell phones.

[villager]

10. Exactly. Though for some in this thread, any industry spokes-claim is enough to keep

"going about your business, and sop asking so many questions..."

[Lionel Mandrake]

5. Why set any limits at all?

The Business Week article also says:

"Research hasn’t demonstrated adverse human-health effects of exposure to radio-frequency energy from using mobile phones, the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said in the study posted on its website."

If there's no problem, then the problem doesn't need fixing.

[villager]

6. Of course the article *also* says:

“The United States is behind on the science,” Devra Lee Davis, founder of the Teton County, Wyoming-based Environmental Health Trust, said in an interview. “There’s been this dogmatic belief that there cannot be an effect."

"Dogmatic belief" indeed. Like among those for whom no industry spokes-group could ever be wrong, or have a vested interest in avoiding regulation or responsibility.

[longship]

7. Mine turned me into a newt.

But I got better.

[redqueen]

11. Do you ever cite anything but bobpark.org?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021100949

[Lionel Mandrake]

12. Yes; for example ...

Below are some recent threads in which I cited latimes.com, nybooks.com, chrispennello.com/tweller/, and aps.org/publications/apsnews

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002157362

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101815811

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100255331

And I have cited many other sources over the last few years.