Murder By Cell Phone: More will DIE from Cell Phones Than From Smoking or Asbestos, Children Worst!

[Dems Will Win]

I might add that CORDLESS PHONES are as dangerous as cell phones, and after reporting on this last year, I STOPPED USING CORDLESS PHONES AND MY HEADACHES HAVE VANISHED. Oh, and never let your child NEAR a cell phone ever again. We would never buy them a carton of cigarettes, says Dr. Mild of England, but we think nothing of buying them the far more hazardous cellphone or cordless phone.

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.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS

The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk – and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised".

They conclude that "caution is needed in the use of mobile phones" and believe children, who are especially vulnerable, should be discouraged from using them at all.

The study, published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, is important because it pulls together research on people who have used the phones for long enough to contract the disease.

...

The scientists pulled together the results of the 11 studies that have so far investigated the occurrence of tumours in people who have used phones for more than a decade, drawing on research in Sweden, Denmark Finland, Japan, Germany, the United States and Britain. They found almost all had discovered an increased risk, especially on the side of the head where people listened to their handsets.

Five of the six studies of malignant gliomas, cancers of the glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells, found an increased risk. The only one that did not still found an increase in benign gliomas. Four of the five studies that looked at acoustic neuromas – benign but often disabling tumours on the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness – found them. The exception was based on only two cases of the disease, but still found that long-term users had larger tumours than other people.

The scientists assembled the findings of all the studies to analyse them collectively. This revealed that people who have used their phones for a decade or more are 20 per cent more likely to contract acoustic neuromas, and 30 per cent more likely to get malignant gliomas.

The risk is even greater on the side of the head the handset is used: long-term users were twice as likely to get the gliomas, and two and a half times more likely to get the acoustic neuromas there than other people.

The scientists conclude: "Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for more than 10 years give a consistent pattern of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma." They add that "an increased risk for other types of brain tumours cannot be ruled out".

Professors Hardell and Mild have also themselves carried out some of the most extensive original work into tumours among long-term mobile phone users and have come up with even more alarming results. Their research suggests they are more than three times more likely to get malignant gliomas than other people, and nearly five times more likely to get them on the side of the head where they held the phone. For acoustic neuromas they found a threefold and three-and-a-half-fold increased risk respectively.

They have also carried out the only study into the effects of the long-term use of cordless phones, and found this also increased both kinds of tumours. Their research suggests that using a mobile or cordless phone for just 2,000 hours – less than an hour every working day for 10 years – is enough to augment the risk.

Professor Mild told The Independent on Sunday: "I find it quite strange to see so many official presentations saying that there is no risk. There are strong indications that something happens after 10 years." He stressed that brain cancers are rare: they account for less than 2 per cent of primary tumours in Britain, though they are disproportionately deadly, causing 7 per cent of the years of life lost to the disease. "Every cancer is one too many," he said.


...

Neil Whitfield, a 49-year-old father of six, developed an acoustic neuroma in 2001 after years of heavy mobile phone use, on the left side of the head, to which he had held his handset. He says he had no family history of the disease and that when he asked a specialist what had caused it, the doctor had asked him if he used a mobile.

...

"It has had a devastating effect on my family," he says. "Mobile phones are the smoking of the 21st century; they should have health warnings on them. You would never buy a child a pack of cigarettes, but we give them mobiles which could cause them harm."

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3036005.ece

PLEASE RECOMMEND IF YOU BELIEVE ME, A GUY YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, AND DR. KHURANA, OVER THE CELL PHONE AND CORDLESS PHONE MANUFACTURERS

[lonestarnot]

1. EEEeeeek scarey.

Limited use will become even more limited.

[Dems Will Win]

2. Use the headsets and keep the phone at least 2 feet from yer brain!

[lonestarnot]

14. bluetooth?

[Dems Will Win]

20. Worst idea ever!

[lonestarnot]

26. Oh now that is convincing indeed.

:rofl:

[KitchenWitch]

88. I am certainly convinced..

:rofl:

Guess what?






















Wait for it...


































Not yet...




























Almost....




































WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!11

This is HUGH!!!!111, I'm SERIES!!!!!!111

:popcorn:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

101. Not that it matters to you, BUT,...there are a great many people "mysteriously" dying from,...

,...cancers unexplained by either their family history or their lifestyles, my father and sister being two of them. Dismissing potential causes along with ridiculing those exploring them is COLD and hurtful, to say the least.

If you MUST dismiss a possible cause, can't you just advance reason based upon facts in so doing rather than recklessly spreading pain via arrogant self-confident sarcasm?

No?

[KitchenWitch]

103. Save your sanctimony for someone else

I am a 21 year survivor of cancer of unknown origin.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

104. Congratulations!!!!

What location, type and level?

My father has survived 4 weeks beyond the median survival rate and my sister has survived 3 months beyond the median survival rate. My bracelets have changed color, although my father is dying and in danger of immediate death from thrombocytopenia and my sister is undergoing her first round of aggressive chemo-treatment.

I'm sorry you're so angry at those who seek causes. It's hard to understand why, though.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

110. deleted

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

111. I'd sincerely appreciate a dialogue with you, a compassionate rather than sarcastic one.

I'm just asking.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

117. Please,...this information is coming from a Mayo clinic neurosurgeon who's done,...

,...incredible work in his field, for years! Why dismiss his study so readily,...actually, holding your nose in the process?

Do you know something about this surgeon I do not know?

[Joe Chi Minh]

145. Don't waste your breath. They're either very dim or some may even work for a telecoms outfit.

[TheWraith]

147. Yes. For starters, he's not a Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon.

He's advertised as "Mayo Clinic-trained." He did his residency there, not neurosurgery, or even employment. His actual job is with the Canberra Hospital in Canberra, Australia. Furthermore, he admits he has done NO actual research of any kind on the effects of mobile phones; he only read papers published by other people before making his remarks. Nor is he an expert on the effects of RF exposure on the brain; his area is aneurysms and complex tumor surgeries.

This sort of gross exaggeration on the part of people who want a "scare story" to make people pay attention may sound good, but it has nothing to do with actual science. It's about as grounded in fact as Fox News' treatment of global warming.

[Prefer]

3. What about Wifi? It's the same as cordless phone - 2.4 ghz

I guess we should all stop using wifi too and don;t visit any place with a free access point like Starbucks.

[Dems Will Win]

5. The evidence is not in yet on WiFi -- too new. But it is likely that cell phones are worse

as you put the radiation right next to your ear. Plus when it rings you are really frying your brain, and in rural areas the power needed zaps you a hell of a lot more.

We'll likely find out about Wifi after it is too late, just like the millions who will now die from cell and cordless phones.

Anyone know people who have died and were heavy cell users or cordless users?

Enter below:

[Dems Will Win]

31. From the UK

Children are thought to be more vulnerable to radio-frequency radiation emissions than adults because their skulls are still growing and are thinner, which is why parents have protested against the erection of mobile phone masts near schools. However, it looks like parents may have been missing a greater evil in their midst. In the UK a BBC Panorama investigation has discovered that Wi-Fi networks in schools can give off three times more signal radiation than mobile phone masts.

Researchers for the BBC’s Panorama program visited a comprehensive school in Norwich and measured the strength of a radiation signal from a classroom Wi-Fi laptop. They found that the maximum signal strength was three times higher than that of a typical mobile phone mast.

Norwich North MP Dr Ian Gibson, who was interviewed for the program, said: “There needs to be an inquiry into whether there are dangers from Wi-Fi in schools.”

“It has been introduced without any investigation into its effects on people’s health. If it’s safe, people ought to provide data to prove it.”

He added that an independent assessment needed to be carried out.

The program contacted nearly 50 of these schools and claimed only one had been alerted that there might be possible health risks, some had been told there was no risk.

While the readings were 600 times below the government’s radiation safety limits, the program is expected to fuel the debate over potential risks of Wi-Fi - particularly among young children who could be under greater risk.

Following the BBC investigation, the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart publicly called for a review of the health effects of Wi-Fi, which centers heavily on the adoption of wireless in schools.

Seventy per cent of secondary schools in the UK already have Wi-Fi and nearly 50 per cent of all primary schools do. He said: “I believe that there is a need for a review of the Wi-Fi and other areas. I think it’s timely for it to be done now.”

[kimmerspixelated]

94. It's great that you posted this. There is hope, I think...

I have seen devices you can buy that are supposed to dramatically reduce the harmful radiation waves caused by cell phones. It is an attachment of some sort. I have seen it as one of the products on Mercola.com, but so many here think he is a quack, simply because he believes in natural solutions. I forgot the price, whatever it is, I think it would be well worth it.

[TheWraith]

127. Those "anti radiation attachments" are total frauds.

They do not to anything. Period. Anyone who says they do is lying or uninformed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

146. I read that an earlier version actually made it more harmful.

[shanti]

68. yes

i have known 2 who have died in the last 2 years from brain cancer. :(

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Anyone know people who have died and were heavy cell users

Yes and more than just that. I was in a business where the very earliest cell phones were in constant use in some positions, constant. Years ahead of the pack, when they were big and spendy. I know of 3 dead already, all told flatly it was the phone that did it. The tumors in all 3 were in the exact same spot. They were all well under 50.

So that would be three. Can you hear me now?

[JackRiddler]

7. And what about it?

From my wifi equipped machine, I ask: Isn't this something that bears investigation? If it turns out to be the case, should we not know? Would civilization collapse if we had to figure out a different solution? (Come to think of it, I was on the Web forever without wifi, which I only started using recently...)

But I figure wifi is safe because you're not sticking it a transmitter straight to your ear (though no doubt Web helmets are coming one day). The dispersion effect is huge, a cube of the distance.

[Dems Will Win]

29. With Bluetooth you are sticking a transmitter in your ear - worst idea ever

[Ilsa]

42. I like my ear pods wired to my phone. I'll never go back to bluetooth.nt

[Prefer]

138. My friend who works for Cingular (AT&T)

said that the wired earpiece carries the radation up to your head. It acts as an antenna for the radiation.

[Tesha]

66. Of course the radio power level needed to go three feet to your phone...

Of course the radio power level needed to go
three feet to your phone just might be a bit
different than the power level your phone needs
to go (say) three miles to the cell site...

Tesha

[Xithras]

86. Zactly. Bluetooth is much less powerful. 1/3000th in most cases.

Your typical Class 3 Bluetooth earpiece is going to PEAK at 1 milliwatt of power. Your more expensive Class 2 earpieces will peak at about 2.5 milliwatts The cordless phones in your home are between 1 watt and 3 watts depending on power, which equates to 1000 to 3000 TIMES as powerful as the typical Bluetooth headset, and 400 to 1200 times as powerful as the most expensive Bluetooth models. I have a 3 watt cordless in my home with a handset range of over a quarter mile.

Cell phones, depending on the type and brand, vary from .5 watts to 3 watts as well (many switch their power levels based on signal strength), and are therefore 500 to 3000 times as powerful as a typical Bluetooth headset.

Bluetooth headsets are designed to emit as little power as possible to reduce battery drain, and that concern has the side effect of reducing unnecessary EM radiation. There is a reason why most Bluetooth headsets will start losing their signals if they are moved more than a few feet from the phone.

[POAS]

8. We live in a world increasingly---

polluted (if I may use that term) my electro-magnetic radiation of all sorts.

Remember a few years ago the attention was on the hazards posed to children living under or near high voltage transmission lines? Now we have high powered cell towers springing up everywhere, portable satellite radios sending FM signals to your car radio, wireless home networks, microwave ovens, etc., etc.

What will be the long term effects? Probably not good!

[mike_c]

4. "...this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade."

Oh for pete's sake. Aren't you more afraid of the mind control rays emanating from your computer monitor? They'll get you long before all that cell phone radiation has an effect. Not to worry though-- wrapping your head in tinfoil protects from BOTH exposures. I've been doing this for YEARS and haven't had a brain lesion yet. :tinfoilhat:

Cue theremin....

[Dems Will Win]

9. I remember you. You were the guy who refused to believe the data about imidacloprid

killing the bees. Boy were you wrong about that! (Maine just came out recommending not to spray imidacloprid on blueberries). Even the USDA is worried now that 36% of all bees died just a few weeks ago. And the beekeepers are convinced the migratory operations are being wiped out by imidaclopridon the almonds and blueberries. Admit it, you were wrong. I can post the latest scientific proof on this, if you like. Just 6 PPB disrupts foraging.

You're wrong about this too.

Why don't you go peddle your pseudo-science and propaganda somewhere else where it would be appreciated, like a blog on the American Chemical Council or the Cell Phone Manufacturers of America?

[mike_c]

12. I'm a working research ecologist-- what are your credentials?

I mean, since you raised the issue of who's posting pseudo-science.

As for imidacloprid and CCD, there is STILL no plausible link between them. The CCD working group has all but eliminated imidacloprid exposure as a cause. Incidentally, the California almond pollination went off without a hitch this year. Contrary to last year's hysterical fear-mongering, there was no shortage of bees. Pehaps you'd like to read that sentence again? There was no shortage of bees.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/almonds-55022801

on edit-- BTW, I'll accept your challenge. Please post a link to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating causal links between CCD and imidacloprid exposure. Not research documenting sublethal effects of imidacloprid-- all pesticides have sublethal effects. Post an article that cites actual data linking imidacloprid exposure to collapsed colonies. While there has been plenty of SPECULATION, I don't believe such evidence exists.

[Dems Will Win]

22. Sure, this is the definitive study by M.E. Colin in 2003, published in the

Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47, 387–395 (2004)

I like you, you know how to play.

There were only enough honey bees because the weather was good for 2 weeks. If it had been the usual 1-4 days of good flying weather, there would not have been enough bees.

Dr. Jeff Pettis of the USDA, reported on CBS Evening News just 2 weeks ago, has pulled together the recent die-off rate, and it is 36%, up from 30% last year. Since the usual die-off is 17% to 20%, the rest is attributed to CCD.

The IAPV theory, the virus, was found wanting in November by USDA's Dr. Judy Chen et al. when it was found IAPV had been in the U.S. since 2002, not 2005, which means IAPV would have had to mutate in 3 years and become more dangerous, which it did not appear to.

Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47, 387–395 (2004)

A Method to Quantify and Analyze the Foraging Activity of Honey Bees:
Relevance to the Sublethal Effects Induced by Systemic Insecticides

Two modes of intoxication were by these two insecticides.
They can be described by way of the two criteria relating to
Fig. 5. Daily attendance of the “active” bees when the
feeder was contaminated with fipronil at a concentration
of 2
g/kg. Data from three nuclei (A, B, and C)
can be compared with that of the pooled control nuclei.
Only data and slopes for days 0 (control day), 1, and 4
are depicted for clarity. A first significant change in
slopes is depicted from day 1. Then the number of active
bees (submitted to the contaminated source)
sharply decreased as shown on day 4.

Insecticides and Honey Bees 393

food source frequentation and proportion of inactive bees relative
to active bees (I/A ratio). When only I/A ratio was
affected (i.e., attendance unchanged), bees were able to maintain
the physical aptitudes necessary to accomplish their tasks.
This was the case for imidacloprid. Here, the behavioral problems
were attributed to effects on the central nervous system,
which do not contradict the report of Sone et al. (1994). These
investigators demonstrated “a loss of force in the feet of the
American cockroach due to blockage of the 6th abdominal
ganglion, but at elevated doses.” Such doses are far greater than
6
g/kg (Mayer and Lunden 1997). In the present case, the
manner of absorption of the contaminated syrup is modified by
imidacloprid. This is consistent with reports of Nauen et al.
(1998a,b), who described an antifeed effect in certain types of
aphids at several
g/kg levels of imidacloprid. However, the
investigators did not indicate whether (1) the insects immediately
detected the presence of the insecticide (i.e., did not
absorb the contaminated food) or (2) the insects stopped feeding
as a result of absorbing the toxin in the food and/or just
after contact with the contaminated surface. Note that decreased
sucking activity of aphids has already been mentioned
by Abraham and Epperlein (1999). Furthermore, Smith and
Krischik (1999), as well as Vincent et al. (2000), demonstrated
decreased mobility of the ladybird larvae (Harmonia axyridis)
after they walked on contaminated surface.

When both attendance and I/A ratio were disturbed by the
toxin at a given concentration, the intoxication was at a subacute
stage, i.e., without mortality but with evident clinical
signs of impairment. This was the case for fipronil at a concentration
of 2
g/kg. Clinical signs of disruptive motor activity,
such as convulsions or paralysis, meant that bees were
physically unable to accomplish foraging tasks. Furthermore,
the huge decrease of foragers on day 4 was correlated with the
progressive appearance of convulsion episodes. In fact, fipronil
neither exhibits an antifeeding effect nor produces foodstuff
aversion in bees even at relatively high doses (Franc and
Cadiergues 1998; Gahlhoff et al. 1999; Mayer and Lunden
1999; Patourel 2000). That is why bees can absorb doses
sufficiently high to be even more intoxicating.

Conclusion

The present method allowed the quantification of some features
of foraging activity in several small bee colonies. It also
provided two reliable and reproducible quantitative parameters
independent of the observer. These parameters were clearly
related to biologic effects on bees.

The experiment was designed to simulate realistic conditions
occurring in fields, particularly concerning the presence of
toxic levels of a few
g/kg in pollens and nectars. It provided
data complementary to those of chronic exposure under laboratory
conditions, which revealed a delayed mortality at concentrations
 1
g/kg for imidacloprid (Suchail et al. 2001).

Clinical signs, highly characteristic of intoxication and already
observed in sunflower fields, were reproduced in the experimental
tunnel conditions. Therefore, this method provided an
indispensable interface between controlled conditions in the
laboratory and the field. The potential uses of this method are
numerous because the study of global activity among foragers
at a feeder may be further completed by observations at both
the nucleus entrance and its interior, especially if the bees are
individually marked.

The quantitative effects of imidacloprid and fipronil were
linked to a global disturbance in the main task of the colony,
i.e., feeding activity. Investigation of toxic effects is not limited
to counting dead adult bees but instead deals with sublethal
effects on feeding and, consequently, on the food supply of the
colony, both of which affect its long-term survival. Such sublethal
effects induced by systemic insecticides should be considered
in risk assessment schemes when considering beneficial
insects such as honey bees.

ALSO:

Environmental Chemistry
Green Chemistry and Pollutants in Ecosystems
10.1007/3-540-26531-7_44
Eric Lichtfouse, Jan Schwarzbauer and Didier Robert

44. Behaviour of Imidacloprid in Fields. Toxicity for Honey Bees
J. M. Bonmatin, I. Moineau, R. Charvet, M. E. Colin, C. Fleche and E. R. Bengsch

Abstract

Following evidence for the intoxication of bees, the systemic insecticide imidacloprid was suspected from the mid nineties of having harmful effects. Recently, some studies have demonstrated that imidacloprid is toxic for the bees at sub-lethal doses. These doses are evaluated in the range between 1 and 20 µg kg−1, or less. It appeared thus necessary to study the fate of imidacloprid in the environment at such low levels. Thus, we developed methods for the determination of low amounts, in the µg kg−1 range, of the insecticide imidacloprid in soils, plants and pollens using high pressure liquid chromatography — tandem mass spectrometry (LC/APCI/MS/MS). The extraction and separation methods were performed according to quality assurance criteria, good laboratory practices and the European Community’s criteria applicable to banned substances (directive 96/23 EC). The linear concentration range of application was 1–50 µg kg−1 of imidacloprid, with a relative standard deviation of 2.9% at 1 µg kg−1. The limit of detection and quantification are respectively LOD = 0.1 µg kg−1 and LOQ = 1 µg kg−1 and are suited to the sub-lethal dose range. This technique allows the unambiguous identification and quantification of imidacloprid. The results show the remanence of the insecticide in soils, its ascent into plants during flowering and its bioavailability in pollens.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/gw1j4l4625070036/

By the way, it's the sublethal doses that are the problem, not the lethal dose. When you take something that works at just 6 PPB to disrupt foraging, then it's a systemic that goes throughout the whole plant, then the soil retention is a half-life of 412 days (Vogel for Bayer), Mike, you've got a real problem. The imidacloprid is actually accumulating in the soil then, so spraying it after the bees are in the field does no good, as the application gets them the next season. After 3 or 4 years, the soil level is enough to cause enough uptake that is truly harmful.

Let's talk science, and by the way, Pettis has said the CCD Working Group at Penn State will be starting imidacloprid trials soon, so saying they have all but eliminated it as a cause before the trials even start is a stretch.

[LeftyMom]

28. "3-4 days of good flying weather" - You're not real familiar with NorCal, are you?

Here's the deal- the old joke is that we don't have weather, we have climate. To put it another way, we get a 2-4 month cool and rainy stretch in the fall and winter, and the rest of the time it's warm, dry, and usually pretty still. Daily deviations from that pattern happen, but not much.

So no, there's nothing unusual about a two week stretch of dry weather in the spring at all.

I don't know a damned thing about the effects of pesticides on bees (I do know if I wanted to find out, mikec would be the person on DU to ask) but I know the weather in Northern California like I know my own skin- I've lived in both my whole life. And if you think that two weeks of mild weather in the north valley in the springtime was unusual, you really don't have a lot of credibility with this native Californian.

[Dems Will Win]

30. Not unusual, but in March it's lucky, I lived in Northern Cal

And Mike C is a nice fellow but I just showed him data he had not seen, so he is not a high priest just because he is a research ecologist. Especially if I can hold my own with him.

Plus he was wrong about the CCD getting better. It's actually 6% worse this year.

Unless Katie Couric was lying.

[LeftyMom]

34. We usually don't have significant rain in March.

It usually sprinkles a few times, but more than a day or two of good steady rain for the month would be pretty unusual.

[Dems Will Win]

35. It not the rain, if you knew about honey bees they fly by the Sun

So cloudy days hold them down. March is often cloudy in Northern Cal.

Anything else?

[mike_c]

50. honey bees can navigate just fine on cloudy days....

They orient to the plane of light polarization, not just the sun's position. Foragers also use fixed landmarks. Bees can forage on cloudy days.

http://www.setiai.com/archives/000064.html

on edit-- during March in norcal cool temperature is far more likely to limit foraging workers.

[ItNerd4life]

90. Then honeybees don't exist in Seattle?

It's always cloudy there.

Remember, People who live in Washington don't tan, they rust. :P

[ourbluenation]

134. I've lived up here for 20 years and I'd have to agree. March is more cloudy than sunny...

as someone who grew up in sunny socal, I found it depressing how long the drab weather lingered in norcal. Sometimes not really breaking until May.

[mike_c]

48. as far as I can tell neither of those papers addressed CCD at all....

I can't access the full text from my home computer without paying for PDFs, but I'm familiar with them. They document clinical effects of sublethal imidacloprid doses on memory, nervous system function, and foraging ability if I recall correctly, but neither demonstrate any link to CCD. Neither even addressed colonies undergoing CCD. Nor is there any clinical signature of imidacloprid toxicity in bees recovered from hives undergoing CCD. As you mentioned, imidacloprid toxicity has been proposed as a possible contributor to CCD, but no causal link has yet been demonstrated.

It's really bad science to extrapolate beyond the purpose of these studies.

I wasn't aware that further imidacloprid field trials are planned by the CCD WG. That's good news. I am NOT saying that imidacloprid is not a factor in CCD, only that there is absolutely zero evidence to support that claim at present. The last time I checked-- last fall-- the work group had said that imidacloprid toxicity was low on the list of probabilities. I suspect that is still the case, but I'm glad to see that field trials are planned.

[Dems Will Win]

54. If 6 PPB disrupts the forgaging of bees and they stop feeding the hive normally after just 4 days

it will collapse. Since the French have proved there is more than enough available from multiple sources in the field, that 6 PPB will cause the hive to stop feeding, while the control hives will not. Plus the soil retention is a wipe-out. After a few years, it can get really high levels depending on weather.

Colin's conclusion, and in fact the Agriculture Ministry of France and that of a huge 108 page study, was that imidacloprid and Fipronil were a significant risk to bees and should be included in any risk assessment scheme. And so they suspended use on sunflowers and corn. I guess that was politics and bad science in your view?

In addition, Maine Ag has just recommended NOT using imidacloprid for blueberries in 2008 out of concern for the bees. So the folks there were worried enough.

The EPA should suspend use on food crops and feed crops until Bayer can prove it safe, not the other way around, given the relevant information here. Wouldn't be prudent to do otherwise. Use something else or biological controls like lacewing flies.

By the way, the bees can still fly in cloudy weather, but they don't go as far, which is what the almond orchards need so the whole orchard is pollinated correctly. You are right about the temperature. That will keep them in more than a cloudy day.

Remember they are being trucked in to a new place so landmarks have to be established first.

[mike_c]

57. that is an as yet untested hypothesis....

That HYPOTHESIS follows directly from the papers you've cited. Now someone needs to test it. It hasn't been tested yet. When it is, we'll both read the data and the results, I'm sure. Until then, it doesn't do anyone any good to repeat untested statements as truth.

Regulatory actions to date have been prudent, but have not been based on any demonstrated link between imidacloprid and CCD. I'll say this again: no such links currently exist except as untested hypotheses.

BTW, hives are usually placed in densities of 8-16 hives at the base of every row or every other row in socal almond orchards. Bees don't have to go very far to pollinate the typical socal almond tree. Growers paid up to $150/hive this year-- they want maximal pollination efficiency at that price. They make it pretty easy for bees to reach all the trees.

[Two Americas]

64. this needs to be put into perspective

*Everything* is a worry in agriculture all the time, and everything is being studied and monitored. That is the proper context. I could make up credible scare stories - credible to the ignorant and gullible - from research papers on any subject, making any sort of wild claim, were I so inclined.

Fear mongering weakens and hurts the cause of lowering environmental toxicity and developing safer agriculture, it does not help. This is so much the case and so obvious and blatant that I often think that perhaps corporate agri-business is really behind these scare campaigns.

You know nothing about bees, nothing about toxicity, nothing about agriculture, and nothing about scientific research.

Spoiled well-fed Americans have no idea what it takes to feed the population. Thousands of skilled, sincere and progressive people are working on the many challenges in agriculture. The farmers and farm communities are on the ropes, due to political causes, and funding for research and inspection has been slashed to the bone. Lives and livelihoods hang in the balance - real people who are making real contributions are at risk, as are the millions of people we need to feed every day.

These fear mongering campaigns - and I don't think I am exaggerating when I say this - represent a crime against humanity. For the sake of a feel-good pseudo-spiritual cause that only appeals to the upscale few - pampered and spoiled and arrogant, far removed from the realities of survival and abominably ignorant about agriculture and science - cooperative and sustainable agricultural communities, the public agriculture infrastructure, and our ability to safely feed the population are being placed at risk.

[Joe Chi Minh]

148. "Thousands of skilled, sincere and progressive people are working

on the many challenges in agriculture. The farmers and farm communities are on the ropes, due to political causes, and funding for research and inspection has been slashed to the bone. Lives and livelihoods hang in the balance - real people who are making real contributions are at risk, as are the millions of people we need to feed every day."

Yes, you pathetic mutt. That's why Americans have to buy and consume unlabelled frankenfoods, hormone-filled milk and the other monstrous perversions of animal huusbandry and agriculture.

"These fear mongering campaigns - and I don't think I am exaggerating when I say this - represent a crime against humanity."

If anyone should be jailed for crimes against humanity and the key thown away, it's you and people of your ilk, who invoke the most shamelessly pitiful and entirely specious grounds for an imprudent rush to endorse the latest innovations of Big Business, and devil take the hindmost. Good grief, even Adam Smith referred to the equivalents of his day, of the politicians, their puppeteers and the CEOs of the major corporations as the "vile masters of mankind."

Alas, empirical science is the one area 'par excellence' whose journeyman luminaries display a laughable incapacity for the simplest logic, yet the cream of the joke is that that is the very area you pride yourselves on, as the veritable paragons. If only.

"The farmers and farm communities are on the ropes, due to political causes,..."

That little gem reminds me of a remark made by a missionary priest thrown out of the Phillipines for trying to organise the poor for their protection - a banishment stated by the authorities to have been on the grounds that he had been acting politically. He replied that had he been acting politically, he would have kept his head down and remained neutral.

No! Farmers and farm communities are on the ropes because of the venality and irresponsiblity of politicians (and scientists); what you referred to as "political causes" were the responses to those political causes.

I can scarcely believe how you cast the hapless myrmidons of the Agribusinesses as all being motivated by nothing less than a burning paramessianic zeal for the nourishment of the farmers and consumers; champions of the down-trodden rural and shopping-mall masses. They're just trying to earn a living as best they can. Why don't you try and keep your feet on the ground a little more firmly?

Now, go back to sleep.

[Joe Chi Minh]

152. As so often, Einstein nailed it: "All of us who are concerned for peace and the triumph of reason

and justice must be keenly aware of how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political domain."

And that's what this is about: politics and the corporatocracy.

[Dems Will Win]

33. If you read the Daily Green article again it is headlined "Whew!"

That collective sigh of relief you hear is coming all the way from the Central Valley in California, starting in Bakersfield stretching all the way to San Francisco.

Part of it is from the almond growers there who have pretty much found enough bees to pollinate all the trees they need pollinated, and the rest of it is from the beekeepers there who have been able to provide the bees they promised, and finally got all those hives moved from holding yards into orchards. Some 1.2 to 1.4 million hives have been moved in the last 6 – 10 days, so there has been a lot of truck traffic between the middle of no where (where they keep the bees in holding yards) to the middle of those almond orchards, where they’ll sit for another 2 – 4 weeks, depending on the weather.

Early on the weather was working against everybody ... cool, cloudy and rainy. But that broke early the week of the 20th and the sun came out, the wind died down and temperatures warmed up ... at least during the day. The night time temperatures have been in the upper 30s, which makes the bees form tight clusters inside to keep warm, but early in the day the sun is out and the temperatures climb to the mid 60s and even lower 70s in the central part of the state ... that’s great flying weather if you’re a hungry honey bee looking for nectar and pollen.

By the way, many of those bees that did make it and pollinate, then collapsed on the way back, probably because of the imidacloprid from the almond job.

Though still not complete, the affect of colony collapse disorder on the bees that went to California is a little clearer now that nearly all of the colonies have been inspected and moved. Again this season there were some beekeepers that found they had significant losses that did not appear until just the last minute. The colonies had seemed fine when they moved out there, but in a very short time (but after a delay due to the weather, with little food and unable to fly) they experienced the now well-defined collapse ... in a week’s time or sometimes less ... the bees just disappeared. And there is no good reason this has occurred. Or so it seems.



It all fits if it's the imidacloprid

[TZ]

47. No now you are being ignorant

Its not the pesticide but a damn PARASITE. Funny how that got lost here.
But its much more fun to scare people isn't it?

[Dems Will Win]

55. Sorry, the USDA's Jeff Pettis rejected Nosema Cerana as the cause of CCD

IT has different symptoms, none of which line up with CCD, outside of the death of the hive. And then the dead hives are eaten immediately by wax moths, which does not happen with CCD hives.

“while the parasite Nosema ceranae may be a factor, it cannot be the sole cause. The fungus has been seen before, sometimes in colonies that were healthy. Mostly we think of Nosema as a stress disorder of honey bees.” - Pettis

Try again!

[mike_c]

59. Pettis did NOT reject Nosema infestations...

...except as the "sole cause." There is not agreement yet that there even is a "sole cause" of CCD. Many entomologists presently suspect that CCD is a syndrome rather than a single phenomenon, and that it likely has multiple parallel causes. I do not believe that Nosema infection has been ruled out as a possible stressor contributing to colony collapse. Neither has imidacloprid, for that matter. Both remain possible hypotheses.

[alarimer]

81. It's a disease killing the bees

not pesticides.

[ensho]

6. kick

nt

[Turbineguy]

10. Notice the difference in rat brains before and after

Rebublicans should be aware!

[Rosemary2205]

13. That does it - no cell phones for the rodents!!

I will just have to stop allowing our mouse "Skeeter" to use the cordless phone!!

[varkam]

11. Alas, 'tis not peer-reviewed.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

I think I'll wait until it gets published before I toss my phone out the window.

[lonestarnot]

18. How long does that take?

[varkam]

23. It depends.

I don't really know where the paper is currently at in the process, but it could be a few months to a year or so depending on if it gets sent back for revisions and the like.

[lonestarnot]

25. Thanks for the info.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. to toss your phone out the window?

bout 2 seconds.
if the window is open.
Longer if it is closed.

[Dems Will Win]

37. Gee you must have missed this, the second study I mentioned IS peer-reviewed

They conclude that "caution is needed in the use of mobile phones" and believe children, who are especially vulnerable, should be discouraged from using them at all.

The study, published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, is important because it pulls together research on people who have used the phones for long enough to contract the disease.

[varkam]

62. Sorry, missed your second link. But...

according to another poster in this thread (who is pretty good with the numbers), the rate of brain cancer has been decreasing over the past ten years. Why is it that it would be decreasing when the rate of cell phone use has been (ostensibly) increasing?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

118. I can't find that poster. Sorry. Which one?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

120. since I'm reading this, I looked for you. Here is the link I think

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3080932#3081722

Maybe you could reply or pm this poster.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

121. withdrawn

:hi:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

124. Why did you do that? No poster asserted your implication and the article makes no assertion.

I'm confused.

[varkam]

136. Yup - that's the one.

:hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. That might be inadvisable.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7963/

[varkam]

63. Nothing new.

Peer-review is still one of the best ways we have of ensuring that the science is legit - issues of conflicts of interest aside. Is there evidence, though, that the studies that come to opposite conclusions were rigged? If not, then it would seem that it might be a bit hasty to adopt a conspiracy theory view on this sort of thing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. It depends if the health of your brain might be in the balance, doesn't it?

I don't think putting aside conflicts of interest, as per your qualification of the point you were making, is ever a prudent recourse, either, wherever big business is concerned. As the DU poster, Mythsage, so incisively put it, "What makes some people think Big Business is more benevolent than Big Government?" Big Government with all its regulatory authorities, etc.

Don't forget that these findings are very much in line with what was predicted at the outset by experts in the field - particularly in relation to the brains of children. I don't think they were simply conjecturing; rather, I think that the article I linked on the manufacture of uncertainty more than adequately warrants complete certainty that whatever the truth of the matter, the multinationals would have arranged for obfuscatory studies to be generated, and indeed will continue to do so. Incidentally, did the author of the article I linked not say that the "gestation" period for brain cancer, if it were indeed, caused, would be approximately 10 years! Is that open to dispute?

Regrettably, at that level of our societies, mass-murder is never an option that is readily eschewed, where it might lead to increased profits. Apart from the obvious culprit, the tobacco industry, Nestle's promoted their sales of powdered milk to certain under-developed countries, despite knowing that, for various cultural and environmental reasons, it was leading to the deaths of innumerable infants, as mothers favoured it over breast-feeding.

The same applies with regard to genetically-modified foods. There is already evidence of significant harm having been done to people's health on account of it, yet peasants in the third world are being forced to buy seed from Monsanto, etc, which they simply cannot afford, nor should be compelled to. It is no great secret that what goes on at the sub-atomic level in the genetic-modification processes, which would ordinarily take place over a period of millions of years, is unknown, but the companies have insisted on going ahead with it, rather than proceeding with extreme caution - just as the cell-phone companies have in our context here.

It seems that, to Big Business, the mass of mankind are "third world", including Americans and Brits. "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out ...". And now the EU, I believe, has ordained that "experimental" crops should be freely grown, unhindered, throughout the EU.

[varkam]

137. Well...

I don't think putting aside conflicts of interest, as per your qualification of the point you were making, is ever a prudent recourse, either, wherever big business is concerned. As the DU poster, Mythsage, so incisively put it, "What makes some people think Big Business is more benevolent than Big Government?" Big Government with all its regulatory authorities, etc.

I don't think assuming that where there is a conflict of interest, or even a potential conflict of interest, that the results or invalid is helpful either. Also, no one I am familiar with thinks that big business is more benevolent than big government. In fact, I would assert that the government is more benevolent that business, as ideally government is supposed to operate to the benefit of the people whereas corporations are only concerned about the bottom line.

Don't forget that these findings are very much in line with what was predicted at the outset by experts in the field - particularly in relation to the brains of children. I don't think they were simply conjecturing; rather, I think that the article I linked on the manufacture of uncertainty more than adequately warrants complete certainty that whatever the truth of the matter, the multinationals would have arranged for obfuscatory studies to be generated, and indeed will continue to do so. Incidentally, did the author of the article I linked not say that the "gestation" period for brain cancer, if it were indeed, caused, would be approximately 10 years! Is that open to dispute?

Evidence, my friend. I assert that we still need evidence that study X is compromised, rather than there are studies "out there" meant to obscure the field. Also, as posted elsewhere in this thread rates of brain cancer have been decreasing while rates of cell phone use have been increasing - which appears to contradict the murder by cell phone hypothesis.

As for the rest of your post: I don't really know enough about GM crops to comment :hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

140. You remind me of Red Cavanaugh in For a Few Dollars More; and

myself, an admittedly highly implausible Monco.

Cavanaugh remarked to Monco concerning a poker hand, "You didn't say what the stake was?" To which he replied,

"Your life." (Let it not be so, though you are evidently prepared to hazard your life for a cell-phone) :hi:

Priorities, my friend, priorities. As in, 'a precautionary approach', 'safety first'.

[varkam]

141. If we took every alarmist report very seriously...

we'd end up locking ourselves inside, being afraid of our own shadow. As far as this is concerned, I suppose I am a bit more interested in the actual truth of the matter.

[Joe Chi Minh]

142. And in the meantime... you'll take your chances. Truly a champion of truth non-pareil!

I'm afraid your endeavours in the service of truth are not going to be worth an awful lot, Varkam, if that is your idea of elementary prudence.

You mentioned an independent study that established that the incidences of cancer had actually decreased. Might it have been a study by a seat of learning funded in some way by a cell-phone corporation or a group member or associate, or a founding CEO? Or a laboratory with ties, not necessarily overt, with such a phone company? Or a laboratory frequently resorted to by corporate lobbyists?

Why do you think these putative whistle-blowers are bothering to persevere with their findings, even publishing them, if even you, presumably a layman in the matter, are in possession of definitive proof of their safety?

You evoke empirical proof as some kind of magical mantra. You're talking to the wrong guy. Specious proof is easy for these guys to fabricate, as the article I cited made clear, and indeed a plethora of apparently conflicting evidence can and is routinely used by large corporations precisely to obscure the truth.

One need only look at the welter of putative empirical evidence that JFK was murdered by a lone gunman, despite the most compelling empirical evidence to the contrary, and worse, despite the compelling circumstantial evidence consummately synthesised in the astronomical statistical odds, based on the simplest and most incontrovertible variables, against more than a score of witnesses on the 'grassy knoll' of shots and smoke coming from nearby, all dying of mysterious of causes within three years of the incident.

I dare say you will want to respond, while still failing to explain why a precautionary approach is a half-assed way to proceed in the matter of cell-phone use. So, I'll leave it to you now. But I suspect there will be many who do understand why a precautionary approach need not be the counsel of loony-toons scaremongers.

[varkam]

151. Uh-huh...

You mentioned an independent study that established that the incidences of cancer had actually decreased. Might it have been a study by a seat of learning funded in some way by a cell-phone corporation or a group member or associate, or a founding CEO? Or a laboratory with ties, not necessarily overt, with such a phone company? Or a laboratory frequently resorted to by corporate lobbyists?

I actually did no such thing. There is another poster in this thread who mentioned that, I just repeated that incidence of brain cancer has been decreasing (at least according to them - and I'd consider them a reliable source). I'd further assume that such data is epidemiological in nature, and not a study.

Why do you think these putative whistle-blowers are bothering to persevere with their findings, even publishing them, if even you, presumably a layman in the matter, are in possession of definitive proof of their safety?

For one thing, this study has been self-published. That means that there has been no peer-review. Even if there is a peer-review, that doesn't necessarily mean that crap doesn't get through (take Wakefield's now infamous study that appeared in Lancet regarding autism).

Further, I never said that I am "in possession of definitive proof of their safety". Rather, it is simply that I remain unconvinced by a self-published screed that claims cell phones kill. Reading the actual "study" didn't help much, either, as it was not only poorly written for a scientific paper, but also seemed to be very alarmist just in the general tone that it took. Have you read the study?

Also, I merely brought up the question that if brain cancer has been decreasing as shown by epidemiological data, then doesn't that sort of stop this conversation cold? If the hypothesis is that cell phones cause brain cancer, whereas cell phone use has been increasing over the past decade, then one would expect to see an increase in brain cancer.

You evoke empirical proof as some kind of magical mantra. You're talking to the wrong guy. Specious proof is easy for these guys to fabricate, as the article I cited made clear, and indeed a plethora of apparently conflicting evidence can and is routinely used by large corporations precisely to obscure the truth.

But claiming that such is the case in this instance, sans evidence to support your claim, reeks of tin-foil hattery.

One need only look at the welter of putative empirical evidence that JFK was murdered by a lone gunman, despite the most compelling empirical evidence to the contrary, and worse, despite the compelling circumstantial evidence consummately synthesised in the astronomical statistical odds, based on the simplest and most incontrovertible variables, against more than a score of witnesses on the 'grassy knoll' of shots and smoke coming from nearby, all dying of mysterious of causes within three years of the incident.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Because there was a conspiracy surrounding JFK, there is also a conspiracy regarding cell phones? Right...

I dare say you will want to respond, while still failing to explain why a precautionary approach is a half-assed way to proceed in the matter of cell-phone use. So, I'll leave it to you now. But I suspect there will be many who do understand why a precautionary approach need not be the counsel of loony-toons scaremongers.

You're going to have to convince me with data, not half-baked conspiracy theories.

[Joe Chi Minh]

143. Post accidentally repeated.

[angrycarpenter]

15. we are subjected to EM all of the time

Worrying about it all the time is more destructive than any radio signal. Quit stressing about things like this so much. Look into these threats with calm rationality. Fear is the mind killer. Plus a hysterical tone in an article gives it less credibility.

Trying to live forever is doomed to failure. Are we so fragile that a cell phone can kill us? Or a piece of meat? Or a little second-hand smoke? No, it is the stress that we endure on a daily basis. It is the worry that something is not right with us. Quit worrying about health so much or you will worry yourself sick, literally.

[progressoid]

16. Sooo...will phone sex give me testicular cancer?

:shrug:

[Dems Will Win]

32. I think you need to do a lot more research on that.

[varelse]

36. Aye, but who will be the "control" subject?

:rofl:

[dweller]

70. never ever, no matter what you do,

let those nuts borrow your cellphone.

they'll rack up charges that you'll never pay off.
dp

[progressoid]

74. Oh, NOW you tell me.

:eyes:

[Rosemary2205]

71. No. Only carpel tunnel.

:) Well, unless you spend a lot of time with the phone up against your privates - and if you do then you might want to make friends with that guy who enjoys picnic tables........ :)

[wildbilln864]

17. *k&r! nt

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

19. Fuck it- whether or not it's true, until they come up with an alternative

I'm going to keep using my cell phone. Life is too short to worry about every little thing that will kill us. I don't use it much, but I'm willing to take the less than 1% chance that it will kill me if it is something that will help me achieve happiness. If it ever stops doing that, then I will stop using it. But that day is not today.

[SidDithers]

21. 2x, 3x and 5x a minscule risk is still a miniscule risk...nt

Sid

[Canuckistanian]

24. If ever I hear "Cause of Death - Cell Phone Radiation", I'll pay attention

Right now, there are people who work around much more intensive RF fields than piddly little cell phones.

I haven't seen any of them suddenly drop dead. In fact, there's no indication that they even die of cancer more than the average person.

Every time you drive by a radio station tower, your whole body is bombarded by 100X more RF radiation than a cell phone.

People have searching (even desperately, I believe) for proof of cancer causation from RF fields for YEARS.

So far, all evidence is inconclusive.

[TZ]

46. Actually there are a bunch of scientific studies

that find that cell phones are NOT increasing cancer. IN FACT, the rate of brain cancer has been DECREASING in the past ten years.
But its much more fun to scream WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE, than post actual scientific fact.
I swear the luddites on this board are so fricken stupid.

[SidDithers]

61. kick for this post...

and the conclusion it contains.

That comment should be a sig line :)

Sid

[progressoid]

75. Maybe a "scientist" could whip up a study about the dangers of EM radiation from computer monitors.

Then the luddites would panic and log off. For good. :evilgrin:

[alarimer]

82. I agree- I can't believe how many otherwise smart people fall for woo-woo crap.

Like this.

[snot]

27. Many years ago, I had a friend who worked at AT&T, and I asked her . . .

what about those rumors I've heard that cel phone use causes brain cancer? ('Cause one of the first guys I knew to start using a cel had already GOTTEN a brain tumor near his left ear.)

Her reply: "We pay those claims." I.e., at least at that point, the company wasn't bothering to dispute them.

Don't know what their policy is now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Wasn't this debunked 5 years ago? And again 5 years before that?

It is reminding me of the fluoride crap. Those people surface about once every 5 years to tell us all we are going to die from the fluoride in our water, someone smarter shuts them up and they go away for 5 years.

So see ya in 5 years! :hi:

[Dems Will Win]

39. GIve us a call!

If you can.:evilgrin:

[yurbud]

40. I read this a while back, and went back to using a corded phone at home and corded headset on cell

[Elspeth]

41. A corded headset?

?

[yurbud]

45. that's the reaction I got from my students. like the earphones on your iPod?

only with a microphone?

It wasn't so long ago that was the only kind.

[Elspeth]

76. Do you have a link?

Thanks.

[yurbud]

77. try this one:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6448_7-5144869-1.html

[Elspeth]

132. Thanks!

I appreciate it.

[grace0418]

43. "Less than an hour every working day..."

There's the problem right there. My cell phone is invaluable to me, but I never talk on it that long. I spend *maybe* an hour on it over the course of two weeks. Every once in a blue moon I'll have a long conversation on it, but it's extremely rare. My husband and I use it to let one another know where we are, to ask questions or directions, and to coordinate with people when we're not at home. That's it.

It's the people who have it permanently attached to the sides of their heads who are going to suffer. Except that most of them will probably die in car accidents looooooong before they have a chance to develop cancer.

[Chovexani]

51. In other news

The sky is falling, and after the government controls our minds through subliminal messages on the TV it will kill us with chemtrails at the behest of the shapeshifting alien lizard people that actually run things.

Also, dogs and cats are living together.

[laconicsax]

115. zOMG!!!!!1

:scared::scared::scared:

:hide:

[Trillo]

52. Clearly, these studies that are 10 years and longer duration

are telling us something very important about transmitting antennas that are close to the brain. What other dangers does a dense saturation of wireless signals, though presumably greatly reduced in power due to distance from the antenna, have for any and all of us? I guess in the future homes are going to have to be built to incorporate Faraday cages, something written in the building codes to include or mandate them.

What does this tell us of the reliability of all the prior "science" telling us cell and cordless phones are safe, and how does that association bode for the reliability and reputability generally of science in the public's mind?

[Joe Chi Minh]

144. Steady on... The 'temporary citizens' are having ball scoffing and sneering

at us nay-sayers!

However, as for science in the public's mind, the public have long had too much nous to believe in science as the ultmate repository of truth. Nobody, is more gullible than the journeyman scientist with his/her limited understanding of the limits of scientific knowledge, or the secular-fundamentalist scientist with a cult following, both of whom fancy their barrow too much to bother with the real fundamentals of an issue. I mean, why the brains of mice or rats should be so much more vulnerable to such radiation than human brains doesn't seem to exercise them in the slightest.

[seabeyond]

53. and if someone is standing close to me while on cell phone.... am i gonna die....

second hand cell phone energy

[provis99]

56. I'm not worried; a tinfoil hat will protect me

Can I borrow yours?

[GoneOffShore]

58. Is there any way to DE recommend a thread that pushes pseudo science & hysteria

You get more EMF exposure from the sun and your microwave.

You could of course wear one of these :dunce: or these :tinfoilhat:
Sheesh.

Why don't you start worrying about something really important, like people talking on cell phones while they're driving? That's going to kill more people than just talking on the damn things.

[KitchenWitch]

99. You could "Let it sink"

:rofl:

[ElboRuum]

60. OH NOES!!!1!11!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!!11

:tinfoilhat:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

65. Meanwhile...

The demand for cell phones and computer chips is helping fuel a bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Cell phones, Laptops, Pagers and Congo's Coltan

You may not have heard of coltan, but you have it in your cell phone, laptops, pagers and other electronic devices. It is important to everyday communication in the United States, but it is making the conflict in Congo more complicated.

What Is Coltan?

Columbite-tantalite — coltan for short — is a dull metallic ore found in major quantities in the eastern areas of Congo. When refined, coltan becomes metallic tantalum, a heat-resistant powder that can hold a high electrical charge. These properties make it a vital element in creating capacitors, the electronic elements that control current flow inside miniature circuit boards. Tantalum capacitors are used in almost all cell phones, laptops, pagers and many other electronics. The recent technology boom caused the price of coltan to skyrocket to as much as $400 a kilogram at one point, as companies such as Nokia and Sony struggled to meet demand.

How Is Coltan Mined?



Coltan is mined through a fairly primitive process similar to how gold was mined in California during the 1800s. Dozens of men work together digging large craters in streambeds, scraping away dirt from the surface in order to get to the coltan underground. The workers then slosh water and mud around in large washtubs, allowing the coltan to settle to the bottom due to its heavy weight. A good worker can produce one kilogram of coltan a day.

...

http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1025577342,22563,.shtml




By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted September 14, 2006.

Everyone's heard about the human rights abuses in African gold and diamond mines. But when it comes to their ultra-cool, razor-thin cell phones, American consumers won't get the message.

"As you crawl through the tiny hole, using your arms and fingers to scratch, there's not enough space to dig properly and you get badly grazed all over. And then, when you do finally come back out with the cassiterite, the soldiers are waiting to grab it at gunpoint. Which means you have nothing to buy food with. So we're always hungry."

That's how Muhanga Kawaya, a miner in the remote northeastern province of North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), described his job to reporter Jonathan Miller of Britain's Channel 4 last year. Cassiterite, or tin oxide, is the most important source of the metallic element tin, and the DRC is home to fully one-third of the world's reserves. Some cassiterite miners work on sites operated directly by the country's military or other armed groups. Working in the same area are "artisanal" miners who are theoretically independent, like prospectors in America's Old West. But the cassiterite they extract is heavily taxed by the soldiers -- when it's not just stolen outright.

With a land area as vast as that of Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado combined, the DRC has only 300 miles of paved roads. To reach one of the many cassiterite mines in the virtually roadless northeast, 1,000 miles from the national capital Kinshasa, Miller's team followed a 40-mile footpath that, he reported, was as "busy as a motorway. Four thousand porters ply this route carrying sacks of rock heavier than they are. Each of their 50 kilogram packs of cassiterite is worth $400 on the world market. Government soldiers often force porters at gunpoint to carry the rocks free of charge; if they're lucky, though, they can make up to $5 a day." (Watch Channel 4's gripping, award-winning report here.)

So, why should we care? Because without cassiterite rock and the other ores mined in the Congo we would be unable to manufacture the linchpins of our global "weightless economy" -- computers and telephones.

...

http://www.alternet.org/story/41477/">War, Murder, Rape... All for Your Cell Phone

[galledgoblin]

84. this is much more of a concern to me n/t

[shanti]

67. i REALLY think

there's something to this! personally, i've known at 2 people who died from brain cancer in the last 2 years. these two were very talkative and always on their cellphone. i wonder if using a bluetooth would solve this problem? speakerphone would work too.

[Dems Will Win]

72. Bluetooth I found out is only 1 milliwatt

so it's likely safe, and headsets and speakerphones placed 2 feet away should be fine.

I can actually feel the pressure in my ear and head after using a cordless phone now. Or a cell phone. But the cordless ones seem even worse with the pressure.

After a couple of months off it, this was less pronounced.

But I am staying FAR away.

Let them prove it's safe now.

[PetraPooh]

69. I use both portable and occasionally a cell, but as soon as connection is made

I switch to speakerphone and set it on the desk or dashboard in front of me, or carry it in front of me as I move around. If I am in public, I request a better time to call back and end the call till I can speak without an audience.

[havocmom]

73. Why the hell do kids need cell phones?

I live in a town of less than 500 people. Area is about six blocks by eight blocks. There are 10 year olds on bikes with cell phones.
:wtf:

Nice to know some of the little buggers will be toast by the time they turn 21. Jeezus! What the hell is wrong with us that we are doing this shit to our kids? Paying corporations to do us and our kids in! We are lemmings.

[ItNerd4life]

91. Our kids have cell phones

We use it as a safety measure. Kids always go for bike rides, if something happens, even 1/4 mile from home, they can call for help.

If they change plans and want to go to someone's house, they call before they go to the house.

It's a great way to keep tabs on kids, yet still give them some freedoms.

[havocmom]

129. It is ridiculous. Kids need to check in, not phone in.

And DO study about all the dangers years of use may hold.

[uppityperson]

131. Not everyone lives in a town of less than 500 people, 6X8 blocks.

Sometimes it makes sense to have a cell phoned kid. Guess not in your situation, but for others it may.

[havocmom]

133. Urban kids? Sure, bigger town, more people

AND PHONES EVERYWHERE. Not buying it. Human beings did fine for a bit of time without the constant audio umbilical cord. Kids do need time to think kid thoughts and learn that being alone for 15 minutes is not some sort of emergency.

Buying a lot of expensive gadgets does not replace actually raising children, but it seems most in our culture are willing to buy the toys instead of parent. It is not required to furnish kids with THINGS just because some marketing genius pusher man tries to convince us.

And I grew up in big cites. I have lived in many different types of communities in recent years. Phones are NOT required.

[krispos42]

78. I doubt this

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. These aren't x-rays that damage DNA.

And a cell phone only outputs a half watt, if memory serves. That's pretty faint.

[Quantess]

89. I doubt it too.

Not saying there is no risk, but it sounds like hysteria to me.

[Snarkturian Clone]

79. Hahahahahaahahaahahaa

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[HamdenRice]

80. My college roomate, a telecom exec who was an early user died of brain cancer at 44

I realize that this is anecdotal, but my good friend and college roomate, who went into business and was for some years in the telecom industry, was one of the earliest adoptors of cell phones I knew, and who always had a cell phone plastered to his ear, died of a rare brain tumor at the age of 44.

Johnny Cochrane, the famous OJ lawyer, also always had a cell phone plastered to his ear and also died young of brain cancer.

Anecdotal, sure. But it's still a datum.

[uppityperson]

108. relative died before 50 of brain ca, never used a cell phone.

Another anecdote.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

114. My sister diagnosed with head/throat cancer at 41: non-smoker, healthy life-style, no history.

:shrug:

My father: non-smoker, healthy life-style, no family history diagnosed with malignant brain cancer 8 months later.

Maybe, it's just coincidence.

Except, a local twelve-year old boy and another 5-yr old girl are dying from brain cancer.

I suppose the frequency and whatnots are merely coincidence. Might as well be with the complete disregard to ALL possible causes being exposed.

[walldude]

85. This is why I always wear my trusty

:tinfoilhat:

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

87. Always use the speakerphone if you can to distance the radiation.

Why aren't there WARNING LABELS on these if they are more dangerous than smoking?

[kimmerspixelated]

92. Because they want to make a gazillion dollars first!

Same as with many drugs Big Pharma pushes! They'll sell them just as long as they can get away with it!

[Mike03]

93. This is frightening. Check out some Oncology textbooks and you will see

that this issue is far from having been settled.

One question I have not been able to satisfactorily answer for myself is whether in-home cordless phones pose a similar danger. Anecdotally, I have heard both "Yes" and "No" on this question.

Anyone know?

[high density]

95. Welcome to the DU Bullshit Express

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

96. Didn't this story hit in the early nineties, too?

Didn't this story hit in the early nineties, too?

[Fox Mulder]

97. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Thankfully I don't use my cell phone much.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

98. With NO family history of cancer, 2 immediate members now have brain and head/throat cancer.

My father's malignant brain tumor was diagnosed nearly seven months ago, my sister's malignant head/throat cancer diagnosed eight month before that (she literally lost her voice and breathes through her neck). One is dying, the other still fighting. Neither smoked and both live/d healthy lifestyles.

So, I can't help but take this study seriously. However, one of my brothers believes the ionizers (air cleaners) may have something to do with it ---> except, only my sister had exposure to those. I thought it could have something to do with the toxins in and treatments of public water. But, all of us feel like it's an occurrence completely out of our control, which it is.

What I find, compelling me to seek SOME answers, is that there are far too many being diagnosed with cancers than ever before. I would believe it's simply a matter of accurate diagnoses but for the rapid frequency of cancers in people with no family histories and little to no lifestyle complications.

Anyways, I think I'll email this to a cousin who's a micro-biologist focusing on and has ties to many studying cancers, and see what she thinks about this research.

[KitchenWitch]

100. Ya know, your graphic of robot man holding a cellphone has me convinced.

I am going to leave my home, on foot, and go live in a cave for the rest of my days.

[Mike03]

102. Let them laugh. It's far easier to ridicule a post like this than to do one's

own research.

The mockers will make neurological surgeons and chemological oncologists rich beyond their wildest dreams

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

107. Aren't they, all ready,...very wealthy?

Not all practice for the money, though.

My father's oncologist is a quiet, compassionate man (and, I must say, very Jewish,...a characteristic none of us could miss with the little round crown on his head). He strongly opposed this latest POISON being administered, in spite the recommendations by "the team". The chemo-cocktail gives victims a few more AWEFUL months of life. My family backed my father's decision to follow this doctor's advice against all the others.

Then, the doctor saw something we didn't: our need to BE A FAMILY,...for just a little while. "God doesn't save us FROM but THROUGH suffering and death." We needed a little more time, together. But, at this time,...time doesn't matter.

BLAH! :cry: I get on here to escape this because it's so SO painful to watch the people you love slowly waste away.

ANYWAY,...back on topic, I remember how so many dismissed smoking as being bad on the body some 25 years ago. Why would people simply dismiss the possibility of new products being bad on the body when NO RESEARCH WHATSOEVER has been produced for public consumption on how those products may affect the environment?

[uppityperson]

109. Most of us are mocking BECAUSE we're done our own research.

but you can go ahead and think that anyway if you want to and it makes you feel happy.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

112. Would you share your research with me? You have cancer in your family?

What location, type and stage?

[uppityperson]

113. Do you want research or anecdotes?

Do you want links to research disproving cell phones cause cancer, or do you want personal information about my family members, or do you want anecdotes about people who have/haven't used cell phones/gotten cancer?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

116. You assert personal research to discount the OP. I figured you had reason to do that.

If not, what research have you done particular to the OP?

[uppityperson]

119. I am still confused. Do you mean "personal research" meaning family and other stories?

Or do you want me to now re-research and share what I found with you?

You sound like you've had a bad run of cancer in your family and I am very sorry about that. However, I am not comfortable sharing medical stuff from my family on an anonymous internet forum. Yes, I have done research on cell phones and cancer and have come up with no good studies showing causation. It may still happen, but I haven't been able to find any yet. Everything I've read (from a human, a parent, a health care provider standpoint) has shown me no direct links. I have not the time nor energy to dig up, dig out, everything I've read about it. I am sure you can do some research on your own. Especially since now you know there is stuff our there.

And, best wishes to your family. I hope everyone gets regular checkups because some cancers can run in families (whether genetically predisposed to reacting this way or environment or whatever) and it sounds like nasty shit that's happened.

I live in an area (NW WA) where there was a run of twins over several yrs, not sure if it was caused by anything in environment (like papermill stuff) or just one of those coincidental happenstances, so I know things happen.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

122. What were you asserting? I thought it was personal research re: the OP. Present whatever research,

,...you were asserting as you dissed the research presented in the OP, please.

btw,...there is NO familial/genetic connection presented.

Thank you for the best wishes and thoughts. It's tough.

[uppityperson]

123. I have done research, and no, have no desire to dig it all up for you though.

This subthread was begun after the comment "It's far easier to ridicule a post like this than to do one's own research."

I have done research on cell phones and cancer and have come up with no good studies showing causation. It may still happen, but I haven't been able to find any yet. Everything I've read (from a human, a parent, a health care provider standpoint) has shown me no direct links. I have not the time nor energy to dig up, dig out, everything I've read about it. I am sure you can do some research on your own. Especially since now you know there is stuff our there.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

125. Are you unwilling to share the research you did to reach your conclusion?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

126. I have not the time nor energy to dig up, dig out, everything I've read about it.

I have not the time nor energy to dig up, dig out, everything I've read about it. I am sure you can do some research on your own. Especially since now you know there is stuff our there.

I think after repeating this this many times you might have understood. Let me try again. I have not the time nor energy to dig up, dig out, everything I've read about it. I am sure you can do some research on your own. Especially since now you know there is stuff our there.

[Joe Chi Minh]

149. Try to steer your sprogs into specialising in these fields. There will indeed be rich pickings,

if this board is anything to go by. Well, it is probably the case already.

Apparently, Einstein once commented, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." He must be nodding his head in disbelief at what must dwarf any level of stupidity he was familiar with in his day.

[rucky]

106. That does it...

I'm going to start smoking again.

[TheWraith]

128. Not this bullshit AGAIN.

Yes, vastly excessive use of cell phones could eventually have a negative effect. But this kind of ridiculous overhyping of the danger is uncalled for, and is not based on any rational kind of science.

You know how much power a cell phone puts out? 0.6 watts. A cell phone tower, a few hundred watts. Radio stations put out anywhere up to 100,000 watts. TV stations, up to 1,000,000 watts. Unless you're also saying we need to get rid of all radio and TV--and never go out in the sunlight--then you're talking paranoia about one small source of RF exposure, with no sense of perspective or rational backing. It's very scary to throw around phrases like "20% increase," but if the odds were one in 30,000 to begin with, that's not very significant.

[Ms. Toad]

130. Here is an article based on 10 years use

that is already peer reviewed (and published). http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/3/277

The kind of tumor potentially linked to cell phone usage:

1. It is not a malignant tumor - so the comment "that malignant brain tumours represent 'a life-ending diagnosis'" is irrelevant and irresponsible. The primary risk from this tumor is to hearing. If it is not discovered, it is only potentially life threatening because it is growing in a closed space. Even then it is often left alone because the age at which it normally develops is late enough in life that there is often more risk associated with surgically removing it than leaving it to grow where it is.
2. The jury is not yet back yet with respect to any connection - the peer reviewed article I cited above found that the tumor was more likely to arise in the nerve sheath on the opposite ear and that there was no increase in risk associated with cell phone usage.

Having just undergone evaluation for the very type of tumor hypothetically linked to cell phone usage, I certainly wouldn't advise hanging out on the cell phone all day, every day, but neither would I suggest avoiding it like the plague.

[blindpig]

135. If the OP doesn't bother you, this should

Use cell phones, PS2, help exterminate Gorillas:

http://www.berggorilla.org/english/gjournal/texte/22coltan.html

But we all have our priorities, don't we?

Ya don't "need" them, life worked before them.

[dysfunctional press]

139. getting rid of a large chunk of baby-boomers just as they reach retirement age...

would sure help to balance out the social security trust fund, huh?

[noonwitch]

150. I heard that if you consume aspartame, it will prevent the problem!

just kidding. Everything good seems to cause cancer.