Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

[villager]

Source: UK Independent

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

By Geoffrey Lean

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.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-802602.html

[chknltl]

1. If only they could link cell phones to weight gain...

Sorry, news like this won't slow my step kids down one bit! I'll be passing it along at any rate...knr and bookmarked. Thanks

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. What are you thanking him for? You obviously think it's a matter to joke about,

and wouldn't want to impose on your step-children. Now, I know I what a redheaded step-father sounds like. You don't work for the industry, do you?

[progdonkey]

60. ??

Re-read that person's post. You clearly misunderstood it completely.

The poster wasn't saying that it's a good thing that this won't stop his kids from using cell phones 24/7.

[chknltl]

127. Yeah, what progdonkey said!

[JackintheGreen]

53. Maybe you should stop eating them

:P

[chknltl]

132. Well that WOULD explain why they keep appearing in toilets!

One of my step kids actually accidental flushed his expensive-whiz bang-do everything cell phone at a fancy hotel! Mine a few years later fell off of the back of a toilet and took the final plunge. (Rescued the card though, next phone with same card has so far steered clear of toilets...perhaps these things are smarter than we give them credit for!)

[Trillo]

2. Interesting that there's 5 recs but no comments.

Wonder what it means.

[Hissyspit]

23. Well, I was the first recommendation and was going to post that...

I always use my earpods with my phone to keep it away from my head, but I'm really pooped and need to get some sleep, so I don't think I will post it.

[emilyg]

82. Rec. - no comment

[onehandle]

124. Addicts will rec anything that supports their drug habit. nt

[Fenris]

3. Not surprising.

The telecoms will keep denying it, but the scientists they can't shut up will keep releasing studies.

[doublethink]

83. Kinda like the oil companys and global warming ......

hmmmm I see a pattern here ......

[mconvente]

119. Bullshit

The difference between oil companies and global warming and telecoms and cell phones is that the former has been documented for more than two decades with literally thousands of peer-reviewed credible papers published in academic journals.

And the latter, well you heard from some scientist in a newspaper. And apparently he has really good credentials, but as I read here in this thread, what do you call the last student in his graduating medical school class?

Doctor.

[Lorien]

135. From the National Cancer Institute:

Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer: Questions and Answers

Key Points

* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (see Question 2).
* Exposure to high levels of RF energy can heat body tissue, but RF energy exposures from cellular telephones are too low to cause significant tissue heating (see Question 2).
* Concerns have been raised that RF energy from cellular telephones may pose a cancer risk to users (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system (CNS) because cellular telephones are held next to the head when used (see Question 4).
* Studies have not shown any consistent link between cellular telephone use and cancer, but scientists feel that additional research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn (see Question 6).

1. Why is there concern that cellular telephones may cause cancer?

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cellular telephones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer.
* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of radiation, which is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1).
* Cellular telephone technology is relatively new and is still changing, so there are no long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1).
* The number of cellular telephone users is increasing rapidly. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), there are now more than 180 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States. This has increased from 110 million users just 3 years ago. Experts estimate that by 2010, there will be 2.2 billion subscribers worldwide.

For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy affects human health, and to provide reassurance if it does not.
2. What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?

RF energy, also called radiowaves, is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be ionizing (high-frequency) or non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy belongs to the non-ionizing type of electromagnetic radiation. It is known that ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can present a health risk at high levels of exposure. However, it is not yet known whether non-ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk (2).

The most important use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cellular telephones operate in a frequency ranging from about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In that range, the radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. AM/FM radios, VHF/UHF televisions, and cordless telephones (telephones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) operate at somewhat lower radio frequencies than cellular telephones; microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).

RF energy produces heat, which can increase body temperature and damage those parts exposed to it (1, 2). It is generally agreed that the amount of RF energy encountered by the general public is too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, it is also agreed that further research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it is dangerous to people (2).
3. How much RF energy are cellular telephone users exposed to?

A cellular telephone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors. These include the number and duration of calls, the amount of cellular telephone traffic at a given time, the distance from the nearest cellular base station (a low-powered radio transmitter that communicates with a user’s cellular telephone), the quality of the transmission, how far the antenna is extended, and the size of the handset.

A cellular telephone’s main source of RF energy is its antenna. The antenna of hand-held cellular telephones is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head while the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user.

Hands-free kits are a relatively recent feature that can be used with cellular telephones for convenience and comfort. These systems reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the phone, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head (2). However, most studies conducted on cellular telephone use and cancer risk have focused on hand-held models not equipped with hands-free systems, since they deliver the most RF energy to the user.

The intensity of RF energy emitted by cellular telephones depends on the level of the signal sent to or from the nearest base station (1). A geographic area serviced by a base unit is often referred to as a “cell,” which is why these devices are called “cellular” telephones.

When a call is placed from a cellular telephone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cellular telephone, another base station, or to the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cellular telephone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance, in part, determines the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
4. What parts of the body may be affected during cellular telephone use?

Because hand-held cellular telephones are used close to the head, there is concern that the RF energy produced by these devices may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in the glial cells, which are cells that surround and support nerve cells), as well as benign (non-cancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1).
5. What studies have been done? What do they show?

Many studies have already been done, and research is ongoing. A study funded by Wireless Technology Research LLC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was conducted in five academic medical centers in the United States. The study analyzed the possible link between brain cancer and cellular telephone use between 1994 and 1998. The study compared a group of 469 men and women with brain cancer to a group of 422 men and women who did not have brain cancer. Results of the study, published in 2000, found that the use of hand-held cellular telephones was unrelated to the risk of brain cancer, but additional studies covering longer periods of cellular telephone use were recommended (3).

The results of another large NCI-funded study of cellular telephones and brain tumors were published in 2001. It focused on 782 patients with one of three types of brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma) at three medical centers between 1994 and 1998. The control group consisted of 799 patients at the same hospitals who did not have brain tumors. The researchers did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among cellular telephone users. The results showed no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use, or average minutes of use per day. The study also found that brain tumors did not occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which participants reported using their phone (4).

More recently, a series of multinational case-control studies (studies that compare two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases), and a very similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition (controls)), collectively called INTERPHONE, have been developed and are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The participating scientists are also exploring other possible causes of brain tumors besides RF energy, including external (environmental) and internal (endogenous) risk factors. Genetic (inherited) factors will be studied in collaboration with the NCI consortium of brain cancer studies. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (5).

The results of the INTERPHONE study are now being published. The first two articles, both published in November 2004, examine the use of cellular telephones and the risk of the benign tumor acoustic neuroma. A Danish study compared 106 individuals having acoustic neuroma with a control group of 212 people without this condition. The study showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users when compared to short-term users. Additionally, there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (6). A Swedish study, however, compared 148 individuals with acoustic neuroma to 604 healthy individuals. This study suggests there is an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users, but not in short-term users (7).

Other studies from INTERPHONE investigated whether there is a relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of the brain tumors meningioma and glioma. A Danish study, published in 2005, compared 175 people with meningioma and 252 people with glioma to a control group of 822 disease-free individuals. This study demonstrated no link between meningioma or glioma and cellular telephone use (8). A Swedish study, published in 2005, compared 273 individuals with meningioma and 371 people with gliomas to 674 people who did not have these conditions. This study also showed that people who use cellular telephones are not at an increased risk of meningioma or glioma (9).

Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect.
6. Why aren’t the results of the studies consistent?

Scientists have had to assess how much RF energy people have been exposed to by interviewing individuals involved in a particular study about their cellular telephone habits (including frequency of use and duration of calls). Because of this, the accuracy of the data collected is subject to the memory of the people interviewed. Recently, however, RF-energy-measurement meters have been developed that will accurately measure RF energy exposure (1).

Additionally, cellular telephones have only been widely available for a relatively short period of time (since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). For example, older studies evaluated RF exposure from analog telephones; today, most cellular telephones use digital technology. (Analog and digital telephones operate at different frequencies and power levels.) Another new technology is Bluetooth, a wireless technology that allows devices, such as cellular telephones and headsets, to communicate with each other using short-range radio frequency.

Furthermore, brain tumors develop over many years. Scientists have been unable to follow cellular telephone users consistently for the amount of time it might take for a brain tumor to develop (1).

Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).
7. Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?

There is no evidence that cellular telephone use poses more of a threat to children than to adults (2). However, no study populations to date have included children, who are increasingly heavy users of cellular telephones and are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1).

In addition, children are at greatest risk from agents known to cause brain and nervous system cancers because their nervous systems are still developing. If RF energy from cellular telephones is proven to cause cancer, researchers would expect children to be more susceptible than adults. Again, however, there is no evidence of this to date (1).
8. What can cellular telephone users do to reduce their exposure to RF?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested some steps that cellular telephone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks from cellular telephones:
* Reserve the use of cellular telephones for shorter conversations, or for when a conventional phone is not available.
* Switch to a type of cellular telephone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the antenna and the phone user.

Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, provides consumers with information on human exposure to RF energy from cellular telephones and other devices at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet. This Web page allows consumers to find information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cellular telephones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cellular telephone user. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone.
9. Can cellular telephones interfere with medical equipment?

Yes. Cellular telephones can interfere with pacemakers (electrical devices, implanted in the chest, that stimulate or steady the heartbeat), implanted defibrillators (electrical devices that restore a normal heartbeat by applying an electrical shock to the heart), and hearing aids. However, standards have been established that will allow manufacturers to ensure that cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are safe from cellular telephone RF (2).



Selected References

1. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, et al. Epidemiology of health effects on radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112(14):1741–1754.

2. Food and Drug Administration (2003). Cell Phone Facts: Consumer Information on Wireless Phones. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html.

3. Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, et al. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000; 284(23):3001–3007.

4. Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79–86.

5. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2004). The INTERPHONE Study. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCAd.html.

6. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(3):277–283.

7. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology 2004; 15(6):653–659.

8. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: A population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 2005; 64(7): 1189–1195.

9. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526–535.



http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

[truedelphi]

173. People who carefully read the article note that it is pretty much a fact now

And has always been fact that it takes ten years or so for most brain tumors to form in adults.

So all the assurances that we had in the mid to late nineties are meaningless, as not enough time had passed for a meaningful survey of the situation.

And in the mid nineties, people who were opposing the numerous cell towers and numerous radio towers in San Francisco were told by industry experts that cell towers did indeed cause tumors. But they added the statement, "So what? usually those tumors aren't cancerous."

To which a friend of mine, who had suffered a heart attack a day after her operation to remove a brain tumor replied, "Even a non-cancerous brain tumor is a pain."

[jeff47]

184. Link?

"people who were opposing the numerous cell towers and numerous radio towers in San Francisco were told by industry experts that cell towers did indeed cause tumors"

Link? Newspaper article? Some other source?

We've been working with RF transmitters since WWII. Nobody has died of cancer caused by an RF transmitter. There have been deaths caused by RF, but these people were effectively put in a microwave oven and cooked for a while.

[truedelphi]

189. I happen to be the living link

As an activist who attended meetings with San Francisco Activists, I am the link
who heard these reports.

Incidentally it finally occurred to the industry insiders to shut up about how cell ph towers cause tumors - they were opening their companies' up to litigation.

Neil Cherry, a noted U.K. physicist, would also serve as a link, but he died a few years ago. Of unrelated ailments.

And Ramona, the woman who made the statement that I quote, is dead now.

[truedelphi]

190. Here are several links

Link One

www.coastalpost.com/01/1/04.htm
ANd a <snip from the article, concluding two paragraphs>
When I address concerns about the cell phone situation, I am asked to cite a peer-reviewed article offering solid proof as to the need for caution. So I will end this article with this citation: "BioElectroMagnetics Society Volume 21 # 5 July 20 2000." A. Scirmacher et al wrote the relevant article, and it discusses the blood brain barrier disruption of test animals when exposed to the EM radiation of cell phone antennae. It specifically looked at glucose transfer.


I would also like to end with this quote from Dr. Neil Cherry, a bio-physicist from New Zealand: "At extremely low energy levels, frequency dependent influences on bio-functions lead to additional effects which cannot be explained by generally accepted and well-known physical laws." Which I take to mean that the radar-like pulses of our phones and the local cell phone towers affect us in ways that are difficult to understand because of the complexity of the science underlying the bio-physical realm, and also because real scientists are still charting the micro-terrain of our cells, cell operation and electrical, EMF-related influences upon them.


Link two:
www.coastalpost.com/98/4/7.htm

[Liberty Belle]

4. Is it more or less dangerous to use Bluetooth-type units?

Here in CA, a new law takes effect July 1st banning cell phone usage in cars unless you get a hands-free system. But hooking something over your ear that emits radiation every time you're driving seems like it could be even more dangerous to your health than just using the phone when it rings or you make a call.

Shouldn't health of drivers be considered - not just the potential for accidents? I also fail to see how the law offers much protection, since talking on a Bluetooth is just as distracting as talking on a phone; only difference is you do have both hands on the wheel. But we don't ban other one-handed activities people do while driving, such as eating, drinking, putting on lipstick, brushing hair, etc.

[lurky]

6. Bluetooth headsets are really low-power..

They are generally "class 2" devices under the bluetooth spec, which means they put out a maximum of 2.5 milliwatts. That's because they only need to communicate a few feet. For comparison, you would need 40 thousand of these radios to equal the power output of a 100 watt lightbulb.

Are they harmless? I have no idea, but I would put them pretty low on my worry list. I would definitely feel safer with a bluetooth headset than with an actual cell phone next to my brain all day.

[Occulus]

7. But the Bluetooth headset needs a phone. If these things can cause brain tumors,

can they also cause tumors in other areas of the body?

Could, for example, a woman who uses a mobile phone with a Bluetooth headset for years and years, while carrying the phone either on her hip (in one of those little vinyl cases) or in her front-mounted fannypack get bone cancer or ovarian cancer?

If mobile phones can cause brain tumors, are they safe in anything but a shielded case?

[lurky]

18. I wouldn't freak out yet.

There are a number of things about this article that set off alarm bells for me and make me question its credibility:

1: A single scientist is going directly to the popular press using inflammatory language. While this does not mean he is wrong, it is not generally how things are done by serious scientists, and is usually a major warning sign.

2: His report has not been published. The article says that it is undergoing "peer review" for publication. This does not mean shit. It only means that he sent it to some journal and they have to read it before they decide whether it is worth publishing. You or I could send a paper to a medical journal for peer review. That does not mean it is not crap.

3: The repeated mention of all his awards. Who cares? Why does he feel the need to wave his awards in order to be believed. If he is really correct, he should let his data do the talking, not his mantelpiece.

Again, this does NOT mean I think that cell phones are safe or not safe. It just means this guy sounds like a huckster who is playing to peoples' fears to get press attention.

[alarimer]

47. I agree

This article reeks. He sounds like a crank.

[On the Road]

67. That's What I Was Trying to Put My Finger On

There was something about the way this was presented that bothered me. Any time someone leads with their credentials, you have to watch very carefully.

On Edit: Also, he mentions that the risk of brain cancer doubles. The rate can't be much more than one in several thousand now, soby that logic a cell phone is adding less than a tenth of a percent of risk.

[SoCalDem]

85. A single man (a scientist) going up againt a multi-billion dollar industry...

hmmmm wonder who will "win" this one..:rofl:

And just so the rest of us can hear people around us discussing what they're having for dinner, or arguing about whose turn it is to pick the kid up from soccer :)

[jeff47]

92. Claiming to be a scientist doesn't make him right.

Actual scientists report their findings in peer-reveiewed journals. This guy is selling his results.

Actual scientists explain their methodology and data in excruciating detail. This guy explains nothing.

Actual scientists use actual data. We've been awash in cell phones for around 20 years. There has not been a major uptick in the rate of brain cancer. If his theory was correct, we should already see a flood of cancers.

An actual scientist would explain the mechanism by which RF from a cell phone can cause cancer. Since you'll get a 1000x the dose of RF by standing outside on a sunny day, that's going to be a very interesting explination. (Note: he's talking brain cancer, not skin cancer. We know UV causes skin cancer, but cell phones don't put out UV.)

I'm a (former) actual scientist, and guys like this really piss me off. They give all of science a bad name to try and win a quick buck. And when people call them on their bullshit, they just claim it's the big bad industry out to get them.

[marions ghost]

107. Check Out his credentials

For someone "claiming" --as you so snidely put it--to be a scientist, Dr.Khurana sure has good credentials--trained at the Mayo Clinic and is a big name in neurosurgery in Australia. Works at the big teaching hospital in Canberra.

CHECK it out....

http://www.brain-aneurysm.com/about.html

He's HARDLY a crank! :eyes:

[jeff47]

110. Check out his actions, not the alphabet soup.

What do you call the person who graduates last in his class in medical school?

Doctor.

The letters after his name are irrelevant. I'm talking about what he is saying in this article.

-He provides no mechanism for the cancer. What do the photons from the cell phone do to cause cancer?
-He's claiming a massive surge in brain cancer. That number is not reflected in the statistics from any public health agency. Cell phones have been ubiquitous for long enough to increase the rate of cancer, if his theory was correct.
-He's selling his results. Thus he has a very large incentive to make his claims as wild as possible.
-He is hiding his results from the scientific community and running to the popular press where they will not be scrutinized. The reason scientists do peer review is sometimes we misinterpret the results. For example, there's more than one way to do the statistics in these studies. By choosing carefully, I can make anything true. Other scientists know this, and will use different statistics to show his results don't show any correlation.

He could put the entire alphabet after his name. What he is actually _doing_ betrays that he is a hack.

Btw, neurosurgery isn't science. It's medicine. The mechanic that's really, really, really good at fixing your car's engine is not the same as the engineer that designed it.

[marions ghost]

126. God...

What is your agenda?

You may disagree with this guy but he's not a hack.

But somehow he threatens you in a big way :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. Maybe he doesn't like logical fallacies.

"Argument from authority," for instance.

Familiar with it?

[marions ghost]

178. what logical fallacies

are u referring to?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

180. "argument from authority"

I thought I just said that.

[AllieB]

191. You're right. Just because he has credentials, doesn't mean he's an expert.

Bush has an MBA from Harvard. I would hardly take his business advice.

[marions ghost]

195. I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else

by posting his credentials...

Just trying to say that this surgeon easily has enough credibility to AT LEAST keep an open mind about it.

There are obviously some closed minds on this subject around here...and people whose mission it is to trash anything they or their sponsors don't agree with.

You can cite all the examples you want of research that is flawed and I can cite all the examples of industries (whose products may or do have harmful effects) suppressing anyone who dares to speak out against them. And neither of us will convince the other.

All I'm saying is...considering he is a well-respected doctor...and considering that he MIGHT be giving an honest opinion with no big ulterior motives...and considering that we are all guinea pigs for this technology -- it might be wise to at least take some precautions and be sensible about cell phone use...until one day when the ultimate indefensible truth is known. That is all I'm saying.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

197. So then why'd you post htem?

"Just trying to say that this surgeon easily has enough credibility to AT LEAST keep an open mind about it."

So then you did post them to convince people.

:shrug:

Furthermore, if he's a surgeon, what the fuck would he know about mobile phones? Or cancer epidemiology? for that matter?

"considering he is a well-respected doctor.."

Wait, what makes you think he's well respected?

"and considering that he MIGHT be giving an honest opinion with no big ulterior motives"

Opinions, Schmopinions. Opinions don't count for shit. What matters is evidence, and this guy doesn't have any.

[marions ghost]

198. I would like to convince people to keep an open mind

--not to believe everything without question, but to keep an open mind in light of mounting evidence (also realizing that corporate interests are working hard to stifle any person or study that speaks of risk). There are things that people can do to minimize cell phone risk (like shortening calls and using wires when possible. Seems more sensible than shooting the messenger.

A doctor of this caliber cannot be casually dismissed. I am familiar with the treatment and research facilities where he works in Australia and you cannot work there if you are not MORE than "well-respected." You must be tops. His is an opinion worth hearing.

[ColonelTom]

165. Good credentials don't necessarily mean a good researcher.

He may even be great at neurosurgery (though his credentials alone don't guarantee that, either), but that doesn't mean he's great at research. Don't look at the credentials first, look at the research. What's disclosed here isn't anywhere close to convincing.

[TZ]

169. I've worked with some brilliant scientists at NIH

I've also worked with some real STUPID incompetant A-holes scientists at NIH...Just because someone has worked somewhere does not automatically mean they are always right.
I take these studies with a HUGE grain of salt..the rates of brain cancers have NOT increased in the past 10 years so that would not support his pet theories. You'd be surprised what people do to get published or their pet theories noticed. And publishing data before peer review is finished is a HUGE red flag.
More junk science.

[marions ghost]

179. I'm very familiar with medical research

I don't see HUGE red flags.

Nothings as objective as you or I would like in science. Very often when findings are not popular they are suppressed. Look at the history of tobacco & health effects--talk about junk science.

From what this doctor says--we should take caution. Not throw out cell phones or the idea of cell phones. Just take more precautions when using them.

I'm glad some doctors are speaking out about this controversial issue.

[jeff47]

182. He's trolling for cash

Please read his paper.

This guy doesn't understand basics of electromagnetism. He doesn't understand the basics of how cell phones work. His analysis is junk, based on papers that studied tumor rates from before the time when cell phones were ubiquitous.

This is like the Doctors who made a lot of money saying breast implants caused lupis. It didn't matter that the rate of lupis was the same with or without implants, they got paid a lot of money to say they were connected.

[marions ghost]

196. Either

his opinion will be seconded in the scientific community or it won't.

I doubt he's "being paid" to say this. If he's discredited, it would be more damaging to him than not.

The people you really have to watch are the ones who know....but remain Ve-ry QUIET.....

[bliss_eternal]

117. LOL.

I'll be honest, I do miss the days of people having private conversations "privately"--in a phone booth, etc.

Oh and regarding the billion dollar industry(good point, btw):

I remember reading some interesting articles years ago, when cell phone use behind the wheel was challenged initially. (Back before the media seemed to be our friend).

If I recall correctly, using cells phones while driving seemed to start in Socal with the entertainment industry execs--(this was in the old days of those huge plastic looking phones, about the size and shape of a brick). I for one avoided driving (about 15 yrs. ago) in areas frequented by industry people. It was a nightmare--traffic was already problematic in such areas, but the driving talkers seemed to make it much worse.

Once advertisers used entertainers to "sell" phones (and their use) as a status symbol--there was no way they could curtail any of it (use, sales, etc). Tthe entertainment industry seemed to play a big factor in why driving while talking wasn't flat out made "illegal" (as it was in New York). Just too much money to lose.

[Gormy Cuss]

100. I reacted the same way

Promoting 'results' via the press and a website before peer review is complete? Big red flag.

[justaregularperson]

15. However, those cordless phones we all use at home could potentially be worse

do a search on cordless phone radiation. That base station puts out more consistant and constant emr than cell phones. Also, our good ol' wireless networks as well.

It appears we will be seeing a lot of discussion coming forward in the next few years as we begin to fill the spectrum with more of these devices.

[MattBaggins]

21. Hmmmm

So I guess I should start stocking up on tin foil?

[justaregularperson]

22. I think the better answer is to support technologies that limit the exposure

Consumers in Europe already have alternatives and more are on the way for them. It is very easy to add electronics so that a base station only broadcasts signal when someone is actually using the phone, and only as strong a signal as needed to reach the reciever.

But we will not have these same choices until we stop fighting science and start demanding better.

[ElboRuum]

93. Wouldn't be so sure...

...fanatical texters will probably end up with thumb cancer.

[BearSquirrel2]

42. The whole thing sounds like ...

The whole thing sounds like the power line scare to me. I'd be far more worried about chemicals than EM. EM is everywhere and has been forever. Our bodies have only trace amounts of EM-reactive matter (iron) in it. The whole notion is a conceptual stretch to begin with.

[LiberalArkie]

57. It is the frequency and power that matters. Home units are low power and low frequency.

Bluetooth are very low powered, but I worry about them being on the same contact point for a long time. At least the higher powered cell phone is moved a little all the time. Still with the frequency being from 800 mHz to 1700 mHz, that is a very dangerous area to be close to soft tissue.

[jeff47]

106. Link?

"Still with the frequency being from 800 mHz to 1700 mHz, that is a very dangerous area to be close to soft tissue."

Link? Any reference that explains why this frequency range is so dangerous?

For reference, visible light is 400–790 terahertz. That's 400,000,000-790,000,000 MHz, much higher frequency with much more energy. (And to be pedantic, your units are wrong. mHz = millihertz, the frequencies are in megahertz, MHz)

[Yavapai]

112. And don't forget that the 3/10 of a watt transmitted by a cellular telephone couldn't fry a amoeba.

How come microwave technicians and radio technicians who spend their lives working with radio frequency devices don't have a reputation of all dying of brain cancer?

My hobby has been rf electronics since I was about 12 years of age. I spent the last 20 years of my working life in close contact with 800 MHZ trunking radio,2 gig and 6 gig microwave. With all the people whom I have known with a similar background, I have never heard of one with brain cancer.
Although many of us grew up with Nerd Syndrome and couldn't effectively reproduce until later in life, I don't know of any of us suffering a higher incidence of cancer.

[Sam Ervin jret]

142. High frequency radiation is ionizing radiation and causes harm to tissue.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.html

[jeff47]

143. I'm confused

I'm confused. Did you provide that link to answer my question, or to point out that the frequencies the parent poster was concerned about were WAAAAY below ionizing?

[Politicalboi]

20. But texting is ok

This law was written before text messages became more popular. I don't have a cell phone and won't get one because I feel talking isn't worth paying for. I have a land line and that is all I need. And besides I think cell phones have a lot to do with the bees gone missing.

[BearSquirrel2]

44. These laws are ridiculous ...

There is a whole host of things people do in a car that distracts from driving.

Why not ban: eating, drinking, applying makeup, interacting with a child ... etc... People have never explained to me why talking on a cell phone is fundamentally different than talking to someone who is sitting next to you. Perhaps we should ban conversation with anyone period.

[dbmk]

51. Couple of points

Generally all those activities can be punished if they are exercised in a manner that impedes a safe handling of the vehicle.

Talking to someone next to you does not, normally at least, involve the interaction with a tool - like a phone. its not so much the talking, but the handling - picking up, answering, entering numbers and so on thats the problem. Taking your arm of the wheel for extended amounts of time.

You have a point with the other activities ofc. But a lot of those are not actions that impede your handling of the vehicle for extended periods. Either phisically or mentally.

It can seem a bit arbitrary, but its an activity thats easily identifiable and correctable with a headset. So really, why not?

[reclinerhead]

52. It's not ridiculous

I've been having to walk to work because my car died in February.

By FAR, the biggest problem I have with walking is drivers on their cellphones, who pay absolutely no attention to pedestrians, let alone other cars.

The people that come close to running me over aren't applying makeup or interacting with their children. They are blabbing away while driving with one hand and trying to turn with their knee.

I'm looking forward to July 1 (I live in CA) - although I'm curious how our new headset-only law going to be enforced.

[tblue37]

64. Cell phone drivers also seem to forget they are driving, and often end up

slowing down to way below the speed limit. Whenever I am on a road with a higher speed limit, like our 45 mph parkway, and a driver (or more than one driver) in front of me has slowed down to 25 or 30 mph, it always turns out that the driver is talking on a cell phone.

But it isn't just cell phones. A lot of people are generally idiots when they drive, and cell phones just offer them another opportunity to behave like the idiots they are. Of all the dumbass things I have ever seen drivers do, I have to admit the one that startled me the most was the driver I saw reading a book while he was driving! He had the book in his left hand and was steering with his right hand. His eyes would glance up at the street for a second, then back to his book.

I hurried to get as far away from him as possible, even turning a block earlier than I wanted to, just so I would not be on the same street with him.

Once my kids' half brother was a passenger in a car with a friend of his. As they approached a stoplight that was turning yellow, the driver started fiddling with his car stereo. The light changed to red while he was looking down, but he failed to notice and kept driving. A large truck was entering the intersection from his right just as he went into it, and he ended up driving his car part way under the truck and totaling his car. Fortunately both boys suffered only minor injuries, no doubt because they were wearing seatbelts, the truck was entering the intersection slowly, and the kid's fiddling with his stereo had caused him to slow down significantly.

[MilesColtrane]

86. I actually saw a guy watching a basketball game and talking on his cell phone...

...while driving.

He had a little flat screen attached to the sun visor above him and was just chatting away. "Dude, I am SO watching the game right now!"

I've got no problem with morons killing themselves, but this guy was probably going to take somebody else with him.

[slampoet]

62. Do you cover the entire side of your face with your arm when you talk to a friend in the car?

Holding a cell reduces the line of vision by as much as one third.

Then we have the problem of visualization.


Talking to a person on a phone causes the person to visualize things in their minds eye that have to do with the conversation on the other line and not what they are doing which is driving.



If you doubt this try a simple test.


Start driving in a weirdly set up City (like Boston, New Orleans, DC, etc.) in a residential section.


Next call a friend is an other city and try to give them driving directions in their city to a place that you know.

I haven't seen anyone pass this test and not make mistakes in either the directions they give or in the driving they are doing.



Also your point is erroneous due to length of time.
Virtually NO ONE spends an entire two hour car trip "eating, drinking, applying makeup, interacting with a child" but you see plenty of people who talk on a cell the entire journey.

[aquart]

70. Darwin is a highly competitive award.

You should be really sure before you start training for it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Amazing how people managed without cell-phones in the bad old days,

isn't it?

[pokercat999]

34. I loved the bad old days when "work" couldn't find you and

(as an outside salesperson) you had to call in on a customer's phone or a pay phone. A pay phone was a phone placed in a public place for everyone to use for a fee. I remember when it was a dime for a local call. Man am I freaking OLD.

:rofl:

[tblue37]

69. I don't have a cell phone and never have. But I now am nervous about driving outside of town, simply

because if something goes wrong, I know I won't be able to find a pay phone to call for help. I keep thinking maybe I will get one of those prepaid phones, but I resent the fact that if I don't use up the minutes I purchase within a certain amount of time, I will then lose the minutes. The idea that I could lose something I have already paid for just because I didn't use it up annoys me no end.

I am not much for making phone calls at all, unless I have a reason for them. I don't "chat" on phones for no reason, except to keep in touch with my adult children on the other side of the country, and we are all busy, so we don't do that every day for long periods at a time, the way a lot of people talk on their phones just to pass the time. So even if I bought only 30 minutes of prepaid phone time (is it even possible to buy such a small number of minutes at a time?), it is pretty much guaranteed that I wouldn't use them up in time to avoid losing them, since I would use cell phone minutes only if I happened to be away from home and in an unusul situation--like needing directions to find someone's house after getting lost, or needing to call someone for help if the car died.

Cell phones actually intimidate me. They seem very complicated to use. I don't have a digital camera either, for the same reason--I am a technological moron. When I have to borrow a friend's cell phone to make a call for some reason, I always have them dial it for me, because I never can seem to figure out which buttons to push to get the darned thing to make a call.

I have considered one of those Jitterbug phones for old people (I am 57--but I am very old-fashioned in a lot of ways), since they do nothing but make phone calls, so you aren't paying for all the extra gizmos (or having to figure out how to use them), but the lowest plan they have is 30 minutes a month, for $15 a month. I don't like the idea of paying $180/year for something I might not use even once, much less for 30 minutes a month. That would be even worse than buying 30 minutes once for a prepaid phone and then losing it because I didn't use it.

So for now at least, I am not a cell phone user.

And where driving is concerned, I don't tolerate distrations at all. I even took the radio out of my car so I would not be distracted by it while driving. (I wouldn't turn it on, but a passenger might.) I am hearing impaired, so no one is even allowed to chat with me while I drive, because I would have to focus too hard to hear what they say (and read their lips), and I can't afford to put that much focus on a conversation while trying to pay attention to the road.

[Joe Chi Minh]

193. They are determined that we should believe that all technological advances

represent human(e) progress, social progress, the net result being that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is, to a large extent, already upon us - thanks to our corporatist Masters of the Universe.

[klyon]

77. that and e-mail

don't forget the internets

[bliss_eternal]

114. self delete.

.

[gateley]

5. I'm sure most of the people I forwarded this to will

blow it off as alarmism, but I think there should be some credence given to this. And the other governments that are expressing a concern. It makes sense that if you're holding one of these up to your brain, after a while the effects are going to accumulate.

Thanks for posting this.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. I've mostly stopped using a cell phone because

I don't like the idea of carrying around a tracking device.

:shrug:

[The Traveler]

9. I carry a fake phone with fake bluetooth

That way, when I talk to the voices in my head no one thinks I am being weird. :evilgrin:

[pansypoo53219]

10. finally,

something to decimate the stupids.

[Mythsaje]

11. Increase cannabis consumption to compensate...

See? Easy fix.

:D

[timtom]

40. Well, All riiight!

That's my kind of solution.

(Haven't smoked in years, but if I ever go terminal, I'm gonna revisit psychedelics and cannabis products.)

[Oeditpus Rex]

155. Wouldn't work

Then you'd just call the same person eight times to tell them the same thing.

[MattP]

12. Bluetooth doesn't have to be in your ear

You can have a bluetooth without having it in your ear, you can buy a clip on to your visor but the best is of course OEM.

[awoke_in_2003]

13. That is why I only use my cell phone

to make popcorn
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI
(Yes, I know it was faked)

[greenman3610]

14. what do you say to a 17 year old about this?

[justaregularperson]

17. Make sure he/she uses a low emf cell phone

and limit their time on the thing.

Check out C-Net which lists SAR ratings of most phones.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020355-1.html

[Vilis Veritas]

49. Thanks for the list. I was going to trade in my razr v3m

now I am going to keep it. I don't talk on it much and use earbuds...

saddlesore

[jeff47]

84. You explain the concept of "junk science" (nt)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

138. Is that you, Steven J. Milloy? (n/t)

[harmonicon]

16. does this mean that I can smoke again without people freaking out about it?

I'm damn sure that people are going to give up their cell phones as readily as they want me to give up smoking. Enjoy your brain cancer, suckers.

[rucognizant]

50. Right ON!

It's funny that so many here are sceptical about the validity of the study, when they freak & run at the mention of GM food!
" But but our cell phones are so PERSONAL & SO NECESSARY!"
My Brother in his animal husbandry field, has rubbed shoulders with Monsanto & others while submitting field tests to the FDA for approval. To my suprise he was not overly alarmed with GM foods. I respect his judgement enough to be open to new info on that subject!

[Lugnut]

78. Touche'!

:toast:

:smoke:

[justaregularperson]

19. Pregnant? Put Your Cell Phone Use On Hold!

"one of the authors of the study, Leeka Kheifets of UCLA, has previously gone on record to say that there is no solid body of evidence linking cell phone usage to adverse human health effects. This is a study undertaken by a serious skeptic, who was surprised by the results."

http://www.seventhgeneration.com/learn/blog/pregnant-put-your-cell-phone-use-hold

[Cobalt-60]

24. Almost everyone I see on the sidewalk

has a cell phone plastered to their head.
Projecting the constant RF signal through a brain is probably not good for it.
I really have to wonder what they're yakking about.
We were out of communication for hours at a time in the days of yore.
And somehow the days business always got done.
I confess I do tote a Virgin Mobile K9. (emergency use only)
For home use corded phones Rule.
A good corded phone can last decades.
A Cordless phone will lose performance steadily until its battery dies.
That will not take decades. It's planned obsolescence.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. I just feel very sorry for people who have to use them a lot in their work,

and for childen with irresponsible parents.

[dddem]

37. funny you should say that

the only reason my kids have cell phones is because I had to go back to working full time, and I wanted to be able to be in touch with my kids. Luckily, they text much more than talk. Now I just have to learn how to do it.
Peace.

[Sequoia]

58. Same here. I don't even have a cell phone but my kid does.

I tell her not to have it with her at night, even if she's playing games. She doesn't talk on it much. I will give this article to her so she can see I'm not making noise.

[otohara]

76. I Volunteered @ Denver Dems Last Week

they had a slew of cheap cell-phones for us to use. By the time I was getting close to being done with my call list, my ears were burning from using the cell for 2 hours straight. I worry about my college kid who uses his phone so much each day. One good thing, his friends prefer text messaging more and more.

[crimsonblue]

28. Personally, I don't buy it...

at least not until a large single study concludes this. For me, analyzing results from past studies doesn't cut it. Maybe I just don't want it to be true.. I'm addicted to my phone.. Oh well, gotta go out someway, right?

[otohara]

79. Brain Cancer

hugely expensive to treat, painful way to go.

Oh well!

[eilen]

29. It doesn't say what kind of study

Is this a randomized study? Those are the best kind. I could also do studies on lawn care or farming and surmise that the occupation results in leukemia due to the exposure of chemicals and fertilizers. We all know that eating leads to morbid obesity and obesity related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. People still eat. And the food industry still adds corn syrup to almost everything.

[Born Free]

30. Reminds me of the '60s

Back then there were idiots trying to convince us smoking was bad, but we knew better, heck the menthol cigarettes were even good for you if you had a cold.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. What infuriates me is that false science, the hand-maid of industry

and big business, encouraged the massive investments needed for the creation of the mobile-phone industry leviathan, in the way they aways do, i.e. by insisting that much more scientific testing would be needed, before what was entirely predictable on the basis of what was already know, could be "scientismifically" verified! "Precautionry principle? We doan need your stinkin' precautionry principle!" The "Can Do" people have spoken.

Science isn't only empirical testing and peer review. Without the sovereign form of knowledge, "a priori" knowledge... from first principles... logic, all the empirical testing and peer revewing are so much bullsh*t, and the ogres of industry and their political puppets rely on it for that very reason.

And guess who will be blamed and reviled, before the industry actually goes belly-up? The whistle-blowers. The voices in the wilderness. The messengers. The real scientists, the genuine article - who wouldn't sell their souls for a mess of potage.

It is, surely, one of the most extraordinary anomalies of the modern age, that the very people who arrogate to themselves the mantle of uniquely sovereign logic routinely prove themsleves to be the least apt for logical analysis, beyond a "small-step at a time" McGoo progression. The big picture is always beyond them, yet they crow like a cock on a dung heap about their putatively sovereign gift for logic and understanding. What a picture that article about the Woodstock evolutinsists gave!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00270.htm

The evolution that has occurred would appear to be much more complex and enigmatic than the "fundie", scientismifical Establishment would have us believe.

Just as bizarre and mcuh more lethal is the phenomenon we witness on a daily basis, the people least fit to govern tend to end up doing so; while those best-equipped in national polities remain largely marginalised!

[trumad]

32. So I guess in a couple of years my brain will look like a cancerous lung?

[Doug.Goodall]

33. I'm more concerned that there is a record of the cell phone's location whenever it is turned on

I am not real keen to having an anonymous entity being able to track where my phone goes.

I am not so much talking about the Government watching me, but the companies sending me unsolicited advertisements.

I don't like taking a weekend trip to get away, and then start getting real estate advertisements from the place I visited.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. You have one sick, parasitic business community, and what it gives

back is the bare minimum it can get away with. And that minimum gets small and smaller. It's not a lot better in the UK.

[dixiegrrrrl]

101. Has that happened to you for real???

[Clark2008]

36. They may be - although not because of tumors, but because

the idiots who insist they can drive whilst using them, thus causing horrible car accidents.

[mod mom]

38. I keep sending these European articles to my kids (ages 10 & 12) who are the ONLY ones

of their friends who do not have cell phones. It is not unusual to see young children walking with another while each is talking away on their phones.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

39. NICE, so I can justify not getting a cellphone and instead

spend all my money on cigarettes. Greeeeeeeeeaaat news

[MannyGoldstein]

41. This Hasn't Been Peer-Reviewed Yet, So It May Well Be Bullshit

Apparently this paper has just started the peer-review process. Just because the fellow knows how to do surgery, it doesn't mean he knows how to do statistics. Also, his releasing this info before going through peer review is very, very unusual, and tends to indicate that he's more interested in the limelight than in science.

Other large and good studies that actually *have* been peer-reviewed have not found any link, e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17689954?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum,

[BlooInBloo]

43. Self-published - 'nuff said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

"A self-published meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, an Australian neurosurgeon, presented a growing body of evidence that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer and that this is thus more dangerous than smoking.<37> This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’<38>"

[Broadslidin]

45. Tis the perfect plan for getting rid of, "The Significant Other": give the gift of a Cell Phone...!

:yoiks:

[alarimer]

46. This is bullshit

There is simply NO evidence that this is true. It's been debunked time after time and still this shit shows up here.

[Bjorn Against]

148. Actually there is evidence posted in the OP

Is it conclusive evidence? No, but it is credible evidence and it does warrant further study. Be careful because the evidence about global warming and evolution have been "debunked" many times as well, but it turned out the people doing the debunking were wrong. We can not dismiss a scientist who has credentials far beyond what probably anyone who posts on this site has without seriously looking at her claims and understanding the validity of the claims against them. Just because someone says they have debunked the research doesn't mean they actually have.

[jeff47]

151. No, there are claims

No, there are claims posted in the OP.

Evidence would be data. The OP, and the article linked to it, is completely devoid of any data.

[Bjorn Against]

152. Here is the study that the OP referred to, there is plenty of data in it

http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf

[jeff47]

156. Ok, got to the first page...

"involving the critical review of over 100 sources in the recent
medical and scientific literature, in addition to Press reports and Internet content."

Ok, we're done here.

Press reports and Internet content? And this is supposed to be a serious study??

The guy went from being a hack to being a major hack.

You don't trust press reports or "Internet content" because there is nothing that guarentees it is truthful. Scientific literature is peer-reviewed for that reason. Somebody else has to go and repeat your experiment before it's considered valid.

I'll keep reading though, and give you more feedback.

[Bjorn Against]

157. There is nothing wrong with using press reports and internet content to some extent...

If he were to rely solely on those sources for some of his data that would be a problem, but there is nothing wrong with using those sources as research tools as long as you can find additional evidence to back those sources up. I am sure you use internet sources and press reports from time to time, should we automatically dismiss everything you say? Personal stories from people are also unreliable sources in and of themselves, does that mean we should dismiss all articles that use interviews immediately? Of course not.

This is a doctor who has published several peer reviewed articles before, I think he knows what is acceptable and what isn't.

[jeff47]

161. There is no place for them in a scientific paper.

There is no place for anecdotal evidence in a scientific paper. Press reports and Internet content are anectdotal evidence at best. They must be assumed to be false.

If they were true, then we never landed on the moon. It says so on the Internet.

"This is a doctor who has published several peer reviewed articles before, I think he knows what is acceptable and what isn't."

See my other reply, where I go into more detail. This is a terrible, terrible, terrible paper. This would not be used for toilet paper at a reputable journal.

[Bjorn Against]

163. He did not use them as his primary sources.

If he was only using internet articles you would have a point, but he wasn't using only internet articles. His primary sources were from peer reviewed journals.

[jeff47]

181. No, he did

Did you read the paper?

He cited popular press and Internet articles to prove that there is a problem with cell phone radiation. Specifically, in the first block of references, right about where he cites the marketing materials for a company selling products to protect us from RF from cell phones.

[jeff47]

159. More commentary

I'm starting to run out of words to describe how bad this paper is. I will bet you the entire national debt of the US that this paper will never be published in a reputable journal in this state.

If I need brain surgery, this guy is going nowhere near my head.


"The Abstract is a summary of this paper. It conveys the "take home" message of this
report."

Uh....this is a paper for scientists. We know what an abstract is. Why is he explaining this? or is he just using a template he found somewhere and didn't remove the comments? He does this for every section of his paper. It's not a good sign.

Also, this guy uses bold text WAAAY too much. Again, serious science. We're reading this thing thoroughly. You put stuff in bold in marketing materials to grab the attention of people skimming. And most of the stuff he's put in bold is empasizing all the work he's done, and just how independant he is.

On to his data.
"A registered supplier of equipment to the US Dept. of Defence, Aegis
Corporation, produces shielded equipment that the company claims makes the
use of wireless technology safer."

So one of things he's using for proof is the marketing materials of a company selling devices to protect people from the danger he is trying to prove.

Into his section of background on EM:

"The field propagates at the speed of light
(300,000 kilometres per second or 186,000 miles per second) in waves of a
certain length that oscillate at a certain frequency (number of oscillations or
cycles per second). In the electromagnetic range,"

Electromagnetic radiation is radiation, not a field. Also, there is no "Electromagnetic range". It's photons. Every single photon is electromagnetic.

The rest of his paragraph explaining electromagnetic radiation is similarly terrible.

"GSM <...> handsets can have a peak power of up to 2 watts
(2W), while other digital mobile technologies <...> have power outputs under 1 watt"

While the GSM standard allows for output up to 2 watts, there is no phone on the market that uses that much power.

"these fields are present longterm
and this magnitude is comparable to power densities measured in residences
in the main beam of nearby cell phone base station antennae or in the vicinity of
broadcast towers."

Cell phone antennas, and cell tower antennas are omni-directional. There is no beam.

"What about "walkie-talkies" or "CB (Citizens' Band) radios"?"

He brings up a good point. If RF is dangerous, how come nobody has found a correlation between HAM radio operators and brain tumors? Or military radio operators? He brings it up, but fails to address this point. That kinda sinks his whole argument, which seems to be based on cell phones not being around long enough to study.

"Thermal effects are due to tissues being heated by rotations
of molecules induced by the electromagnetic field."

Um...no. If this were the case, then only magnetic molecules could be heated. Thermal effects are caused by the photons striking molecules, causing it to move around faster. Temperature is just the aggrigate measure of molecular motion of an object.

"What is magnetic power flux density?"

Oh good, he's inventing terms. And he calls electromagnetic intensity "magnetic power".

"This figure can be compared with the amount of heat
radiated by the human body at room temperature of about 2W/m2. Although this
level of permitted exposure to mobile telephony-related electromagnetic radiation
is low, it is nonetheless constant in our environment"

Ok, so the evil RF from the cell phones is CONSTANT. But radiation from body heat isn't?

"The www.brain-surgery.us Website contains pages dedicated to providing
information about brain tumours."

Ah good. He's advertising his web site in his scientific paper. Very professional.

"In 1990, Grieg and colleagues"

Wait wait wait wait. Early in the paper he said that cell phones weren't available enough in the early 1990s to draw any conclusions about cancer rates. But a 1990 study is his first real citation? Oh sure, he tries to spin this, but this study should be used to provide a baseline against which to measure any increase in tumors, if his assertions about pre-1990 cell phone usage is correct.

"reported a 35% increase in the incidence of primary malignant brain tumours among
children during the period 1973-1994,"

See previous comment.

"between the years 1960 - 1998"

Ok, now we are getting silly. 1960??!!?!?!?!?!!?!

This goes on for every single scientific paper he cites. Every single one of them was looking at the incidence of brain tumors from the timeframe before cell phones were common. His response to every single one of these studies is "the authors attributed the cause to better diagnostic tools. But we can't rule out cell phones!!".

Moving on to his safety tips:
"Bluetooth ear-piece devices are NOT safe. Microwaves generated by the mobile
phone are wirelessly transferred and directly transmitted into the ear canal and
surrounding head region via the coupled blue tooth device."

Oh you are fucking kidding me. Bluetooth uses a different frequency, at much lower power. This is because bluetooth only has to reach about 10-20 feet.

"Wired ear-pieces are NOT safe unless they are specifically shielded against
electromagnetic radiation. Wearing an ear-piece connected by a wire to a mobile
phone in essence converts the user's head into an antenna for the base-station."

Apparently he's not familiar with how audio speakers and microphones work. And he also seems to believe that the phone will magically connect the headset to the antena, despite the fact that no such connection is built into the phone. Especially since...

"A regular landline IS safe, in fact this remains one of the safest forms of
electronic verbal communication."

Land-line telephones use the same microphone and speaker technology as a wired headset.

He then talks about ol' Dr. Carlo, who can apparently defy the laws of physics.

"Some individuals seem to be more susceptible to a so-called "microwave sickness syndrome""

Until you place them in a real double-blind experiment. Such people were still susceptible when the microwave source was disconnected, but the rest of the microwave was left intact.

Here is his entire methods section:
"Between December 2006 and February 2008, the author personally reviewed over 100
sources of information extracted from the medical literature (PubMed and Medline
searches using keywords and combinations such as "Brain Tumour", "Cell Phone",
"Mobile Phone", "Base Station", “Electromagnetic Field”, "Electromagnetic Radiation",
and "Radiofrequency Radiation") and the Internet and popular Press (Google and MSN
searches using the same keywords and combinations). Important references are italicised
throughout this paper."

So, his methods was "I read stuff". No statistics were performed. No analysis was performed. No graphs made, no attempt to correlate the results of different studies.

This is not a scientific paper. This is a summary that is so bad it wouldn't make it into Scientific American.

I'd keep going, but I frankly don't see the point after 38 pages.

[Bjorn Against]

164. Here is a list of peer review journal articles this doctor has submitted

I think someone with these credentials knows a bit more about scientific research than you do, I would like to see what you just wrote get through peer review. Dr. Khurana may need to make some revisions to his study before it gets published as virtually all studies do, but it is clear these guy has the credentials to be taken seriously.

* Bennett MR, Kerr R, Khurana G. Adenosine modulation of calcium currents in postganglionic neurones of avian cultured ciliary ganglia. British Journal of Pharmacology 106: 25-32, 1992.
* Khurana G, Bennett MR. Nitric oxide and arachidonic acid modulation of calcium currents in postganglionic neurones of avian cultured ciliary ganglia. British Journal of Pharmacology 109: 480-485, 1993.
* Khurana VG, Mentis DH, O’Brien CJ, Hurst TL, Stevens GN, Packham NA. Parotid and neck metastases from cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck. American Journal of Surgery 170: 446-450, 1995.
* Khurana VG, Besser M. The pathophysiological basis of cerebral vasospasm following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 4: 122-131, 1997.
* Khurana VG, Piepgras DG, Whisnant JP. Ruptured giant intracranial aneurysms. Part 1. A study of rebleeding. Journal of Neurosurgery 88: 425-429, 1998.
* Piepgras DG, Khurana VG, Whisnant JP. Ruptured giant intracranial aneurysms. Part 2. A retrospective analysis of timing and outcome of surgical treatment. Journal of Neurosurgery 88: 430-435, 1998.
* Besser M, Khurana VG. Management of giant intracranial aneurysms of the posterior circulation. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 5: 161-168, 1998.
* Khurana VG, Wijdicks EFM, Parisi JE, Piepgras DG. Acute deterioration from thrombosis and rerupture of a giant intracranial aneurysm. Neurology 52: 1694-1697, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Cameron BM, Bates LM, Robb RA. Virtual frontiers. Part 1. Fundamental concepts and recent advances in virtual reality technology. Perspectives in Neurological Surgery 10: 101-111, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Bates LM, Meyer FB, Robb RA. Virtual frontiers. Part 2. Role of virtual reality technology in neurosurgery. Perspectives in Neurological Surgery 10: 113-127, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Smith LA, Weiler DA, Springett MJ, Parisi JE, Meyer FB, Marsh WR, O’Brien T, Katusic ZS. Adenovirus-mediated gene transfer to human cerebral arteries. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20: 1360-1371, 2000.
* Khurana VG, Feterik K, Eguchi D, Springett MJ, Shah V, Katusic ZS. Functional interdependence and colocalization of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) in cerebral arteries. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20: 1563-1570, 2000.
* Khurana VG, Katusic ZS. Gene transfer for cerebrovascular disease. Current Cardiology Reports 3: 10-16, 2001.
* Piepgras DG, Khurana VG, Nichols DA. Occult rupture of a giant vertebral artery aneurysm following proximal occlusion and intrasaccular thrombosis. Journal of Neurosurgery 95: 132-137, 2001.
* Khurana VG, Smith LA, Baker TA, Eguchi D, O’Brien T, Katusic ZS. Protective vasomotor effects of in vivo recombinant endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene expression in a canine model of cerebral vasospasm. Stroke 33: 782-789, 2002.
* Khurana VG, Perez-Terzic CM, Petersen RC, Krauss WE. Singing paraplegia: A distinctive manifestation of a spinal dural arteriovenous fistula. Neurology 58: 1279-1281, 2002.
* Khurana VG, Weiler DA, Witt TA, Smith LA, Kleppe LS, Parisi JE, Simari RD, O’Brien T, Russell SJ, Katusic ZS. A direct mechanical method for accurate and efficient adenoviral vector delivery to tissues. Gene Therapy 10: 443-452, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Link MJ, Driscoll CLW, Beatty CW. Evolution of a cochlear schwannoma on clinical and neuroimaging studies. Journal of Neurosurgery 99: 779-782, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Meyer FB. Translational paradigms in cerebrovascular gene transfer. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 23: 1251-1262, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) T-786C single nucleotide polymorphism: A putative genetic marker differentiating small versus large ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 34: 2555-2559, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene polymorphisms predict susceptibility to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and cerebral vasospasm. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 24: 291-297, 20.
* Khurana VG, Wijdicks EFM, Heublein DM, McClelland RL, Meyer FB, Piepgras DG, Burnett JC Jr. A pilot study of Dendroaspis natriuretic peptide in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery 55: 69-76, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Section of Cerebrovascular Surgery: Galbraith Award: Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) gene polymorphisms predict susceptibility to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and post-SAH cerebral vasospasm. Clinical Neurosurgery 51: 343-350, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Meissner I, Meyer FB. An update on genetic evidence for “rupture-prone”versus “rupture-resistant” intracranial saccular aneurysms. Neurosurgical Focus 17(5): E7, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Meissner I, Sohni YR, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL, Cunningham JM, Meyer FB. The presence of tandem eNOS gene polymorphisms identifying brain aneurysms more prone to rupture. Journal of Neurosurgery 102: 526-531, 2005.
* Lekovic GP, Gonzalez LF, Khurana VG, Spetzler RF. Intraoperative rupture of brainstem cavernous malformation: Case report. Neurosurgical Focus 21(1): E14, 2006.
* Khurana VG, Fox DJ, Meissner I, Meyer FB, Spetzler RF. Update on evidence for a genetic predisposition to cerebral vasospasm. Neurosurgical Focus 21(3): E3, 2006.
* Khurana VG, Mathews M, Wijdicks EFM, Bledsoe J, Foy A, Spranger J, Manno E, Spinner RJ. The diagnosis of acute cerebral venous thrombosis made intraoperatively. Submitted.

[jeff47]

183. Take a good look at those papers

Take a good look at all those submissions.

You'll notice that he's not the only one on any of them. There are other people listed as authors. People who could make sure that the paper is a good one, instead of this crap.

Here's how research works in academic settings: A bunch of people work for the guy/girl with "Professor" in front of their name. They do actual research. They write the papers. Professor gets his/her name on the paper, usually as the first author despite doing none of the work.

Theorhetically, the professor supervising the research. Very often, the professor is too busy doing the song-and-dance for grants to actually do that. Even if they are doing actual research, they're doing their own research, separate from everyone else in the lab.

My critiques are based on this paper, and the contents of this paper. If you want to have a credible argument, please respond to them instead of claiming this guy's credentials mean we should ignore the glaring errors in the paper.

After all, Bush went to Yale and Harvard. That means he's smart, right?

[Bjorn Against]

194. Alright I will respond to the glaring errors in your analysis...

"The Abstract is a summary of this paper. It conveys the "take home" message of this
report."

Uh....this is a paper for scientists. We know what an abstract is. Why is he explaining this? or is he just using a template he found somewhere and didn't remove the comments? He does this for every section of his paper. It's not a good sign.

When I was in college I saw several journal articles which contained this information. The reason they do this is not because the scientists don't know what it means, but because many of the people who read these journals are college students who are doing research papers and they don't have the same knowledge. This is hardly something you can dismiss a paper based on.

Also, this guy uses bold text WAAAY too much. Again, serious science. We're reading this thing thoroughly. You put stuff in bold in marketing materials to grab the attention of people skimming. And most of the stuff he's put in bold is empasizing all the work he's done, and just how independant he is.

So he used bold print. Who cares? It doesn't change the content of his argument.

On to his data.
"A registered supplier of equipment to the US Dept. of Defence, Aegis
Corporation, produces shielded equipment that the company claims makes the
use of wireless technology safer."

So one of things he's using for proof is the marketing materials of a company selling devices to protect people from the danger he is trying to prove.

Do you dispute that this company provides this equipment? If not then there is no reason that he can't cite it if he finds it to be relevant information.

I am not going to answer all your other points because for one you have already shown that you have made up your mind, and you dismissed everything he said before you read it which shows me you did not have an open mind and I have no reason to trust that your data is better than his.

I will admit that I am not an expert on this subject, but if I were to choose whose data I trusted more I would go with the doctor's, not the person who dismissed that doctor as only having accomplished winning the "cleanest desk award" without even taking the time to research and see that his awards were much more prestigious than that. You made it clear before you even started reading that you were going to determine his article was terrible, you may have had more credibility if you would have went in with an open mind but you chose to determine your findings before you even began your research so I have no reason to trust that your data is accurate.

[DeeDeeNY]

48. A guest on Ring of Fire Radio a few weeks ago said the same thing

Dr. George Carlo was on Ring of Fire and spoke about the dangers of cell phone and bluetooth technology. This is serious stuff --
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_01.htm

http://www.goaegis.com/articles/gcarlo_100799.html

[jeff47]

89. Wow! Dr. Carlo can break the laws of physics!

One of Dr. Carlo's claims in your linked article:

"Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage"

That doesn't happen. We know the energy contained within the radio waves produced by a cell phone. The energy is directly related to the frequency. The higher the frequency, the more energy.

High-frequency electromagnetic waves can damage DNA. X-Rays, UV light and such have enough energy to break chemical bonds and damage DNA.

Lower in frequency, we reach visible light. The stuff you use to see.

Still lower, we get infrared light, the stuff coming out of the heater in your bathroom.

And Still lower, we get the radio waves from cell phones. Which simply don't have the energy to break a chemical bond. And since it doesn't have enough energy, there's no way it can damage DNA. The folks claiming that it causes damage don't provide any mechanism for that damage, they just assert "It damages DNA"

The big problem with all these folks claiming cell phones are dangerous is they are all selling something, and only speak in vague terms about the danger they are attempting to highlight so that others can't investigate their findings and try to replicate them.

If they actually had any science to report, they'd publish it in an actual peer-reviewed journal. Instead they're selling it on the open market. That's a major red flag.

[DeeDeeNY]

174. This is his website

http://www.safewireless.org/


“His career spans 30 years and more than 150 medical, scientific and public policy publications in the areas of public health, workplace safety and consumer protection.”

http://commonground.ca/iss/201/cg201_carlo.shtml

[jeff47]

185. That's nice

Doesn't change the fact that 0.6W of microwaves can't damage DNA. The photons simply don't have enough energy.

Now, if he cranked up the wattage to about 600W then he'd be able to damage DNA through cooking it, but we call that device a microwave oven, not a cell phone.

They key to pulling off a scam like this is to have 'impressive' credentials. Then you can claim something harmless is deadly. Just like breast implants. Lots of impressively-credentialed doctors made a lot of money claiming implants caused autoimmune diseases. Unfortunately, the rate of autoimmune diseases was the same with or without implants, meaning there is no connection between the two. But the doctors got paid well as expert witnesses.

[progressoid]

54. Good - this should thin the herd a bit.

:evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

55. Not to mention the pollution from poisonous dead batteries in landfills. n/t

[Javaman]

56. so should one just kill themselves if they smoke AND use a mobile phone? nt

[Baclava]

59. What about the second-hand radiation danger to people around those using cell phones?

Ban cell phones from all restaurants, public places, etc.........immediately!!!!!!



Where's my lawyers?

[ensho]

61. kick

nt

[whistle]

63. These cell phones can pop popcorn, watch this controlled experiment

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=cell+phones+poppping+corn&sitesearch=#

[Baclava]

65. Snopes says "fake"

Marketing gimmick

http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Evidence for huge rise in brain tumors?

Anybody?

[Lex]

71. Yes, I too was wondering if there is a link that verifies the premise

that there's been a huge rise in brain tumors?

[ColonelTom]

166. Anyone? Bueller?? n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

68. I get headaches after talking on my Blackberry.

Time to switch to speakerphone all the time... :scared:

[donco6]

94. Me too, but it's usually because of what I'm hearing.

:(

[Tumbulu]

129. I get headaches too

so I just use the speakerphone and earphones. And now I use it less and less.

And if my daughter wants to speak we put it on speakerphone as well.

[WattleBreakfast]

72. Egg boiling and popcorn popping truth?

I have heard about this popcorn thing and about hard boiling and egg...Has anyone been able to do this themselves, or is has everyone just seen the youtube videos?

I really want to know if this is true!

[ProfessorGAC]

74. It's Pretty Low Energy

I suppose if you could focus it properly, but geez, microwaves are 2000x the power of a cellphone. (I think. Phones are 600mW and microwaves are as high as 1200 watts. I could be wrong.)

Microwave ovens focus the energy into a small area and the phone sends it out very diffusedly and broadly. So, i kind of doubt it would work unless you took very extraordinary measures to focus the energy.
The Professor

[Maeve]

81. snopes.com is your friend

http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

[tom_paine]

137. I have deep suspicions that this is a hoax. Snopes.com confirms.

n/t

[Perry Mason]

73. They are certainly more dangerous ON THE ROAD

I don't need a scientist to tell me, virtually every time some yahoo pulls out in front of me in traffic without looking, cuts me off, tailgates, goes zooming by at twice the speed limit, or causes one of the many accident I see on a daily basis, THEY ARE ALWAYS TALKING ON THE PHONE.

The reckless disregard such twits show for the sanctity of human life is appalling. They ought to be yanked out of their cars and whipped.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. Grocery Stores Too

I've had a rash of people with their phone glued to their head running into me with their shopping carts. Somehow speaking on the phone makes people forget that THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE STORE!
The Professor

[Perry Mason]

121. Absolutely in the Grocery Stores

Wandering down the aisles as if the cellphone is transmitting some hypnotic orders to them, pushing the cart down the wrong side of the aisle, leaving it blocking the entire aisle while they read the label on every can of soup or wander off to some completely different location, apparently unable to perform simple marketing chores without a direct link to their master.

There's always one of these phone-talking trouser clouds in front of me in line, rudely banging away on their phone and not even offering their clerk the courtesy of an acknowledgement, "Look at me, I'm so important I can't even hang up the phone to pay for my groceries..."

I often walk by and say something insulting directly to them, like, perhaps, "Butt rash!" and they are never even aware that I've spoken to them.

[jeff47]

80. Don't buy it.

Long-time lurker, and former microbiologist. Stories like this one really upset me.

The problems with this story:

1. There hasn't been a major up-tick in incidence of brain cancer. Cell phones are everywhere. They have been everywhere for more than 15 years. If there was such a danger of cancer from cell phones, there would already be a massive uptick in brain cancer rates.

2. The article keeps talking about "radiation". Calling it radiation makes it spooky and seems danagerous, and is technically correct. However, most people call the stuff a cell phone puts out "radio waves". But if they used the proper term you'd think of the little box next to your bed instead of guys in moon-suits.

3. Cell phones put out milliwatts of microwaves. You get more exposure standing next to your microwave oven at home. You get 1000 times the exposure by standing outside on a sunny day. Is he trying to argue that the little bit of radio waves from a cell phone are more dangerous than that big radioactive ball in the sky we've been living with since our species evolved?

4. The radio waves coming from a cell phone is non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation has a high enough frequency that it can break chemical bonds. This is what makes UV light cause skin cancer: it can actually corrupt the DNA in our skin. The frequencies used by cell phones are far lower than UV light and can't break chemical bonds.

5. There's no mechanism described to cause this cancer. Again, the radio waves coming from the cell phone are in a frequency that can not damage DNA. How, exactly, would these radio waves suddenly become malignant when they come from a cell phone? And the same radio waves not be malignant when they come from the sun? Yes, the sun is much farther away, but it's a few trillion times more powerful, more than making up the difference in distance.

6. There's no science in this story. There's a guy saying "OMG! CELL PHONES WILL KILL US ALL!!!" but no data, nor any reference to an actual scientific study published in an actual scientific journal.

7. It refers to data reported exclusively. That's not how science works. If you have actual data, you release it to everyone so they can examine it and attempt to replicate the results.

However, this story is fantastic if you're Professor Khurana and trying to get some attention and fund a grant or two.

[RobertSeattle]

87. Agreed

In almost any field, there will be someone with a contrarian view and even if there is a 1% chance of being right, they stand to their views to the bitter end. (And it gets you on the Tee-Vee)

[ElboRuum]

91. Generally Agree... But I'll play this guy for a minute...

:evilgrin:

1. Generally agree, but not all cancers are a decade in the making, sometimes 2 or 3 decades of near-constant exposure are required to develop a malignancy.

2. Generally agree, but that little box by the bed is a receiver only and puts out a miniscule amount of radiation as compared to a dedicated transceiver device.

3. Generally agree, but what happens if you stood outside basking in the light of the sun each day, UV unprotected, for the amount of time that a cellphone owner is on the phone? One does no service with the comparison. It may be more dangerous due to the proximity to the tissues it affects. Electromagnetic radiation dissipates in intensity in a manner directly proportional to the square of the distance from the source. We are 9.3 million miles away from the sun and it does plenty of harm at that distance, so could milliwatts at millimeters accomplish the same thing?

4. Generally agree, but we aren't talking about radio waves with cell phones. Cells and portable land-line handsets operate in the high MHz, low GHz frequency these days, technically in the microwave region. They have to be, or they'd interfere with other communication bands. The higher the frequency of the wave, the greater the energy it carries and the more destructive it becomes. I'm not saying this to say that is enough to damage DNA beyond repair or interfere with cell division, but we must acknowledge that we're dealing with slightly different beasts here.

5. Generally agree, but as I said, the higher frequencies carry more energy than the radio waves we know aren't harmful.

6. Completely agree.

7. Completely agree, big headlines without peer review is the worst kind of science. Smacks of cold fusion.

[jeff47]

97. He's still wrong.

"1. Generally agree, but not all cancers are a decade in the making, sometimes 2 or 3 decades of near-constant exposure are required to develop a malignancy"

That brings us back to two problems:
-He describes no mechanism by which the cancer can be caused. What, exactly, does the photon from the cell phone do to cause cancer?
-The sun's still out there. Has been for the entire existence of our species. Blasts us with far more RF than a cell phone. That RF doesn't cause cancer. (The UV can, but there's an actual known mechanism for that)

"but that little box by the bed is a receiver only and puts out a miniscule amount of radiation as compared to a dedicated transceiver device."

My argument there is he is chosing his terminology for maximum fear. By calling it radiation it is spooky and scary. Calling it radio waves makes it mundane.

"3. Generally agree, but what happens if you stood outside basking in the light of the sun each day, UV unprotected, for the amount of time that a cellphone owner is on the phone?"

Cell phones don't put out UV. They put out the same electromagnetic waves at a much lower frequency. The sun puts out big honking gobs of electromagnetic waves at the same frequency as a cell phone. If you've got sunscreen on to protect from the UV, then this guy is saying standing outside will kill you from brain cancer.

"It may be more dangerous due to the proximity to the tissues it affects. Electromagnetic radiation dissipates in intensity in a manner directly proportional to the square of the distance from the source. We are 9.3 million miles away from the sun and it does plenty of harm at that distance, so could milliwatts at millimeters accomplish the same thing?"

Frequency matters when you're talking about this. You don't think of visible light as dangerous, since you use it to see. Yet staring at a sufficienty intense light source will blind you. And, btw, visible light is a much higher frequency than the RF coming from a cell phone. If RF is dangerous, then visible light is far more dangerous.

Lastly, yes the sun is much farther away than a cell phone. But the exposure I'm talking about is not at 3 inches from both sources. The exposure from the sun at 9.3 million miles is much higher than the exposure from 3 inches from a cell phone. The sun is that powerful.

"4. Generally agree, but we aren't talking about radio waves with cell phones."

Actually, we are. Radio waves is everything on the electromagnetic spectrum within a certain range of frequencies. Generally speaking, radio waves is everything lower in frequency than infrared light. That includes the radiation from cell phones. For convenience we'll divide the radio spectrum into subgroups, such as AM radio, Microwaves, etc. Just like we divide "blue" from "green" when we're talking about higher frequencies.

"The higher the frequency of the wave, the greater the energy it carries and the more destructive it becomes."

Visible light has a much higer frequency than the output from a cell phone. If the RF from a cell phone was dangerous, then visible light would kill you very quickly.

[ElboRuum]

88. As much as I would LOVE to see cells disappear for public health reasons...

...(I know there are plenty of socially detrimental effects I've seen which, in my mind, are cause enough)... we have to acknowledge the fact that we are AWASH in RF radiation and have been for nearly the whole of the past century. Now granted, modern RF equipment operates in the GHz range, but I am always circumspect when it comes to studies agglomerating statistical information from other studies. As always, correlation is not causation.

But don't let that stop you from discombobulating your cellphone.

[NeedleCast]

90. Doubling a very small number still leaves you with a very small number

Knee-jerk reactions aside, I'm willing to roll the dice if my chance of getting brain cancer goes from 1 in a million to 1 in 500,000.

[BrklynLib at work]

95. I have been hearing about this for years. The Wireless Companies are trying to hide the truth about

it.
I remember a cover story several years ago about some big business CEO - the name escapes me right now. The cover was a picture of him sitting at his desk, talking on his mobile phone.
In the article they mentioned that it was thought that his death as a result of brain cancer was due to all the time he spent on his mobile phone. Not much mentioned about it again in MSM.

[jeff47]

98. This is junk science

This is a bad scientist who's trying to make a buck fear-mongering.

He's relying on the general distrust of big business to avoid the people that point out the massive flaws in what he says.

Simply put, stand outside during daytime. You are now exposed to more RF than your cell phone puts out. (Note: I'm talking about RF. UV is dangerous, but your cell phone does not put out UV.)

[marions ghost]

109. Go to this website

and tell me how this is "a bad scientist":

http://www.brain-aneurysm.com/about.html

You are fulla BS.

[jeff47]

111. Alphabet soup does not equal good science.

That web site is basically his resume from his medical career. What I'm evaluating is the claims he is making in this story.

As I said in the other posts in this thread, there's lots of massive, huge, enormous, gaping holes in his theory. And he's making extraordinary claims that data from the public health agencies does not back up. As such, he's self-publishing and running to the popular press instead publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

That's not what good scientists do. That's what bad scientists who are looking for grant money do.

Here is why this is a problem:
It makes the public doubt the real scientists too.

Every time some person stands up and says Intelligent Design should be taught in school, 'cause science can be wrong, is thinking of stories like this.

Every time someone pushes for abstinence-only education despite the data proving it's ineffectiveness, they are thinking of stories like this. (We can ignore the scientists. They're always wrong about everything)

Every time a scientist tries to point out the hazards of global climate change, people dismiss her because of stories like this. (Until decades later when people finally hear the screaming)

Every time a scientist tries to get attention for a real hazard in our lives, people dismiss him because of stories like this. (Until enough people die, and then the public is angry that nobody warned them).

[NeedleCast]

96. BAN MORE THINGS!

Ban Cell Phones and anything else that emits "radiation" to include:

1. TV
2. Radio Stations
3. Microwave Ovens
4. Light Bulbs
5. Computers and computer monitors

While we're at it, lets get to work extinguishing the sun! That ongoing nuclear explosion is putting out an amazing amount of radiation and is the leading source of skin cancer. The sooner we get rid of the sun, the sooner we can cure skin cancer!

[Evoman]

99. Lets see if you find a hole in this reasoning.

And I'm using Canadian statistics (2008), just to let you know.

The number of cancer deaths per 100 000 people:

Lung - 61

Brain - 5


Now, if you double the rate of cancer by cell phone, that would be 10 deaths per 100 000 people. Now, according to the National Cancer institute, 87% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking (too high?). So that means that, if there was no such thing as smoking, then about 8 people would be dying, per 100 000, from lung cancer.

Okay, so how are cell phones worse than cancer? Cell phones double the risk of brain cancer from 5/100 000 to 10/100 000. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer from 8 to 61 per 100 000.
Not only that, but we don't know that the brain cancer statistic is actually 5 /100000 with cell phones or without cell phones.

Does that sound about right?


Oh yeah..here are the references I used: Canadian statistics

http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/10/34/614137951cw_library_WYNTK_Bladder_Punjabi2005.pdf

and National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobacco/cancer


Oh, and one last point...I didn't include any of the other cancers that are caused by, or aggravated with, smoking. Not to mention heart disease. According to the NCI, smoking causes 30 percent of all cancer deaths.

[dixiegrrrrl]

104. yeah....but....uhhh..... I mean...errr...umm

ok ok ok... got it..

The reason brain cancer death rates are so low is that folks die from other things before the brain cancer is discovered.

Yeah...that makes sense.

so it's ok to drive stupid and be on cell phone..the car wreck will get ya first.

Now, if we could prove cell phone use is a leading cause of increased stupidity.....
nah..the government start giving them away..

never mind...
my head hurts now...

[Carnea]

102. I'll trade six months of my life for the convenience,

You know cars reduce life expectancy as well it's a good trade-off. The joyless puritan Luddites can go Fuck Themselves

[The Straight Story]

103. Raise taxes like they do on smokes

I don't want to have to pay for your cell phone addiction.

[U4ikLefty]

105. No cellphones in public-places due to the risk from second-hand calling.

[marions ghost]

108. Dr. Khurana's Credentials:

Check Out his credentials

He trained at the Mayo Clinic and is a big name in neurosurgery in Australia. Works at the big teaching hospital in Canberra.

http://www.brain-aneurysm.com/about.html

Very credible guy.

[jeff47]

113. Alphabet soup does not make good science.

(copied from your direct reply to my post)
That web site is basically his resume from his medical career. What I'm evaluating is the claims he is making in this story.

As I said in the other posts in this thread, there's lots of massive, huge, enormous, gaping holes in his theory. And he's making extraordinary claims that data from the public health agencies does not back up. As such, he's self-publishing and running to the popular press instead publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

That's not what good scientists do. That's what bad scientists who are looking for grant money do. Do you really think the Independent called him out of the blue and said, "Hey Doc! What'cha workin on?". He sought out the popular press to make a splash. Good scientists get their work peer-reviewed first.

Here is why this is a problem:
It makes the public doubt the good scientists too.

Every time some person stands up and says Intelligent Design should be taught in school, 'cause science can be wrong, is thinking of stories like this.

Every time someone pushes for abstinence-only education despite the data proving it's ineffectiveness, they are thinking of stories like this. (We can ignore the scientists. They're always wrong about everything)

Every time a scientist tries to point out the hazards of global climate change, people dismiss her because of stories like this. (Until decades later when people finally hear the screaming)

Every time a scientist tries to get attention for a real hazard in our lives, people dismiss him because of stories like this. (Until enough people die, and then the public is angry that nobody warned them).

[NeedleCast]

115. Bush went to Yale.

[tom_paine]

116. Thanks to the closed hearing mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996

NOBODY knows about this, at least none of the Amerikan Subject Populace.

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

[jeff47]

133. NOBODY knows about this, at least none of the Amerikan Subject Populace.

"NOBODY knows about this, at least none of the Amerikan Subject Populace."

They shouldn't. This is junk science.

[tom_paine]

136. I am certainly open to looking at your data. Please supply links. You've gotta back it up.

If you are going to make an accusation about "junk science", you'd should probably have the good science to back it up.

And please, no PR papers or telecom-sponsored "studies" (like all those phony-baloney cigarette studies the tobacco companies ran, using falsified data or purposefully poorly designed methods).

Please show me your data that leads you to this conclusion.

[jeff47]

145. Just read my responsed in this thread

I've already pointed out in this thread the usual massive holes in the "Cell phones are gonna give us cancer" theories. Just go read those.

I'd suggest you answer your own request, and provide some peer-reviewed studies proving a Cell Phone->cancer link. All I've found are scientists who tout their results in the popular press, and say that their study has been sent out for peer review.

Magically, their study never actually makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, despite the amazing claims in their press releases.

Stories like this are very similar to the cold fusion experiments. Peer review revealed that the scientist forgot to turn on the stirer, but analyzed his data as if he had it turned on. Unfortunately he issued a lot of press releases first, and got a lot of people worked up when all he proved is you can use electricity to heat water.

[mconvente]

118. Why the hell are people rec'ing this??

To stick it to the evil mobile phone manufacturing corporations?

Give me a fucking break!

As a pending undergraduate of molecular biology and biochemistry (one year left at Rutgers) and then off to get my doctorate degree, as well as a student who has done his own research and read many journals, stories like this piss me the fuck off because they are predatory. They really are.

NO, I repeat NO credible science is published in newspapers, it's published in reputable journals. That's why I cringe when I see a NBC Nightly News "Science Report", it's all bullshit. Those segments and these news articles are not written using a scientific lexicon, and while that may mean more laypeople can read it, it also means that it's not a credible source to cite in any paper. It would be like citing Wikipedia in a research paper - that would be ridiculous.

A lot of great stuff is posted here and I'm with you all against the bullshit that corporations do, but this is ridiculous. What are the people that rec'd this thinking, seriously?!

If someone can find me a peer-review paper on PubMed or any other NIH-funded online database, then I'll believe it. Otherwise, I don't believe it.

[lonestarnot]

120. recommendations are made in an effort to have others read the post.

:eyes:

[lonestarnot]

122. Phone on Garth!

[onehandle]

125. Nicotine is a hell of a drug.

They're not rec'ing the thread. They're rec'ing their drug habit.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

123. Bullshit. nt

[CRF450]

130. For god sakes, you people actually believe this shit?!

I for one DONT! As long as cellphones have been around their has yet to be a huge epidemic of brain cancer or whatever the bullshit is claimed with being associated with cellphone use. The person who wrote this article is nothing more than a fear mongering idiot.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

144. you're joking right?

[Bjorn Against]

150. And I am sure you are as educated as this "fear mongering idiot".

Please, name calling does not prove you to be smarter than a person who is "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."

I am not saying the doctor is right or wrong yet, I will wait for more evidence to make that determination. I am willing to bet a hundred dollars that this person you call a "fear mongering idiot" understands this issue far better than you do.

[jeff47]

154. Awards

My workplace gives out an award for cleanest desk. I'm a bit concerned that this guy's awards are for something similar. I do know that in the medical profession there are lots and lots of awards handed out for no real reason besides being able to say things like "14 awards over the past 16 years".

Unfortunately the article has no data, so for the time being I can only call him a hack based on the limited information. If the article had any data then I could figure out if more inflamatory terms are appropriate.

[Bjorn Against]

158. The awards are only part of his credentials...

You can read more about him here: http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/c_a.html

To dismiss him automatically because you hear the word "awards" is lazy at best. Do some research before you start name calling, because it just so happens that this guy has a hell of a lot more credentials than you do.

[jeff47]

187. Do some research before you start name calling

I did. I read his paper on the danger of cell phones. He should be dismissed because his paper is very, very, very, very bad and demonstrates he doesn't understand electromagentism and how cell phones work.

He is doing junk science.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kay1864]

177. Wow....

Those

sure

are

impressive

credentials

I

must

say.



Especially

when

you

post

them

three

times.


:eyes:

[happygoluckytoyou]

131. eforcity.com a great place to find those headsets and save your brain...repubs, sorry too late

[Lorien]

134. Repubs and those who reject science

we have plenty of them here, too. DUers who don't believe that either smoking or cell phones can POSSIBLY be bad for your health, because they like smoking and cell phones. They'll go with what they feel and want to believe over any study. It's Darwinism at work.

[jeff47]

147. They'll go with what they feel and want to believe over any study.

Please point me towards a peer-reviewed article proving cell phones are dangerous. Preferably one where another scientist was able to replicate the results.

Until then, I'm gonna go with the public health statistics that don't show a dramatic rise in brain cancer despite 20 years of ubiquitous cell phones, and the laws of physics that says the RF from a cell phone doesn't have the energy to damage DNA.

[DailyGrind51]

139. Who needs one more link to the grid anyway?

[blindpig]

188. exactly

Fuckin' electronic ball & chain and another hand in your pocket. All of these folks today say they couldn't live without them, how have I survived?

And then there's the matter of coltan......

[ileus]

140. LOL yeah right....tinfoil anyone?

[Bjorn Against]

171. I don't think you can dismiss a resume like this simply by saying "tinfoil"

Dr. Vini G. Khurana MBBS, BSc(Med), PhD, FRACS

Higher Education and Training

1988-1994: University of Sydney Medical School (Sydney, Australia)

o B.Sc. (Med.) (Honors) in Advanced Physiology Research; Graduated in 1992
o M.B.B.S. (Honors); Graduated in 1995
o Resident artist for University of Sydney Medical Society Newspaper 1991-1993

1995-1996: Surgical Intern, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Sydney, Australia)

1996-2005: Mayo Clinic & Mayo Foundation (Rochester, Minnesota, USA)

o Neurosurgery Resident and Chief Resident Associate; Graduated in 2005
o Thoralf Sundt Fellow in Neurosurgical Research (1999-2001)
o Ph.D. in Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; Graduated in 2001

2005-2006: Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI; Phoenix, Arizona, USA)

o Robert F. Spetzler Fellow in Cerebrovascular and Skull Base Surgery and Neuroscience Research at the BNI, and Attending Neurosurgeon, St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center, Phoenix. Fellowship completed June, 2006.

U.S. Patents

* Gene Delivery Device and Gene Delivery Method (Khurana et al., U.S. Patent 6,821,264)
o Invention of paintbrush-assisted gene delivery concept, device, and technique
* Assessing Brain Aneurysms (Khurana & Meyer; Patent pending)
o Invention of a genetic test to assess risk of brain aneurysm rupture

Awards and Scholarships
#

* 1991: Australian Medical Association J.G. Hunter Research Scholarship for BSc(Med)
* 1991: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Undergraduate Research Scholarship for BSc(Med)
* 1992: P.O. Bishop Medal for Greatest Proficiency in Advanced Physiology for BSc(Med), University of Sydney, Australia
* 1993: Peter Bancroft Prize for Best Undergraduate Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia
* 1993: Sydney Tapping Bequest Undergraduate Scholarship, University of Sydney, for Medical Student Overseas Elective
* 1994: Robert Craig Prize for Surgery, University of Sydney, Australia
* 1995: Australasian Neurosurgical Society Prize for paper on pathophysiology of cerebral vasospasm
* 1999: Principal Collaborating Investigator to Zvonimir S. Katusic MD PhD for American Heart Association-Bugher Foundation Award for the Investigation of Stroke
* 1999: International Society for Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism Bursary for Young Scientists (Brain ’99 Meeting; Copenhagen, Denmark)
* 2000: American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) Travel Award (ASPET Annual Meeting; Boston, MA)
* 2000: Grand Prize in Cardiovascular Pharmacology, Graduate Student Best Paper Competition (ASPET 2000 Meeting; Boston, MA)
* 2000: First Prize in Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic (“From Molecules to Mankind” Mayo Clinic Research Forum; Rochester, MN)
* 2001: Best Paper Award in Clinical Pharmacology (ASPET Annual Meeting; Orlando, FL)
* 2002: Scholarly Clinician Award, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, for Investigatorship in Vasospasm Genomics Clinical Trial, Mayo Clinic
* 2002: Certificate of Excellence for Patient Care and Team Work presented by the Neurosurgical Nursing Staff, St. Marys Hospital, Mayo Clinic
* 2003: Congress of Neurological Surgeons Galbraith Award for Cerebrovascular Surgery Research
* 2004: First place in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) Neuroradiology Competition (AFIP Neuroradiology /Neuropathology Course; Bethesda, MD; Feb., 2004)
* 2005: Mayo Clinic Scholarly Achievement Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement During Neurosurgical Residency
* 2007: Recipient of the Australian Capital Territory Quality in Health Care Award for Patient Safety
* 2007: Award for best 'Advances in Clinical Practice' Presentation 2007, The Canberra Hospital

Journal Articles (Listed chronologically)

* Bennett MR, Kerr R, Khurana G. Adenosine modulation of calcium currents in postganglionic neurones of avian cultured ciliary ganglia. British Journal of Pharmacology 106: 25-32, 1992.
* Khurana G, Bennett MR. Nitric oxide and arachidonic acid modulation of calcium currents in postganglionic neurones of avian cultured ciliary ganglia. British Journal of Pharmacology 109: 480-485, 1993.
* Khurana VG, Mentis DH, O’Brien CJ, Hurst TL, Stevens GN, Packham NA. Parotid and neck metastases from cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck. American Journal of Surgery 170: 446-450, 1995.
* Khurana VG, Besser M. The pathophysiological basis of cerebral vasospasm following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 4: 122-131, 1997.
* Khurana VG, Piepgras DG, Whisnant JP. Ruptured giant intracranial aneurysms. Part 1. A study of rebleeding. Journal of Neurosurgery 88: 425-429, 1998.
* Piepgras DG, Khurana VG, Whisnant JP. Ruptured giant intracranial aneurysms. Part 2. A retrospective analysis of timing and outcome of surgical treatment. Journal of Neurosurgery 88: 430-435, 1998.
* Besser M, Khurana VG. Management of giant intracranial aneurysms of the posterior circulation. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 5: 161-168, 1998.
* Khurana VG, Wijdicks EFM, Parisi JE, Piepgras DG. Acute deterioration from thrombosis and rerupture of a giant intracranial aneurysm. Neurology 52: 1694-1697, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Cameron BM, Bates LM, Robb RA. Virtual frontiers. Part 1. Fundamental concepts and recent advances in virtual reality technology. Perspectives in Neurological Surgery 10: 101-111, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Bates LM, Meyer FB, Robb RA. Virtual frontiers. Part 2. Role of virtual reality technology in neurosurgery. Perspectives in Neurological Surgery 10: 113-127, 1999.
* Khurana VG, Smith LA, Weiler DA, Springett MJ, Parisi JE, Meyer FB, Marsh WR, O’Brien T, Katusic ZS. Adenovirus-mediated gene transfer to human cerebral arteries. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20: 1360-1371, 2000.
* Khurana VG, Feterik K, Eguchi D, Springett MJ, Shah V, Katusic ZS. Functional interdependence and colocalization of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) in cerebral arteries. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20: 1563-1570, 2000.
* Khurana VG, Katusic ZS. Gene transfer for cerebrovascular disease. Current Cardiology Reports 3: 10-16, 2001.
* Piepgras DG, Khurana VG, Nichols DA. Occult rupture of a giant vertebral artery aneurysm following proximal occlusion and intrasaccular thrombosis. Journal of Neurosurgery 95: 132-137, 2001.
* Khurana VG, Smith LA, Baker TA, Eguchi D, O’Brien T, Katusic ZS. Protective vasomotor effects of in vivo recombinant endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene expression in a canine model of cerebral vasospasm. Stroke 33: 782-789, 2002.
* Khurana VG, Perez-Terzic CM, Petersen RC, Krauss WE. Singing paraplegia: A distinctive manifestation of a spinal dural arteriovenous fistula. Neurology 58: 1279-1281, 2002.
* Khurana VG, Weiler DA, Witt TA, Smith LA, Kleppe LS, Parisi JE, Simari RD, O’Brien T, Russell SJ, Katusic ZS. A direct mechanical method for accurate and efficient adenoviral vector delivery to tissues. Gene Therapy 10: 443-452, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Link MJ, Driscoll CLW, Beatty CW. Evolution of a cochlear schwannoma on clinical and neuroimaging studies. Journal of Neurosurgery 99: 779-782, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Meyer FB. Translational paradigms in cerebrovascular gene transfer. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 23: 1251-1262, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) T-786C single nucleotide polymorphism: A putative genetic marker differentiating small versus large ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 34: 2555-2559, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene polymorphisms predict susceptibility to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and cerebral vasospasm. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 24: 291-297, 20.
* Khurana VG, Wijdicks EFM, Heublein DM, McClelland RL, Meyer FB, Piepgras DG, Burnett JC Jr. A pilot study of Dendroaspis natriuretic peptide in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery 55: 69-76, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Sohni YR, Mangrum WI, McClelland RL, O'Kane DJ, Meyer FB, Meissner I. Section of Cerebrovascular Surgery: Galbraith Award: Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) gene polymorphisms predict susceptibility to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and post-SAH cerebral vasospasm. Clinical Neurosurgery 51: 343-350, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Meissner I, Meyer FB. An update on genetic evidence for “rupture-prone”versus “rupture-resistant” intracranial saccular aneurysms. Neurosurgical Focus 17(5): E7, 2004.
* Khurana VG, Meissner I, Sohni YR, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL, Cunningham JM, Meyer FB. The presence of tandem eNOS gene polymorphisms identifying brain aneurysms more prone to rupture. Journal of Neurosurgery 102: 526-531, 2005.
* Lekovic GP, Gonzalez LF, Khurana VG, Spetzler RF. Intraoperative rupture of brainstem cavernous malformation: Case report. Neurosurgical Focus 21(1): E14, 2006.
* Khurana VG, Fox DJ, Meissner I, Meyer FB, Spetzler RF. Update on evidence for a genetic predisposition to cerebral vasospasm. Neurosurgical Focus 21(3): E3, 2006.
* Khurana VG, Mathews M, Wijdicks EFM, Bledsoe J, Foy A, Spranger J, Manno E, Spinner RJ. The diagnosis of acute cerebral venous thrombosis made intraoperatively. Submitted.

Book Chapters

* Khurana VG, Benarroch EE, Katusic ZS, Meyer FB: Chapter 86: Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. In Winn HR (ed), Youmans Neurological Surgery, 5th Edition, Vol. 2, Philadelphia, WB Saunders, pp 1467-1494, 2003.
* Khurana VG, Friedman JA, Meyer FB: Chapter 11: Biology of Cerebral Blood Vessels and Blood Flow. In Le Roux PD, Winn HR, Newell DW (eds), Management of Cerebral Aneurysms, Philadelphia, WB Saunders, pp 139-167, 2003.
* Friedman JA, Khurana VG, Anderson RE, Meyer FB: Chapter 71: Cerebral Blood Flow: Physiology and Measurement Techniques. In Moore AJ, Newell DW (eds), Neurosurgery Principles and Practice, London, Springer, pp 301-314, 2004.
* Fox DJ, Khurana VG, Spetzler RF: Olfactory Groove/Planum Sphenoidale Meningioma. In Lee JH (ed), Meningiomas: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome, London, Springer, In press.
* Khurana VG, Fox DJ, Gonzalez LF, Shedd SA, Spetzler RF: Vertebral Confluence and Mid-Basilar Aneurysms Including Transpetrosal Approach. In Macdonald RL (ed), Neurosurgical Operative Atlas: Vascular Neurosurgery, 2nd Edition, New York, Thieme, In press.

Books

* Khurana VG: Brain Surgery. Bloomington IN, AuthorHouse. 2006.
* Khurana VG, Spetzler RF: The Brain Aneurysm. Bloomington IN, AuthorHouse. 2006.

Websites

* www.brain-aneurysm.com
* www.brain-surgery.us
* www.brain-surgery.net.au

http://www.brain-aneurysm.com/about.html

[jeff47]

186. You're right

We should dismiss it by reading his terrible paper on the danger of cell phones.

[Bjorn Against]

192. You had your mind made up before you even looked at the paper...

And please don't try to tell me otherwise because I provided you the link after you had already dismissed it for supposedly not having any data.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

141. wonder what this god damn wireless router sitting here on my desk is doing to me?

[jeff47]

146. It's slightly increasing your body temperature

Your router is sending out radio waves at 2.4GHz, and roughly 300mW (Not sure on the wattage of that model. It's somewhere in the hundreds-of-mW range). When those strike your body, they will slightly increase the temperature of the tissues they hit. Ballpark guess, we're talking around 0.000001 degree.

Step outside during the day if you'd like to be blasted by far more 2.4GHz radio waves. You'll also experience far more heating.

If you have any AM radio stations in your town, you'll probably experience more RF from them while sitting at your desk.

[kay1864]

176. Thank you for your excellent informative posts in this thread

Some DUers would rather rail against something they know, just KNOW intuitively MUST be true, rather than hear actual scientific logical reasoning.

Curiously, many RWers exhibit this exact same behavior.

[L0oniX]

149. Well ...you shouldn't be smoking mobile phones.

:evilgrin:

[Orrex]

167. Nice!

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

153. Always use headsets.

That way your hands are free and if these studies turn out to have substance, you're clear.

[jeff47]

162. Link to his actual paper

Thanks to MN Against Bush, who linked this guy's actual paper.

http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf

It's terrible.

To avoid clogging the thread anymore, here's my posts where I talk about the content of the paper.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3510209&mesg_id=3514511

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3510209&mesg_id=3514722

[DaveJ]

168. My first thought

If cell phone use doubles chances of getting brain tumor, does that exceed the health risk of smoking? Lung cancer rates are about 10x brain cancer rates so I doubt it.

My second thought, while these studies may be true, it's hard to tell since the bandwagon effect is really prevalent sometimes in research and around here too.

[TheWraith]

172. Does ANYONE realize that this is all the same ONE GUY CLAIMING THIS?

ONE GUY, Vini Khurana, is the source on 90% of these stories, and he's the source because he makes big, newsworthy soundbites not inhibited by actual SCIENCE. All the major cancer research institutes do NOT agree with his blatant statements, holding that there's no currently provable link between cell phone usage and cancer.

[LibertyorDeath]

175. Thanks for this i've heard about this for years

To the doubters

Enjoy your Tumors people....