CWTA: “wireless technologies are not a health risk”

Comments

  • Reggie Noble

    I don’t know who to believe anymore. I usually use a wired earphone/mic set anymore.

    • tbr

      An electrical engineer told me not to use the microphone with cable or the blutooth ear devices. While the blutooth device has less radiation that the phone , leaving it on for long durations negates the benefit. In both methods the devices act as antenna which magnify the microwaves into a concentrated spot. This has the most adverse effects on health.

      At the end of the day just use the speaker option for long term safety.

  • Dan

    Remember, doctors once PROMOTED cigarettes as not only being safe but actually healthy!

    It’s better to assume that wireless technology is dangerous and use your devices with some common sense.

  • JAWG

    Right,I prefer believing the new studies out of Sweden/England/India that show a totally different conclusion and are also neutral/non-bias…even the simple one that showed how entire bee colonies in India have been destroyed in India and the genetic changes that took place in animals because of the uncontrolled RER’s near towers.

  • CADDMan

    “strange problems as they can’t hold a pencil, they feel faint, they have chronic headaches, and they have developed an erratic heart rate requiring medical attention”

    Really, and this couldn’t also be attributed to lack of sleep and/or their less than healthy fast food diets?

  • JAWG

    Possibly…yet what if most of the kids had proper sleep and little junk food…easy to check…see if they can hold a football while playing and eat healthy for awhile.Still,the amount of RER’s in a school/working environment may be much higher if using for longer periods of time than at home if limited and having a tower near/antenna over top of you would be probably.

    I read once that they did a study on military men serving at Alert/Norad like my brother in isolation had a higher incident of RER related problems which they didn’t before,plus they had proper diet/good sleeping habits/enough exercising and no other outlying problems in terms of health…same thing with the communication experts who dealt with mobile units everyday/DMCE’s that other soldiers didn’t encounter or get sick from.I think the majority of people are safe,yet many will be effected by this one way or another and ones with hidden compromised immune systems will suffer…probably depends on safety issues and what you’re using.

    • CADDMan

      “yet what if”, wow great way to start a come back.

      “easy to check”, if it was so easy to check, why wasn’t it done and included in the study? Any reputable study would take all stimuli into account. Oh, wait a minute, this wasn’t a study, it was just some school board members making a panic statement against technology they don’t understand and are trying to find a scapegoat to their students not doing as well as they would have hoped.

  • tbr

    It’s easy to pay a scientist to say what you want them to say. Look at how the oil industry always finds a paid stooge to say that global warming is not man made.

    I believe the Scandinavian oncology study which states a positive link between long term exposure and cancer. They have been studying this topic the longest and I have seen the peer reviewed journals. Everything else I have seen is junk.

    Who are you going to believe; the cancer scientist or the business man welling you wireless. I always use the the mic to be safe.

  • tbr

    selling not welling

  • JAWG

    @tbr:

    Very true Bro…always use the mic to be at least a little safer.

  • Urban Elitist

    I guess we’ll all find out in time. The generation who starting using cell phones at a much younger age will probably give us the answers within this next decade. Plenty of previous examples that were all great at one time and we find out in just one generation who bad of an idea it was.

    Also, as we should all know…just follow the money, and their’s the answer…

    We’re talking $$$ Billions of profit and taxes worldwide at stake.

  • George

    Cell phones put out hundreds of milliwatts of power (less than 1W). See that lightbulb above your head? 100W. It puts out 1000 times the amount of radiation that your cellphone does, and the radiation from the light bulb is more energetic than from the cell phone.

    Oh, and the sun dumps 1300W into your body every second of every day.

    The monitor you sit in front of? Yeah that’s good for another 30-50W or so, 200 times more than your cell phone.

    Add to this the fact that RF and microwave radiation are incapable of affecting the chemistry of your body and you have a recipe for… nothing.

    • observer

      it is scientifically absolutely incorrect to compare power of irradiation from different sources (i.e. having different frequencies)

    • tbr

      George, you must be a Phd in BS. Really, if you knew what you were talking about you would never state what you said it is just ludicrous.

  • JAWG

    I prefer to believe Dr.Vini Khurana who showed that the prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation will result in brain cancer destroying tissue rather than the teen doctors on here who never did any research,which also effects hearing/vision/etc and those that suffered the most used their units longer…analog units were worse with a higher degree of exposure and throw in towers/power lines/WiFi/etc to make the situation worse if you are susceptible.He was part of 10 different surgical studies,he further found that the latency rate for tumors to grow is about 8-10 years,when doing autopsies he also found tumors that weren’t even diagnosed and tissue damage on the side where the individuals used their phones and had unexplained problems for years.The correlation studies were pretty strong and a lot better than the ones involving the government who don’t want any liability for the illnesses they were allowing to happen.

    Hold up a light bulb close to your head for an hour and see what happens,add another one and you start feeling dizzy with painful eyes and add 3 and you won`t be doing that for long unless you purposely want to feel awful…sure not all will be effected just like smoking/drugs/etc…however many will and there’s no disputing that.

    • KV

      JAWG… you win for the most non-scientific collection of words ever put together in the english language…

      “I prefer to believe….” <>

      Lol…

  • Brian

    JAWG is full of feelings, almost none of which are rational.

  • JAWG

    @KV @ Brian:

    And this coming from the Mobile Syrup on-line Research Specialists…Ya…Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkay!

    Talk about rational and scientific…you really convinced me GIRLS!

    😉

  • tbr

    JAWG is it not sad that we try to inform but you can’t educate a child who listens to businessmen and not to unbiased scientists. They will pay the price in the future.

    What you children do not understand is that every time a scientist finds a link between cancer and cell phone radiation the industry changes to a higher frequency, this is how they get away with saying that there is no evidence. This is how they have not been sued successfully yet.

    You need to grow up first and learn how business manipulates the information to the masses.

    You will find out in about 10 years from now.

    • CADDMan

      Forget WiFi and cellular frequencies, we’ve had Television and Radio frequencies, as well as high voltage transmission lines, radiating THOUSANDS OF WATTS of RF into populated areas for the better part of a century. Where are the cancer cells? Where are the scientifically proven statistics conclusively linking RF radiation and cancer (or any medical condition for that matter) in people, or farm animals if the tower is located in a rural setting? There are none. What about handheld analog cellular phones, they were mainstream 20 years ago (obviously they aren’t used now, but the users of those devices are still around to check up on) and there are no conclusive studies linking cancer to analog phones that put out way more power than modern digital phones.

      I work in the wireless industry, so yes I’ll admit to some bias. But if there were a reputable comprehensive study that was put out linking wireless technology RF used in the real world to cancer then I’d want to know about it, but there hasn’t been (and don’t direct me to a study that pointed an antenna at a mouse, radiating a concentrated beam of RF for 2 straight weeks because that study is just plain stupid in the real world).

  • JAWG

    And you have proof with documented studies that prove 100% that cell phones are safe,maybe…the ones from manufacturers that profit from the industry or get a kick back.The studies against are a lot less bias and overwhelming so since you’re an authority I won’t bother listing them…people can decide for themselves.Just like cigarette smoking is healthy and doesn’t cause cancer.People need to make the choices themselves…rather than believe you I’ll believe the Swedish studies and neural-surgeons from MIT.

    *******************************************

    Swedish/MIT Studies:

    Until a few years ago, most of the studies on the dangers of cell phone electromagnetic emissions were concentrated on the possibility that the devices may heat the brain or directly cause cancer. And many of those studies were sponsored or financed either directly or indirectly by the telecommunications industry.

    Because such studies concluded that thermal (heating) effects were too minor to pose a serious health risk, or no direct link could be made to cancerous tumors, an impression was created that cell phones were safe.

    The telecommunication giants that manufacture and market cell phones, build cell phone towers, and sell air time and communication services, spent many millions of dollars on advertising, publishing statements and manipulating the media into repeating over and over that cell phones are safe and health concerns are foolish completely ignoring the fact that most of the studies performed had not looked at the real questions:

    What is the long term effect on the human body from cell phone radiation?

    What biological interference occurs from exposure to the non-thermal low intensity pulsed microwave radiation emitted by cell phones?

    Does the effect of electromagnetic radiation act as a trigger, setting off malfunctions in the body’s immune system, brain and nervous systems that in time result in serious health problems, including tumors, cancer, and early senility?

    Along the way, cell phone manufacturers succeeded not only in increasing cell phone use to the current estimate of 1.5 to 2 billion worldwide cell phone users, but they also succeeded in discouraging funding for research and influenced protection agencies and government funded institutes to ignore the dangers.

    Now the situation is changing, mostly due to cell phone users actually suffering the effects in ever-increasing numbers and their physicians reporting the effects. Courageous researchers and privately funded studies are recognizing the statistical increases in serious health disorders among cell phone users and reporting them.

    New scientific studies are now pinpointing the relevant questions, and the real dangers of frequent and long-term cell phone use are becoming evident all over the world in countries where cell phones are popular.

    Swedish Study Links Brain Damage to Cell Phone Radiation

    A study financed by the Swedish Council for Work Life Research and published by the US government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences breaks new ground by looking at how low levels of microwaves cause proteins to leak across the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

    Professor Leif G. Salford*, who headed the research at Sweden’s prestigious Lund University, says the voluntary exposure of the brain to microwaves from hand-held mobile phones are the largest human biological experiment ever. He is concerned that as new wireless technology spreads people may drown in a sea of microwaves.

    Prof. Salford and his team have spent 15 years investigating a different threat: in his search for improved therapies against brain tumors, he and his group utilized electromagnetic fields to open the Blood Brain Barrier for cytotoxins. This led to the observation that radio frequencies at very low SAR** values had the potency to facilitate the passage of a protein called albumin through the capillaries into the brain and to damage neurons in the brains of animals. Those previous studies proved radiation could open the blood-brain barrier. Their latest work goes a step further, by showing that the process is linked to serious brain damage.

    Prof. Salford said that although the long-term effects have not yet been proven, and that it was possible the neurons could repair themselves in time, neurons in the brain that would normally not become senile until people reached their 60s might now do so when they were in their 30s.

    So enjoy using your Android as much as you wish…better still use an analog phone on each each ear and sit near a tower.

    • CADDMan

      Wow, that was a long response that contained no definitive proof that cellular phones cause cancer. Only that some believe that it MIGHT.

      “And you have proof with documented studies that prove 100% that cell phones are safe” – again, you provided no explaination as to why there are no reported cancer cells around existing Television/Radio/High Voltage towers that have been in operation for the better part of a century. Surely people living there would have a long term history of exposure to RF radiation.

  • JAWG

    And where’s your proof that cell phones are safe and don’t cause cancer,yet the amount of massive studies over the years showing the direct opposite to that are actually more precise/overwhelming/better conducted and the correlation is hard to dispute…so like I said you have the choice to believe what you wish and let other people decide what they use.

    And you can’t even describe your opinion…”there are no cancer cells around existing TV/Radio/High Voltage towers that have been in operation for the better part of a century”…what the hell does this mean!?!Garbage!!!

    Did you do a study…did you show the results…have you proven this for any location.However,the studies as I said showing damage are extensive and if researched well you’ll see the correlation is great…and again there is absolutely no evidence cell phones are safe.So…use them all you want…wear yourself out!

    • CADDMan

      “And where’s your proof that cell phones are safe and don’t cause cancer” – proving a negative, real productive. The owness is on you and others who say it does cause cancer. I’ll just use the 2 billion people you quoted above as evidence right now. If only 1% got cancer from using phones, there would be evidence of 20 million cases of brain cancer that should be able to be proven were directly caused by cell phones. And don’t say we still need to wait another 10 years, cell phones have been used extensively for 15 years (before that it was a niche market) and there should be a sufficent number of cases to study, but there aren’t.

      “there are no cancer cells around existing TV/Radio/High Voltage towers that have been in operation for the better part of a century”…what the hell does this mean!?!

      What does that mean? It’s pretty obvious what that means, but since you’re unable to grasp the obvious I’ll explain. In populated areas (cells) where Television/Radio/High Voltage towers have existed for the last century (each of which put out thousands of watts of RF that you’re saying causes cancer) has there been an extraordinary high number, or any for that matter, of cancer cases in people and/or animals who live in those areas? Yes or No? Simple question. You don’t need to wait 10 years, you can look at existing data that’s available right now. And reputable scientists have looked and have found no evidence of RF causing cancer in those doses. And if anyone was to get cancer from exposure to medium or high energy RF it would be people who have lived near these structures for long periods of time.

      People like you prefer to scare the population by quoting studies performed on animals where CONCENTRATED medium and high levels of RF energy are directed into the brains of rats or other animals anywhere from 2hrs to 2 weeks straight and, what a surprise, some degredation is found. However, unless you’re standing directly in front of a medium or high energy directional microwave antenna for a long period of time, those studies have no basis in reality because cellular phones don’t put out CONCENTRATED medium or high energy RF energy levels directly into the brains of their users. The antenna puts out very low RF energy in all directions, not directly into the brain.

  • tbr

    Thanks for posting this Visitor244. It is a great compilation of the world studies on the subject. I had not heard of this site.

  • JAWG

    With that response I think your brain is fried already…too funny!

  • JAWG

    Your wording is ridiculous!

    A rebuttle to your nonsense that cell phones absolutely can’t cause cancer which is illogical/irrational…actually there’s more proof of the opposite.

    MIT response to people with your opinions:

    I’ve always been a big fan of Michael Shermer’s Skeptic column in Scientific American, but this month I have to say I’m disappointed. In his piece*, titled “Can You Hear Me Now? Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer,” Shermer argues that it is “virtually impossible” for cell phones to cause cancer because they “do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells.” While this latter statement may be true—the radiation that cell phones emit is not thought to be energetic enough to directly break DNA molecules—it is not fair (or scientific, for that matter) to use this as proof that cell phones do not cause cancer. The issue is far more complex than that.

    Biologists once assumed that mutations were responsible for most diseases; now we know that more subtle genetic (and epigenetic) variations play an even bigger role. Many scientists also once thought that “junk DNA” didn’t have a function, but now research is pouring in suggesting that, in fact, non-coding DNA is responsible for many aspects of gene regulation; some RNA molecules once dismissed as garbage might even run the entire show. Genetics isn’t simple, my friends—and neither is cancer, for that matter. Despite decades upon decades of research, scientists still don’t know all of the ways in which cancer can be sparked. So to announce to the world—in an authoritative magazine like Scientific American, no less—that something definitely does not cause cancer simply because it cannot break DNA seems like a really irresponsible thing to do.

    You’re probably wondering: how might cell phones cause cancer, then? Cancer develops when the cell cycle goes awry and cells start to multiply when they should not. Considering that thousands of genes are thought to be involved in the cell cycle—and an as yet unknown number of non-protein-coding sequences might regulate them—there are plenty of potential factors to consider. Cell cycle genes can be disrupted because of a mutation or a DNA break, sure, but problems could also arise when, say, something causes a tumor-suppressor gene like p53 (which protects against cancer) to be downregulated, perhaps from a post-translational modification or a change to chromatin structure. Or maybe something in the environment ramps up the expression of a growth-promoting gene, causing a cell to abnormally proliferate. Environmental influences could also disrupt the DNA repair machinery, as this would allow DNA breaks that arose as a result of some other process to go unfixed. If cell phones did any one of these things, they could easily increase cancer risk—but there are all possibilities that Shermer ignores when he concludes at the end of his column that “it is impossible for cell phones to hurt the brain.” For him, it seems, there is only one route to cancer—direct DNA breaks—but that’s simply not true.

    So is there any evidence that cell phones can do the things I just mentioned? Actually, yes. A handful of studies, including one published in 2005 in Environmental Health Perspectives and another published in Bioelectromagetics, report that cell phone radiation affects chromatin conformation, which directly impacts gene expression and could, therefore, affect the cell cycle. These studies also found that cells exposed to cell phone radiation produce less of a protein complex called 53BP1 believed to be involved in DNA repair. In addition, research published by University of Washington researchers in the 1990s found that cell phone radiation elicited DNA breaks in rat brain cells (something Shermer doesn’t address in his piece, though it directly contradicts his assertion); the authors speculated that the radiation was probably interrupting the DNA repair process. (As an aside: I interviewed one of these researchers, Henry Lai, for my 2008 article about cell phones in Canada’s The Walrus magazine; after he published this study, a scientific advisory group created by the organization that represents the wireless industry sent a letter to the president of the University of Washington demanding that he and his co-author both be fired. They were not.)

    So believe who you wish…however you have NO proof cell phones are safe…bottom line!

  • tbr

    h**p://www.rfcom.ca/epi/cell.shtml

    Hardell (2007) summarised the results from two cohort studies and 16 case-control studies of brain tumour risk amongst long-term users of cell phones. They concluded:

    “Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for ≥ 10 years give a consistent pattern of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure”.

    You people who disagree should do more extensive reading on that University of Ottawa site visitor posted. If your love of phones is so great that you are willing to take the chance of getting cancer so be it. The medical field calls this an addiction.

    This study is already about 8 years old now so I think within the next 5 years we should be seeing the results.

  • tbr

    After reading this study I came across some interesting information on the dect cordless phones. I will be getting rid of my cordless next.

    Thanks again Visitor244

  • JAWG

    @tbr:

    Interesting…I’ll check that out.

    My friend works for a Government Office and he told me all cordless phones are being removed from his department in fear of any future liabilities,the union supposedly supported this on safety issues and made it clear that cell phone use is your own responsibility…kind of ironic that some government agencies don’t even believe studies basically originating from them and prefer going with independent studies.

  • tbr

    Where is caddman and the other non believers who don’t know how to read now. No witty “my light bulb puts out more energy” what a tool this guy is and he claims to work in the industry, maybe he cleans the floors. Even when visitor244 gave the link to the University of Ottawa caddman ignored or can’t understand what is written.

    What I learned was that the wireless industry gets away from being sued by changing the frequency of the phones. This is how it works. Every time a study comes out showing a link between cancer and cell phone use the industry changes the frequency of the phones. Thus if a lawyer goes to court his evidence is discarded because the medical study was done on let’s say 900 Mhz but the phones now are at a higher frequency so the evidence is moot. Now we have to wait ten more years for a new study to test exposure on 1900 Mhz by that time they have changed to a higher frequency so any medical evidence is again discarded. It’s a vicious circle that will not change unless you get a medical researcher to say all microwaves can cause cancer.

    Bottom line JAWG, they have been warned and it’s time to grow up to the realities that most business just care about money.

  • tbr

    One more point this entire CWTA thing is absolutely meaningless to me.

    Unless I know what the study is, who paid for the study, who performed the study, who is on the committee, their profession and have they ever received money from the wireless industry it is absolutely meaningless garbage to be discarded.