Researchers Find "Stunning" Evidence of Cell Phone Dangers

By Peter Ferenczi | Tue May 24, 2011 2:45 pm

Researchers have reported evidence that cell phone radiation has a variety of alarming biological effects, which are sure to fuel concerns about whether or not phones impact human health.

Top News

ITTO: EBay Sells Royal Antlers, Rocker Junk, And More

Luxury Earbuds Hit the Market

Microsoft Appeals EU Antitrust Fine

Apple's Geniuses Take Part in Planking

Major Banks Join in Mobile Payment Venture

More News >

Scientists reportedly found that GSM signals fragmented insect DNA in ovarian cells, that a brief "mild electromagnetic field" affects bone formation in fetuses, and that cell phone-frequency radiation increased the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in young adult male rats.
These findings were reported in a press release issued by the Environmental Health Trust, which notes that the rat brains can be "used to correspond to the brains of human teenagers."
"This work provides a warning signal to all of us," said Professor Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna. "The evidence justifies precautionary measures to reduce the risks for everyone of us."
Although teenagers do share more than a few qualities with young male rats, rodents remain imperfect models of humans. The other research findings, while potentially interesting, appear to be in-vitro studies of isolated cells. Proving biological effects of radiation on cells is useful in determining the ways radiation might impact humans in the real world, but it does not directly prove much beyond the experimental criteria.
It's unclear whether the research has been published in peer-reviewed journals: if it has not, additional salt must be added to interpreting the findings.
Substantial research into potential health effects of cell phone use on humans has been conducted, and there is no conclusive proof of danger. Some studies have found possible links between phone use and cancer, but the findings are weakened by limitations that make results difficult to interpret. Many studies have found no effects at all. Some, highlighting the difficulties of studying statistically rare events, have even found that phones reduce cancer risk.
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a link between cell phone use and increased glucose metabolism in the brain, which, like other studies finding biological effects, may or may not imply a health effect.
The bottom line is that nobody knows if cells phones are bad for us, but there is always the possibility that they are. Though brain cancer rates are not increasing, it's also true that cancer can take a long time to manifest, and that people are using phones much more intensively now than a decade ago.
The "precautionary principle" suggest that even if chances of negative health effects are low, it makes sense to offset them by avoiding unnecessary exposure to risk. To that end, it can't hurt to use phones with headsets or speakerphone mode whenever convenient.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/91401.html

Reminder !!

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull364/36405843745.pdf


Important follow up to my previous postings about this issue.



Biological effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: A fuller picture

The two latest reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge

effects of low level radiation does not exist and will probably not be obtainable for a long time. Obtaining unequivocal evidence would require ...

Also, from the report:

Radiation Doses

The term radiation means energy propagating in the form of electromagnetic

waves or photons, or in the form of subatomic particles. Ionizing

radiation is radiation of sufficiently high energy to cause — in the medium

through which it passes — the production of pairs of ions, i.e. of atoms or

groups of atoms that have either lost or gained one or more electrons to

become positively or negatively charged, and the corresponding complementary

electrons. For biological effects, the medium in which ion pairs are

produced is biological material, more specifically cellular material.

The term radiation (absorbed) dose generally means the amount of

energy which is absorbed from ionizing radiation by a unit mass of material.

This quantity is expressed in unit energy per unit mass, that is in joules per

kilogram, which takes the special name gray (Gy); [1 Gy = 1000 milligray

(mGy)]. For radiation protection purposes, the absorbed dose is weighted to

take account of the effectiveness of different radiation types and the radiosensitivity

of various organs and tissues. The resulting quantity is termed

effective dose, and its unit sievert (Sv) [ISv = 1000 millisievert (mSv)]; for

photons in the intermediate energy range, 1 mGy is approximately equal to

1 mSv.

The term low radiation dose is used to mean a radiation dose lower than

designated levels; sometimes it is also informally used to mean a low dose

rate, i.e. low dose per unit time. In specialized radiobiological forums, low

radiation dose (and dose rate) refers to exposures for which it is very unlikely

that more than one event of energy absorption from radiation will occur in

the critical parts of a cell (and damage it) within the time during which repair

mechanisms in the cell can operate. Thus, UNSCEAR concluded that low

radiation dose refers to a total dose of less than 200 mSv and dose rates below

, 0.1 mSv per minute (which in fact is a very high dose rate of around 5000

mSv per annum).

For the non-specialized public, low radiation doses are deemed to

correspond to levels similar to those from, for instance, natural background

exposure or some very common radiation exposures such as those arising

during air travel. Natural background exposure varies widely around the

world. Some "normal" [and "elevated"] values of annual dose rates are as

follows: for cosmic rays, 0.38 mSv [2.0 mSv]; for terrestrial radiation 0.43

mSv [4.3 mSv]; and for exposure to radon, 1.2 mSv [10 mSv]; leading to an

average total of around 2.4 mSv per annum. The average annual dose for

very frequent flyers (such as aircrew) is around 2.5 mSv. These dose rate

levels of a few mSv per annum are expected to deliver, during a lifetime,

doses of above around 100 mSv, which are of the order 

of magnitude of the low radiation doses designated by UNSCEAR."

Mobile Phones: Tomorrow Will Be Too Late

http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Pratical_Health_France_Dr_Paul_Dupont_Mobile_phones_15042008_Add_WHO_Repacholi.pdf

In spite of the dithering by the Ministry of Health and the delaying tactics of the phone operating companies, it is now becoming clear that the mobile phone is a virulent pathogen with damaging effects that we are only vaguely aware of. Recently it was scientifically proved that there is a connection between certain types of tumour and the intensive use of a mobile phone. Most in evidence are cases of acoustic neurinoma, a tumour that develops on the acoustic nerve, as well as malignant brain tumours. According to this study the risk is multiplied by two or more on the side where the phone is held. Are the health authorities worried about these results? Not in the least since, according to the official experts, the risk concerns only "intensive" phone users, and, as they add with a certain touch of cynicism, nothing proves that using a mobile phone always causes a tumour to develop. They are right, but when we know that a tumour usually takes 15-20 years to develop, it would seem logical to conclude that the appearance of tumours after 4-5 years in these intensive phone users is a sure sign of a health catastrophe to come in 10 years' time. 10 years! For those who have children, it's nothing, but for the people that sell telephones it must seem a long way off. The worst thing in this situation is that it is the younger generation that is the most in danger. It is children and teenagers who use mobile phones the most. And it is at precisely this age that the brain is the most exposed: in a child's brain almost two thirds of it are affected by the radiation while in the adult it reaches only one third of the brain, which is already far too much! Even more worrying, the radiation increases in intensity as reception becomes more difficult. So when you use the phone in a train or a car, or when you are in a zone with weaker coverage and the phone has to keep searching for new signals, the intensity of the microwaves is considerably higher. And with every day that passes we find more electromagnetic radiation in our daily surroundings: TV screens and computer monitors, cordless phones and wi-fi systems. All of which is horrifying. All this radiation is non-ionising, that's to say it is capable of upsetting the function of our cells, particularly in our DNA, and the functioning of our glands. Among these it is the pineal, the source of the sleep hormone and of the resistance to cancer, that is the most easily disturbed. We could weep over this tragedy that awaits us, which everyone sees coming and which nobody is doing anything about. But wait - there are millions of mobile phones in use nowadays. . And one day, for lack of the will to face up to this problem, we will inevitably be faced with a terrible choice: your mobile or your life! At that point we will have to give up this magic tool, resign ourselves to taking a step backwards, draw a line through all that it has brought us - will we dare? . It's at that moment that we'll see if humanity still has a will to live or not.
- Dr Paul Dupont

See also:

EMF-Omega-News 14. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5515485/
EMF-Omega-News 21. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5531617/

Video: IT'S EASIER TO RUN

Ida says: Until recently, I ignorantly thought the only nuclear weapons were atomic bombs. I didn't know that weapons, like the bunker buster,were made with depleted uranium. Our sons and daughters are being exposed, as well as the citizens of Iraq. No wonder that people of the world hate Americans. Google depleted uranium and you'll be shocked.

A ten minute history of DU weapons