A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 20th 07, 03:12 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 709
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely'

http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/index.php

Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . .
'Absolutely'
What is the issue? There is at the very least a hint that using a mobile
phone frequently over ten years causes head tumours. The latency for these
is between 10 and 20 years. We had better find out, because most people use
mobiles, started using them frequently at around the same time (within about
5 to 10 years), and so if there is a problem it could be a very big one and
emerge suddenly.
In January 2007 two new studies were set out for the 3rd round of the Mobile
Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme:
Essex University Department of Psychology announces £263,000 provocation
study for TETRA
Lawrie Challis negotiates £3 million five-year study in to long-term mobile
phone users
In context, yet another study published Jan 2007 points to increased
intracranial tumours after 10 years use, on the side mobiles are used. And
this study once again defined 'regular use' as once a week for six months:
Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries, Lahkola
et al., International Journal of Cancer, Jan 2007
commentary, under January 22, 2007
Brief commentary on the latest Interphone Study (Lahkola et al., 2007)
Is there a 10 year latency for mobile phone-induced tumours?
Every announcement of results from EMF studies closes with the phrase 'but
more research is needed'. Here is more research. No-one would dare to be
conclusive. But similarly it is difficult to imagine what amount of research
would be enough to stimulate an adequate response.
This has two simultaneous effects. First, it buys time for an industry that
already knows there is a problem, by perpetuating uncertainty (as with
tobacco, asbestos, dioxins, GM, CO2 and climate change). Second, it delays
action for those most at risk, or already in trouble. Five years for an
industry to mitigate damage to business is five years during which children
are using mobile phones, and people are increasingly dependent on them,
without any strong advice on protecting themselves from what is still
described as a very minimal risk.
Professor Lawrie Challis, interviewed in The Times is surprisingly cautious,
and advises:
no mobiles at all for children under 12
use of hands-free with ferrite RF traps
children to text, not speak
no wireless laptops on laps
keep mobiles away from the body.
These are not unlike the Russian guidelines already, advice by Austrian
doctors, and indeed are familiar to the IEGMP 'Stewart Report'.
In the light of analyses such a the Danish Interphone study, and the King's
College Psychosomatic Medicine work for MTHR, it is increasingly difficult
to dare to come out with anything to the contrary; explaining the results
has considerable impact on the global economy. Who wants to act first? It is
the same argument as that of economic damage in responding to climate
change. We need a 'Stern Report' on the global economic impact of health and
mobile phones in 10 to 20 years time.
Thought experiment
A definitive piece of research unequivocally shows that EM fields at
surprisingly low levels can cause neurological and immunological disorders,
even cancer. Further, the study is itself a true replication, verifying an
earlier study. It is decided, for once, that 'further research' is not
required for action to be taken, even if the biological mechanism is not
fully understood.
This is announced on national media. What happens next?
industry denial or industry acceptance?
government denial or acceptance?
people stop using mobiles?
employers reduce, phase out or withdraw mobiles, DECT phones and wireless
communications?
stringent guidelines on use of digital microwave communications equipment?
unions take a hard line on behalf of 'required users' such as all emergency
services, salespeople, site contractors etc.?
class actions by people with brain tumours because the research findings
have been known for a long time?
insurance companies raise premiums for users, and pull indeminity from
manufacturers, and even operators of, and landlords for, the transmitters?
pension funders warn of massive losses from both plummetting sector shares,
and wider impact to share values of lost productivity and reinvestment?
developing countries take no immediate notice (compare the transfer of
tobacco markets), introducing a short-term economic and competitive
disadvantage to the UK?
You decide. A lot is at stake. Is it just a matter of being careful with a
mobile phone? Or is it comparable to facing climate change by swapping our
lightbulbs?
More on the MTHR programme
Professor Lawrie Challis chairs the MTHR (Mobile Telecommunciation and
Health Research) programme in the UK. It is co-funded by government and the
telecomms industry. Set up in 2003 in the light of the IEGMP findings,
funding was quickly swallowed up, including programmes on communicating risk
so that people do not get concerned. Here is not the place to criticise that
programme, but some critical provocation studies (subjects in double blind
trials of various states of EM exposure), such as that by King's College
(mobile phones) and Essex University (mast signals) have been commented upon
heavily with regards to methodology and assumptions. The most significant
feature of these studies has to be the quality and meaning of a 'sham'
signal situation where certain thresholds of sensitivity are assumed.
Unfortunately, the MTHR programme has been unable to maintain its own
website, and whilst some research has been completed and published, much
remains inaccesible to many, in academic journals.
MTHR website
summary of MTHR programme 1 (8 pages, PDF)
problems with provocation studies (8 page PDF)
MTHR provocation study at King's college raises questions
News coverage on the new MTHR mobile phone study
Mobile risks 'need further study' (BBC)
Five-year cancer study on mobiles (Daily Mail)
Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely' (The
Times)

top of page
In the news about: electromagnetic fields
Powerline evidence finally elicits a precautionary response from WHO.
European public opinion reveals widespread concerns over mobile phones,
masts and health.
Is WiFi (wireless networking) in schools a healthy option?
In 2000 T-Mobil commissioned ECOLOG to investigate mobile telephony and
health. What happened to the report? We translated it; you can - you
should - read it.
Honey bees: they pollinate our food crops. After a 20 year decline, it isn't
just mites, but there are pointers to EM Fields. In some places it is
reaching crisis point
Deputy Head of the Department of Health and Environment of the German
Medical Association says radioactive and non-ionising radiation cause damage
that is difficult to differentiate.
Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? And the cost of
always 'more research is needed'.
A curious case of dead birds raining down, at the same time, on opposite
sides of the world.
Is public domain WiMax a good idea? German doctors say 'No!'
Across the world: masts, money and medics. From Beer Sheva to Sutton
Coldfield, the story is nearly the same. What does your doctor recognise?
Danish mobile phone and cancer 'all-clear' study challenged by international
scientists and medics.
Electrosensitivity EMF questionnaire, compiled by Prof. Em. Prof. Dr Med.
Karl Hecht
A light alternative to microwaves in buildings?
Are mobile phones costing the Earth?
Where is universal digital connectivity taking us?
Proof that EHS is in the mind? Or that interpretation reflects your academic
specialism?
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks seeks
opinions; will yours count?
What is the true current picture of risks to the brain from mobile phones?

Home
EM fields
Climate
Social
Economic
Contact
hese news
Issues

© 2007 The h.e.s.e. Project : Human Ecological Social Economic About this
site
cross-cutting topical issues

latest news and updates

Contact h.e.s.e.-UK

Economics and corporate dominance:
Discusion and links on the influence of corporate interest in science and
its impact on determining the living environment.

Social change:
Discussion and links on the social impact of technological change

Climate change:
Discussion and links on human activity and climate change

Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation and fields:
The current major focus of h.e.s.e.-UK. Non-ionising electromagnetic
radiation as a pollutant in the environment.

Home page

cross-cutting topical issues

latest news and updates

Contact h.e.s.e.-UK

Economics and corporate dominance:
Discusion and links on the influence of corporate interest in science and
its impact on determining the living environment.

Social change:
Discussion and links on the social impact of technological change

Climate change:
Discussion and links on human activity and climate change

Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation and fields:
The current major focus of h.e.s.e.-UK. Non-ionising electromagnetic
radiation as a pollutant in the environment.

Home page


  #2  
Old July 20th 07, 04:30 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? .. . 'Absolutely'

JOHN wrote:
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/index.php

Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . .


Nope. There is very little evidence that cell phones (mobiles) cause
brain cancer. A hint doesn't count.

Jeff

garbage deleted
  #3  
Old July 20th 07, 05:00 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 709
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely'


"Jeff" wrote in message
news:xy4oi.9$9A6.3@trnddc01...
JOHN wrote:
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/index.php

Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . .


Nope. There is very little evidence that cell phones (mobiles) cause brain
cancer. A hint doesn't count.

Jeff


it was (alleged) docs like you who promoted smoking, and some still promote
sugar for fees


  #4  
Old July 20th 07, 05:48 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 709
Default Mobile Phone Masts we know they are not safe

http://wirelessfacts.co.uk/

we know they are not safe
Mobile Phone Masts
"Are Safe"
Says UK Government
This government despite the recommendations of its own Sir William Stewart
of The Health Protection agency continues to fly in the face of worldwide
scientific evidence and claim there is no evidence that mobile phone masts
are dangerous, siting ICNIRP guidelines as proof of safety read more on SAR
Guidelines

So then the question that begs is why are they lying to us then? Well
nobody's sure but here are some theories. Why don't you see which of these
most fits your perception of this government.

They've done all the relevant research got everything right and there's
nothing to worry about.
They are listening to the mobile phone operators and or official bodies
funded by the Mobile phone industry choosing to believe what they say
because it's the easy option
Financial implications of admitting there was a danger could be political
suicide curtailing the payments still outstanding for 3g licenses (£24
billion)not to mention £15 billion pounds per year in taxes and the
detrimental effect on the economy as a growing number of the workforce
refuse to use their mobile phones.
Collapse of police communications network.
Admitting wireless communications are dangerous would have schools closing
as worried parents connected many modern pediatric conditions with
increasing numbers of wireless computer networks (See Kids and wireless in
Schools).
Actually alerting the public to even the slightest possibility that mobile
phone networks are dangerous could lead them to research sites like this and
find out the truth, this pollution is going to make smoking, drinking,
drugs, BSE,foot and mouth, gun crime even if the relative damage was rolled
into one look like a tea party (See Historical Baddies)
In short the powers that be are burying their collective heads in the sand
whilst the trickle that will become river of people dying and being buried
as a result of political cowardice and lethargy and corporate greed carries
on a pace.






  #5  
Old July 20th 07, 05:59 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 709
Default Mobile Phone Masts we know they are not safe

When Carlo presented his findings to the US government, they included his
estimations of 500,000 US citizens a year by 2010 contracting cancer and 25%
of the population by 2014 as a direct result of mobile phone abuse.
Wirelessfacts.co.uk believe this is a gross underestimation (see...
dectphones and wireless networks). Carlo and his family were threatened
physically, his finances were threatened, one of his homes was burned down
and the fire brigade suspected arson. One of the things Carlo was supposed
to ratify was SAR (specific absorption rates) based on thermal effects as a
method or guideline for handset safety. This, like the ICNIRP guidelines
for mobile phone mast safety, as Carlo discovered, was completely the wrong
issue to look at. http://wirelessfacts.co.uk/index.html


  #6  
Old July 20th 07, 06:10 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 709
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely'


"Jeff"

a paid liar. Funny how they always promote/defend all of the Elite
poisons--- aspartame, cell phones, vaccines, mercury amalgam,

corporate shill


  #7  
Old July 20th 07, 06:30 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . . 'Absolutely'

In article , JOHN wrote:

"Jeff"

a paid liar. Funny how they always promote/defend all of the Elite
poisons--- aspartame, cell phones, vaccines, mercury amalgam,

corporate shill


I think John is a shill for the pharmaceutical companies -- they pay
him to make alties look like cretins.

Mentioning "mercury amalgams" is typical of this. Hey, John-boy: an
amalgam is a mixture of mercury with something else. A "mercury
amalgam" would be a mixture of mercury with mercury, which wouldn't
work as a tooth filling. If you can't even get this right, why would
anyone take you seriously on any other subject?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher






  #8  
Old July 20th 07, 07:05 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? .. . 'Absolutely'

JOHN wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
news:xy4oi.9$9A6.3@trnddc01...
JOHN wrote:
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/index.php

Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? . . .

Nope. There is very little evidence that cell phones (mobiles) cause brain
cancer. A hint doesn't count.

Jeff


it was (alleged) docs like you who promoted smoking, and some still promote
sugar for fees


I have never promoted smoking and have long advocated against smoking.

I don't promote sugar, either.

If you are going to accuse me of something, get your facts straight, if
you can.

Jeff
  #9  
Old July 20th 07, 07:06 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default Mobile Phone Masts we know they are not safe

For your information, cell phone antennas on masts radiate outward. So
the people who will get the least exposure to them are directly
underneath them.

Jeff
  #10  
Old July 20th 07, 07:08 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default Mobiles: Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century? .. . 'Absolutely'

JOHN wrote:
"Jeff"

a paid liar.


My views expressed here are my views. I get no funding from any
organization to express the views I do.


Funny how they always promote/defend all of the Elite
poisons--- aspartame, cell phones, vaccines, mercury amalgam,


I have never defended mercury amalgam. I have not read about it nor do I
know one what or the other if it is dangerous.

Aspartame, cell phone and vaccines are all safe. In fact, except for
sanitation, clean water and healthy food, vaccine has done more to save
lives than any other medicine.

corporate shill


I do not work for any corporation.

Jeff
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Early 21st century realities confront late 20th century idealism. Opinions Spanking 1 December 2nd 05 07:19 PM
Epidemic of the 21st Century-Overweight, Sick Kids! KDS Productions Kids Health 0 November 17th 05 10:29 PM
Being a 21st Century Pro-Spanker Chris Spanking 21 May 5th 05 11:40 PM
grandparenting in the 21st century Nevermind General 9 September 11th 04 12:09 PM
21st Century Time Management Strategies YourPreciousTime Solutions 0 August 29th 03 02:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.