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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Early 21st century realities confront late 20th century idealism. | Opinions | Spanking | 1 | December 2nd 05 06:19 PM |
Epidemic of the 21st Century-Overweight, Sick Kids! | KDS Productions | Kids Health | 0 | November 17th 05 09:29 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 |