Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Researchers Say New Studies Confirm Cell Phone Hazards

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 09:34 PM
Original message
Researchers Say New Studies Confirm Cell Phone Hazards
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/05/researchers-say-new-studies-confirm-cell-phone-hazards.html

Stunning proof" ignored in North America, scientists say

Now, a group of international researchers meeting in Istanbul, Turkey has released what they call “stunning proof” that confirms findings from the Council of Europe -- pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function and lower sperm count.

A meeting convened by Environmental Health Trust, with the Turkish cancer society, and Gazi University, revealed the new research that the scientists say shows damage to DNA, brain and sperm.

Nesrin Seyhan, an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) and NATO and head of the Biophysics Department and Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at Gazi University in Ankara, presented findings that he says confirm the warning that just four hours of exposure to cell phone radiation disrupts the ability of human brain cells to repair damaged genes.

“We are deeply concerned about what this could mean for public health,” Seyhan said.

Prof. Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna, who has led European research teams, said he found that the cell waves induce DNA breaks. Despite industry claims to the contrary, he says DNA breaks are real.


Refresh | +16 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do we have to be on a call to get exposed?
Or is accessing the net via 3G just as bad? Or does having the phone on and near you also qualify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think they are MOST concerned about
Radiation around the ear, and near genitals................from what little I know. Speakerphone is the way to go, plus maybe not putting phone in lap, etc. Towera are an issue too..........some feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Here is part of the situation -
We have so many cell phone antennae all around us, everywhere.
I moved to a very remote area of a very remote County in Northern California, and congratulated myself on finally being away from the microwave exposure.

Three weeks later, the cell phone company had antennae put up directly across from my house. Two households further down the road from me had wanted better cell phone coverage. And they got it.

The tinnitus is a 24/7 situation. Unfortunately one day my husband asked me what I meant by the continual screeching that I hear. I had him concentrate so that he could understand what I hear. Now he hears it 24/7 too.

One side effect - disturbed sleep patterns. Notice how every other person in the USA needs sleep meds? And even using the meds in order to sleep, you still never feel rested.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Don't call me.... I'll call you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. thanks for posting
kick n rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Opportunity is knocking
lead jock straps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. Children have ionized tissue?
At higher frequencies, children absorb more energy from external radio frequency radiation than adults, because their tissue normally contains a larger number of ions and so has a higher conductivity.


How does that work? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely asking because I've never heard this claim before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I know that ions are transported in and out of cells
all the time.........maybe that is what they mean. I didn't know children had more of them. Children generally heal from injuries more quickly than adults. It may be because their sodium ion transport system is more active than adults.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100928171428.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Even if so though
That wouldn't be enough to increase electrical conductance (decrease resistance actually) appreciably, at least not across the whole organism. The basic principle though that in ionic liquids the concentration of the electrolyte determines resistance is sound.

Saying that tissue in children has a large number of ions is really butchering that idea. I'm thinking this may just be this one author's unfortunate phrasing. It just struck me as really bizarre to word it that way and wondered if this was a new myth in the making.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. I want a Faraday cage for my house (one day).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. The industry is going to ignore and shred this data nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. They (and their families) use mobile phones too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. I wonder what the brain cancer rates will be decades from now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
15. Lots of claims, not much documentation. So you know what that means.
TIME TO PANIC!!! AIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Interesting how they interview someone about a study they didn't do.
Mosgeller has done research in the area, but the http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20145945">study he did has in the conclusion, "Our observations do not directly imply a health risk. However, vis-a-vis a synopsis of reports on cells stress and DNA breaks, after short and longer exposure, on active and inactive cells, our findings may contribute to the re-evaluation of previous reports."

The study the article is talking about is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21460416">this one and not surprisingly, doesn't say what the article says.
In the recent study, we aimed to investigate whether 900 MHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency (RF) fields induce oxidative damage on lung, heart and liver tissues.

...

Results of our study showed that pulse-modulated RF radiation causes oxidative injury in liver, lung, testis and heart tissues mediated by lipid peroxidation, increased level of NOx and suppression of antioxidant defense mechanism.

I must have missed the part where they said that "pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function and lower sperm count."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC