Cellphones Cause Brain Tumors, Says New Report By International EMF Collaborative

Cellphones Cause Brain Tumors, Says New Report By International EMF Collaborative

Main Category: Cancer / Oncology
Also Included In: Neurology / Neuroscience; Radiology / Nuclear Medicine
Article Date: 26 Aug 2009 - 6:00 PDT


A new report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone," was released today by a collaborative of international EMF activists. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagenticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation. Download the report.

The exposé discusses research on cellphones and brain tumors and concludes:

- There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use;
- Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and;
- Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

This report, sent to government leaders and media today, details eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study. The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a 'systemic-skew', greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.

The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as 'unexposed'; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.

-snip

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161960.php

AND MY KIDS THOUGHT I WAS A MEAN MOM, DESPITE PAST EUROPEAN STUDIES SHOWING THE SAME.

Bluetooth works at 2.4 GHz, same as microwave ovens - it's the frequency that's best absorbed by living tissue (and turned to heat).

That being said, I'm not at all convinced that typical RF causes cancer - although I stopped using my Bluetooth headphones just in case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

As you noted, 2.4ghz is perfectly safe at low power. The only danger at high power is the heat generation by molecules playing bouncy. :)

Depending on the situation. I'm eying a new wired set for an "upgrade."

Will likely dump the bluetooth all together at that point.

Look, regardless of the frequency, a bluetooth works at 2.5 mW. It has a range of 30 feet, give or take. Your cell phone headset has a range of 3 miles, give or take. The old school analog cell phones have a range of 30 miles, give or take.
Now, which do you want next to your ear hole?

:hi:

:loveya:

:tinfoilhat:

We the undersigned believe it is essential that governments and the media understand the
independent science regarding cellphone use and brain tumors, as well as the design flaws of
the 13 country Interphone study. The widespread nature of wireless telecommunication
systems requires that society understand any potential risks, and that this understanding be as
current as possible with the latest evidence-based science. We endorse both the message and
urgency of this report.

Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):

USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics,
Columbia University
USA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment,
University at Albany
USA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute
USA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy Consultant
USA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of
Washington
USA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs
USA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American
Academy of Environmental Medicine
USA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New
York Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; Emeritus
Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society
USA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES Research
USA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington
USA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, American
Academy of Environmental Medicine
Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of
Neurosurgery, Australian Capital Territory
Australia Don Maisch, PhD (Cand.), Researcher, EMF Facts Consultancy
Australia Dr Charles Teo, MBBS, FRACS, Neurosurgeon, Director of The Centre for
Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, New South Wales.
Austria Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, State Government Salzburg and
Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association, Vienna
Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern
Brazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul- UFRGS
Canada Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental
Medicine; CEO, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic
Canada Joe Foster, 29 year member of the International Association of Fire Fighters
Finland Mikko Ahonen, MSc, Researcher, University of Tampere
Finland Osmo Hänninen, PhD, Professor in Physiology (Emer.), University of Kuopio
France Daniel Oberhausen, Physicist, Association PRIARTÉM
Germany Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Dr.med., Executive Director and Member of the Board of the
VerUm Foundation, Foundation for Behaviour and Environment; Germany
Germany Christine Aschermann, Dr. med., Psychiatry, Psychotherapy. Originator of
Doctors’ Appeal (2002 Freiburg Appeal)
Germany Horst Eger, Dr med., Bavarian Ärztekammer Medical Quality No. 65143:
"Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt"
Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med, General Practitioner; Initiator of the
Bamberg Appeal (2005)
Germany Ulrich Warnke, Dr. rer. nat., Academic High Councilor, Biosciences, University of
Saarland
Greece Adamantia Fragopoulou, MSc, Medical Biology, PhD (cand.), Electromagnetic
Biology Research Group, Athens University
Greece Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept. of
Cell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology, University of Athens
Greece Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society
Ireland Con Colbert, Association Secretary, Irish Doctors Environmental Association
Ireland Senator Mark Daly, National Parliament, Republic of Ireland
Russia Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-
Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of WHO International Advisory
Committee on "EMF and Health"
Spain Alfonso Balmori, PhD, Biologist, Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on
wildlife
Sweden Örjan Hallberg, MSEE, Hallberg Independent Research
UK Mike Bell, Lawyer, Trustee, Radiation Research Trust (RRT)
UK Ian Dring, PhD, Independent Consultant Scientist
UK Gill Evans, M.Phil, Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid Cymru
Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern
UK Ian Gibson, PhD, biologist and geneticist, cancer researcher, ex-senior M.P. and
Chair of Science and Technology Select Committee UK Parliament
UK Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Imperial College London, Lecturer in Biology (rtd)
UK Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, FRSA, Founder and Director Institute of Science in Society
UK Caroline Lucas, PhD, Member European Parliament, UK Green Party Leader,
Trustee of the Radiation Research Trust
UK Philip Parkin, General Secretary, Voice, union for education professionals
UK Chris Woollams, M.A. Biochemistry (Oxon), Editor, Integrated Cancer and
Oncology News (icon magazine), CEO CANCERactive

American Academny of Environmental Medicine?

Institute of Science in Society?

The Bioelectromagnetics Society?

It's a who's who list of cranks and quacks.

and they ARE a who's who of quacks.

Doug D.

trust science not scientists.

Just not these quacks.

by those conducting these industry-sponsored studies which showed no increase (or even decreased) brain cancer associated with cell phone use. I know several authors. These are NOT junk science types. I admire (and share) some of your denial factor, as cell phones are so ubiquitous now, it is hard to know how to avoid their use.

Their conclusions are that the current studies showing no harm are too flawed on which to develop policy-- and that the risk may well be substantial but remains to be better documented

RF used in mobile phones is what is called non-ionizing radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

Phones are very low power devices. You'd need lots of watts to raise temperatures of organic material. Your microwave oven puts out typically 900-1200 watts.

This isn't it. It reads like a term paper done by a high school student.

in terms of studies and which underscores the inappropriate assumptions and methods used in these industry studies. It is not meant to be a counter study, but rather a scientific critique that demands more rigorous studies be done (and caution in the meantime).

For example, in "Flaw 8" where the authors discuss the exclusion of some categories of brain tumors as way of underestimating risk, they state "another Telecom-funded study reported a 2.1-fold risk of a neuroepithelial brain tumor" but don't discuss what that means -- was it an increase of high grade or low grade tumors? Which types of neuroepithelial brain tumor were excluded? Are the types excluded of a higher grade than the ones included? And what does a 2.1-fold risk mean in terms of incidence numbers? And finally, they also make no mention of whether the subject Interphone study's methodological report discusses the reason for this limitation, or whether they reported the results with proper footnoting on this limitation.

I'm not arguing that their list of flaws is in itself flawed, just that this report seems rather amateurish and incomplete. There are easy, concise ways to explain how studies are flawed, as I noted above.

:applause:

thanks for posting that. :pals:

This report was an excellent opportunity to take down the Interphone study piece by piece with a scientific discussion of its limitations. It doesn't do that. It throws together soundbites with links to other studies and has far too little discussion of the specifics on why the cited flaws are relevant, nor how the Interphone study describes or defends its own limitations.

in the largest industries are all hirelings. The moment they cease to be, and rock the "profits" boat, they're out of a job, and sometimes otherwise persecuted for good measure.

"This report was an excellent opportunity to take down the Interphone study piece by piece with a scientific discussion of its limitations."

All communications are bound to have limitations, because the volume of words in them doesn't necessarily equate with the cogency of what they convey, but your presumption that the study in question has limitations seem gratuitous. Do you think they need the imput from the industry's scientists? Or do you think that scientific truth should be like "media truth": "fair and balanced" - irrespective of whether either side is right or wrong.

Most people are smart enough to look at the list of highly-accredited experts in the field, in agreement on the subject, to accept the "bottom line" they enunciate: cell-phones are bad medicine.

and I don't presume that the Interphone study has limitations. The authors of the report make that claim in their list of flaws and missed the opportunity to expound upon it. It wouldn't have been hard to add harder data in each of the bullet points.

Most people are smart enough to look beyond endorsements and look at the content. When the claim is that scientific studies aren't up to snuff for whatever reasons most people expect some proof that is a bit more rigorous than "trust us." Again, I'd love to see a report that dismantles studies showing no evidence of cell phone radiation danger but this one doesn't do that even though it appears to have the technical staffing to do so.

nothing to say, except that our report is flawed and limited"?

Whatever you are trying to say, it must be abundantly clear to most people that if the authors of the report stated that the limited scope of of their report was a flaw, they did not consider to be in the least significant. Let others investigate it further and discuss it(!), if it rings their chimes. Misinformation is a specialty of our pathological, Western, corporate culture; the "manufacture of consent".

Additional information is not guaranteed to be either relevant or useful, but is useful to cause the eyes of non-specialists to "glaze over". Because certain things can be done doesn't mean it's at all sensible to do them, or desired by anyone not obsessed with going over irrelevant minutiae.

Unfortunately for people with a personal stake in the industry, a significant number of people do understand the psychopathic nature of large corporations and their pathological hostility to any truth inimical to their own commercial interest.

In today's UK Daily Mail, under the misleading headline: "Now it IS safe for your children to use a mobile", we read the following:

Alasdair Philips, of the Powerwatch organisation opposed relaxing the safeguards, saying: 'A number of international studies have found a significant increase in brain tumours among people who have used a cellphone for more than ten years.
'It's incredible that the notion there is no good reason to restrict children's use of mobile phones could be the official Government line. This would be completely irresponsible and immoral.
'Parents are under pressure to buy mobiles for their children at younger and younger ages. By doing this they may well be giving them brain tumours in 30 years' time.
'The Government seems to be more interested in tax revenue from mobile phone calls - which is about £15billion per year now - than in the protection of public health.
'Children under 11 should not use a mobile, full stop. Older children should be encouraged to text only and hold their handset away from their body when they do so.'

In March, an international group of scientists reported that people who begin using mobile phones before the age of 20 are more than five times as likely to develop a malignant brain tumour.

Co-author of the report, Dr David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, said: 'What stands out is the consistency of the association of exposure and disease.
'I see us facing a major problem in the future because of the fact that young children are on cell phones constantly, and we may be setting ourselves up for an epidemic of brain cancer, the same thing we did with cigarette smoking and lung cancer.'
A new report, 'Cellphones and Brain Tumours' was published on both sides of the Atlantic earlier this week by scientists and campaigners.

Lead author Lloyd Morgan said: 'Exposure to cellphone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some four billion participants enrolled.
'Science has shown increased risk of brain tumours from use of cellphones, as well as increased.

Note that the statistical data cited is unequivocal and by implication, incontrovertible ... and you think the matter should be discussed. I hardly think they would have selected inapt variables for their studies.

Here is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210380/Now-IS-safe-child-use-mobile-After-years-warnings-official-leaflet-drops-safety-guidance.html

especially towards one of the kinder posters here.

Bigfoot exists, says Skeeter Higgins, seller of homemade bigfoot knick knacks and chainsaw sculptures.

Or "educational materials."

Somebody in another part of this thread, somebody listed the quacks on this "panel." You can got to the website of one of them (and I'm sure the others are similar) and buy "educational material" for the cheap cheap price of $400 per lesson. Looks like powerpoint presentations or something.

Selling woo woo to suckers is good money, apparently.

Scientists don't stop being scientists simply because you disagree with the conclusions they've made based upon the evidence available.

That approach quickly devolves into No True Scotsman.

I'm not going to look up all of them for you.

"Scientists don't stop being scientists simply because you disagree with the conclusions they've made based upon the evidence available."

They stopped being relevant when they started selling woo.

"That approach quickly devolves into No True Scotsman."

For somebody who goes on at length about logical fallacies, you're being awfully silly. This whole subthread is based on argument from authority. "Some of these kooks have PhDs, therefore they are legit and have 'evidence available'."

The entire subthread is based on your claim that these scientists are pushing junk science simply because it fills their coffers.

So if you can't support that claim, it's just another smelly opinion.

The only argument from authority I can see in this subthread is you claiming you're an expert in somehow magically sniffing out the motives of scientists whose research doesn't precisely align with your narrow world-view.

"So if you can't support that claim, it's just another smelly opinion."

What do you mean I can't support the claim?

http://www.aaemonline.org/online_ed.html

"The only argument from authority I can see in this subthread is you claiming you're an expert in somehow magically sniffing out the motives of scientists whose research doesn't precisely align with your narrow world-view."

Ignis, just because I've won this argument (and the concurrent one in the other thread) it doesn't mean I claim expertise. I have not claimed expertise. More importantly, I have not argued that my experise was evidence for my argument.

I suggest you look up logical fallacies before you continue to mistrue their meanings.

You're all over the place in this subthread, but as best i can tell, you're attempting to make the argument that the scientists who published this study are only doing so because they are attempting to sell something.

If that is indeed your argument, you've not proven it.

If you are using a wireless LAN.

Also, Bluetooth devices, which in the case of those headsets are close to your brain.

Inverse Square Law. Distance is the key. I happen to have a BS in radiation physics (early 80s). I prefer to side of medical research over corporate paid studies.

The conductivity of the medium (eg, the air, your flesh, etc.) causes an additional drop. Air is not so conductive, but your scalp and skull are.

If your skin was conductive, e.g. plated with tin, it would shield your brain from the cellphone.

It causes a drop in field intensity. Hence Faraday cages.

Which isn't too far away.

Although it is probably transmitting at around 200 mw, instead of a handheld cell phone's 750 mw, it is on for a lot more time than the cellphone's transmitter.

I wouldn't use a cell-phone if you paid me a banker's ransom. Once I used one for a few seconds.

As Rachel Maddow said "It's an INDUSTRY"

This nation to go to avoid overhead exposure from the antennae (Cell phone tower and its equipment).

I moved to a place that didn't have any exposure, but the other people on my street complained so very quickly an antennae was installed.

And those things are worse than actual cell phone useage - because if the antennae/tranmitter thing-ee is operating and hitting your house, it is probably doing so 24/7.

as if it were real science.

Sid

Although I enjoy the fact that you misunderstood me.

yet their lack of wisdom - not to speak of common sense - is pitiable, isn't it? Pond life, indeed.

Oh, perhaps you misunderstood me...! I AM sorry if I offended you.

Everybody in this country is afforded a free education. It's their own fault they're a bunch of scientifically illiterate suckers.

The tumor was behind his right ear--right where we would have blamed it on his cell phone had he ever used a cell phone.

This study from a Swedish university found strong links between malignant brain tumours and the use of cordless phones.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/cordlessPhonesBrainTumours.php

Old-fashioned black dial phone.

It seems like everyone I see on the street has a hand glued to his/her ear. I used to think these people were talking to themselves. Now I know they're just indulging their latest addiction.

Maybe we can forward the invoices to AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and all their accountants and marketing consultants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kr2OBhh4c

Wow... that song is nearly 20 years old.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to serious discussion.

:P

:hi:

Q.E.D.

IMO It's little more than a statement of Opinion with nothing substantial quoted within.

Concidering that the first listed sponsor of this group still claims the 50-60hz link to Lieukemia. I can't put much faith in the statements or conclusions presented.

Yes, it will always be something. Maybe some brilliant study will come up with something that doesn't cause cancer.

study showed that heart benefits in a certain population were negligible, but instances of stomach bleeding were 75% higher in the aspirin group.

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC-n3_19rzg

part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxTwt0cKTUI&NR=1


I think there's more to it than just a heat issue. The industry has been covering this up since the first cancer-related lawsuit filed against them.

myths, nay, superstitions, to be dispelled.

didn't you read the study that aluminum foil is dangerous to your health!

That it was true that brain tumors were indeed coayused by the EMF emissions.

But the lead speaker would add: But we have no proof that the tumors would be cancerous, so don't worry about it" !!!!!

A friend of mine who lived in the area of Coit Tower had to have a brain tumor removed. SHe suffered a serious heart attack just minutes after the "successful" operation to remove the non-cancerous tumor.

She always wanted to give that guy a swift kick.

to the brains of young children.

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

ALAMY
Young people are at particular risk from exposure to radiation

By Geoffrey Lean

Sunday, 30 March 2008


Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.


The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

-snip



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS

SAY WHAT YOU LIKE, BUT AS A MOTHER OF AN 11 AND 13 YO, I FEEL IT IS MY DUTY TO PROTECT THEM. DO I TRUST THAT THE CORPORATIONS WHO ARE MAKING A HEFTY PROFIT ON THIS WILL ACT WITH THEIR BEST INTEREST IN MIND? NO I DON'T.

Indeed, you're teaching them to trust crazy strangers.

the study's claims?

Or do they have a transmitter too?

I'll bet the chances that you'll get a tumor from your cell phone are approximately 0.00004% if you were using them regularly.

Of course, since the risk of tumors without cell phones is 0.00002%, scientists can say "OMG, YOUR RISK OF A TUMOR DOUBLES IF YOU USE CELL PHONES!!!!11"

but percentages are only as good as the underlying numbers. Which aren't reported!

There are engineers who work near VERY LARGE EMFs for decades. I haven't heard any reports of them dropping dead of brain or any other cancer more then the general population.

There are people who live or work right beside antenna towers that emit Kilowatts of power and no high incidence of cancer there, either.

When people start dying in large numbers near POWERFUL emitters, I'll start paying attention.