Couple on “Crusade” for cell phone labeling laws
July 30th, 2010
|
| Share |
If we only had such fervor for actual science and debunking unfounded claims:
Click here for story text or if your browser does not support the embedded video.
So the guy had brain cancer. That’s too bad, really it is, and I don’t mean to say that sarcastically. Luckily he lived through it, no doubt thanks to modern medicine and cancer treatment. The fact that he survived cancer makes him a sympathetic character, but it doesn’t actually make him an expert on anything.
So why is this couple “convinced” that cell phones caused his brain cancer or cancer in general? It may come down to seeking an explanation for what caused his cancer. The vast majority of cancers have no attributable cause and cancer can strike anyone, healthy or not without warning. It’s comforting to think have some kind of control, and for someone who suffered through brain cancer, blaming it on cell phones is a way to make sense of the events and feel like there is something to fight back against. Given the attention it gets in the media, it also is the most obvious scapegoat.
The bigger question is why they are being sought for testimony by congress or any legislator. They’re not experts in any way shape or form. However, a cancer survivor fighting to stop people from facing the same disease does make for good political theater. It’s always popular to go after the “big companies” and “protect people,” and there are few things the public fears more than cancer and radiation. Just throw in a few more catch phrases like “for the children,” “If we don’t, the terrorists win” and “to create jobs,” and you’ve got political gold!
For that matter, why did they ask an “environmental activist” about phone safety? Although some seem to be trying to blur the line, human safety around RF devices has absolutely nothing to do with general environmental policy. Issues like global warming, fisheries management, discharges into water ways and sulfur emissions standards are as related to RF radiation safety as they are to the price of pickles in Brooklyn. Here’s an idea, how about someone who is an expert in these kind of things, like maybe a health physicist.
Should cell phones be labeled for radiation emissions?
These days this may sound a bit old fashioned, but I myself still subscribe to the idea that governments should not impose restrictions or requirements on private enterprise or individuals unless there’s some good reason to do so. It may not be a huge burden to require phone manufacturers to put warnings on their product, but what reason is there to do so? There’s no evidence at all that RF radiation is associated with cancer or any other health problem, at least at the levels produced by consumer devices like phones. They all conform to extremely conservative and very thoroughly tested standards for exposure.
The report states that”it’s time for the federal government to conduct new studies; the last was in 1997.” This is simply not true. It’s possible that it has been that long since a study fully funded and conducted by the US Federal government, but there have been many other studies done by companies, private research institutions, world governments and universities. Studies on the topic (literally thousands of them) go back decades. No evidence of an increased risk of cancer has ever been detected. At some point, one has to concede that enough research has been done.
If nothing else, adding warnings to safe products completely diminishes the credibility of the government for indicating when products really are hazardous. If everything is labeled, then how is anyone supposed to make sense of what is worth concern and what is not?
The actual message may not contain the word “cancer,” but the implication is clear. For the public, this is more confusion and concern over a non-issue. Of course, for those who sell various quack products which are supposed to protect from radiation, this only helps their scam.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 30th, 2010 at 6:36 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Obfuscation, Politics, Quackery, inverse square, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 4th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Is this some new type of English? Because to normal English speakers it is fairly incomprehensible.
But a few comments on what parts of it seem to be saying.
david ehm said:
Do you know what the ‘blood brain barrier’ even is? Obviously not. “The blood-brain barrier is a separation of circulating blood and cerebrospinal fluid in the central nervous system. It occurs along all capillaries and consists of tight junctions around the capillaries that don’t exist in normal circulation.”
So saying that something that isn’t even in the blood stream penetrates the blood brain barrier makes no sense and only shows a complete lack of understanding.
Then you ramble on over and over about what electromagnetic radiation can do and cause. And you know what? Most people on this site will probably agree with everything you say electromagnetic radiation can do. The problem is you again have no clue what you are talking about. Electromagnetic radiation covers a spectrum from radio waves thru light waves all the way to gamma rays, from wavelengths measured in meters to wave lengths measured in fractions of an Angstrom. So yes there are parts of the spectrum that can cause all the things you mention. The problem is that cell phones operate in a part of the spectrum where those effects don’t and can’t occur.
Look any idiot can cut and paste stories he finds with Google or Bing but you have absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about and they don’t support your claims. But even if they did maybe have some slight bearing on the topic you have to provide a link to your source, without posting a link so others can read what was actually written we will rightly dismiss you as a fool.
Quote Comment
August 4th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
ddp said:
He’s raving now, desperately trying to protect his worldview. At some subconscious level, the cranks that come here are forced to conclude that what they believe may be wrong. Despite the endless accusations that we are agents of whatever evil they are railing against, they know that this is about as neutral a forum as they are likely to find, and the fact that their pet theories are not taken seriously, and are shredded against the facts, cuts down very deeply.
Thus the babbling rages we are sometimes treated to, as they attempt to purge their minds of doubt.
Quote Comment
August 4th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
david ehm said:
This notion that there is come kind of danger from radio frequency energy that is “pulsed” is not based on any evidence. it comes from an attempt to claim that modern mobile phones, wifi and other RF sources are somehow worse than the Rf sources that have been around for decades. It’s an issue when they try to pretend that cell phone towers kill that people will point out that the same frequencies at even higher powers have been used for television, voice and various other communications types for decades.
Some of the more fringe groups have even gone so far as to claim that it’s “information carrying radio signals” that matter or even that it’s “the information they contain and not the power level” that matters.
Of course, there’s no evidence of this at all. The human body can’t demodulate these signals and it has no baring on the effects whether they’re narrow band or have advanced modulation nor does the total information contained really matter. It’s actually a complete misunderstanding of the science behind it, because the old types of signals contained just as much “information” but much of it was noise or redundant. With analog signals there’s no single bitrate that you can tag as being the information limit.
The whole notion that new modulation “pulses” or somehow is being turned on and of rapidly such that the body can’t “adapt” to it or so that it produces secondary waves or some other wacked out notion like that.
Modern modulation used on 3G and 4G systems does not “pulse.” Near as I can tell this claim comes from TDMA – time division multiple access. It’s a scheme where different devices use the same fequency to transmit by giving each a time slot. One of them transmits for a fraction of a second and then is off and another transmits. You might have four “time slots” each consisting of a few miliseconds and four devices could occupy that channel, by getting one time slot.
This method of multiple access is still used on the 2G systems used primarily for voice these days, and it has been around since the 1980’s for mobile phones and was used for other communications even before that. It’s not the cutting edge. The newest broadband devices use CDMA and WCDMA. It’s a shared-bandwidth spread spectrum method that allows many devices to share a swath of signal space because all their transmissions are uniquely encoded. Also, special minimal phase-shift modulation are used.
To be perfectly honest, I’m not an expert on exactly how it all is implemented. it involves some really advanced mathematics and signal processing to allow very efficient use of space and let the receiver pick out the individual signals from others.
The net effect is that the signals produced look and sound like noise if you don’t have the proper equipment. The bandwidth is so effectively used that the whole spectrum area is continuously filled with bits of data.
So no, no pulsing.
Quote Comment
August 6th, 2010 at 5:28 am
david ehm said:
Well, that’s a new one.
david ehm said:
You’re gonna have to help out Babel Fish with a little proofreading before you cut and paste.
Quote Comment
August 8th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Well didn’t they also say that all the science proved smoking was safe for years and years? How could they be so wrong about that and yet you trust them on this. I’m just saying! All that radiation sure can’t be good for ya!
Quote Comment
August 8th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Debra said:
Didn’t we cover this a few months ago? Ah, here’s the link:
http://depletedcranium.com/smoking-and-cancer-how-did-we-miss-that-one-or-did-we/
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Matthew said:
I don’t believe that. It looks more like lies than facts to me.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Debra said:
What the???
Did you even read it? It’s got citations embedded in it. It’s historical fact!
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Debra said:
Not my problem, though all the sources are easily traceable, if you care to put in the effort. The JAMA articles, in particular, should be available through any decent university library.
That said, if you do intend to frequent this blog, you might be better off doing your research first.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 1:04 am
this site appears to be more a bee hive of people who have worked and grown up in an industry that has held the premise that RF has no effect on biological systems. studies, thousands by the u.s. and russian military since the 50’s prove otherwise however you are steadfast in wearing your belief systems and refuting studies that were done every bit as “controlled” as those you site yet you do not even acknowledge those and keep referring to the belief that pulsed RF is safe. It is now confirmed that there is at least a 300% higher incidence of cancer within 500 feet of a cell tower. Those are epidemiological studies (of course) but you will say they are rubbish. We cook the same way we would in a microwave oven– especially in cars, trains and buses. Yea, yea, yea, …..
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 1:51 am
Debra said:
Please show one scientific study that claimed smoking was safe.
david ehm said:
Whenever this site criticizes alternate medicine, the boss and all the regulars are told that we are all obviously employees of Big Pharma.
Whenever this site criticizes alternate energy, the boss and all the regulars are told that we are all obviously employees of fossil-fuel interests.
Whenever this site criticizes alternate energy, the boss and all the regulars are told that we are all obviously employees of fossil-fuel interests.
Whenever this site criticizes, ANY conspiracy theory well are accused of being part of the cover up.
And of course any support of nuclear energy is proof positive that we are agents of that industry as well.
That’s of course when some barely literate high school drop-out, tells those of us with university degrees to ‘do the research,’ which apparently consists of watching You Tube videos by some other mouth-breathers who can hardly put together a coherent sentence, or senile old men, or gibbering housewives.
Ehm, your credibility here is zero because you are an ignoramus, not because the phone company is cutting the rest of us checks.
You believe; we know
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 4:12 am
DV82XL said:
..chuckle…
G-d knows I could use a regular cheque like that… ..grin..
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 4:22 am
david ehm said:
David, could you back that statement up with a link to the article, please?
I will hold of judgement until after I have read the article…
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 4:49 am
DV82XL said:
I wish I were earning this many pay cheques.
But I will openly admit right here and now that the last one on the list is true. I work directly in the nuclear power industry, though not in any PR capacity. My group’s primary function is to make operating nuclear plants safer and cleaner. And we’re pretty damn good at it, thanks very much.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 5:09 am
In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I work in part of the nuclear industry. But like I’mnotreallyhere, not in any PR capacity. I do radiological and industrial safety for a company that converts Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride into Depleted Uranium Oxides and Hydrofluoric Acid. It is a safer to store the DU as an oxide rather than the fluoride, also the HF is used as feedstock in many chemical plants. And we do the work under contract to the Dept. of Energy so I guess by association I am part of Big Government also.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 6:35 am
Ok, I can admit that my paycheck is (in a convoluted way) from the nuclear industry. However I work as a consultant (and therefore am slightly evil), most of my work deals with making sure the next generation of plants are safe (I do a lot of assessment work for the regulator) and I decontaminate stuff in my spare time, ie saving taxpayers money.
I do not work with PR (more evil than me) or in marketing (hell-spawning-[g]imps).
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 6:49 am
You true confession boneheads realize this is going to come back and bite you all in the ass.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 7:15 am
DV82XL said:
Absolutely. I’m sure that weeks from now someone will dredge up a reference to this comment thread when insisting that we’re all shills for the nuclear power industry and we’ll say “Yep, now get off our patch, hippy.”
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 9:12 am
DV82XL said:
My ass was bitten off by my wife over a decade ago, together with my dignity and wallet… I don’t see a problem here as it is behind me all the time.
Quote Comment
August 9th, 2010 at 9:44 am
david ehm said:
This has been addressed here on numerous occasions. Yes, studies go back to the 50’s and earlier. The only dangers ever documented relate directly to acute thermal injury (burns) from high intensity RF fields. Nobody will deny this is the case, although it only applies to very high power systems.
The context of these relates to radar. Radar systems use very high power beams of microwave energy and back as far as the 1930’s technicians were injured by radar systems. This is what the military was studying,.
Quote Comment
August 11th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Debra said:
You didn’t read any of it did you. It “looks” like lies? What does that even mean? It’s all there, in writing. Unsure of the “lies”? Google it. Look it up.
“SOUNDS LIKE LIES”. Classic.
Quote Comment
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I don’t care about this stuff anymore. I feel that if I work out and eat healthy I will live a long healthy life in spite of what may or may not be happening with all of this. I don’t know and I officially don’t care anymore. For all of you hell bent on proving that EMF is deadly, I recommend you snap the hell out of it before you snap for good and end up like those fools in France that went to live in a metal dome. Its your life though. I am just saying its not worth my worry or time any more. I am good with it.
Quote Comment
January 16th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
are any of you people aware that motorola is now putting brain cancer warnings in their manuals??? you guys are from the dark ages with your cynicism and outdated propagandized science.
Quote Comment
January 16th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
david morrison said:
How would you like to provide a reference to that statement? I can’t seen to find any reference to brain cancer in any of Motorola’s manuals.
Quote Comment
January 16th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
david morrison said:
I have a Motorola Droid II. I got it fairly recently. I saw no such warning anywhere on the packaging or the manual. Please provide some reference. Perhaps I missed it, but I doubt that.
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 1:56 am
The following excerpts are taken directly from FCC and Motorola websites and manuals. FCC and Motorola excerpts are indented with our commentary above and below.
The FDA which traditionally sets health and safety standards for radiation emitting devices has opted out of doing so for the cell phone…
“Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting
consumer products such as mobile phones before marketing…”
http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/radiationemittingproductsandprocedures/homebusinessandentertainment/cellphones/default.htm
Additionally, the FCC which did set the health and safety standards for cell phones does not hold health and safety in their job purview…
“The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.”
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
Per the above job purview, the FCC is unqualified to set heath and safety standards for cell phones and has relied upon industry associations like IEEE, whose interests in ignoring biological effects at non-thermal levels are clearly financially motivated. In fact…
“The Commission has stressed repeatedly that it is not a health and safety agency and would defer to the judgment of these expert agencies with respect to determining appropriate levels of safe exposure to RF energy.”
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1996/fcc96326.pdf (paragraph 28)
Here is an excerpt from the opening statement on the recently updated FCC website…
“there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy”
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html
Until such time as our federal government agencies choose to protect human health by incorporating non-thermal effects into safety standards for non-ionizing radiation-emitting products and devices, states and cities need to protect their own citizens. Warning labels on cell phones are a first line of defense in protecting and informing the public about non-thermal effects from non–ionizing radiation-emitting devices in addition to other mitigating steps that can be taken to inform and protect citizens such as add campaigns to raise the public’s awareness, utilizing hard wired technology whenever possible and using wireless devices in emergencies only, as the manuals state.
MISLEADING, DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE GUIDANCE TO CONSUMERS ON FCC WEBSITE…
The following statements on the recently updated version of the FCC website on health and safety regarding cell phones are misleading …
“currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses”
In the words of Swiss Re, the worlds largest re-insurance company who will not insure health claims from cell phones, we offer the following statements from their manual…
“Should we someday know what role weak electromagnetic fields play in cancer, then it will only be because we will also know what causes cancer.”
“While classical science considered a cause to be only that which must necessarily bring about an effect as a result of the causal principle, today a cause is also considered to be that which may bring about an effect.”
“…As soon as it can be demonstrated that one of these factors discernibly increases the probability of the effect, however, we refer to it as a cause. The decisive criterion for causality is therefor only that a thing discernibly increases the probability that an effect will occur.”
“In this case it would be sufficient to prove that weak fields can increase the probability of disease.”
“…according to our present understanding – electromagnetic fields would be a cause of disease just like flu virus which may, but need not necessarily, result in influenza.”
“In an ever increasing number of apparently coincidental relationships, science is now discovering statistical laws which are like-wise being described as causal in nature.”
To this day, the tobacco industry argues we still do not have a mechanism by which cigarettes form lung cancer. Yet we know it does. To say that we need a causal link between cell phones and brain cancer, in the face of the body of peer reviewed, published and replicated studies from around the world on this issue showing DNA damage, DNA single and double strand breakage, biological and health effects and epidemiology showing 95% and higher association with cell phone use and brain cancer is incredibly irresponsible and yet another notch in the FCC belt of being the incorrect agency to entrust with the health, safety and lives of the American people when it comes to cell phones and health effects.
When weighing the body of evidence and removing industry funded studies from that body of evidence, there is clear and present danger as well as statistically significant association with cell phone use, brain tumors and many other illnesses.
The FCC continued…
“No scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses”
The standard for definitive and significant results in science is 95% confidence or higher. Hundreds maybe even thousands of peer reviewed, published and replicated studies meet the 95% or higher scientific standard to be deemed significant. What the FCC should be telling people is that MANY studies having 95% or higher significant results show BIOLOGICAL and HEALTH EFFECTS, many of which can lead to cancer, genotoxicity and other illnesses in humans.
IRRESPONSIBLE LANGUAGE AND DANGEROUS GUIDANCE…
“some parties recommend taking measures to further reduce exposure to RF energy. The FCC does not endorse the need for these practices”
The FCC irresponsibly makes the above statement despite the fact that manufacturers are now telling children to keep the phone away from their lower abdomen, pregnant women to keep the phone away from their abdomen, users to keep the phone .98 inches away from their head and body and are publishing brain cancer study information along with the statement that “Some people who have used mobile phones have been diagnosed with brain cancer.” and “When tumors did exist in certain locations, however, they were more likely to be on the side of the head where the mobile phone was used. ”.
Additionally, the FCC completely ignores peer reviewed, published and replicated studies showing greater blood brain barrier permeation at LOWER power densities and at further distances from the phone. This is very dangerous for parents who want to keep their children safe from passive mobile phone exposure or pregnant women who should be keeping their fetuses safe from “passive mobile phone exposure” as much as possible.
“The FCC requires that cell phone manufacturers conduct their SAR testing to include the most severe, worst-case (and highest power) operating conditions for all the frequency bands”
Even at their own definition of worst case scenario, cell phones are not tested for real world use as they are tested using a plastic spacer between the phone plastic model of the head. This “buys space” for the phones to be non-compliant even with their own inadequate standards of 1.6 W/kg. Should they be measured how they are advertised and how people actually use them, held directly against the head, they would most likely exceed even the current inadequate safety guidelines of 1.6 W/kg.
Again, the FCC ignores peer reviewed, published and replicated science showing easier RF blood brain barrier permeation at lower power levels as opposed to only higher power levels.
“What SAR Does Not Show”
The first sentence from the above statement’s section of their website…
“The SAR value used for FCC approval does not account for the multitude of measurements taken during the testing.”
Given the opportunity to tell the public what SAR does not account for, the FCC has blatantly left out any and all mention of peer reviewed, published and replicated studies with a 95% or higher confidence of biological and health effects, all at non-thermal levels, with frequency bands currently utilized in the US and internationally. They have blatantly left any and all mention of non-thermal levels of frequency, pulse modulation, frequency modulation and power density, all having serious biological and health impacts on cells. Additionally, The FCC has IGNORED published, peer reviewed science showing that the greatest blood-brain barrier penetration occurs at the LOWEST POWER LEVELS not the highest power levels, as one who is not educated in the science or only resorts to industry funded studies for their information might expect.
Although the FCC claims current “safety standards”, are sufficient for protecting human health, they openly admit…
“there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy”
…and although the FCC is totally unqualified to do so, they have set health and safety standards for cell phones in the US.
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 2:12 am
I still don’t see where Motorola makes a brain cancer warning in their manual. What I do see is a lot of smoke and noise that is nothing but your opinion, and I don’t consider your opinion to have any value.
Like most ignoramuses that tilt at this particular windmill, you really have no idea what you are gibbering about. You cannot apply the same type of analysis one would use to deconstruct a legal document, or testamentary evidence to science. It just doesn’t work that way.
There is nothing in the rubbish that you posted above that serves as evidence of anything except your ignorance and gullibility.
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
ok ass hold, read it and stuff it up your ass.
MOTOROLA MANUAL AS OF OCT. 2010
6) Use hands-free if available and keep the Blackberry at least .98 in. from your body, “INCLUDING THE ABDOMEN OF PREGNANT WOMEN AND THE LOWER ABDOMEN OF TEENAGERS”!!!
7) A few animal studies, however, have suggested that low levels of RF could accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals. In one study, mice genetically altered to be predisposed to developing one type of cancer developed more than twice as many such cancers when they were exposed to RF energy compared to controls.”
9) “None of these tests showed any effect of the RF except for the micronucleus assay, which detects structural effects on the
genetic material. The cells in this assay showed changes after
exposure to simulated cell phone radiation”
10) “When tumors did exist in certain locations, however, they were more likely to be on the side of the head where the mobile phone was used.”
11) “Some people who have used mobile phones have been diagnosed with brain cancer.”
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
.98 in. is an unusually precise measurement especially for giving such vague directions to consumers, I would have expected something more along the lines of 1 inch or 25 mm. Though 25 mm does convert to about 0.98 inches, it’s almost as if someone took a figure of one inch, roughly converted to 25 mm (which is quite correct) and then someone else stupidly took that 25 mm figure and converted to too many significant figures into inches.
Also I would be very surprised if a Motorola mentioned anything about Blackberries, considering Motorola doesn’t make them.
I should also just note that some people who have never used mobile phones have also been diagnosed with brain cancer.
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
david said:
Please be so good as to quote the model for which this manual applies.
Quote Comment
January 17th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
There have been some things in the text of certain manuals and inserts that make reference to things like cancer or infertility. “Although unproven, you can reduce possible risks by…”
That kind of thing isn’t science-based. It’s the company trying to cover their ass from legislation or lawsuits or complaints or something. I think it’s a very very bad idea though. It adds some validation to this bull**** and will only open them up to more liability.
Quote Comment
January 20th, 2011 at 1:42 am
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/dutch-study-confirms-mobile-electro-magnetic-radiation-affects-the-health-of-trees/2011/01/18
DUTCH STUDY CONFIRMS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY KILLING TREES / WIRELESS OR HUMANITY, Take your Pick
Quote Comment
January 20th, 2011 at 2:11 am
Wireless or Humanity said:
I think this has already been looked at to some extent here:
http://depletedcranium.com/debunking-the-claim-that-a-mobile-tower-hurt-a-maple-tree/
Quote Comment
January 20th, 2011 at 4:40 am
Finrod said:
Is it just me, or are we getting to the point where, for most cranks, we can just say “Hey, didn’t we deal with this last month?”
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 12:58 am
This Is The Death Of Humanity – part 7
Thursday, January 20, 2011
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/01/this-is-death-of-humanity-part-7.html
Who do you think you’re kidding?
Let’s make some things clear: Cell phones cause cancer. Cell phone towers cause cancer. Cordless phones cause cancer. Blackberries cause cancer, Iphones cause cancer. Power lines cause cancer. Radio and TV towers cause cancer. Non-ionizing radiation leads to oxidative damage, which leads to indirect DNA damage, which leads to cancer.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Wireless communication is irreconcilable with organic life as we know it. In the words of Andrew Goldsworthy: “The problem is far more serious than anyone has previously imagined. The effects on people with EHS and allergy-related conditions are bad enough in their own right but, with about half the world’s population already owning a mobile phone, the resulting widespread genetic damage threatens the future of the entire human race. “
But why should I bother? Everyone knows about it. Everyone knows the radiation is hurting us. Everyone except for first year physics students that is. The Telecom industry knows all too well that we have no future. Biologists know what’s going on. Most people are simply uncomfortable with the thought, so they deny it. This is called cognitive dissonance. As explained by Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A good example is found on Wikipedia as well:
Smoking is often postulated as an example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one’s life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence of lung cancer, or justifying one’s smoking.[5] For example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will.[6] While chemical addiction may operate in addition to cognitive dissonance for existing smokers, new smokers may exhibit a simpler case of the latter.
Now for cell phones:
The information is that cell phones cause brain cancer. Your desire is not to get brain cancer, but to live a long and happy life. You don’t want your kids to get a brain tumor either. The rational conclusion would thus be to avoid the radiation. However, you don’t want to. It takes too much effort. Also, everyone is using cell phones. This would mean that everyone is screwed, and you have no future. The thought of humanity having no future contradicts your desire to live a long and happy life.
Thus, you have to reconcile these different thought patterns in your head. There are multiple ways. You could stop using cell phones and go live in a cave. But you don’t want that. You could be like me, and learn to live with the fact that the next generations are going to have it worse than ours, and life expectancy will plummet. Someone will manage to put a ban on the radiation eventually, though the question is how many people will be left by then. I’m sure some people will be left, it’s very hard to go from 6 billion to zero, and we still have people hiding in the rain-forests where you have no connection, but the exact number that will be left remains debatable.
My way of dealing with these contradictory ideas is as following: I begrudgingly accept the fact that I will probably die at a younger age than my parents, and I accept the fact that most people are going to suffer immensely from the health consequences. There are multiple ways to attempt to reduce the damage (and I will eventually cover those here), but I remain rational, and the only way to truly prevent the problem is by turning off the cell phone towers and all the wireless devices. Until then, anything you do is little more than treating the symptoms of radiation poisoning.
There are other ways to reduce the cognitive dissonance of course. You can simply deny the information. One way to deny the information is by keeping yourself willfully ignorant. Most people practice this method. You just don’t read about it and just don’t think about it. You try not to think at all. The fact of the matter is that thinking leads to cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance is a very uncomfortable feeling (that I love to generate), so you do your best to limit your thinking to the minimum amount which is necessary for you to carry out your job. This is a time-tested method.
This is passive denial, you could also actively deny the information by claiming that cell phones don’t cause brain cancer at all. In that case, you’re just wrong. I’m sorry, the debate is over. Everyone knows. An alternating electrical field is currently used as a brain cancer treatment. Why? Because the radiation kills the brain cells while they’re dividing, which is when cells are most vulnerable to the radiation. Why are you questioning whether the radiation can harm cells, when it is effectively being used as a cancer treatment? Read this for yourself, the frequency is in the 100Khz-300Khz range. This is low-frequency, lower even than microwave radiation. I suspect this is to allow the radiation to penetrate deeper into the brain. Regardless, the point should be clear. Non-ionizing radiation is used as a cancer treatment, because it kills the cells. What is it that makes you think that you can safely hold a radiation emitting device against your head?
Even the telecom industry is laughing in your face. They know better, they are fully aware of the health impact this will have. Take a look at this patent of a Swiss Telecom company, which carries the highly original name, Swisscom. The patent explains how they have developed a new type of cordless telephone, that emits less radiation than previous ones. And what is so amazing? The fact that they mention themselves that the radiation causes cancer! The telecom industry admits in patents for their technology, that their technology causes cancer! But your government pretends there is no danger! And best of all, you swallow their lies!
From the patent:
The influence of electrosmog on the human body is a known problem. The health risk from mobile radio transmitters, handys and DECT telephones has been an explosive subject among the general public at least since the enormous breakthrough in mobile radio technology in the 1990s. To meet the concerns of science from the legislative side, the permissible limit values have thus been lowered several times, and technology has been increasingly focused on this problem. The risk of damage to health through electrosmog has also become better understood as a result of more recent and improved studies. When, for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk.
When a Telecom company wants to sell their own product, they suddenly admit that the radiation is causing DNA damage! And you, the dumb gullible fool, deny there is a problem. Everyone knows, except for you. They’re laughing in your face. Though, I imagine they must also suffer from guilt feelings.
I wonder what method the people who sell you this garbage use to reduce the cognitive dissonance. I suspect they might simply introduce new information: “The fact that I am responsible for the death of humanity contradicts my desire not to be a mass murderer. However, the profit I make from exterminating humanity fulfills my desire to become rich”.
As I mentioned earlier, I like generating cognitive dissonance. So, hoping that some Telecom-gangsters will read this far, I will leave them with the words of Bob Dylan:
Let me ask you one question: Is your money that good? Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could? I think you will find, when your death takes its toll, all the money you made will never buy back your soul.
Telecom-gangsters, please be aware that leaking memos of your mob-bosses to the internet (no need to use Wikileaks for that, Julian Assange will just put them somewhere in his giant insurance file which he uses to keep himself from getting killed), quitting your job, going public by warning people about the danger, or simply giving away ALL the dirty money you earned to the poor (and keeping your mouth shut about it, no bragging) will do a lot to clean the karma stains from your soul. Get the dirty money out of your life, now. It is the first step towards self improvement. You know it’s wrong for you to make money by selling stuff that hurts people. Here’s a little secret: You will feel more alive when you get the money out of your life. You just became a little wiser, and with wisdom comes peace of mind.
Now, unlike the Telecom-gangsters, some of you will have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. You might want to read some of the earlier articles I’ve written:
-Here’s one all the way back from March of 2009, looking at 3 studies that found a big link between living next to a cell phone tower, and getting cancer.
This article should really have been part of this series:
-It’s all over in fifty years.
Gaia is crying, because you killed her children to tell your friend about the ugly dress your coworker wore to the office party:*
-You killed the birds, the bees, the frogs, the bats and the trees
*That puts things in perspective doesn’t it? Your cell-phone conversations are a big disgrace to the human race. Stop embarrassing us any further.
And, the most recent one:
New research confirms: Electromagnetic omnicide is culling the trees
Now, if you feel like crying at any point while reading, because you’re not a bitter misanthropist yet, please remember the words of Bill Hicks: It’s all just a ride. Always keep this in mind during the death of humanity. You might still cry while watching the video though. But they’ll be a different kind of tears.
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 1:13 am
Gaia said:
To the idiot who posted this garbage:
When you post a link to external material, you don’t need to then post the entire content of the link in addition to the link itself.
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 6:45 am
“I begrudgingly accept the fact that I will probably die at a younger age than my parents, and I accept the fact that most people are going to suffer immensely from the health consequences. “
Lets think for a minute.
Radio and power lines have been around for over a century, TV for around 60 years and cell phones for 20 years. Yet human life expectancy in developed countries where all these things are prevelant keeps going up. But if your supposition is true the average life expectancy should be going down, therefore there is some major misconception in your theory. It is similar to the theory that mecury in vaccines causes autism yet removal of mercury from vaccines did not cause autism rates to decline therefore mercury probably doesn’t have anything to do with autism.
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 11:14 am
ddp said:
I think that the word is spelled “superstition.”
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 1:01 pm
But if your supposition is true the average life expectancy should be going down, therefore there is some major misconception in your theory.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill
Quote Comment
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:03 am
Gaia said:
That may well be true. I don’t know how old your parents are, but sitting around moping about how you’re going to die and stressing over imagined demons is not good for one’s long term health.
Perhaps you could consider giving up on this nonsense and living your life, getting out and getting some exercise, even if that means going by some transmission towers from time to time.
Otherwise, you have a self-fulfilling prophecy right there.
Quote Comment