Once again, cell phones do not “pulse”

October 10th, 2010
submit to reddit Share

Yet another round of invented controversy has started with the release of a new book by Devra Davis “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.” It’s gotten a lot more attention than it should, being that the claims are big on the sensationalism and lack solid scientific backing.

Davis recently made the following comment:

It’s not the amount of radiation, necessarily. It’s the pulsed nature of the signal. It’s like: You can snap a rubber band, and it’s fine; but if you keep snapping it over and over again, it will break. Smart phones are constantly looking for signals, and it’s that sudden stopping and starting that I’m concerned about, not the total amount.

This has come up time and time again. It’s a claim being made by a number of alarmists who want to make it seem as if newer 3G and 4G applications and technologies are more dangerous than the phones and devices that have been around since the 1980′s and earlier. The fact of the matter is that there is ZERO evidence that “Pulsed” emissions are any worse than continuous RF emissions. NONE. There’s also no theoretical reason why they would be. Your body can’t demodulate the signals – it only responds to the potential dialetric heating that microwave radiation can produce.

But there’s another point worth making. Even if pulsed RF emissions were more dangerous (which they’re not) this is not what 3G technologies and new high speed data applications do. They don’t pulse. No, not at all. Some older 2G systems based on a system called TDMA do, but those are the ones we’ve had for more than two decades.


Frequency Division Multiple Access:
Arguably not a “true multiple access” method, this is the simplest and the one used by nearly all analog systems and some early digital ones. Each transmitter is assigned a frequency. Data or voice is carried on that frequency continuously.

No other transmitter in the area can use the same frequency until it becomes free. Other transmitters are assigned a different frequency. Usually a band of several designated channels exists. Therefore, if you are talking to someone using 900.05 mhz, someone else may be talking on 900.10 mhz and someone else on 900.15 mhz etc.

Time Division Multiple Access:
Each transmitter is assigned a frequency, as in FDMA, however it is also assigned a “time slot” which is normally a period of a few milliseconds. It broadcasts data only during this brief period of time. Other transmitters can broadcast on the same frequency without interference because they are assigned a desperate time slot.

Since the rate of TDMA broadcast slots is very fast and because data is compressed into these transmission slots, there is no noticeable interruption to voice. The audio is buffered to create continuous speech.

TDMA is the standard for most second generation mobile systems such as GSM. It has been in use since the 1970′s and has been employed in mobile phone networks since the 1980′s.

Code Division Multiple Access:

Compared to TDMA and FDMA, CDMA is much much more complex. CDMA is considered a “spread spectrum” technology and uses RF channels that are generally larger than FDMA or TDMA systems. The transmitter broadcasts a continuous signal that distributes data across the channels bandwidth.
However, despite using a wide RF channel, CDMA can make efficient usage of spectrum by having multiple transmitters use this same spectrum simultaneously. Each signal is “encoded” differently in a manner that allows the receiver to receive the individual signal while ignoring the data from other signals

Without going into too much detail of how that actually works, each transmitted signal contains the data that is being transmitted riding on a carrier wave that is modulated using a pseudo-random code. The receiver must also have the pseudo-random stream to demodulate the signal. (This is done internally using a complex algorithm shared by transmitter and receiver.)

Despite being more complex, CDMA has numerous advantages. It tends to be less prone to interference from RF noise, it’s extremely secure and it makes excellent use of spectrum. Most newer CDMA-based systems include additional features to allow for compensation of Doppler shifts and to improve error correction, dynamic spectrum allocation and to address what is known as the “Near-far problem.

Systems that use FDMA:

  • Nearly all analog transmission systems
  • First generation mobile phones
  • Many two-way radio systems
  • Broadcasting
  • Simple point to point transmissiters like baby monitors, cordless phones etc.

Systems that use TDMA:

  • GSM, the most popular mobile standard in the world, in use since 1987
  • Most other 2G mobile phone standards, some of which are now depreciated or used only regionally
  • 2.5 G” data standards like GPRS and EDGE
  • Industry standard multiplexed voice and data such as wireless frame relay
  • Many digital 2-way radio systems like those used by police, fire, government, railroad and business radio

Systems that use variations of CDMA:

  • IS-95, sometimes refered to simply as “CDMA,” a 2G phone and data standard used primarily in North America
  • All “3G” systems including UMTS (W-CDMA), CDMA2000, HSDPA and others
  • All “4G” systems including WiMax
  • Wifi
  • Bluetooth
  • Other advanced wireless services such as satellite services and other high speed data systems

Many of the systems that use TDMA are still alive and in use. Even 3G phones may utilize the 2G TDMA systems for voice and rely on 3G systems for high speed data or in areas where 3G service is not yet available. However, the point is that the newer systems are not in any way “pulsed.” Not that this matters anyway.


This entry was posted on Sunday, October 10th, 2010 at 8:53 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, inverse square, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation. 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



402 Responses to “Once again, cell phones do not “pulse””

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All

  1. 151
    Ruby Says:

            Stewart Peterson said:

    Daryl and Ruby,

    On the other side, DV82XL, you seem to think that mastery of the facts is necessarily the goal of a discussion. You are making a similar mistake to theirs: you, like they, conflate reality and perception. In your case, you of course do not think that perception creates reality, but you do evidently think that reality can dictate someone’s perception. In practice, reality and perception have nothing to do with each other. People can act on the basis of assumptions that are false and be totally uninterested in examining those assumptions, even if not doing so means serious failure in something they want to succeed at. That’s not where their mind is; the data they’re collecting about the situation is entirely different. No physical law dictates that they have to proceed logically, and a certain proportion of people won’t. Unfortunately, you seem to think that people spend their lives thinking about ideas. Most people, when you talk to them, aren’t listening for an idea to discuss. They want to figure out what the way you’re saying it indicates about the way you feel about them.

    And you know what? When you identify an idea in their response, and start talking about it, and don’t talk about their feelings, they get just as irritated at you as you’re getting at Daryl and Ruby. To them, you’re refusing to understand what the discussion is really about and deliberately being obstructionistic in order to cover up your lack of understanding of their feelings, which, to them, are what matters.

    Stewart, I am not asking DV8 to understand my feelings. I am asking him to back up his rejection of studies, to quit with the ad hominem attacks and to use his logical abilities instead, and for his comment on the study I just posted above: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35452882/Sadcikova-Clinical-manifestations-of-reactions-to-microwave-irradiation-in-various-occupational-groups-1973 I am open to you assessment of the study as well, instead of your psychological assessment of my feelings and irritation–which are off the mark unless I am in denial.
    Please don’t reduce my requests to emotional drivel.


    Quote Comment
  2. 152
    Ruby Says:

    BMS and Matte are invited to comment on the study as well. Unless we are all focusing on the psychiatric element. Now everyone is an armchair psychiatrist.


    Quote Comment
  3. 153
    DV82XL Says:

            Ruby said:

    Please don’t reduce my requests to emotional drivel.

    Strangely, something we can agree on.

    I have given the ’73 article a full reading. I am sorry I didn’t the first time you posted it, as I originally thought it was something else from that era on high power exposure, that often comes up in these discussions. Seveal obsevations:

    There are poor controls for confounding variables, there is no indication of how exposure was determined, and only passing mention of secondary work conditions. Given the known state of industrial hygiene in the Warsaw Pact countries at that time, these factors are critical in evaluating the findings. Too, there is mention that these workers may have been exposed occasionally to field strengths far above the studies limits. This latter factor is particularly significant in cases where eye damage is reported, as very brief, high power exposures is known to cause trauma to the eyes.

    These faults are not trivial, and taint the results to the point where little of value can be inferred from this study.


    Quote Comment
  4. 154
    DV82XL Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    “hauntingly like temperature correlated death rates in sperm” (Matte) — you should read Kane, mocking the impossibility of temp. monitoring in “hot spots” (dealing with brain esp.) yet bulldozing ahead anyway; the advocacy is: cell telephony kills, the research situation has been severely corrupted (for military, industry, clandestine, financial, & broadly cultural motives), so many ills of the age can be unpacked via this issue, sickness & death are abounding, time to act, Davis’book is a mild effort to spur to action; and, when is temp. change never present? that garbage theory about Frey effect — necessarily assimilating everything to the thermal paradigm — about thermoelastic expansion at infinitesimal increase, shows how desperate & klutzy corrupted or sclerotic sci. can go; temp. is plainly uninteresting at a certain point, which is why i think some are preferring to talk not of non-thermal, but athermal effects, as in temp. not or little relevant to what is observed; maybe hearing is, like pain or temperature, a third way to detect damage of a sort indescribable by current physics, ever entertain that possibility? to go there requires some daring in some contexts, i get that few will dare, but to act in a powerfully ritualistic way such that ritual overtakes overview, infects the politics of it all, that is the deadly issue at hand, or how a sci. orthodoxy is abetting the danger, either outright corrupted or just being over disciplined rule-abiders

    It’s drivel like this that marks you as an utter ignoramus, and as someone that cannot be taken seriously in this debate.


    Quote Comment
  5. 155
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    “A breathtaking amount of gall.”

    That would not characterize DV8′s re-reading of the old study. His could be galling to the researcher, but certainly an uninteresting bore in failing to take interest in themes I had the gall to mention above.

    “poor controls” — possibly granting this (but is there nothing to the 200?; and back then there was far less ambient exposure so controls were easier in that respect), but in the context of very many similar studies at various times & locations with similar general results (leading one to condemn, for instance, the basis of Western standards such as abide in Safety Code 6), it is plain foolish to write the study off as weightless, although it is conceded “little of value can be inferred” admits non-zero

    “how exposure was determined” — more important, it is speculated that it might not be failure but reticence in that era to disclose certain technical info; yet it can be inferred i believe from the earlier decades that cataract formation was found at similar power densities, that and the generally higher level of research and exploitation of RF by them should lead one to diminish this aspect’s contribution to the study’s diminution “of value”

    [starting to see how various contexts counts, too?]

    “secondary work conditions” — how far would one have to go to satisfy this type of demand for context?; again, multiple period studies with similar findings should discount this concern somewhat

    “field strengths far above the studies limits.” — much more interesting, but again does not affect findings, eg, regarding recovery and relapse

    read with a very different eye, of course sympathetic, but there has to be willingness to find

    see what’s out in mainstream media, fair as far as teevee goes, last night on national current affairs programme, put on youtube,
    http://www.youtube.com/safeschool#p/u/3/KN7VetsCR2I

    David Carpenter is a quack? (He has written to HESA, incidentally.)
    The children are liars?
    The EHS person & Magda Havas?
    I was also asked to examine the studies on their list, and nothing, as they say, has direct bearing on wifi, much less on children; yet it was held forth as recent examples of such by “Health” Canada.
    Context, context, context.


    Quote Comment
  6. 156
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    I have given the ’73 article a full reading. I am sorry I didn’t the first time you posted it, as I originally thought it was something else from that era on high power exposure, that often comes up in these discussions. Seveal obsevations:

    There are poor controls for confounding variables, there is no indication of how exposure was determined, and only passing mention of secondary work conditions. Given the known state of industrial hygiene in the Warsaw Pact countries at that time, these factors are critical in evaluating the findings. Too, there is mention that these workers may have been exposed occasionally to field strengths far above the studies limits. This latter factor is particularly significant in cases where eye damage is reported, as very brief, high power exposures is known to cause trauma to the eyes.

    These faults are not trivial, and taint the results to the point where little of value can be inferred from this study.

    I believe a Scientist could gain a lot of insight from this study, warts and all. There is a lot of information recorded and a fair assessment of the conditions to work with. I’m not saying it’s top-notch, but it is real world exposure with a large population and diverse endpoints. I wish they would have said how high the exposure got, how often and for how long, the average, etc. I wonder how it compares to someone talking on a cell phone for hours a day, or sitting in front of a wifi computer at work with 15 others for hours and living and or working within 200ft of a cell tower in the lobe and talking periodically on a cell or DECT phone.

    Still, I think there is a lot to be gained from this study presented to International Symposium, a symposium sponsored by WHO, US Dept of Health and Welfare among others. I have the book and it makes for some pretty interesting reading. This is one of the 39 papers that were presented by 60 participants from 12 countries. Many of the exposures are high, but I did not find this one particularly so. This certainly wasn’t a bunch of schlubs goofing around. Unfortunately, this book is out of print and a rare find. This study stood out the most for me so far, but I will list more that seem relevant to this discussion.

    The opening statement of J. C. Villforth, Bureau of Radiological Health, FDA, is very interesting. Perhaps it can be found online. Many of the studies do not appear to be online.

    Also, there are many many military studies done by the navy, as I am sure you are aware. All of these involve large pops of military men, mostly men I believe.


    Quote Comment
  7. 157
    DV82XL Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    …read with a very different eye, of course sympathetic, but there has to be willingness to find

            Ruby said:

    I believe a Scientist could gain a lot of insight from this study, warts and all.

    What you two think of the study is immaterial since nether of you are qualified to hold an opinion. Ether way, the same thing that I have been saying applies: these phenomena were looked for in larger, more complete, and properly designed studies, and they didn’t show up for exposure at low levels.

    One does not read a scientific paper with “a willingness to find,” in fact any legitimate scientist would be appalled at the thought that someone was trying to read a paper he authored in such a biased frame of mind.

    And as for ‘insight’ again, the only thing one can practically gain from that paper is a hypothesis, which again was tested at finer resolutions with no results.

    You two nit-wits cannot redefine the practice of science to fit your own ideas of how it should work.


    Quote Comment
  8. 158
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I’ve had some trouble finding good examples of rigorous well-controlled studies of RF radiation on DNA and chromosomes with observations for single and double strand damage and mutations.

    Most of the “studies” out there that get press are of a very poor quality and have very dubious conclusions.

    However here are some that appeared to meet good general standards:

    http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/0033-7587%282001%29156%5B0328%3AMODDIM%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=rare

    http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/0033-7587%282000%29153%5B0479%3APDDIHB%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=rare

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580481

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3580506

    http://en.scientificcommons.org/47453200

    In all cases, no effect could be detected in gene expression, chromosomal integrity, single or double strand breakage or any other measurable effect.


    Quote Comment
  9. 159
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    “any legitimate scientist would be appalled at the thought that someone was trying to read a paper he authored in such a biased frame of mind”

    so your paradigmatic scientist goes into his/her observations blank-headed? i should have phrased it differently perhaps, but it should have been obvious what is meant

    and boy, do you not think that all the epithet-flinging reflects poorly on your mentality? it doesn’t bother me, actually bolsters my position a tad, not that it is versus you personally, but as anti-”bad-sci” rep…


    Quote Comment
  10. 160
    DV82XL Says:

    I know its bothering you Vernon because you keep mentioning it.


    Quote Comment
  11. 161
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    you’re so funny, dv8′, it really does not; but i would like to receive some instruction here, if possible, and that kind of dumb language gets in the way

    so far, i see no real engagement with science as pursuit that involves so many factors that one can talk about outside of perfectionist methodologies; but then you’d be stepping onto unsure territory

    believe me, i am very independent-minded, and probably often share your perceptions of inadequacy in others’ presentation of things; in fact, early on in my delving into this sorry field, i expressed reservations about lack of rigour in what some leading spokespeople say, even professionals; i actively contest their terminology, prescription; i could give examples aplenty, but do not want to advertise personal interchanges, which are often left unsatisfactorily unresolved for me; but i let it go, respecting their professional situations, and seeing a bigger picture, my reservations , while they can turn into dismay, do not turn into wretched scorn as on display here (it’s your club, fine, but as long as you tolerate my presence, it should really be to face more of the situation as i present it; as for dismay, i said in my very 1st post here i think that i am against some things Davis is doing, am saying it out loud in provocative places, they are non sequitur based on the story she is telling; she omits infrastructure reference as dangerous, deliberately and i fear from maybe impure motive, and she keeps from recommending against cell phones altogether, suggesting texting, earpiece etc, merely substituting far field for near field dangers (today there was some news report about the enormous quantity of texting transmissions particularly young people are subjecting themselves to, eg))

    speaking of youth, i took a peek & saw on this site an entry on autism; Davis mentions this appropriately as connected to RF exposures; some promising therapy has involved chelation but only if accompanied by shielding from RF — that should be very meaningful; by the way, in a SF Commonwealth Club speech I saw Davis give (youtube somewhere) recently, or maybe it was in the attendee tumour count afterward, several US brain surgeons are on record as attributing the tumours to you know what; see Lloyd Morgan’s tumour story in the Harper’s article (not as good as Ketcham’s GQ one, but worth reading to see what’s out there) http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/0082932 (subscription; try a library; Morgan is involved with that valuable powerwatch.org site i mentioned; you guys, prob. anti-religious most/all, would get a kick out of Morgan’s post-operative religious conversion…)


    Quote Comment
  12. 162
    DV82XL Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    …but i would like to receive some instruction here, if possible,

    No you don’t, you want a platform to vomit your stupid ideas out to an audience you think might be receptive to them, you said so yourself up thread.

    And indeed if you were here to learn, you are incredibly thick, since it has been explained to you ad nauseum why your notions in these matters are categorically wrong, and yet you persist in holding them.

            Daryl Vernon said:

    …some promising therapy has involved chelation but only if accompanied by shielding from RF — that should be very meaningful;

    A quack cure for an imaginary condition – the circle of idiocy now is closed.


    Quote Comment
  13. 163
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    ok. dv8. i’ll assume you’ve spoken the last word to your group’s discredit, i’ll have to check back infrequently here now

    gratitude for allowing this “troll” to “vomit” so much before you (substituting upper digestive tract metaphors for lower doesn’t make you less unattractive, dv8′)

    i should say, however, that one ancient tenet i live by, ‘eYZeHU ChaKhaM — Ha-LOMeD Mi-KoL ‘aDaM, and that includes you, sorry it was not clearer fom the start, my sense of duty got the better of my appearing receptive to instruction, but there has really been so little on offer


    Quote Comment
  14. 164
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    What you two think of the study is immaterial since nether of you are qualified to hold an opinion. Ether way, the same thing that I have been saying applies: these phenomena were looked for in larger, more complete, and properly designed studies, and they didn’t show up for exposure at low levels.

    Care to share any of those studies with us?

    DV8, I truly believe you are just trying to get Daryl and me to stop commenting with your continuous barrage of insults and crass comments because you can not properly refute our studies with the larger studies you keep mentioning but never put up for us to see. You are doing your best to deflect attention from the real issue. Why don’t you answer with the science you say has debunked the studies we have put forward? I don’t think you can do it. And I think you know it. Intolerance and anger are often indicators of fear and self-loathing. Did you have an abusive father by any chance?


    Quote Comment
  15. 165
    DV82XL Says:

    Steve posted several in comment 158, I will post others.

    My anger stems from having to share a world with dummies like you. Your fears stem from ignorance, and already the pandering to demands of idiots like is impacting me in several areas. This website covers several of them. The media and politicians may chose to treat people like you with deference, I do not.


    Quote Comment
  16. 166
    BMS Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    i’ll have to check back infrequently here now

    If you do, please be kind enough learn about capital letters and punctuation before responding again.

    Although your ideas have all the intellectual sophistication expected of a nine-year-old child, you don’t have to reinforce the point by writing like one.


    Quote Comment
  17. 167
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Steve posted several in comment 158, I will post others.

    My anger stems from having to share a world with dummies like you. Your fears stem from ignorance, and already the pandering to demands of idiots like is impacting me in several areas. This website covers several of them. The media and politicians may chose to treat people like you with deference, I do not.

    Yes, a pity you have to share the world with me and all of the scientists who signed the Appeals I posted and all the scientists at the International Symposiums year after year. Such a burden for you. I still hear the rantings of an integrated hostile, verbally abusive father-figure.

    I’ll be watching for your studies that refute specifically the ones I posted.


    Quote Comment
  18. 168
    DV82XL Says:

    We can start wit these four since I don’t see the point of flooding the thread with references, there are more but you can look at these first.

    Schüz, J; Jacobsen, R; Olsen, JH; Boice, JD; McLaughlin, JK; Johansen, C (December 2006).Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, a Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.

    The INTERPHONE Study Group (2010). Brain tumor risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study. International Journal of Epidemiology

    Helmut Franke, E.B. Ringelstein, F. Stögbauer Electromagnetic fields do not alter blood-brain barrier permeability to sucrose in models in vitro with high barrier tightness, Bioelectromagnetics

    Kuribayashi et al. Lack of effects of 1439 MHz electromagnetic near field exposure on the blood-brain barrier in immature and young rats Bioelectromagnetics

    You’re still trying to argue from authority. Apparently you still don’t understand that science doesn’t determine truth by a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter how many academics believed the sun orbited the Earth in the Dark Ages, the opposite was still true.

    I got along fine with my dad and I’ll remind you that you’re the one that asked to have psychoanalysis dropped from the debate.


    Quote Comment
  19. 169
    Ruby Says:

    Oh, yes, that Interphone Study.

    “There is some evidence that very high users experienced excess risk of glioma, but that evidence is inconclusive because of possible bias. Further light may be shed on dose–response relations by work now being undertaken with the INTERPHONE data using precise coordinate localization of tumours within the brain in relation to estimates of absorbed RF energy.

    The possibility of raised risk in heavy users of mobile phones is an important issue because of their ever-increasing use. Moreover, few subjects in our study had used mobile phones for [greater than]12 years;
    therefore, our results are uninformative with respect to lag periods longer than this.

    This is the largest study of the risk of brain tumours in relation to mobile phone use conducted to date and
    it included substantial numbers of subjects who had used mobile phones for 10 years. Overall, no increase in risk of either glioma or meningioma was observed in association with use of mobile phones.

    [BUT] There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, at the highest
    exposure levels, for ipsilateral exposures and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. However,
    biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation.”

    That’s reassuring. And how did Interphone define “highest exposure levels?” How many hours per month or week?


    Quote Comment
  20. 170
    Ruby Says:

    And how was “regular user” defined, .5 hours per week? Is that regular for people you know?

    http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20100518_interphone_brain_tumours.asp


    Quote Comment
  21. 171
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    some promising therapy has involved chelation but only if accompanied by shielding from RF — that should be very meaningful

    Oh Christ! Not that again!

    Chelation is something I’ve written about extensively and which other anti-bad-science bloggers and sites have also been working to try to get good information out there.

    Chelation chemicals are very harsh on the body. They can wash out salts, sugar and iron from the boodstream and are very dangerous when not used in a proper medical setting with continuous supervision.

    These treatments are used in narrow circumstances to deal with acute toxic metal poisonings. In circumstances where a person has been exposed to huge amounts or arsenic or thallium, they can be a life-saver. However, they are not indicated for other circumstances and the risks and side effects are too high to make them viable for common use outside acute toxicity cases.

    Yes, people have died from the frivolous use of chelation.

    The use of this stems from a common belief amongst some of the anti-technology an “natural medicine” crowd. They’ll tell you our bodies are full of terrible toxins from the evils of the modern world. This is not true at all. The modern body burden of heavy metals is lower than it was in years past. The end of leaded gasoline was a big factor in that as was the reduction of mercury in consumer products and tighter clean-air standards.

    Anyone who is pushing chelation as a therapy for any condition other than acute heavy metal toxicity (fattigue, heart disease, autism, allergies or to facilitate weight loss) should be regarded as a quack and a dangerous one at that.

    I have a feeling Ruby is going to start up with “Oh, because you sad so” crap. No, it’s not because *I* said so. Any medical professional familiar with these claims will say the same. if you don’t believe me, ask any of the good doctors at quackwatch.org or sciencebasedmedicine.org You’ll find they will tell you the same thing.


    Quote Comment
  22. 172
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    One last look before bedtime, and I see I agree with ‘buzz0 about chelation danger. I brought it to mention the necessity for effectiveness of RF shielding for success. But we likely part company quickly: for chelation replacement I recommend sea vegetables. In traditional Oriental medicine, hijiki would be likely the best of all at this and, guess what…in Canada “Health” Canada has actually banned it (inorganic arsenic claimed found, but claim of dubious value in context). Still available at Chinese herb shops, thankfully. But other (delicious) seaweed should be good as well.

    As for the websites, I bet I would not like them, reliant as I am on “natural medicine”. I’ll leave you with one example that also will become important in the context of all the RF brain-addling going on, look up what’s known in English about lion’s mane mushroom for its singular neural regenerative properties. I have anecdotes for you, but someone would have to say they were interested first. Better for this crowd would be to consult corroborative Japanese pharmacological research. I think now it might already be accepted there as prescription medicine for dementia. Good business to go into these days, growing this kind of fungi. Natural medicine. Good night.


    Quote Comment
  23. 173
    DV82XL Says:

    Try and keep to the science Ruby. I posted the INTERPHONE Study, because that’s the one that you nuts hate the most. It’s the one that was the most likely to find a real impact by design, and it has consistently, (because its an on going study) fail to show anything significant.

    The criticisms leveled against it by the EMF scaremongers are rubbish, in particular, there is no justification mathematically, or scientifically for the extrapolations made, and the usual technique of screwing around with the values on the graph x-axis to produce what looks like a spike in the data.

    The attempts at spin control that this study has evoked on the EMF scaremongers’ websites stinks of desperation.

    Bring some real issues with these studies to the table, and stop wasting my time with likes to Powerwatch news and other such places. They are written for people like you that can’t vet them properly.


    Quote Comment
  24. 174
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Try and keep to the science Ruby. I posted the INTERPHONE Study, because that’s the one that you nuts hate the most. It’s the one that was the most likely to find a real impact by design, and it has consistently, (because its an on going study) fail to show anything significant.

    The criticisms leveled against it by the EMF scaremongers are rubbish, in particular, there is no justification mathematically, or scientifically for the extrapolations made, and the usual technique of screwing around with the values on the graph x-axis to produce what looks like a spike in the data.

    The attempts at spin control that this study has evoked on the EMF scaremongers’ websites stinks of desperation.

    Bring some real issues with these studies to the table, and stop wasting my time with likes to Powerwatch news and other such places. They are written for people like you that can’t vet them properly.

    Is that from your position of authority, DV8?

    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/04/19/jnci.djq123.extract

    http://www.gsmworld.com/health/newsletters/gsma_health_env_2010_06.html

    Nordic brain cancer rate study conclusions questioned

    “At the time of publication lead author Dr Isabelle Deltour, from the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology at the Danish Cancer Society, said the study results were in contrast to a Swedish study which suggested a substantially increased risk of brain cancer for both short- and long-term users of mobile phones.

    “The author of the Swedish study, Dr Lennart Hardell, also wrote to the journal and said the statements made by Dr Deltour in the media about his study were “not scientifically defensible.”

    “Meta-analyses of case–control studies show a consistent pattern of increased risk for ipsilateral [side of the head] acoustic neuroma and glioma associated with mobile phone use for 10 or more years,” Dr Hardell and colleagues said.

    ““As Hardell et al. rightly point out, the induction period between an exposure and the diagnosis of a cancer is unknown and could be long. Hence, we would like to reiterate our conclusions: our findings do not alleviate concerns about increased risks of glioma and meningioma among small segments of the population, particularly very intensive mobile phone users, nor about induction periods longer than 5–10 years,” Dr Deltour said in response in the journal.”
    ******************************************

    Maybe in a few years we’ll have more answers to the brain cancer, and I pray–very unscientifically, I know–that you are right and the scientists who find risk are wrong. I do not claim to be certain, but see a reason to defer to precautionary measures. I don’t use a cell or Dect phone or Wifi. There is no general agreement among experts, only agencies saying so, then qualifying with a “but.” The only true agreement I see all around is that more research is needed and results are inconclusive. It’s at the end of every scientific paper and public policy paper. But, I will repeat that you seem more confident than they.

    P.S. Also, I still haven’t seen any refutation of the Sadcikova Clinical Manifestations or Friedman mechanism in your large scale, widely accepted studies–although I have yet to look up DrBuzz’s citations. So, from you DV8, can we have some papers refuting mine specifically? Those large scale studies, you mentioned.

    One more thing for special consideration. I think it’s worth the paste. And I realize there are other factors to consider: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10603019?dopt=AbstractPlus

    “Abstract
    The impact of CNS tumors during childhood and adolescence has been steadily increasing. In many countries, brain and spinal cord tumors are now second in frequency only to leukemia as a cancer affecting children, and the most common cause of cancer mortality in the young. In the United States, brain tumors are now more common than acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and the proportion of cancer deaths due to CNS tumors has nearly doubled during the past 25 years. Worldwide, approximately 30,000-40,000 children develop CNS tumors each year, and the majority do not survive. Compared with most other malignancies that occur during childhood, CNS tumors have not been treated with comparable success in treatment outcome. Also, no specific risk factor, or set of risk factors, has been identified to explain a substantial proportion of CNS tumor occurrence. In many countries, CNS tumors are now the greatest challenge in pediatric oncology.”

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood
    “Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004.


    Quote Comment
  25. 175
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Try and keep to the science Ruby. I posted the INTERPHONE Study, because that’s the one that you nuts hate the most.

    Great idea. You are smart.


    Quote Comment
  26. 176
    Ruby Says:

    http://www.gsmworld.com/health/newsletters/gsma_health_env_2010_06.html

    President Obama’s cancer panel finds no evidence of cell phone cancer link

    The 2008-2009 President’s Cancer Panel report specifically examined the impact of environmental factors on cancer risk, including the possible risk posed by electromagnetic fields used by cell phones. The report also highlighted key barriers to understanding and reducing environmental and occupational carcinogenic exposures.

    The Panel found considerable disagreement exists within the scientific community regarding potential harm due to RF exposure from cellular phones and other wireless devices, and many of the available studies have been interpreted quite differently by researchers on both sides of the issue.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Notice the noted disagreement in the scientific community–no mention of charlatans, etc. Herein lies the crux of the issue in my opinion. There is not a consensus among the experts. You, DV8, are not more qualified than they to decide. If you believe you are, that vitriolic, shaming father you have internalized has made you delusional. The constant caustic spewing of your own self-doubt and loathing expressed as hostility has eroded your impartiality, and I would further reckon, your guts. End of story.


    Quote Comment
  27. 177
    DV82XL Says:

    Your first link falls under the heading of ‘so what’, no one is arguing the point that trend studies will deal with the issue once and for all. That’s why they are still on going.

    Your second link says in part:

    However, the patterns identified by the study reveal the children with cancer are no more likely to have a birth address near a base station than those who do not have cancer.

    “In summary, we found no association between risk of childhood cancers and mobile phone base station exposures during pregnancy. The results of our study should help to place any future reports of cancer clusters near mobile phone base stations in a wider public health context,” lead author Professor Paul Elliott said.

    In commenting on the study, Oxford University statistics specialist Dr John Bithell warned “clinicians should reassure patients not to worry about proximity to mobile phone masts” because such fears “cannot be justified on health grounds in the light of current evidence”.

    Doesn’t look to me like damning evidence at all.

    Yes there are some general issues about meta-analyses studies that are well known. Basically the input studies have to be vetted very carefully to insure that they themselves have been done properly. The INTERPHONE Study, was very diligent, and made all of the underlying studies from the participants available for review, thus Hardell’s accusations are not valid. However I note he is trying to play the latency card, which is also generally a sign that the critic has found nothing else to complain about.

    In your third link the fact that there is more kids diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, has little or no bearing on this issue because this is most likely due to a spectrum of environmental insults, lifestyle factors, and other variables such that any claim that EMF is a contributing cause is hypothetical at best.

    Your last link shows that same Presidential panel clearly found (that despite the disputes which we know exist, or we would not be having this debate) and reported that”:

    “Brain cancer incidence trends by age from 1973–2005 show that incidence rates have not increased apace with the explosive rise in cell phone use in the United States since 1992. Studies also have assessed and failed to show an increased risk of cancer of the parotid gland, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, or uveal melanoma, even among longer-term (5–10 years) and heavier users.”

    “Thus, while considerable research has been conducted on cancer risk due to RF from cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices, the available data are neither consistent nor conclusive, and a mechanism of RF-related cancer has yet to be identified.”

    That hardly sound like a ringing endorsement of the theory, or a dismissal of the work that shows no effect.

    You are no more capable of judging expertize in this matter than you are evaluating the data and findings themselves. As for me, I base my judgment on the quality of a statement, not on who asserts it. I can do that because I have a grounding in the scientific fundamentals, something that it is painfully obvious that you lack.

    “He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.” – Omar Khayam


    Quote Comment
  28. 178
    Matte Says:

    Ruby, check your sources again.
    Dr Lennart Hardell is a scaremonger of the worst kind, his work is often heavily criticised by his superiors in the Swedish accademic world. His grasp of statistics or lack there of often lead him to the wrong conclusions.
    I am sure he is an competent oncologist, however as a researcher he is not recognised to be of any greater scientific minds by anyone in any of the more reputable University hospitals in Sweden, Örebro is not one of them even though they seem to have a University with a faculty in medicine…(which boggles me no ends!). I believe I have outed him in an earlier thread on this site of being of questionable scientific reputation.
    He has only performed statistical studies where the sample sizes are too small to draw any conclusions from and this is what draw most of the criticism from his peers. He does no practical research as far as I know or am aware of.

    His research and published papers are usually openly criticised by the professor of Oncology at “Karolinska Institute of Medicine” not to mention the occasional press release that he submits regarding his research. In 2004 the Swedish Research Council questioned his methods and openly criticised him for the way he didn’t consider the flaws in his methods. He is also labaled as the Swedish champion in cancer alarmism.


    Quote Comment
  29. 179
    Matte Says:

    http://www.nyteknik.se/multimedia/bilder/article182544.ece/BINARY/original/gliomtabell700

    Lennarts conclusions and work is nullified with this graph…


    Quote Comment
  30. 180
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Your last link shows that same Presidential panel clearly found (that despite the disputes which we know exist, or we would not be having this debate) and reported that”:

    “Thus, while considerable research has been conducted on cancer risk due to RF from cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices, the available data are neither consistent nor conclusive, and a mechanism of RF-related cancer has yet to be identified.”

    That hardly sound like a ringing endorsement of the theory, or a dismissal of the work that shows no effect.

    My point, exactly, the experts are hardly in agreement. You are the only one who is certain here.


    Quote Comment
  31. 181
    Ruby Says:

    And for the record, I am not just looking at cancer effects. See the Sadcikova Clinical Manifestations. But hopefully someone is looking at a possible connection between CNS tumors in children and RF.

    And Matte, isn’t the Karolinska where Olle Johansson works? Dr. Deltour seemed to concur with Hardell’s criticism. See the quote.

    “““As Hardell et al. rightly point out, the induction period between an exposure and the diagnosis of a cancer is unknown and could be long. Hence, we would like to reiterate our conclusions: our findings do not alleviate concerns about increased risks of glioma and meningioma among small segments of the population, particularly very intensive mobile phone users, nor about induction periods longer than 5–10 years,” Dr Deltour said in response in the journal.” “


    Quote Comment
  32. 182
    Matte Says:

    Sorry Ruby,

    look at the graph again…

    Regarding Olle Johansson, I don’t know him or of him. Karolinska can’t fire him once they hired him as they are a public institution. I am quite sure he has some merrits as a neurologist, this does not imply he has any knowledge of MW/RF or physics/chemistry (I would assume some chemistry). Is he the fibromyalgi/EHS nut?

    Regarding Dr. Deltour;
    “Dr. Deltour and colleagues write that this finding could be due any number of factors: that the induction period for brain tumors associated with cell phone use exceeds 5 to 10 years”, this should be evident in the graph I linked to. Or does this imply that the onset of malignant effects from mobile use don’t manifest themselves until 15-20 years after exposure, or 20-40 years…100 or perhaps never? How do you link the onset of cancer to a single cause? You can’t unless you know the mechanism from which it forms and can explain it, like for ionising radiation (where you have 3 compeeting theories for dose risk correlation).

    Dr. Deltour;
    “If mobile phones do not cause brain tumors, then ‘induction period’ is a meaningless concept, and we will never observe any sudden sharp increase in the incidence rates”

    Deltour is hedging her bets and are making sure their research continues to get funding, this topic is too hot to get it wrong for the accademics. However evidence confirming your belief that MW/RF radiation causes cancer is still lacking…


    Quote Comment
  33. 183
    DV82XL Says:

    The critical passage is:

    “Brain cancer incidence trends by age from 1973–2005 show that incidence rates have not increased apace with the explosive rise in cell phone use in the United States since 1992. Studies also have assessed and failed to show an increased risk of cancer of the parotid gland, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, or uveal melanoma, even among longer-term (5–10 years) and heavier users.”

    That’s the point here: there is nothing to see.


    Quote Comment
  34. 184
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    Sorry no time for more, but I am seeing some very mistaken comments about Hardell, Interphone, etc. One thing comes immediately to mind, Israeli finding re salivary gland tumours. Look up Sadetzki. Davis is using this info. I keep coming back to her in comments here, as she was at the top of the blog item. Ipsilateral parotid & mobile phones, pretty obvious except to the blinkered.

    And, remember, cancer never the most worthwhile focus, for all kinds of reasons. Although in a few years, the blinkers even will come off at this rate.


    Quote Comment
  35. 185
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    etc. One thing comes immediately to mind, Israeli finding re salivary gland tumours.

    There is a search function on this site.

    Believe it or not, this study was already looked at some time ago.


    Quote Comment
  36. 186
    Ruby Says:

            Ruby said:

    And for the record, I am not just looking at cancer effects. See the Sadcikova Clinical Manifestations. But hopefully someone is looking at a possible connection between CNS tumors in children and RF.

            DV82XL said:

    The critical passage is:

    “Brain cancer incidence trends by age from 1973–2005 show that incidence rates have not increased apace with the explosive rise in cell phone use in the United States since 1992. Studies also have assessed and failed to show an increased risk of cancer of the parotid gland, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, or uveal melanoma, even among longer-term (5–10 years) and heavier users.”

    That’s the point here: there is nothing to see.

    Dr. Deltour seemed to concur with Hardell’s criticism. See the quote.

    “““As Hardell et al. rightly point out, the induction period between an exposure and the diagnosis of a cancer is unknown and could be long. Hence, we would like to reiterate our conclusions: our findings do not alleviate concerns about increased risks of glioma and meningioma among small segments of the population, particularly very intensive mobile phone users, nor about induction periods longer than 5–10 years,” Dr Deltour said in response in the journal.” “

    DV8 square your statement about not increases with this one from Interphone: “There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, at the highest exposure levels, for ipsilateral exposures and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. However, biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation.”

    You are free to take your chances. I’m not using cell or dect phones or wifi and trying to prevent cell towers from going up in my neighborhood and near my children’s schools. Actually, I oppose cell towers on all school campuses. Cancer is not my only focus as I have mentioned many times, hoping you will address the study by Friedman and Sadcikova’s Clinical Manifestations. You say you can refute with large, academically embraced studies. Still waiting.


    Quote Comment
  37. 187
    DV82XL Says:

    Ruby, you will do what ever you want because you are a fool, and cannot see that if there was a strong correlation it wouldn’t be hiding in the error intervals. We are looking at results that are below 1 sigma here, which is to say it is well below the noise floor. That you don’t understand what this means, doesn’t surprise me, because you are arrogant enough to think that you can interpret these results without understanding the mathematics, or language conventions in scientific reporting.

    As I said I will not flood the thread, if we are finished with the studies I have posted, we’ll move on to in vitro experiments.


    Quote Comment
  38. 188
    Ruby Says:

    I don’t see any of your studies refuting the ones I have posted–especially not the Sadcikova’s Clinical Manifestation.

    Your name-calling and belittling is showing your fear and self-loathing again. It is hard to take as a child and one rarely overcomes it, but rather goes on to perpetuate the voice. Very sad. I will not stoop to your level.

    You are not in the position of authority you take. Finally, the experts are not in agreement. It does not appear that you are an expert. You and Matte can not determine who the experts are.

    Please show that large study that refutes Sadcikova.


    Quote Comment
  39. 189
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Ruby said:

    I don’t see any of your studies refuting the ones I have posted–especially not the Sadcikova’s Clinical Manifestation.

    Then you didn’t look.

    Oh, and here are a few more: http://depletedcranium.com/studies-on-rf-radiation-and-cancer/

    Your “studies” are mostly not really studies at all and those which are of appalling quality or full of logical leaps.

    But I don’t expect you to actually consider these. You’ve obviously invested yourself very heavily in these ideas and have no doubt spent a great deal of time and energy on a crusade against what you perceive as the evil cell phone companies and in support of what you see as public health threats.

    I’ve seen this many times before. People reach a point where no amount of information will make them think otherwise. In the fact of facts that counter their belief, they only get more entrenched and start to try divert the subject or bring up the same arguments over and over or go after things that don’t even matter.

    This is because the alternative would be to admit that they were fooled all along and that the time and effort spent was all a complete waste. In the worst cases, they even feel that the foundation of how they define themselves is at stake.

    I’m not just saying this as a third party. I’ve been there myself before. It really sucks. It can be hard to pick oneself up after having a major belief shaken by the undeniable truth. However, it’s still something that is better to face up to than leave. An unfounded belief in a flawed hypothesis is like a splinter – it can hurt to pull it out, but it’s better to do so than to leave it in there to fester.


    Quote Comment
  40. 190
    Finrod Says:

    Off topic:

    Doc, your e-mail folder is full, so I’ve sent you a message via facebook.


    Quote Comment
  41. 191
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    “just what qualifies you”

    That was the Mr D(igesti)V(etract)8′s reply to my comment on the ’73 study. And, as with his very 1st response to my 1st comment here, so-and-so “is a botanist”, it displays a variety of what he purports to avoid, argument from authority. This has precluded examination of substance, making this discussion far less interesting than it could have been, if some of you maybe have a keen eye for some things.

    I don’t know what use in repeating the result of a very different manner of reading a piece of literature, that is what a sci. paper is, a piece that communicates on many levels. The glass used around here, by the most vocal anyway, to go over the material is unable to focus properly, except, perhaps, on what interests them, which in this context is so parochial, it hurts (those who take your opinions seriously).

    So, taking up drb’s prompt, I looked at how you dealt with the Israeli parotid gland paper. DigestiVe again led the commentary attack, on completely baseless grounds. As if a set of data cannot be read and reread. Talk about monofocus. And there are daffy comments about what such an increase indicates in terms of risk. What could possibly be an interesting sample size for you guys, big enough so danger can be averaged out? You are perfect playthings of the aggressive risk analyst crowd that took over so much of the public health world. Any onlookers with more breadth of wit should examine Don Maisch’s book I brought here already. Here’s the link to the pdf for the lazy. I expect the lead commenters here to get little or nothing from The Procrustean Approach’s useful background to the travesty we face. http://www.bemri.org/publications/doc_download/313-dr-don-maischs-thesis-qthe-procrustean-approach-setting-exposure-standards-for-telecommunicationsq.html.

    Someone who could say the following in a blurb about himself, “The human body is an exceptionally complex organism and its workings and failings are not as yet completely understood consequently it is unreasonable to expect physicians to achieve the same level of success as those that work on simpler systems, like a locksmith for example.”, is, au contraire, rather treating matters of biology as if they were matters of metallurgy.

    A “pragmatist” has to have a grasp of relations, complexity. DV8′ cannot sensibly call yourself “pragmatic”.


    Quote Comment
  42. 192
    Ruby Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Then you didn’t look.

    Oh, and here are a few more: http://depletedcranium.com/studies-on-rf-radiation-and-cancer/

    Your “studies” are mostly not really studies at all and those which are of appalling quality or full of logical leaps.

    But I don’t expect you to actually consider these.

    The endpoints in the Sadcikova study do not involve cancer, DrBuzz, just FYI. I looked at your studies and commented on Interphone and the Nordic Brain Cancer Study specifically.

    I suppose when you get invited to the next International Symposium on the Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, you can tell them all what a bunch of buffoons they really are. Or the next time the Health Ministry or the European Union asks for your advice on wireless radiation exposure, fill them in on a few things. That’s where these studies have been presented to peer-review. It’s a wonder they haven’t asked you and DV8 to help set guidelines.

    I acknowledge that there are conflicting studies, conclusions, interpretations, and opinions. Obviously. DV8 denigrates every scientist whose work does not support his position. Most studies, if not all I have seen, have been criticized by someone for something. I consider every study I see. Why do you labor to make it seem otherwise? I may point out a criticism of a study, but do not berate the scientist or the poster for presenting it. That is simply irrelevant to the material, off the point, and unsubstantiated. I don’t have any opinion or personal knowledge of the scientists or his or her motivations. However, I do not see that the weight of evidence supports the position that long-term, low-level microwave radiation exposure is safe. Even the weighting of evidence is open to debate. And debate is always good and constructive in some way.


    Quote Comment
  43. 193
    DV82XL Says:

            Ruby said:

    I don’t see any of your studies refuting the ones I have posted–especially not the Sadcikova’s Clinical Manifestation.

    All the previous kinks refute Sadcikova, so are the ones DrBuzzO posted in the thread he linked to. You are just too much of a simpleton to understand why. In simple terms the effects reported in Sadcikova, don’t show up in these later studies

    As for specifically refuting Sadcikova’s Clinical Manifestations unfortunately the Soviet literature on this subject in general does not provide details into their experimental design and research methodology. Normal research papers includes the frequency of exposure, (these only use the designation microwave or the band in the microwave region), the incident power density of the radiation, the duration of exposure, and animal species. Very little if any information is given on how the animals are exposed, or field characteristics, or energy absorption, or how control animals are maintained,and other important experimental design parameters which are required for describing the research. In most cases, the bulk of the papers present many biological changes with little description of the techniques used for measuring the observed aberrations. In cases where effects on humans are reported, the exposure are reported without dosimetry, sometimes the range of levels measured within the general area, and sometimes as estimates of the length of time the person has worked in the area are given. There is little or no discussion on how the exposed and control groups are constituted and the possible presence of other environmental factors, both chemical and physical, is provided. Most of the reported results are subjective in nature and techniques used to obtain the results are generally not given.

    In attempts to replicate some of the Soviet and Eastern European work, Western investigators have not obtained, the same biological changes. Due to the lack of information in the Soviet and Eastern European literature, it is technically impossible to duplicate all aspects their research

            Ruby said:

    You are not in the position of authority you take. Finally, the experts are not in agreement. It does not appear that you are an expert. You and Matte can not determine who the experts are.

    Show me where I claim to be in a position of authority. You are still trying to evaluate these studies by judging the qualification of those that publish them, therefore it is apparent that you who is an expert, and who is not, Matte and I argue the facts


    Quote Comment
  44. 194
    Ruby Says:

            Ruby said:

    Dr. Deltour seemed to concur with Hardell’s criticism. See the quote.

    “““As Hardell et al. rightly point out, the induction period between an exposure and the diagnosis of a cancer is unknown and could be long. Hence, we would like to reiterate our conclusions: our findings do not alleviate concerns about increased risks of glioma and meningioma among small segments of the population, particularly very intensive mobile phone users, nor about induction periods longer than 5–10 years,” Dr Deltour said in response in the journal.” “

    One note on the point of cancer, if we are already seeing a “small” increase in glioma and meningioma after only 5-12 years of exposure–as I believe the exposure time was in the Interphone–and that the tumors are indeed caused by microwave exposure from the phone, that is a relatively quick progression, considering how long cancers’ latency period can be.


    Quote Comment
  45. 195
    DV82XL Says:

            Ruby said:

    One note on the point of cancer, if we are already seeing a “small” increase in glioma and meningioma after only 5-12 years of exposure–as I believe the exposure time was in the Interphone–and that the tumors are indeed caused by microwave exposure from the phone, that is a relatively quick progression, considering how long cancers’ latency period can be.

    You know they have been trying to play the latency card over the Chernobyl incident for decades, as the carnage from radiation induced sickness failed to materialize.

    The problem with seeing anything from any increase in these cancers, is that there is no way of telling what is causing them, or even if they are a result of better diagnosis of a stable number of cases.

    It means nothing.


    Quote Comment
  46. 196
    Ruby Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You know they have been trying to play the latency card over the Chernobyl incident for decades, as the carnage from radiation induced sickness failed to materialize.

    The problem with seeing anything from any increase in these cancers, is that there is no way of telling what is causing them, or even if they are a result of better diagnosis of a stable number of cases.

    It means nothing.

    I don’t have any direct knowledge of the incidence of diseases caused by Chernobyl. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that if cancer incidences are increasing after only 5 years of low-level radiation exposure, what does that mean. It may be nothing to you; it may be nothing at all. It may be cause and effect. In the mean time, how does a responsible society react? By increasing exposure exponentially?


    Quote Comment
  47. 197
    BMS Says:

            Ruby said:

    It may be nothing to you; it may be nothing at all. It may be cause and effect. In the mean time, how does a responsible society react?

    Well, obviously, the public should be stampeded like cattle by scary claims resulting from questionable results reported by dubious studies.

    You’re not a journalist, by chance, are you?


    Quote Comment
  48. 198
    DV82XL Says:

            Ruby said:

    I don’t have any direct knowledge of the incidence of diseases caused by Chernobyl. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that if cancer incidences are increasing after only 5 years of low-level radiation exposure, what does that mean. It may be nothing to you; it may be nothing at all.

    It may be cause and effect. In the mean time, how does a responsible society react? By increasing exposure exponentially?

    Look you have to show more than just correlation, especially when the relationship you are positing is so nebulous. There may be some other reason for this noted increase (if it is indeed there) and assuming that it is cellphones is not only unsupportable, but may indeed may be placing the blame in the wrong camp. The rise of the use of power drinks happened in the same interval, for example. We could spend billions, make cellphone illegal and do nothing to address the cancers because EMF wasn’t the cause.

    I know people like you think that therefor that precautionary principle should kick in, but ask yourself this question, is the possible reduction in risk from an unproven carcinogenic effect being obtained at the increase in other risks? Do you really want to be in a cell dead zone when you desperately need help, with your spouse or kids dying in your lap because some people with no technical or scientific training took it upon themselves to block the construction of a tower believing it was going to cause them harm?

    This is the bottom line here: even if (and I’m not saying there is) a marginal possibility that maybe there was a minute increase in the chance that a very small subset of the population may get a cancerous lesion, is preventing that worth the lives that will surly be lost because this communication network has been compromised.

    That’s why it is so, so important to prove a connection at a level above 5 sigma, the implications of rushing into the wrong decision are far too grave.


    Quote Comment
  49. 199
    Daryl Vernon Says:

    “there is no way of telling”

    Someone bail out this guy. He really does not get how ridiculous he appears.

    My first encounter with the dire effects of cell telephony was about 8 years ago. We always avoided wireless mania, but a chatty friend I had not seen for a few years had taken up with a cell phone. He cautioned me that he could not hear well in one ear due to a tumour. I asked of that was his habitual ear for listening to his phone over those past few years. It was. The connexion had not occurred to him, as it would not occur to, say, your resident “pragmatist”.

    Anecdotes rule sometimes, esp. when the sci. establishment has become deeply corrupt. Here’s from Davis, a milder example:
    …………
    In 1997, an important paper by Motorola-supported scientist Jerry Phillips appeared [...[showing that genes of rodents exposed to cell-phone-like radiation looked significantly worse than those [unexposed]. After his study had gone through review and been accepted, the published paper appeared. But it ended with a mysterious sentence that Phillips did not write, did not agree with, and had refused to include. That added sentence said that the change in gene expression following cell phone irradiation “is probably of no consequence”.

    [...] By the time his paper appeared with its orphaned final sentence, Phillips no longer worked for Motorola and lost his funding from Defense Department-associated sources as well.”
    …………


    Quote Comment
  50. 200
    DV82XL Says:

            Daryl Vernon said:

    Anecdotes rule

    I just don’t where to start…


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string iEh56M to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam