House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to hear from witnesses on the dangers of wireless

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
D V
House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to hear from witnesses on the dangers of wireless

Apr 27 & 29 9-11 a.m. Ottawa time HESA Committee is slated to hear witnesses on serious health dangers of microwave radiation, cell masts & phones, wifi, cordless &c. A strong international line-up we have arranged is prepared to tell it like it is to the MPs, that the dangers are obvious from all manner of study and clinical experience. Health & Industry Canada (which some have taken to calling Death & Injury Canada) are supposed to defend their ridiculous position about current guidelines & safety, centred on Safety (read, Danger) Code 6. I hope it is televised, and that MPs' questions allow enough time for the extent of the travesty to be revealed & explained.

Scholars from Sweden, Greece, France, UK, Canada are expected. CBC Sunday Edition was going to broadcast topically this Sunday, but after I told them of the HESA hearings, they rescheduled to Apr 25.

As a warm-up you could look at Ketcham's piece in GQ Feb 2010 for a first-time well-researched piece in mainstream N.A. media. And now another, if less well-researched but welcome, article in May 2010 Harper's.

The "we" above centres on the big effort of SEMO on the ground & online in Quebec. Bravo, François (voir www.dangersemo.com ).

 

 

D V

Round One went rather well today.

Hot air (and some misspeaking) from Bernard Lord defending industry, ludicrous denials from others on his side about the dangers of wireless. Off-topic focus mainly for them with idiot taking points.

François Therrien and Magda Havas performing commendably. Odd goings-on possibly intended to minimize perception of harm to industry (bell-ringing to cut meeting short, technical and translation glitches, no video (audio only)). Soft-ball industry-supportive "questions" from Cons. as expected. Best maybe to come on Thursday, when four international researchers we've lined up, if all goes well,  put definitive words in front of already apparently concerned MPs.

Best of all today was fill-in BQ MP Cardin unexpectedly going on about his own electrosensitivity, even in the face of the denialism in the very room!

(But I remain cautiously pessimistic.)

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/27/13739771-qmi.html
"War on health effects of wireless devices waged in capital"

"A battle is brewing on Parliament Hill over whether mobile phones, wi-fi networks and cell towers emit too many harmful microwaves."

"The Health Committee will hear from more witnesses on the issue Thursday."

 

D V

Round two was even better!

Listen to both via

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMeetings.aspx?Cmte=HES...

 

 

Michelle

Thanks for this!

D V

The Committee website link has been worryingly unavailable for some time now. Might be routine maintenance, might be mischief.

Above I referred to possible mischief that served to chop 1/8 off the 1st meeting by division bell-ringing in the Commons. If you have a look at Hansard, you'll see a useless motion to stop debate was put forth by a Cons. hack around 10:40 a.m. , which led to the predictable disagreement from the other parties, which leads to the vote call, which provokes the bell-ringing, which the Chair can use as an excuse to terminate the committee hearing, which Cons. Joy Smith did.

We were denied a last-minute witness insertion; the other side was given two last-second witnesses, whch crowded out some testimony from our stellar cast on Thursday's "round two". But in a way it was good they added those Injury Canada reps (actually pursuant to a motion at "round one" by Murray that they not ignore a "strong request" that they attend, made as the bells were ringing -- they had time for that...) -- they looked so bad! And they had plenty of time to get to the Chamber to vote some 40 minutes later, there was no great need to truncate the meeting like that.

The 2nd meeting they amended in advance to chop off another 15 minutes, giving less time for our stars to make the losing team look bad. In another typical tactic, the earliest expected witnesses were the other side's top guns, people like Krewski & Bushberg & some top Death Canada guy -- all pulled out when our line up was noticed. Wouldn't want the "best" players to get injured, so hapless substitutes put in instead. They all were actually making our points for us, either by direct admission (eg Habash's "switch sides of the head" recommendation) or foolish and oblivious beside-the-point remarks (eg Hill re monitoring spatial cumulative effect vs salient temporal).

Johansson got some of his typical great lines in, something like "if you want there to be a Health Canada in 50 years..." & "safe = zero",  the apparently subtly hostile Chair was disarmed by elder Goldwsworthy (maybe she was reminded of an old country grandpa?) who did not hold back from pronouncing regarding direst effect, Panagopoulos was clinically perfect depicting what happens to poor fruit flies when exposed. Sasco came out swinging as the brave public health pro she is.

It takes bravery for all these -- all have suffered intimidation and/or cut back on professional resources for pursuing their inconvenient lines of research and truth-telling. Bravo to them all. With this on the highest public record, we expect that our advocacy/activism be much facilitated.

Does anyone know who is a likely replacement for retiring Judy W-L on the HESA Committee? Carol Hughes, while sympathetic and offering to ask questions for our side, I am told is not likely to be the NDP Committee member. The Liberals all seem typically, for now, unable to face the issue squarely. Murray's people failed to come through for us with an expected pitch for a fill-in witness, Duncan cancelled or postponed a meeting with us last wek, Bennett did not get back to me to be briefed pre-meeting as expected. Now that they all seemed taken or shaken by the testimony, they will be inclined to figure in what politically safe way they can act. When in March the antii-cell mast SEMO petition was presented to Parl. by BQ MP Malo, the SEMO press conference was almost apparently to be attended by Coderre & Mulclair! Who doesn't want to stand up (or rather be perceived to be standing up) to the telecommonsters & their abettors? But they did not show. And the BQ is giving an ongoing cold shoulder -- politically just in case, who cares about facts & health -- to SEMO which provoked this whole immediate affair, although the BQ is to be credited as the most responsible of the bunch thus far. Too many Greens are co-opted by the teleommonstrosity, but finally, finally they came through to send two reps to stand ith SEMO, and some have come forward to sign a list of recommendations submitted to HESA.

Should I post this list here with some 100 signatories already? Who knows, some of you might sign on. And maybe some of you will influence the NDP to perceive this as an issue to ride at the forefront for eventual great political benefit -- be the only ones in no uncertain terms to champion the most pressing yet suppressed health and environmental issue of our day, which must be cleared away to get to other such issues. Addled brains and progessively mass-sickened population can't work good policy. Who will put it to the NDP that their lead couple could be poster people for the cause -- I would be surprised if the thyroid and prostate afflictions were not as typical a direct result of cumulative exposure to pulsed microwaves from their cell phones. While it runs far deeper than this, the corporate malfeasance involved, and suppression of information, and intimidation fo researchers, shouldn't all that be up the NDP alley?

 

 

 

 

D V

"Should I post this list here with some 100 signatories already? Who knows, some of you might sign on. "

I'm accustomed to not getting much response around here. But who cares, enough of you I've come to respect for me to still come by this way on occsasion; and who knows, some of you might spread a good word against the travesty set upon us all. Ever notice that during the 90s provincially-borne health care costs finally plateaued for a number of years -- only to begin their inexorable upward since the late 90s' mass deployment of wireless?

There is just so much in all this with which to draw in people on the political left. So here's the list quickly drawn up to assist MPs floundering before the bad news raining down at the meetings. Would very much like to see comment & argument, more even than extra signatories (but send me a private message, or post here, with name & locality to add your name to around 100 from across Canada already).

.........................................................

We respectfully submit to Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA), that the Committee urgently recommend to Parliament that:

PARLIAMENTARY CONCERN

1) In light of information recently brought to its attention via the HESA Committee, Parliament announce in the shortest delay its serious concern about exposure of Canadians to electromagnetic radiation under
prevailing Health Canada guidelines;

URGENT INVESTIGATION

2) the Government urgently examine possible dangers and remedies in depth and commit to prompt remedial and protective measures;

IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM

3) Industry Canada declare an immediate moratorium on new telecommunications installations;

EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent
guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;

PUBLIC WARNINGS

5) Health Canada issue warnings, particularly regarding more vulnerable segments of the population, recommending minimization of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from all sources;

AWARENESS PERIOD

6) Parliament declare a period dedicated to public awareness of electromagnetic sensitivity, as has been done elsewhere;

WIDE ADVERTISEMENT

7) the Government widely advertise these warnings in non-governmental publications, including enumeration of various types of radiofrequency emitters, in consideration of the general lack of information among the general public about these matters;

LOCAL EMPOWERMENT

8) Parliament amend the Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act to explicitly refer to health and safety, and to admit provincial and thus indirectly municipal ability to affect, on health and
environmental basis, the operation and installation of telecommunications equipment;

"WHITE ZONES"

9) as long as Canadians are afflicted by electromagnetic sensitivity, involving "debilitating responses to [...] electromagnetic radiation" (as described for example in a 2007 report published by the Canadian Human Rights Commission), and provincial authorities feel constrained from dealing with these issues, there be federally arranged establishment of zones of refuge of extremely low presence of electromagnetic radiation for those afflicted, with appropriate support and access to services;

EXTENDED RESEARCH

10) Health Canada include in research and deliberation learned adherents of complementary medical traditions, in light of the inability of prevailing conventional biomedical research to sufficiently account for the effects of electromagnetic radiation, and in the expectation that valuable insight from such complementary bodies of knowledge would assist with overcoming this inability;

EFFECT ON WILDLIFE

11) research into the effects of electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna be conducted under federal auspices;

JOINT COMMITTEE

12) a Joint Parliamentary Committee be created, involving at least members from the Standing Committees on Environment and Sustainable Development, on Health and on Industry, Science and Technology, to
address the governance of the effects of electromagnetic pollution in Canada, to possibly arrange for the transfer of such oversight to the Environment Ministry;

UTILITY METERS

13) the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act be amended to prohibit wireless transmissions from most utility meters, such as are deployed throughout Canada adding to electromagnetic pollution;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

14) a Royal Commission examine the dangers of too close participation of commercial and military interests in biomedical research, in light of such close association having led to dismissal or neglect of well-established deleterious bioeffects of electromagnetic radiation, as well as to influence against such comprehensive research;

SAFE ALTERNATIVES

15) privileged federal funding be provided for research and development of safe alternatives, some already in existence, to all existing possibly dangerous microwave technologies;

HEALTH TAX

16) a significant new federal levy on all telecommunications goods and services involving possibly dangerous electromagnetic radiation be raised, to help offset the continual and steady increase in
provincially-borne health care costs since the mass deployment of such technology in the late 1990s;

ADVERTISING BAN

17) the Government ban public advertisement with intent to induce acquisition or use of such technologies, whereby vulnerable segments of the population would be encouraged to expose themselves to possibly
dangerous forms and levels of electromagnetic radiation;

NON-EXHAUSTIVE

18) this list of recommendations be not considered exhaustive in general description of action required by the Government of Canada to perform the utmost service of protection of its citizens from the
potential harms of exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

 

IN SUPPORT

The following signatories support all or most of the above recommendations:

...............................................................

Thanks for reading.

 

D V

HESA produced a lame report. With similar evidence before them, see from http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc11/edoc1... , the Council of Europe speaks, with those 18 recommendations to HESA a year ago above embedded for comparison

[I tried using colour to make for easier reading but somehow it did not take, at least not in the "preview"]:

from

Doc. 12608

6 May 2011
The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

Report1

Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Rapporteur: Mr Jean HUSS, Luxembourg, Socialist Group

potential health effects
radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony
harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.

revise the current threshold values

[[We respectfully submit to Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA), that the Committee urgently recommend to Parliament that:]

EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;]

 

extremely high human and economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected

systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures

potential consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms

the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health
[BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

14) a Royal Commission examine the dangers of too close participation of commercial and military interests in biomedical research, in light of such close association having led to dismissal or neglect of well-established deleterious bioeffects of electromagnetic radiation, as well as to influence against such comprehensive research;]

 

reduce exposure

[EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;]

 

reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards

[URGENT INVESTIGATION

2) the Government urgently examine possible dangers and remedies in depth and commit to prompt remedial and protective measures;]

 

information and awareness-raising campaigns

[WIDE ADVERTISEMENT

7) the Government widely advertise these warnings in non-governmental publications, including enumeration of various types of radiofrequency emitters, in consideration of the general lack of information among the general public about these matters;]

pay particular attention to "electrosensitive" persons
special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network

["WHITE ZONES"

9) as long as Canadians are afflicted by electromagnetic sensitivity, involving "debilitating responses to [...] electromagnetic radiation" (as described for example in a 2007 report published by the Canadian Human Rights Commission), and provincial authorities feel constrained from dealing with these issues, there be federally arranged establishment of zones of refuge of extremely low presence of electromagnetic radiation for those afflicted, with appropriate support and access to services;]

 

encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment and health

[SAFE ALTERNATIVES

15) privileged federal funding be provided for research and development of safe alternatives, some already in existence, to all existing possibly dangerous microwave technologies;]

clear labelling

[PUBLIC WARNINGS

5) Health Canada issue warnings, particularly regarding more vulnerable segments of the population, recommending minimization of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from all sources;]

 

raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances

targeted information campaigns

[WIDE ADVERTISEMENT

7) the Government widely advertise these warnings in non-governmental publications, including enumeration of various types of radiofrequency emitters, in consideration of the general lack of information among the general public about these matters; ]

 

ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organisations

reduce threshold values for relay antennas

[EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;]

 

not solely according to the operators' interests but in consultation with local and regional government officials, local residents and associations of concerned citizens

[LOCAL EMPOWERMENT

8) Parliament amend the Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act to explicitly refer to health and safety, and to admit provincial and thus indirectly municipal ability to affect, on health and environmental basis, the operation and installation of telecommunications equipment;]

 

more prevention oriented

pay heed to and protect "early warning" scientists

increase public funding of independent research

[EXTENDED RESEARCH

10) Health Canada include in research and deliberation learned adherents of complementary medical traditions, in light of the inability of prevailing conventional biomedical research to sufficiently account for the effects of electromagnetic radiation, and in the expectation that valuable insight from such complementary bodies of knowledge would assist with overcoming this inability;]

 

ReeferMadness

D V

The last time I researched this, the science against wireless radiation didn't seem to be all that persuasive.  Do you have any links to something conclusive?   It seems to me that the amount of wireless exposure has gone through the roof over the last decade (not just cell phones but WiF anc cordless phones).  Are we seeing corresponding increases in cancer?

And are cordless phones in the same category as cell phones?

D V

Reefer', there is a veritable ton of damning info, has been for decades, this is the absolute worst case of info suppression & research co-optation, refining a century of monstrous corporate, military & abettor behaviour. On babble there have been a few topical threads already (eg http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/cell-towers-kill ). Cordless are different & the same. Dangerous, yes. It seems likely that they are implicated very much in the dementia epidemic, as might be microwave ovens, the more common pre-mass-cell-telephony microwave uses. But most urgent are cell phone base station antennae, and awareness that CUMULATIVE effects are paramount. Cancer should NEVER be a primary focus, but eben still, re cell phones in particular,  the best studies (Hardell's) show old-type "heavy" use (the now average 1/2 hr/day!) highly carcinogenic, maybe fastest of all time for such mass carcinogenic exposures. All manner of symptoms are to be paid attention to first, awaiting cancers plays into perpetrators' hands. I just wanted to show how my list above of HESA recommendations anticipated what is coming now out of the august Council of Europe. I can refer you to whatever angle of evidence you require, personal stories, journalistic accounts old & new, science old & new. I have said before here that the NDP should be a natural (I'm not holding my breath on it) to pursue this forcefully, with the new couple in Stornoway as poster people for la causa, both struck with what are some of the most common afflictions associated with mass public exposures to latter-day wirelsss mania, in thyroid & prostate. Instead, NDP has been pushing a rather differnt line re cell telephony. We'll see. Re-elected NDP MPs Hughes, Leslie, Atamenko for example have tended to be among the more receptive on these issues, now GPC MP May has a longstanding interest in it (Green-related parties have led on it in Europe), some others have shown interest as well, despite som eof their lame activity at HESA (Lib re-elected Murray, Duncan, also possibly Coderre; also Mulcair, nearly every MP's office has heard justified complaints about cell masts).

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

There is not a "ton of damning info".  The fact is, the information we do have shows little appreciable effect.  It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

6079_Smith_W

I should say I am not a proponent of this theory, since we have lived in a world surrounded by radio waves for decades.

But I did notice this the other day:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110513/tc_digitaltrends/cellphon...

It does raise the question of if this is a solid study, if bee deaths are limited to areas where there is cell phone coverage, or exactly what this might or might not mean. 

 

Trevormkidd

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But I did notice this the other day:

The author of that piece deserves a medal.

Quote:
Cell phones signals really are killing the bees, study shows

 

That is the title of the article. The study is actually pretty good. It showed no such thing.

 

Quote:
Researcher Daniel Favre of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has found that wireless signals cause honeybees to become so disoriented that they finally just die.

 

There is no claim in the study that any bee became disoriented let alone died.

 

Quote:
So, what about a cell phone signal makes bees suicidally crazy?

 

Positive claim of bee behaviour based on zero evidence.

 

Quote:
Favre's study shows that our cell phone habit is playing a major role in the current bee holocaust.

 

Among the most innacurate statements I have ever read.

 

About two years ago I did a literature review of CCD with an entomology professor. There are several legitimate possibilities for for bee colonies to collapse: mites, viruses, fungi, invasive species, current transportation methods and so on. At that time cell phones made no sense. Not only was there no evidence, but there also was no correlation of between areas of high cell phone use/towers and CCD. I doubt that the evidence has changed in the last 2 years.

 

At the same time I think that this researcher performed a solid study and first we will see if the study is replicated. However, the study did not provide evidence for the fear mongering claims that are being reported. That doesn't mean that those claims are impossible, but there is no evidence for yet. 

Trevormkidd

D V wrote:
I can refer you to whatever angle of evidence you require, personal stories, journalistic accounts old & new, science old & new.

How bout legitimate peer review studies in a respectable journal.  Not the typical embarrassing garbage that Magda Havas puts out.

D V

Timebandit wrote:

It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

You mean, worried about cataracts? Indeed, one of the main early effects of radar exposure. Find out what happened to Milton Zaret a generation ago for some honest opthamology. Or, no, you mean, look away from things like the Council of Europe Committee reported:

..................................

19. To back up their argument, the experts quoted the scientific assessments carried out by associations such as the International Committee on Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a small private NGO near Munich, or by official organisations: the World Health Organization, the European Commission and a number of national protection agencies. It appears that these European and national organisations or international bodies have based their thinking on the threshold values and recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP when that private association was set up near Munich at the beginning of the 1990s.

[...]

29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.18. In the face of fast-growing concerns and opposition in many Council of Europe member states, the response of top executives of electricity companies and mobile telephone operators is to deny that their industrial and commercial activities have any adverse effect on human health. At the hearing in Paris on 25 February 2011, the official representatives of French and European mobile telephone operators passionately argued that the official threshold values applicable in most countries in the world were adequate to protect human beings from the thermal effects of mobile telephones and that any biological effects, if these could be demonstrated, would not have any adverse effects on human health

30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:

- in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;

- and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.

31. With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of scientific research and studies on the possible risks of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding - private or public - and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.

32. Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis of all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was funded and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public funding.

.......................

In a gross culture, a hierarchy only needs to be captured at a few critical nodes to co-opt the whole process. In Canada, "Health" (Death) Canada & sidekcick Industry (Injury) Canada, assure provincial acquiescence via the FPTRPC, and the RP stands for radiation protection, literally. Read the excellent work by Don Maisch (I muts have brought it on another thread somewhere here), about how regulatory process has been thoroughly corrupted from the WHO, IEMFP, ICNIRP all the way down, The Procrustean Approach, (as in, lop off what is uncomfortable to ones' wretched cause), http://international-emf-alliance.org/images/pdf/The_Procrustean_Approac... .

But our HESA Committee hears similar testimony to what the PACE Committee hears, and Canada lies down to play its corporate
playground role some more, hESA putting out a near-useless (and censored) report. So we resolve that, just as with committee failures re e.g. prostitution laws a few years back, it's time to go the cruel court route; except that by he time a Charter challenge reaches the SCC, Harper might have had his way with stacking it, and could even find a way to ignore a ruling of Section 7 violation. Why it is important to resume the political pressure, and maybe a few more babblers can learn about real "conspiracy".

What's a"ton"? Consult the '07 & '09 BioInitiative Report which exercised the EU Parliament in '09 to express its perturbation at the status quo. And if you get to reading the COE doc I link to, the new max. exposure limits are far from prtective, it is too late for that. Eg I know someone who suffers seizures at exposures a 100s x lower threshold than their new suggested max. Here is an example of one such sufferer, not a great article, but there he is: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected, "The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves" . And there has been a"ton" more since that compendium was put out a few years ago, see eg from HESA testimony Apr 29 of Panagopouos, from just after 0925 at
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4478290&L... . And you won't want me to tell you what happened to him after daring to give that testimony in a political venue (and to three colleague witness whistleblowers), wouldn't want you to eye a conspiracy.

D V

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I should say I am not a proponent of this theory, since we have lived in a world surrounded by radio waves for decades.

But I did notice this the other day:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110513/tc_digitaltrends/cellphon...

It does raise the question of if this is a solid study, if bee deaths are limited to areas where there is cell phone coverage, or exactly what this might or might not mean. 

 

 

"Radio waves for decades" have been killing people for decades. There is plenty if sci. lit. on this. Tee-vee, FM, AM it all must be redone. But for its widespread endangering deployment, shorter wavelength stuff has to be curbed, fast. The Favre study was put at another thread on babble in the "enviro" category.

D V

Trevormkidd wrote:

About two years ago I did a literature review of CCD with an entomology professor. There are several legitimate possibilities for for bee colonies to collapse: mites, viruses, fungi, invasive species, current transportation methods and so on. At that time cell phones made no sense. Not only was there no evidence, but there also was no correlation of between areas of high cell phone use/towers and CCD. I doubt that the evidence has changed in the last 2 years.

At the same time I think that this researcher performed a solid study and first we will see if the study is replicated. However, the study did not provide evidence for the fear mongering claims that are being reported. That doesn't mean that those claims are impossible, but there is no evidence for yet. 

Let's see, the person I mentioned before who suffer from even nanoW exposures will have a seizure like clockwork the following morning, when & only when so exposed. If the person suffers a blow to the head during a seizure, is the cause the falling to the ground, or is it more sensible to ascribe cauality further back? Immune function weakening is among the top effects of synthetic xenobiotic electromagnetic exposures. Take eg its well-known melatonin suppression. You can't sleep well enough (rates of insomnia ever increasing), nocturnal prime immune function activity is suppressed, and one becomes ever more susceptible to whatever is there to get one. If you're a bee, that could be  things such as you list.

 

Please do tell me who the prof. was. Was there any dosimetry involved? Just antennae search via IC? I want to know, I want to contact the fellow.

 

The bee danger has been reported for very long, and in the past 2 years there has indeed been a great increase in wireless addictions, if that matters to you, proliferation of antennae with new telecom entrants as well as  general increased usage. Eg at our house the ambient backyard e-pollution in the 1mHz-8gHz range has dramatically increased since Oct '09, around when Globalive-Wind was allowed its CRTC override and set up an antenna aimed our way at a dangerous 200m (see eg best such study yet, "Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation in
Selbitz (Bavaria, Germany) - Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship", https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxub... .

Trevormkidd

D V wrote:
Let's see, the person I mentioned before who suffer from even nanoW exposures will have a seizure like clockwork the following morning, when & only when so exposed.

Show me where this is published with peer review in a legitimate medical or science journal.  Otherwise, don't bother.

Quote:
Please do tell me who the prof. was.

Not a chance.  I will not subject anyone to the abuse that scientists routinely face from conspiracy mongers over issues like autism, vaccines, climate change, evolution, 9/11 and wifi.  I don't care what kinds of nonsense you want to believe, but I will not help you waste the time of people who actually care about science and evidence.  Plus you can find the exact same thing in dozens of respectible journals through out the world.  You have something to say...then publish it.  I have read of enough of your posts to realize that you will never accept any information or evidence that does not support your non-evidence based beliefs. 

Snert Snert's picture

If your mind is being controlled by the Bilderbergers right now, it's NOT your cellphone.  This nonsense about wireless radiation is just a decoy, to keep us from looking at the real problem:  chemtrails. 

Also, the rooster crows at midnight.  You know what I mean.

D V

Trevormkidd wrote:

Not a chance.  [...]

your non-evidence based beliefs. 

For those of you whose lives are less subject to chance than this poor fellow, who seems to have succumbed severely to scientism as religious surrogate, you owe it to yourselves and those who care about you to be no part of latter-day wireless mania. You'll find out soon, the suffering is too great and growing.

84 signatories on the COE committee all must have "non-evidence based beliefs", eh, 'kidd, attentive as they were  to "17. The great multitude of scientific studies quoted during the hearing of experts [which] should certainly prompt policymakers to reflect on their decisions and act accordingly."

 

Trevormkidd

D V wrote:
For those of you whose lives are less subject to chance than this poor fellow, who seems to have succumbed severely to scientism as religious surrogate,

Beautiful.  The typical conspiracy theorist first claims that they have lots of solid scientific evidence, and then in response to a request for that evidence in the only format that has been shown effective and self-correcting is to disparage the same form of evidence that you claimed to have.

Quote:
84 signatories on the COE committee all must have "non-evidence based beliefs", eh, 'kidd,

Argument from authority logical fallacy.  The Oregon Petition has 31,000 signatures of scientists who dispute climate change.  Again that means nothing.  Only the evidence matters.  If they want to be taken seriously they must do the research, subject it to a proper peer review process and have it published in a legitimate journal.  Same goes for those who dispute climate change, or the holocaust.

Fidel

Our corrupt stooges still haven't banned export of asbestos to thirdworld capitalist workers' paradises yet. How could they possibly be worried about cell phones causing deadly gliomas?

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:
The fact is, the information we do have shows little appreciable effect.  It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

Well I don't think you should be allowed to broadcast things like that on a left wing social forum when you have zero medical or scientific credentials.

OTOH,  Magda Havas has a PhD from The University of Toronto, and this is what she said about the largest cell phone study on human health to date:

Quote:
The INTERPHONE study, the largest (5,117 brain tumor cases) and most expensive ($25 million dollars) study on cell phones and brain tumors, involving scientists from 13 countries, was flawed from the very beginning. Whoever designed the protocol did it in such a way as to minimize finding any adverse effects. Despite this, adverse effects were reported - a 40% increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor that affects the glial cells in the brain) for those who used a cell phone for at least 1,640 hours with the highest risk for tumors in the temporal lobe and on the same side of the head that one exposes to the cell phone. In other words most of the tumors occurred in the part of the brain receiving the greatest radiation for those who had the longest exposure. And what did the authors do with this result?

They attributed it to biases and error. Why?

So unless you can figure out why a study partially funded by cell phone companies produced the results it did - including results buried in the appendix of the final report that show a 40% increased risk for deadly gliomas among heavy users - then I think you should always pre-qualify your bogus claims to scientific fact with something like: It is my personal opinion that... 

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Our corrupt stooges still haven't banned export of asbestos to thirdworld capitalist workers' paradises yet. How could they possibly be worried about cell phones causing deadly gliomas?

Oh?  Well if our government has not banned the export of something that causes cancer, then it stands to reason that anything which has not been banned by the government must also be causing cancer.  Who needs evidence anyways?

Quote:
OTOH,  Magda Davis has a PhD from University of Toronto, and this is what she said about the largest cell phone study on human health to date:

Magda Havas (not Davis) last fall produced this embarrassing study:

http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Havas-HRV-Ramazzini1.pdf

 

I am not going to go into detail, as I lost my original post and don't have the time of desire to go through it again.  However, this was a study which used cordless phones which were either on or off to see if they would have an effect on people who were laying down with cheap heart rate monitors.

Some of those patient's had no effect.  Others, like the one above, had her heart rate double when the phone was turned on (part 2 and 4 above).  To anyone who has ever seen electrical interference with a heart rate monitor this is exactly what you would expect from electrical interference with the heart rate monitor, not with the heart.  In the former case you would expect the rate on the monitor to fall back to its original rate immediately upon the interference beening removed (which is exactly what happened).  In the case of the latter when the heart rate is incresed significantly it takes a period of time to return to normal (maybe 5 seconds, maybe 30 minutes).  Basic heart physiology.  The heart rates monitors that were used specifically state that electrical interference will have this exact effect.  There are far better monitors that could have easily been used.  But instead she diagnosed people as  having medical conditions based on no evidence and without confirmation.

Magda Havas is not even trying to do science or present evidence anymore.  She doesn't take the most basic steps to eliminate other possible causes, because she is only interested in getting the results that she is determined to get.  And as there are a group of people who will believe her no matter how terrible her studies are, why should she bother doing anything differently?

Fidel

You are avoiding what Havas(and dozens of other real scientists) said about the Interphone Study in order to smear her with saying she doesn't do science. You'll have to do better with smearing dozens of scientists from a number of countries who all provided their own opinions concerning results of the Interphone study. 

Trevorkidd wrote:
I am not going to go into detail, as I lost my original post and don't have the time of desire to go through it again.

Of course you won't, but this has nothing to do with the largest cell phone study on human health.

Trevorkidd wrote:
Oh? Well if our government has not banned the export of something that causes cancer, then it stands to reason that anything which has not been banned by the government must also be causing cancer. Who needs evidence anyways?

Are you willing to test any wacky theories that say asbestos is perfectly safe, too? It might take decades for you to develop any of a number of cancers, but I can assure you that odds are you will likely die an agonizing death as a result of significant exposure to asbestos. Don't try it.

It took more than half a century for them to do anything about tobacco and leaded paint. It will likely take a similar amount of time before cell phones are declared incompatible with human health.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Are you a scientist or M.D., Trevorkidd?

 

I have responded to you before on this question (and only conspiracy theorists ask such questions, and they do so predictably) that it none of your damn business. I don't place myself or anyone else as an authority. I care about the evidence.

 

Quote:
You are avoiding what Havas(and dozens of other real scientists) said about the Interphone Study in order to smear her with saying she doesn't do science. You'll have to do better with smearing dozens of scientists from a number of countries who all provided their own opinions concerning results of the Interphone study.

 

Evidence is what is needed. Like I said, 31,000 scientists have signed the Oregon petition denying climate change. You can find scientists who believe the world is flat. And you can find scientists like Magda Havas who "know" that cell phones must cause cancer and will ignore anything that doesn't support the position that she started with.

 

Furthermore your position is pure bullshit. You have no problem ignoring the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on several topics. You do so presumably without being a scientist yourself (I couldn't care less what you do). Yet if anyone disputes the poor science by the handful of fringe scientists who you happen to support you demand to know if we are scientists or doctors themselves. That is using the argument from authority logical fallacy. And it is designed to shut down those who disagree with you, instead of bringing forth real evidence.

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Are you a scientist or M.D., Trevorkidd?

 

I have responded to you before on this question (and only conspiracy theorists ask such questions, and they do so predictably) that it none of your damn business. I don't place myself or anyone else as an authority. I care about the evidence.

Well I'm sorry for suggesting that you are neither a scientist nor an M.D. How rude of me.

And what do you think about the Interphone Study's concluding remarks that heavy use is associated with a 40% increased risk for deadly gliomas? And I think they said the risk increases for every year of heavy usage before some tender age.  

Trevormkidd wrote:
Like I said, 31,000 scientists have signed the Oregon petition denying climate change. You can find scientists who believe the world is flat. And you can find scientists like Magda Havas who "know" that cell phones must cause cancer and will ignore anything that doesn't support the position that she started with.

Havas has made no such claims. She does point to the Interphone Study's concluding remarks, though, which were buried in the appendix of the report after a heated debate on the matter among scientists who participated in the study

Trevormkidd wrote:
Furthermore your position is pure bullshit. You have no problem ignoring the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on several topics.

Well we were discussing the results of the largest publicly and privately-funded cell phone study on human health so far. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that corporate bias tainted both design and results of that study?

D V

It is too bad that that one attempt by Havas et al had the serious flaw of not accounting for interference, but what's the big deal?

There is little doubt that a proper format for such a study would show cardiac disruption in some people. A witness at HESA was apparently going to make a better go of it last fall, so what happens, his office gets removed. To a blinkered skepto who claims to look for evidence, evidence, that is meaningless.

I had quite the go against a bunch of 'kidd's ilk over at a slepto site where he must have pulled the Havas criticism from. You'll see how 'kidd's problematic attitiude fits in there well.

See eg http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/levitt-and-lai-peddling-discredited-... & http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/12/devra-davis-disconnected-from-scienc... where deever takes 'em all on.

It is pure laziness, disrepsect, obtuseness or wilful ignorance to ask to be spoonfed "evidence", "evidence", which is plainly available in abundance, from every angle imaginable.

 

Fidel

I guess they are looking for instant evidence and proof positive of cause and effect,  something on the order of cyanide, polonium poisoning, or ricin. Yes, those toxic substances will tend to produce instant results the kind they are looking for. Everything else is just a case of power of suggestion according to armchair experts. Kidds these days just have no patients.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I have no dog in this fight, and I don't know who is right, nor do I have the time and energy to research this question deeply enought to imagine that my opinion would be any better than flipping a coin. What does impress me about this thread is that Trevormkidd seems to me to be making a more logical and evidence oriented argument than are DV and Fidel, whose postings seem long on emotion, and short on data.

D V

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I have no dog in this fight, and I don't know who is right, nor do I have the time and energy to research this question deeply enought to imagine that my opinion would be any better than flipping a coin. What does impress me about this thread is that Trevormkidd seems to me to be making a more logical and evidence oriented argument than are DV and Fidel, whose postings seem long on emotion, and short on data.

Michael, this is a political forum, I thought, that is why I chose it, among many others, to post about these issues from the angle of political involvement, a year ago. A year later, after vindication of a sort, by COE committee acceptance, of the very recommendations I was involved in putting before our own hapless Cdn. committee, I thought to revisit this thread.  Now the HESA & PACE/COE committees are not exactly comparable, but they are in being advisory, in offering recommendations. So hearing much the same stuff from expert & lay witnesses in diverse fields in condemnation of wireless mania, albeit probably a lot less, HESA does poorly; the Euro. committee in contrast revisits the EU Parl. own toothless recommendations in '09 that national microwave standards be revisited, esp. based on the BioInitiative Report, and ups the ante. (In Canada, two reports came out in the interim, in Ontario a hapless OAHPP one on wifi, and an even more hapless INSPQ one on cell base stations. They are not worth pointing to, I can if you want, and even show careful dissection of them, for what that would be worth.) So anyway, the point is, this does not seem to be a thread for rehearsal of much more than political evidence, which I think has been adduced well enough. The WHO, ICNIRP, IEMFP are all called into question by this august if little-known political advisory body. That is at the crux, deep and obvious corruption and co-optation of process. That is what all "skeptos" I have encountered ignore, preferring when it comes to evidence of harm, looking for heads to actually fall off bodies to be convinced, looking completely away from corruption of process, so well documented by now in the bioeffect research field. The PACE/COE report emntions the Swiss study indicating skewing of results based on funding source; Henry Lai did the same with similar stats in the 90s. Call it anthropological data if you will, it is pretty telling. Now that the Russian national body has weighed in again on the dangers just last month, albeit with too narrow focus, http://iemfa.org/images/pdf/RNCNIRP_Resolution_2011.pdf , and an Israeli Parl. committee has also made made recent precautionary (again too mild, but a major step forward) receommendations, for some examples, it is time to step up political pressure here. There are a few other threads about here on babble, even one where I remember your name from, I think, maybe I could go back and see what was covered. The sci. evidence itself is truly more by far than has been needed to condemn any other health/env. contaminant. The industry knows it is killing people, quite the confident claim made by Sage in the Harper's article, "For Whom the Cell Tolls", last year. She's right. You want a particular type of study evidence, tell me, and maybe I'll bring some samples.

 

Fidel

Michael Moriarity wrote:
What does impress me about this thread is that Trevormkidd seems to me to be making a more logical and evidence oriented argument than are DV and Fidel, whose postings seem long on emotion, and short on data.

 

You are easily impressed then. lol!

The results are in for the largest study ever done on cell phones and human health. And they buried important conclusions in the appendix of that study which produced all kinds of data. And some of them had to fight for the inclusion of those results in the report partially funded by cell phone companies.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
And what do you think about the Interphone Study's concluding remarks that heavy use is associated with a 40% increased risk for deadly gliomas? And I think they said the risk increases for every year of heavy usage before some tender age.

I think the study didn't show what you claim it did (and yes I think that Havas' analysis is poor and not in line with the scientific community)  I also think that we have discussed this study here before, but it is possible that I discussed the study elsewhere.  The study showed an increased risk of gliomas for both the (much larger) group that didn't use cellphones (about 20%) and the (much smaller) group that claimed to be the heaviest users (about 40%).  Both of those results where explained by problems in methodology - problems which occur in any large study based over several countries. The third section of this link provides a far better explaination than Havas does.

Of course if you want to maintain that this study proves that cellphones cause cancer in the heaviest users, then it also proves that not using a cellphone causes the same cancers. 

 

D V wrote:
It is too bad that that one attempt by Havas et al had the serious flaw of not accounting for interference, but what's the big deal?

 It is far from one study that is flawed.

 

Quote:
There is little doubt that a proper format for such a study would show cardiac disruption in some people.

 Little doubt? Why do we do we study anything at all? Perhaps we should just ask you what you feel the scientific results would be.

 And this is what is wrong with your "what's the big deal" statement above and why I will never have anything to do with such groups of people. I shouldn't be the one pissed at researchers like Havas. It should be the people who believe that cell phones are having negative effects who should be pissed at researchers like Havas. She has both the means and the ability to design and execute a series of studies that could put this issue to rest (if she is right, and if the results can be replicated), convince the scientific community, and win a nobel prize. But instead she does studies that are complete crap.

Quote:
A witness at HESA was apparently going to make a better go of it last fall, so what happens, his office gets removed.

Yeah, we couldn't let that information get out...so I got Superman, He-Man and Hulk Hogan to lift his office onto the A-Team's van and we drove it into Pacific ocean.

 

Quote:
at a slepto site where he must have pulled the Havas criticism from.

I don't need any help to criticize Havas. That is nothing to brag about. The holes were large enough to drive a fire truck through.

Quote:
It is pure laziness, disrepsect, obtuseness or wilful ignorance to ask to be spoonfed "evidence"

Proving once again that you lack any understanding of science and evidence. No one asked to be spoonfed anything. We asked for legitimate evidence, and being shown such would still not be spoonfeeding anyone as at that point in time (unlike true believers) we would evaluate the evidence, methods, results and conclusions.

Quote:
"evidence", which is plainly available in abundance, from every angle imaginable.

I guess when the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees completely with you then you know you are right.

 

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel wrote:
And what do you think about the Interphone Study's concluding remarks that heavy use is associated with a 40% increased risk for deadly gliomas? And I think they said the risk increases for every year of heavy usage before some tender age.

I think the study didn't show what you claim it did ...

Well I must say that I am flattered by all this talk of me and my unqualified opinion, and I am sure Dr. Havas' ears are ringing about now. But enough about me. Because like you, I am not a medical doctor or research scientist. Here is what  Dr. Joel Moskowitz, M.D. said about results from the largest cell phone-human health study ever conducted:

Quote:
The Interphone study indicates that people who've used cell phones for at least 1,640 hours face a 40% higher risk of developing a glioma, which is a type of a brain tumor, he wrote. "... the average user in the U.S. today could fall into this high risk use category after about 13 years of use," Moskowitz said.

The study followed cell-phone users from 13 countries, not including the U.S. It mostly collected data on cell phone usage between years 2000 and 2004, when people didn't use their cell phones as much as they do today. An average study participant talked on the phone for two to 2-1/2 hours a month.

Dr. Kidd, what's a glioma? Should these cell phone users developing gliomas take two aspirin and call you in the morning?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

I think the study didn't show what you claim it did (and yes I think that Havas' analysis is poor and not in line with the scientific community)  I also think that we have discussed this study here before, but it is possible that I discussed the study elsewhere. 

You are right on both counts.  It doesn't say what DV and Fidel think it did, and it was discussed here, ad nauseum.  No amount of sense will deter them.  They're just looking for a box of clubs to keep beating that dead horse with.

D V

One guesses that 'kidd only knows of sci. incompetence, nothing of fraud. Wlil he go looking on his own instead of waiting for the spoon? A few primers, Michaels' Doubt is Their Product, McGarrity & Wagner's Bending Science, Krimsky's Science in the Private Interest, Ross & Amter's The Polluters, Shiv Chopra's Corrupt to the Core & on & on...Then I could bring you quotes from eminent biophysics researchers, from Frey to Adey to Gandhi to Phillips to Johansson & on & on about intimidation & co-optation & corruption in that field...Then you might read some history, try Brodeur's Zapping of America, Marino's Electric Wilderness & Going Somewhere, Milham's Dirty Electricity, Steneck's Microwave Debate...You want some quotes? I can bring a bunch. I can cite study after study. But go fishing for yourself. Yes, take my word for it, this is the surpassing health & enviro. issue of our day, the politics brave enough to address this from its roots, all human misuse of the electromagnteic spectrum, as this is as comprehensive a matter as it gets, the brave politics that addresses this will be the one to move us out of a horribly destructive modernism.

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:
You are right on both counts.  It doesn't say what DV and Fidel think it did, and it was discussed here, ad nauseum.  No amount of sense will deter them.  They're just looking for a box of clubs to keep beating that dead horse with.

And what is it that we think the study is saying, Dr. Timebandit? 

Stay tuned to find out whether Dr. Kidd concurs with Dr. Timebandit...

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay, so let me get this straight - DV figures she should make incredible claims with a bare skiff of bad evidence, then when faced with reputable evidence, refuse to counter it because that would be "spoonfeeding". 

Why are you posting this at all, DV?  I mean, if you're not interested in debating it, you're not interested in convincing anyone other than the already converted, why wouldn't you choose a site where you can just preach to the choir and get a nice, big "Amen!"?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

DV, thank you for the explanation of your position. As I mentioned, I don't have a few dozen hours to spend on studying this, so references would be wasted on me, but thanks for the offer.

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:

Okay, so let me get this straight - DV figures she should make incredible claims with a bare skiff of bad evidence, then when faced with reputable evidence, refuse to counter it because that would be "spoonfeeding".

Where is this reputable evidence you claim exists and with emphasis on the word "evidence" and not "scientific proof"? 

Just don't be claiming to have conclusive scientific proof that cell phones are compatible with human health, okay, doctor Timebandit?

 

al-Qa'bong

Timebandit wrote:

There is not a "ton of damning info".  The fact is, the information we do have shows little appreciable effect.  It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

Aw come on.  Can't you see the beauty of fearing wireless?  Like any bad guys in a good conspiracy,  those fiendish waves and magnetic fields are invisible!

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Fidel, we've been on this merry-go-round before.  It's not my fault if you don't understand what you read or that you have a mental block where things inconsistent with what you think they should be are concerned.  You seem to be magnetically attracted to the worst bullshit on the internet.  Why, I don't know.  I used to at least try and figure out where you are coming from, but I think that's really a waste of time, seeing that you are completely unwilling to listen to any kind of reason.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

There is not a "ton of damning info".  The fact is, the information we do have shows little appreciable effect.  It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

Aw come on.  Can't you see the beauty of fearing wireless?  Like any bad guys in a good conspiracy,  those fiendish waves and magnetic fields are invisible!

Wink

I guess if you have to attribute being afraid to something....

Fidel

Timebandit wrote:

Fidel, we've been on this merry-go-round before.  It's not my fault if you don't understand what you read or that you have a mental block where things inconsistent with what you think they should be are concerned.

You haven't posted anything that convinces me you understand it yourself.

I don't think you understand what it is you accuse me of. I am not saying there is a conclusive link between cancer and anything. For 50 years tobacco companies paid for bad science in order to stave off law suits and the feds. And they still pay starving scientists to do bad science even today. 

Timebandit wrote:
You seem to be magnetically attracted to the worst bullshit on the internet.  Why, I don't know.

You should be suspended for posting so much bullshit about cell phone safety. I hope you don't have kids using them frequently for voice calls. 

There is no conclusive scientific evidence that cell phones don't cause brain tumors. There is evidence to the contrary, however, and it was produced by the largest cell phone study on human health ever conducted.

World Renowned Neurosurgeon: Cell Phone Use 'Worse Than Smoking' For Cancer Risk

Dr. Timebandit to the OR, Dr Timebandit to the OR!

I think I hear them calling you...

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Here is what  Dr. Joel Moskowitz, M.D. said about results

There I had been wasting all my time reading reputable peer-reviewed journals and the whole time the answer was in a short piece in a business magazine.

Quote:
Dr. Kidd, what's a glioma?

It is a type of sheep.  They love to eat the roses in people's gardens.

Quote:
Should these cell phone users developing gliomas take two aspirin and call you in the morning?

A fence around your yard will keep the gliomas out of your rose bushes.

D V wrote:
Bla, bla, bla....Doubt is Their Product, etc

I have read the first two and Chopra's (didn't, and will not finish the latter).  However, books are not peer reviewed and one can say anything true or not in them, and I don't remember any of them touching on cell phones.  So what is your point now?  First there was lots of science everywhere...now the science is being suppressed.  Which is it?  Or do I have to play the beatles record backwards to get the scoop that Paul McCartney actually died in the 60's? 

Quote:
Then I could bring you quotes

No thanks.  Peer-reviewed articles published in respected scientific and medical journals.

Quote:
Then you might read some history

How about comic books?  Maybe one with magneto in it.

Quote:
Yes, take my word for it, this is the surpassing health & enviro. issue of our day,

Well apparently we ALL have to take your word for it.  If only there was a better way...like journals...no, that is just crazy talk.

On the other hand if cell phones are the health and enviro issue of our day then I am going to celebrate....or at least I would if I didn't already know that there are actual REAL issues that you could be dedicating your efforts too instead of this bullshit.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Quacksters, what does the Intperphone study reveal about increased risk for gliomas on the same side of the noggin as cell phone use?

Where did they get the 40% increased risk figure from? 

Was the Interphone study not mentioned in any of the peer-reviewed Marvel comics you subscribe to, Dr. Kidd?

Pretty sure the first two questions have been answered on this forum before.  As to your last question.  Sorry Fidel, I don't actually know a thing about comics, I just assumed that they were coming up next as a source from DV.  I am interested in reality, not fantasy. 

Fidel

Quacksters, what does the Intperphone study reveal about increased risk for gliomas on the same side of the noggin as cell phone use?

Where did they get the 40% increased risk figure from? 

Was the Interphone study not mentioned in any of the peer-reviewed Marvel comics you subscribe to, Dr. Kidd?

[url=http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana_et_al_IJOEH-Base_Station_RV.pdf]Epid... Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations(pdf)[/url] Drs Khurana, Hardell, Everaert, Bortkiewicz, Carlberg, and Ahonen

Fidel

Fantasy?

So you're saying youre not a doctor or scientist, and you apologize for impersonating one when babbling about long-term cell phone radiation effects on the human brain, something you know nothing about really? 

We thought so. They say it's okay to dream about castles as long as you don't move into one. Because that's when real problems flare up.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
So you're saying youre not a doctor or scientist,

I have said that it is none of your business what I or anyone else here does.  People should only care about what people post.

Quote:
and you apologize for impersonating one when babbling about long-term cell phone radiation effects on the human brain, something you know nothing about really?

It is amazing the stupidity your side posts, when they could be posting this mass of scientific evidence they claim to have.  I am going to bed.  Sleeping is far more productive then posting to a brick wall of ignorance.

Fidel

[url=Heavy">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7127799.ece][colo... mobile users risk cancer[/url] 2010

The London Times wrote:
PEOPLE who use their mobile phones for at least 30 minutes a day for 10 years have a greater risk of developing brain cancer, a landmark study has found.

The chance of suffering from a malignant tumour is increased by more than a third with prolonged use, according to a long-awaited report by the World Health Organisation....

Its results, which will be published this week, show that only those in the "heaviest user" category are at increased risk of developing glioma tumours, a type of brain cancer.

This category, however, includes anyone who regularly uses their handset for more than 30 minutes a day.

They concluded that there was no increased risk of cancer in other users.

So if you only talk on a cell phone 2.5 hours per month, then you probably won't develop a life threatening glioma in ten years. 

[url=http://news.scotsman.com/topstories/Study-links-mobile-phone-use.6297703... links mobile phone use to brain tumours[/url]

The Scotsman wrote:
Dr Siegal Sadetzki, one of the 13-nation team of researchers, said: "Most studies, including ours, show something happening in long-term users. Why shouldn't we take some simple measures to limit exposure just to be on the safe side?"

Dr Elisabeth Cardis, who headed the Interphone research project, added: "I am in agreement with restricting use by children, though I would not go as far as banning mobiles."

Interphone Study - Appendix tables 1 & 2

MegB

Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel wrote:
So you're saying youre not a doctor or scientist,

I have said that it is none of your business what I or anyone else here does.  People should only care about what people post.

Quote:
and you apologize for impersonating one when babbling about long-term cell phone radiation effects on the human brain, something you know nothing about really?

It is amazing the stupidity your side posts, when they could be posting this mass of scientific evidence they claim to have.  I am going to bed.  Sleeping is far more productive then posting to a brick wall of ignorance.

Fidel, Fidel, Fidel.  Since your personal inferences and insults in this thread are too numerous to cite, this one will do.  Keep the personal out of it and stick to the substance.

D V

Rebecca West wrote:

Fidel, Fidel, Fidel.  Since your personal inferences and insults in this thread are too numerous to cite, this one will do.  Keep the personal out of it and stick to the substance.

Moderator, it is bizarre that you have not berated both for experssed attitude and missing the thread intent, the principal abuser here, the 'kidd.

Pages