EMF Protection Cellphone Radiation Mobile Phone SAR Electromagnetic Prevention EMF Qlink Protect EMF Cell Phone Radiation

cell phone radiation research, hyperelectrosensitivity from cell phone radiation
   
 

FEATURED PRODUCT

Facts About the EarthCalm® Home Protection System:

home radiation protection

Only $298.00

Read the Earthcalm® FAQ to learn more

 

 

Specialty Air Tube Headset

 

$36.99

airtube headset, bluetube headset, anit-radiation headset for driving

RF3-212S

Airtube Headset info

 
 

 

 

Making The Call On Cellphone Health Risks

Airtube Headsets, Bluetube headsets

Cell Tower

Life Bluetube Headsets

Cell Phone Towers Health Effects

 EM Field Meter

Cell Phone Sensitivity

By Steve Dorfman

What is it with the World Health Organization's insistence on messing with our long holiday weekends?

First, on the Tuesday after Memorial Day, it reversed its decade-long stance on the relative safety of cellphones. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer now considers the non-ionizing radiation emitted from cellphones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

As if this startling about-face wasn't unsettling enough, the IARC did itself - not to mention, us - no favors by failing to disclose the exact reasons for changing its opinion on cellphones.

Until the Friday before Fourth of July weekend, that is.
Just as you and I were trying to cut out of work early and get a jump on our three-day weekend, the IARC's reasoning was being published in an industry journal.
I haven't had a chance yet to peruse the IARC's published piece (long weekend, and all!). But regardless of why its leaders decided to reverse course, there's only so much credence - positive or negative - one can place in their conclusions.
That's because the data on which the IARC is basing its "new" opinion are from 2004. That's pre-iPhone, for goodness sake! In the tech realm, time passes in dog years, so seven years ago might as well have been last century.
Regardless, Dr. Jonathan Samet, chairman of the IARC's group working on this project, told reporters in June, "A review of the human evidence of epidemiological studies shows an increased risk of glioma and malignant types of brain cancer in association with wireless-phone use."

Two problems with this:
1) Epidemiological studies are inherently unscientific - and therefore fall short of reaching the threshold of "proving" anything; 2) Dr. Paul Okunieff of the University of Florida Shands Cancer Center told The Palm Beach Post two weeks ago that one reason for the increase in glioma findings is improved scanning technology.
That is, gliomas are not necessarily occurring more often - they're just more readily detectable.

Of course, many cellphone critics don't need much in the way of scientific proof to voice their concerns about the devices' safety. Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurosurgery and neuroscience at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, has long believed that cellphone use contributed to the brain tumor that killed one of his most famous patients: attorney Johnnie Cochran.

As Black told CNN, "My own belief is that there probably is a correlation between the use of cellphones and brain cancer, even though there's no scientific proof."
Just after the International Agency for Research on Cancer released its new opinion, Black explained to PBS that many of the conflicting reports and faulty studies have focused on disparate forms of cell phone usage. The epidemiological studies were not apples-to-apples comparisons in terms of usage frequency or duration.
But the most important point Black made is that, when environmental agents cause cancer, they don't do so after just a few years - or even a decade. As he noted, "If one was to start smoking cigarettes when they were 12, we don't expect them to develop lung cancer when they're 22. We expect them to develop lung cancer when they're 42 or 52, (after) three or four decades of exposure."

Hence, it's simply too soon to know whether cell phone use is indeed carcinogenic.
So, until further notice, take reasonable precautions (e.g., use a wired headset or speaker; never hold the phone against your ear) and just remember: Currently, the greatest immediate cellphone-related threat to your life expectancy is texting while driving.

Belarus, Minsk,
Romania, Bucharest,
Grafton Australia
Switzerland, Bern,
Monaco, Monaco,
Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte,
Italy, Rome,
Paraguay, Asuncion,
Suriname, Paramaribo,
Mobile Alabama USA

 

http://www.emfnews.org/store


"Revolutionary New Technologiess
Protect You from the Harmful Effects of Cell Phone Radiation,

Computers, Bluetooth Headsets, Microwave Ovens,

Cordless Phones, and other Wireless Technologies."

 

Click on any of the pictures below to learn more

 
 
 
Contact:
Research Center For Wireless Technology

1-888-470-9886

support@emfnews.org

Copyright 2006-2015 All rights reserved

| Privacy | Disclaimer | Returns

 
Try any Q-Link or cell chip for 3 months, absolutely  RISK-FREE If you do not feel Q-Link improves your focus, energy, or well-being, simply return it for a full refund. Airtube headsets have 30  a day refund.

Contact:
Research Center For Wireless Technology

1-888-470-9886

201-484-7652
Copyright ©2006-2015 All rights reserved
| Privacy | Disclaimer |
 
 


Other Language Tools