Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

[American Dream]

Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
By Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet
Posted on February 5, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/145562/


In the debate over cell phones, there doesn't appear to be any consensus on what, exactly, the harmful health effects on cell phone users may be. Unfortunately, the scary truth is that no one knows the full extent of problems caused by these must-have consumer electronics, because they've only become ubiquitous in recent years.

Nevertheless, at least one group of people who has been using cell phones longer than the rest of us has started to draw some connections.

In an extensive piece on cell phone health hazards in this month's issue of GQ, a 35-year-old investment banker who five years ago was diagnosed with a brain tumor just behind his right ear -- where he presses his phone -- said that his industry has, "been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach-kind-of-phone." The banker said four or five colleagues at his firm also have similar tumors.

Indeed, health experts say many often miss the fact that it can take anywhere from 10 to 30 years for brain tumors to develop from exposure to all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, including the kind from cell phones.

But it doesn't always have to take so long. LeBron James, the 24-year-old star basketball player for the Cleveland Cavaliers had a benign parotid tumor removed in June last year. While the cause of his tumor is undefined, radiation is likely to be the culprit -- and cell phone use may be, too.

Both benign and malignant tumors of the parotid, a salivary gland, have long been linked to ionizing radiation including X-rays and gamma radiation following environmental exposure. (Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors are one example.) And in a widely cited 2008 study, parotid tumors have been linked to cell phone use.

The report includes some stats that are enough to make even the most ardent addict consider dropping his or her iPhone or Blackberry. If you've used your cell phone regularly for five years, your chance of having a parotid tumor is increased by 34 percent. If you've had more than 5,479 calls in your lifetime, your chances are upped by 58 percent. For folks who live further from big cities, prospects are even dimmer -- your chances of getting a parotid tumor are increased by 96 percent if you have a lifetime exposure of more than 1,035 hours. (While you might imagine living in a big city exposes you to more cell phone radiation, in rural areas, cell phone towers are further apart so mobile phones have to emit higher levels of radiation in order to communicate with the nearest antenna.)

Of course, not everyone is on board with the idea that mobile phones are bad for you. The forthcoming Interphone study, a massive decade-long, 13-country epidemiological study of tumors among users of mobile phones, is expected to be less alarmist than the parotid tumor study. The problem with that study, however, is that its $30-million price tag is being footed by none other than the wireless industry. And the study is getting more expensive as it's been fraught with delays, reportedly caused by the researchers' inability to reach consensus.

In anticipation of what seems like the study's impending release, the International Electromagnetic Field Collaborative released a report (PDF) last year criticizing the presumed results of the Interphone study. The methodology is flawed, says the IEFC, because it excludes, among other things, cordless phones, children and young adults (presumed to be among the more vulnerable demographics, due to faster cell growth and thinner skulls), certain kinds of tumors and interviews with deceased and too-sick patients.

In the IEFC report, 43 scientists from 13 countries also reviewed evidence linking cell phone use to brain tumors. Among the studies cited was a sobering Swedish one that found a 420 percent higher risk of brain cancer among people who had started using cellular or cordless phones as teens. Older analog cell phones, which are now mostly out of use, were found to increase cancer risk by 700 percent.

But cell phone risks may not be limited to cancer. The group Electromagnetichealth.org, based at Columbia University, has argued that cell phone use creates cognitive problems, damages DNA and causes infertility in humans. The group's experts, which include physicians, scientists, environmental health experts and epidemiologists across the globe, also say that cell phones cause navigation problems for wildlife, particularly migrating species such as birds and bees.

Faced with damning reports from the scientific community, the Senate held a hearing on the dangers of cell phone use last September. In San Francisco, forcing cell phone retailers to label their products as hazardous has support from the mayor and health activists. And for over a year now, in France, marketing and designing cell phones for minors under 18 has been illegal. (The law was prompted by the aforementioned Swedish study that detailed the heightened risks for youths.)

It's clear that going forward, we'll be hearing a lot more about this issue as a top public health concern. But what's a regular person to do right now? What with electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi, GPS receivers and over 2,000 satellites orbiting our planet in outer space -- to mention but a few examples -- electromagnetic pollution surrounds us all the time, even if you live in the middle of nowhere.

The IEFC recommends people use corded landlines whenever possible (a difficulty for those among us who've abandoned their landlines for the convenience of cell phones). They also recommend using cell phones as answering machines -- turning them on to check for messages and returning calls only. Carry your phone in a purse or bag, not on your body. Don't use your cell when you're inside a building or car because your phone will have to emit increased levels of radiation to send out the signal. Relying on text messages and non-wireless hands-free devices may also reduce health risks.

Some or all of these recommendations are not practical for many of us, particularly in a society where we are expected to be wired and easy-to-reach at all times. But the way it's starting to look, cell phones may be the tobacco of today. By the time we finally get the message that we should kick the habit, it may be too late.


Daniela Perdomo is a staff writer and editor of the Progressive Wire and Investigations at AlterNet. Follow her on Twitter. Write her at danielaalternet [at] gmail [dot] com.

[American Dream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber04122011.html

April 12, 2011

An Interview with Devra Davis

Cell Phones and Cancer: the Risk is Real

By RUSSELL MOKHIBER

There is a book you ought to buy.

It's called Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family by Devra Davis (Dutton, 2010).

Buy it from a book store – if you can find a book store that carries it.

Davis said that when the book was published in September 2010, she traveled to San Francisco, a hot bed of calls for right to know legislation when it comes to cell phone radiation.

"When I went there, I found out that no book store in the city had my book," Davis told Corporate Crime Reporter last week.

Has there been an explanation for that?

"The publishers are saying the book stores just aren't buying it," Davis said.

"This book has sold the fewest copies of any book I have written. And for non fiction, my books sold reasonably well."

"I don't have the time to know what is happening, but I smell a rat."

Davis is convinced that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.

She is convinced by the evidence.

"Today, there is no debate that x-rays directly disturb electrons, break their bonds, disrupt the making of proteins, and impede the ability of cells to fix damage," Davis writes. "And yet there has not been much debate about the potential dangers of radiation from cell phones. It's been assumed that they are safe."

Thus, the "disconnect" from the title of her book.

What is your explanation as to why there is that disconnect?

"We know there is a big difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation," Davis says. "And cell phone radiation is non-ionizing."

"There is a paradigmatic conflict between the way the world of physics and the way the world of biology understands the nature of non-ionizing radiation."

"At its core, the physics paradigm believed as a matter of faith that it was physically impossible for the weak radiation from cell phones to have any biological effect."

"This belief was wrong 40 years ago. And that was shown by the work of Allan Frey. But because of this belief and because it was convenient to believe it, cell phones have never been tested for safety."

So, your explanation for the disconnect is money and power?

"Those are terms you can use," Davis said. "I can say that it proved to be very convenient because there is just about 100 percent use of cell phones for adults. In fact, in Australia, there is more than one phone per person. These are convenient devices. And it proved to be too inconvenient to deal with the fact that holding a small microwave radio next to your brain for hours a day is not a good idea."

"We know that brain cancer can take at least ten years to develop from the first exposure," Davis said. "It has a latency period of at least ten years on average. We know that because a few studies have been done on heavy cell phone users. And those studies have found that they have a doubled or greater risk of brain tumors after ten years of use."

What convinces Davis that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer?

"The first is the compelling biological studies done in cell cultures – human cell cultures – and looking at how they respond to pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation," Davis says.

"And in particular, recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is negative in large part because the preponderance of the evidence has been sponsored by industry."

"In the upcoming paperback edition, my book will have an afterward. In it, I say that in 1994, after Henry Lai and his colleague Narenda Singh produced a finding that pulsed digital signals from cell phone radiation could damage DNA in the brains of animals exposed to cell phone radiation, the industry mounted a full court press."

"When the abstract of that finding showing DNA damage from pulsed digital signals was produced, the industry went to the agency that funded the work – the National Institutes of Health – and accused the investigators of fraud and misuse of funds.

Davis says that this story has been told by Louis Slesin of Microwave News – before her book was published.

But it didn't make it into her hard cover book.

She says the story will appear in the afterward to the soon to be published paperback edition of her book.

We ask her why it didn't make it into the hard cover edition of her book.

She hesitates.

Then says – "I can't answer that."

She won't explain what she means.

But the hard cover book is filled with stories like that of Franz Adlkofer – a former tobacco researcher who had a falling out with the tobacco industry.

He too didn't believe that cell phone radiation could damage living cells – until he did the tests.

"They first got results suggesting that cell phone radiation could have an effect on the DNA inside certain types of cells," Davis says.

"Adlkofer thought for sure there was a mistake. Adlkofer believed that it was physically impossible for cell phone radiation to have a biological effect. That was the dogma. And that dogma was shared widely. But he relished the opportunity to set up these big lab studies. He coordinated twelve labs looking at the basic functioning of cells."

"They repeated the tests and got the same results."

"So, he thought – we must have the wrong equipment – our equipment isn't good. So, having a lot of money, they went out and bought new equipment to do the testing."

"After repeating the results – these were twelve different labs working independently – he concluded that it looked like the radiation was having an effect. He concluded it had a very damaging effect on DNA, causing it to unravel."

Davis tells the somewhat complex story of how the industry went after Adlkofer, how he fought back to vindicate his study.

Davis says that brain cancer is a rare disease – right now it's 6 in 100,000 in the United States – still twice the rate of the developing world.

"But if the rate of brain cancer goes from 6 per 100,000 to 18 per 100,000, well, that's a tripling of the rate."

And you are expecting that, right?

"Yes," she says. "But it is not going to happen until I'm dead. That's why I wrote the book."

So, in a nutshell, what is your advice for consumers?

"Do not keep the phone on your body," Davis says. "Men should not keep it in their front pocket or in their breast pocket. Fine print warnings come with all of these phones. Nobody reads them. They toss them away."

"Never hold a cell phone next to your head. Use a speaker phone. Use an ear piece."

What about policies the government should pursue?

"The government should be issuing safe use guidelines about this right now. Other governments have done this."

What about our government, why hasn't our government done this?

"I'm filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today. I am requesting information about why the FCC changed its web site overnight to correspond to the position of industry."

"I was told that there were two memos explaining the reasons – but they said they weren't going to give them to me. Jim Turner is filing the lawsuit for us pro bono."



[For the complete Interview with Devra Davis, see 25 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(11), April 11, 2011, print edition only.]

Russell Mokhiber edits the Corporate Crime Reporter.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Researchers Say New Studies Confirm Cell Phone Hazards

"Stunning proof" ignored in North America, scientists say

CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM
5/23/2011

Since the days when cell phones were the size of bricks, there has been debate over the safety of these devices, which use radio waves to transmit voice and data.

A number of studies, stretching back more than a decade, have suggested extended cell phone exposure increases the risk of tumors and can harm human reproduction. The industry staunchly defends the safety of mobile phones, saying the studies' conclusions are unfounded.

'Stunning proof'

Now, a group of international researchers meeting in Istanbul, Turkey has released what they call “stunning proof” that confirms findings from the Council of Europe -- pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function and lower sperm count.

A meeting convened by Environmental Health Trust, with the Turkish cancer society, and Gazi University, revealed the new research that the scientists say shows damage to DNA, brain and sperm.

Nesrin Seyhan, an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) and NATO and head of the Biophysics Department and Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at Gazi University in Ankara, presented findings that he says confirm the warning that just four hours of exposure to cell phone radiation disrupts the ability of human brain cells to repair damaged genes.

“We are deeply concerned about what this could mean for public health,” Seyhan said.

Prof. Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna, who has led European research teams, said he found that the cell waves induce DNA breaks. Despite industry claims to the contrary, he says DNA breaks are real.
Insect studies

A research team at the University of Athens said insect studies have demonstrated that acute exposure to GSM (Global System for Mobile) signals brings about DNA fragmentation in insects’ ovarian cells, and consequently a large reduction in the reproductive capacity of the insects. Further studies, they said, demonstrated that long exposures induced cell death to the insects in the study.

Other researchers said throughout a gestation period, exposure to radiation for just six minutes a day affects the bone formation of fetuses. The researchers also worry about the effect of cell phone use on children.

At higher frequencies, children absorb more energy from external radio frequency radiation than adults, because their tissue normally contains a larger number of ions and so has a higher conductivity. The researchers strongly suggest limiting cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.

The researchers call their findings “thought-provoking” and say they have never been investigated in North America.

“The evidence justifies precautionary measures to reduce the risks for everyone of us,” Wosgoeller said.

The meeting was sponsored by Environmental Health Trust, The International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety, Gazi University and Athens University.

[Mythic Time]

My daughter died of brain cancer in 2009. Her first surgery was in 2007. The tumors erupted at the exact spot the earpiece of her phone rested, about 1/2" above her left ear. She was on the phone ALL the time, always her left ear. The first surgery slowed the tumors down, but they eventually came back and were inoperable.

But everyone knows cell phones don't cause cancer.

[Pele'sDaughter]

I am so very sorry for your loss.

[82_28]

Yes. Super sorry as well. If you don't mind me asking, how old was she?

[Mythic Time]

Yes. Super sorry as well. If you don't mind me asking, how old was she?

She was 37.

[lucky]

I always thought it weird just how cheap it is to buy and use a mobi - i pay £14 a month and get 600mins plus data texts...600m thats 20m a day, fortunately i hardly use it apart from v short calls and texts but there are millions who do use them for alot more.....just another way of depopulation? ; poison our food, water, air we breathe and to help things along pass microwaves in to the brain from an inch away. I swear when the microwave is on in the kitchen and i stand in front of it I can 'feel' it - cant explain what 'it' is but something like butterflys but less so.