Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Cell Phones - 'Biggest Cancer Experiment Of Our Species' - Contain DNA Destroying Chip?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    North of Midnight on Planet Wingnut
    Posts
    89,087

    Cell Phones - 'Biggest Cancer Experiment Of Our Species' - Contain DNA Destroying Chip?

    Cell Phones - 'Biggest Cancer Experiment Of Our Species'

    'The biggest experiment of our species': With five billion mobile users in the world, conference calls for research into potential brain cancer risks


    • Scientists at London conference call for independent research into potential links between using a mobile phone and brain cancer
    • Figures from ONS show 50 per cent increase in brain tumours since 1999
    • Studies 'are split 50/50' in conclusions, leaving the issue open for debate
    • But believers fear fall-out from the 'biggest technological experiment in the history of our species'

    By Eddie Wrenn

    A scientific conference starting in London today will urge governments across the world to support independent research into the possibility that using mobile phones encourages the growth of head cancers.



    The Children with Cancer conference will highlight figures just published by the Office of National Statistics, which show a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours between 1999 and 2009.



    The ONS figures show that the incident rate has risen from two to three per 100,000 people since 1999, while figures from Bordeaux Segalen University show a one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.



    Scientists and academics have long argued over the suggestion that radiation from mobile phones causes cancers. Those who believe there is a link say that - with five billion mobile phones being used worldwide - urgent research must be carried out to establish the risk.


    But not everyone agrees. While governments, phone companies, and health agencies give precautionary advice about minimising mobile phone use, the Health Protection Agency is likely to conclude in a report due on Thursday that the only established risk when using a mobile is crashing a car due to being distracted by a call or text.


    Professor Denis Henshaw, emeritus professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, is opening the three-day conference in Westminster today.



    He has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phone packets and urges more independent research.


    More...




    Professor Henshaw said: 'Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems - not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue.



    'The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it's entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening.



    'We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.'




    Keeping track: There has been an increase in the number of child brain cancer sufferers, and the ONS has also spotted a rise in brain tumours

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rang alarm bells last year when it classified mobile phones as 'possibly carginogenic'.



    Professor Darius Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, said: 'For the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic field] is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
    CANCER IN CHILDREN ON THE RISE

    Speaker Dr Annie Sasco, from the Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention unit at Bordeaux Segalen University, will highlight the one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.


    She has concerns over the effect of radiation on children's brains.


    She said: 'If the penetration of the electromagnetic waves goes for four centimetres into the brain, four centimetres into the adult brain is just the temporal lobe.


    'There are not too many important functions in the temporal lobe - but in a child the more central brain structures are going to be exposed.


    'In addition kids have a skull which is thinner, less protective, they have a higher content of water in the brain, so there are many reasons that they absorb more of the same radiation.'


    Speaking to the Independent about the rise in brain cancer in children, she said: 'It’s not age, it’s too fast to be genetic, and it isn’t all down to lifestyle, so what in the environment can it be?


    ''We now live in an electro-smog and people are exposed to wireless devices that we have shown in the lab to have a biological impact.


    'It is totally unethical that experimental studies are not being done very fast, in big numbers, by independently funded scientists.


    'The industry is just doing their job, I am more preoccupied with the so called independent scientists and institutions saying there is no problem.'




    'One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as "gold standard" in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents.



    'If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.'



    However not everyone believes there is a significant risk from mobile phone radiation.



    Ken Foster, professor of bio-engineering at the University of Philadelphia, downplayed the IARC's classification.



    He is quoted on Science Based Medicine as saying: 'Saying that something is a "possible carcinogen" is a bit like saying that someone is a "possible shoplifter" because he was in the store when the watch was stolen.



    'The real question is what is the evidence that cell phones actually cause cancer, and the answer is - none that would persuade a health agency.'


    The Independent said the research is split almost 50:50 on whether mobile phones pose a health hazard or not, but pointed out research from Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, who said that the balance changes if funding sources are considered, with around three quarters of studies implying no health risks being funded by the mobile phone industry.



    He told the paper: 'The mantra that "we need more research" is true, but there is already enough evidence to warrant better safety information, tighter regulation, mass public education and independently funded research carried out by teams of specialists who are not beholden to industry.



    Conflicting views:
    'This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks - risk we still know next to nothing about.'
    - Joel Moskowitz, University of California

    'Even if the risk is still only one in a million, with 5 billion phone users it means a lot of extra brain cancers.'
    - Professor Denis Henshaw

    'Saying that something is a "possible carcinogen" is a bit like saying that someone is a "possible shoplifter" because he was in the store when the watch was stolen.'
    - Professor Ken Foster


    'This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks to cells, organs, reproduction, the immune system, behaviour, risks we still know next to nothing about.'



    Governments and mobile phone companies often play down the risks and the UK's Mobile Operators Association says there is 'no credible evidence of adverse health effects'.



    The Department of Health says: 'As a precaution children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short. We keep all scientific evidence under review.'



    The NHS also advises children under 16 to minimise their use of mobile phones.



    The iPhone, Apple's smartphone which popularised mobile computing, comes with the advice that you should keep your phone at least 15mm away from your body at all times - which may come as a surprise to those who keep the phone in their pockets at all times.



    The guide that comes with the phone warns: 'When using the iPhone near your body for voice calls or wireless data transmissions over a cellular network, keep it at least 15mm away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15mm separation between iPhone and the body.'



    Other guides, such as the one that comes with a BlackBerry, have similar warnings. The BlackBerry guide suggests that users, particularly pregnant women and teenagers, keep their phone 25mm from their body.
    WHAT IS THE RISK? STUDY OF 350,000 PEOPLE FAILS TO FIND CANCER LINK

    A study held in Denmark last October compared medical records against phone records of around 358,000 people.



    They correlated the data to see how long people owned their phones, and how many of these people developed brain cancer. Some users had owned mobile phones for more than 20 years.



    In total, the group had owned their phones for '3.8 million years', and suffered 10,729 cases of tumours.



    When compared to the average population, they found no indication of 'dose-response' relation either by years since first subscription for a mobile phone or by anatomical location of the tumour - that is, in regions of the brain closest to where the handset is usually held to the head.



    They concluded 'there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association'.






    Even the iPhone manual states that people should keep their phone away from close body contact



    The guide, almost ironically, also suggest that users 'reduce the amount of time spent on calls'.



    Professor Leszczynski will use the conference to urge for a stronger IARC classification - 'probably carginogenic'.



    He told the Independent: 'Since 2001 I have continuously spoken about the need for precautionary measures, especially for children. We have had enough evidence to call for that for a long time.'



    The conference will also discuss other reasons for childhood cancer, such as chemical toxins in the air, food and water, and infection and genetic effects.


    But the main message coming from the Children with Cancer conference is: more independent research is needed.

    Professor Denis Henshaw told the Independent: 'The public have a right to know this information.



    'We cannot and do not say there is a causal link between brain cancer and mobile phones, but we are right to consider them as one possible explanation for the increase and the public have the right to expect that this is properly investigated.



    'Even if the risk is still only one in a million, with 5 billion phone users, it means a lot of extra brain cancers.'




    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1t29xmgcY

    Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you



  2. #2
    Judee's Avatar
    Judee is offline LOOK TO THE SUN FOR THE ANSWERS OF WHY
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    33,395
    Guess until it happens to 'them', no one is going to listen. I'm sure there is a way to make cell phones safer, but then of course, they couldn't make them so cheap and sell them by the billions every year.

    And I'd bet anything that some day they will find that all of this 'wireless' stuff is causing illness too. We already know that living around a cell tower can cause sleeplessness, so what else might it do? Perhaps in the future, humanity will look back on these days, as the 'dark ages' of technology.
    You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. ~C.S. Lewis

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    North of Midnight on Planet Wingnut
    Posts
    89,087
    Not only cancer but now this!?!?!

    DNA Destroying Chip Being Embedded Into Mobile Phones

    According to Dr. Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, terahertz (THz) waves destroy human DNA. The waves literally unzip the helix strand. Now a team of technologists at UT Dallas are planning to take chips broadcasting THz waves and embed them into mobile phones for use as an imaging system for consumers, law enforcement and medical personnel... a potentially deadly technology that could eventually kill or sicken millions of people.
    The controversial THz scanner technology used by the TSA at many of the nation's airports is being adapted for cell phone use. Studies of terahertz radiation have caused experts to raise alarms over the significant health risks to humans.



    Recently major media touted a new chip that permits the adaption of a THz generating device to be embedded into cellular phones.





    Is the price for seeing through walls, a grisly death?



    The excited press painted grand pictures of such technology being used by consumers to see through walls and objects, while health professionals like physcians might incorporate the technology to seek out small tumors inside patients without the need for invasive surgery.




    The THz wave—located between microwaves and infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum—was chosen for security devices because it penetrates matter such as clothing, wood, paper and other porous material that's non-conducting. At the time experts believed this type of radiation was harmless.

    They were wrong.





    From this... To this...?



    THz radiation unzips the DNA molecule
    In a breakthrough study conducted by Dr. Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a team of physicists, they discovered terrifying evidence that exposure to THz radiation builds cumulatively and affects human and animal tissue DNA. In essence, it tends to unzip the DNA molecule. [See: Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA]



    The Los Alamos scientists paper, DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field reveals very disturbing—even shocking—evidence that THz radiation significantly damages the DNA of the people being directed through airport scanners and all TSA workers in close proximity to the machines.




    Their synopsis: "We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."


    What all that means is the resonant effects of the THz waves bombarding humans unzips the double-stranded DNA molecule. This ripping apart of the twisted chain of DNA creates bubbles between the genes that can interfere with the processes of life itself: normal DNA replication and critical gene expression.

    Likely to cause cancer

    David J. Brenner, a Columbia University doctor and expert on the effects of radiation stated that it's quite likely the TSA scanners will cause cancer in some individuals.

    Brenner, whose Columbia's Center for Radiological Research work focuses on radiation's effects on biological processes, low exposure risk evaluation and radio-isotopic therapy, is concerened that people with compromised immune systems such as AIDS patients, those suffering from lupus or other immune-deficient ailments are especially at risk. Infants, children up to age 5 or 6, women who are pregnant or lactating, cancer patients and many more should steer far clear of the machines.




    DNA strand bombarded by THz radiation unzips

    Those exposed to THz radiation—whether from security scanners or future cell phone technology—who are taking certain prescription medications or have significantly low levels of certain vitamins have increased risk of radiation induced carcinomas.

    Repeated exposure to low level radiation scans can also lead to cataracts and bring on skin cancer—including deadly melanoma.




    A CMOS chip used in many different products



    THz to utilize existing CMOS chips



    According to the Daily Mail, the chips—created using Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor—or CMOS use the same technology already incorporated into devices like HD TVs, smart phones and personal computers.



    Dr. Kenneth O, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas at Dallas and leader of the project explained to the Daily Mail that "We've created approaches that open a previously untapped portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for consumer use and life-saving medical applications.


    "CMOS is affordable and can be used to make lots of chips," Dr. O said. "The combination of CMOS and terahertz means you could put this chip and receiver on the back of a cellphone, turning it into a device carried in your pocket that can see through objects."



    The team's findings were presented to an enthusiastic audience at the 2012 International Solid-State Circuits Conference held in San Francisco, California. Next the team plans to create the CMOS terahertz imaging system.



    Before moving ahead with the project, the good doctor and his team might consider contacting Dr. Boian Alexandrov and his team at Los Alamos to compare notes.



    It would be a shame if a deadly technology that could eventually kill or sicken millions of people were unknowingly sold across the world.


    Article

    Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    North of Midnight on Planet Wingnut
    Posts
    89,087
    How bad is Cell Phone Radiation? Eric Dollard

    Eric Dollard, the only person to recreate the experiments of Tesla, tells us what he thinks of "silly phone wonderland"


    Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you



  5. #5
    Judee's Avatar
    Judee is offline LOOK TO THE SUN FOR THE ANSWERS OF WHY
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    33,395

    Cell Phones--4th Study Shows Tumor Link

    U.K. Cell Phone Study Points to Acoustic Neuroma, Not Brain Cancer
    Fourth Study To Show Tumor Link;
    Is This Really Prospective Epidemiology?
    May 10, 2013
    Last updated
    May 12, 2013

    A new study from the U.K. is adding support to the still controversial proposition that long-term use of a cell phone increases the risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the auditory nerve. No higher risk of glioma or meningioma, two types of brain cancer, was observed.

    Women who used a mobile phone for more than ten years were two-and-half-times more likely to have an acoustic neuroma than those who never used a phone. The finding is based on a smaller number of cases than the brain tumor results but is statistically significant. The U.K. epidemiological study is the fourth to show an association between long-term use of a cell phone and acoustic neuroma.

    "[W]e did find a trend of increasing risk of acoustic neuroma with increasing duration of mobile phone use," according to the team led by Victoria Benson, Jane Green and Valerie Beral of the University of Oxford. IARC's Joachim Schüz, an avowed tumor risk skeptic, is a coauthor. The trend of more tumors with more phone use is also statistically significant. The paper is being published by the International Journal of Epidemiology; a copy was posted on its Web site on May 8th.

    WIthout explanation, the increase in acoustic neuroma is omitted in the study conclusion presented in the published abstract. Only the lack of an association with brain cancer is reported there.

    But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new study is that it is being touted as "prospective." Prospective studies are considered superior to retrospective studies — such as Interphone— because they do not rely on people's memories to estimate past exposures. The fear with retrospective studies is that subjects with tumors, eager to explain their condition, will overestimate their cell phone use and skew the results in favor an association. In a prospective study, subjects fill out regular questionnaires detailing phone use and other possible changes over the span of the study.

    It is true that the women were recruited into the U.K. study population before they developed a tumor and would not have had any incentive to misreport their phone use. But, beyond that, nothing about monitoring their radiation exposure could be called prospective. The U.K. study offers scant improvement over past efforts.

    Calling the new study prospective cuts two ways. On the one hand, it gives additional support to the finding of no brain cancer from cell phones, but, on the other hand, it lends greater credibility to the acoustic neuroma association. This might explain the absence of the observed acoustic neuroma risk in the conclusion.

    Exposure Assessment: “Crude” and “Extremely Limited”

    "The evidence presented is less than a slam dunk," said Joe Bowman, an industrial hygienist with the U.S. NIOSH, who worked on the Interphone study. "The exposure assessment in the new study was pretty crude and no attempt was made to estimate radiation exposure," he told Microwave News from his office in Cincinnati. "While it is better than in past retrospective studies in some ways, it is worse in others," he added. "For example, in Interphone, a user's entire phone history was obtained."

    Cell phone use in the U.K. study was based on the answers to only one or two questions posed at the time the women were recruited for the study. They were asked, "About how often do you use a mobile phone?" and were given three options: "never," less than once a day" and "every day." Those who did use a cell phone were also asked "for how long?" At the end of the study in 2009, participants were asked two more questions about their cell phone use, but those answers were not used in the data analysis.

    "The study has extremely limited exposure assessment," concurred Joel Moskowitz, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2009, Moskowitz published a meta-analysis pointing to a tumor risk from cell phones. In an interview, Moskowitz pointed out that the U.K. team had not collected any information on the use of cordless phones. "This could have been an important source of RF exposure," he said.

    The Oxford paper also reports a higher than expected incidence of tumors of the pituitary gland, but this increase is not statistically reliable.

    Both the Interphone project and Lennart Hardell's group in Sweden have previously linked long-term cell phone use with acoustic neuroma, as did a Japanese team in 2010. The new paper does not cite the Japanese study.

    Last fall, the Italian Supreme Court ruled in favor of such an association.

    Two years ago, an expert panel convened by IARC classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. In April, IARC published the rationale for the decision.

    http://microwavenews.com/uk-study-po...oustic-neuroma
    You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. ~C.S. Lewis

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Figueres
    Posts
    12,279
    So, really what this study says is there is no increase in brain tumours from cell phone use. Not the most accurate title they could have used I guess?

    I don't think these studies are much use myself. they are less science and more statistics based on emotional responses.
    proj·ect
    1. something that is contemplated, devised, or planned; plan; scheme.
    2. a large or major undertaking, especially one involving considerable money, personnel, and equipment.
    3. a specific task of investigation, especially in scholarship.
    4. to propose, contemplate, or plan.
    5. to throw, cast, or impel forward or onward.
    6. to set forth or calculate (some future thing).
    7. to extend or protrude beyond something else.
    8. to use one's voice forcefully enough to be heard at a distance, as in a theater.
    9. to produce a clear impression of one's thoughts, personality, role, etc.

  7. #7
    Judee's Avatar
    Judee is offline LOOK TO THE SUN FOR THE ANSWERS OF WHY
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    33,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Project View Post
    So, really what this study says is there is no increase in brain tumours from cell phone use. Not the most accurate title they could have used I guess?

    I don't think these studies are much use myself. they are less science and more statistics based on emotional responses.
    No increase in brain tumors, but an increase in acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the auditory nerve. I don't think I'd want either.
    You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. ~C.S. Lewis

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Figueres
    Posts
    12,279
    But was it caused by radiation or by other factors about using a cellphone, which is not built well for hearing and so on. We don't know. What about people who used headsets? The science here is definitely lacking, I suppose since who is going to fund such a study, and then who is going to be able to get it published assuming it shows a link.
    proj·ect
    1. something that is contemplated, devised, or planned; plan; scheme.
    2. a large or major undertaking, especially one involving considerable money, personnel, and equipment.
    3. a specific task of investigation, especially in scholarship.
    4. to propose, contemplate, or plan.
    5. to throw, cast, or impel forward or onward.
    6. to set forth or calculate (some future thing).
    7. to extend or protrude beyond something else.
    8. to use one's voice forcefully enough to be heard at a distance, as in a theater.
    9. to produce a clear impression of one's thoughts, personality, role, etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •