On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Although meant humorously, it should be noted that oxidation is a
process that doesn't necessarily involve oxygen at all!

Oxidation is the process of losing one or more electrons by an atom
(which may form part of a molecule) - the species that gained the
appropriate electrons is said to be 'reduced'. Redox reactions are a
basic part of chemistry.

The real oxidation damage to human cells comes from the action of
'free radicals' - molecules that have gained a lone electron. These
electrons are highly reactive, and the transfer of this electron to a
molecule in a cell can cause (chemical) damage. If this happens to be
part of the cell's DNA, then the 'message' encoded by the DNA has been
altered.....which can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and
reproduction, and hence The Big Casino.

Where do free radicals come from? Currently they are though to arise
through pollution, fried foods, alcohol, sunlight, solvents, ionising
radiation, the sources are many and varied. What can you do to prevent
free-radical attack? Avoid free-radical producers, and ensure you take
enough anti-oxidants through dietary supplementation....

The interested reader is encouraged to find out more through, e.g. web
searches. There's a lot of info out there.

I've laboured this a bit because there are people on this ng whose
level of understanding is such that they believe things like
'dehumidifiers absorb heat.....you can use this to warm up your shed'.
--
from
Aero Spike

On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find
that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst
for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the
inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd
membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would
be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that
is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let
childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary
and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle",
specifically used to limit or halt future crisis.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF


The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing
that affects health.

The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to
heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello.

I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning
up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies
ability to either use or produce "T" cells.

Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and
there isn't likely to be enough)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:55:20 -0500, default
wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find
that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst
for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the
inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd
membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would
be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that
is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let
childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary
and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle",
specifically used to limit or halt future crisis.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF


The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing
that affects health.


Sunlight is Electromagnetic radiation and hardly anybody seems to
mention this when talking about cell phone sand RF safety. Sunlight
also causes heating effects and lots of it. (I know I enjoy it) 1000W
per square metre of radiation hitting the earth on a nice day. That's
a bit more than a cell phone emits I believe AND it contains the
ionizing type of radiation too which is known to cause cancer of
course.

I believe that if there is something to this cell phone thing that it
may be from the electric part of the near field.

I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

my 2 cents.

R.F.




The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to
heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello.

I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning
up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies
ability to either use or produce "T" cells.

Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and
there isn't likely to be enough)

R. F. Burns wrote:
I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link
was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until
brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
R. F. Burns wrote:
I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link
was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until
brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time.

It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is
a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between
cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous.

Surprisingly, people are suing tobacco companies on the grounds that
'they didn't know' that smoking was bad for you. I suspect that these
are the same type of people who want to ban phone masts, but not the
phones themselves, of course, ie pretty thick!

Ian.
--