Mobile Phone/Cell Phone Health Issue (Sorry, OT)
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox

In message , tox
writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox

Well I would say that if mobile phones are eventually proven to be bad
for your health, it is most likely to be the phone itself that is the
culprit rather than the mast mounted tx at the local school etc; a
point that still has not been made by the media or, it seems, anyone
providing them with information.

It is probably worth noting that, in my experience, most children use
their mobiles almost exclusively for 'texting' rather than 'talking';
presumably this carries significantly less risk perceived or otherwise.

Trev G3ZYY

--
Trevor Day
SIP:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:58:01 GMT, Trevor Day
wrote:

It is probably worth noting that, in my experience, most children use
their mobiles almost exclusively for 'texting' rather than 'talking';
presumably this carries significantly less risk perceived or otherwise.

I agree. Proximity is the dominant factor at work here. That's why
these scare stories about mobile phone masts and cancer are such
total nonsense.
There may well be some significant risk associated with the
conventional use of mobiles right next to the head, though. The EM
field is bound to invade brain tissue and the effects of such exposure
to even low levels of near-microwave frequencies are as yet not fully
known.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2001/...ay_do_harm.htm

--
http://www.stressed-out.org
CS Public #1, 195.242.236.171:27015 ff=on, awp=off
CS Public #2, 195.242.236.171:27035 ff=on
CS Public #3, Mini_maps only 195.242.236.171:27045

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:58:01 GMT, Trevor Day
wrote:

It is probably worth noting that, in my experience, most children use
their mobiles almost exclusively for 'texting' rather than 'talking';
presumably this carries significantly less risk perceived or otherwise.

I agree. Proximity is the dominant factor at work here. That's why
these scare stories about mobile phone masts and cancer are such
total nonsense.
There may well be some significant risk associated with the
conventional use of mobiles right next to the head, though. The EM
field is bound to invade brain tissue and the effects of such exposure
to even low levels of near-microwave frequencies are as yet not fully
known.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

tox wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox

Sounds rather like the precautionary principle to me. Nothing
particularly new about it. Perhaps a crisis waiting to happen.

tox wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox

Sounds rather like the precautionary principle to me. Nothing
particularly new about it. Perhaps a crisis waiting to happen.

tox wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox

Sounds rather like the precautionary principle to me. Nothing
particularly new about it. Perhaps a crisis waiting to happen.

"tox" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

--
tox



Yes, it's a usual load of Tosh, the opening paragraph says it all, even a so
called expert admits he doesn't know.

"Parents should ensure their children use mobile phones only when absolutely
necessary because of the potential health risks, an expert is warning."
Then in same sentence,

"The latest study by Sir William Stewart says there is still no proof mobile
phones are unsafe,"

The vision of angry villagers with flaming torches spring to mind every time
I hear about objections to mobile phones/masts.

RT wrote:
"Parents should ensure their children use mobile phones only when absolutely
necessary because of the potential health risks, an expert is warning."
Then in same sentence,

"The latest study by Sir William Stewart says there is still no proof mobile
phones are unsafe,"

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.
--
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 =---

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

What?

;-)

I heard (no pun intended) that the YAAH committee report states that most of
the talk about health being put under risk by mobile phones/mast is totally
bollox.

I have to agree, before anyone spouts off about being sick due to a nearby
mast perhaps the investigators ought to check the contents of moaners fridge
etc first.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
RT wrote:
"Parents should ensure their children use mobile phones only when
absolutely
necessary because of the potential health risks, an expert is warning."
Then in same sentence,

"The latest study by Sir William Stewart says there is still no proof
mobile
phones are unsafe,"

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

Is that 10 years continous use? If so, most youngsters will be death by the
time they are 18, if the 'music' hasn't 'got them by 15 ;-)

I'm glad I'm too old to like what passes for 'music' these days ;-)

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

Cecil Moore wrote:

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Brian Reay wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

Is that 10 years continous use? If so, most youngsters will be death by the
time they are 18, if the 'music' hasn't 'got them by 15 ;-)

I assume you mean deaf? Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already. Some of those few are starting to
get tumors inside their ears. I have switched over to a
headset for my cellphone activities after having one
for about three years.
--
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 =---

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.

December 2004, page 20: "Cellphones Linked To Brain Tumors"
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of
cellphone use." There will be about 50 million people with
10 years of cellphone use in 1907. I won't be one of them.
--
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 =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Reay wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.

Is that 10 years continous use? If so, most youngsters will be death by
the
time they are 18, if the 'music' hasn't 'got them by 15 ;-)

I assume you mean deaf?

Indeed, thinking of something else as I typed. Its the 'music' ;-)

Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that. The mobile phone was an icon of the 'Yuppie' era (along
with the Filofax, BMW, Rolex, etc.) That was mid 1980s.

I'm pretty sure we one of the early 'next generation' phones (digital) in
about 1990.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:42:37 GMT, "tox"
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?

No, just an unbiased review of what appears to be all studies done so
far-

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-pho...h-FAQ/toc.html

Read thoroughly & make up your own mind :).

H.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that. The mobile phone was an icon of the 'Yuppie' era
(along
with the Filofax, BMW, Rolex, etc.) That was mid 1980s.

I'm pretty sure we one of the early 'next generation' phones (digital) in
about 1990.


Just checked, it One2One launched in 1993, and there were other systems
before that.

Hard to believe, I don't recall a time when we weren't plagued by the
'mobile'.


--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.


Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.


December 2004, page 20: "Cellphones Linked To Brain Tumors"
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of
cellphone use." There will be about 50 million people with
10 years of cellphone use in 1907. I won't be one of them.

Thanks. Here's what the article really said:

"Researchers at the Karolinska Institute of Environmental Medicine, in
Stockholm, Sweden, have found an association between long-term cellphone
use and a rare, benign tumor, causing concern among radiation
specialists and epidemiologists, though they emphasize that the results
haven't been replicated yet. Scientists now eagerly await results from
other studies under way around the world.

Published in the November issue of the journal _Epidemiology_, the
Swedish study, led by Stefan Lönn of the Karolinska Institute, looked at
148 people who had acoustic neuroma and compared them with 604 healthy
people. It found that people who used cellphones for more than 10 years
doubled their risk of developing the tumor, a benign condition affecting
one in 100 000 people. . ."

So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

Looks to me like it said that a single study, yet to be replicated, of a
small group of people indicated that long-term cell phone use caused a
doubling of the risk of a rare benign tumor, raising the odds of getting
one from about 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 50,000.

So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:16:01 +0000, Prometheus
wrote:

...... in fact give the large proportion of the
population using such devices the stats would indicate some tumours in
less than ten years. Where are they?

Firstly, you have to ask yourself what is meant by 'ten years of use'.

Does it mean

- owning one for ten tears?
- having it switched on for ten years?
- using it for x hours a day for ten years?

The meaning of 'ten years' hasn't been made clear so far, at least on
this ng.

Then you need to take into account of the mechanics of tumour
initiation and development. There are thought to be five or six events
in the initiation and growth of a tumour to the stage where it can be
clinically diagnosed. Only one of these is associated with the
causative factor, which will have its own rate of effectiveness, and
so will each of the remaining steps.

Unless the statistics have been very carefully researched and
manipulated, and they may well have been, the numbers reported should
be treated with some caution....
--
from
Aero Spike

"tox" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4163003.stm


Any views?


I think common sense dictates caution when you slap something on the side of
your head that heats your brain (Airy excluded) up... There must be health
issues with this....

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:46:17 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.


Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.


December 2004, page 20: "Cellphones Linked To Brain Tumors"
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of
cellphone use." There will be about 50 million people with
10 years of cellphone use in 1907. I won't be one of them.

Thanks. Here's what the article really said:

"Researchers at the Karolinska Institute of Environmental Medicine, in
Stockholm, Sweden, have found an association between long-term cellphone
use and a rare, benign tumor, causing concern among radiation
specialists and epidemiologists, though they emphasize that the results
haven't been replicated yet. Scientists now eagerly await results from
other studies under way around the world.

*Snip*
Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Just curious, did the study take into account putting vinyl phone
cases against skin, being warmed up & subsequently out-gassing
carcinogens that were then absorbed through the skin & into the blood
stream???

Enquiring Minds Want to Know-

Howard.


p.s.- Just what are "double the odds" for this "rare" cancer? Any
chance they're within the statistical noise floor?? EMWtK.

H.E.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...


I assume you mean deaf? Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

You in the USA already? ;-)

Already I have used an already mobile phone for well over ten years already.
(not too sure how to punctuate that in the USA vernacular) ;-)
I see no signs of ill health in either myself, or my daughter already. We
both went with Orange about the same time. ( A British mobile phone network)
Now Orange work at about 1.8 Gig? At that time, that was about the highest
frequency phone system that was going. Now we have systems that work at 3
gigabyte? already. Or do they operate at even higher frequencies already?
I'm not to sure already.

Right! I'm off to bed already. ;-)

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...


I assume you mean deaf? Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

You in the USA already? ;-)

Already I have used an already mobile phone for well over ten years
already.
(not too sure how to punctuate that in the USA vernacular) ;-)
I see no signs of ill health in either myself, or my daughter already. We
both went with Orange about the same time. ( A British mobile phone
network)

Isn't Orange an offshoot of Hutchinsion Telecom which was, I think, from
Hong Kong?

Now Orange work at about 1.8 Gig? At that time, that was about the highest
frequency phone system that was going. Now we have systems that work at 3
gigabyte? already. Or do they operate at even higher frequencies already?
I'm not to sure already.

Right! I'm off to bed already. ;-)

Actually Dave, Cecil's use of "already" was quite appropriate. Just
because it may not be 'our' English doesn't make it incorrect- for good or
ill US and UK English are diverging. Languages change. In fact, there is
some evidence the US English is nearer to old English than current UK usage.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message
...
Just curious, did the study take into account putting vinyl phone
cases against skin, being warmed up & subsequently out-gassing
carcinogens that were then absorbed through the skin & into the blood
stream???

Enquiring Minds Want to Know-


Not to mention using the MP3 or Radio features with the volume too high. Or
RSI in the thumbs due to over texting.

Even worse, terminal boredom watching phone geeks comparing features. What
is wrong with a basic phone?
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)
Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical automatic
any day.)
Razors (why do people like electric razors?)
Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

It found that people who used cellphones for more than 10 years doubled
their risk of developing the tumor, a benign condition affecting one in
100 000 people. . ."

I bet that driving a car to work every day raises the likelihood of a
multiude of serious health illnesses by an order of magnitude, and those
risks are a lot greater than 1 in 100,000 to begin with!

A lot people don't seem to reailze that lifestyle choices (where you live,
what you eat, etc.) have a vastly greater influence on their likelihood of
coming down with some dreaded disease than most forms of new technology
do...

(Although I am all for continuing research so that appropriate levels for
polluting gases, EM radiation emissions, etc. can be set... but of course
'the appropriate level' is at least as much if not more a political problem
than a technical problem.)

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

I'm sold on wireless Internet connectivity, sorry. WiFi/WiMax's coverage is
still a drop in the bucket compared to WCDMA/GPRS/EDGE coverage.

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical automatic
any day.)

I like mechnical watches, but there's something to be said for dual time
zones, chronographs, count down alarms, etc. too!

Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Mainly laziness; the last thing I want to do when I'm still groggy in the
morning is deal with changing a double-edged razor blade.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

I'd speculate that _most_ people do a better job of cleaning with an
electric toothbrush than with a 'manual...'

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

I'm sold on wireless Internet connectivity, sorry. WiFi/WiMax's coverage
is
still a drop in the bucket compared to WCDMA/GPRS/EDGE coverage.

Must be a big phone just to get the label on it ;-)

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical
automatic
any day.)

I like mechnical watches, but there's something to be said for dual time
zones, chronographs, count down alarms, etc. too!

I can't imagine how I live without then. Nice mechanical hands that move, a
nice tick, and not having to wind it up. If cars were as reliable as a
Rolex, garages would be out of business.


Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Mainly laziness; the last thing I want to do when I'm still groggy in the
morning is deal with changing a double-edged razor blade.

Don't you have those snazzy clip in dual (or even triple) bladed beasts. Do
them in the dark.

Plus, a proper wet shave lasts all day. An electric tickle about 4 hours.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

I'd speculate that _most_ people do a better job of cleaning with an
electric toothbrush than with a 'manual...'

I've heard that before. However, there is also the case for 'up and down'
motion (no innuendo intended) and electric toothbrushes are rotary.
--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

Dave wrote:

We
both went with Orange about the same time. ( A British mobile phone network)


Eh? Orange is almost wholly owned by France Telecom. Hardly British!!


--
Chris

In article , Spike
writes
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:16:01 +0000, Prometheus
wrote:

...... in fact give the large proportion of the
population using such devices the stats would indicate some tumours in
less than ten years. Where are they?

Firstly, you have to ask yourself what is meant by 'ten years of use'.

Does it mean

- owning one for ten tears?
- having it switched on for ten years?
- using it for x hours a day for ten years?

The meaning of 'ten years' hasn't been made clear so far, at least on
this ng.

True, owning for ten years but never switching on can be no worse then
any other lump of plastic and metal. Having it switched on but not
making any calls is also of minimal risk. Using for X hours per day
might be meaningful but if X is not defined it is of little value, we
also need to know what proportion of users suffer adverse effect. If the
proportion is little different to that in non-mobile phone users then
use of mobile phones can not be considered significant.

Then you need to take into account of the mechanics of tumour
initiation and development. There are thought to be five or six events
in the initiation and growth of a tumour to the stage where it can be
clinically diagnosed. Only one of these is associated with the
causative factor, which will have its own rate of effectiveness, and
so will each of the remaining steps.

Again information not published.

Unless the statistics have been very carefully researched and
manipulated, and they may well have been, the numbers reported should
be treated with some caution....

Give the lack of atestable figures I prefer distrust to caution.
--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Brian Reay
writes
Even worse, terminal boredom watching phone geeks comparing features.

An anthropomorphic study of the lesser witted geek should be
interesting, one must ask is the species viable?

What
is wrong with a basic phone?

Unless you need the extra features, nothing. I have a digital camera
which is much better than any in a phone, my pocket radio is better than
any phone, my handheld computer is better than any phone. My mobile
phone is smaller than any phone containing "feature" I seldom want to
carry around.

Some things are best simple:

However not automatically so.

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

Depends if you NEED more than speech.

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical
automatic
any day.)

My analogue quarts is more rugged and accurate but I do have to change
the battery every three years so I do have some sympathy for a
mechanical automatic.

Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Perhaps they find the vibration of an electric shaver to be auto-erotic,
I prefer the closer shave obtained with a real razor.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

Depends on the type; the reciprocating rotary head are more effective
than an ordinary brush, the vibrating etc. are a waste of time.

I take an engineering approach and select equipment to be effective
rather than simply rejecting anything that is not traditional (otherwise
you would have to reject all phones and use runners).

--
Ian G8ILZ

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)
Depends if you NEED more than speech.

Hmm... I don't know that we NEED much of any modern technology... but I'm
certainly willing to pay for it! (And it is interesting how the Internet
has gone from being 'a cool toy' to something many would argue is NEEDed for
'modern jobs' in under a decade... I wonder how long telephones took to
reach the same level of 'NEED'?)

My analogue quarts is more rugged and accurate but I do have to change the
battery every three years so I do have some sympathy for a mechanical
automatic.

Casio has some nice 10 year (battery life) models, although they're plastic
so generally the case will die years before the battery...

There are also solar powered and kinetically powered quartz (electric)
watches out there...

I take an engineering approach and select equipment to be effective rather
than simply rejecting anything that is not traditional (otherwise you
would have to reject all phones and use runners).

I thought it was smoke signals? :-)

Brian Reay wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that.

Few compared to an estimated 200,000,000 by 2017.
--
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 =---

Prometheus wrote:
I smell some faulty logic, just because "No tumors were associated with
less than 10 years of cellphone use" you can not infer that tumours
should be associated with more than ten years use.

People with less than 10 years of cellphone use suffered the same
rate of tumors as non-cellphone users. People with more than 10 years
of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users
and tumors among cellphone users was four times more likely to occur
on the side of the head normally used for the cellphone. Where's the
faulty logic?
--
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 =---

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

That was the gist of what I got out of reading the article the
title and header of which is:

"CELLPHONES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY'RE
BENIGN; THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THEY'RE THERE."

Your gist may vary. I assume one argument from the "no energy
in RF waves" guys will be "no energy = no tumor".
--
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 =---

Dave wrote:
I see no signs of ill health in either myself, or my daughter already.

That's nice and fits right in with one in 100,000 non-cellphone
users getting it Vs two in 100,000 10-year cellphone users getting
it.
--
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 =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Reay wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that.

Few compared to an estimated 200,000,000 by 2017.

In which case, it could well be the end of the world! With all that RF
flying about, chances are, by 2017 every male in the world will be sterile.

If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

Regards
tox

tox wrote:
If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

More on the subject from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...436543,00.html

"CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents
were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use
to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been
underestimated by most scientists.

Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful
effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.

The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in
parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a
model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.

The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the
first government-sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged
between five and nine using mobiles has increased fivefold in the same
period.

In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four
studies have caused concern. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that
heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear
and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive
function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base
stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell
damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones."
--
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 =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

That was the gist of what I got out of reading the article the
title and header of which is:

"CELLPHONES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY'RE
BENIGN; THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THEY'RE THERE."

Your gist may vary. I assume one argument from the "no energy
in RF waves" guys will be "no energy = no tumor".

Have other factors in the 'life style' of phone users been ruled out?

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

Less painful than the snip! :0

Rv!

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