If you use a cell phone or other DEVICE, this is a must listen:

[truedelphi]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cyberswede (a host of the General Discussion forum).

As someone who was attending San Francisco, Coit Tower neighborhood activist meetings relating to the health dangers of RF and other non-ionizing radiation including microwave blasts from radio and cell phone towers, since the early 1990's, I have long known of the dangers of cellphones.

To minimize the dangers, distance is the easiest solution.

Most of the people I know who were activists now have cell phones. But they all use either headsets with a long wire, or speaker phone.

The following video includes research published in various brain journals.

From the weibsite's intro to the video:

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video from the Environmental Health Trust (www.ehtrust.org). Dr. Devra Davis, author of "Disconnect--The Truth About Cellphone Radiation," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.

Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous - until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.

http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/warning-to-all-cell-phone-users.html


Read more: http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/warning-to-all-cell-phone-users.html#ixzz2rXhbaFWs

[hlthe2b]

1. I almost never use the speaker to the ear anymore, but not convinced that solves the problem...

Sadly, we are all guinea pigs for this....

[truedelphi]

4. Since we are both home, 85% of the time, we no longer

Have a cell phone.

But the towers that transmit the microwaves are now installed on all the hillsides around us. So we too are among the guinea pigs for this grand experiment.

I was just reading that this one researcher found the RF and microwave emissions from various installations in Redwood City Calif and other places on the Penninsula to be at 5,000 to 10,000 watts (Repeater cell technology for the cell phones!)

I could never stand living on the Penninsula. (Silicon Valley Calif.) I felt this terrible pressure, I can't explain it. I used to think that since I grew up in a tornado belt in the Mid West and that since there was often very little wind in the summer in the Penninsula, maybe I was keyed up on account of that. After all, you learn as a kid that it is the quiet before the storm, the windlessness inside a rain storm, which precedes a tornado, that is to be feared. Maybe that ws operating sub consciously in me?

But this high wattage explantion makes more sense.

[longship]

2. Dubious, but the jury's still out.

One study can be biased. That's why repetition and peer review is important in science.

The claim is not implausible, however it is improbable. One must be careful how one draws conclusions of causality when there may be mere correlation. The latter does not imply the former.

I remain skeptical of this claim, but am willing to let the science sort itself out. That's what has to happen here.

[truedelphi]

3. The jury is out, re: call phones and iPad and other devices

In just about the same way that "the jury was out" about cigarette smoking back in the day.

Here is a decent article presenting both sides in Scientific American magazine. The sentence that stands out for me is this one, "Better to be safe than sorry." Cell phone users spend serious money on their cell phone use. Why not spend another $ 25 bucks and get headset or Bluetooth for the car? (If you use the devices in your car?)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-cell-phones-can-cause-brain-cancer/

[longship]

5. I'll stand by my post, as apparently does Scientific American.

And I notice that SciAm does not invoke tobacco as an analogue.

I hope you don't have one of those evil, brain eating cell phones.

Nota bene: radio waves are at the low end of electro-magnetic spectrum. This goes back to Einstein and Planck at the beginning of the 20th century. If I were you, I would worry about gamma radiation from cosmic rays.

[truedelphi]

6. I deliberately chose an article that was close to yr world view.

I would stand on my head if it helped even one person realize they need to do the headset thing-ee, because after all, better safe than sorry.

[longship]

10. But the basic science does not back up that claim.

So the claim does not rise to the level of plausibility. If it was true, we'd be in huge trouble from visible light which has a much higher energy density than anything in the radio spectrum.

Go back to the very simple equation in my previous post.


What this says is that the energy of a photon (particle of light) is directly proportional to its frequency (nu). The higher the frequency, the higher the energy; the lower the frequency, the lower the energy.

This simple equation won Albert Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. (He came up with it in 1905, his annus mirabilus when he wrote four papers, any of which were Nobel Prize worthy. In addition to this one on the photoelectric effect there were two on special relativity -- including the E=mc^2 one, and one on Brownian Motion which nailed down once and for all the atomic theory of matter.)

The Nobel Committee chose the very simple equation above because it started the quantum revolution.

Relax and enjoy your cell phone. If you have a Bluetooth headset, that's great. However, don't they also operate on radio waves next to your head?

The answer is, "YUP!"

If the above equation is correct -- it appears to be in all experiments -- I would worry about visible light before anything from a cell phone.

As I wrote above, one study won't settle this. It's plausible, but not likely.

Best regards.

[Paulie]

7. Bluetooth runs in the 2.4Ghz range just like Wifi and microwave ovens

Cell phones are like 700MHz.

[JJChambers]

8. Simple solution

Don your tinfoil hat prior to placing the phone in proximity to your dome. Never knew that hat would be so dang versatile!

[truedelphi]

12. Interestng to note how many people will so quickly dismiss the findings of Dr Debra Davis,

a woman whose resume includes PhD in science studies from Univ of Chicago, and MPH in epidemiology from Johns Hopkins.l

And who has authored more than one hundred publications and been the recipient of the National Book Award.

[CFLDem]

27. Argument from authority fallacy.

Sorry but sometimes/ a lot of times very smart people's prognostications are full of dog droppings.

[LeftyMom]

9. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.

It is generally accepted that damage to DNA is necessary for cancer to develop. However, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens in animals.

[truedelphi]

13. And how well did that "cigaretesarehealthy.gov" site work out for so many people?

back in the day of "nicotine has been found, by hundreds of industry-connected scientists, to be of absolutely no concern?"

History does seem to repeat and repeat and repeat itself.

Once again, in terms of this link in the OP: It is interesting to note how many people will so quickly dismiss the findings of Dr Debra Davis, a woman whose resume includes PhD in science studies from Univ of Chicago, and MPH in epidemiology from Johns Hopkins.l

And who has authored more than one hundred publications and been the recipient of the National Book Award.

But just as in the case of cigarettes, and then again in the case of MTBE, there are often hundreds of BS studies done by industry funded people, with only a few studies done that disprove Big Industries contention. But thank heaven for that few.

[LeftyMom]

14. Are you trying to work every logical fallacy into one post?

Learn logic and high school level science, you're embarrassing yourself.

[truedelphi]

17. And thanks so much for contributing your

ad hominem attack.

I fail to see how pointing out how impeccable the credentials and resume of the woman in the video - as how that relates to anything other than the ethos portion of logic. Whereas industry scientists in this country are laughed at in other countries. And decent scientists here are forced to go elsewhere to pursue their careers.

[LeftyMom]

19. I posted information from the National Institutes of Health. That's reputable and definitive.

[X_Digger]

20. In case you missed it, that was an appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Science doesn't care about a claimant's credentials.

[FarCenter]

21. Science does care about claimant's credentials - if you're not a peer, you don't get peer reviewed.

[X_Digger]

22. Not as it relates to a claim- it has to stand on its own. Claimant's creds don't add to credibility.

[SidDithers]

47. You're using an article from Joseph Mercola...

and castigating another DUer about their source?



Sid

[KurtNYC]

48. Peer reviewed studies -- Heat may be the mechanism

We have seen in statistical data that there is a correlation between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, ear, throat and salivary glands. We have seen dozen of public figures who are cell hone user pas with cancers, including Ted Kennedy, Johnnie Cochran, and Adam Yanauch.

For the logically minded:

1. If there is correlation there is a problem. Hardell and others have found correlation in heavy users.

2. Radiation may not be the mechanism. If radiation is not the mechanism and there is correlation then there is some other mechanism to be looked for.

3. HSPS may be the mechanism.

Abstract

There are several reports which indicate that electromagnetic radiation (such as from mobile phones) at non-thermal levels may elicit a biological effect in target cells or tissues. Whether or not these biological effects lead to adverse health effects, including cancer, is unclear. To date there is limited scientific evidence of health issues, and no mechanism by which mobile phone radiation could influence cancer development. In this paper, we develop a theoretical mechanism by which radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones could induce cancer, via the chronic activation of the heat shock response. Upregulation of heat shock proteins (Hsps) is a normal defence response to a cellular stress. However, chronic expression of Hsps is known to induce or promote oncogenesis, metastasis and/or resistance to anticancer drugs. We propose that repeated exposure to mobile phone radiation acts as a repetitive stress leading to continuous expression of Hsps in exposed cells and tissues, which in turn affects their normal regulation, and cancer results. This hypothesis provides the possibility of a direct association between mobile phone use and cancer, and thus provides an important focus for future experimentation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11683499

The Hardell Study

In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:[33]

Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
...
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[37] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.

http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680%2809%2900009-1/abstract

[LeftyMom]

61. You're misstating the result of that study so badly I hardly know where to start.

First, I'm going to start by saying that that bit about celebrities is the most asspulled anecdata I've seen on this anecdata laden subject. Worse, it's using dead people's memory to enhance a fallacious argument because it can't stand without that emotional weight. You really ought to be embarrassed.

Second, you're badly misstating the results of the Hardell study, which is itself a bit dubious. For example, acoustic neuromas aren't cancerous but they sound scary if you don't know that, or that they're quite rare, occurring in about 1:100,000 people. Because of their scarcity you'd need an enormous sample to even have a statistically significant number of occurrences from which to declare an increase in frequency. Hardell's study used 12,000 people. Which is quite a lot of people but in that group you'd expect somewhere around zero neromas.

Third, Hardell's own results state that "Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma [the two most common types of brain tumors] was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." Translation: Hardell's own data ruled out an increase in cancer in all cases except in the heavy use data, which were not statistically significant enough to preclude wasting more time and money on yet another study.

However it should please you to know that more recent studies with even larger samples have settled the issue, and no, cell phones don't cause cancer. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/3/792 "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."

[KurtNYC]

63. You ignored the French/Penny study on HSPS

Never said cell phones killed Kennedy or Cochran but btw, Kennedy's surgeon, one of the world's best, will NOT put a cell phone up against his own head.

I am not embarrassed to be aggressively studying this subject nor to admit that, like those funding and conducting the on-going studies, I don't believe we have all the answers as cancers may take decades to develop.

In the meantime I use an earpiece.

[LeftyMom]

64. I ignored it because it's not even a study, and it's been debunked.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16038587

You're welcome.

[KurtNYC]

81. Of course it is a "study" and the matter is still under investigation as I stated

Study (noun) def 2. a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.

http://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8454/full/v3/i2/34.htm

Biology, like many sciences, is developing rapidly because we have new tools available and massive databases and meta data. Yet, unlike in mathematics, answers are not absolute. The Theory of Evolution is still, technically a theory. That's just the way biology is -- complex systems that interact with each other.

And here is another study showing significant increase in the incidence of GBM tumors "especially after 2006". Again, this is just a piece of the larger puzzle but GBM has been rare and steady for decades but may now be emerging in reaction to something in the habits or environment of the 7 million people in this 2011study.

A significant increasing incidence in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was observed in the study period (annual percentage change [APC], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-4.6, n = 2275), particularly after 2006. In GBM patients in the ?65-year group, a significantly increasing incidence for men and women combined (APC, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.5-5.6) and men only (APC, 2.9; 95% CI, 0.1-5.8) was seen. Rising trends in incidence were also seen for meningioma in the total male population (APC, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.6-8.1, n = 515) and males aged 20-64 years (APC, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.8-8.8).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22276231

[marions ghost]

79. My cousin the oncologist

would disagree. He died in his 50's of brain glioma, and always attributed it to his cell phone.

There is no evidence from studies because comprehensive studies have not been or are just now in the process of being done.

Stay tuned for that website to change. It's biologists vs physicists at this point.

[aikoaiko]

11. I saw a video where cell phones made popcorn pop.

[Schema Thing]

23. you mean "appeared to make" popcorn?

because that didn't happen.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. You need to be more skeptical

http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

[aikoaiko]

55. ;-)

I guess the silly smiley face not enough to let people know I was being silly.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. Doh!

My browser is not rendering the emojis correctly. Somehow the character set default got changed. Fixed now.

[Ikonoklast]

58. My cell phone turned me into a newt.

I got better...

[aikoaiko]

59. I hope you posted that to youtube.

Because if its on the internet it is true.

[Ikonoklast]

75. I have proof:

It was a total nightmare for me, I don't like talking about it...that thing was an instrument of Satan.

[aikoaiko]

76. lol

[DesertFlower]

15. my husband used a cell phone for work. he also used a landline. he

developed a brain tumor. when i told my sister she asked which side he held the cell phone to. it was the same side as the tumor. he was also told by the neurologist that snorting cocaine can cause brain tumors. he had a problem with cocaine for about a year in the mid 80s. did either one of these cause the brain tumor? we'll never know.

the tumor was a glioblastoma and it killed him 3 months after his diagnoses. he had no warning except for a few weeks of complaining about his memory, but he always had a bad memory. he came home from work -- had something to eat -- 1/2 hour later he had a seizure. he was 64.

[truedelphi]

16. Condolences to you for what you have gone through.

We've had three friends who developed brain tumors. All were earlier users of cell phones, and all of them had their tumor where they held the phone to their head.

Of course there is not a measurable way to say EXACTLY what causes anything. The atmosphere now contains 500,000 times the amount of radiation that encircled the planet on January 1, 1946. And radiation causes brain cancers too.

That being said, when so many experts say, "Better to be safe than sorry" and the experts agree to use a headset or else in the car a Bluetooth situation, I can't see why people feel that they shouldn't do that one simple thing. After all, it took four decades for activists to get the government to realize that the industry-sponsored "tests" and "research" on cigarettes were not worth more than a piece of poop. I am certain we are facing the same situation with regards to cell phones, cell towers and various devices.

[uppityperson]

33. "there is not a measurable way to say EXACTLY what causes anything"? Seriously? These reply was

caused by my typing on my computer and hitting "post my reply". I have a laceration on my thumb that was caused by a sharp knife in y hand.

There are lots of measurable ways to say EXACTLY what causes something, but not everything can be measured or figured out what the cause was.

[truedelphi]

39. What I meant to say,is that in this day and age, if a person gets cancer,

What do you link it to?

I mean by the time a kid in this society is five, they have been vaccinated, zapped with microwaves from cell phones, cell phone towers, and microwaves, they possibly have experienced Febreeze, Glade and Lysol in the air in their home, perhaps pesticides and herbicides from the yard and lawn care products, MSG, food coloring agents, and other weird things including mold and fungal stuff in food, and they are affected by the clouds of smog that are hanging over most American cities.

Then to make the equation even more complex, add in whatever environmental blights their region of the country suffers with, for instance, Texas and southern Louisiana where the oil refineries blast toxins from that process into the air - if a certain type of cancer shows up just what is it attributable to?

If a child suffers from leukemia, was it the benzene that they were exposed to that did that to them? And if it was the benzene, then was that benzene due to their inhaling lots of secondhand cigarette smoke, or living downwind from a gas station, or from one of the air fresheners or the furniture wax products that was used in the home?

[DesertFlower]

34. thank you. we were together almost 41 years.

i tend to remember when cell phones first came out some studies said they were dangerous. seems those studies got hushed up.

i know a lot of people who don't even have landlines -- all they use are cell phones. i think in 20 years or so a lot of people are going to get brain tumors. i hope i'm wrong.

i'm old fashioned. i like my landline.

[MADem]

28. My cousin's partner was a high powered businessman. He was an early adapter to

cell phones and used them constantly as he was on the move a great deal.

He got the same damn thing--he held on for much longer, for a couple of years, two operations where they dug the damned thing out (it grew back), radiation, medications...but the quality of life at the end was rather, well, dismal. It was a painful and long goodbye.

That's what got Ted Kennedy, too.

I rarely use the cell phone, but I use the speaker the odd time I do...

So sorry for your loss.

[DesertFlower]

32. john was on the move too. he worked for IBM

for almost 43 years. he had to spend a lot of time on conference calls. many times he got calls in the middle of the night because the customer had a computer problem. most times he was able to solve the problem from home, but other times he had to get dressed and go into work. i remember one weekend when he spent at least 10 hours on and off the phone. i think the problem was in india.

my cell phone is for emergencies, i.e., if i get a flat tire and have to call AAA. there are only a few people who have the #.

thank you for your condolences. we were together almost 41 years. he was my soul mate. he's been gone almost 2 years and i miss him terribly.

[MADem]

38. Oh dear.

Two weeks or two years, it's still difficult. It can always be at times--though with the passage of years the remembrance of all the good stuff crowds out a lot of the sadness. Small consolation, that--but those memories do sustain.

[FarCenter]

18. Remove the battery if you can, put it in one of these and then put it in the microwave oven

http://empandsolarprotection.com/shop-2/soft-sided-faraday-cases-pouches/cell-phone-stronghold-bag/

The Faraday case, along with the radiation seal of the microwave oven should offer a modest amount of protection against electromagnetic radiation from the cellphone.

[Vashta Nerada]

24. You're linking us with two links to the same woo site.

Your argument is already invalid.

[truedelphi]

41. Just as Elizabeth Warren has no control over whether her speech on some policy she

advocates appears on the Fox news or Rachel Maddow Show, or Bill O'Reilly Show, Dr Davis often doesn't have any responsibility over whether her speech is on a "Woo" site or on a more normal site.

In any case, here is Dr Davis, with some colleagues of hers from Univ of Pittsberg on the Larry King Show:

[SidDithers]

46. Even worse, the original article is from mercola.com, from June 2012...nt

Sid

[jeff47]

25. You are a demonstration of our poor educational system.

If we had a decent education system, you'd have learned some physics.

That physics would include how much energy is in a photon. And that the energy within a photon goes up based on frequency - higher frequency means much more energy.

That physics would also include that RF is a much, much, much lower frequency than infrared or visible light.

That way, you'd hear half-assed theories like the one in your OP and realize that if these theories about the 1-Watt transmitter in your cell phone were correct, 100-Watt light bulbs would be utterly devastating.

Do you turn the lights on in your house? OMG!!! YOU ARE BATHING YOUR BODY IN RADIATION!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!1!!!!!eleven!!!!

I eagerly await your rebuttal, which will consist of either calling me an industry shill, or appealing to authority of another crackpot.

[Vashta Nerada]

29. Thread win.

[Orrex]

31. Damn.

[arcane1]

49. Dammit! I'm never opening the blinds again!

[Silent3]

80. You forgot to prepare for "science doesn't know everything!".

You will be helpless in the face of that devastating retort.

[shedevil69taz]

26. Oh also women should be encouraged to NOT carry their cell phone

around in their bra...I know I don't carry mine in an upper pants pocket (near the testicles) if at all possible...

[NightWatcher]

30. I carried mine in my pocket and now one of my testicles is bigger

than the other two.

D'oh!

[uppityperson]

35. Well, damn. Switch to the other pocket now.

[Orrex]

36. Maybe you're just standing closer to that one, so it looks bigger.

[Improvise]

37. OP does not know basic HS physics.

The energy emitted from a cellphone is negligible, and could not possibly do anything besides interfere with the functions of cellular membranes nearest to the transmitter (due to the digital modulation of the signal transmitted/received by the phone, the power level *at any level* transmitted by the transceiver of the phone is far too weak to interfere with mitochondrial functions of any cell).

[truedelphi]

40. Oh for Pete's sake -

Did you even bother to listen to the lecture in the OP's link, a lecture given by Dr Debra Davis, whose resume is quite extensive, in terms of her education, and also in terms of various agencies and oversight committees that she has served on?

Did you ever hear of Dr Neil Cherry, who was tireless in his pursuit of the truth about all things that give off non ionizing radiation? Were you ever in an audience of concerned people, who had suffered terribly from RF and microwave radiation, due to their neighborhood being in close proximity to Coit Tower? And then have the spokespeople for the industry speak up and tell the audience that cell phone towers actually cause brain tumors, but not to worry, the tumors are usually not cancerous! When the companies then got hit with lawsuits from people who had to undergo surgeries for their non cancerous tumors, the spokespeople quit talking about that!

On edit: So the manufacturers of cell phones, who put out warning sheets (product insert sheets that come with the phones) on the fact that you should not hold the cell phone close to your face, head or body - those cell phone manufacturers are stupid to do this?

You might want to read this as well:
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/03/07/dont-hold-your-iphone-too-close-to-your-head-apple-says-so/

[hobbit709]

42. When I was in the Air Force we used to sleep behind the 50KW transmitters-4 of them.

Those transmitters were in the 2-2.4 GHz band.
According to your half-baked theory, I should have become a quivering mass of cancers 40 years ago.

[jeff47]

60. Yes, it's all about science, and not money

a lecture given by Dr Debra Davis

Who's looking for money

Did you ever hear of Dr Neil Cherry

Who's looking for money

When the companies then got hit with lawsuits...So the manufacturers of cell phones, who put out warning sheets

These two couldn't possibly be related.

Cell phone companies are seeking to avoid getting sued by people like you - people who believe basic physics is wrong. People who believe RF causes massive problems, even when the transmitter is turned off. And juries of their peers. Burying a "don't hold it next to your head" warning in the docs is a way to try and dismiss lawsuits. It'll be marginally effective, but it's better than nothing.

If the cell companies really thought that putting the phone next to your head caused problems, do you think they'd be so incompetent as to put speakers and microphones in such a way that you have to hold it next to your head without third-party products? Because that marginally-effective warning won't stop a decent attorney.

[SidDithers]

43. Woo in GD again...

It makes me sad that science is so poorly understood and horseshit information like the OP so easily propagates through credulous believers.

Sid

[hobbit709]

44. This at the bottom of the page on the link tells me all I need to know about credibility

[SidDithers]

45. Yup. And the credulous lap this shit up...

Good post at SBM about this topic here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-phone-fears-and-science/

Edit: went looking for the post at mercola.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/emf-safety-tips.aspx

Now I need to go take a shower.



Sid

[PasadenaTrudy]

65. I actually

dropped out of HS, never took science classes until college. I took biology and geology, and a class in critical thinking/logic. I was intelligent already, but these classes made a big difference in how I think things through. Oh, and I'm an atheist too

[SidDithers]

67. Classes in critical thinking and logic should be required in every high school...

We're educating a generation of dumbasses, who believe everything that they read on the internet.



Sid

[PasadenaTrudy]

71. Yep

One reason I left Facebook was I was fed up with the posts on HAARP, chemtrails, rock medicine...oy. How can people believe this crap? Like that one youtube vid of the woman saying there was a connection between rainbows and chemtrails

[arcane1]

77. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Those classes should start much sooner than high school. They should at least start by teaching elementary school kids how the TV lies to them, and how to spot the lies

[SidDithers]

78. Even better...

Sid

[Ohio Joe]

68. Again?

I'd word it as 'still'.

[SidDithers]

69. Remember when mercola got laughed out of GD?...

Now it gets a dozen or more recs.

Sid

[Vashta Nerada]

72. I can see Republicans falling for stupid shit like this, but Democrats?

I thought we were (collectively) smarter than that.

SMH.

[snooper2]

50. I've been preaching this for YEARS! Watch this short video!

This is with just five phones popping popcorn!

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Again, you need to be more skeptical

http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

[snooper2]

57. Cell Phone Radiation messed me up..

Now it's got me responding to myself! see my reply to you below which is to me but was meant for you but went to me LOL

[snooper2]

54. This is REAL! Listen to Eric Dollard!

He needs money for his testing and research! Fund him so he can spread the truth!

Please support Eric's Fundraiser http://igg.me/at/ericdollard/x/1716426
Eric Dollard, the only person to recreate the experiments of Tesla, tells us what he thinks of "silly phone wonderland"

[RC]

73. How it was done:

1. Set the scene: unpopped kernels, cell phones of various makes and models, giggling teenagers

2. Air-pop a few popcorn kernels on your stove

3. While filming, drop the popped kernels onto the table from above

4. Digitally erase the unpopped kernels from the footage, and add sound effects

5. Upload, and get ready to sell some Bluetooth headsets

http://gigaom.com/2008/07/09/how-to-pop-popcorn-with-a-cell-phone-revealed/

[snooper2]

74. I DEMAND YOU DELETE THIS REPLY!

you are fucking with me while I'm fucking with people--


NOT COOL!

[OilemFirchen]

52. I keep my phone on the kitchen counter.

Sometime last night, my regular coffee was secretly switched with Folgers.

[SidDithers]

62. Hosts? Mercola?...

really?

Sid

[L0oniX]

66. Could this be inverse woo?

[SidDithers]

70. Joseph Mercola, the author of the article linked in the OP, is a fucking loon...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Sid

[Silent3]

82. Is a DEVICE more dangerous than a regular device?

Something THEY aren't telling us about the destructive health effects of ALL CAPS?

Or perhaps it's an acronym.

Deadly Energy Vortex Inducing Corporate Evil

[marions ghost]

83. CUMULATIVE

As we all follow this issue in hopes of definitive science someday, I think there's one word to remember:

CUMULATIVE

Biologists vs Physicists = is where this rests at the moment.

The jury is out. We are talking about chronic long term exposure. There has to be the political will to do studies on this. Here is a website for nurses that calls for studies in 2013, especially re. children:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806804_8

Recommendations

Ten-year longitudinal studies that are not sponsored in any way by telecommunication services or manufacturers of cell phones need to be conducted on adults and children to learn definitively the relationship between RF, cell phone use, and primary brain tumor. These studies have to be designed to obtain precise data that include radiation emission from the cell phone, amount of time (both call length and frequency) the phone is used, which side of the brain is exposed, age of the subject, and radiation exposure. The protocol should contain an ethically sensitive clause that if early results indicate a connection between RF and brain cancer, the subjects will be informed, and the study stopped to decrease risk to participants. A trial case study comparing patients who have cancer with healthy patients using phone log data in which only the subject is using the phone is needed (Mukherjee, 2011). Consumers need to be educated about the most recent findings.

Nurses are a particularly valuable resource for educating children and parents about health-related concerns. Nurses in clinics and hospitals attended by parents and children can create educational wall posters that display how RF exposure can be reduced. School nurses can also post information about RF on display boards and be available should parents and children request further information. As trusted professionals, nurses are in a good position to communicate to older children, teens, and parents about RF emissions from cell phone antennae and what steps can be taken to reduce this exposure and still benefit from the technology. Using a Bluetooth or the earpiece reduces the amount of radiation to the brain; the radiation effect drops exponentially as the antenna moves away from the head. Even using a speakerphone several inches away from the head reduces exposure significantly. Text messaging is another option because the cell phone is held away from the head while in use. Nurses can become politically active and request their legislators to craft legislation that provides warnings and protects children from radiation exposure as France, Toronto, India, and Israel have done. Through their specialty nursing associations, nurses can create position statements and submit them for publication in professional journals and lay publications. Nurses can encourage their professional organizations to advocate for research on this topic and participate in research if the opportunity becomes available.