AMERICAblog: Report: cell phones 'more dangerous than smoking'
jr
· 1 year ago
put people on speakerphone, kiddies
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
my friend in Austrailia has written many papers on this over the years...i dont use my cell phone except in emergencies...stopped 4 years ago
lynchie
· 1 year ago
Well Bush has some time to set up some rebates to the Wireless Phone Industry so they dont have to face the burden of cutting down the amount of radio waves we absorb without help. Since he already wanted them to be free of any law suit for tapping our phones no doubt he will extend it to cover this. Scientists have been talking about this for many years and the only reply from the phone companies has been that "of course they are safe, we wouldn't do anything to hurt our customers". Sounds just like the tobacco companies saying smoking is good for you. My mother once told me when i tried smoking "if God wanted you to smoke you would have been born with a cigarette in your hand". Once again big business does it best to kill you but keep you connected.
If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton had the chance to support similar studies back in the 90's but opted instead to side with the wireless corporations. Billary has the highest number of lobbyists connected to her campaign than anyone in history. Can you say "totally corrupt power monger"?
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
.
SUNDAY Edition of COUNTDOWN with Keith Olbermann. NOW! on NBC not MSNBC..
.
grandma
· 1 year ago
Thanks DC....forgot about that...
lynchie
· 1 year ago
Burnt Orange Report says Obama wins Texas. Hope the mainstream talking heads report this correctly
They can have my cellphone when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
High Crimes & Misdemeanors
· 1 year ago
Ben Dover Today 07:04 PM They can have my cellphone when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. -----------------------------------------------------------
lol.... love that... sccccarry tho, isn't it?.....
TruthCounts
· 1 year ago
Latest from Josh Marshall: "it's even worse for Clinton than I thought. According to Brazile, in addition to the twenty-five members of the Committee appointed by Howard Dean, the rest of the committee will be made up of 3 members apiece from each state. In other words, it works sort of like the senate, where all states are counted equally, regardless of their size. Since Obama has won far more states than Clinton, that should mean he has a decisive majority on the credentials committee."
The Billary needs to pack up her campaign and go back to Arkansas. Her attempt to destroy the Democratic Party failed.
No, current scientific evidence does not show any negative health effects from the low levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by mobile phones, says the Food and Drug Administration. But some recent studies suggest a possible link between mobile phones and cancer and warrant follow-up, the agency says, to determine with more certainty whether cell phones are safe.
hallam
· 1 year ago
If there was such a dramatic increase in cancer we would already be seeing a massive increase in brain cancers.
We do not have very good models for radiation exposure, particularly at low levels of exposure.
As with much bogus research, this one is a 'literature survey'. So no new information here just a selection of previous studies. The usual scam is to announce the paper to the press in advance of it being published so the news goes out on the author's intended story, not the one that passed peer review.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
OMG, the blog master Chris actually published that post with THAT headline. I know the world must be ending.!!!!
GrantinHouston
· 1 year ago
A couple of days ago, a teenage girl on a cell phone stepped off the curb in front of my car and I had to swerve widely to miss hitting her. She was dressed in all black so I am glad it was during the daytime. After screeching my brakes, she kept talking not even looking up, still oblivious to what almost happened to her.
Last year a young woman, 20, made a left turn into my partner's car so busy on her phone she didn't realize her green turn arrow was no longer "green"! Her insurance paid the $5K that it costs to repair our car but such won't cover the deduction he will have to take someday when the accident appears on CarFax and his trade-in will be maybe a few thousand dollars less for having "been wrecked".
TruthCounts
· 1 year ago
"After screeching my brakes, she kept talking not even looking up, still oblivious to what almost happened to her."
Something similar happened to me. An older woman pulled right out into traffic almost clipping my car. Other cars also had to swerve out of the way and were honking. The lady was totally oblivous and continued talking on her cell. The kicker - on her rear bumper "Hillary 2008". Just goes to show the mental level of her supporters.
TruthCounts
· 1 year ago
It is my understanding that the study Chris is citing has indeed been peer reviewed and involves double blind trials. The Right-Wing media is trying it's usual snow job of trying to downplay these dangers. No doubt Rush Limbaugh will mock this just as he has Al Gore and environmentalism.
Baal
· 1 year ago
The study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and based on what he reports, I remain very skeptical. His initial announcement is on his own webpage that is designed to look like a peer-reviewed electronic journal. This is the kind of thing I do for a living (82 published papers, mostly in neuroscience), and have always found that people who run to the newspapers before their articles are published or even accepted for publication tend to be pretty sloppy and/ore have some other agenda.
I did a literature search on the author, and he has never published anything previously on this subject, and his primary expertise is in surgical repair of aneurysms.
He may even be right about this, but I am not convinced on the basis of his arguments.
DavidinPS
· 1 year ago
"The study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and based on what he reports, I remain very skeptical."
I am too. I am also ( sadly) reluctant to take Chris in Paris too seriously on these kind of issues. i enjoy reading him, but he does tend to run crazy with a lot of these type things without really investigating thoroughly ( or even much at all). It does make a great headline though. Personally I'll wait for the peer review. I've got a bet that ain't gonna happen with this guy.
Baal
· 1 year ago
Actually, what he is reporting is based on a review of stuff already in the literature. On his own website there is nothing original, not even a proper statistical metaanalysis.
lynchie
· 1 year ago
Hallan: funny you should post about the incidence of brain cancer. In today's New York times this article appeared.
''Brain cancer is an awful, depressing cancer,'' said Nigel H. Greig of the National Institute on Aging, a co-author of the Rapoport paper. ''It has one of the worst prognoses of all cancers. It's almost invariably fatal. It's lagged behind other cancers in chemotherapy and treatment, and survival time has not improved.'
While some of the increase is attributed to better diagnostic tools we should be concerned. I frankly don't trust anything the FDA or Big Business says. This Administration has gutted any research or safeguards. They are after all the group who don't believe in evolution and think the world started 2,000 years ago.
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
omg!!! they had this guy at GITMO who was completely innocent for 5 years...waterboarded him too...60 minutes
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
we are EVIL
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
he was 19,when abducted,24 when set free
bumpkis
· 1 year ago
OMG, the blog master Chris actually published that post with THAT headline. I know the world must be ending.!!!!
Bwahh....don't get ME started.
mike31c
· 1 year ago
Not entirely convinced since in the last ten years, the planet itself has suffered a lot more pollution from industry, more radio waves from things other then wi-fi (satellite radio, more TV stations using more power to send their signal, more use of RC cars) , more power lines being placed, more time sitting in front of my PC with magnetic hard drives spinning, drinking more coffee from plastic cups (trying to cut back with the plastic cups by bringing in my own mug) etc etc...
And in my case, smoking more, eating more unhealthy foods, reading books that were printed on chemically treated paper, reading newspapers that were chemically treated, and definitely using more public bathrooms when the last person didn't bother washing their freaking hands! ( ug )
Heck, with this study, you can probably correlate cellphone usage and Americans in general being overweight!
Of course, since he's probably going to ask for more government $$$ to continue his work for another ten years, I am sure he will either prove/disprove his case, or he will have enough in his Swiss bank account to live elsewhere very comfortability when he's done. There are other things that might be affecting the general health of the world population then just using a cellphone so don't expect me to jump off the cellphone usage just yet.
TruthCounts
· 1 year ago
Treatment of a traitor: "Though her congressional district is overwhelmingly in support of Senator Barack Obama for President, Congresswoman Jackson Lee is a superdelegate and supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Race. When she took the stage, she had to wait a couple of minutes for the booing"
The superdelegates like Jackson Lee who betray the values of the Democratic Party are never going to be re-elected. She and her backstabbing Hillbots can go to hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwfAOVAIXog&eurl...
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Brain cancer: Can you hear me now?
nicho
· 1 year ago
He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be that if your research appeared in the press, no peer-reviewed journal would touch it.
The trouble with any of this research is that it can't be performed in "double-blind" trials, as one commenter here suggested. You can't do that with epidemiological research -- which is a black art at best.
After all, you can't just take test subjects, isolate them from all confounding factors, and make them use cell phones until they die.
It could be that people who use cell phones the most have other characteristics that make them more susceptible to cancers.
I don't know, but I wouldn't get all breathless over one study without having read the peer-reviewed copy of the study. My experience has been that the MSM gets most scientific studies dreadfully wrong.
AdmNaismith
· 1 year ago
I'd rather constant users die of brain cancer than I die when they hit me in their car 'cause they can't stay off the thing for one, single, minute.
How's about you constant yakkers hang up when driving and go die slowly in the comfort of your own home? I think that's a compromise we can all live with...
theWalrus
· 1 year ago
Cellphones harmful?
Duh!
Not surprising, since we live in a digital stone age. Some of the technical "wonders" of today have health consequences that won't be fully understood for decades. Personally, I hate cellphones and use mine as little as possible.
unrepentant_expat
· 1 year ago
PETA will hate me for saying this, but should this have been tested on rats first?
Indigo
· 1 year ago
A human being moving faster than a galloping horse will be subjected to pressures that could kill, thus the concerned philosophes of progressive Europe of yesteryear. And if Gaud intended for Man to fly . . . well, you know. What's more, if ice cubes are essential to civilized life, why aren't they in the Bible? Unplug that refrigerator! Live Amish! Sorry but pseudo-research in non-juried pop-psych mags is not science, no matter how fine the savy sidekick who swears it's all true.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 1 year ago
The article link given here doesn't work.
I despise cell phones. People have lost ALL civility since the introduction of the cell phone.
Is it possible? Yeah, I suppose it is. Are I be worried? All your cell phone are belong to us!
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
That's something to think about when I'm sitting on the bus or walking down the street and involuntarily listening to half of some inane conversation.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
unrepentant_expat
PETA will hate me for saying this, but should this have been tested on rats first?
-----
Maybe.
But that might have hurt sales.
AngelaChanning
· 1 year ago
Thank goodness I am at the age where I only use the cell phone for calls where I am running late or for urgent matters. Thank you for listening.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
PermalinkBaal
The study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and based on what he reports, I remain very skeptical. His initial announcement is on his own webpage that is designed to look like a peer-reviewed electronic journal. This is the kind of thing I do for a living (82 published papers, mostly in neuroscience), and have always found that people who run to the newspapers before their articles are published or even accepted for publication tend to be pretty sloppy and/ore have some other agenda.
----
Good point.
Sounds like one of those anti-Global Warming freaks, who invariably turn out to be Junior College Earth Science instructors receiving a grant from some Oil Industry front group called something like "Environmental Truth and Accuracy."
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
sittenpretty
omg!!! they had this guy at GITMO who was completely innocent for 5 years...waterboarded him too...60 minutes
----
I'm sure there's more than one guy like that.
Probably more than 100 guys like that.
nicho
· 1 year ago
Great bumper sticker I saw the other day:
Would you drive any better if you shoved that cell phone up your ass?
nicho
· 1 year ago
Bush_Bites 1 hour ago
unrepentant_expat
PETA will hate me for saying this, but should this have been tested on rats first?
-----
Maybe.
But that might have hurt sales.
How about Republicans? They're not as lovable as rats.
Sarah B.
· 1 year ago
So, is WiFi going to kill us, too? Just mildly curious.
Or would I have to hold my DSL WiFi modem to my head for hours on end to be at risk? Somehow, I just don’t foresee the need to do that anytime soon.
OMG! -- I have a wireless mouse!
I’m in big trouble…or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TomJoad
· 1 year ago
God...I hate to gloat but I said repeatedly when these phones were starting to be used all over that there is NO WAY we could know the effects of them without TIME...which can't be cheated as easily. Same thing goes for genetically altered food, cloned food, etc. etc.
Time is a factor that never gets factored in. You can't cheat it. Time takes time. Might be some way to extrapolate, generations of white mice, etc, but generally...we don't know what we don't know. (tip o' the hat to little Donny Rumsfeld)
But it was always a good bet that putting a microwave generator, radio sender, or similar electromagnetic widget RIGHT UP TO YOUR HEAD and turning it on for hours at a time day after day, might have adverse effects...at least ought to be tested. I have a mobile phone, but us it very little.
bernarda
· 1 year ago
green libertarian, this article appeared in The Independent, NOT The Guardian. So, are you going to make the same complaint about them?
al75
· 1 year ago
I would be very cautious about taking this story seriously. It states the paper has been published at one point in the article; then says peer review is ongoing (i.e. it hasn't been published). This is important because peer-review by independent scientists is the gatekeeper in serious scientific and medical journals. Science, Nature, the New England Journal would all rush to publish a paper that found real evidence of this kind of risk.
Note that the author is a surgeon (doesn't say where) not an epidemiologist or a cancer expert. Yes, one doctor does everything on TV, but real expertise in a field like this takes training, and time.
The issue about cell phones is the question of whether low-intensity electromagnetic radiation can degrade cells DNA. We know that high-intensity radiation, like x-rays and UV light, can do this. You can demonstrate this by exposing cells in a dish to UV, and track the mutations that follow. Radio waves (which is what phones project) can heat slightly, but don't cause mutations.
A major study by the National Academy of Science found no risk.
This isn't to say that, given the extent of cell phone use and a few odd reports, that the issue doesn't deserve further study.
But I wouldn't take an unpublished so-called neurosurgeon's comment to a newspaper as a cause for alarm.
rhufnek
· 1 year ago
I say we should pass a law that states no one can use a cell phone in a public place - restaurants, inside office buildings, stores, diners, public transportation - same rules as smokers. theres nothing worse than trying to enjoy a good meal, only to have it ruined by some selfish cellphone user. If they need to take a call, then go outside. and then we pass a law saying its illegal to use your cellphone in your car around children. why should i risk my and my kids health?
bla
· 1 year ago
this must be irrelevant since a search on Google and Yahoo turns up NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE from America's freedom-loving MSM
BoiseNick
· 1 year ago
gee , , , maybe now the Nannies can bother them instead me 'n my smoking !
concerned citizen
· 1 year ago
The only safe way to operate a cell phone is by using a headset that uses Air-Tube technology. For more information visit http://www.rfsafe.com
green_libertarian
· 1 year ago
The article does seem somewhat sensationalist, however, pretty standard for The Guardian.
I am not learned enough in scholarly review to determine if there's anything new here, or not.
The kids today seem to be doing more text messaging than talking on the cell phone. How does that change the health effects equation?
Air America's been talking about this for some time, interviewing a long time critic, Dr. George Carlo. (Air America site is down for revamp.) But, there's this reference elsewhere:
Few people would be surprised to hear that cell phones are unhealthy. But how many of us actually know the degree of damage they cause, the extent of the cover-up by the industry, or that there is a viable solution? Dr. George Carlo, a mobile phone industry whistleblower, recently presented a talk in Vancouver about how electropollution from wireless technology can cause brain damage, cancer and an array of mental illnesses. I checked his facts against recent, peer-reviewed scientific papers and the results were startling. Dr. Carlo explained why the industry’s user manuals don’t warn of these health hazards: currently, there are pending class action lawsuits against them, which threaten to expose the entire industry, similar to the cases brought against “Big Tobacco”, and the asbestos and silicone breast implant industries.
All Comments
Once again big business does it best to kill you but keep you connected.
way OT
http://steampunkworkshop.com/lcd.shtml
SUNDAY Edition of COUNTDOWN with Keith Olbermann. NOW!
on NBC not MSNBC..
.
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?d...
They can have my cellphone when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
-----------------------------------------------------------
lol.... love that... sccccarry tho, isn't it?.....
The Billary needs to pack up her campaign and go back to Arkansas. Her attempt to destroy the Democratic Party failed.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
No, current scientific evidence does not show any negative health effects from the low levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by mobile phones, says the Food and Drug Administration. But some recent studies suggest a possible link between mobile phones and cancer and warrant follow-up, the agency says, to determine with more certainty whether cell phones are safe.
We do not have very good models for radiation exposure, particularly at low levels of exposure.
As with much bogus research, this one is a 'literature survey'. So no new information here just a selection of previous studies. The usual scam is to announce the paper to the press in advance of it being published so the news goes out on the author's intended story, not the one that passed peer review.
Last year a young woman, 20, made a left turn into my partner's car so busy on her phone she didn't realize her green turn arrow was no longer "green"!
Her insurance paid the $5K that it costs to repair our car but such won't cover the deduction he will have to take someday when the accident appears on CarFax and his trade-in will be maybe a few thousand dollars less for having "been wrecked".
Something similar happened to me. An older woman pulled right out into traffic almost clipping my car. Other cars also had to swerve out of the way and were honking. The lady was totally oblivous and continued talking on her cell. The kicker - on her rear bumper "Hillary 2008". Just goes to show the mental level of her supporters.
I did a literature search on the author, and he has never published anything previously on this subject, and his primary expertise is in surgical repair of aneurysms.
He may even be right about this, but I am not convinced on the basis of his arguments.
I am too. I am also ( sadly) reluctant to take Chris in Paris too seriously on these kind of issues. i enjoy reading him, but he does tend to run crazy with a lot of these type things without really investigating thoroughly ( or even much at all). It does make a great headline though. Personally I'll wait for the peer review. I've got a bet that ain't gonna happen with this guy.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...
''Brain cancer is an awful, depressing cancer,'' said Nigel H. Greig of the National Institute on Aging, a co-author of the Rapoport paper. ''It has one of the worst prognoses of all cancers. It's almost invariably fatal. It's lagged behind other cancers in chemotherapy and treatment, and survival time has not improved.'
While some of the increase is attributed to better diagnostic tools we should be concerned. I frankly don't trust anything the FDA or Big Business says. This Administration has gutted any research or safeguards. They are after all the group who don't believe in evolution and think the world started 2,000 years ago.
Bwahh....don't get ME started.
And in my case, smoking more, eating more unhealthy foods, reading books that were printed on chemically treated paper, reading newspapers that were chemically treated, and definitely using more public bathrooms when the last person didn't bother washing their freaking hands! ( ug )
Heck, with this study, you can probably correlate cellphone usage and Americans in general being overweight!
Of course, since he's probably going to ask for more government $$$ to continue his work for another ten years, I am sure he will either prove/disprove his case, or he will have enough in his Swiss bank account to live elsewhere very comfortability when he's done.
There are other things that might be affecting the general health of the world population then just using a cellphone so don't expect me to jump off the cellphone usage just yet.
The superdelegates like Jackson Lee who betray the values of the Democratic Party are never going to be re-elected. She and her backstabbing Hillbots can go to hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwfAOVAIXog&eurl...
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be that if your research appeared in the press, no peer-reviewed journal would touch it.
The trouble with any of this research is that it can't be performed in "double-blind" trials, as one commenter here suggested. You can't do that with epidemiological research -- which is a black art at best.
After all, you can't just take test subjects, isolate them from all confounding factors, and make them use cell phones until they die.
It could be that people who use cell phones the most have other characteristics that make them more susceptible to cancers.
I don't know, but I wouldn't get all breathless over one study without having read the peer-reviewed copy of the study. My experience has been that the MSM gets most scientific studies dreadfully wrong.
How's about you constant yakkers hang up when driving and go die slowly in the comfort of your own home? I think that's a compromise we can all live with...
Duh!
Not surprising, since we live in a digital stone age. Some of the technical "wonders" of today have health consequences that won't be fully understood for decades. Personally, I hate cellphones and use mine as little as possible.
I despise cell phones. People have lost ALL civility since the introduction of the cell phone.
Is it possible? Yeah, I suppose it is. Are I be worried? All your cell phone are belong to us!
Bwahahahahahahaha!
PETA will hate me for saying this, but should this have been tested on rats first?
-----
Maybe.
But that might have hurt sales.
The study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and based on what he reports, I remain very skeptical. His initial announcement is on his own webpage that is designed to look like a peer-reviewed electronic journal. This is the kind of thing I do for a living (82 published papers, mostly in neuroscience), and have always found that people who run to the newspapers before their articles are published or even accepted for publication tend to be pretty sloppy and/ore have some other agenda.
----
Good point.
Sounds like one of those anti-Global Warming freaks, who invariably turn out to be Junior College Earth Science instructors receiving a grant from some Oil Industry front group called something like "Environmental Truth and Accuracy."
omg!!! they had this guy at GITMO who was completely innocent for 5 years...waterboarded him too...60 minutes
----
I'm sure there's more than one guy like that.
Probably more than 100 guys like that.
Would you drive any better if you shoved that cell phone up your ass?
unrepentant_expat
PETA will hate me for saying this, but should this have been tested on rats first?
-----
Maybe.
But that might have hurt sales.
How about Republicans? They're not as lovable as rats.
Or would I have to hold my DSL WiFi modem to my head for hours on end to be at risk? Somehow, I just don’t foresee the need to do that anytime soon.
OMG! -- I have a wireless mouse!
I’m in big trouble…or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time is a factor that never gets factored in. You can't cheat it. Time takes time. Might be some way to extrapolate, generations of white mice, etc, but generally...we don't know what we don't know. (tip o' the hat to little Donny Rumsfeld)
But it was always a good bet that putting a microwave generator, radio sender, or similar electromagnetic widget RIGHT UP TO YOUR HEAD and turning it on for hours at a time day after day, might have adverse effects...at least ought to be tested. I have a mobile phone, but us it very little.
Note that the author is a surgeon (doesn't say where) not an epidemiologist or a cancer expert. Yes, one doctor does everything on TV, but real expertise in a field like this takes training, and time.
The issue about cell phones is the question of whether low-intensity electromagnetic radiation can degrade cells DNA. We know that high-intensity radiation, like x-rays and UV light, can do this. You can demonstrate this by exposing cells in a dish to UV, and track the mutations that follow. Radio waves (which is what phones project) can heat slightly, but don't cause mutations.
A major study by the National Academy of Science found no risk.
This isn't to say that, given the extent of cell phone use and a few odd reports, that the issue doesn't deserve further study.
But I wouldn't take an unpublished so-called neurosurgeon's comment to a newspaper as a cause for alarm.
theres nothing worse than trying to enjoy a good meal, only to have it ruined by some selfish cellphone user. If they need to take a call, then go outside.
and then we pass a law saying its illegal to use your cellphone in your car around children.
why should i risk my and my kids health?
I am not learned enough in scholarly review to determine if there's anything new here, or not.
The kids today seem to be doing more text messaging than talking on the cell phone. How does that change the health effects equation?
Air America's been talking about this for some time, interviewing a long time critic, Dr. George Carlo. (Air America site is down for revamp.) But, there's this reference elsewhere:
Few people would be surprised to hear that cell phones are unhealthy. But how many of us actually know the degree of damage they cause, the extent of the cover-up by the industry, or that there is a viable solution? Dr. George Carlo, a mobile phone industry whistleblower, recently presented a talk in Vancouver about how electropollution from wireless technology can cause brain damage, cancer and an array of mental illnesses.
I checked his facts against recent, peer-reviewed scientific papers and the results were startling. Dr. Carlo explained why the industry’s user manuals don’t warn of these health hazards: currently, there are pending class action lawsuits against them, which threaten to expose the entire industry, similar to the cases brought against “Big Tobacco”, and the asbestos and silicone breast implant industries.
http://commonground.ca/iss/0612185/cg185_cellph...
Besides using the speakerphone, you can reduce risk (however much there really is) by using an "air-tube" type headset, such as the one here:
http://www.blockemf.com/catalog/product_info.ph...