Health Effects Of Mobile Phones, Masts & Radiation

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
This subject has been touched on in other threads, but as this isn't about Petrol Stations or Moon Hoaxes I thought it deserved a separate thread.

Two links from New Scientist:
Cancer cell study revives cellphone safety fears (Quite a long article, suggesting that cellphone transmissions may make cancers more aggressive.)

Space station radiation shields 'disappointing' Although the new shielding is not as big an improvement as hoped (which might curtail future long manned space missions), the article puts the danger into context by pointing out that for ISS astronauts
Spending three months in these conditions translates into about one-tenth the long-term cancer risk incurred by regular smokers.
 

tzb57r

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 15, 2002
Messages
138
Reaction score
5
Points
49
Radiation is not as bad for you as many people believe. I always site the example of the Curies (Marie and Pierre). Pierre died young, but in an accident while Marie died of Leukaemia almost certainly brought on by radiation exposure, she was 67 years old when she died. Through out their research they were exposed to much, much higher does of radiation than would ever be tolerated today.

As a heavy smoker, I will volunteer to go to the IIS and spend three months there. I figure that even I could give up if I was stuck in orbit for a few months and so my chances of dying would actually decrease and so NASA would be prolonging my life not shortening it. I’ll also go to L2 for the next space station but only if they also pay me, and give me net access while I’m onsite.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Radiation is of course sometimes used to burn out cancers. Radioactive isotopes can be used that collect in the organ needing treatment.

In this story the treatment was being given to a cat with thyroid problems, but the cat's owner got in trouble for not disposing of the radioactive poo correctly!


On a more sombre note, Nuclear Guinea pig is a long story about a Ukrainian who was exposed to early Soviet nuclear tests.
"We had no safety gear and were completely exposed to this deadly radiation. The trenches we dug were our only protection," said the old soldier who served at the test site until 1951.

"When a nuclear bomb explodes, you can see through the body in front of you. All his guts and bones are visible, like in an X-ray," said Shevchenko, who after one such test in 1950 lost consciousness and was treated for leukemia .
And..
HUMANS OR CATTLE?

Boris Gusev, now 64, knows more than most.

In 1961, as a newly qualified doctor, he signed strictly confidential papers with the feared KGB secret police, vowing to keep silent on his future work at the top-secret Dispensary Number Four, set up in Semipalatinsk in 1957.

The nondescript building officially housed a team of doctors dealing with brucellosis, a widespread contagious disease usually affecting sheep and cattle.

In fact, this was a myth invented by the KGB to conceal the real task of the secret laboratory -- studying the impact of radiation on human health.

[........]

Gusev is visibly upset even now when he recalls how the Soviet Union treated people who underwent tests near Semipalatinsk.

"After the 1945 tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all possible effects of nuclear tests on humans were already well-known to the world. What was done here was beyond reason, could have been avoided and was an outrage," he said.

He said soldiers wearing only gas masks were sent on military exercises just minutes after nuclear tests, and tanks and aircraft had to go through radioactive dust and clouds.

"A lot of people routinely fell ill with acute leukemia after such tests, and many died," Gusev said.

"But everyone was confident that one day there would be an all-out nuclear war with America. So military chiefs just said 'that's the way it is' and sent the soldiers to die," he added.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Seeing through the skin? must have been a subjective illusion- the light would be too bright to convey any useful information in that case, IMO...

Efficient radiation shielding is likely to add quite a bit of weight to permanent space habitats.
I expect the greatest part of the population to live in space eventually and this is a definite problem...
an artificial magnetosphere could perhaps deflect charged particles, just as the earth's real one does,
large rocky rotating habitats would have plenty of rock to absorb cosmic rays,
but to fully exploit all the regions of space, especially near giant planets and energy rich areas near stars, some sort of genetic modification would be needed.
The adaptation of Deinococcus radiodurans to high-rad flux could turn out useful, as well as the addition of extra copies of the cells DNA for internal parity checks.
or conversion into protected hardware.
of course you wouldn't be strictly human...
steve b
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Italian, German researchers link RF to disease

This is another look at the first story in my first post, about cellphones and cancer. This one is from a Radio related website.
The mobile-phone industry, pointing to recent court rulings and pronouncements of government health organizations here and overseas, continues to maintain that cell phones are safe. Most health and safety organizations say that while they see no immediate cause for alarm, they cannot guarantee phones are safe and believe more research is needed to double check findings of DNA breaks, genetic damage and other adverse bioeffects that have shown up.

The Marinelli study is not the first to have observed an initial protective or cancer-inhibiting effect from radio-frequency radiation exposure that disappeared with extended exposure.

Earlier this month, a group of German doctors associated with a group named IGUMED said they believe there is a connection between mobile-phone radiation and a rise in a variety of diseases and illnesses in their country. The physicians, among other things, called for stricter safety limits and independent research.
 

IneffableOgre

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Points
37
Radioactive Cat Droppings

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/theweirdchronicles/1774155/detail.html
Text from the story-
Bill Jenness, of Whitman, Mass., took his cat, Mitzi, to the veterinarian to have her treated for hyperthyroidism. Part of the treatment involved an injection of radioiodine, which rendered the feline and its droppings radioactive.

Bill's vet had advised him to flush any litter scoopings down the toilet until Mitzi stopped glowing, but he feared for the health of his septic system and thus tossed them in the trash. The radioactivity in the doody set off detectors at the local waste incinerator and, in a feat of detective work unrivalled in the annals of trash collection, workers traced the glowing goobers back to Bill.

He'll have to pay a fine, and has told a Boston paper that he feels he was not mistreated.

This is the ultimate cat's revenge. "Take me to the vet? Fine. Enjoy paying for it."

And how unlucky is Bill? If I were him, I think I'd start buying lottery tickets. He's got to have used up a lifetime supply of bad luck. The lotto proceeds should more than cover the fine.


:eek!!!!:
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Bump! Ogre's post added to this thread. (Although the story was mentioned earlier.)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Jan. 4, 2003. 01:00 AM

Charting the hidden force at street corners

There's a steadily growing conviction among some researchers that electromagnetic fields can promote bad things — cancer, miscarriages, depression, Lou Gehrig's disease and, possibly, Alzheimer's disease. But there's all-too-scanty knowledge of how much exposure people get in the course of a day.

To help bridge this knowledge gap, Magda Havas, who teaches in the Faculty of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, has taken readings on the main streets of 60 Ontario communities ranging in size from Toronto (2.3 million people) to Burk's Falls (1,000).

She found that 49 of the communities (82 per cent) had readings above the level that is associated with childhood leukemia. The worst of all the communities, by far, was Kingston, followed by Oshawa, London, Peterborough, and Toronto.

Burk's Falls had the lowest readings, followed by Cambridge, Newmarket, Madoc, Perth and Bradford.

Pinpointing sources is important, because it is the accumulated exposure, collected at different places from different sources during the course of a day, that determines health impacts.

Havas is quick to point out there is no proof, as yet, that electromagnetic fields directly cause illnesses. But there is plenty of evidence showing they are associated with illnesses and can promote them.

Her work on Main Street, Ontario, should be a wake-up call to public utilities and other businesses generating electromagnetic fields, such as banks and cellphone companies, which one day could face lawsuits from people claiming compensation for impaired health.

No doubt aware of potential liability, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered a study eight years ago on the effects of electromagnetic fields. Slated to cost .2 million, it is the most extensive study ever done and is about to be released. According to the London Sunday Times, the study will suggest hundreds of thousands of people may be at risk.

The strength of magnetic fields is measured in milliGauss (mG), after the German mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855). According to federal government guidelines in Canada, a cumulative, 24-hour exposure of up to 1,000 milliGauss is safe.

However, Havas says, this guideline is ridiculous. Studies have established that a 24-hour exposure in the range of 2-4 mG doubles the incidence of childhood leukemia. A daily exposure of 16 mG has been shown to triple the risk of miscarriage during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. When breast cancer cells are exposed to 12 mG, their growth rate increases.

To put this in context, kitchen appliances, measured at a distance of 30 centimetres, can run from 0.1 to 30 mG. In offices, photocopy machines emit up to 4 mG, fluorescent lights up to 3 mG and computer terminals up to 0.6 mG. Power drills can generate up to 4 mG and power saws up to 30 mG.

In Kingston, Havas monitored 36 street corners on Princess St. between Division and Ontario Sts. Her mean reading was 47 mG. In Toronto, the mean reading for 108 street corners on Yonge St. between Bloor and Front Sts. was 19.2 mG. In Oshawa, the mean on Simcoe St. was 29.5 mG; in London on Dundas St., 22.9 mG; and in Peterborough on George St., 20.8 mG.

That's not good news for sidewalk cafes, street vendors, couriers and people living over stores. Her study is published in The Science Of The Total Environment 298 (2002) at pages 183-206. An excellent review of studies on electromagnetic fields can be found at http://www.powerlinefacts.com/EMF.htm.

The study is good news in terms of raising awareness — and that's crucial to any health issue.
(From Toronto Star )
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Sea birds drop radioactivity on land

14:45 04 January 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

Droppings from seabirds could be introducing radioactive isotopes into the food chain. That is the conclusion of researchers who found high levels of radioactivity in droppings and plants on an island close to the Arctic.

If tests confirm that the guano is bringing radioactivity ashore, it will need to be factored into pollution assessments that gauge radiation risks to human health and ecosystems. The risk is probably low at temperate latitudes, but could be much greater in the fragile wastes of the Arctic. There, guano is a major source of nutrients for plants, which are then eaten by animals.

Radioactive material gets into the oceans from natural geological processes on the sea floor, but radioactive isotopes from human nuclear activity can add to this. In the Arctic, radioactive material has been dumped in the Kara Sea to the east of the Barents Sea.

And radioactive material from nuclear accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster has reached the seas, along with particles from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.
Full story here.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Chernobyl Worms Have Begun To Have Sex
Polikarpov believes that worms have started syngenesis because it protects them from radiation. This method of reproduction clears the way for natural selection, using which species are better adapted to survive radiation and transmit their genes on to their descendants. In this way, the Ukrainian scientist says, the resistance of the population as a whole increases.
(Although this is a Pravda link, they appear to have lifted it from New Scientist!)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
radiation

Just a thought instead of sheilding yourself from radiation,if you know what type it is,wouldnt emitting your own high energy particals of opposite polarity be a better ploy,mutual anhialation?
I dont have a clue but dont all particles have some kind of positive or negative charge?

Do russian brothels emit radiation?
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Geiger counter in every human revealed

19:00 28 May 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

How much damage does cosmic radiation do to frequent flyers? Is depleted uranium from shells causing cancers in former war zones such as Kosovo and Iraq? The discovery that certain kinds of radiation leave a distinctive pattern of damage in our cells could help answer these questions.

"If this works, we'll be able to take a measurement and see the lifetime exposure in that person," says David Brenner of Columbia University in New York. "Often there is no other reliable record of individual exposure." It is this uncertainty about radiation exposure that makes it hard to pin down the health risks.

"That they found this effect was there at all is significant," says Michael Cornforth, a radiation biologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. "But I was flabbergasted by how clear-cut it was."

Radiation is harmful because of its ionising effect, which can break DNA chains. If the broken pieces are rejoined incorrectly, the resulting genetic scrambling can harm cells or, far worse, set them on the road to cancer.

Some genetic damage is easy to spot, such as when parts of different chromosomes are exchanged - known as interchromosomal changes. But because mutagenic chemicals can also cause such exchanges, this is not a reliable indicator of exposure to radiation.

Heavy particles

Researchers have long suspected that slow-moving, heavy particles such as alpha particles and neutrons should leave a characteristic pattern of damage. These kinds of radiation are known as "densely ionising" because they wreak havoc within a short tunnel; "sparsely ionising" X-rays or gamma rays spread their damage along a much longer path.

Because the damage from densely ionising radiation is so concentrated, it is far more likely to hit one chromosome several times, triggering deletions or reordering of its DNA.


Testing for radiation exposure
Detecting intrachromosomal changes like these has been extremely difficult till now. But Brenner's team, together with a Russian group, took advantage of new dyes to "paint" bands on chromosomes. Image analysis software translates this into false-colour pictures (see graphic), making it easy to spot any rearrangements.

The team used the technique to analyse chromosome 5 in thousands of blood cells from 31 people who had worked at a secret nuclear weapons facility near Ozyorsk in Russia. Though most of the workers were last exposed to densely ionising radiation from plutonium over 10 years ago, the team found a surprising amount of damage.
Nearly four per cent of blood cells in highly exposed workers had rearrangements within chromosome 5. Extrapolating from this, Brenner thinks that 62 per cent of these workers' blood cells have damage within at least one chromosome.

Workers with moderate levels of exposure had a lower level of damage, while those with no radiation exposure had none. Even workers at a nuclear reactor exposed to high levels of sparsely ionising gamma rays and mutating chemicals had very few intrachromosomal changes, though they had significant interchromosomal damage.

There is still a lot of work to do before the technique can be widely adopted. "We need to automate the technique," Brenner says. "Even in this small study, it took us two years to look at all the cells."
New Scientist
 

mejane

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,368
Reaction score
50
Points
69
On a related (ish) subject, could the fashion for radiation treatments in the late 19th/early 20th centuries be responsible for the increase in cancers and related illnesses today?

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I can remember when a few posh shoe shops still had for X-ray machines so you could see that your feet fitted into your shoes properly! :eek!!!!:

The trouble with illnesses and death relalted to causes such as EMF, or radiation pollution, is that although death rates might increase statistically significantly over a period there's usually no direct link, no smoking gun.

The background radiation count has increased significantly over the last 60 years, with a big jump after Chernobyl, but who's trying to make the connection between Aunty Splod's cancer and that. There are so many other variables, environmental and lifestyle, that it's almost impossible to say for sure what the actual cause might be. More than likely it could be a combination of factors.

No Immediate Danger: Prognosis For A Radioactive Earth
Dr Rosalie Bertell (1985)


Piece on Dr Rosalie Bertell, Campaigning RC Nun, and Researcher Into Dangers of Low Level Radiation (ratical.org)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Five-year-olds given mobiles
Hundreds of thousands of young children are being given mobile phones by their parents - against official health advice.
Research by marketing consultancy reveals that one in nine five to nine-year-olds has a mobile.

It predicts that this will rise to one in five by 2006, making this the fastest expanding group of mobile phone users.

A major report on mobile phone safety says that while there is no evidence that they are harmful, children should minimise their use of mobiles as a "precaution".

This is because their brains are still developing and their skulls are thinner, making it easier for mobile phone radiowaves to penetrate them.

Mobile phone companies say they do not target under-16s, although some accessories such as fascias and ringtones are designed to appeal to younger children.

Many of the phones are paid for as a safety measure so that the child always has a means of contacting a parent in an emergency.

In the year 2000, according to the mobileYouth researchers, fewer than 80,000 five to nine-year-olds owned a mobile.

This year, that had risen to 400,000.

'No marketing'

Josh Dhaliwal, an executive partner at mobileYouth, told BBC News Online: "I don't think that the industry is actively marketing mobile phones at young children. It would be unethical.

"This has become the fastest growing sector of the mobile phone market without any help from advertising.

"Pester power is starting to increase in that age group as children see that their friends have a mobile phone."

Cautious

Professor Colin Blakemore, from the University of Oxford, who studies the effects of mobile phone radiation, said that parents should be very cautious about letting very young children use mobile phones.

He told the BBC: "There is no proven heath risk from the use of mobile phones at present.

"In general we take a precautionary approach because it's new technology and the science is still developing.

"We have to be particularly cautious about children - if there are any effects they would be more exaggerated in young children than in adults."

He said that children should keep use to a minimum, and if possible use text messages rather than spoken conversations, as this would reduce the amount of exposure to radiowaves considerably.
 

MrRING

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
5,291
Reaction score
1,731
Points
234
Cell Phones Lower Sperm Cells

Poetic Justice? (says the enemy of constantly ringing cell-hones...)

Story

Mobiles Phones May Damage Sperm?
By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Mobile phones may damage men's sperm, Hungarian scientists say, in a study that fertility experts dismissed Monday as inconclusive. Carrying a mobile in hip pockets or a holster on the waist could cut sperm count by nearly 30 percent, according to the research.

"The prolonged use of cell phones may have a negative effect on (sperm production) and male fertility," Dr. Imre Fejes, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Szeged said in a summary of the study. Fejes and his team analyzed sperm from 221 men and questioned them about their use of mobile phones. They found correlations between the use of the phones, even in a standby setting, and reduced sperm concentration and quality.

Fejes said more research is needed to support the findings, which will be reported to this week's conference in Berlin of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Professor Hans Evers, a past president of the society, said the results are interesting but far from conclusive.

"It ... appears not to take into account the many potential confounding factors that could have skewed the results," Evers, who works at the Academic Hospital in Maastricht in the Netherlands, said in a statement. He added that the study did not seem to analyze stress levels, the type of jobs the men have and whether they smoked, which could all influence sperm count.

"These factors would have a considerable effect on the outcome of the research," he said. Britain's National Radiological Protection Board, which has reviewed research into the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency waves including mobile phones, said, so far, the waves appear to be safe.

But mobiles phones have been in widespread use for only a short time so more research is needed. "This is an unexpected result and we will look at it very carefully but the decline in male fertility has been going on for decades now, before the widespread use of mobile phones, and there can be many reasons for it," Dr. Michael Clark, scientific spokesman for the British board, told Reuters.

The World Health Organization has said none of the recent reviews has concluded that exposure to radiofrequency waves from mobile phones or their base stations damages health, but stresses that more studies are needed.
 

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,445
Reaction score
192
Points
129
The panic button

A report warning that mobiles can reduce your sperm count has been seized on by all the media - despite the limitations of the research. Why are we so ready to fall for these health scares, asks Vivienne Parry

Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian

There is only one word for the "mobile phones cut sperm by a third" story which emerged from this week's meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology: bollocks. The work, which conference organisers refused to release formally to the press because of "limitations" in the study design, made it to front pages worldwide. The study involved just 221 men and claimed that those who had their phone on standby throughout the day had about a third less sperm than men who did not. Those who carried phones in pockets or on belt loops were apparently more likely to be among the sperm-depleted.

Let me expound on the subject of sperm for a moment. Whether a semen sample is bursting with the beasts or not is subject to innumerable factors: age, how much you drink, your general health, stress, whether you smoke or take drugs, and how often, as I believe the expression goes, you bash your bishop (frequent bashing means higher sperm counts).

Abstinence is bad news for sperm as the body operates on a use-it-or-lose-it principle. The more your various activities demand, the more your body thinks you need and scales up production accordingly. But a man who has successfully impregnated six women in a marathon all-day session would technically be deemed infertile the next, on account of him having exhausted his supply and having only a lonely few left.

Occupation is also significant. Lorry and taxi drivers have lower counts because sitting all day means their testicles are held to the body and kept at a greater than optimal temperature. Painters and decorators, too, have lower counts - probably because of solvent use. Oh. And nationality. New Yorkers have loads and men in Finland, the home of Nokia mobiles, have the highest sperm counts on the planet. Whatever those Finns are doing, its effect on their sperm counts is awesome.

Did the Hungarian researchers take account of any of these important counfounding variables? Er, no, and with such a vanishingly small sample, the statistical power of such an exercise is zero.

Nevertheless, this "phones knacker your sperm" story will seep into the national consciousness. In five years' time, there will still be companies taking advantage of this "research" in sales literature advertising "safer" mobile phone devices. It is partly this sort of commercial piggybacking that perpetuates this kind of scare.

We are also particularly receptive to "end of man's fertility as we know it" stories because for several years now, there have been reports of plummeting sperm counts. Experts are divided as to whether this is a true decrease or simply one of those reporting glitches, but the notion of men being emasculated by lifestyle again fits with our fears of manhood under threat. If sperm counts were falling as dramatically as claimed, all men would be azoospermic by now. The truth is that nature supplies hundreds of millions of the blighters per shot and it only takes one. Trust me. The end of mankind is not here. But we'll probably go on thinking it is for some time.

There are plenty of other examples of long-running scares. The one about deodorants causing breast cancer, which is as nonsensical, has been doing the rounds for the best part of a decade. The theory that green bits on potatoes cause spina bifida was another scare that took years to eradicate. Then there was the furore over the third-generation pill in 1995, which was about thrombosis risk - it catapaulted women from a 30 cases-per-100,000 risk on these types of pill, into pregnancy which carries a 60 cases-per-100,000 risk of thrombosis. Yet still women are suspicious of something that prevents them becoming pregnant and developing this risk.

So why, with all its obvious flaws, has this piece of sperm research hit the headlines? It's partly because we want to believe it. In the same way that we love to go to scary movies and frighten ourselves to death, so we want to believe that we are all doomed. It's a kind of collective hair shirt. We want to believe that we are the arbiters of our own misfortune. It's all our fault that we get cancer, or blood clots, or whatever. If only we returned to the simpler life of yore, we would all be marvellously healthy, fertile and cancer-free. It's not true, but it would be nice if it were.

There are several factors that are common to these scares. Anything involving sex: HRT and the pill score highly because they involve women flaunting their sexual activity beyond the menopause or being free of the risk of pregnancy. A ubiquitous substance or object also adds power to the scare: milk (remember how milk drinkers get Crohn's disease?), phones, potatoes. Something unseen that you can't see and touch (especially something that you don't understand unless you have a physics degree) is important: thus radiation of all kinds is instantly feared, from nuclear power, mobile phones and masts, pylons, microwave ovens and computers.

It's a tremendous help also if the story features a dread disease or outcome: cancer, particularly breast cancer or infertility, adds horror. And perhaps the most important ingredient of all is something over which you feel that you can exert some control. We don't worry about asteroid strikes - there's nothing we can do about them - but we could stop using deodorants or drinking coffee. Finally, there is culpability. All the best scares allow us to apportion blame - farmers? The government? The big pharmaceutical firms?

So how do you sort the wheat from the chaff? Which stories are genuinely concerning and which should be ignored? Not all should be dismissed. Radium on luminous watch faces was discreetly removed and suddenly, those marvellous machines that x-rayed children's feet in shoe shops just disappeared. As late as the 60s, children were getting multiple x-ray exposures simply to check whether their shoes fitted.

My advice would be to check the statistics first. If you are quoted a risk increase, check what the risk was before. A 100% increase of a very small risk is still a very small risk. Find out what the absolute risk rather than the relative risk is - in other words, what the real numbers of women dying, or getting cancer or whatever, are. Again, you may find that this huge risk turns out to be one extra woman per 100,000. Nasty, but not as bad as you thought. If no one can give you real numbers, then feel free to ignore it. It is also useful to find out who is behind the information. Do they have something to sell or an agenda to push? If they do, be doubly suspicious.

As a last resort, of course, you could always just give up reading newspapers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,1249399,00.html
 

Seminole10

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
91
Reaction score
2
Points
24
Leaves me wondering if test subjects weren't talking out of another part of their anatomy. ;)

....and will this news leave the ladies demanding equal opportunity? ;) ;)
 

KeyserXSoze

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
946
Reaction score
14
Points
49
Update

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3554422.stm
Low level radiation 'no danger'

The widely held view that even low levels of radiation damage health has no basis in hard science, a leading expert has said.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of a United Nations committee on radiation effects, believes low levels may even be beneficial.

He told the BBC Today programme: "Low levels of radiation are probably essential for life itself."

However, the National Radiological Protection Board rejected the claim.

The standard measurement of radiation is set in terms of milliSieverts (mSv) per year. In the 1920s, the maximum dose regarded as safe was 700mSv.

By 1941, it was reduced to 70. By the 1990s, it became 20 for people exposed to radiation as part of their job, and 1 mSv for the general population.

Some people believe the maximum dose should be lower still.

Cancer protection

Professor Jaworoski, now based at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, said the background level of radiation was around 2.5mSv.

However, in some parts of the world background levels were as high as 700-800mSV.

He said a study in the Iranian city of Ramsar had shown people routinely exposed to 250mSv came to no harm.

"There were many generations of people living in these houses, and there was no evidence of any harm. One of the gentlemen living there was more than 100 years old."

Professor Jaworoski said the view that low levels of radiation were harmful was little more than an "administrative assumption".

His view was echoed by Lord Dick Taverne, chairman of the pressue group Sense About Science.

Writing in Prospect magazine, he said: "Far from safeguarding our health, current safety standards will almost certainly increase the incidence of cancer.

"A low dose of radiation seems to stimulate DNA repair and the immune system, so providing a measure of protection against cancer."

Dr Michael Clarke, of the NRPB, said the scientific consensus was that low level radiation probably did pose a small risk to health.

"The consensus is that every little bit does a little bit of harm, and you extrapolate from what you can see at high doses, down to low doses.

"A small exposure gives you a very small risk. Maybe over the years more science will show that DNA repair mechanisms are stimulated by low level radiation, but it is not clear at the moment."

However, Dr Clarke accepted that there was little hard evidence that low radiation levels do damage health, but he said it was difficult to tease out the effect from all the other potentially damaging factors.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Can I just say on behalf of Health Physicists everywhere:

"Oh, FFS!":rolleyes:

I know a couple of people where he works in Warsaw, I'll have to ask them what they think of their esteemed colleague. Heh heh.
 

Mal_Adjusted

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
36
Points
69
Mobile brain help claim dismissed

note who was sponsoring the meeting!


quote:
--------
Mobile brain help claim dismissed

Wednesday, 22 September, 2004, 14:44 GMT 15:44 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3679846.stm

Experts have dismissed a suggestion that mobile phone radio waves could help children think more clearly.

The claims were made by David Butler, head of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations.

He told a meeting at the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth, hosted by the mobile phone company O2, heat from handsets could boost children's brains.

Phone experts said while handsets did have a tiny heating effect, it was
unlikely to be of any benefit.

The claims also contradict government advice, which says children should use mobiles as little as possible. It seems likely that a small amount of
heating happens, but it's unlikely there would be a significant amount of
enhancement

The mobile phone industry has also carried out extensive research into the safety of handsets and is adamant there is no link between usage and ill health.

And the respected Stewart report, commissioned by the government on mobile phone safety, concluded there were no health risks.

But the report did take a precautionary approach, recommending children should only use mobiles in emergencies because of the theory that they could be more at risk from the radio waves because their brains are still developing and their skulls are thinner.

David Butler told the conference fringe meeting: "From a perspective of
pupil performance it can enhance things, because that heating effect actually improves the neuron transfers between neural pathways, and therefore your thinking ability goes up.

Mr Butler is cherry-picking a bit of information when there is a
whole mass of information that would be contradictory

He said he had been told of the evidence by a British professor. But he
would not identify the scientist.

He stressed the information was "anecdotal" but added: "I have yet to see there is actually evidence that that would create a health problem.

"But I mean, even frankly if there was, I would still be wanting to weigh
up what someone was telling me about a health problem against the other benefits that that technology was giving.

"What I am saying is that any parent has to weigh up what is perceived to be the risk in any situation, and then use whatever means they feel appropriate to minimise that risk.

"I personally have not seen any piece of paper that says to me there is a health risk, which would give me concern."

But Dr Zenon Sieniewicz, science officer for the National Radiological
Protection Board (NPRB): "Mobile phones do undoubtedly have a heating effects, but it's been measured at a fraction of one per cent."

He added: "Some early studies did show a slight increase in reaction time
in cognitive tests. These could be detected in the laboratory, but probably not in real life.

"And later studies have shown a smaller effect, or no effect at all.

"It seems likely that a small amount of heating happens, but it's unlikely
there would be a significant amount of enhancement."

Dr Sieniewicz said children should continue to abide by the precautionary
advice, and use their phones as little as possible.

Christine Mangat, joint co-ordinator of Mast Action UK, said she
recognised that there had been claims which suggested that thermal heating,
effectively exposure to microwaves, improves reactions and responses.

But she added: "Mr Butler is cherry-picking a bit of information when
there is a whole mass of information that would be contradictory.

"It is not recommended that young children do use mobile phones. Under the age of eight, their brain is still developing."

---------

endquote
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heh.

Zenon's gonna be narked at them spelling his name wrong.

Must mention it next time I see him.

Won't name the professor eh? Quelle surprise.:rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Phone mast risk to cosmic bread

'Cosmic' bakery's phone mast fear

A bakery is fighting plans for a phone mast because it claims radio waves will ruin its "cosmic bread".

Artisan Bread say emissions from the antenna will disrupt "subtle forces" which help to make the loaves.

The bakery plots planetary movements and uses a special calendar to work out the best time to make the bread.

But it is claimed the shop in Whitstable, Kent, would lose its special licence because the mast is too close to the premises.

Bakery owner Ingrid Greenfield, who supplies exclusive shops including Harvey Nichols, said: "It does sound wacky but as you work with it, and you see what it does to people, obviously it works.






Our concerns are about microwave radiation affecting the baking process
Timothy Brink, Biodynamic Agricultural Association


"If you grow things and sow things on the right days, plants are strong and resistant to disease."

She said the installation of the mast in a position so close to the bakery would "destroy the vitality" of her product, preventing her from working with "subtle, cosmic forces".

"You can't see them, you can't smell them and you can't feel them, but it all comes together in the product."

Hutchinson 3g said it looked at other sites, but the only option was to place the mast nine metres from the shop.

Canterbury Council had refused permission for the mast, but the phone company appealed and the planning authority's decision was overturned.

Mrs Greenfield, who says she is prepared to take legal action, said her customers buy her bread because they care about their health and how their food is made.

'Living process'

The bread is certified by the Demeter licence, issued by the Biodynamic Agricultural Association, which promotes farming based on a holistic and spiritual understanding of nature.

Timothy Brink, development officer for the Demeter sign, said the 50 metre rule was "a precautionary measure".

"It is because so little is known yet and there is so little research to prove that radiation from mobile phone masts is safe.

"Making the bread is a living process, similar to yoghurt, where the dough rises and develops with the yeast.

"Our concerns are about microwave radiation affecting the baking process.

"Research in Scandinavia has raised concern about the health effects and what we have heard is that with a 50 metre zone, you can be relatively confident there will be no serious health risks, but with a shorter distance you just don't know."

'No impact'

Mike Davies, community affairs manager for the mobile phone company, said: "Prior to our application, there was a mobile phone base station quite close to where our site is and that has been there for three or four years, and it hasn't had any impact on the bakery.

"We do have constraints placed on us by the landowners, who might say this is the area we would like you to go, because of their operation or business interests.

"You can't just choose any site on the piece of land."

The owner of the land declined to comment to BBC Radio Kent.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4110489.stm

Words fail me...
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,819
Reaction score
2,304
Points
189
I've lived in Herne Bay nearby and my first wife came from Whitstable so I can honestly say ... this is completely believable from the Bubble.

I'd suspect, though, they're trying to pull all kinds of protests to get rid of the mast. I don't think "subtle forces" is a real match for yeast when it comes to breadmaking.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
6,005
Reaction score
2,452
Points
239
Location
In a Liminal Zone
Your mobile may be mutating you....

To view the article with Web enhancements, go to:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/496289


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA, New Study Finds


MUNICH/AMSTERDAM (Reuters) Dec 20 - Radio waves from mobile phones harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions, according to a new study majority-funded by the European Union, researchers said on Monday.

The so-called Reflex study, conducted by 12 research groups in seven European countries, did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is needed to see if effects can also be found outside a lab.

The $100 billion a year mobile phone industry asserts that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects as a result of electromagnetic radiation. About 650 million mobile phones are expected to be sold to consumers this year, and over 1.5 billion people around the world use one.

The 4-year research project studied the effect of radiation on human and animal cells in the lab.

After being exposed to electromagnetic fields that are typical for mobile phones, the cells showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks. The damage could not always be repaired by the cell.

"There was remaining damage for future generation of cells," said project leader Franz Adlkofer.

The radiation used in the study was at levels between a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of between 0.3 and 2 watts per kilogram. Most phones emit radio signals at SAR levels of between 0.5 and 1 W/kg.

SAR is a measure of the rate of radio energy absorption in body tissue, and the SAR limit recommended by the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is 2 W/kg.

The researchers said the study did not prove any health risks. But they added that "the genotoxic and phenotypic effects clearly require further studies ... on animals and human volunteers."

Adlkofer advised against the use of a mobile phone when an alternative fixed line phone was available, and recommended the use of a headset connected to a cellphone whenever possible.

"We don't want to create a panic, but it is good to take precautions," he said, adding that additional research could take another four or five years.

Previous independent studies into the health effects of mobile phone radiation have found it may have some effect on the human body, such as heating up body tissue and causing headaches and nausea, but no study that could be independently repeated has proved that radiation had permanent harmful effects.

None of the world's top six mobile phone vendors could immediately respond to the results of the study.

[/quote}
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
53,268
Reaction score
30,413
Points
314
Location
Eblana
'Conclusive' study of cellphones fuels controversy

'Conclusive' study of cellphones fuels controversy

NewScientist.com news service
Duncan Graham-Rowe
A study funded by the European Union claims to show conclusively that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellphones and power lines can affect human cells at energy levels generally considered harmless. But despite the fact that the study was set up to settle this matter once and for all, most experts are still not convinced.

The four-year REFLEX project involved 12 groups from seven European countries, which all carried out supposedly identical experiments. Results were then compared to see if any consistent findings emerged.

The conclusion? "Electromagnetic radiation of low and high frequencies is able to generate a genotoxic effect on certain but not all types of cells and is also able to change the function of certain genes, activating them and deactivating them," says project leader Franz Adlkofer of the Verum Foundation in Munich, Germany.

But the project certainly has not achieved its goal of ending the controversy. Michael Repacholi of the World Health Organization in Geneva questions how standardised the experiments were and says the results are far from conclusive.

In one experiment, he points out, two groups reported that very low-frequency radiation (which is emitted by power lines) could produce double-stranded breaks in DNA - something most scientists consider impossible - while another group had the opposite results. "One has to question what went wrong, or was different, for them to get the results they claim," he says.

The experiments carried out by different groups were not completely standardised, concedes one of the project researchers, Dariusz Leszczynski of the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. He says that, despite ¬2 million in funding, financial constraints meant different groups had to use different types of equipment.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6819

Related Articles
Phone radiation may push cells around
10 April 2004
Cellphones may boost forces on biological tissue
09 April 2004
Phone safety debate reignites
29 June 2002
Weblinks
Verum Foundation
WHO
Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,829
Reaction score
7,277
Points
314
Have merged various threads about mobile phones and health risks (and risks to bread and other bakery-related produce).

There's more out there I'm sure - just drop a note into Help With Reorganisation if you come across one, please :).,
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
53,268
Reaction score
30,413
Points
314
Location
Eblana
Bead 'slashes mobile radiation'

Bead 'slashes mobile radiation'

Ferrite beads are commonly used in computers to stop interference
Radiation from hands-free mobile phones can be reduced to virtually zero by a simple tiny magnetic bead which costs a few pence, a government adviser says.
Professor Lawrie Challis said clipping a ferrite bead on kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.

He called on the mobile phone industry to start using them "as standard".

The beads, which often measure less than 1cm in diameter, are commonly used to stop data interference in computers.

Professor Challis, who is chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, told BBC News: "There is no evidence yet that mobile phones are harmful to health but people have not been using them long enough for us to be sure.

I agree they can have an impact. But the bigger issue is that mobile phones are tested to be comply with standards and have been passed safe

Michael Milligan, from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum

"Using a ferrite bead effectively reduces emissions to the head to zero but as yet manufacturers do not put them on hands-free kits."

And Professor Challis, who was also on the Stewart committee which looked into mobile phone safety in 2000, added: "I am not sure why, but I wish they would. They could use it as a marketing technique, you would think they would like to promote it."

While studies have shown hands-free kits reduce radiation, emissions still travel up the wires on the outside and are absorbed by the head.

The beads work by absorbing these "unintentional" emissions.

Wires

Dr Stuart Porter, of the department of electronics at the University of York, said he agreed with Professor Challis's comments.

Dr Porter, who has looked at the use of ferrite beads, said: "Hands-free kits effectively have two currents, an intentional one that stays within the wires and an unintentional one on the outside.

"It is the unintentional one the beads stop. They work by blocking the current, a bit like a block in a water pipe."

He said evidence suggested beads worked best when they were placed below the microphone on the hands-free kit, at about chest level.

But Michael Milligan, general secretary of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, rejected Professor Challis's call for them to be used on hands-free kits.

"I agree they can have an impact. But the bigger issue is that mobile phones are tested to be comply with standards and have been passed safe."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4203077.stm
 

Mal_Adjusted

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
36
Points
69
Scientists serious about 'electricity sickness' claims

Greets

Scientists serious about 'electricity sickness' claims
Reports by Nic Fleming, Health Correspondent
(Filed: 24/01/2005)

Scientists and health advisers are taking the claims of people who say electricity makes them ill seriously for the first time.

The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is carrying out a review of existing scientific studies into "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" (EHS).


Two studies into the condition, funded with £750,000 from the Department of Health and the telecommunications industry, are already under way.

Sir William Stewart, the government's adviser on radiation, has called for more research into the issue.

Some researchers believe a proportion of the population suffers ill health, with symptoms including fatigue, severe headaches and skin problems, because of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Other scientists say there is no evidence.

The Swedish government, which recognised EHS as a physical impairment in 2000, calculates that 3.1 per cent of its population – 200,000 people – suffer from the condition. A recent warning by Sir William, head of the NRPB and the Health Protection Agency, that parents should limit their children's use of mobile phones received widespread publicity.

However, his suggestion that another section of the population, as well as the young, could have extra sensitivity to exposure to either radio frequency fields from mobiles or electromagnetic fields in general did not.

The NRPB has commissioned Dr Neil Irvine, of the Health Protection Agency, to carry out a review of existing scientific literature on EHS.

His report, focusing on symptoms, prognosis and treatment, will be published in the summer.

The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, funded by the Government and the telecommunications industry, is spending £8.6 million on 29 studies, two of which will investigate EHS.

A team at King's College, London, is looking at whether mobile phones cause symptoms such as headaches, nausea and fatigue in those who claim to be hypersensitive and those who do not.

Researchers at the University of Essex are exposing two groups of volunteers to signals from a mobile mast to test if cognitive functions such as attention span and memory are affected. Half will be people who say they suffer EHS.

Dr David Dowson, a former GP who is now a complementary medicine specialist based in Bath, said he had seen around 10 patients he believed to be suffering from EHS. "I think the condition is increasing in prevalence, because we are living in a more electrically polluted environment."

Olle Johansson, associate professor of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has been studying EHS for 20 years.

He has shown in experiments that there is an increase in the number of mast cells near the surface of skin when exposed to electromagnetic fields, a similar reaction to that when it is exposed to radioactive material.

He said: "If you put a radio near a source of EMFs you will get interference. The human brain has an electric field so if you put sources of EMFs nearby, it is not surprising that you get interference, interaction with systems and damage to cells and molecules.''

Others say the condition is in the mind.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/24/nelec24.xml

mal

("Others say the condition is in the mind" - and where pray is that if not in the physical brain?)
 
Top