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
Hidden health risk in mobiles: Phone giants accused of burying warnings in small print
By Sean Poulter
Last updated at 1:46 AM on 9th October 2010

Mobile phone firms have been accused of concealing warnings about the health risks of using their handsets.

A warning that Apple’s popular iPhone should be kept at least 15mm away from the body is buried deep inside the manual.

BlackBerry goes even further, saying customers should use their devices hands-free or keep them an inch from the body ‘including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers’. Again, this advice is hidden in the instruction booklet.

All other manufacturers, including Nokia and HTC, carry similar small-print warnings despite insisting that holding mobiles against the ear and head is harmless.

Health campaigners and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for clear warnings to be put on handset boxes.
They are also demanding a public education campaign, starting in schools, to advise on the safe use of the devices.
Alasdair Philips, of Powerwatch, an independent group which investigates the safety of mobile phones, said: ‘Most people have no idea about these warnings.
The safety advice should be included on the boxes and far more prominently in the “getting started” section of user guides and not just in the detail at the back that hardly anyone reads.
‘This should be only part of a much wider public education campaign that begins in the schools.’

The safety advice in manuals is designed to limit so-called Radio Frequency exposure. This is said to heat body tissue and some – inconclusive – research suggests it is linked to tumours in the brain.

Most RF exposure comes from the antenna and it can increase when a phone is kept in a pocket because phones increase their power output when a network signal weakens.

Men who carry handsets on their belt or in their pockets with the keypad facing outward will suffer higher exposure because the antenna, which is always at the back, is close to the body.

SAR – Specific Absorption Rate – is the standard industry measurement for the amount of RF energy the body absorbs.
Mr Philips said: ‘When a phone has to power up, it sends high SAR power into the trunk and towards the kidneys and liver. It can be the testicles if in a trouser pocket.

‘Some girls carry them in chest bags which hang just below their breasts. Breasts, eyes and testicles absorb external RF energy the most. Blood-rich organs, such as the liver, kidneys and heart are among the top energy absorbers.

‘The ovaries and foetus are relatively well protected by the trunk, but it obviously makes sense to keep the handset away from those areas, especially the foetus in the first six months. Many later-life causes of ill health are increasingly being recognised as having their roots in foetal exposure to chemicals, hormones, radiation of various sorts.’
He said most handsets also put out pulsed ELF magnetic fields which travel further into the body than RF signals. These are associated with childhood leukaemia and some adult cancers.

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader and MP, said: ‘Greens have never said don’t use mobile phones, but we have always said that as with any other technology, we need to make people aware of any potential risks and give clear guidance regarding the safest possible use, so we can get the maximum benefit from the technology with the least possible risk.’
Mobile phone firms are legally required to advise customers on how to minimise RF exposure and use their manuals to do so.

Michael Milligan of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum said: ‘A mobile phone can always be used up against the head without the need for this separation, because phones are designed to have the antenna far enough away from the head when making a call.

‘Every mobile phone model is tested to make sure they meet national and international exposure limits for exposure to Radio Frequency emissions, before they can be sold in the UK or elsewhere.’

However, many new phones are so slim, antennas will be closer to the head than distances recommended by many manufacturers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z11qmEGBza
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Is it time we learnt to love radiation?
Studies show that it can promote longevity and heal our bodies faster. So why don't we rethink our relationship with atomic power?
By Jeremy Laurance
Thursday, 25 November 2010

For the past 60 years, the world has had only one response to radiation – fear. The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed by four decades of the cold war with the threat of nuclear obliteration have seen to that. The idea of radiation as a killer is lodged firmly in the public mind. It takes only a train-load of nuclear waste – one travelling from France to Germany drew 3,000 protesters this month – to spark another scare. There is one thing everyone knows about radiation: avoid it at all costs.

But, to quote the subtitle of the classic Peter Sellers movie Dr Strangelove, is it time for us to stop worrying and learn to love (radiation)? Some scientists think so, and there is accumulating evidence to back their view.

Earlier this month, Dr Bob Bury, a consultant radiologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals, set out the evidence in a lecture at London's Royal Society of Medicine entitled "Stop worrying – radiation is good for you". As a former radiation protection spokesperson for the Royal College of Radiologists and the author of a public information leaflet on radiation hazards, his mission, he says, is to restore perspective to the radiation debate.

We know radiation destroys living things at high levels – on that there is scientific consensus. What about at low levels? Conventional thinking is that it is still damaging, but less so. For 60 years, the official view has been that there is a linear relationship between the amount of radiation exposure and the damage done. Some scientists question this view, however, and suggest that radiation exposure actually follows a J-shaped curve, with small amounts conferring benefit up to a threshold beyond which it starts to be damaging.

One striking piece of evidence for this comes from radiologists themselves. They spend their professional lives exposed to radiation, in the form of X-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans, so you might expect them to have higher rates of cancer. But they don't. They have less cancer and they live longer than physicians in other specialities.

With modern safety measures, the actual dose received by radiologists is only slightly higher than for the general population. But that may be enough to give them an advantage. Sir Richard Doll, the leading Oxford epidemiologist who first linked smoking with lung cancer in the 1950s, published a study of British radiologists in 2003 which showed that those who entered the profession between 1955 and 1970 had a 29 per cent lower risk of cancer (though this was not statistically significant) and a 32 per cent lower death rate from all causes (which was statistically significant) than other physicians.

A similar study in the US compared workers servicing conventionally powered and nuclear-powered ships. Significantly lower death rates were found in the nuclear workers compared with the others.

So how could radiation have a beneficial effect? There is good scientific evidence that while high doses destroy cells, low-dose radiation stimulates the DNA to repair mechanisms that are essential to maintaining cells throughout the lifetime of the organism. Low-dose radiation is also thought to lower the number of free radicals in the cell, substances which damage DNA. In addition, radiation stimulates apoptosis – the process which causes damaged cells to self-destruct and die before they can become malignant and cause cancer.

The idea that small doses of radiation may be good for us is known as radiation hormesis. If proved, it would have major implications for policy. "It would mean," Dr Bury says, "that the radiation protection industry may be depriving radiation workers and the public of this protective effect by setting dose limits that are too low."

Among the most prominent proponents of the theory was Professor John Cameron of the University of Florida, who died in 2005, the same year a paper summarising his views was published in The British Journal of Radiology.

He observed that billions of our cells are bombarded daily by natural background radiation, much of it from the radioactivity we carry naturally in our bodies, and yet despite this huge amount of radiation damage, cancer is a disease primarily of the elderly.

"It is reasonable to assume that our very early ancestors solved the problem of cellular repair billions of years ago and that we now have highly efficient repair mechanisms," he wrote.

He suggested that low-dose radiation might function as an "essential trace energy", similar to trace elements in the diet which, though toxic in large amounts, were essential to health.

etc...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 42997.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
There is good scientific evidence that while high doses destroy cells, low-dose radiation stimulates the DNA to repair mechanisms that are essential to maintaining cells throughout the lifetime of the organism.
I actually proposed this idea myself, on this very MB! Nearly nine years ago I wrote

"In fact it's possible that low radiation levels are good for us, keeping the cell repair mechanisms tuned up."

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 3202#23202

(Of course, the idea may not have originated with me: I may have been repeating something I'd read... ;) )
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Long article on the hazards of radiation:

Is Wi-Fi frying our brains? Fears that cloud of 'electrosmog' could be harming humans

...

When I started work in the 1960s, I was involved in building walkie-talkies. I thought they were just brilliant and that electronic technology would save the world. But over the decades since, my scientific background has made it impossible for me to ignore the overwhelming evidence about the damage wreaked by this electrosmog.

It is not the existence of these radio waves that is the problem so much as the use we make of them. Rather than being emitted at a constant rate, technology demands they are ‘pulsed’ in short and frequent bursts which appear to be far more biologically harmful.

Not the least is their impact on our ability to reproduce. It is well documented that average male sperm counts are falling by two per cent a year. Many causes have been suggested, from stressful lifestyles to poor diet and ­hormones in our water supplies.
But studies in infertility clinics show problems with sperm dying off or not moving properly are most common in men who use mobiles extensively. This has also been demonstrated in the laboratory.

Mobiles are not the only problem. Many laptops are now equipped with Wi-Fi which sends out pulses every second as it maintains contact with the nearest access point. Young men with these devices on their laps are submitting their testicles to strong EMFs at close range, oblivious to the damage they may be doing to their chances of future fatherhood.

etc...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... umans.html

So modern electronics could be frying more than just your brain.... :shock:
 

OneWingedBird

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
15,565
Reaction score
7,028
Points
284
That could also be that radiologists are extra careful about what they're exposed to in other parts of there life because of what they do, and that's just enough to have a counter effect.

Similar to the way that people's driving improves after a very small amount of alcohol, because they're compensating for more than what they need to?
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Mobile phones do affect brain activity, study finds
Mobile phones do affect the brain, according to state-funded research, although the implications for health remain unclear.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 9:01PM GMT 22 Feb 2011

A study found that brain activity increased significantly after using a handset for 50 minutes, in the area closest to the antenna.
It comes after a controversial decade-long project suggested that heavy mobile use could increase the risk of brain cancer by up to 40 per cent.

However the new investigation did not look at the potential carcinogenic effects of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by handsets, and absorbed by the brain when held next to the ear.
Professor Patrick Haggard, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, said: “This is a very interesting result, since it suggests a possible direct effect of mobile phone signals on brain function.”
He said there were several limitations to the study, but added: “If further studies confirm that mobile phone signals do have direct effects on brain metabolism, then it will be important to investigate whether such effects have implications for health.”

In the study, Dr Nora Volkow of the US government’s National Institutes of Health conducted an experiment on 47 people to establish if mobile phone exposure affected regional activity in the brain.

They placed mobile phones on both ears of the participants and measured brain activity once when the right-hand mobile was on for 50 minutes with the sound muted, and then with both phones off.
Scans were studied to see what effect they had on glucose metabolism – the process whereby the brain processes sugar for energy.

They found that metabolism across the whole brain did not alter in the two tests, but metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna - the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole - was 7 per cent higher when the mobile was switched on.

Dr Volkow said: “Results of this study provide evidence that acute cell phone exposure affects brain metabolic activity.
“However, these results provide no information as to their relevance regarding potential carcinogenic effects - or lack of such effects - from chronic cell phone use.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... finds.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Text - don't call! Government updates health advice for mobile phone users after admitting 'We don't know whether they are dangerous'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:38 AM on 11th March 2011

Mobile phone users have been advised by the Government for the first time to text or use hands free kits rather than make calls.
The Department of Health said this would reduce the user's exposure to reduce radiation emitted by the devices.

In the first update to the UK Mobile Phones and Health leaflet since 2005, health officials added that further research is needed into the long-term effects of using mobile phones.
It stated there had been no 'clear evidence of adverse health effects' from the use of mobiles or from phone masts.
However, it added: 'As people have only been using mobile phones for relatively few years, the HPA advises that more research be carried out, especially to investigate whether there might be longer term effects.'

The UK Chief Medical Officer restated previous advice that children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for 'essential purposes' and should 'keep calls short.'
This was described as a 'precautionary' move as teenagers' bodies and nervous systems are still developing.

The latest advice comes just weeks after a £15m Interphone study, that found radio waves from mobiles appear to boost activity in parts of the brain closest to the devices' antennas. [See previous post]
U.S researchers found a 50-minute phone call led to seven per cent localised increase in brain activity.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr Nora Volkow said: 'Although we cannot determine the clinical significance, our results give evidence that the human brain is sensitive to the effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from acute cellphone exposures.'
However, the team said there was no evidence to suggest the rise was harmful.

Meanwhile a study by scientists at the University of Manchester found that using a mobile phone does not increase the risk of getting brain cancer.
Scientists looked at data from the Office of National Statistics on rates of newly diagnosed brain cancers in England between 1998 and 2007 and found no change in rates of the disease.

Lead researcher Dr Frank de Vocht, said: 'Mobile phone use in the United Kingdom and other countries has risen steeply since the early 1990s when the first digital mobile phones were introduced.
'There is an ongoing controversy about whether radio frequency exposure from mobile phones increases the risk of brain cancer.
'Our findings indicate that a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer is unlikely because there is no evidence of any significant increase in the disease since their introduction and rapid proliferation.'

Imperial College in London is taking part in an international study into the long-term health effects of mobile phones. It will follow at least 250,000 users for up to 30 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z1GI7eeKk3
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Mobiles 'may cause brain cancer'
By James Gallagher, Health reporter, BBC News

The World Health Organization's cancer research agency says mobile phones are "possibly carcinogenic".
A review of evidence suggests an increased risk of a malignant type of brain cancer cannot be ruled out.
However, any link is not certain - they concluded that it was "not clearly established that it does cause cancer in humans".
A cancer charity said the evidence was too weak to draw strong conclusions from.

A group of 31 experts has been meeting in Lyon, France, to review human evidence coming from epidemiological studies.
They said they looked at all relevant human studies of people using mobile phones and exposure to electromagnetic fields in their workplace.

The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) can give mobile phones one of five scientific labels: carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, not classifiable or not carcinogenic.
It concluded that mobiles should be rated as "possibly carcinogenic" because of a possible link with a type of brain cancer - glioma.

Ed Yong, head of health information at Cancer Research UK, said: "The WHO's verdict means that there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer but it is too weak to draw strong conclusions from.
"The vast majority of existing studies have not found a link between phones and cancer, and if such a link exists, it is unlikely to be a large one.
"The risk of brain cancer is similar in people who use mobile phones compared to those who don't, and rates of this cancer have not gone up in recent years despite a dramatic rise in phone use during the 1980s.
"However, not enough is known to totally rule out a risk, and there has been very little research on the long-term effects of using phones."

The WHO estimated that there are five billion mobile phone subscriptions globally.

Christopher Wild, director of the IARC, said: "Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long term, heavy use of mobile phones.
"Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands free devices or texting."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13608444
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
46,096
Reaction score
40,397
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Expect sales of hands-free kits and Bluetooth earpieces to take off.
 

Zilch5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
50
Points
54
I know people who smoke but will only use their phone via bluetooth! :lol:
 

staticgirl

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
732
Reaction score
731
Points
129
Texting and internet use is taking over from actual phone calls anyway...
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
53,268
Reaction score
30,413
Points
314
Location
Eblana
Mobile Phone Cancer Link Looking Less And Less Likely
03 Jul 2011

Evidence from a growing number of studies does not support the theory that cellphones raise the risk of brain cancer, an independent international panel of experts has found after carrying out a thorough analysis of all published research.

The analysis was carried out by the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology.

Their findings and conclusions can be found in the latest issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

Professor Anthony Swerdlow, from The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), and team concluded:


"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults."


This latest study follows another one coordinated by the IARC (International Agency for Cancer Research), the 13-country Interphone Study.

Professor Swerdlow and team evaluated the Interphone Study carefully and described it as impressively large and comprehensive, but with several methodological flaws. They found no compelling evidence of a link between mobile phones and the location of tumors relative to their use.

According to national statistics and studies from several countries, the authors stress, there is no evidence of an increase in brain tumor rates up to 20 years after mobile phones were first used, and 10 years after they became commonly used.

Exhaustive studies have not detected any biological mechanism which links radiofrequency fields from cellphone to cancer risk. Even animal studies have shown no clear evidence that they might cause cancer.

As it is not possible to prove there is no effect either, because data is currently limited to 10 to 15 years of mobile phone exposure in adults, people are likely to remain uncertain for several years. There is no data for childhood mobile phone usage.

Professor Swerdlow said:


"The results of Interphone and other epidemiological, biological and animal studies, and brain tumour incidence trends, suggest that within 10 to 15 years after first use of mobile phones there is unlikely to be a material increase in the risk of brain tumors in adults. However, the possibility of a small or a longer term effect cannot be ruled out."


Data on cancer rates over the coming years should help clarify whether or not there is a link between mobile phone usage and brain cancer.

Swerdlow added:


"If there are no apparent effects on trends in the next few years, after almost universal exposure to mobile phones in Western countries, it will become increasingly implausible that there is a material causal effect. Conversely, if there are unexplained rising trends, there will be a case to answer."


"Mobile Phones, Brain Tumours and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?"
Anthony J. Swerdlow, Maria Feychting, Adele C. Green, Leeka Kheifets, David A. Savitz
Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.1103693

Written by Christian Nordqvist

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/230297.php
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
ramonmercado said:
Mobile Phone Cancer Link Looking Less And Less Likely
03 Jul 2011

Evidence from a growing number of studies does not support the theory that cellphones raise the risk of brain cancer, an independent international panel of experts has found after carrying out a thorough analysis of all published research.URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/230297.php
But most of the comments dispute this conclusion, and they seem to be from reasonably well-informed people.

There may not be sufficient evidence as yet of radiation causing brain cancer, but there are other problems with possible radiation links, and there's no discussion of the problems that affect children.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Using wi-fi on a laptop 'damages sperm', study suggests
Surfing the internet on a laptop that is connected with wireless technology can damage sperm counts, a study suggests.
By Andrew Hough
6:30AM GMT 30 Nov 2011

Researchers discovered a personal computer using wi-fi that is placed near male reproductive organs reduced sperm quality and the chances of men experiencing fatherhood.
Scientists found sperm placed under a laptop that used wireless technology suffered more damage than specimens kept at the same temperature but away from a wi-fi signal.

The bench side tests undertaken by the American and Argentinian team showed sperm were less able to swim and had irreversible changes in the genetic code.
Experts suggested the findings, published in this month’s Fertility and Sterility journal, were caused by the electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless communication that damages semen.
The team also cautioned that the results were carried out in an artificial setting and said men should not overly worry just yet.

The study, from a team from the Nascentis Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Cordoba, Argentina and and the Eastern Virginia Medical School, a quarter of the sperm placed next to a laptop for just a few hours were killed .
Evidence of DNA damage was also found.

In comparison, sperm that was stored at the same temperature but away from a laptop showed a smaller drop in mobility and a significant reduction in DNA damage.
Meanwhile, semen placed under the computer without the wi-fi connected did not experience significant levels of sperm damage.

“Our data suggest that the use of a laptop computer wirelessly connected to the internet and positioned near the male reproductive organs may decrease human sperm quality,” said Dr Conrado Avendano, who led the study.
"At present we do not know whether this effect is induced by all laptop computers connected by Wi-Fi to the internet or what use conditions heighten this effect."

The findings differ from previous studies because fears over links between infertility and laptops have focused on heat emitted by the devices.

In the latest study, researchers took sperm specimens from 29 healthy men, aged 26 to 45.
Each donor sample was separated out into two pots and either placed under a laptop using wireless technology or away from the computer.
Scientists then used the laptop to download information from the internet for four hours.

They found that 25 per cent of the sperm under the laptop had stopped moving and nine per cent showed DNA damage.
By comparison, just 14 per cent of samples kept away from the wi-fi stopped moving while just three per cent suffered DNA damage.

Dr Avendano stressed the results did not necessarily mean the same would occur in a real-life setting, adding that men should not unduly worry.
But he recommended more research be undertaken. Nonetheless the findings will fuel concerns raised by a few other research teams.
Some have found that radiation from mobile phones creates feeble sperm in a laboratory setting.

Last year urologists also described how a man's sitting with a laptop balanced on his knees can increase the temperature of his genital areas to levels that can damage sperm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... gests.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Mobile phones: 'Still no evidence of harm to health'
By Jane Hughes, Health correspondent, BBC News

There is still no evidence mobile phones harm human health, says a major safety review for the UK's Health Protection Agency (HPA).
Scientists looked at hundreds of studies of mobile exposure and found no conclusive links to cancer risk, brain function or infertility.

However, they said monitoring should continue because little was known about long-term effects.
The HPA said children should still avoid excessive use of mobiles.

It is the biggest ever review of the evidence surrounding the safety of mobile phones.

There are now an estimated 80 million mobiles in the UK, and because of TV and radio broadcasting, Wi-Fi, and other technological developments, the study said exposure to low-level radio frequency fields was almost universal and continuous.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17843953

80 million mobiles, for a population of about 60 million? Clearly, there are more illegal immigrants here than we thought! :shock: (And I don't have a phone, so add one to the total of illegals! :twisted: )
 

Monstrosa

C'thuluan Balloon Animal
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
1,369
Points
189
Well Rynner, Himself has 2 mobiles. One is his personal phonee and the other is his work phone, oh he also has a tablet PDA which counts as a mobile. So he has 3 mobiles.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Story on the same report, but stressing a different angle - interesting!

'No evidence' that mobiles cause cancer - but scientists still can't rule it out
Long-term use of mobile phones may cause cancer, government scientists have admitted, as the biggest review ever of the subject is published.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... t-out.html
 

CarlosTheDJ

Antediluvian
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
6,835
Reaction score
8,802
Points
299
Location
Pebble Mill
Yeah, there a probably at least five mobiles on my house - and we've got loads of smartphones at work that aren't used all the time.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
53,268
Reaction score
30,413
Points
314
Location
Eblana
Interesting, if a scientist gave them an opinion they didn't like then they searched for one who would give them the right answer.

Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk?
http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/25/opi ... alth-risk/
Security concerns during the Cold War may have led to the generation of misinformation on the physiological effects of microwave radiation from mobile phones.
By Allan H. Frey | September 25, 2012
5 Comments L

Recently, Congress tasked its investigative arm, the General Accountability Office (GAO), to consider the health risks of mobile phones and to report back to Congress. While a previous report published in May 2010 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that there was no evidence of increased health risk resulting from exposure to the radiofrequency (microwave) energy emitted by cell phones, the World Health Organization reported the following year that cell phone radiation may be carcinogenic. Also in 2011, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse published a paper in JAMA reporting that 50 minutes of cell phone use by people altered glucose metabolism in the part of the brain closest to where the cell phone antennas were located. This summer, the GAO completed the task and sent a report to Congress stating that the risks were unclear and deserved greater scrutiny from the government.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy (microwave) exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations, particularly when phones are held against the body,” the GAO wrote.

The controversy over whether the technology poses a risk to human health is substantial. And while much of science could be considered controversial, what has, and is, happening in microwave research is not a routine scientific dispute. Concerns about the health risks of cell phones, confusion regarding the evidence for or against such risks, and even misinformation in the scientific literature may all be collateral damage of the Cold War between the USSR and the United States. This was a time when the use of microwave-generating equipment, such as radar, was seen by some as critical to the security of the United States, and efforts were taken to ensure that such innovations were not suppressed by findings that suggested such technology to be unsafe.

Hiding data

During the Cold War, a group at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB) was tasked with reassuring residents when the Air Force wanted to install radar (microwaves) in their neighborhood. To meet that responsibility, the Brooks group hired contractors to write Environmental Impact Statements to justify the placing of the radars—an obvious conflict of interest. Even worse, when a scientist did publish findings that might indicate a risk, Brooks selected contractors to do experiments that suggested the scientist’s research was invalid or not relevant to the safety of Air Force radar.

For example, after my colleagues and I published in 1975 that exposure to very weak microwave radiation opens the regulatory interface known as the blood brain barrier (bbb), a critical protection for the brain, the Brooks AFB group selected a contractor to supposedly replicate our experiment. For 2 years, this contractor presented data at scientific conferences stating that microwave radiation had no effect on the bbb. After much pressure from the scientific community, he finally revealed that he had not, in fact, replicated our work. We had injected dye into the femoral vein of lab rats after exposure to microwaves and observed the dye in the brain within 5 minutes. The Brooks contractor had stuck a needle into the animals’ bellies and sprayed the dye onto their intestines. Thus it is no surprise that when he looked at the brain 5 minutes later, he did not see any dye; the dye had yet to make it into the circulatory system.

Another Brooks AFB responsibility that further incentivized the spreading of misinformation was to lead a lab on a classified microwave-bio weapons program. Competition between this effort and the microwave-bio research programs undoubtedly going on in other nations at the time would explain the Brooks group’s attempts to block and discredit unclassified research in the microwave area and the subsequent publication of the results: it did not want advances in knowledge to appear in the scientific literature where the USSR could benefit from it. This is not unlike the recent uproar over whether bird flu results should be published—or even done at all—because of the fear that they may help terrorists develop biological weapons.

Stalling funding

In addition to actively suppressing results of microwave-bio research, the Brooks group also attempted to block funding for such research in the first place—and largely succeeded. For example, after we and others published the first papers in the mid- to late-’70s showing that very low intensity microwaves could open the bbb, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a report, written by a psychologist at a Kansas Veterans Administration hospital who was neither trained nor experienced in research on the bbb, that concluded “…if a real potential for catastrophic effects exists, it would be evident from the research already reported in the literature.” (An original draft of the report also noted that “DOD funding of research evaluating the effects of microwaves on the bbb should be of low priority,” though this statement was removed before the report was released to the public.)

Largely as a consequence of this report, funding for open microwave-bio research in the United States was essentially shut down. Several months after the report was released, I requested renewal of government funding, which in part supported research on the bbb. I received a letter stating that funding would not be granted unless I dropped the bbb part of the proposal. And in a September 1981 article in Microwave News, 2 years later, the editor wrote, “Surprisingly, no new [bbb] work was reported this year.”

Even now, the recent GAO report states, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “is the only federal agency we interviewed that is directly funding ongoing studies on health effects of RF energy (microwave radiation) from mobile phone use.” And the NIH funded only one relevant completed experiment, by an in-house researcher, during the time the GAO did its assessment. For many years now most of the published microwave research—what little that has been done—has been conducted in other countries. And as I noted in a recent paper, many, if not most, of those have been epidemiological studies looking for health problems associated with outdated technologies that are not relevant to the phones used today or that will be used in the future.

Thus, the shutdown of normal open microwave research in the U.S. and the misinformation placed in the literature appears to be collateral damage of the actions of people who saw themselves as fighting a war. And since the research was not allowed to proceed in the normal fashion, we don’t have the set of data needed to determine if there is a health hazard of mobile phone use—and, if so, how serious the hazard is. This suppression of research has now made hundreds of millions of people subjects in a grand experiment that may involve their health, without their informed consent, and the outcome of which can have substantial medical, legal, and economic consequences.

Allan H. Frey ([email protected]) is a semi-retired scientist in Potomac, Maryland, who was Technical Director of Randomline, Inc., a consulting and research firm.

Read about more unsavory actions that I and others have observed in my chapter of bioethicist Nicholas Steneck’s Risk Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.
A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.
By Richard Alleyne
8:28AM BST 19 Oct 2012

Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.
Now Italy's Supreme Court in Rome has blamed his phone saying there is a "causal link" between his illness and phone use, the Sun has reported.

Mr Marcolini said: "This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks.
"I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work.
"I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones.
"Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness."

British scientists have claimed there is insufficient evidence to prove any link to mobiles.
But the respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis gave evidence for Mr Marcolini — along with neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso.
They said electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile and cordless phones can damage cells, making tumours more likely.

Prof Levis told The Sun: "The court decision is extremely important. It finally officially recognises the link.
"It'll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We're considering a class action."

Mr Marcolini's tumour was discovered in the trigeminal nerve — close to where the phone touched his head.
It is non-cancerous but threatened to kill him as it spread to the carotid artery, the major vessel carrying blood to his brain.
His face was left paralysed and he takes daily morphine for pain.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, which campaigns for more research on mobile use, said: "This is an interesting case and proves the need for more studies.
"People should limit mobile and cordless use until we know more."
The World Health Organisation urged limits on mobile use last year, calling them a Class B carcinogen.

But a spokesman for Britain's Health Protection Agency said: "The scientific consensus is that mobile phones do not cause cancer."
International radiation biology expert Michael Repacholi said: "Studies show no evidence of cancer. But if you are worried, use a headset, hands-free or loudspeaker."

Media lawyer Mark Stephens said the verdict could "open the floodgates" — even though there is no direct obligation on British courts to follow the Italians' lead.
He said: "It is possible people will begin legal action here, but I think the chances of success are less. I think they'll join any class action in Italy."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/96195 ... ules..html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Dental X-ray machine radiation danger alert
By Michelle Roberts, Health editor, BBC News online

Dentists have been warned against using a hand-held X-ray machine on patients as it poses a significant health risk.
The cheap imported machine, known as the Tianjie Dental Falcon, exposes users and patients to 10 times the normal level of radiation, increasing their risks of cancer and organ damage.
The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency is asking NHS and private dentists to dispose of these devices.

It is not known how many patients may have been put at risk.
So far, 13 of the machines - sold on internet sites including eBay by a Chinese manufacturer - have been seized at a distribution centre.
At least one dental surgery has been found using the device.

Emergency testing of the product by the Health Protection Agency and scientists at King's College Hospital in London revealed that it has insufficient lead shielding inside it to protect dentists and patients from excessive radiation.
The machine's X-ray beam is also too wide, which means a patient's whole skull and brain is exposed to radiation rather than just their mouth.

And the device poses an electrical hazard because it comes with a European plug and a travel adapter that are not earthed or fused for the UK mains supply. As well as being a fire hazard, it could cause a serious electric shock (50,000 volts) to the dentist or patients. :shock:

Scientist Donald Emerton, who tested the device, said: "Over time someone operating this machine, such as a dental assistant, would be exposed to unacceptable levels of accumulated radiation and this would have an increased risk to their health.
"I certainly wouldn't want someone to use this piece of equipment to take an X-ray of me."

The MHRA believes it has shut down the UK's only distributor but says investigations are ongoing to ensure no more can be sold and used here. The problem first came to light in June 2012.
It is not yet known how many of the devices are already in circulation.

The manufacturer - Lin Lin Zhengzhou Tianjie Electronic Equipment Co - is currently unavailable to contact.
The Tianjie Dental Falcon was priced at about £200, a fraction of the cost of other dental hand-held X-ray sets available for sale in the UK, which can be over £4,000.

Bruce Petrie, of the MHRA's Medical Devices Enforcement Team, said: "It's vital that dentists and dental staff do not buy these dental X-ray machines from eBay or other websites because they are not approved and not safe for dentists or patients.
"We are working with eBay and other governments to ensure dentists and patients are protected."

He said anyone who had bought one of these machines should [call] the MHRA's hotline on 020 3080 6701 or at [email protected].

Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer for England said: "It is vitally important that when buying equipment, dentists make sure it is appropriate and safe for use.
"I would urge all dental professionals to be cautious of seemingly cheap devices which may not be fit for purpose and potentially dangerous."

Richard Paynter, deputy director of the Health Protection Agency's Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, said: "We're delighted that MHRA is now taking such positive steps to ensure public and occupational protection from unnecessary radiation exposure."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20579318

Ironic that this should crop up when I have toothache! Haven't quite screwed up my courage enough to ring the dentist... :(
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Long article:

Electrosensitivity: is technology killing us?
Is modern life making us ill? Yes, say those who suffer from electrosensitivity. Are they cranks, or should we all be throwing away our mobile phones?
Nicholas Blincoe, The Guardian, Friday 29 March 2013 19.00 GMT

Tim Hallam is just tall enough to seem gangly. His height makes the bedroom feel even smaller than it is. Muddy sunlight filters through the grey gauze hung over his window. His narrow bed appears to be covered with a glistening silver mosquito net. The door and the ceiling are lined with tinfoil. Tim tells me there is also a layer of foil beneath the wallpaper and under the wood-effect flooring. He says, "The room is completely insulated; the edges are sealed with aluminium tape and connected with conducting tape so I could ground the whole room. It's a Faraday cage, effectively. Grounding helps with the low frequencies radiation, apparently. The high frequencies just bounce off the outside."

Tim is trying to escape atmospheric manmade radiation caused by Wi-Fi, phone signals, radio, even TV screens and fluorescent bulbs. It's a hopeless task, he admits: "It's so hard to get away from, and it's taken a toll on my life." I offer to put my phone outside the room and he happily accepts, firmly closing the door. He explains the phone would have kept searching for a signal. "And because it wouldn't find one, it would keep ramping up." With the tinfoil inside his cage, the signal would hurtle around the room like a panicked bird. :shock:

Tim estimates he spent £1,000 on the insulation, taking photographs at every stage to share with others via ElectroSensitivity UK, the society for sufferers. He found the whole process stressful, especially after a summer sleeping in the garden of his shared house in Leamington Spa to escape a new flatmate's powerful Wi-Fi router. How did he feel about the flatmate at the time? "Oh, I hated him. It wasn't really him, of course. But I was so angry." Among the symptoms Tim experiences – headaches, muscular pain, dry eyes – there are memory lapses and irritability. He now says his bed is the single most important thing he owns. "I climb in and zip it up so I'm completely sealed. Inside, I sleep extremely well. Without it, my sleep is fragmented, and without sleep, then lots of other things go wrong."

Tim demonstrates the effectiveness of the tinfoil using a radiation detector called Elektrosmog, manufactured in Germany. It is blocky and white, which makes it look both retro and futuristic. On the front of the box, a picture of an electricity pylon is surrounded by jagged black lightning flashes. The machine gives a reading close to zero: Tim's room is radiation-free.

As a child in the 70s, I watched a BBC science-fiction serial called The Changes, which imagined a future after humans became allergic to electricity. Pylons were the greatest danger, making people violently sick. On cross-country runs, I would speed up when I had to pass beneath a power cable, feeling the weight of the buzzing electricity above me. The idea that electromagnetic fields affect our health took root in the 1960s. A US doctor named Robert O Becker became the face of the campaign against pylons after appearing on the US TV show 60 Minutes. Professor Andrew Marino, now of Louisiana State University, was Becker's lab partner. Marino says, "He's the reason nobody wants to live near power lines."

If electromagnetic radiation is dangerous to humans, there are far more risks now than 40 years ago, thanks to the telecommunications industry. More than a billion people worldwide own mobile phones. In the UK, there are more mobile contracts than people. The new 4G spectrum will cover 98% of the country, erasing all but the most remote "not spots".

Dr Mireille Toledano runs Cosmos, a 30-year, five-nation study into the effects of telecoms radiation on humans. She knows how rapidly things are changing. In 2000, a 10-year study into mobile phones and brain tumours pegged heavy use at 30 minutes a day. The study found the 90th percentile had spent 1,640 hours of their lives on their phones. In the UK, Toledano says, "heavy use is now defined at 86 minutes a day; 30 minutes is in the median range. Across the whole [international Cosmos study], the top 10% of users have now clocked up 4,160 or more hours."

The earlier study found no evidence linking phone use and cancer in the short term, yet as our love affair with technology keeps deepening, anxieties grow. Two years ago, the European Assembly passed Resolution 1815, which, among other things, calls for restrictions on Wi-Fi in schools and the use of mobile phones by children. The World Health Organisation has classified electromagnetic fields of the kind used in mobile telephony as Group 2b carcinogens – that is, as possibly cancerous.

The issue of electromagnetic sensitivity is immediately political. It places sufferers on the other side from both industry and the governments that profit from leasing wavelengths. Over and over, I hear the phrase, "We are the canaries in the coal mine": sufferers believe we are approaching a tipping point. Tim Hallam worries about the effects of electromagnetic fields on the most vulnerable: on his sister's young family; on children in schools bathed in Wi-Fi rays; or old people in sheltered accommodation, each with their own internet router. "I think it's affecting everyone's cells. There are test-tube experiments which show it damages DNA and affects the blood-brain barrier. I do think there's going to be a surge in the people who are sensitive in years to come. But my sister's not fully taken that on board."

Yet electro hypersensitivity syndrome is controversial. Sweden recognises EHS as a "functional impairment", or disability, but it is the patients, not doctors, who make the diagnosis. The fact is, everyone who suffers from EHS is self-diagnosed – and each has their own story to explain the cause of their problems.

Tim was 15 years old, at a gig by the industrial band Sheep on Drugs, when the singer produced a pistol and fired blanks into the ceiling. Tim, who is now 36, says, "It was the loudest thing I had ever heard." His ears began ringing but he continued going to gigs without using ear plugs and the problem grew worse. He played clarinet in two orchestras but had to stop: "Immediately, my musical life and my social life ended." Today, his sister is a professional classical musician. Tim, a Cambridge graduate, is a van driver for Asda. He works shifts that allow him time alone when his flatmates are out and the house is free of Wi-Fi and phones. It was the arrival of Wi-Fi in his house, just 10 months ago, that led Tim to identify the cause of his problems, but it was the tinnitus that started it all.

Michelle Berriedale-Johnson has worked in the field of food intolerances and allergies for more than 20 years. She runs the industry awards for "Free From" foods from her home in north-west London, as well as foodsmatter.com, a website that raises awareness around food intolerances. Five years ago, at the age of 60, she began to feel unwell. She was sitting at her desk when she identified the cause. "I looked up and there was the Royal Free Hospital with the phone masts on the top, beaming straight through my window, and it just clicked." Michelle is bright and lively, happy to dive beneath her desk to show the precautions she has taken to shield herself from the spaghetti of wires. Her walls are painted with carbon paint, lined with foil and papered over. The windows have the same netting as Tim's, though when she uses her Elektrosmog meter she discovers to her consternation that the netting is old and no longer works. Her front rooms buzz with electromagnetic radiation, though her office – now at the back of the house – shows far better readings. She says, "I'm lucky to work from home, but I often feel like a prisoner." When she leaves the house, she wears hats lined with material similar to Tim's mosquito netting and even has blouses made of the same material. "The important thing is to protect your head and upper torso," she says.

Michelle precisely identifies the moment she became sensitised to radiation. She was an early user of mobile phones. "Do you remember the type with the little aerial? I had one where the antenna had broken off, but I continued to use it pressed to my ear, which people who know tell me meant that I was using my entire head as an aerial."

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/ ... killing-us
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Another mobile phone scare... (they don't scare me, I don't have one!)

Do mobile phones cause brain tumours?
While the scientific community is still arguing over phone safety, one man tells Maxine Frith why he has banned his children from using mobiles.
By Maxine Frith
7:00AM BST 25 May 2014

When Neil Whitfield was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 44, he left the consulting room in shock.
He had been struggling with debilitating headaches, short-term memory loss and fatigue for months, and faced a brutal choice between risky surgery or leaving the tumour where it was and coming to terms with the fact that it would kill him within five years.

But what also shocked him was his doctor’s theory about what had caused the tumour.
“He said he was absolutely convinced it was my mobile-phone use,” said Mr Whitfield, from Wigan, Lancashire. “He told me that mobile phones were going to be the smoking gun of the 21st century in terms of cancers. I hadn’t even thought about it before.”

At the time of his diagnosis in 2001, Mr Whitfield was working as a sales manager and had been a regular user of mobile phones since 1995. He never used one again.
After surgery, he was left deaf in one ear and suffered some facial paralysis, but has been given the all-clear. His employers, however, did not see eye to eye with his decision not to use a mobile. “I basically got 'managed out’,” he says. “When I went back to work and explained that the tumour had been near my ear, they said, 'Well, can’t you just put the phone to your other ear?’ It was ludicrous.

“I now run my own training agency without a mobile – it can be done, but we have all become so reliant on mobiles that we think we can’t survive without them.”
His sons, aged 13 and nine, do not own mobiles and are not too bothered about their father’s ban. “If people ask, they just explain what happened to me,” says Mr Whitfield. “So many people don’t know about the risks. If mobile phones were a food, they would have been taken off the shelves by now.
“I don’t know any parent who would hand their child drugs and say, off you go, yet virtually every kid has a mobile. I find it terrifying.”

But just what the risks are for children is still open to fierce debate. Last week, the Department of Health announced that it had commissioned the world’s largest study of the effects of mobile-phone use. The two-year Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones (Scamp) will look at 2,500 children aged 11 and 12. They will be asked about phone use and tested on functions such as memory and attention to see whether the use of mobiles has any impact. It has been suggested that children and teenagers could be more vulnerable to radio-frequency exposure because their nervous systems are still developing.

Around 70 per cent of 11- and 12-year-olds in the UK now own a phone, rising to 90 per cent of children over 14. One recent phone app even encourages parents to download nursery rhymes and place the device on a child’s pillow so they can be soothed to sleep with lullabies. And although the 2005 Stewart report on phone technology recommended that children under 16 should only use mobiles for essential calls, the reality is that most teenagers spend hours on them a week

...

And although most studies have not found any firm link between mobile-phone use and cancers or other health problems in children and adults, pressure groups and some scientists dispute those findings. Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor at Bristol University and honorary scientific director of the Children with Cancer UK charity, is one of them.
“The dangers are being seriously underplayed,” he says. “We are seeing a rise in brain tumours in adults and children. And because brain tumours are relatively rare, we are talking small numbers, but the increase is there.
“Why should it come as any surprise that holding the equivalent of a small microwave oven to your ear should be a health risk?”

Prof Henshaw and others believe that mobile phone packaging should carry cigarette-style public health warnings rather than the advice being buried in manufacturers’ manuals. And Mr Whitfield agrees. “After I was diagnosed, I looked at my phone manual and very, very far down it says you should keep your phone at least 10mm away from your body at all times,” he says. “Hardly anyone reads those manuals, but even the manufacturers are admitting there is a safety issue here.”

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10853 ... ce=refresh

Earlier in this thread I mentioned my last boss, a heavy mobile phone user, who also got a tumour near his ear..
 

GingerTabby

Carbon-based life form
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
3,467
Points
164
Interesting article. My partner died of a brain tumour in April 2012 at the age of 56. His tumour was also just above his ear, and for a few years in the early 2000s he used his mobile phone regularly. At the time of his diagnosis in 2009 he asked both his neurosurgeon and his oncologist if there was any connection between brain tumours and mobile phone use. Both specialists said there wasn't enough data available to make a definitive statement. It appears the thinking on that subject is changing.
 

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
7,194
Reaction score
10,821
Points
299
I'd point out that mobile phones are changing rapidly, so any data gathered say 10 years ago would have very little to do with a current mobile phone. They are smaller, produce less EMF, use less current, some are better shielded, etc etc,

As with Rynner, it doesn't bother me unduly, because I only use my mobile phone as a phone maybe once a week. The rest of the time I use it for messaging or the internet. In any case many of my calls that I used to use the mobile for when away from home I now do via Skype.

I have to say I wouldn't go round with the thing glued to my ear, though. A few times when I've got trapped into a long call on a mobile phone I've distinctly noticed a warming and dull ache around my ear. I try and use a Bluetooth earpiece now if I know I have to take a long call on the mobile.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Mobile phone effect on fertility - 'research needed'
By James Gallagher, Health and science reporter, BBC News

More studies are needed into the risks of mobile phones on sperm counts, warn researchers.
A review of the evidence, by the University of Exeter, suggested sperm number and movement were affected by keeping mobile phones in pockets.
However, one sperm scientist said the evidence was still too sketchy and his phone was staying in his pocket.

The study, published in the journal Environment International, suggested electromagnetic radiation was to blame.
It analysed 10 separate studies on sperm quality involving 1,492 men. These included laboratory tests on sperm exposed to mobile phone radiation and questionnaires of men at fertility clinics.

Lead researcher Dr Fiona Mathews told the BBC that all but one of the studies showed a link between mobile phone exposure and poorer sperm quality.
She added: "The studies are coming out with a consistent message that sperm motility declines with exposure to mobile telephones and similarly proportion which are alive, it's about an eight percentage point fall.
"I think for your average man there's certainly no need to panic, if you already know you have a potential fertility issue then it might be an additional thing to consider - just as you might change your diet - you might want to change where you keep your phone."

She acknowledged criticisms from other scientists about the quality of the evidence saying she "absolutely calls for more research".
Dr Mathews concluded: "This is interesting, but we're obviously not saying that everyone who carries a phone in their pocket is going to become infertile."

How sperm would be damaged by mobile phones is unclear.
Ideas include radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation from the phone disrupting the cycle of sperm production or damaging the DNA. Another suggestion is that heat either directly from the phone or through the radiation, may affect the sperm.

Dr Allan Pacey, from Sheffield University, who researches sperm, remains unconvinced, saying the quality of the evidence is poor and he would not change where he kept his phone.
He told the BBC: "There has been concern for some time about whether keeping a mobile phone in a trouser pocket might affect semen quality and male fertility in some way.
"There have been some crazy and alarming headlines, but, in my opinion, the studies undertaken to date have been somewhat limited in scope because they have either irradiated sperm kept in a dish or they have made assessments of men's phone habits without adequately controlling for confounding variables, such as other aspects of their lifestyle.

"What we need are some properly designed epidemiological studies where mobile phone use is considered alongside other other lifestyle habits.
"Until that time, I will be continuing to keep my iPhone in my right-hand trouser pocket!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27767981

If I had a moble phone, and was young enough to be concerned about fertility issues, I think I'd play safe and keep the phone away from the underpants area!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Grandmother spends £4,000 WiFi-proofing home
Stefanie Russell spent £4,000 on anti-radiation paint to block out WiFi and mobile phone signals, claiming they give her headaches
By Rhiannon Williams
11:47AM BST 22 Oct 2014

A grandmother has spent thousands of pounds WiFi-proofing her home in a bid to block the wireless and mobile signals she claims damage her health.
Stefanie Russell, 72, has paid £4,000 for specialists to paint her home in anti-radiation paint, claiming she suffers from headaches and nausea when exposed to mobile phones and other devices.

“I’ve not been diagnosed by a doctor but my GP surgery is aware of my condition. Every time I am near WiFi or mobile phone signals I feel ill," she told the Brighton Argus. "It makes it difficult for me to get around and see people. I don’t touch the internet or email – it’s not safe.”

Mrs Russell says she suffers from electro-sensitivity, which induces headaches so severe she can't use buses due to the number of mobiles on board. She also avoids computers.

The four layers of anti-radiation paint on her home in Steyning, west Sussex, have minimised the signals, she said.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... -home.html
 

Eponastill

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1,849
Points
189
Location
generally on the fringes
"I’ve not been diagnosed by a doctor but my GP surgery is aware of my condition. "

I bet they are.

I don't want to be a cynic, but this woman probably could have saved herself £4000 on paint by a simple scientific experiment to see if she really is affected by electromagnetic radiation or not. I don't doubt she has symptoms. I'm just doubting where they originate from.

Meanwhile, special paint manufacturers rub their hands and laugh all the way to the bank.

Apologies to all the people who will now write in telling me about their completely genuine, scientifically tested symptoms.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
46,096
Reaction score
40,397
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Wallpapering with thick foil would have been cheaper.
 
Top