Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? Part One & Part Two

[norml]

Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? Part One

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Egwele
The Epoch Times
Jul 04, 2005


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




UNSEEN DANGER: Studies demonstrate potential risk of cell phones.
Photos.com
High-resolution image (1596 x 2400 pixels, 300 dpi)



Cellular phones have become an essential part of our lives today. Most people can’t live without these devices and really can’t remember what life was like before their creation. Everyone is encouraged to have one of these devices, even our children. Cell phone towers are being erected right and left with little or no objection from the public.
Most people assume that because cell phones are in general use, they must be safe. Any independent research showing the potential dangers is quickly discredited. Are there reasons to be concerned?

In August 2000, Dr. Christopher Neuman, a neurologist, filed a suit alleging that his prolonged cell phone use was responsible for the brain tumor that was slowly killing him. He accused the cell phone industry of knowing that these gadgets were unsafe and deliberately misleading the public into thinking that cell phones are harmless. Neuman demanded $800 million from seven cell phone manufacturers and cellular service providers. The malignant tumor in question was discovered in March 1998 behind Neuman’s right ear, the same ear that he used when on his cell phone. He claimed that he used a wireless phone several times daily between ’92 and ’98.

This case became a catalyst responsible for general mistrust of cellular technology. Several similar cases have been brought to the courts, but like Neuman’s, were defeated. Of course, many studies were done to show the public that what happened to Neuman and others were anomalies, and that there was no correlation between cell phone use and cancer of any kind. In an effort to combat the cellular backlash, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that there was no evidence that radiation from cell phones posed a health risk. However, the FDA also concluded that there was no proof that cell phones are risk free, either. The above position and a few studies portraying cell phones in a positive light were all that was needed to quickly diffuse public tension, and the Neuman case was ultimately forgotten.

Some studies have been done before and after the Neuman case showing that cell phones emit a radio frequency (RF) that may be harmful to frequent users. The RF that cell phones emit is very similar to those in microwave ovens. Microwave (MW) energy oscillates at millions of cycles per second. The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry states that these frequencies cause cancer and other ailments by interfering with cellular DNA. Between 20 and 80 percent of the RF given off by cell phones is absorbed into the user’s head. The amount of RF absorbed depends on how close the antenna is to the user, the duration of time the user is exposed to the RF and the power level of the cell phone. The longer one is exposed to RF, the better chance one has of becoming ill. How many people are aware of this information? Not many, because findings of this nature are all but ignored by the mainstream media.


snip


http://theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-4/30022.html

[norml]

1. Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? (Part Two)

Are Cell Phones Carcinogenic? (Part Two)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Egwele
The Epoch Times
Jul 11, 2005


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




Several studies indicate that there may be physiological effects from exposure to the type pf radiation emitted by cell phones. (Photos.com)(Photos.com)



In 1995, Henry Lai and N.P. Singh published a study demonstrating how cell phones damaged DNA in the brain cells of lab rats. While Lai stated that the study provided no solid answers, he did state that more studies needed to be done. Immediately after the study was published, the cell phone industry criticized Lai’s research techniques and stated that the results were never duplicated.
About a year later in Australia, Dr. Michael Repacholi turned up similar results. His study looked at 200 mice, half of them exposed to digital phone radiation and half of them not. Dr. Repacholi found that cancer rates doubled in those mice that had been irradiated. The exposed mice were subjected to pulsed microwaves at a power density similar to a digital cell phone transmitting for two 30-minute periods each day.

Significantly, a study done by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland found that exposing human cells to an hour of cell phone radiation triggers a response, that normally occurs when cells are being damaged.

The report’s conclusion warns: “The possible RF radiation-induced breakage of the blood-brain barrier, if occurring repeatedly over a long period of time, might become a health hazard because of the possible extra-capillary accumulation of molecules that might cause tissue damage.” Many considered this study in itself a landmark in cell phone research, because it proved that biochemical changes, which were only observed in lab animals previously, can occur in the cells of cell phone users.

Soon after this study, Dr. Alan Preece, head of biophysics at the Bristol Oncology Center cited six different studies as indicating that brain response times speed up when people are exposed to radio frequency (RF) signals coming from cell phones. “Perhaps we now have to accept there is an effect on the brain,” Preece stated at a London conference on the risks of cell phone usage. This study does not say that RF is harmful, but that RF certainly affects the physiology of the cell phone user, and could eventually prove to be harmful.


snip


http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-11/30200.html

[merwin]

2. I think there was a much better chance of tumors in OLD cell phones.

The amount of power a cell phone puts out these days is miniscule compared to what they used to be.

[trotsky]

3. One bit of incorrect info

The RF that cell phones emit is very similar to those in microwave ovens. Microwave (MW) energy oscillates at millions of cycles per second. The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry states that these frequencies cause cancer and other ailments by interfering with cellular DNA.

Microwave radiation is actually a very low-energy radiation. Its wavelength is such that it cannot interfere with structures as small as DNA. All it can do is vibrate certain molecules like water and oils, which cause food to heat up.

So I'm not sure how much I can trust this article.

[norml]

4. Effect of microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat.

1: Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 1997 Nov;94(5):465-70. Related Articles, Links


Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat.

Fritze K, Sommer C, Schmitz B, Mies G, Hossmann KA, Kiessling M, Wiessner C.

Department of Experimental Neurology, Max-Planck-Institute for Neurological Research, Cologne, Germany.

We investigated the effects of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on the permeability of the blood-brain barrier using a calibrated microwave exposure system in the 900 MHz band. Rats were restrained in a carousel of circularly arranged plastic tubes and sham-exposed or microwave irradiated for a duration of 4 h at specific brain absorption rates (SAR) ranging from 0.3 to 7.5 W/kg. The extravasation of proteins was assessed either at the end of exposure or 7 days later in three to five coronal brain slices by immunohistochemical staining of serum albumin. As a positive control two rats were subjected to cold injury. In the brains of freely moving control rats (n = 20) only one spot of extravasated serum albumin could be detected in one animal. In the sham-exposed control group (n = 20) three animals exhibited a total of 4 extravasations. In animals irradiated for 4 h at SAR of 0.3, 1.5 and 7.5 W/kg (n = 20 in each group) five out of the ten animals of each group killed at the end of the exposure showed 7, 6 and 14 extravasations, respectively. In the ten animals of each group killed 7 days after exposure, the total number of extravasations was 2, 0 and 1, respectively. The increase in serum albumin extravasations after microwave exposure reached significance only in the group exposed to the highest SAR of 7.5 W/kg but not at the lower intensities. Histological injury was not observed in any of the examined brains. Compared to other pathological conditions with increased blood-brain barrier permeability such as cold injury, the here observed serum albumin extravasations are very modest and, moreover, reversible. Microwave exposure in the frequency and intensity range of mobile telephony is unlikely to produce pathologically significant changes of the blood-brain barrier permeability.

PMID: 9386779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9386779&query_hl=2


snip

[trotsky]

5. Um, two things.

First, this doesn't contradict what I said. It said nothing about affecting cells at the DNA level, which is what's necessary to produce tumors and cancer.

Second:

Microwave exposure in the frequency and intensity range of mobile telephony is unlikely to produce pathologically significant changes of the blood-brain barrier permeability.

I'm trying to figure out why you would quote this. You do realize that this contradicts your initial post, right?

[Kraklen]

6. LOL

It always pays to read the scientific article one is referencing.

[norml]

7. Many things can affect cells at the DNA level.

Changing blood-brain barrier permeability can change what chemicals the brain is exposed to. Chemicals can alter DNA. Heat can alter DNA. Mood is thought to affect the development of cancer. Pulsed microwave technology can affect mood. I posted that article to show microwave radiation can do more to living tissue than just warm it up.

[trotsky]

8. This is not the same as what you claimed earlier.

Nice try, though.