We can't ignore the links between mobile phones and cancer

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... gress.html

It is a real concern, although the magnitude of the risk is not yet clear. I have a cell phone, but prefer not to use it that much.

You have to be kidding me.. first of all, radio frequencies do not harm the body. . in fact sound vibrations can effect the body, but you show me one example where it is knowingly doing harm. This is another scare, meant to get people afraid of yet another thing that we take for granted (communication devices)..

There are radio frequencies that can heal damaged DNA, (528 hz). . this is a potential cure for cancer, but not information that we are meant to know, and certainly it is known by these 'top scientists' who are warning about these cell phone risks.. LOL. You don't have to ask me why I don't trust them.

But take a look at this, it's a good place to learn about frequencies, and their healing powers.


http://liberatedlinguists.ning.com/prof ... st%3A17847

Okay, fair enough.. cell phones can cause harm. By the way I don't know how to read that jumble of numbers and statistics that you boldly pointed out there.. can you read it for me, Mr. expert?

I translated the highlights to English previously Probably an increased risk of 30% to 200%, according to the studies reviewed.

Glioma, neuroma, meningioma - types of cancer of the nervous system.

Latency period - lag between exposure to an insult and the manifestation of injury. For many carcinogens, this can be several decades, which is why they compared people with 10 or more years cell phone use to others.

OR = Odds Ratio an OR of 1.0 is normal or average risk for a population. Less than 0 indicates possible risk reduction, ie, fewer neural tube defects when taking folic acid. A high OR may indicate involvement in dangerous stuff (I think smoking increases the OR of lung cancer by 9 or so; it increases the risk of heart disease to a lesser degree, but kills more people that way. Higher or lower OR could also indicate a sub-population (genetic, behavioral, or otherwise).

CI - confidence interval, like the margin of error in public opinion polls - we can be reasonably sure that the real value is between that expanded range, based on statistical theory.

Microwaves and radio waves are the same thing- vibrations. Vibrations at certain frequencies can be devastatingly destructive. Microwaves are vibrations at a frequency that produces a wavelength equal to the size of a molecule of water, which excites the water molecules, causing them to generate heat.

The wavelength that can supposedly repair damaged DNA is not yet refined or controllable enough to use practically, but eventually those bugs will be worked out and the technology will become very useful and widespread. It is far easier to damage a thing by vibration than to repair it.

The frequencies used by cell phones, radios and televisions do not excite water or harm DNA. If they did, we'd all be dead because all of us have been bathed in this radiation since birth. Any place where a radio or cell phone can pick up a signal is constantly under the effect of these vibrations.

Today, everyone has a cell phone, and we don't see half the population dropping dead from it.

Contrast that with a real ailment caused by technology, like carpal tunnel syndrome. Carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion ailments were almost unheard of before the advent of keyboards, today they are quite common. Actions taken by the industry to make keyboards more ergonomic have greatly reduced the occurrence of these ailments.

Cell phone companies can't fix their phones to reduce cancer rates, because the phones don't cause cancer to begin with.

at my secondary schools senior campus (where u went for the last 2 years) it has a mobile phone tower in the yard that is fenced off, as in it is in the property but behind fences.

One thing about radiation is that the intensity or power drops of fairly quickly as distance increases - moving a cell phone a few inches away from your head reduces the risk greatly. I suspect that in the future, the actual transmitter part will be kept farther away from the body.

If the radiation is omni-directional (spreads equally in all directions), then the power decreases based on distance-cubed. That means that moving something twice as far away will decrease the power by a factor of 8. Fences? Useful for keeping kids out, but not for keeping radio waves in. I have no idea what sort of risk the situation you describe might have for people.

Shawn, someone's been feeding you bogus info... 528 hz is in the audible spectrum, and can be produced on a wide variety of musical instruments... on a piano, 528 hz is the "C" note one octave above middle c... if merely generating this tone could repair DNA, then anyone who listens to or plays music would be immune to genetic defects, which is obviously not the case...

528 hz has a wavelength way too long to affect DNA...

A yahoo search on the subject reveals a host of health claims made by people who all want to sell you something, but absolutely nothing scientific... judging from the fact that all of these sites use the exact same wording in their claims, it would seem that all of these sites got this information from the same source, although none of them identify what source that is...

Obviously, none of these people have been shot for having this knowledge, and since DNA is a relatively recent discovery, I find it doubtful that this supposed knowledge was in existence 'a long time ago'...

sure we can!