If Jerry Phillips cannot tell how non-ionising radiation affects biological tissue-how can he know it does? there must have to be some observable change .
The cell phone radiation is real. We are surrounded by phones. Everybody has 2 phones, 1 for work, 1 table, 1 wifi tv, we want wifi to improve our life but I’m afraid that will be dangerous for our health. You can find out more: https://emfshieldprotect.com/
This is far from over. Science is to find out the truth to the point that there are NO more questions to be asked and nothing (at the time of the subject being tested) can dispute the findings. But when new ways of testing are created, these subjects should be tested again to see if the findings change. Seeing that there are still questions and it has not been clearly defined to the point that no one can argue against it, the science is failing.
The real threat to public safety is the vocal minority of educated conspiracy theory believers and the many, many fake sites and fringe organizations that feed their paranoia. Just read the comments for this article. People are posting their excuses for ignoring evidence they don’t like (government is in the pocket of industry, universities are in n the pocket of industry, etc, etc). It’s a sad and, unfortunately for us, dangerous trend that is leading to actual policy. People who believe in chemtrails are pressuring officials to deny climate change or get permission to send their unvaccinated children to public schools.
One of the problems we have nowadays is that the FCC, the FDA and other government agencies have proven themselves to be little more than paid whores for the industries they’re supposed to be regulating. So whatever they say on a particular subject is suspect. (This opinion is from a left-leaning electronics engineer.)
The mobile phone cause addiction for sure, now I use it only when no other options, with shielding between the phone and me to eliminate direct EMF radiation and with air-tubes (http://emfclothing.com/en/accessories/347-radiation-free-air-tube-headset-airobic-sport.html)
ALL the main regulatory bodies without exception have fulsome pious-sounding phrases about following the preacuationary principle – not even mentioned in the article above-.
At he same time the above waffle about “consenseus” is complete nonsense. That is politics and buraucracy not science. In science (if it still exists anywhere on the planet) ONE STUDY showing harmful effects from microwaves scotches for all time the thesis the industry and governments rely on, that said radiation is harmless., There is not ONE such paper, there are not even hundreds, there are many thousands. Of just one paper one can say : “Right, now we know the thesis of non-harm has been scotched for all time – unless the paper was poorly designed or badly carried out or incorrectly recorded and analysed. That those negative condition should hold for thousands of papers going back many decades from many countries, from every continent on the planet but Antarctica, covering many different body systems and levels of inquiry – viz epidemiological, histological, disease , neurological, chemically-based, electrically-base etc etc etc – is completely an utterly impossible.
Why is it scarcely anyone can or will think straight?
As a medical anthropologist, I suggest that journalists interested in such issues also look past national boundaries and drink from the fountain of less industry-controlled scientists in Europe and elsewhere.
But that would defeat their purpose. If they did, what they would find is that there actually 1 large stidy do e by the industry in Europe, albeit on “handsets”, which actually expose users to higher levels of unmodulated EMF. That study found that there was no link with their use and brain tumors. The way they reached that conclusion? By designating the largest and group of users as “controls”. The other two larger studies done around the same time? They left the datasets “speak for themselves” and pointed out unequivocal link that scaled up with user hours.
Ellie, Theodora, Devra and others commenting on this issue may be struggling to understand the real meaning of the NTP rodent studies with respect to their conclusions on the levels of evidence found. The adjective most used to describe the findings is EQUIVOCAL. This word is not commonly used in daily conversations so it might be useful to know some of the synonyms which are more common. The top ten in my thesaurus are: doubtful, uncertain, ambiguous, ambivalent, dubious, evasive, muddled, puzzling, unclear and vague.
So, in this 10-year, 25 million dollar study – exposing rats to intensities of RF between 1,875% and 7,500% higher than FCC maximum permissible exposure for humans, which found than the level of evidence of adverse health effects was EQUIVOCAL – know that it means that it is UNCERTAIN, DUBIOUS, MUDDLED, UNCLEAR or VAGUE. Or, in other words – the jury is in – the exposures are safe – and it’s time to put away the fear-mongering and conspiracy theories and get on with your life.
Your article is an important step in a very necessary direction involving not only cancer induced (or not) by electromagnetic radiation but all scientific and medical issues about which our understanding proceeds more slowly than many people would like. That includes many issues (hot-button matters for many people) including but not at all limited to radiation-preserved fresh food, vaccines, GMO’s, and tick-borne infections about which less is known than would optimally be available.
The direction I’m referring to is an explicit acknowledgement that different people have different threat responses to uncertainty, so that what is anxiety-provoking for some is not anxiety-provoking for others. This is very much complicated by the fact (and it is a fact) that our scientific knowledge necessarily advances far more slowly than is comfortable for many anxiety-prone individuals. At the same time the evaporation of authority (another complicating factor) leads some responsible people to overstate the conclusory value of present-day knowledge out of fear for what they see as the endangerment of inarguable social values (herd immunity and prevention of harm, among others).
The science journalism community would do well to continuously acknowledge the fact that people have different comfort levels regarding scientific reassurances and that while some will be happy with announcements that no problems have been encountered “so far,” others will prefer to avoid still-questionable situations until greater certainty is available. In other words some (like myself) are willing to be guinea-pigs and some are not. There is no reason at all for scientists and those who speak for them not to acknowledge, accept and work with these differing levels of sensitivity.
Authoritarianism (regardless of our most recent election) is on the way out. This seems to be a continuing problem for many in our medical and scientific communities. Time to move on, people. Time to accept everyone as individuals with full agency and the right to make their own decisions regardless of your (our) opinion.
…CONTACT: Virginia Guidry, 919-541-5143,
HIGH EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION LINKED TO TUMOR ACTIVITY IN MALE RATS
High exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in rodents resulted in tumors in tissues surrounding nerves in the hearts of male rats, but not female rats or any mice, according to draft studies from the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The exposure levels used in the studies were equal to and higher than the highest level permitted for local tissue exposure in cell phone emissions today. Cell phones typically emit lower levels of RFR than the maximum level allowed. NTP’s draft conclusions were released today as two technical reports, one for rat studies and one for mouse studies. NTP will hold an external expert review of its complete findings from these rodent studies March 26-28. From NIH Report
Brain cancer incidence rates have continued to be flat for almost an additional decade past the chart shown in your article. See the latest chart from the National Cancer Institute which goes up to 2014. Rates have slightly decreased: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
I assume your business making wireless components is still going strong. Try reading the rest of the facts you omitted here as you have misstated the facts
PUBLIC RELEASE: 24-FEB-2016
Malignant brain tumors most common cause of cancer deaths in adolescents and young adults
American Brain Tumor Association funds first comprehensive study of 15-39 year-old population
AMERICAN BRAIN TUMOR ASSOCIATION
Chicago, Ill., Feb. 24, 2016 – A new report published in the journal Neuro-Oncology and funded by the American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA) finds that malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 and the most common cancer occurring among 15-19 year olds.
The 50-page report, which utilized data from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) from 2008-2012, is the first in-depth statistical analysis of brain and central nervous system (CNS) tumors in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Statistics are provided on tumor type, tumor location and age group (15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34 and 35-39) for both malignant and non-malignant brain and CNS tumors.
Anyone who thinks that delivering any medication by dumping it into public water supplies is scientific is scientifically illiterate. As for fluoride, it is highly toxic and a cumulative poison, like lead, arsenic, and mercury. I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that the US, Australia, and Ireland, which have had high rates of forced-fluoridation for decades, also have high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.
I spent an hour on the phone with Michael. He certainly cherry picked to put his slant on this piece. If this is truth, beauty and science I am a cow.
This is just more industry propaganda. There is an abundance of excellent peer reviewed published science showing the correlation between wireless radiation and brain tumors, thyroid cancer, salivary gland tumors, damage to fetuses, infertility, testicular cancer and more. I am neither a fear monger or a conspiracy theorist. I know the science, I know the collusion between the FCC, CTIA, and our federal legislators. And I know the victims. Rachel Feltman is incorrect. The last sentence is so true – Americans deserve to know the truth so they can use this as safely as possible. And that is what the California Department of Health has done. No one is saying stop using cell phones- but unless you are an idiot, please don’t duct tape it to your face.
How is Rachael Feltman to make this statement about “scientific consensus” quoted in the article above “yes, there are individual studies that can be interpreted that way,” she added. “But when you look at the body of evidence as a whole, the scientific consensus is clear.”
This is not true. In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified this radiation (RF) as a ‘possible carcinogen’ largely due to published scientific evidence of increased brain cancer in long-term heavy users of cell phones. “Heavy use” was defined as about 30 minutes per day.
Dr. Samet, Senior Scientist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer 2011 EMF Group stated that “The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” (Samet 2014). Even Emilie van Deventer, of the World Health Organization’s EMF Project, was quoted in The Daily Princetonian stating, “The data is gray. It’s not black and white…. There is no consensus, it’s true.”
Please see the Environmental Health Trust response and links to the scientific sources here https://ehtrust.org/retract-popular-science-article-cell-phones-arent-public-health-risk-no-matter-california-says/
Comments are closed.