It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exposure To Low-level Magnetic Fields Causes DNA Damage In Rat Brain Cells, Researchers Find

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk... s-live.html





A businessman battling a deadly brain tumour believes spending up to six hours a day on his mobile phone has given him cancer.
After going to hospital with a bad headache, Ian Phillips was given the devastating news he had a lemon-sized brain tumour - and has just three years to live.
The 43-year-old claims his cancer was caused by excessive use of his mobile phone, as his job as an operations manager for a large firm required him to spend more than 100 hours a month making calls.
As well as undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment in a bid to beat the cancer, he is receiving alternative medicine, has changed his diet, and regularly exercises.






posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Aquariusdude


Funny,magnetic fields happen to be right next to lead..

... j k L M n o ...

Baffling.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: johndeere2020
a reply to: Aquariusdude

Nice read but I find it rather unbelievable.

For example, my cellphone and computer use rose dramatically in my early 20s up to now, and I'm now 33 years old. I was 17 years old when I had my first cellphone - Nokia 3310 and I barely used it.

I have cognitive/memory/learning issues from my childhood to my teens. Didn't get my IQ tested at that time but I figure it would be average, I'm not good with math particularly.

WHen I reached 23, I still have memory issues but my IQ was tested to be at 130 and my ability to comprehend math improved. It is accepted that our IQs max out in our early 20s (excluding childhood).

Reaching 33 years old (now) my memory is now at its best as good as the average female in her early 20s, my IQ tested to be 143 and have become quite adept in comprehending math.

I also had this back discomfort in my 20's but were gone completely today. I did not take any medicine, no therapy, just diet with high proportion of fish and veggies last 2011.

I also performed a number of personal scientific experiments in my late teens up to early 20s that inadvertently exposed myself to small doses of X/gamma rays, 60 watts radio waves, and EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that's capable of damaging unprotected electronics. I even got electrocuted a few times from a 30kv source, one of which was quite painful.

But I am way way better today than before all this em wave craze. So yea, I was quite surprised and suspicious of the article.

|

There is no evidence that cell phones cause learning problems in adults..Currently, the only studies I have found were cell phones possibly causing learning disabilities in children and developing fetuses..So just because your IQ is high even with constant cell phone use does not mean cell phones are safe..
edit on pmqupmTue, 28 Apr 2015 20:34:50 -050034u5028u by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Two things:

Bioinitiative papers are the joke of the scientific world, down there with Deepak Chopra.

and

Group 2b means that there is no evidence that something causes cancer but it requires further study



I suppose your interphone study funded by the cell phone industry is better right?
edit on pmq000000pmTue, 28 Apr 2015 22:09:10 -0500090000001028000000 by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Aquariusdude

At least they don't have journals calling them crackpots like bioinitiative does.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Funny,magnetic fields happen to be right next to lead..


Are you familiar with the concept of "alphabetical ordering"?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Aquariusdude

At least they don't have journals calling them crackpots like bioinitiative does.


That's all you can say? A study that is funded by the cell phone industry itself isn't legitimate.Anyone with half a brain would know this..



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Funny,magnetic fields happen to be right next to lead..


Are you familiar with the concept of "alphabetical ordering"?



Lol..I was pointing out that magnetic fields happen to be on the WHO list as a possible carcinogen..Is that all you got?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I find it interesting that its the same usual suspects trying to debunk this serious health threat.So predictable.
edit on amq000000amWed, 29 Apr 2015 07:47:55 -0500470000005529000000 by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
en.wikipedia.org...

Group 2b means cell phones are a probable cause of cancer so that's bull.



Substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances in this list have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Do you know the difference between possibly and probably? Lead is dangerous for reasons other than being carcinogenic.

There may be a small increased risk if you mash the cell phone next to your head for 8 hours a day. The cell phone manufacturers tell us to not do this but to instead keep a certain distance between the cell phone and our ear (specified in the docs that come with each cell phone). Of course I rarely see people following these instructions, where especially if they are trying to hear better they will mash the phone up against their head.

Even if you do that the incident rate seems quite small, but if you want to reduce the possible risk, just follow the manufacturer's instructions about distance to your ear, and don't spend every waking moment on your cell phone.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
en.wikipedia.org...

Group 2b means cell phones are a probable cause of cancer so that's bull.



Substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances in this list have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Do you know the difference between possibly and probably? Lead is dangerous for reasons other than being carcinogenic.

There may be a small increased risk if you mash the cell phone next to your head for 8 hours a day. The cell phone manufacturers tell us to not do this but to instead keep a certain distance between the cell phone and our ear (specified in the docs that come with each cell phone). Of course I rarely see people following these instructions, where especially if they are trying to hear better they will mash the phone up against their head.

Even if you do that the incident rate seems quite small, but if you want to reduce the possible risk, just follow the manufacturer's instructions about distance to your ear, and don't spend every waking moment on your cell phone.


Small increase in risk because you say so? I believe its probable not possible that cell phones cause cancer..

And yes, people don't read there manual...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   


Lol..I was pointing out that magnetic fields happen to be on the WHO list as a possible carcinogen..Is that all you got?

I made it clear that the WHO cancer classification on cell phones and lead as a possible not probable risk of cancer in this post..
edit on amquamWed, 29 Apr 2015 08:31:38 -050031u3829u by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Also here...


Now I find it interesting that the World Health Organisation has labeled cell phones as a possible carcinogenic in the same category as lead.Here is a link to a summary of the report.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Notice i said Group 2b means cell phones are a probable cause of cancer so that's bull.I did not say group 2b is a probable cause of cancer..This is what I believe..
edit on amq000000amWed, 29 Apr 2015 08:46:14 -0500460000001429000000 by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
I believe its probable not possible that cell phones cause cancer..
You're entitled to that opinion. However your opinion doesn't entitle you to misrepresent what group 2b means, when it says possible and not probable.


Small increase in risk because you say so?
I have no independent research to share. That's what SOME studies show. Not all research results are the same, which is one of the reasons Bedlam's interpretation of 2b is correct, it means more research is needed.

edit on 29-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
I believe its probable not possible that cell phones cause cancer..
You're entitled to that opinion. However your opinion doesn't entitle you to misrepresent what group 2b means, when it says possible and not probable.


Small increase in risk because you say so?
I have no independent research to share. That's what SOME studies show. Not all research results are the same, which is one of the reasons Bedlam's interpretation of 2b is correct, it means more research is need

If you have noticed in my other posts I did not say 2b IS a probable risk of cancer.. I clearly stated its IS a possible carcinogenic risk according to the WHO..I am not trying to misrepresent at all..Here is a question.Who stands to gain from misrepresentation? The cell phone industry who makes a profit ?Or those trying to expose the possible dangers of cell phones?
edit on amquamWed, 29 Apr 2015 09:45:37 -050045u3729u by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
If you have noticed in my other posts I did not say 2b IS a probable risk of cancer.. I clearly stated its IS a possible carcinogenic risk according to the WHO..I am not trying to misrepresent at all..
This is what you said. Do you retract it and admit it was in error?


originally posted by: Aquariusdude
en.wikipedia.org...

Group 2b means cell phones are a probable cause of cancer so that's bull.



Here is a question.Who stands to gain from misrepresentation? The cell phone industry who makes a profit ? Or those trying to expose the possible dangers of cell phones?
If I was in charge, but I'm not, people would probably hate me because I would mandate that the cell phone industry did something more foolproof to prevent radiation levels from exceeding specified amounts, meaning they would need to do something like build a spacer into the cell phone so even if you press the spacer against your head, the radiation levels will be safe.

But then the cell phones would look thicker and not sleek. I think many people would rather have a sleek looking phone and take their chances with getting a brain tumor rather than have a thicker cell phone with the spacer built in. That is until they are the one to get the brain tumor.

It's the inverse square law at work. when you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the intensity of the radiation, which is why the cell phone manufacturers don't really want the distance to go to zero, and they tell you to keep it a distance from your head, which few people actually do.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
If you have noticed in my other posts I did not say 2b IS a probable risk of cancer.. I clearly stated its IS a possible carcinogenic risk according to the WHO..I am not trying to misrepresent at all..
This is what you said. Do you retract it and admit it was in error?


originally posted by: Aquariusdude
en.wikipedia.org...

Group 2b means cell phones are a probable cause of cancer so that's bull.



Here is a question.Who stands to gain from misrepresentation? The cell phone industry who makes a profit ? Or those trying to expose the possible dangers of cell phones?
If I was in charge, but I'm not, people would probably hate me because I would mandate that the cell phone industry did something more foolproof to prevent radiation levels from exceeding specified amounts, meaning they would need to do something like build a spacer into the cell phone so even if you press the spacer against your head, the radiation levels will be safe.

But then the cell phones would look thicker and not sleek. I think many people would rather have a sleek looking phone and take their chances with getting a brain tumor rather than have a thicker cell phone with the spacer built in. That is until they are the one to get the brain tumor.

It's the inverse square law at work. when you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the intensity of the radiation, which is why the cell phone manufacturers don't really want the distance to go to zero, and they tell you to keep it a distance from your head, which few people actually do.


I said MEANS this was my interpretation of it..I did not say IS huge difference..

All you have to do is use a speakerphone or an airtube headset to minimize radiation..You don't need a cell phone with emf shielding as that would reduce signal quality..Also when home just get a voiceover ip(ooma is nearly free) ..Just make sure you get regular corded phones hooked up throughout the house..



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Aquariusdude

At least they don't have journals calling them crackpots like bioinitiative does.


That's all you can say? A study that is funded by the cell phone industry itself isn't legitimate.Anyone with half a brain would know this..


No, you're sort of purposefully forgetting that several government groups have brought up the execrable "science" of bioinitiative. Including calling them out on making # up. But very politely, I must say.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Aquariusdude

At least they don't have journals calling them crackpots like bioinitiative does.


That's all you can say? A study that is funded by the cell phone industry itself isn't legitimate.Anyone with half a brain would know this..


No, you're sort of purposefully forgetting that several government groups have brought up the execrable "science" of bioinitiative. Including calling them out on making # up. But very politely, I must say.


And I am sure since they are government groups there are no possible conflicts of interest there right?Just because a government group says something doesn't make it so..I can list a good example in our past history.

cebp.aacrjournals.org...



.Here is one of them:
This study relies on statements made by cigarette manufacturers individually and collectively through the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), and the Tobacco Institute (TI) on the subject of smoking and health. All of these organizations were financially supported by tobacco companies. The TIRC was established in 1954 with the goal of supporting independent research on the relationship between smoking and health. In 1964, the TIRC was renamed the CTR but operated with the same management structure until 1998 when it closed. The CIAR was formed in 1988 by tobacco companies to sponsor research on indoor air issues and to facilitate communication of research findings to the broad scientific community. The TI was established in 1958 and operated as public relations and lobbying organization for the tobacco industry. CTR, CIAR, and TI all were closed down as part of the 1988 Master Settlement Agreement.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join