WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

I thought you might be interested in the Cancer Research UK's take on this announcement, it's an informative read;

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org... &utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailvision

One direct quote from the article;

Are there conflicts of interest? The mobile phone industry has provided funding for the InterPhone study and the Danish study. In both cases, funds have been administered through independent, third-party organisations that are meant to act as “firewalls” to ensure the independence of the scientists. InterPhone, for example, received 19.2 million euros of funding. 5.5 million of this total came from industry sources, and was either administered through the International Union for Cancer Control, or collected via taxes and fees from government agencies. Lennart Hardell has not received funding from industry sources but has appeared as an expert witness in litigation cases involving mobile phones.

I stopped paying much attention to the whole "causes cancer" thing. Take anything you can think off and type it into Google and now beside that type cancer. See how may hits you get. The real truth is one of two things and you take your pick. 1=They do not have a clue as to what causes cancer, or 2=Everything causes cancer.
If you do this or that you may have a higher risk but the simple truth is that if you are going to get cancer you will and nothing is going to stop it.

Here is my theory on what causes cancer. You take a key and make a copy for you door lock. Now you make a copy of the copy and it too fits. Now you take the copy of a copy and make a copy of that. Does it fit, maybe. Now at some point the key no long fit the lock. Data has been lost and you now have something that is differant than what you started with and that is cancer. Some of the DNA data is lost. Now some things help this happen more than others but it can happen all by its self. That is my theory on cancer. Nothing to back it it just my theory.

Yeah, the key work they use is "can".
Are they higher ups trying to get people ready for life without cellphones?

Originally posted by macman
Yeah, the key work they use is "can".
Are they higher ups trying to get people ready for life without cellphones?

What because Cellphones have been an integral inseparable part of human existence for centuries?... its not like anything bad would actually happen if we regressed 10-15 years in the cellphone department to mid 90's level where basically no one owned one... all that really would happen is people would get back to communicating properly, teenagers might become normal again (as normal as that is) and Telco's would get less money.

Is humanities collective experience gotten down to a few years at most now, where anything older is somehow forgotten or considered dark-age quality or unacceptable to loose... personally I think it would be a good thing to get rid of em as they currently stand, emergency use only, decouple em from being a (supposedly) vital part of the human organism... thats the real insidious thing in my mind, they are now considered vital to your existence (good god teens have killed themselves or gone into depression after being separated from theirs) and anyone who doesnt use one is somehow some bizarre freak of society (ive seen the looks when people find out I dont use one). If anything THAT is the PTB plan, a cellphone clasped to every ear, then implanted in every skull (along with every other device or wetware they stick in it).

On one of our after the news current affairs programs here in NZ a few days ago they were interviewing people on their opinions, one scientist basically said there is no link, when asked if he was biased (since he was speaking for the industry) he said something to the effect of, "They only fund my research because they like what I say".

Everyone in my family roared with laughter... but there are thousands who'd take his opinion as fact...