Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

200 Scientists Warn That Cellphones Pose Risks Of Cancer, Genetic Damage, Changes In Reproductive System, And Learning And Memory Deficits

Recommended Posts

Biological and health scientists from Russia and Iran to the USA are calling on the UN, the World Health Organization and national governments to develop strict regulations concerning devices and cellphones that create electromagnetic fields.

The scientists are from 39 nations and have authored 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the health and biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, which is part of the electromagnetic field spectrum. In a letter, they say that devices like cellphones pose risks of cancer, genetic damage, changes in reproductive system, and learning and memory deficits.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,” said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

http://rt.com/usa/258049-scientists-cellphones-health-risks/

I wonder whether the mobile phone companies will be able to suppress this as usual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/11589857/Is-Wi-Fi-making-your-child-ill.html

The thing is with this one is that the thousands of scientific journal articles are all highly micro-level in a wide range of specialist fields in physics, chemistry and biology, and nobody outside of those fields are going to really understand very much from reading them. Few, if any, of these articles concludes that these frequencies are 'unsafe', because that is a higher level of analyses and not one of the research questions being answered, by and large. But taken as a whole, they present a case that is quite compelling with regards to the notion that these EMFs have significant implications for health that need to be addressed, rather than lazily dismissed as 'conspiracy theory'.

Edit to add quote from above article:

"A five-year-old absorbs up to 60 per cent more radiation than an adult due largely to their thinner skulls and the high water content of a young body. In Western countries brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the most common cause of cancer in children."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I wonder how many people who might otherwise have died have been saved due to timely medical intervention that was only possible due to the use of a mobile phone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the reason some people were on their phones all the time was because they were morons.

It turns out instead that they are morons because they are on their phones all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the reason some people were on their phones all the time was because they were morons.

It turns out instead that they are morons because they are on their phones all the time.

A tragic case of this condition is on show here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3079418/Charlize-Theron-flashes-toned-stomach-leopard-print-trousers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the reason some people were on their phones all the time was because they were morons.

It turns out instead that they are morons because they are on their phones all the time.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Risk". Just how much of one? Nothing is 100% safe.

Sure. But in order to make that choice as an individual you need to be in posession of the facts, not dismissed patronisingly by VIs spinning you half truths and denying there's any need for further investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty unlikely in basic common sense terms - that we can have all these mobile phone signals, phone masts and WiFi everywhere - having no impact on our health at all.

How much of course is the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known about this for years. (This isn't the first time such research has come out.) I do try and minimize my phone usage.

If I'm going to use my phone for a long period, I use bluetooth and keep my phone some distance from me. Not ideal, but my reasoning is... the signal between a bluetooth device and the phone is a lot less intense than that between the phone and the mast.

Society in general will ignore this warning, though... because "convenience". Let's face it, smokers ignore health warnings plastered in big, bold letters on the packet (and I'm sure the manufacturers still dispute the health risks of smoking, plus anecdotal "my father lived to 187 and he was a smoker, so it must be fine!")... and lots of us eat "junk food", including myself at times :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society in general will ignore this warning, though... because "convenience". Let's face it, smokers ignore health warnings plastered in big, bold letters on the packet (and I'm sure the manufacturers still dispute the health risks of smoking, plus anecdotal "my father lived to 187 and he was a smoker, so it must be fine!")... and lots of us eat "junk food", including myself at times :)

On the other hand people completely and utterly over-react to anything that says "There is a risk!!!!" Overall though you're probably right, society's chronic impatience is a slightly stronger driving factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just confirms what everyone knew already.

Wifi/cell-phones are and will be as big a scandal as smoking. Just a matter of time.

Anyone who lets a young child use a mobile, or be near wifi for any length of time is just crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just confirms what everyone knew already.

Wifi/cell-phones are and will be as big a scandal as smoking. Just a matter of time.

Anyone who lets a young child use a mobile, or be near wifi for any length of time is just crazy.

Even if it's ultimately proven that there's a link with health problems I don't think using a handheld radio device is on the same scale as with filling your lungs with thick carcinogenic tar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who lets a young child use a mobile, or be near wifi for any length of time is just crazy.

Hard to avoid, they have been putting WiFi repeaters into classrooms... :wacko:

I have never had WiFi at home, all good quality shielded Cat6 Ethernet cabling.

A Wifi base station or a cordless phone base station are actually much worse than a moblile phone as most of them transmit a signal 24/7 (providing they are switched on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Wifi base station or a cordless phone base station are actually much worse than a moblile phone as most of them transmit a signal 24/7 (providing they are switched on).

On the other hand people don't spend as much time right next to them, and they're shorter range so presumably less power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand people don't spend as much time right next to them, and they're shorter range so presumably less power.

That depends, you have WIFI base stations in most offices these days and then at home, so some people sit almost 24/7 near one.

True, WIFI base stations are a lot less powerful than mobile phone towers, but unless you are unlucky and have a mobile phone tower right next to your office or home, you will find that in your home the signal from the WIFI base station is actually stronger than the one from the mobile phone tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those pocket walkie talkie handheld radios you see on plod/security and building sites push out 5 Watts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of the signal from the phone and not the tower. When you use a phone it needs the power to reach the tower, which will almost certainly be further away than your wifi connection needs to be, and you'll either be holding it next to your head or at least right in front of you. Assuming spherical spreading the intensity drops proportionally to 1 / d^2 where d is the distance from the source, so being a little bit away makes quite a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.