Recently, two well-known scientists in the U.S., David Carpenter, the director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany, and Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, gave testimony to a House Subcommittee on the potential dangers of cell phone radiation to the human body—and in particular to children. The testimony was significant in that it was the first time that such high-level individuals from leading health/cancer institutions of learning have issued such warnings at this level of government.

The global cell phone industry is estimated to be worth more than $40 billion, and there are now approximately 3 billion people using cell phones around the planet. Here in Japan, as of August 2008, there were 104,426,900 cell phone subscribers, meaning that many adults have two devices and most kids of school-going age also have one. Indeed, around 30% of elementary school students, 58% of middle school students, and 96% of high school students now have a cell phone. Thus, if were proven that cell phones can cause cancer, a huge business sector would be thrown into chaos.

I was intrigued. What made Carpenter and Herberman decide to risk their professional reputations and state that the cell phone industry may be creating a health problem at least as big as the tobacco industry did with lung cancer? Their actions are especially notable because the official line from U.S. government authorities, from the FCC and FDA on down that hundreds of health studies made to date have shown little or no correlation between cancer and cell phone usage.

Carpenter and Herberman men presented to the subcommittee a number of European studies that show that certain cancers do in fact appear to be related to high cell phone usage—such as one by Swedish cancer researcher Lennart Hardell, which has found that certain rare benign tumors on the auditory nerves of the inner ear are most likely to occur on the side of the face where the user holds their cell phone. And another by the Royal Society in London which reported last year that adolescents who start using cell phones before the age of 20 are five times more likely to develop brain cancer by the age of 30 than those who didn’t.

It is this last connection about kids that has most people worried, and indeed, Herberman showed the subcommittee images of how radiation from a cell phone can penetrate far deeper into the brain of a child, due to the thinner bone of their skulls.

If true, that cell phones can trigger various brain cancers and are particularly dangerous for children, this would constitute a major worry for those of us living in Japan, where the authorities are encouraging parents to give their young school children GPS-loaded cell phones so as to keep track of their children. Although on the face of it, such cell phones are only used occasionally, the kids soon learn that it is fun to talk to their friends after school, and before you know it the parents are having to introduce usage limits because the kids are blowing out the family’s phone budget.

I know from personal experience that pre-teens and teens in particular live on their cell phones and will easily use them for hours a day if not supervised properly. Family plans and other flat-rate pricing schemes have exacerbated the problem, and for an average kid going to a cram school until 8 or 9 o’clock in the evening, adequate supervision of their phone usage by their parents is not very likely.

The real problem is that there is so much conflicting information out there about whether or not cell phones can cause cancer. As of 2006, there were about 500 human studies on the subject, with about half stating cell phones are safe and half saying they are not. Typical of this situation was a famous 2004 Swedish study which found that there was a 240% higher likelihood of acoustic neuroma suffers having the tumor appear on the side of the head where they would hold their phone cell—thus indicating a direct link between cell phones and certain types of brain cancers. But then in 2006, a Danish study of 420,000 people who were also cell phone users declared that they could find no connection to usage and cancer. Furthermore, a major British study written up in 2007 came up with a similar conclusion—that there was no demonstrable connection.

As recently as February of this year, researchers at the Tokyo Women’s Medical University found that from a base of 322 brain cancer patients they could not establish a relationship between their patients’ condition and the use of cell phones. As a result of the study, the media ran headlines around the world stating “Japanese Study Clears Mobiles of Brain Cancer Risk.”

But while the Japanese researchers were unable to establish a connection, it is probably fair to say that their sample was both very small and that they were looking at very specific thermal effects of phone radiation rather than considering other possible causal factors. Most researchers agree that if cell phone radiation (RF) was a problem, it would hurt human cells by heating effects that break down the DNA proteins or cause so-called heat-shock proteins to appear in cells. Conventional thinking is that cell phones are unlikely to cause direct cell ionization of the type found with gamma rays and X-rays. But the problem is that repeated experiments have failed to show actual deleterious effects caused by heating human cells with cell phone radiation.

However, a new line of research came up last year when Israeli scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science found that that short-term exposure to low-level cell phone radiation (875Mhz) can trigger a chemical switch that controls how human and rat cells divide. The Israelis were quick to say that they are drawing no health conclusions about their experiments, but the fact remains that there is now proof that cells are indeed affected non-thermally by cell phones.

So do cell phones cause cancer or not? No one knows for sure. But Dr Herberman probably takes the best stance on the subject by advising cell phone users to err on the side of caution. He says that cell phone usage has really only become widespread in the last decade, and it will be another 10-20 years before any really significant health demographics start to emerge—much the same situation as for smoking and lung cancer 30 years ago.

Thus, while there is no proof cell phones are dangerous, there is also no proof they are safe. And where children are involved, given their proven susceptibility to deeper brain penetration by cell phone radiation, if it comes about that a cell phone-cancer connection is found, then it will be these children who will bear the brunt of the resulting health fall-out.

Herberman suggests the following tips for limiting your exposure to possible radiation effects—particularly for children:

1. Use a convention fixed-line phone if one is available
2. Keep cell phone conversations short
3. Use a hands-free device or attachment that keeps the
phone antenna away from your head
4. Limit your childrens’ cell phone use
5. Keep your cell phone away from your body when it’s turned on

Terrie Lloyd writes a weekly newsletter for entrepreneurs and business people about business and political opportunities in Japan. You can find the newsletter at www.japaninc.com.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 26 Total Comments Show All

• 

  electric2004 at 01:10 PM JST - 28th November

  Mael:

  You are mixing facts and fiction. Either you don't understand the facts, then you better try to understand them before writing. Or you do understand, then you better try without obvious bias.

  I agree, that small children experience a bigger influence than adults, because effects are measured as the ratio of power to body mass. Following this idea it is wise to limit the access to mobile phones to small children.

  The topic on Ionising and non-ionising radiation is something where you show that you have no clue about the physics of radio waves and the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic waves shorter than visible light, e.g. UV (ultraviolett) and X-rays are so-called ionising radiation. Why? Because the energy (W=h*frequency) of each photon is high enough to break up chemical bonds. Radio-waves as used for mobile phones have an approximately 1000 times longer wavelenght (1000 times lower frequency), therefore the energy of each photon is much lower and it can not break up chemical bonds. So then it is not ionizing at all. What it can do, it can heat up the body. And I hope you know, heat is another word, for movements of molecules. Exactly this is, what a microwave oven does. But a microwave oven has a power of 500W or more compared to a power in the order of less than 1　Watt for a mobile phone. Well, this is the reason that you should not put pets in the microwave for drying. Anyhow, did you know that the frequency of TV in the UHF band is from 470 to 860MHz? And the power of TV stations is in the order of 50kW. This frequency is quite near to mobile phones, but the power is 100000 times higher. TV stations are spread in big numbers around the world since 1950, so clearly there should be longterm effects seen now, approximately 60 years later.

  Next, the frequency, where the brain operates is in the range from several Hz to around 20 Hz. In other words several up to 20 periods per seconds. This is much much slower than the operating frequency of mobile phones. The "beep" as you call it, has a repetition frequency in the order of Hz. It sounds like "dip-di-dip-di-dip". This might have an influence of people with a pace-maker. Therefore the rule to keep mobile phones away from people with pace-maker and also refrain from using them in hospitals which treat and monitor heart functions. So it is probably not the brain, but antennas of devices which check and monitor human heart operation, that are affected.

  Finally, for higher frequencies, as for mobile phones, a car is no longer like a Faraday cage, because of the windows of the cars. The size of windows are comparable to the wave-lenght of the signal, so the screening effect is less than you expect. This is also why it is possible to put a GPS antenna on the dashboard of your car and still GPS works with the very weak satellite signals.

  No - I don't work for the mobile phone industry, and I also try to minimize the usage. But the reason is more related to privacy and peace of mind - there are times I don't want to be disturbed.

• 

  mael at 10:09 PM JST - 28th November

  I understand very well. In fact I know the subject so well that I can write of it in terms that the uninitiated can understand.

  You agreed with my point stating cell phones were particularly hazardous for children. In fact you paraphrased what I wrote. In your verbose paraphrased response on this matter you included details which complicated the easily understood explanation I provided. But OK... .

  And on the point of ionising and non-ionising radiation I feel you mistook a simplified explanation as ignorance, and I believe you are ignoring the point that even though the ionising effect of cell phones is pretty paltry compared to your kitchen 'nuke,' it is nonetheless in existence ie... it is not iinsignificant. A machine operating in the range of microwave ovens at a small fraction of a Watt will have an effect on molecules if it is close enough. You seem to be insisting it has no effect at all, but logic determines otherwise. And besides you said it yourself so it appears you have contradicted yourself.

  The significantly lower frequencies which TV companies use concerns me less than communications systems which use micro waves. But in my case they bother me less as I don't have a TV and haven't for quite a few years. I do not have an antenna for TV either. I am concerned at the increasing levels of electromagnetic pollution in the air and bombarding all of us all the time and believe more is worse than the level remaining where it is, or lowering it.

  I don't use my microwave much, but I have found it handy as a mini-forge. A cell phone isn't powerful enough for my requirements.

  The human brain utilises a wider range than you suppose. Most people who write on the subject will agree the brain operates from a small fraction of a Hertz to fifty.

  Perhaps you do not understand how the brain receives electromagnetic waves? The brain receives the sum total of the difference between two frequences. ie. it does not operate in the microwave region, but it will operate on the difference between two frequencies which happen to be in the microwave region. perhaps this is new to you? You certainly don't sound like you would like to know if your cell phone was unsafe. - Of course not.

  • A car made of steel is a structure which restricts or limits the inside from electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps you were thinking of cars made from plastic or papier mache? - Similar to steel-framed buildings where the darn keitai cuts out (ha ha). Watch your cell phone's display and your signal will go down when in a car (etc...) and also when in some buildings which have a large amount of metal in their construction.

  Actually you should be pleased that steel frames limit the passing of EM waves as if they didn't you would be cooked all the time you were near your kitchen microwave.

  But I agree that if you crane your neck and use the cell phone scrunched up against the front screen then you will get less EMR than you would if you sat in your normal driving position next to the steel structures around the doors and around the windows. If you feel it is safe then fine! I will err on the side of caution due to my research. And no one is going to convince me a Faraday Cage isn't a Faraday Cage.

  • I like being without a cell phone. I don't mind others using them much. I just want people to be aware of the potential risks.

• 

  electric2004 at 12:10 AM JST - 29th November

  Mael:

  From the way you are writing I can see that you only have a partial background knowledge. So let's go again into details.

  You agreed with my point stating cell phones were particularly hazardous for children.

  No. I agree it is a good idea to stay on the safe side and limit the access of small children to mobile phones. This does not mean I regard it as hazardous.

  even though the ionising effect of cell phones is pretty paltry compared to your kitchen 'nuke,' ...

  Oh dear, he you show that there is a lack of knowledge of the duality of the wave and the particle character of photons. A microwave has a higher power than let's say a wireless LAN, which by the way operates on same frequency. But still a kitchen microwave can not ionize water-molecules - it just heats them up. The individual photons of a microwave at 2.45 GHz have the same energy as the photons emitted by a W-LAN at 2.45 GHz. Just the kitchen microwave emits more photons at same time.

  Of course there is a way to produce ions ... one needs to have a gas in a non-conducting confinement (e.g. a glass container) and lower the pressure to the sub-millibar region. Then according to the Paschen-curve, a breakdown due to the electric field can happen, and this will ionize the gas. Of course this is a situation, which is very different from the scenario of having a mobile phone. Humans can not live under near vacuum conditions and they are made from dense matter, not from thin gas.

  A machine operating in the range of microwave ovens at a small fraction of a Watt will have an effect on molecules if it is close enough.

  Heating up - yes. Like if you start your heater at home. But not breaking up the molecules.

  The significantly lower frequencies which TV companies use

  If TV operates up to 800 MHz, and mobile phones at 900 MHz, then this is not significantly different.

  Most people who write on the subject will agree the brain operates from a small fraction of a Hertz to fifty.

  I thought a little less than 50, even less than 30. This is the reason why movie-theaters can play movies with 24 pictures/seconds, and the people don't notice that it is a picture sequence.

  it will operate on the difference between two frequencies which happen to be in the microwave region

  These are so-called non-linear effects. In a more mathematical way, it says that if 2 signals mix, the result contains a signal at the difference frequency and at the sum frequency. However, for non-linear effects, it needs special conditions like in semiconductors or otherwise one needs a very high power. Under low-power conditions, systems behave linear, and then this mixing effect does not appear. For audio waves (sound), this effect exist and can be used to transmit information in noisy environments. But this is a different topic.

  A car made of steel is a structure which restricts or limits the inside from electromagnetic radiation.

  But you can see through the windows? Light IS electromagnetic radiation. Let's say, the widths of the front-window is 1m. Then Signals with a wavelength 75 MHz can enter the inside of the car.

  On the contrary, if you have a metal shipping container without windows, then the signals from mobile phones can not enter. This is why such containers are used for military mobile communication systems. This way one can precisely control which signals are transmitted and which are not.

  Actually you should be pleased that steel frames limit the passing of EM waves as if they didn't you would be cooked all the time you were near your kitchen microwave.

  Did you look at the door of your microwave? You can see inside. You probably will see a thin metal sheet with many small holes. The point is these holes a chosen to be so small, that they are smaller than the wave-lenght, so that the microwave energy can not go through, but is reflected back to the thing to be cooked.

  If you feel it is safe then fine!

  I think it is a risk to use a mobile phone in the car while driving. And - outside of the car the reception might be a little better, yes.

  Anyhow, while discussing potential risks, please don't overlook the real proven risks. There are dangers of radio frequency emission, but these dangers are simply related to heat. The most sensitive part of the human body is the eye. If your eye is too near to a powerful radio-frequency source it will heat up faster than other parts of the body, because there is almost no blood circulation to cool the lense of the eye. So the eye lense can change from see-through to opaque. Not good. And this defines the safety limits. There had been incidents with military radar at military airports, where soldiers on patrol were affected by radar signals.

  And if you say you don't have a TV antenna ... do you know that in older times, if you lived near a big TV or radio station, the power was enough to light neon-lights in your garden house without the need for connection to the power grid? Nowadays the near area around TV stations is fenced and they make sure that the field strength in public area follows the rules.

• 

  mael at 08:38 AM JST - 29th November

  I can see by your chosen 'handle' that things electric are close to your heart. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose you consider yourself and authority on the subject. In fact if I want to know what the government and cell phone companies want me to know then I can use your posts as I think you have their books in front of you.

  Quote No. I agree it is a good idea to stay on the safe side and limit the access of small children to mobile phones. This does not mean I regard it as hazardous. Unquote

  This is typical fare from you. I need not respond as you argue against yourself.

  • Are you seriously telling me I need to create a vacuum to make ions?

  • Ionizing is easier in a relative vacuum. Cell phones and kitchen microwaves are both capable of ionizing. It is a matter of the degree.

  Microwaves are capable of altering molecules. ie... they can chemically alter food. This can easily be verified when obtaining information from people other than those who have a financial, social or other incentive to maintain the status quo. A cell phone can molecularly alter cells in the human body.

  The reports of cancerous conditions due to cell phones are rare, and are presently restricted to 'heavy users,' But nevertheless it would seem very unwise to ignore the increasing likelihood these tumours were caused by anything but the phones. And cell phones have just started! So what about the little kids using them now? I think many who keep them close will have brain tumours in a few years from now. Many others will be strerile.

  Specific frequencies are allocated due to their suitability to the application at hand. A 100 MHz difference is not necessarily insignificant.

  You say that the human eye/brain doesn't notice the picture changing (as you say) 24 times per second. But this is only on a conscious level. Were this not the case then subliminal mind-control wouldn't work. And it certainly does.

  Quote These are so-called non-... snipped ... appear. For audio waves (sound), this effect exist and can be used to transmit information in noisy environments. But this is a different topic. Unquote

  • "Low power?" I think you must be thinking in terms of RMS, But these are pulsed signals so what you assert is inaccurate inasfar as measuring the strength of the radiated signals.

  • And it seems you are agreeing with me except you like to use your own words.

    Quote I think it is a risk to use a mobile phone in the car while driving. And - outside of the car the reception might be a little better, yes. *Unquote

  • Oh, you agree it does. Why be pedantic about it?

  • I believe cell phones are harming people who wouldn't be at risk if they had the knowledge at hand to make informed decisions about the use of cell phones. Hence I am disturbed by the excuses and apologies you make for the industry.

  A sheet of thin steel which is perforated with small holes is less effective at containing microwaves than an unperforated sheet of steel. Cell phones do not have either a perforated screen nor a shipping-container to prevent the microwaves from penetrating the human body.

  I have little doubt that these cell phones will prove to be a cause of misery at least on a par with drug/substance addictions like drinking and smoking. I urge people to read what the independant researchers are learning about these devices. They are able to explain things far better than I am. Such reports are regularly ridiculed by the 'establishment,' And if 'scientists' want a job, credibility or approval they must toe-the-official line. ie... one will rarely find negative information of cellular technology in mainstream publications because for the medium to do so would be financial suicide as they'll lose advertising revenues and be forced into bancruptcy.

  • But as I said. if cell phones were safe(r) then I'd consider owning one again.

• 

  mael at 09:57 PM JST - 29th November

  Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety and ultimately cancers.

  ... I wonder why 'they' didn't tell us that?

  And furthermore the headsets used for cell phones make the problem worse. Not only does the headset act as an antenna, but the headset is now plugged into your ear canal making it even easier for EMR to penetrate and do its damage.

  Strange that the authorities would recommend something that makes cell phones even more dangerous, isn't it. (Not)

  It's gone quiet! I hope people can realize the dangers of cell phones (and wireless tech). It is a ticking time bomb

• 

  electric2004 at 12:32 AM JST - 30th November

  Mael:

  To give some answers.

  a) I don't consider myself an authority. There are other scientists or engineers who might have a deeper insight. However during approximately 30 years I was happy to accumulate some knowledge. This means I already had a lot of experience before even the first mobile phones existed on the market.

  b) No, I don't have any such books from mobile phone makers. But I have my own experience with Radio-frequency sources from low-power to high power, pulsed and CW, low-frequency and Microwave.

  c) About "near vacuum". Yes! Actually I have a patent for a Microwave driven laser for ultraviolet light. The Microwave source, a magnetron was pulsed with a peak power of more than 2MW and average power of 500W. With this power level one does need worry about safety. Not because of cancer, but because such power might give serious burns to exposed parts. So the power needs to be contained in a metal waveguide and not to be allowed to leak out. Still such field can not directly ionize. One needs a resonator, and then the electric field inside the resonator can accelerate existing ions in a before mentioned evacuated glass pipe, where a defined mixture of gas has been put. Then the accelerated ions might hit unionised atoms or molecules. This might kick out electrons and this creates new ions. However, what is necessary is enough drift space (e.g. near vacuum) for the ions to be accelerated fast enough before hitting. In a human body (or a liquid) the molecules are to near. And the necessary electrical field would already harm the person.

  d) Light! The sun emits light and also UV. If you don't protect your skin and stay in sunlight too long, you might risk sunburn. And if you have sunburn too often, skin cancer might start. The point is: UV light is ionizing. As I was talking about lasers - UV laser light applied to your skin might give not only burns, but some as UV from the sun might result in deeper skin damage. On the other hand, infrared-lasers, which are powerful enough to cut and weld steel for example for the car industry - this light, although much more powerful than microwaves - this laser light can not directly ionize.

  Microwaves are capable of altering molecules. ie... they can chemically alter food.

  And you know how this works? This process is called "heating up". Same as if you put an egg into boiling water. Some proteins can not stand heat more than approximately 42...45 degree. If the temperature is higher the proteins change.

  Or you can put a piece of meat into a fry-pan. Yes, when heating up, a chemical reaction happens, by which the meat turns brown, and aroma is created (the so-called Maillard reaction). As long as the Microwave oven is used correctly, the results are comparable to boiling in water (as long as there is water in the food). If you heat up so long that the water is evaporated, then the food might start to burn and this food is no longer good for your health. However is the same if you leave potatoes too long for boiling and let the water disappear, of if you leave your steak too long in the fry-pan.

  > The reports of cancerous conditions due to cell phones are rare ...

  This is why the link between cancer and cell phones is so hard to prove. It might be that the patient will develop the cancer with- or without phone.

  > I think many who keep them close will have brain tumours in a few years from now.

  You know that brain tumors are quite rare. But they are difficult to treat. Actually I know laboratories who are using protons and light ions to treat brain tumor patients. One of these labs is in Chiba-city. I have visited it. And I have helped study groups working on how to fight cancer.

  But many more people are dying from skin cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer.

  In this way, I prefer that cancer research takes care of patients who are already suffering and gives this a higher priority compared to something which "might happen" but could so far not be proved. (Cassandra calling ..)

  e) Well, what do you expect. Of course I know how to differentiate between peak signals and average (or RMS) measurements.

  f)

  ...excuses and apologies you make for the industry.

  As I said before, I am not related to industry. Not at all. But as engineer and scientist I have to follow a codex. Or you can call it the "Kant's imperativ". If I see when something goes wrong, I try to correct it.

  g) About the problem of addiction to mobile phones, I understand this is a growing problem. Related to addiction, I share your concerns.

  h)

  one will rarely find negative information of cellular technology in mainstream publications ...

  You are sure about this? There exists the organisation "Stiftung Warentest" in Germany, which does strict checking on products for consumers. And they give ratings for the products from "very good" to "not recommended at all".

  They did checking of mobile phone radiation levels and they made recommendation for people who are concerned about radiation, which mobile phones have stronger emission, and which have lower emission. This was measured with a so-called phantom head.

  Next post:

  Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave.

  Tell this to a professor of electrical engineering, and you are sure to fail. If you modulate a signal, there is no information on the carrier. All the information is in the sidebands. Actually transmitting the carrier itself is a waste of resources. In modern transmission systems, one tried to suppress the carrier and only sends the sidebands.

  i) Headsets with wires: I also don't like them. They were introduced by the industry as a simple and cheap solution to "hands free" operation in a car.

  The much better solution is: The phone is plugged into a socket in the car like an I-Pod. Then this socket is connected to the car audio system and to a microphone. And an external antenna.

  To my knowledge German car makers (Audi, BMW, Mercedes) offer such kind of option for cars for business-man use. So far in Japan I have not seen this option - well I don't drive a luxury high end car.

• 

  mael at 10:50 PM JST - 30th November

  Most interesting, Electric2004. Thank you for your educational and enlightening response. I 'dabble' quite a bit. Those who know me speak of me as an 'inventor.' I don't think I invent, but I adapt, experiment, break all the rules I feel I can get away with, and smile when something works the way I wanted it to. These days I seem to be most serious when I'm researching, making and using/testing pulse-chargers for desulphating lead/acid batteries. I have used systems which pulse in the MHz region. But mostly much lower. I'm sure radio-listeners near me wonder why their reception is crackly. (He he)

  Hmmm! The cell phones! Well the government wants to control us all and cell phones are very helpful to them in achieving this aim. Thus there are mostly denials from their paid minions of the possibility of their being harmful. Of course there has been grudging acknowledgement of dangers which could be 'fixed,' and perhaps there is increasing pressure from 'independant researchers' to address the reports of occurances of curious ailments and conditions arising from cell phone tech?

  Machievellian cunning has made what could be a basically benign and very useful tool for mankind, into an addictive cult religion which messes up your head and can wreck your DNA to boot!

  The frequencies allocated for cell phones internationally are chosen to interrupt and alter the brains of the people. At least that's what I've come to learn. Of course I can't stop it, but I'd like people to understand at least some of the hidden dangers of these devices.

  There are too many coincedences and there are too many reasons to be suspicious about cell phones and related tech for this to be swept under the carpet or brushed aside. And unfortunately I have learned to expect no help from vested interests in providing information which would allow the folks to make informed decisions about cell phone usage.

  Actually I was one of those who noted the sinister frequency allocation of these contraptions when they first came out. So I was an 'anti' from the git-go with little other than my intuition telling me it was so. Unfortunately (?) as time goes by my suspicions have only be confirmed.

  Next step the subcutaneous implant. Unless of course the people wise up about this kind of tech. (Unlikely).

• 

  electric2004 at 01:05 PM JST - 1st December

  I'm sure radio-listeners near me wonder why their reception is crackly.

  In other words, you yourself are breaking rules related to unwanted radiation. Speak about double standards.

  The frequencies allocated for cell phones internationally are chosen to interrupt and alter the brains of the people.

  Well, you should know, that the frequencies are not the same in every country. And also different standards. Now, which of them you assume to be dangerous?

  Well the government wants to control us all

  It depends on the country you are talking about. Which is it?

  Next step the subcutaneous implant.

  Unfortunately already exists. RF-ID tags, put into the ear of your beloved dog. Or in the parking ticket at Akiba. Or maybe in the next version of European money. Or in your machine readable passport.

• 

  Nessie at 06:23 PM JST - 1st December

  Cell phones and cancer: What's the link?

  What like, are they asking whether cancer causes cell phone use? Dumbly phrased question.

• 

  electric2004 at 06:54 PM JST - 1st December

  It seems to me Terrie's article is written quite well, and the suggestion to be on the careful side is reasonable. On the other hand, as Nessie points out the text does not answer the question in the headline.

• 

  mael at 10:14 PM JST - 1st December

  Breaking rules? Not a bit! I am an experimenter. The range of interference from the experiments I may do with pulses would be less than a few metres for all practical purposes. And I am aware of their effects.

  And as a kind and thoughtful person I do not transmit microwaves directly through people's heads. Thus, no one is being exposed to significant EMR through any fault of mine.

  Besides, I do not generate microwaves or exeriment with them.

  Double standards? Well you are of course jumping to conclusions. Some 'scientist.'

  For your information, the microwave cell phone network operates globally. I believe there are four frequencies used. 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz & 1900 MHz.

  People's skulls can be penetrated by most cell phones deeper than 4 cm. Experiments have been conducted which have shown that brain cells in rats were destroyed by microwave emmisions similar to the cell phones. I doubt you will find this or similar reports in your advertising-revenue-sponsored favourite science mag. But eventually this unfortunate effect will be known. I hope it is before too many people have to suffer. Interestingly the neural damage was not found to be linear. Short and often exposures resulted in less damage than long exposures less often.

  RFID tags? Rather off topic I think.

• 

  electric2004 at 01:09 PM JST - 2nd December

  Let's finish here. Seems you are still mixing facts and fiction. Good luck next time.

• 

  mael at 09:41 PM JST - 2nd December

  You can finish your apologising and making excuses for the cellular communications network if you wish.

  I hope I have provided sufficient information so that people who are concerned about cell phones can search for themselves and decide what is fact and what is fiction.

  Luck haws no part in any of my posts here. I simply want the truth to be known. And one isn't going to find the whole truth in any government-funded study.

  As things stand, sadly the 'scientists' who wish a regular income must whore themselves out to write what the ones paying want to read. To do otherwise would risk being unemployed and unemployable.

  'Scientists' are quite adaptable, and doubtless they will amend their data about the harmful effects of cell phones when and if they are required to do so.

• 

  electric2004 at 01:05 PM JST - 3rd December

  'Scientists' are quite adaptable, and doubtless they will amend their data about the harmful effects of cell phones

  It seems you don't know about the details of peer review for scientific articles, where 2 referees (which stay anonymous to the author) can criticize and prevent publication of a paper if bogus data is found. By the way, the working rules of the DPG (German Physical Society), the rules of the VDI (Verein deutscher Ingenieure) and the compliance rules of the Japanese independent research Lab I am working now state explicitly, that data should not be amended to obtain desired results. Failing to follow compliance rules can result in being kicked out.

  Please make sure, that the other news sources (you don't give citations) follow the rules related to peer review. Although peer review is not always perfect (there was the issue of Stem cell research in Korea), it does not take long time for the truth to come out.

• 

  AQuieterWorld at 11:13 AM JST - 21st February

  In the interests of educational discussion on this forum I have pasted the article below:

  Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi

  Environment Ministry's verdict on the health risks from wireless technology puts the British government to shame.

  By Geoffrey Lean

  Sunday, 9 September 2007

  The URL link to the article is:

  http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/germany-warns-citizens-to-avoid-using-wifi-401845.html

Register or Login to leave a comment