With brain tumors on the rise, are cell phones to blame
Submitted by Eternity on Thu, 08/20/2009 - 11:42.
I own a cell phone, which was given to me 5 years ago as a birthday present. It sits quietly in a box--a beautiful Motorola--unused. I've never turned it on, and have no plans to. It's land lines for me, until a [proven] less toxic, wireless option hits the market.
Fat meat is greasy, and saying No doesn't change that.
And by the way, who are you...Mr/Ms no posts on your blog, who, if memory serves me correctly...didn't I already tear you a new one when you spewed some hate on another post that I wrote? Yea, I remember now, for my poem Krishna that I shared here on RealNeo a couple weeks back, you wrote saying that it was a "waste of time." Also, you wrote that the poem was "silly" that I misunderstood "the meaning of the word legend." But I'm curious, were you insulting me, dwebb or both, because dwebb wrote in response to the poem, which was a tribute (of sorts) to the late Michael Jackson, that the "Krishna-Jackson connection...makes sense."
I know you must watch FOX news, 'cause ya hate facts and you hate the light of day. Show yourself you Palin-lovin' coward.
Submitted by skepticalthinker on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 08:55.
Funny, but it's this tin-foil-hat fear-mongering of yours that seems more typical of the Fox News/birther/Palin creeps. I happen to be a life-long progressive who came upon this site hoping to read educated discourse on progressive causes. Instead (with the exception of Roldo and a precious few others), I find these postings on conspiracies, fear-mongering, astrology, etc. You make progressives look like the nut jobs Limbaugh tries to make us out to be. Now, as to this cell phone nonsense, let me educate you:
In order for electromagnetic energy to cause cancer, it needs to interact and alter matter at the atomic level, i.e. to break DNA bonds. The lowest-energy radiation that's capable of that is ultraviolet light. This has been tested and understood for over 100 years (Einstein won a Nobel prize for this research — the "Photoelectric Effect" — later in his career) which is far more energetic than the light coming from the light bulbs in your house. That light from those light bulbs itself is far more energetic that any microwave energy — either the "high end" waves that cook your food, or the "low end" ones that carry cell phone calls. In fact, the "radiation" from a microwave oven is about 1000x less energetic than that from a light bulb. And that cell phone radiation? About a million times less energy than the radiation from a light bulb. Shall I repeat that? The electromagnetic radiation from the light bulbs in your house — which itself is not energetic enough to "cause cancer" — has a million times more energy than what's emitted by your cell phone. Bottom line: Cell phone radiation is incapable of causing cancer! Got it?
These facts are readily available in any high school physics text book. Perhaps you should take a class instead of getting all your information from YouTube.
Submitted by Jeff Buster on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 09:44.
Hello Skep,
I need some help with your radiation energy figures.
You write “In fact, the "radiation" from a microwave oven is about 1000x less energetic than that from a light bulb.”
What do you mean by ‘less energetic” ?
If a 100watt light bulb uses/emits (in some wave form from heat to light) 100 watts of energy, wouldn’t a 1200 watt microwave oven emit 1200 watts of energy (in some wave form from heat to light)?
Are you suggesting that you would put your head in a microwave oven just like you would put your head next to a light bulb? How is it that a microwave makes hamburger fry?
Have you ever seen radar knock a seagull out of the sky fried?
Please give us a little back up on your “facts”.
And by the way, DNA can be split a bunch of ways, including mechanically and chemically, as well as electron bombardment. Of course, having just discovered the helix a few decades ago, we know everything about it by now.
I thought I was going to have to put another smack-down on "Skep" who now claims to be a lifelong progressive, all the while hating poetry, Youtube and Michael Jackson. I suppose next he'll be trying to tell us that he's the chairman of the board @ PETA, yet his favorite food is steak tartare.
HILARIOUS...not.
But before I continue, excuse me a minute Jeff...seems I've got some gum on my shoe. Hey schlep...I mean Skep. Bush is out of office. Didn't you get the memo? And did you notice, Palin's out of office too. Hello? Welcome to the planet. And just a refresher, repeat after me: I will not watch FOX News ever again. You can do it--I know you can! And by the way, if you expect me to believe for one minute that you're anything but a Mossad-CIA lovin', corporate-whore wannabe, you're totally barking up the wrong tree. For it is abundantly apparent that you're just another right-wing, psych-op malaka, who's ideas are just as shriveled and rotten as a meth-head's teeth. You speak the language of the Machiavellis, and they are long banished from the Kindgom. When hell freezes over, is when I will contemplate your science. But of course, hell would have to freeze over before your so called ‘less energetic' theories make any goddamn sense. And by the way old chap, insult my poetry if you will, but to challenge my intellect is pure folly. So I'll just leave it at that, 'cause Jeff already jacked ya ass up...ever so friendly.
Hi Jeff ;-) I'm back. Now as I was saying, having said also in prior comment to your prior comment, you raise some very interesting points.
Simply put, my take on this runs parallel to yours. In so far as, we just don't know what kind of pandora's box we're dealing with. So, if nothing else, we definitely need to proceed with extreme caution; especially now that credible scientific data is becoming widely available on this subject.
Red flags are being raised. This is a real concern.
Submitted by skepticalthinker on Sat, 08/22/2009 - 19:06.
I need some help with your radiation energy figures.
As I said, this goes back to basic high school physics, but I'll give it a try.
What do you mean by ‘less energetic” ?
The amount of energy contained in a photon of electromagnetic radiation is determined by something called Planck's law. This law basically says that the amount of energy increases as the wavelength decreases (or the frequency increases — same thing). UV light has a higher frequency than visible light, so therefore UV has more energy — it's "more energetic". Visible light is less energetic than UV, but it's more energetic than infrared. Infrared is more energetic than microwave radiation (the "high end" of which is used in microwave ovens and the "low end" of which is used for cellular communication), which is more energetic than TV and radio waves.
The frequency with the minimum amount of energy to break atomic bonds is UV (a fact known since about 1905). Yes, infrared (heat) can burn your skin, but it does not disrupt or alter cells at the molecular level.
If a 100watt light bulb uses/emits (in some wave form from heat to light) 100 watts of energy, wouldn’t a 1200 watt microwave oven emit 1200 watts of energy (in some wave form from heat to light)?
A watt is a measurement of energy conversion or energy usage. It's not a measurement of the amount of energy contained in a photon as discussed above.
Are you suggesting that you would put your head in a microwave oven just like you would put your head next to a light bulb? How is it that a microwave makes hamburger fry?
An incandescent bulb of the same wattage as a microwave oven, enclosed in similarly small space as a microwave oven contains, would probably do more damage in a shorter period of time:
Imagine a 1200 watt bulb. You know how hot that would get. It's producing a great deal of infrared radiation. While IR still does not have enough energy to break molecular bonds, it does cause molecules to vibrate. It's basically transferring its energy to those molecules. This vibration increases the heat in those molecules. If you touched a 1200W incandescent bulb for one second, enough energy would be transferred (and the molecules in your epidermis would vibrate to such an extent) that your skin would begin to burn.
Microwave radiation, on the other hand, is much "less energetic" than IR. It doesn't have enough energy to make molecules vibrate. It does, however, have enough energy to cause water molecules to spin. This creates enough heat to cook most foods, yet not enough to really "burn." This is why microwave ovens are not really used for baking or browning foods. Do you really "fry" hamburgers in a microwave? Doesn't sound very appetizing. Anyway, the same one second exposure to microwave radiation to your fingertip would probably not even be felt.
Got to go, I smell burning toast...
You should have used a microwave.
Have you ever seen radar knock a seagull out of the sky fried?
No, have you? Number one, I'd like to see some evidence that this occurs. Number two, if it does, I'd like some information on the frequency used (radar can typically use radiation anywhere from the radio to the microwave part of the spectrum). Number three, I doubt radar would be of much use if it used the same frequencies as microwave ovens because all the ovens in the region would cause an unacceptable amount of interference.
And by the way, DNA can be split a bunch of ways, including mechanically and chemically, as well as electron bombardment.
Indeed. However, I'm certain you're not claiming that cell phones are breaking DNA bonds mechanically. How? With nanobots? Similarly, there's no chemical agent at work in the phones, right? And, yes, electron bombardment could certainly disrupt a DNA molecule, but you're surely not claiming your cell phone is acting as a particle accelerator. That must use one huge battery!
Of course, having just discovered the helix a few decades ago, we know everything about it by now.
Yes, the discovery of the DNA molecule is comparatively recent. However, it's not the complete understanding of DNA that's required here. For the purposes of this issue, all we need to know is how atoms and their nuclei behave, and this is accomplished by the theory of quantum mechanics, which has been tested and confirmed for over a hundred years.
By the way, the link to Science Daily is interesting. However, each of these articles refer to "recent studies," etc. Nowhere do they actually describe the studies. How the studies were conducted could affect their validity or reliability. For example, how was cell phone usage determined — by measuring minutes, or did the subjects self-report? (ETA: Or were the studies even done on humans? I recall one of these "recent studies was done on rats.) Also, were the findings replicated by follow-up studies? Finally, were other possibly significant factors controlled for. Correlation does not equal causation. As far as we can tell from some of these news stories, there seems to be a correlation between cell phone usage and certain cancers. But just because there's a correlation does not necessarily mean one causes the other.
To give a crude analogy, suppose a study found that people who wear Browns sweatshirts had a higher rate of knee injuries than people who wore plain sweatshirts. Is it reasonable to assume that wearing Browns sweatshirts causes knee injuries? No. Perhaps people who wear Browns gear are also more likely to be sports fans, and sports fans are more likely to be active, making them more likely to sustain injuries than less-active people. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. We need more informetion to make a judgement.
So, given that a) there's a lot of missing information about these cell phone "studies" in the media, and b) science is pretty clear on the fact that cell phone "radiation" cannot break the molecular bonds necessary to induce cancer, it is not reasonable to assume that cell phones are causing cancer. Rather than panic when incomplete information is presented in the media, be skeptical and dig a little deeper. You'll feel better.
Rhetoric is not a subtitute for facts. I know, I know, FIX News said that lies become true when you repeat them over and over again, but guess what...they lied.
You provide no facts. NONE whatsoever. And I can only hope that Verison, Sprint, Nextel or some other cell phone company is paying you to spread this disinformation, because God help you if you're a big enough dumb-ass to actually believe any of the slop spewing from your mouth.
Furthermore, until you provide your credentials as an independent scientist, and until you can verify who you really are (links to websites, bios, resumes, etc.) you are bunk, full of shit, lacking relevancy and merit.
Nonetheless, since you are such a willing masochist, I'll provide you with more acid-in-your-eyes observation.
I refer you to the original video post (again) which features two key people:
A person who is a (medical doctor) scientist with verifiable expertise in the field
A person who suffers from a brain tumor, documented as having resulted from direct exposure to radiation; the most likely culprit being a cell phone.
Beyond this, I refer you again to a contributor (dwebb) to this site (not just a gas-bag like you, who has absolutely nothing but Glen Beck styled ramblings) that has direct experience with having been "electrocuted" by cell phone radiation. See comments within this post.
You don't have a leg to stand on, and you probably work for some clandestine organization--company--institution, or if not, you secretly wished you did.
Give it up. A black man's in the White House, a Latina is on the Supreme Court and one of the most powerful senators in America is a gay Jew. The days of thinly=veiled, imperialistic, white-supremacist hysteria, disinformation and ignoramus bullying are over.
dwebb, Jeff B and I are real people with verifiable histories, who speak indepently, providing documentation (videos, links, transcripts) and/or direct experience, backing up what we say. The three of us have ongoing, traceable blog-post trails, which represent transparent lives being lived with absolutely no hidden adgendas.
And what of you? Ya got nothin'
You're a sophomoric, moronic shrill...a total waste of time. Keep your poison to yourself.
If I were the moderator of this site, I'd trace your IP Address, and flag you as a shit-stirring trouble-maker.
Please don't let the idots distract you. This is what they do to divert your time and energy by skewing statements or facts so that it is hard to know where to start or what or how to answer.
Another thought occured to me: pacemakers, my Mother had one put in last summer and we had to read the list of things to stay away from. If she were to use a cell phone (which she doesn't), she needs to use the right ear and never rest the cell phone near the chest. She is to avoid other "wireless" items, and vaccum cleaner motors emit magnetic fields that can interfere with the pacemaker. Interestingly enough, the home page for the manufacuter also states stay away for running automobile motors (i.e. leaning over one).
The dots are there. The bees are dying. They need to be connected.
Thanks for the link. Interesting article. Then too, I have to wonder how much money is being spent by the cell phone companies, just like the big tobacco, coal and the insurance companies, to prohibit the FULL truth--all independent scientific data-- from reaching the light of day.
In reading the linked article @ Science Daily, it's encouraging to know that research is being done, But again, how much have we not been told? Where is the hidden hand of the trillion=dollar, global, cell phone industry in all this?
Submitted by Jeff Buster on Thu, 08/20/2009 - 16:39.
Hello Eternity,
I agree with you that cell phones can't be doing our heads any good. Microwave broadcasting for hours on end right at our temple? Feel your cell phone battery get hot when you talk for a few minutes? That's electrical energy which is producing microwave signals going through your head.
Put a cell phone up close to a CRT screen and talk. The screen gets all screwed up from the microwave electro magnetic energy disturbing the cathode ray electron spray.
If you have to use one, use a cell phone with a remote head set so the transmitter is as far away from your head (and genitals if you are of reproductive age).
And the bees? There are tens of thousands of cell phone repeater towers around north america - they are pumping out signals 247. Are these signals is some way interfering with bee communication or navigation?
Heck, we know nothing about what we are doing, or how bee's communicate.
I have heard reports that the cell phone towers may be repsonsible for the rapid decline in bees. I finally saw a honeybee in my yard today for the first time this summer.
I broke my ankle last fall and had "hardware" put in. Since that time, I have had severe, disabling, shooting nerve pain from the ankle to the toes. I had the hardware removed four weeks ago and that pain is gone. The surgeon said that the use of cell phones and microwaves were causing electrical conduction between the screws, and that I just had to be near these for it to happen. I don't own cell phone, but this does make sense as to the "unexplained bolts of lightening" when I was near other using that damned contrapation as they drive, eat, and whatever.
Wow, what a horrible experience. Thank God it's over. And yet, it sounds like that process provided some amazing awareness. If you shared this information with your doctor(s) I would be curious to hear about their reaction(s).
eternity, it was the orthopedic surgeon who explained tp me that the spontenous shocks that I was experiencing as coming from cell phones and microwaves. I was the one who assumed that it something else. The surgeon said that someone driving by while using their cell phone would be enough to conduct electricity between the screws (I had 7 plus a metal plate). He is a respected orthopedist and would not just make this up.
Again, once the metal was out of my ankle, the shocks were gone.
If this can give a person electrical shocks, just imagine.....
Thank you so much for sharing your experience with me and the entire RealNeo audience. People need to hear these kinds of anecdotal stories; testaments of certain grim realities that are part and parcel to some of societies technological advances.
I'm glad to hear the plate has been removed and the pain is gone.
Submitted by Jeff Buster on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 12:05.
Jeff Hello dwebb,
It would be interesting to locate the microwave broadcast sources near you when you were "receiving" signals in your surgical hardware.
I was involved with a School which was concerned about the installation of cell phone transceivers in a church steeple directly adjacent to the school classrooms.. The second floor school class rooms were within 100 feet of the transmitter/receivers and about at the same elevation.
Blocking the installation is almost impossible because the telco's have federal legislation which exempts them from local zoning. An effort was made to block the installation on the grounds that it did not meet the state building and fire codes (structural issues, access to electrical cabinets, heat build up etc). The building code effort was not successful, but perhaps more because of lack of funds for the legal effort than on the facts.
The closer you live or work near a cell phone tower (or radio/tv station), the more energy your hardware was receiving, making your screws talk like a radio. Take a look around and see.
I have been in rooms – particularly basement rooms – on which the local AM radio station was audible because of reception by pipes, cast iron radiators, or metal forced air ducts.
You hear voices, look around, and nobody is there.
But you really do hear voices. Finally you figure out that the metal in your immediate environment is acting like a radio crystal tuner.
my neighbor behind me has a tower that is as tall as his house. I would suspect a radio tower but if it is, it is well shielded as I do not pick up very much interference. It probably is amatuer radio. My ankle never "spoke" to me in words, but it certainly gave me a message.
Remember that smoking kills - my smoking kills me, your HFCS kills you. If we kill the pollinators, we all starve. (Except Cargill, ADM and Monsanto execs - they probably have healthy organic food growing in hydroponic tunnels with electric grow lights somewhere...) :)
You raise some interesting points--sobering facts.
I'm all for convenience, but not when it kills. I say this because I sometimes get laughed at by friends and colleagues when they discover I'm not mobile; still using a land line. And you know, using a cell phone could have some positive effect in my life; as far as increasing the dynamic range of communication and media interaction I would have access to. However, and it's a big HOWEVER, there are just to many unanswered questions that linger in my mind. And when I watch videos like the one above, then hear about some of the things you just mentioned, it only confirms my suspicions; that there is a high probability that cell phone radiation is highly toxic.
This issue reminds me so much of the food issue in America, where at the expense of health and longevity, we pursue [toxic] convenient food choices, even when we know full-well the consequences to bear.
We all got to die somehow, it's a slogan everyone has heard or said at least once in their life. However if at all possible, I want to die of old age, not from being poisoned-by-convenience.
Printer-friendly version
No.
No.
Fat meat is greasy, saying No doesn't change that.
Fat meat is greasy, and saying No doesn't change that.
And by the way, who are you...Mr/Ms no posts on your blog, who, if memory serves me correctly...didn't I already tear you a new one when you spewed some hate on another post that I wrote? Yea, I remember now, for my poem Krishna that I shared here on RealNeo a couple weeks back, you wrote saying that it was a "waste of time." Also, you wrote that the poem was "silly" that I misunderstood "the meaning of the word legend." But I'm curious, were you insulting me, dwebb or both, because dwebb wrote in response to the poem, which was a tribute (of sorts) to the late Michael Jackson, that the "Krishna-Jackson connection...makes sense."
I know you must watch FOX news, 'cause ya hate facts and you hate the light of day. Show yourself you Palin-lovin' coward.
Ya ain't bullying me!!!
Funny, but it's this
Funny, but it's this tin-foil-hat fear-mongering of yours that seems more typical of the Fox News/birther/Palin creeps. I happen to be a life-long progressive who came upon this site hoping to read educated discourse on progressive causes. Instead (with the exception of Roldo and a precious few others), I find these postings on conspiracies, fear-mongering, astrology, etc. You make progressives look like the nut jobs Limbaugh tries to make us out to be. Now, as to this cell phone nonsense, let me educate you:
In order for electromagnetic energy to cause cancer, it needs to interact and alter matter at the atomic level, i.e. to break DNA bonds. The lowest-energy radiation that's capable of that is ultraviolet light. This has been tested and understood for over 100 years (Einstein won a Nobel prize for this research — the "Photoelectric Effect" — later in his career) which is far more energetic than the light coming from the light bulbs in your house. That light from those light bulbs itself is far more energetic that any microwave energy — either the "high end" waves that cook your food, or the "low end" ones that carry cell phone calls. In fact, the "radiation" from a microwave oven is about 1000x less energetic than that from a light bulb. And that cell phone radiation? About a million times less energy than the radiation from a light bulb. Shall I repeat that? The electromagnetic radiation from the light bulbs in your house — which itself is not energetic enough to "cause cancer" — has a million times more energy than what's emitted by your cell phone. Bottom line: Cell phone radiation is incapable of causing cancer! Got it?
These facts are readily available in any high school physics text book. Perhaps you should take a class instead of getting all your information from YouTube.
Yours truly,
skepticalthinker
Skeptical of Skep's energy figures
This is a real concern
Jeff,
I thought I was going to have to put another smack-down on "Skep" who now claims to be a lifelong progressive, all the while hating poetry, Youtube and Michael Jackson. I suppose next he'll be trying to tell us that he's the chairman of the board @ PETA, yet his favorite food is steak tartare.
HILARIOUS...not.
But before I continue, excuse me a minute Jeff...seems I've got some gum on my shoe. Hey schlep...I mean Skep. Bush is out of office. Didn't you get the memo? And did you notice, Palin's out of office too. Hello? Welcome to the planet. And just a refresher, repeat after me: I will not watch FOX News ever again. You can do it--I know you can! And by the way, if you expect me to believe for one minute that you're anything but a Mossad-CIA lovin', corporate-whore wannabe, you're totally barking up the wrong tree. For it is abundantly apparent that you're just another right-wing, psych-op malaka, who's ideas are just as shriveled and rotten as a meth-head's teeth. You speak the language of the Machiavellis, and they are long banished from the Kindgom. When hell freezes over, is when I will contemplate your science. But of course, hell would have to freeze over before your so called ‘less energetic' theories make any goddamn sense. And by the way old chap, insult my poetry if you will, but to challenge my intellect is pure folly. So I'll just leave it at that, 'cause Jeff already jacked ya ass up...ever so friendly.
Hi Jeff ;-) I'm back. Now as I was saying, having said also in prior comment to your prior comment, you raise some very interesting points.
Simply put, my take on this runs parallel to yours. In so far as, we just don't know what kind of pandora's box we're dealing with. So, if nothing else, we definitely need to proceed with extreme caution; especially now that credible scientific data is becoming widely available on this subject.
Red flags are being raised. This is a real concern.
The "help" you requested
As I said, this goes back to basic high school physics, but I'll give it a try.
The amount of energy contained in a photon of electromagnetic radiation is determined by something called Planck's law. This law basically says that the amount of energy increases as the wavelength decreases (or the frequency increases — same thing). UV light has a higher frequency than visible light, so therefore UV has more energy — it's "more energetic". Visible light is less energetic than UV, but it's more energetic than infrared. Infrared is more energetic than microwave radiation (the "high end" of which is used in microwave ovens and the "low end" of which is used for cellular communication), which is more energetic than TV and radio waves.
The frequency with the minimum amount of energy to break atomic bonds is UV (a fact known since about 1905). Yes, infrared (heat) can burn your skin, but it does not disrupt or alter cells at the molecular level.
A watt is a measurement of energy conversion or energy usage. It's not a measurement of the amount of energy contained in a photon as discussed above.
An incandescent bulb of the same wattage as a microwave oven, enclosed in similarly small space as a microwave oven contains, would probably do more damage in a shorter period of time:
Imagine a 1200 watt bulb. You know how hot that would get. It's producing a great deal of infrared radiation. While IR still does not have enough energy to break molecular bonds, it does cause molecules to vibrate. It's basically transferring its energy to those molecules. This vibration increases the heat in those molecules. If you touched a 1200W incandescent bulb for one second, enough energy would be transferred (and the molecules in your epidermis would vibrate to such an extent) that your skin would begin to burn.
Microwave radiation, on the other hand, is much "less energetic" than IR. It doesn't have enough energy to make molecules vibrate. It does, however, have enough energy to cause water molecules to spin. This creates enough heat to cook most foods, yet not enough to really "burn." This is why microwave ovens are not really used for baking or browning foods. Do you really "fry" hamburgers in a microwave? Doesn't sound very appetizing. Anyway, the same one second exposure to microwave radiation to your fingertip would probably not even be felt.
You should have used a microwave.
No, have you? Number one, I'd like to see some evidence that this occurs. Number two, if it does, I'd like some information on the frequency used (radar can typically use radiation anywhere from the radio to the microwave part of the spectrum). Number three, I doubt radar would be of much use if it used the same frequencies as microwave ovens because all the ovens in the region would cause an unacceptable amount of interference.
Indeed. However, I'm certain you're not claiming that cell phones are breaking DNA bonds mechanically. How? With nanobots? Similarly, there's no chemical agent at work in the phones, right? And, yes, electron bombardment could certainly disrupt a DNA molecule, but you're surely not claiming your cell phone is acting as a particle accelerator. That must use one huge battery!
Yes, the discovery of the DNA molecule is comparatively recent. However, it's not the complete understanding of DNA that's required here. For the purposes of this issue, all we need to know is how atoms and their nuclei behave, and this is accomplished by the theory of quantum mechanics, which has been tested and confirmed for over a hundred years.
By the way, the link to Science Daily is interesting. However, each of these articles refer to "recent studies," etc. Nowhere do they actually describe the studies. How the studies were conducted could affect their validity or reliability. For example, how was cell phone usage determined — by measuring minutes, or did the subjects self-report? (ETA: Or were the studies even done on humans? I recall one of these "recent studies was done on rats.) Also, were the findings replicated by follow-up studies? Finally, were other possibly significant factors controlled for. Correlation does not equal causation. As far as we can tell from some of these news stories, there seems to be a correlation between cell phone usage and certain cancers. But just because there's a correlation does not necessarily mean one causes the other.
To give a crude analogy, suppose a study found that people who wear Browns sweatshirts had a higher rate of knee injuries than people who wore plain sweatshirts. Is it reasonable to assume that wearing Browns sweatshirts causes knee injuries? No. Perhaps people who wear Browns gear are also more likely to be sports fans, and sports fans are more likely to be active, making them more likely to sustain injuries than less-active people. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. We need more informetion to make a judgement.
So, given that a) there's a lot of missing information about these cell phone "studies" in the media, and b) science is pretty clear on the fact that cell phone "radiation" cannot break the molecular bonds necessary to induce cancer, it is not reasonable to assume that cell phones are causing cancer. Rather than panic when incomplete information is presented in the media, be skeptical and dig a little deeper. You'll feel better.
Yours truly,
skepticalthinker
Eternity,dwebb & Jeff B provide facts, while Skep falls flat
Schlep,
Rhetoric is not a subtitute for facts. I know, I know, FIX News said that lies become true when you repeat them over and over again, but guess what...they lied.
You provide no facts. NONE whatsoever. And I can only hope that Verison, Sprint, Nextel or some other cell phone company is paying you to spread this disinformation, because God help you if you're a big enough dumb-ass to actually believe any of the slop spewing from your mouth.
Furthermore, until you provide your credentials as an independent scientist, and until you can verify who you really are (links to websites, bios, resumes, etc.) you are bunk, full of shit, lacking relevancy and merit.
Nonetheless, since you are such a willing masochist, I'll provide you with more acid-in-your-eyes observation.
I refer you to the original video post (again) which features two key people:
Beyond this, I refer you again to a contributor (dwebb) to this site (not just a gas-bag like you, who has absolutely nothing but Glen Beck styled ramblings) that has direct experience with having been "electrocuted" by cell phone radiation. See comments within this post.
You don't have a leg to stand on, and you probably work for some clandestine organization--company--institution, or if not, you secretly wished you did.
Give it up. A black man's in the White House, a Latina is on the Supreme Court and one of the most powerful senators in America is a gay Jew. The days of thinly=veiled, imperialistic, white-supremacist hysteria, disinformation and ignoramus bullying are over.
dwebb, Jeff B and I are real people with verifiable histories, who speak indepently, providing documentation (videos, links, transcripts) and/or direct experience, backing up what we say. The three of us have ongoing, traceable blog-post trails, which represent transparent lives being lived with absolutely no hidden adgendas.
And what of you? Ya got nothin'
You're a sophomoric, moronic shrill...a total waste of time. Keep your poison to yourself.
If I were the moderator of this site, I'd trace your IP Address, and flag you as a shit-stirring trouble-maker.
Love ya!
Eternity
eternity
Please don't let the idots distract you. This is what they do to divert your time and energy by skewing statements or facts so that it is hard to know where to start or what or how to answer.
Another thought occured to me: pacemakers, my Mother had one put in last summer and we had to read the list of things to stay away from. If she were to use a cell phone (which she doesn't), she needs to use the right ear and never rest the cell phone near the chest. She is to avoid other "wireless" items, and vaccum cleaner motors emit magnetic fields that can interfere with the pacemaker. Interestingly enough, the home page for the manufacuter also states stay away for running automobile motors (i.e. leaning over one).
The dots are there. The bees are dying. They need to be connected.
The truth, like the proverbial cream, always rises to the top
dwebb,
Thank you for thoughtful comments--the plain and simple truth.
You're absolutely right.
The dots are there...AND...with people like you speaking out, they are definitely being connected.
Eternity
Science Daily reports cell phone health concerns
Here is a link to Science Daily (brought to my attention by a reader) which contains a number of health concerns about cell phone use.
How much have we not been told?
Thanks for the link. Interesting article. Then too, I have to wonder how much money is being spent by the cell phone companies, just like the big tobacco, coal and the insurance companies, to prohibit the FULL truth--all independent scientific data-- from reaching the light of day.
In reading the linked article @ Science Daily, it's encouraging to know that research is being done, But again, how much have we not been told? Where is the hidden hand of the trillion=dollar, global, cell phone industry in all this?
Eternity
Colony Collapse Disorder - bees and cell phone signals
Hello Eternity,
I agree with you that cell phones can't be doing our heads any good. Microwave broadcasting for hours on end right at our temple? Feel your cell phone battery get hot when you talk for a few minutes? That's electrical energy which is producing microwave signals going through your head.
Put a cell phone up close to a CRT screen and talk. The screen gets all screwed up from the microwave electro magnetic energy disturbing the cathode ray electron spray.
If you have to use one, use a cell phone with a remote head set so the transmitter is as far away from your head (and genitals if you are of reproductive age).
And the bees? There are tens of thousands of cell phone repeater towers around north america - they are pumping out signals 247. Are these signals is some way interfering with bee communication or navigation?
Heck, we know nothing about what we are doing, or how bee's communicate.
best,
jeffb
cells, bees, me
I have heard reports that the cell phone towers may be repsonsible for the rapid decline in bees. I finally saw a honeybee in my yard today for the first time this summer.
I broke my ankle last fall and had "hardware" put in. Since that time, I have had severe, disabling, shooting nerve pain from the ankle to the toes. I had the hardware removed four weeks ago and that pain is gone. The surgeon said that the use of cell phones and microwaves were causing electrical conduction between the screws, and that I just had to be near these for it to happen. I don't own cell phone, but this does make sense as to the "unexplained bolts of lightening" when I was near other using that damned contrapation as they drive, eat, and whatever.
Debbie
Sounds painful and frightening
Debbie,
Wow, what a horrible experience. Thank God it's over. And yet, it sounds like that process provided some amazing awareness. If you shared this information with your doctor(s) I would be curious to hear about their reaction(s).
Eternity
hardware
eternity, it was the orthopedic surgeon who explained tp me that the spontenous shocks that I was experiencing as coming from cell phones and microwaves. I was the one who assumed that it something else. The surgeon said that someone driving by while using their cell phone would be enough to conduct electricity between the screws (I had 7 plus a metal plate). He is a respected orthopedist and would not just make this up.
Again, once the metal was out of my ankle, the shocks were gone.
If this can give a person electrical shocks, just imagine.....
It is very troubling, but it's good to know the truth
dwebb,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience with me and the entire RealNeo audience. People need to hear these kinds of anecdotal stories; testaments of certain grim realities that are part and parcel to some of societies technological advances.
I'm glad to hear the plate has been removed and the pain is gone.
Be careful--stay safe.
Eternity
Microwave source near you
microwave
my neighbor behind me has a tower that is as tall as his house. I would suspect a radio tower but if it is, it is well shielded as I do not pick up very much interference. It probably is amatuer radio. My ankle never "spoke" to me in words, but it certainly gave me a message.
colony collapse and HFCS
Just to take this discussion in the colony collapse disorder direction for a moment:
If High-Fructose Corn Syrup Kills Honeybees, What Does It Do To You?
Oh, yeah and Call me on my landline - i'm smoking... What was it spill the wine dig that girl? Or was it spill the pop, kill that bee?
Remember that smoking kills - my smoking kills me, your HFCS kills you. If we kill the pollinators, we all starve. (Except Cargill, ADM and Monsanto execs - they probably have healthy organic food growing in hydroponic tunnels with electric grow lights somewhere...) :)
When convenience kills
Jeff,
You raise some interesting points--sobering facts.
I'm all for convenience, but not when it kills. I say this because I sometimes get laughed at by friends and colleagues when they discover I'm not mobile; still using a land line. And you know, using a cell phone could have some positive effect in my life; as far as increasing the dynamic range of communication and media interaction I would have access to. However, and it's a big HOWEVER, there are just to many unanswered questions that linger in my mind. And when I watch videos like the one above, then hear about some of the things you just mentioned, it only confirms my suspicions; that there is a high probability that cell phone radiation is highly toxic.
This issue reminds me so much of the food issue in America, where at the expense of health and longevity, we pursue [toxic] convenient food choices, even when we know full-well the consequences to bear.
We all got to die somehow, it's a slogan everyone has heard or said at least once in their life. However if at all possible, I want to die of old age, not from being poisoned-by-convenience.