The director of a leading US cancer research institute has sent a memo to thousands of staff warning of possible higher risks from mobile phone use.
Ronald Herberman, of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said users should not wait for definitive studies on the risk and should take action now.
He said children should use mobiles in emergencies only and adults should try to keep the phone away from the head.
No major academic study has confirmed a link to higher brain-tumour risks.
Dr Herberman said his warning was based on early findings from unpublished data.
...
A major six-year research study in the UK said last year that there were no short-term adverse effects to brain and cell function from mobile phone use.
However, the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme said there was a "hint" of a higher cancer risk in the long term and that its research would look into the effects over a 10-year period.
Programme chairman Professor Lawrie Challis said: "We can't rule out the possibility at this stage that cancer could appear in a few years' time."
...
Recent Danish and French studies also found no increased risk of cancer.
But a study of 500 Israelis found this year that heavy mobile phone use might be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland.
Joel Koltner wrote: > Doesn't really sound like news... just more of, "there is no obvious effect, > and if there is a long term effect, it's quite small."
> Quitting driving would reduce your chance of dying by about 1000 times as much > as quitting cell phone use, I estimate.
Well quitting using your cell phone while driving would CERTAINLY do that! ;-) Might save you a pretty stiff fine in many states!
Joel Koltner wrote: > Doesn't really sound like news... just more of, "there is no obvious > effect, and if there is a long term effect, it's quite small."
> Quitting driving would reduce your chance of dying by about 1000 > times as much as quitting cell phone use, I estimate.
We know for sure that an average of 135 people die each day in auto wrecks in the USA alone, but so far, I haven't heard of a single person on Earth dying as a direct result of Cell Phone Radiation. I like those odds!!
I remember a Law suite a few years ago from a Husband who lost his wife. She had a Brain tumor next to where the phone antenna was. He lost the suite, but who knows...
> Joel Koltner wrote: >> Doesn't really sound like news... just more of, "there is no obvious >> effect, and if there is a long term effect, it's quite small."
>> Quitting driving would reduce your chance of dying by about 1000 >> times as much as quitting cell phone use, I estimate.
> We know for sure that an average of 135 people die each day in auto wrecks > in the USA alone, but so far, I haven't heard of a single person on Earth > dying as a direct result of Cell Phone Radiation. I like those odds!!
>>Doesn't really sound like news... just more of, "there is no obvious >>effect, and if there is a long term effect, it's quite small."
>>Quitting driving would reduce your chance of dying by about 1000 >>times as much as quitting cell phone use, I estimate.
> We know for sure that an average of 135 people die each day in auto > wrecks in the USA alone, but so far, I haven't heard of a single > person on Earth dying as a direct result of Cell Phone Radiation. I > like those odds!!
> Bill wrote on [Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:54:57 -0400]: >> I remember a Law suite a few years ago from a Husband who lost his >> wife. She >> had a Brain tumor next to where the phone antenna was. >> He lost the suite, but who knows...
>I remember a Law suite a few years ago from a Husband who lost his wife. She >had a Brain tumor next to where the phone antenna was.
Given a brain tumor, there's about a 50/50 chance of it being on the side of your head you use your cell phone on, you know?
I'm not surprised he lost the lawsuit -- to win I'd hope he'd have to demonstrate that cell phones not only pose a significant health hazard, but also that the carriers knew this fact and attempted to suppress it (like the tobacco companies did decades back with the smoking/cancer research).
>>I remember a Law suite a few years ago from a Husband who lost his wife. She >>had a Brain tumor next to where the phone antenna was.
>Given a brain tumor, there's about a 50/50 chance of it being on the side of >your head you use your cell phone on, you know?
When the brain tumor is on the correct side, is right where the antenna would be held during a call, is about the size and shape of the radiation envelope from the phone, and you can make out the cell phone manufacturer's logo on the X-ray of the tumor, then you've got a good case.
>I'm not surprised he lost the lawsuit -- to win I'd hope he'd have to >demonstrate that cell phones not only pose a significant health hazard, but >also that the carriers knew this fact and attempted to suppress it (like the >tobacco companies did decades back with the smoking/cancer research).
> When the brain tumor is on the correct side, is right where the > antenna would be held during a call, is about the size and shape > of the radiation envelope from the phone, and you can make out the > cell phone manufacturer's logo on the X-ray of the tumor, then > you've got a good case.
That would be compelling. :-)
I don't think the O.P. suggested this was the actual case, though.
