Will Kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...217500080.html
> Scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk
> Scientists today warned US legislators of the risks of brain cancer from mobile phone use, highlighting the potential
> risk for children who use them.
> "We urgently need more research," said David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the
> University of Albany,
> in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.
> "We must not repeat the situation we had with the relationship between smoking and lung cancer," Carpenter said.
> Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said that most studies "claiming that
> there is no link between mobile phones and brain tumours are outdated, had methodological concerns and did not include
> sufficient numbers of long-term mobile phone users."
What matters is that we havent seen a huge surge of brain
cancer as the use of mobile phones surged so dramatically.
If there was a real risk we would have.
> Many studies denying a link "defined regular cell (mobile) phones as 'once a week,"' added Herberman.
When we havent seen a huge surge in brain cancer when most use
them a hell of a lot more than that, there clearly isnt a problem.
> "I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous. But, I certainly cannot tell you that they
> are safe," he said.
Wota terminal ****wit.
> Carpenter and Herberman both told the committee the brain cancer risk from mobile phone use is far greater for
> children than for adults.
Pity you cant actually provide any rigorous scientific evidence to support that claim.
> Herberman held up a model for politicians showing how radiation from a mobile phone penetrates far deeper into the
> brain of a 5-year-old than that of an adult.
Pity you cant actually provide any rigorous scientific evidence that that is a problem.
> "Every child is using cell phones all of the time,
Pig ignorant lie.
> and there are three billion cell phone users in the world," said Herberman.
And since we have not seen a huge increase in brain cancers,
that must mean that they dont produce brain cancer, ****wit.
> He added that, like the messages that warn of health risks on
> cigarette packs, mobile phones "need a precautionary message."
Not when no risk has ever been established, ****wit.
> Noting that numerous US studies have not found a definitive cancer-phone link,
Funny that.
> Carpenter asked: "Are we at the same place we were with smoking and lung cancer 30 years ago?"
Nope. There was plenty of evidence that smoking produced lung cancer then.
> The committee were shown several European studies, particularly
> surveys from Scandinavia - where the mobile phone was first developed
Another pig ignorant lie.
> - which show that the radiation emitted by mobile phones have definite biological consequences.
Meaningless waffle.
> For example, a 2008 study by Swedish cancer specialist Lennart Hardell found that frequent mobile phone users are
> twice as likely to develop a benign tumour on the auditory nerves of the ear most used with the handset, compared to
> the other ear.
But that risk is STILL microscopic so that claim of yours is flagrantly dishonest.
> In addition, a paper published this month by the Royal Society in
> London found that adolescents who start using mobile phones before
> the age of 20 were five times more likely to develop brain cancer at the age of 29 than those who didn't use a mobile
> phone.
Have fun explaining why we havent seen a huge increase in brain cancers now that almost everyone uses them.
Linear Mode
