From Enrico Grani commenting on “Scaremongering on Today Tonight: the truth about wireless radiation risks” See message #1401.
“Dear Professor Rodney Croft, You state: “Mobile phones, for instance, are not hindered by the need to have cables connecting them, and can send and receive information from virtually anywhere”.
Statements like this are irrelevant to an article commenting on health effects from mobile and wireless communications, as it does not address health issues and could only be perceived as “sidetracking” to try to re-assure the public that all is OK when clearly it is not the case at all. In order for transparency to prevail in science it is paramount that all conflicts of interest “perceived or otherwise be declared in full” anything less could mislead the public who may rely on commentary from figures in authority … Many bold claims you do make, which do not hold water to people who have looked at many studies, both from industry and independent, which are in contradiction to what you have written.
“The Interphone Study” in which 13 countries participated (including Australia) which the results were stalled for 5 years (and are considered to be an “underestimation”) … points out that a cellphone user who uses a cellphone for more than 27 minutes a day for 10 years = (1640 hours), has a significant elevated risk of getting brain cancer by 40% … The study did not include all brain tumour types, considered a “regular user” as a person who uses a cellphone “once a week” , did not include the statistics from those who died from their brain tumour in the study. Interphone researchers admit “selection bias”. Is there any wonder that this caused divisions between ethical scientists. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dyq079.pdf Appendix 1 and 2 of the Interphone Study were not included in the above study as the risks were not favourable. Not to mention the fact also that no children have been included in the Interphone study for obvious ethical reasons because we cannot experiment on them, but it is OK to perform an experiment on them without any controls, and by misleading information. The question to ask is Qui Bono? because it definitely is not the children as their cells rapidly divide in what now is an inescapable. artificial man-made RF environment. http://vimeo.com/8109152 Interphone Study Design Flaws. The recent study by Nora Volkow et al, Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism, demonstrated increased glucose metabolism on the same side of the brain the cellphone was used. “50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna” …. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.full?ijkey=6/BAus3jsC2OA&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls As you know, glucose is fuel for the brain, “personally I do not think that increased glucose metabolism in the brain of children can be perceived as safe, nor normal, due to the fact the child is still developing neurological pathways”. If we look at the scientific research from Allan H. Frey, an American neuroscientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frey_effect William Ross Adey, M.D. Professor of Anatomy and Physiology http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/williamrossadey.htm Doctor Stan Barnett formerly from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) sacked Stan Barnett and ended CSIRO”™s involvement in non-ionizing radiation. His documents are of substantial worth. I could cite many scientific documents showing health harm from industry and independent researchers, and the “weight of evidence” from the scientific papers would squash me like a pancake, as I am a but a slightly built fellow. Professor Rodney Croft, You do not convince me at all, but are you, convinced, because in your writings and media interviews it appears that you are not (that is my opinion)… However… the truth eventually comes out… as the saying goes…”Leave a reply →