• 02 JUN 16

    Microwave News: One Type of Brain Tumor IS Going Up, the Deadliest Kind

    Excerpt

    Media on NTP Cancer Study: It’s Hype
    One Type of Brain Tumor IS Going Up, the Deadliest Kind

    Senior managers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the preliminary results of their cell phone radiation study late last week. They were so concerned about the elevated rates of two types of cancer among exposed rats that they felt an immediate public alert was warranted. They considered it unwise to wait for the results to wend their way into a journal sometime next year. Not surprisingly, the NTP report generated worldwide media attention….The New York Times gave the NTP report zero credibility, arguing it can’t mean much because brain tumor rates are not going up. Actually, however, the deadliest and most virulent type of brain tumor, GBMs, is increasing. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 01 JUN 16

    Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal call for a precautionary approach in light of the NTP study

    Statement on the U.S. National Toxicology Program that reports cell phones cause cancer by the Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal

    This $25 million study, executed by the U.S. government, provides support for what we are stating in the ‘International EMF Scientist Appeal’, that a precautionary approach should be exercised and lower electromagnetic field exposure guidelines should be set.

    Visit the home page of the International EMF Scientist Appeal here.

    Read more →
    • 30 MAY 16

    Views on the NTP cell phone cancer study

    Understandably the recently released NTP study has generated many opinions (some expert and some far from it) on what the study means for mobile phone users. The official audio download from Friday’s teleconference is now available online and in addition the NTP now has a new webpage titled “Cell Phones”

    (the 74-page report of partial findings and the same audio are also linked at the bottom of it)

    Following are some of the articles on the study. Please take special note at the last entry below, from the Australian Science Media Centre’s (AusSMC) SIMEX blog posting which quotes Dr Rodney Croft’s expert analysis of the NTP study. Dr. Croft has this amazing gift of being able to take a complex issue, such as the NTP study and simply boil it down to a brief reassuring statement for the media to unquestionably digest and regurgitate in their news stories.

    Never mind the science such as the IARC classification of “mobile phone-like exposure” as a possible human carcinogen which is backed up by Professor Bruce Armstrong’s statement in the same SIMEX blog, immediately above Croft’s, that “This report supports the IARC monograph’s conclusion that RF is possibly carcinogenic to humans”. – Rodney simply and predictably avoids this and concludes that “the NTP report does not provide reason to move from the current scientific consensus that mobile phone-like exposure does not impact health.”

    Just who’s scientific consensus does he follow?

    Read more →
    • 26 MAY 16

    Cell Phone Radiation Boosts Cancer Rates in Animals

    From Microwave News

    U.S. Government Expected To Advise Public of Tumor Risk
    The cell phone cancer controversy will never be the same again.

    The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is expected to issue a public announcement that cell phone radiation presents a cancer risk for humans. The move comes soon after its recently completed study showed statistically significant increases in cancer among rats that had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for two-years.

    Discussions are currently underway among federal agencies on how to inform the public about the new findings. NTP senior managers believe that these results should be released as soon as possible because just about everyone is exposed to wireless radiation all the time and therefore everyone is potentially at risk.
    To read our exclusive story, click here.

    Read more →
    • 22 MAY 16

    Stop Untested Microwave Radiation of Children’s Brains and Eyes EHT Scientists Urge Google

    Excerpt

    From the Environmental Health Trust

    Excerpt

    Scientific imaging shows how children absorb radiation from Smartphones in Virtual reality cardboard positions.

    Environmental Health Trust (EHT) scientists are calling on Google to stop the spread into schools of wireless virtual reality system Global Expeditions Pioneer Program where middle-school children hold a cell phone encased in a cardboard box in front of their eyes to take virtual expeditions to Mars, the moon, and other special places.

    “Two-way microwave radiation transceivers, in the form of Smartphones, should not be used directly in front of children’s eyes and brains,” cautions University of Utah Distinguished Prof. Om Gandhi, who is one of the original developers of testing to evaluate wireless radiation from cellphones and is a Senior Advisor to EHT.

    Prof. Gandhi added, “We have never tested microwave radiating devices directly in front of the young developing eye. The absence of proof of harm at this point does not mean that we have evidence of safety.”
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 21 MAY 16

    Cindy Sage, the Bioinitiative reports co-editor on smart phone virtual shopping

    From Cindy Sage. A letter sent to the New York Times:

    Dear New York Times people,

    I have received your gift of a Google Cardboard viewer thanking me for being a loyal subscriber to the Times.

    What a hilarious debacle in the name of ‘gifting’ and thanking your customers. I read and respect the NY Times, but this is a real mistake in judgment.

    What you didn’t tell me is that this is a distinct health hazard to the very loyal subscribers like myself whom you are trying to thank with this gift. This would not be approvable under any Institutional Review Board as a scientific experiment on humans, without informed consent from them for exposing them to a classified Possible Human Carcinogen (WHO IARC Group 2B). No IRB would or could approve it.

    Putting a cell phone at your forehead is ridiculously risky. Where are the health warnings?

    Please see www.bioinitiative.org or any of the other 1000 or so scientific studies
    on the risks of cell phone radiation.

    Thanks but no thanks. Looking for the quick demise of this ill-conceived customer relations program.

    Cindy Sage, MA
    Sage Associates
    Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports

    Read more →
    • 20 MAY 16

    Ebay / Myer’s new virtual reality shopping store ignores possible eye damage to the user

    In a world’s first partnership between Ebay and Myer’s department store a virtual reality shopping mall now allows the user to access to thousands of items simply by downloading the eBay Virtual Reality Department Store app on their smart phone. What is also required is a foldout smart phone holder headset (called SHOPTICALS) for your phone which allows you to place the phone immediately in front of your eyes and start shopping.

    As clearly seen, this places the smart phone about 2 inches from the user’s eyes, which will be exposing the eyes to the phone’s light and microwave emissions when using the headset. This should be of concern to both Ebay and Myer, not only because it might harm their customers but also because of the existing evidence (below) that their technology poses a possible risk of eye damage to the user. If this turns out to be the case it exposes these corporations to a class-action litigation risk.

    It is a disgrace that so many of the myriad of new devices being marketed are developed and sold without the slightest consideration of possible long term harm other than thermal (see last message).

    Read on…..

    Read more →
    • 14 MAY 16

    Joel Moskowitz comments in Medscape on Simon Chapman’s study.

    Joel’s comments: This study seems designed to serve as propaganda for the public debate about whether cell phone radiation is a cancer risk factor. The study’s lead author, Simon Chapman, published an opinion piece online (see below) in which he accused Devra Davis of being an “alarmist” for her position in this debate.

    Yesterday, Medscape, a website that “offers specialists, primary care physicians, and other health professionals the Web’s most robust and integrated medical information and educational tools,” published a story about the study. The article cited Simon Chapman and John Boice, Jr. who supported the study’s conclusions, and Lennart Hardell who raised concerns. Since I have concerns about the study and do not believe the Medscape article was balanced, I sent Medscape my comments. See the Medscape article which appears below along with my comments in red. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 10 MAY 16

    Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman’s mobile phone ‘all-clear study.

    Excerpt

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog Between A Rock and A Hard Place.

    May 10, 2016
    EXCERPT

    Professor Simon Chapman responds…
    Gallery
    Posted on May 10, 2016

    Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer, made headline news: Chapman S, Azizi L, Luo Q, Sitas F. Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago? Cancer Epidemiology, 2016 May 4.

    Reason for this global interest is simple, the authors claim to have proven that cell phones do not cause brain cancer and the issue should be put to rest. The study analyzed the 29 year history of cell phone use in Australia and compared it with the numbers of brain cancer reported to cancer registry.

    However, I think the authors greatly overstated significance of their results leading to misinformation of the readers and the general public at large. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 08 MAY 16

    Commentaries: Prof Simon Chapman finds no link between mobile phone use and brain cancer. Good epidemiology or spin?

    This post is about Simon Chapman’s recent epidemiological study which did not find any link between mobile phone use and the incidence of brain cancer. Also are comments on this study by Lloyd Morgan and Katherine Smith.

    Read more →