The WHO and IARC - RF radiation a "POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS"

The full PDF: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

The WHO (http://www.who.int/en/) and IARC (http://www.iarc.fr/)resolution from last week about RF radiation being "POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS" is a, "Too little, (almost) too late" conclusion. All the science is available for many years now, and a more drastic conclusion should have been accepted years ago. It seems like the conditions for such a soft decision have lately become right as the science pointing out for risk and harm caused by "low power" RF signals like those that are emitted from cellphones, WIFI routers and other wireless devices and equipment, have piled up, and can no longer be rejected or ignored. The WHO and IARC have came under pressure by reality, and they could no longer hold their old view that there is no risk in exposure to RF radiation. The WHO and IARC holdup of their old views, until few days ago, allowed the deployment of wireless networks around the world, while exposing billions of people to this harming RF radiation. Millions of people have been hurt and millions more will be hurt because of this delay, and on the other hand the delay allowed wireless and Cellphone suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to continue, for years, to push back criticism about the safety of their products and services. The soft decision will allow wireless and Cellphone suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to continue to do so for several years until the public will push for a stricter resolution, laws, and regulations.

In the last 30 years the WHO and IARC, and other bodies, refused to even consider RF radiation has having any health effect other than a heating effect. Even today after the revolutionary resolution was accepted, the IARC and the WHO still do not admit, or accept, the science and proof that point out the facts that low level RF radiation can cause DNA breaks, break blood brain barrier, oxidant stress, and many more influences of RF and ELF radiation. Their view on the matter was that RF radiation that is emitted from cellphones and other wireless equipment does not have enough energy to cause real damages, and for years they continue to argue that (like a broken record) and while people got sick and paid a big price for the WHO lack of understanding. Some people would even say the WHO opinion was shaped by political and financial pressure from the industry.

This resolution of the IARC come out after serious claims where made about conflict of interest of several members of the RF committee of the IARC, and after the chairman, Anders Ahlbom was removed from his position one day before the comity was schedule to meet (http://www.microwavenews.com/Ahlbom.html).The info about ahlbom conflict of interests was exposed by mona nillson(http://www.monanilsson.se/document/AhlbomConflictsIARCMay23.pdf).

The resolution came few days after the The Council of Europe called for dramatic reduction in EMF exposure ( http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20110513-council-europe-resolution.asp), few weeks after a similar Russian committee recommend new mobile phone safety warnings for young people(http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20110514-rncnirp.asp) and after a group of scientist said that "Stunning proof" about the link between cellphone and cancer was ignored for years. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/05/researchers-say-new-studies-confirm-cell-phone-hazards.html

The resolution was based on the results of the interphone study (The intephone study that was finished in 2004 and which results were published after more than 5 years of delay in 2010 and which are consider to be a low assessment and show 40% increased risk to people who used the mobile phone for more than 27 minutes per day), 2 additional new studies that were just published and which are part of the interphone study () , several studies that were done by prof. Lennart Hardell, and a study that was done by Yael Stein and Elihu Richter from the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine in Jerusalem (). All of these research showed a link between exposure to RF radiation and cancer.

In the next few years cellphone companies, manufacturers and distributors, backed up by paid science will try to buy more time on the expense of our health. They will argue that "cell phones today emit less RF radiation that they used to, and that new generations of cell phones will emit even less". They will try to discredit the science that shows the link between RF radiation and cancer, and will try to prove otherwise. They will do anything in their power to stop new laws and regulations that could protect the public and will then say that they act within laws and regulation. They will try to buy their way into committees and decision making boards and will try to influence the future, all so they can make an extra dollar before the public will understand the truth. We must do our best to show the truth and to prevent this from happening.

The WHO's old view from the WHO RF fact sheet: " To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health."(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/).

Read more about it:

Moricowave news - http://www.microwavenews.com/IARC.RF.Decision.html

The washinton Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/cell-phones-possibly-carcinogenic-who-says/2011/05/31/AGRktZFH_story.html

The New York times - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-radiation-may-cause-cancer-advisory-panel-says/

The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357571174992448.html

The Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/brain-tumour-shock-for-longterm-mobile-user-20110601-1fgqt.html - including video.

Le Monde - http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/06/01/pour-l-oms-le-telephone-portable-peut-etre-cancerogene_1530329_3244.html

The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8548725/Mobile-phones-possibly-carcinogenic-say-World-Health-Organisation-experts.html

TV3 – New Zealand http://www.3news.co.nz/Should-cell-phone-radiation-be-cause-for-alarm/tabid/367/articleID/213666/Default.aspx

Is that a cellphone in your pocket or you are just happy to see me?

Is it safe to carry the cellphone in your pocket?
Is it safe to use the cellphone for many hours?
When does the science say?
Could cellphone be the number one threat on human kind in the years to come?
All about these questions and more in this new great video clip.

What went wrong with the interphone study

The interphone study that was published this week and made a lot of headlines. After the dust of the battle slowly disappear the facts and problems of the study are shown clearly at the light of day.

Problems in the study:

1. "A regular user" is defined as a person how used the cellphone as much as for 30 minutes a month for half a year. The problem is that this is a very low use time, average in the world today is about 2 hours a month, every month!
2. The heaviest users in the study used their cellphone for more than 1640 hours in 10 years, meaning about 27 minutes each day. The problem is that today heavy users talk much more than that, actually most of the people I know talk more than that.
3. Users reported their use pattern using a form. In some cases their use pattern was reported by other persons. The problem is that this method is not consistence and not 100% accurate as people who don't use the phone a lot tend to report more use, and people that uses the phone a lot tend to report lower use.
4. Exposure to other types of electromagnetic radiation was not considered. The problem is that those how reported no use at all, may have been exposed to electromagnetic radiation which could have cause them cancer. This would cause the ratio between healthy people and sick people in the control group (who did not use the cellphone) to be higher than in reality (more sick people in the control group than in the real world). This will lead to OR <1>
5. People who died or were too sick before the study was finished were deducted from the study even if their data was already acquired. The problem is that this operation will reduce the number of people with cancer in all the users groups.

My conclusion is that this study has 2 final true results:

1. People how speak more than 27 minutes a day have a higher chance of developing brain cancer.
2. All this study outcomes are lower than in reality because of all the problems in it.

The truth about the interphone study

The interphone study final result ware published today (17/05/2010), after 5 years of delay. a first look suggests that using a mobile phone actually protect you from brain cancer, how could that be? a second look shows that people who use their mobile phone for more then 27 minutes per day have 40%higher risk of getting a brain tumor.

USA Senate hearing - danger in the use of cell phone

Radiatio effect on rat brainn
DNA Breaks

USA Senat hearing (edited) from earlier this year (2009) regarding the danger in the use of cell phone and the issue of warnings on Cell phone that they might harm your health.

In this hearing Dr Sigal Sedezki (IL) reports the finding of her study, which is part of the interphone study, that heavy cell phone use increases the chance of developing cancer on the same side of the head that the phone was used. Dr Davis (US) reported that the industry was using its power to hold back the reports of danger for year and years while continue to push for new devices, encouraging use and while expousing the public to real danger.

The interphone study will link cancer with cell phones!

In an article on the internet version of the TELEGRAPH is reviles that the final conclusion of the interphone study will show a higher risk for cell phone users to develop cancer later on in life.

The interphone study that was concluded years ago and which final finding were not published and which scientist from 13 countries took part in is about to be finalized and about to be published. Parts of it that were already publish suggested of a higher risk to cell phone users to develop cancer.

The link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/6420093/Long-term-use-of-mobile-phones-may-be-linked-to-cancer.html

Are you a cell phone addict?

Do you hold your cell phone, in you hand, all the time?

Do you check every couple of minutes if you missed a call?

Do you think “who should I call” every spear minute you have?

Do you use your cell phone for more then an hour a day?

Do you walk with one friend and specks to an other friend over the cell phone?

Do you call people from your car and end the conversation when reaching your destination?

Do you use your cell phone when ever there is a spear moment?

Do you have several cell phones?

Do you upgrade your cell phone every year or two?

Do you upgrade your cell phone to a new model even when the old one is still OK?

Do you own a heavy duty cell phone pate plan with discounts and special offers?

Do you work using your cell phone?

Then you may be interested in the fact that most of the research the claim that cell phones are safe, like the interphone study, uses the term “regular user” for a user who used his cell phone for one call up to 30 minutes per week for six month.

The question that should be asked is what effect will cell phone have over your health if you use it for more than one hour per day, 30 hours per month, 360 hours per year for 20 years?

Want to know more?

Search for “interphone study regular user” on the net, or visit

http://www.microwavenews.com/Interphone.Wild.html

http://www.mobile-research.ethz.ch/var/Comment_Interphone_update01.pdf

See Paragraph #5 on:

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12295222

See paragraph #3, line #9 on:

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20070202_interphone.asp

Basic info about the interphone study (without an explanation to the term “regular user” ):

http://www.iarc.fr/en/research-groups/RAD/RCAd.html