Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter



Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: UPDATE 1-WHO study has no clear answer on phones and cancer

  1. #1
    Karmic Sangoma ghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hotel California
    Posts
    40,170
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default UPDATE 1-WHO study has no clear answer on phones and cancer

    * No apparent cancer risk, but concern about heaviest users

    TECHNOLOGY | TELECOMMUNCATIONS SERVICES

    * Study's findings unclear, methodology has weaknesses

    * Experts say phone use now much higher so more work needed

    (Adds reaction from representatives of mobile phone industry)

    By Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent

    LONDON, May 16 (Reuters) - Experts who studied almost 13,000 cell phone users over 10 years, hoping to find out whether the mobile devices cause brain tumours, said on Sunday their research gave no clear answer.

    A study by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the largest ever to look at possible links between mobile phones and brain cancer, threw up inconclusive results but researchers said suggestions of a possible link demanded deeper examination.

    "The results really don't allow us to conclude that there is any risk associated with mobile phone use, but... it is also premature to say that there is no risk associated with it," the IARC's director Christopher Wild told Reuters.

    The results of the study have been keenly awaited by mobile phone companies and by campaign groups who have raised concerns about whether mobile phones cause brain tumours.

    Years of research have failed to establish a connection.

    The British-based GSM Association, which represents international cell phone firms, said IARC's findings echoed "the large body of existing research and many expert reviews that consistently conclude that there is no established health risk".

    The Australian-based Mobile Manufacturers Forum also welcomed the study and backed "the need for ongoing research".

    Wild said part of the problem with this study, which was launched in 2000, was that rates of mobile phone usage in the period it covered were relatively low compared with today.

    It was also based on people searching their memories to estimate how much time they spent on their cell phones, a method that can throw up inaccuracies.

    European scientists last month launched what will now become the biggest ever study into the effects of mobile phone use on long-term health. It aims to track at least a quarter of a million of people in five European countries for up to 30 years.

    This kind of study, called a prospective study, is considered more accurate because it does not require people to remember their cell phone use later but tracks it in real time.

    SUGGESTION OF A RISK?

    Data from the IARC study showed that overall, mobile telephone users in fact had a lower risk of brain cancer than people who had never used one, but the 21 scientists who conducted the study said this finding suggested problems with the method, or inaccurate information from those who took part.

    Other results showed high cumulative call time may slightly raise the risk, but again the finding was not reliable.

    "We can't just conclude that there is no effect," said Elisabeth Cardis of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain, who led the study.

    "There are indications of a possible increase. We're not sure that it is correct. It could be due to bias, but the indications are sufficiently strong... to be concerned."

    Because of this, and because cell phone use is rising all the time, more research was needed, the scientists said.

    The 21 scientists were part of a group known as the Interphone International Study Group which was funded in part by money from mobile phone companies. The study was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

    Mobile phone use has increased dramatically since its introduction in the early-to-mid 1980s. About 5 billion mobile phones are currently in use worldwide.

    The researchers said the majority of people covered in their study "were not heavy mobile phone users by today's standards". The average lifetime cumulative call time for those who took part was around 100 hours, with an average of 2 to 2-1/2 hours of reported use a month. The heaviest 10 percent of users had clocked up an average of 1,640 hours of phone use spread over 10 years, which corresponds to about half an hour a day.

    "Today, mobile phone use has become much more prevalent and it is not unusual for young people to use mobile phones for an hour or more a day," the researchers wrote.

    But increasing use is tempered by generally lower radiation emissions from modern phones and greater use of texting and hands-free sets that keep the phone away from the head, they said.

    The study received 19.2 million euros ($24.4 million) in funding, around 5.5 million euros of which came from industry sources. It analysed data from interviews with 2,708 people with a type of brain cancer called glioma and 2,409 with another type called meningioma, plus around 7,500 people with no cancer.

    Participants were from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Britain. ($1=.7872 Euro) (Editing by Mark Trevelyan and Reed Stevenson)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64F0J420100516
    So in a nutshell. Cellphone radiation is not causing the large epidemic of brain cancer and if has effects they are relatively small. This is not a great comfort but at least we have more information.
    "To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist. That is all..." - Oscar Wilde

  2. #2
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tiny cold island soon
    Posts
    6,524

    Default

    To test this:

    1. Place a known number of living cells near transmitting device.
    2. Monitor effect of transmitting device on living cells.
    3. Collate results with known brain cell-growth facts.
    4. Publish results.

    $30m spent on talking to people?
    Bwaaahahahahahahaha

  3. #3
    Karmic Sangoma ghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hotel California
    Posts
    40,170
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davemc View Post
    To test this:

    1. Place a known number of living cells near transmitting device.
    2. Monitor effect of transmitting device on living cells.
    3. Collate results with known brain cell-growth facts.
    4. Publish results.

    $30m spent on talking to people?
    Bwaaahahahahahahaha
    It was a little bit more complicated than that... no a lot more complicated than that.
    "To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist. That is all..." - Oscar Wilde

  4. #4
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    18,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davemc View Post
    To test this:

    1. Place a known number of living cells near transmitting device.
    2. Monitor effect of transmitting device on living cells.
    3. Collate results with known brain cell-growth facts.
    4. Publish results.

    $30m spent on talking to people?
    Bwaaahahahahahahaha
    That study will tell you what the likelihood of cancer is for a sample of cells near a transmitting device. It won't tell you what the likelihood of cancer is for a multinuclear, multi-system organism with specialised and undifferentiated cells in the system embedded in a matrix of proteins.
    Believe it or not but different things interact - what you eat, what you breathe, what your immune system is like, what defects you've inherited from your parents and what new ones have developed spontanously, etc. Some researchers also say that some cancers take decades to develop. So a study like this one won't even answer such questions and will need 30 years or longer of follow up.
    Last edited by PeterCH; 17-05-2010 at 09:48 AM.
    Neko-nyan dansu! by Harenchi Punch! MST3K. Hitler goes Kaput!. Fravia's SearchLores Shills, trolls & meow wars.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davemc View Post
    To test this:

    1. Place a known number of living cells near transmitting device.
    2. Monitor effect of transmitting device on living cells.
    3. Collate results with known brain cell-growth facts.
    4. Publish results.

    $30m spent on talking to people?
    Bwaaahahahahahahaha
    Actually, this type of 'research' counts for a large number of the studies published so far. Put a number of cells in a petri dish, nuke them and see if any affects are observed. Often there are.

    But what the conspiracy theorists 'forget' to mention when they quote these studies, as conclusive proof, is that the levels and durations used in these tests do not resemble anything seen in the field. Basically their methodology tends to be: If you don't get results with normal cell and tower levels, jack up the volume and duration till you do get results. Then publish your 'Eureka paper'.

    Look somewhere else on this forum where I quote a study on sperm cells done here in South Africa. Only when they blasted the poor buggers with cell signals EIGHT times higher than normal, for 24-hours NON-STOP. did they see some effect on them (basically swimming erratically). There are many of these studies (which only proves what we've always known; Electromagnetic radiation at high levels are dangerous - just ask the chicken in your microwave oven)

    But there are even sillier studies used as 'proof'.

    One such 'methodology' involves 'researchers' knocking on doors of people who live nearby a tower. They are then basically asked "Do you suffer from any of the following symptoms." At which point they list every medical symptom known to man. And if the resident responds positively to any of these symptoms, it's marked down as proof that the nearby tower is the cause.

    The logical and scientific minds on this forum might well not believe that these type of studies are done, but that's exactly what happens. And then the likes of Muller and Trower states "Every study done to date show that base stations cause cancer'. And then, as conclusive proof, they state that these studies are published on the WHO's web-site to make them sound legit.

    All studies published end up in the WHO's database, BTW. This does not mean the WHO endorses any of them. They will publish the study and often will give a short overview on the methodology. They are particularly critical on these type of 'You're ill, must be the tower' type of studies. I.e. those without any proper research behind them.

  6. #6

    Default

    Klos has been told to apologise to Mr Barrie Trower on another thread for his demonstrably ignorant, offensive and defamatory comments. That at least shut him up on that thread, but here he goes again, atrocious grammar and all.

    If anyone is interested in the scientific research on cellphone masts, they can take a look at my submission to the World Health Organisation, which lists every single mast study I could find in the world to that date. You can check them out for yourself.
    http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20...africa_sos.pdf

    Another Israeli study by Michael Peleg has appeared since then, showing a highly significant (eightfold) increase in cancers near masts -- this has been peer-reviewed to the extent that it was presented at an IEEE conference. Peleg concludes:

    "A cancer cluster in an antenna ranges facility was reported. The p-value and the odds ratio are statistically significant and, together with similar cases reported elsewhere, support the hypotheses of carcinogenic influence of non-ionizing radiation and, more specifically, that of an extreme cancer risk when the exposure is prolonged, repetitive and limited only by the thermal ICNIRP limits. The 16% cancer incidence among a group of young people over a period of about a decade reported here serves as an example of the magnitude of this possible risk. This study may contribute to more definite conclusions when examined together with similar data reported elsewhere, till then human radiation exposure should be reduced deeply below the ICNIRP thermal limits."
    http://groups.google.com/group/mobil...16b7c389?pli=1

    Again -- anyone on this site who finds a peer-reviewed scientific study around a mast that does NOT show problems, like increased cancer rates, let us know.

    Let me tell you something very funny. If researchers are looking for signs of bird flu in an area, they go knocking on doors and ask about flu-like symptoms -- did you know that? Really stupid way of doing research, according to Klos.

    Klos: you have proved your ignorance and your bias to any decent, objective reader. Your defamatory comments will not be forgotten, and I still reserve all my rights in this regard. You do not have the guts to stand up and identify yourself, so just note that you prove yourself to be a coward. If there's one trait I truly despise, it is this kind of cowardice.
    What lies ahead is --
    More lies ahead.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Muller View Post
    Let me tell you something very funny. If researchers are looking for signs of bird flu in an area, they go knocking on doors and ask about flu-like symptoms -- did you know that? Really stupid way of doing research, according to Klos.
    You're right, it is funny. Or at least it would've been if you did not truly believe that this is how one does research.

    The only really stupid thing here is your belief that this 'methodology' (read: joke) constitutes research of any kind.

    Go and read the very links you've posted as proof and you'll see the analysis at the bottom of the same page ripping the results to pieces. (exactly because the knock-on-door method is fatally flawed.)

  8. #8

    Default

    I'll take Karl's first link (of 8 that "proves" cancer around towers) as a good example of what I posted above:

    From the details of the study by Santini (this is directly from Karl's own link above, showing how selectivly he loves to read):
    Quote Originally Posted by EMF Project
    http://="http://apps.who.int/peh-emf...dy.cfm?ID=772"
    Base Station (900 MHz GSM) residential proximity / exposure and assessment of fatigue, headache, sleep disorders, concentration difficulty, loss of memory, etc

    Details Human volunteers (n = 530) living various distances from mobile phone base stations were surveyed by questionnaire regarding various subjective disorders. The subjects were also asked to estimate their residential proximity to the nearest mobile phone tower. The authors reported significant associations between residential proximity within 300 m of a base station and tiredness. They also report associations between residence within 200 m and the incidence of headache, sleep disruption, and discomfort, and 100 m with the incidence of irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, and libido decrease. In addition, women were affected more often than men with regard to headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, depression, sidcomfort, and visual disruptions.
    Basically, the respondents were asked for their own views on what caused their symptoms. And by asking the proximity of any towers (how would they know, in any case?), the respondents were automatically biased.

    Now read the final comments on the bottom of the page (this is the bit Karl won't mention):

    Studies by Van Leeuwen (333), Wainwright (539), Wang (723), and Bernardi (763)have convincingly demonstrated that MW hyperthermia in the brain as speculated by Santini cannot occur from the use of a standard cell phone. Regarding the base station studies, the original study questionnaire did not appear to indicate any effort to control for recall bias, and subjects were asked to estimate their own residential proximity to the nearest mobile phone tower (obviously not very dependable). In the 2003 study, field probe measurements were taken at selected areas, but even this is subject to wide variations. There was also no indication of response rate, indicating that the study population may not have been appropriately selected, but may have all volunteered, further biasing the study.
    I understand Karl's viewpoints and (lack of) research depends heavily on subjective feedback, lack of any controls for the study and especially recall bias, but in the greater scientific community these kind of studies are very much frowned upon.

    Now ask yourself; Does Karl not bother to read the very links he loves to post here, or is it a case of "selective" posting?

    Clearly it's the latter. Karl have posted link after link on this forum and, without fail, his very own links discredit his statements.

    So why does he do this?

    He very well knows few (if any) will actually follow his links and read for themselves. So he can post cr@p and the greater community will swallow it hook, line and sinker.
    Last edited by Klos; 17-05-2010 at 04:12 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Muller View Post
    Klos has been told to apologise to Mr Barrie Trower on another thread for his demonstrably ignorant, offensive and defamatory comments. That at least shut him up on that thread, but here he goes again, atrocious grammar and all.
    After you posted that Trower does not use a PC at all, I gave up on that thread as you basically put the final nail in his coffin of credibility.

    Here we have a guy that involved himself in "microwave espionage" a few decades ago. And then you tell us he does not use modern technology such as computers, and by extension, the Internet. So he has no ability to read the thousands of studies, opinions and research on the various topics in the field of EMF.

    But, actually, it's no surprise, as we saw his lack of education with his grasp on how RF and it's shielding works.

    So he's got an excuse why he comes across as an uneducated nutter.

    As an 'ex-teacher', what's yours?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hilton, PMB
    Posts
    498

    Default

    A study today will be contridicted by another study 5 years from now.

  11. #11

    Default

    Let's take the second of Karl's famous 8 studies that show base stations cause cancer.

    Remember these are the very same 'studies' he is using to claim conclusive proof.

    Here's the link on the WHO's database, as supplied by Muller himself: http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research...dy.cfm?ID=1122

    Quote Originally Posted by EMF Study, ID 1122
    900 & 1800 MHz (GSM) phone use and assessment of hypersensitivity and general "well being" among users

    Details: A health survey carried out in Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of an 1800 MHz (GSM) base station. Respondents were asked by questionnaire to assess "well-being" and health issues related to "microwave sickness" or "RF syndrome". Power density was measured in respondents homes. The authors report a significant correlation between severity of reported symptoms and measured power density. The separation of respondents into two different exposure groups showed an increase in reported symptoms in the group with higher exposure.
    Again, residents were asked to self-diagnose "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome" in relation to a nearby GSM tower.

    It comes as no surprise that the EMF Project call this a "poor study design" and concludes (on the very same page Muller quotes):
    No defined exposure assessment, simply field probe measurements in each respondents bedroom taken during the middle of the day (11am - 7pm - when that is probably the only time the respondents would not be in their bedroom). Most importantly, no blinded questionnaire - the study was subject to bias, the authors even prompted responses by asking about "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome".
    Let me again highlight the last sentence in the Comments section:

    the authors even prompted responses by asking about "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome".


    See a pattern with these 'studies' you keep on trying to palm of as definitive proof, dearest Karl?

    Do you now understand why the WHO (and the rest of the scientific world) ignores you?
    Last edited by Klos; 17-05-2010 at 03:38 PM.

  12. #12

    Default

    I'll do one more of Karl's 'famous 8 studies' and then rather leave it to the reader to read the other five, if he or she so wishes. But by now that pattern will be patently clear: flawed studies are selectively quoted to provide a false outcome:

    Karl's linky: http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research...udy.cfm?ID=970
    Quote Originally Posted by EMF Project ID 970
    850 MHz (TDMA) mobile phone base station and cancer associated with residential proximity

    People (n=622) living in proximity to a mobile phone cell site in Netanya, Isreal (began operation in July 1996) and attending a cancer clinic were compared with control populations registering in a neighboring clinic in Netanya as well as the entire population cancer rate in Netanya. Eight cases in the experimental area were diagnosed during the study period between July 1997-June 1998 - all different types of cancer (ovarian, breast lung, hodgkins, Osteoid osteoma, and hypernephroma). The authors report a statistically significant association between residential proximity to the mobile phone base station site and cancer incidence. Start date June 1997, end date June 1999.
    Sounds quite impressive. Now read the comments (which Karl failed to mention):
    There were only 8 cancer cancer cases included this cell tower under study. Even more concerning, these were all different kinds of cancer (ovarian, breast lung, hodgkins, Osteoid osteoma, and hypernephroma) - not even 8 cases of the same thing. The control population was not adequately matched, despite the authors claim that it somehow is. The controls are all derived from a different clinic made up of people (presumably) living in a different area and subject to multiple different confounding factors. How can the author even be sure the control population did not live near other cell sites ? THis is not mentioned. Any cell network would be presumed to have sites situated throughout all the areas under study. The study presumes a latency period of less than 2 years for all the cancers (the cell site just started operating 1 year before the study). The exposure was miniscule at the level of the homes - one would have to conclude, if the study were valid, that cancer cases would be popping up all over the place around cell sites. I would be very suspicious if many other sites within the control population or the city of Netanya did not also have power densities comparable to what was found in the cancer subject's homes. Most importantly, there is NO dosimetry, just a single "measure -?" of power density at each home. Where was this measured ? On the roof ? Did the women work or stay home all day ? Were the control site homes measured ? In addition, the ERP from cell sites can changes over time in directionality, power, and cycle of transmission, especially during low-traffic periods in the late evening and early morning hours - this was not characterized in the cancer cases. In addition to changes in ERP, the effects of terrain and the reflecting / shielding contributions of natural and man-made structures and atmospheric conditions can cause significant variations in the RF energy that reaches various points within the homes and over the entire coverage area. Such variation was not described at all.
    Short summary: Study was so flawed an eight-year old would be embarrassed to publish these results.
    Last edited by Klos; 17-05-2010 at 03:42 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Muller View Post
    Another Israeli study by Michael Peleg has appeared since then, showing a highly significant (eightfold) increase in cancers near masts -- this has been peer-reviewed to the extent that it was presented at an IEEE conference. Peleg concludes:
    Ai tog, Karl......don't you EVER read the links you post??

    This 'study' has got nothing to do with mobile cell masts of any kind, even if you try and create the impression. Go read again what type of facility it is and what they do there.

    The author can't even (by his own admission) figure out the size of the control group. Could be 30, could be 60, they don't know and could not interview the controls. So how could they possibly do a probability calculation if they don't know or have access to the control group.

    And then, by his own admission:
    Quote Originally Posted by Peleg
    Since this is a single cluster no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it by itself.
    Karl, you really need to learn to be honest in your posts.
    Last edited by Klos; 17-05-2010 at 04:57 PM.

  14. #14

    Default

    I have a copy of a newsletter somewhere that was sent out in Fourways which is a good example of recall bias. If I can find it, I will post it here.

  15. #15

    Default

    Typed up the relevant section from our Talavera Estate newsletter. We're about 2ks away from the tower.

    Health Alert iBurst Tower

    The tower is placed in Memorial Lane next to the Memorial Park. Residents over Craigavon have been reporting bad health issues since the operation of the tower. Please urgently notify the Craigavon Task Force on intrack@iafrica.com and copy in bwebster@mweb.co.za (nurse recording health effects – Barbara) if you are experiencing any of the following symptoms; itchy, burning, dry skin, rashes or hot spots, nausea or wretching, dizziness, severe headaches, swollen / sore lymph gland, lack of concentration, change in sleep patterns, high blood pressure, hoarseness, heart palpitations, gastric disturbances, eye problems / sensitive of organs. The symptoms are already being experienced by children and adults in different complexes. Children tend to be more susceptible so please monitor closely.


    When we got this late last year, imagine my relieve to hear all my medical problems were caused by the iburst tower and not due to my lazy, fast-food chomping @ss.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •