Okay, so what is the putative pathway from calcium efflux to cancer? If RF can cause cancer, there will be studies showing as much (with dose response). Do you have citations?
Until I see these I'm with Jab's guy. One guy who works on RF antennae and dies of a brain tumour is barely evidence, let alone proof. I take "possible" to mean "above-zero probability", but no more than that at this stage.
...
But for all _practical_ purposes, no, cell phones don't cause brain cancer.
This last statement is so absurd, I felt I had to answer some of this.
There's a dogma that goes "non-ionising radiation cannot break chemical bonds therefore it cannot break DNA therefore it cannot cause cancer".
Yet there are several peer-reviewed studies, including the EU's major REFLEX study, which show that cellphone radiation (especially 3G) does indeed cause single- and double-strand DNA breaks. One of the possible explanations is just that by interfering with cell chemistry (which is why I quoted the calcium efflux story, which has been known for years), RF interferes with the DNA repair process. This will obviously lead to observed DNA breaks.
Please don't take my word for the fact that the literature shows DNA breaks etc. As I posted previously on this site, the industry's own research indicates this. The ECOLOG study, commissioned by T-Mobil of Germany, reported the following:
This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures at power flux densities much lower than the guidelines, yielded strong indications for genotoxic effects of these fields, like single and double-stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes. The findings that high frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication also point on a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony. The study also found teratogenic effects (birth deformities) and loss of fertility in animal studies. Moreover, disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated.
Please go and argue with T-Mobil if you don't like what you read there. This is all ancient news.
If you want to argue with me, I am going to insist now that you actually go and read "Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette" by the late Robert C Kane. You can download the entire book for free here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21783803/Cellular-Telephone-Russian-Roulette
It is a very stupid thing to dismiss this book as "One guy who works on RF antennae and dies of a brain tumour is barely evidence". I stressed that Kane never even mentioned that he was dying of a brain tumour while he wrote the book. The point is that he was a genuine Motorola "insider", who reveals in meticulous detail exactly what the industry knew about the risks from the 1950s, and exactly how they covered up and fudged all the issues. I'm not prepared even to look at any further posts from you until I can see that you've actually read this book.
What is perhaps most interesting is that Kane revealed years ago exactly what the long-term strategy of the industry would be, and we can see it playing out right before our eyes.
He said that they knew all along that at a certain point (like now, when the WHO says whoops, maybe this radiation actually does cause cancer...) they would have to accept that they couldn't sweep this under the carpet any longer -- but by that time, the technology would be so entrenched that we wouldn't be able to do without it.
At this point, we would see a vast proliferation of very low-intensity masts everywhere across the landscape, basically every 100 metres or so. Picocells, nanocells, micro antennas, call them what you will -- they're appearing everywhere, almost invisible. And oh, now the levels will be so low that THIS is going to be safe.
This strategy explains one most interesting fact: the director of the World Health Organisation's EMF Project is a microwave engineer, Dr Emilie van Deventer, who had absolutely no health experience whatsoever when she was appointed. Go and look at her homepage
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EmilieVanDeventerCvBio.pdf and you'll see that she has absolutely no health background or expertise whatsoever, and her research interests are Electromagnetic characterization of high-speed circuits for telecommunications applications, Computational electromagnetics (RF frequency and time domain techniques), Electromagnetic compatibility and (last but not least....) Antenna modelling and design.
That last bit of her CV almost certainly landed her the job. If you put one and one together, you can see exactly what the agenda is. It's not a "health" problem. We don't need "health" experts to deal with this at the World Health Organisation. It's a "technical" problem -- how to make the antennas smaller and more dense across the landscape, so that we are bathed in this radiation at such short range that it really doesn't matter, does it.
I met Dr van Deventer and had three long conversations with her. She's a very nice lady, who told me among other things:
"Industry is not interested in your health. They want the network to work properly." (That is an exact quote, I wrote it down verbatim immediately). But I could see she was out of her depth much of the time, and I even had to explain to her what her predecessor, Michael Repacholi, had said about precautionary principles and why the WHO would not endorse them -- because it was shown that talking about lower limits "alarmed" people.
This is why I routinely tell people, the WHO would far rather kill you, than (God forbid)
alarm you.
As for this gem:
But for all _practical_ purposes, no, cell phones don't cause brain cancer
please can I tell this to a 30-something guy I met recently who has just had his second gruesome operation to remove malignant brain tumours. This guy is on the road all the time, and just loves to talk on his phone when he's driving -- he will literally talk for four hours on the trot while in a metal box, so that his handset is powered up to a maximum. A bit like this guy, perhaps:
http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Cellphone-caused-my-cancer-20080807
Can I prove that my friend's hundreds of hours on his phone caused his brain tumours? For all _practical_ purposes? If you see the hideous holes they drilled in his skull, you might think twice about using the word "practical" in this context.
Remember this. Based on its own Interphone study, the IARC of the WHO has now found evidence that cellphone radiation is possibly implicated in causing brain tumours -- a raw 100% increase in tumours with a maximum of 27 minutes exposure a day (highly dose-specific, go look at the tables) could not be swept under the carpet.
Ah, but coffee is also a "possible" carcinogen, you say. I can choose to avoid coffee. I cannot choose to avoid 24/7 cellphone radiation when they are putting masts up every few metres, pumping this radiation through my body.
There's a problem, pal. Capisce?
