backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by sabbede.. on Jun 3 at 1:44 PM


Dr. Keith Black says cell phone radiation could be "cooking the brain"  (Source: nadia5307163.files.wordpress.com)
The World Health Organization (WHO) placed cell phone radiation in the same carcinogenic category as engine exhaust, lead and chloroform

There has been a lot of debate and speculation over the years in regards to cell phones and the risks their radiation can have. But now, the World Health Organization (WHO) has officially categorized mobile phone use as a possible carcinogenic hazard.

In the past, studies have suggested that electromagnetic radiation could cause adverse effects on humans, such as brain tumors and problems with male fertility. The largest international study on cell phones and cancer, which was released in 2010, showed that volunteers who used cell phones over a 10-year period or longer had doubled the rate of a type of tumor called glioma. Another study conducted by the National Institutes of Health showed that cell phone radiation boosts brain activity by 7 percent, but it is still unknown what this artificial boost does to the brain. Some effects may not be known for many years. 

"When you look at cancer development -- particularly brain cancer -- it takes a long time to develop," said Dr. Henry Lai, research professor in bioengineering at University of Washington. "I think it is a good idea to give the public some sort of warning that long-term exposure to radiation from your cell phone could possibly cause cancer."

While it is important to note that WHO has not established any adverse health effects on humans, it has labeled cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

WHO came to this conclusion after a team of 31 scientists from 14 countries reviewed studies on cell phone safety, and as a result, placed cell phone radiation in the same carcinogenic category as engine exhaust, lead and chloroform. Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, meaning its not like an X-ray, but more similar to a low-powered microwave. 

"What microwave radiation does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. "So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones."

While wireless carriers instruct users to keep cell phones a certain distance from their heads, such as Apple's iPhone 4 safety manual that says to keep the device at least 15 millimeters from the body, CTIA - The Wireless Association noted that WHO's announcement does not mean that cell phones cause cancer. In addition, the association denounced WHO's results since it "did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies."

The European Environmental Agency and others around the world are pushing for further research on the subject for a more in-depth understanding of radiation effects.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Urg
By icanhascpu on 5/31/2011 7:09:39 PM , Rating: 5
Here is a little png for everyone, that I found informative.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/medi...




RE: Urg
By icanhascpu on 5/31/2011 7:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
For anyone that doesnt want to read it; basically, you are more likely to get cancer from eating a banana.


RE: Urg
By nxjwfgwe on 6/3/2011 7:51:13 AM , Rating: 1
^__^ONLINE STORE :

http://dv.gd/24993

we has been updated and add products an

many things they abandoned their increases

are welcome to visit our website.

Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport.

You can try oh, will make you satisfied.

http://dv.gd/24993
~ ¤ ??? ???
????????~???
,)))),'')~~ ,''~)
??¦? ??¦?
|?|?||?|?|
++++++++++++++saghrt


RE: Urg
By radium69 on 5/31/2011 7:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
Give the author of the png some credits will you ;)

http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The official one!


RE: Urg
By icanhascpu on 5/31/2011 7:59:38 PM , Rating: 3
??

The credit is at the bottom of the png. They are both the 'official one'.


RE: Urg
By bdunosk on 5/31/2011 8:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dose for chest x-ray is off, but they put that in the fine print.

Read the following (or just the "Naturally-occurring "background" radiation exposure" section) to get a better idea of your dose.

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?p...


RE: Urg
By ForeverStudent on 5/31/2011 9:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
I posted that very same table in a previous article on cell phone radiation. I find the table very informative, interesting, and even more entertaining. But what's important to consider is that the information is specifically ionizing radiation, or short wavelength, high frequency, high energy photons. These are the photons or radiation frequencies commonly associated with genetic damage and cancer.

What this WHO article is really saying is not at all related to the fact that a banana-phone emits more ionizing radiation than a cell phone (interesting and true statement). What this article is saying is that the low energy, long wavelength radiation that we've considered safe for many many years may actually be associated with cancer in the long term. And cell phones happen to be a source of this "safe" radiation that we hold right up against our heads, or store in pockets near our genetalia.


RE: Urg
By icanhascpu on 5/31/2011 9:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Point taken but I think this is more a grab for funds/ratings than anything. Is there a difference in the actual cancer between short and long wave radiation? I mean is the cellphone cancer longer? lul?
My point is there are many things that could cause their findings to be totally off because I simply don't believe they are capable of making a control group that tightly controlled for long enough.


RE: Urg
By ForeverStudent on 5/31/2011 9:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Now that I absolutely agree with. 100%. Somewhere between 50% and 99% of journalism and news is skewed, or just straight sensationalism.

"We're bored of what's actually happening, so let's create an interesting story to scare people and get them interested."


RE: Urg
By kaosstar on 6/2/2011 2:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nice chart, but a chart listing ionizing radiation has nothing to do with cell phones, a non-ionizing radiation source.


RE: Urg
By sabbede on 6/3/2011 1:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
That point is made at the bottom of the chart.
Besides, there isn't any possible threat from non-ionizing radiation.
You may as well be worried about the threat from headphone magnets.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki