University of Alberta:
DCA Therapy Data:
More interesting info:
University of Alberta:
DCA Therapy Data:
More interesting info:
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial topic, with many individuals voicing massive concern over the practice. In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects. Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpaste, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.
Top Scientist: Fluoride Already Shown to Cause 10,000 Cancer Deaths
One paper entitled Fluoride – A Modern Toxic Waste says the following:
In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:
Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.
To reduce fluoride levels to a the greatest degree, activists must demand that the government stop fluoridating the water supplies. Water fluoridation has not only been linked to an increased cancer risk, but a decreased IQ in children. In fact, the findings forced the government to call for lower fluoridation levels nationwide. Until water fluoridation comes to a halt, the easiest way to reduce fluoride exposure is to invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration system. Drinking distilled water for 3-6 months may also reduce the soft tissue fluoride levels, but not bone levels. Soft tissue fluoride levels cause the greatest health problems.
This post first appeared at Natural Society
Gold Buyers Australia has been a proud supporter of the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation (OCRF) since May 2000 which has been led by eminent gynaecological oncology specialist, Chairman/Co-Founder Associate Professor Thomas Jobling and CEO/Co-Founder Liz Heliotis.
A gynaecological cancer, cancer of the ovaries is one of the most common cancers affecting women and is often detected in the advanced stage of the disease, resulting in a high mortality rate. Source
Now whilst both protecting women against cancer and owning gold may both be important to our everyday life and our future. Is it really something that should be combined. We know that many companies have used propaganda to make users both sell and buy items that consumers both don’t need to either sell or buy.
As you can see in the short clip from the AlexJonesChannel on YouTube Edward Bernays Propaganda, On how to control the masses. Now I’m not saying that Gold Buyers Australia is trying to control the population into selling gold, however i do believe that partnering up with cancer funds is both using emotion and pulse to maximize the amount of goods that they can take from the customers when they trade their Gold.
As seen above. It can be done – has been done – is still being done.
“By leaving your gem stones at Gold Buyers Australia when you sell your gold you’re helping to prosper ovarian cancer research. Gold Buyers Australia donate the full proceeds from the sale of the gem stones directly to the OCRF.” Source
Now in the time of need that millions around Australia should be actually looking at purchasing gold and or silver hundreds of these little kiosks will pop up around all shopping malls trying to do nothing but take you from your gold and give you nothing but a few cents on the dollar. We cannot stress anything more then NOT to sell you gold. Whilst many believe that the GOLD BUBBLE has popped, we believe its only beginning. Something you should think about is – Why would all these Gold Buyers Australia kiosks keep opening up trying to rape you of your metals if the bubble has popped. Don’t you think that they would be trying to sell the gold back to you?
Not only has Gold Buyers Australia been a huge hit to buying your gold. In the last 6 Months Cash Converters has also been another huge hit popping up around Australia with signs such as the one we posted above attempting to buy from the suckers at $25 per gram of *PURE* 999 Gold, whilst the current price as on this day of writing the per gram price of gold is sitting at $51.27. At half price you are selling your gold back to the system. What a brighter way to take the gold from the people then to advertise as such amazing prices for buy backs right?
So what can you do?
Well i know what i am doing, that is walking directly past these companies and exposing them for the fraud they are.
With Gold Buyers Australia – You are not supporting Cancer. Your only supporting cancer when you donate your gem stones to them and 100% of the gold you sell to them, stays with them. What I would be doing is completely ignoring this company – Call them out for the fraud they are.
As for Cash Converters – Dont sell your gold from $25.00 a gram. You life many depend on it one day. As a matter of fact – You should be heavily looking into buying more gold. If these companies are so eager to get your gold, What does that tell you about the way gold is going to go?
Disclaimer: We are not your financial advisers and what you choose to do at the end of the day is up to you. Just take into account the information that’s freely available on this website and let that be a guide to help you with your end decision.
(NaturalNews) Since the Dark Ages when the black plague swept through Europe, few diseases in human history have elicited such a deadly combination of fear and ignorance. In this modern age full of the wonders of technology, cancer is our greatest fear, and our greatest unknown. A UK poll found the highest percentage of respondents, one in five, feared cancer over anything else, including Alzheimer’s, heart attack, or job loss. Even more disturbing, fully a third believed whether they got cancer or not was up to fate, that there was nothing they could do to reduce the risk.
To exacerbate the problem, a recent Reuters article admits that recent cancer research is unreliable at best, if not completely fraudulent. C. Glenn Begley, former head of global cancer research at Amgen Inc., chose 53 ‘landmark’ publications for his team to double-check and build on for future drug development. Out of the original 53, he was only able to replicate six. Scientists at Bayer conducted a similar project and were only able to reproduce less than a quarter of the 47 cancer projects they had previously conducted. Begley wrote in the journal Nature, “It was shocking. These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry, always looking to profit from the public’s fear and ignorance, continues to develop cancer drugs, usually based on fewer than half a dozen research publications that are pseudo-scientific at best. Then, the Big Medical/Big Government mafia continues to play God by pushing these ‘treatments’ on sick people as if they are the only option.
97 percent of cancer research money goes into treatments and early detection, while the other 3 percent is invested in fighting the causes of cancer. Logic dictates that to truly fight a disease, the cause should be removed. A great example of this is the Western cholera epidemic of the 1800s. With no knowledge of germs or antibiotics, the problem was traced to what seemed to be the most logical cause, contaminated water sources. Once these were removed, the cholera receded. Dr. David Servan-Schreiber, a founding board member of Doctors Without Borders, wrote, “It is ironic to think that if we had had antibiotics at the time, and had counted on them to deal with the disease as we count today on anticancer treatments, we might never have controlled cholera.”
It doesn’t take a pharmaceutical rep or a rocket scientist to understand that cancer is caused by environmental factors. The most common cancers are far more prevalent in the West, not Asia, yet when Asians move here they are just as prone. It is true that cancer runs in families, except that adopted children often share the cancer of their adoptive, not biological parents. People who eat or avoid specific foods are more or less prone to cancer, as are those exposed to certain chemicals for certain lengths of time. If cancer is caused by environmental factors, could it not be cured removing those factors and giving the body’s immune system the nutrients it needs to fight off the cancer? It may not be as profitable, but might it save more lives?
The foundation of the modern cancer industrial complex is built on sand, and it’s starting to crumble. And now, the mainstream media has openly admitted that the research the pharmaceutical companies rely on can no longer be trusted.
How long before the public wakes up?
Monday, April 2, 2012
It is well established that carcinogenic substances are lurking in the environment around us, but just how many cancer cases are caused by these substances remains a mystery. Diet and smoking habits make up nearly 60 percent of cancer cases, and thus personal lifestyle changes play a major factor, but how many cancer cases result from environmental and occupational exposure?
For decades the estimate for such cases has remained at 6 percent, but many experts feel that number is significantly lower than what is actually true. In a 1981 report by two scientists, Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It was estimated that pollutants in the environment caused about 2 percent of cancer deaths and exposures in occupational settings were responsible for 4 percent. Using these numbers, 30,000 U.S. deaths resuleds from these exposures in 2009.
But the percentage of cancer cases caused by environmental toxins and occupational exposure can’t be confidently calculated. While it is important to know which substances are carcinogenic and how much these substances are used in our society, many factors must be taken into consideration when determining exactly what causes this number 2 killer to be so rampant.
Tobacco smoke is responsible for nearly 30 percent of cancer cases, and the carcinogenicity of the substance is amplified even greater when asbestos is present. Benzene, which causes leukemia, is commonly found in vehicle exhaust. Similarly, radon, a natural radioactive gas found in many homes, raises the risk of lung cancer while arsenic, linked to skin, liver, bladder and lung cancer, contaminates many foods and juices – as well as the water supply.
While scientists and mainstream medical professionals call upon the abilities of mainstream medical science to lessen cancer rates, research shows that the war against cancer using such techniques is a complete failure. Despite 10′s of millions of dollars being spent on the war on cancer each year, and the American Cancer Society allegedly making its mission to treat and prevent cancer, overall rates continue to climb as mainstream medicine provides little benefit.
No matter exactly how many cancer cases are being caused by the environment and occupational exposure, possessing the knowledge allows for individuals to reduce their exposure to the carcinogenic substances while manufacturers and factories can reduce or halt the use of the cancer-causing substances.
So how can the nearly 60 percent of cancer cases caused the smoking and lifestyle be drastically slashed? To put it simple, don’t smoke and live a healthy lifestyle with enough exercise and healthy eating. Fructose is consistently being found to play a significant role in the development and spread of cancer, so fructose consumption should be greatly limited. Using organic consumer products, consuming organic foods, not smoking, and filtering your tap water will also greatly help to reduce any chance you have of developing cancer.
This article first appeared at Natural Society
(NaturalNews) More than a dozen families in New Jersey were shocked to learn recently that some of the supposed fluoride pills they had received from a CVS/pharmacy in Chatham were actually tamoxifen pills, a chemotherapy drug used to treat breast cancer. ABC News reports that an unknown error resulted in some of these families administering this chemotherapy medication to their children rather than the fluoride pills, a monumental error that could have life-threatening consequences.
The Chatham CVS/pharmacy in question may have been dispensing an unknown amount of chemotherapy pills in fluoride prescriptions for at least the past two months, which is why the pharmacy is attempting to contact all families that ordered prescriptions for 0.5 milligram (mg) fluoride tablets within the past 60 days to notify them of the potential problem. Meanwhile, an investigation is currently underway to determine the cause of the mixup.
“CVS/pharmacy has industry-leading pharmacy systems and processes designed to enhance the safety of the prescription filling process, including inventory controls that keep similar-looking medications in separate areas, such as fluoride tablets and tamoxifen,” alleged CVS Caremark in a recent statement about the issue. “We are actively investigating this matter to determine how the mistake occurred in order to take corrective actions to prevent this from happening again.”
But it is precisely because CVS/pharmacy supposedly employs such advanced, error-preventing safety protocols that this case leaves more questions than answers. After all, fluoride pills would have been stocked in an entirely different section of the pharmacy than tamoxifen. And contrary to the claims made by CVS Caremark about the two pills looking similar, the same can be said about all sorts of pills — in reality, tamoxifen pills and fluoride pills are not really all that similar, especially since they both bear unique identifiers imprinted right on the pills.
Because it is a chemotherapy medication, tamoxifen carries with it some very serious side effects, including the ability to actually cause cancer. Though fluoride is not much better in terms of safety, the use of hormone-disrupting tamoxifen in children can cause some very serious developmental problems, as well as increase their risk of developing certain types of cancer.
And oral fluoride pills, which have never been proven to prevent tooth decay or improve health in any way, are linked to lowered IQ levels, dental fluorosis (a type of tooth decay), allergies, kidney disease, brain damage, hormone disruption, thyroid and pineal gland problems, bone disease, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and cancer (http://www.fluoridealert.org/).
Sources for this article include:
Important information on mobile phones, EME and your health
At Telstra, we want all our customers to have up-to-date and relevant information about using mobile phones. This includes offering information on all matters of mobile phone safety. If you want to know more about mobile phones, EME (electromagnetic energy) and how mobile technology may impact health, we offer information on our website, our customer contact centres, and with new mobile services.
What do we know about mobile phones and EME?
Telstra relies on the expert advice of a number of national and international health authorities including the World Health Organization (WHO) for overall assessments of health and safety impacts.
Research into EME, mobile phones and health has been going on for many years now. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, has recently reviewed all of the available scientific research into the likelihood of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Energy (RF EME) having an association with cancer in humans.
The IARC categorised RF EME fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.”
The IARC concluded that “There could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
The June 2011 WHO Fact Sheet (Number 193) on mobile phones and health, which takes into consideration the IARC categorization, states “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”
The WHO also notes that further study into the long term use of mobile phones and cancer, and the effect of mobile phone use on young people should be undertaken.
The WHO maintains an extensive database of scientific research into the effects of EME, including studies on the effects of RF on health. This database is available on the WHO website and contains more than 1900 published scientific articles on the biological and health effects of RF EME and more than 630 studies on RF specifically used by mobile networks.
More information on these studies is available in the links provided in this brochure. Telstra takes all matters of safety very seriously and only sells mobile phones that meet national and international safety requirements and standards.
Steps to reduce exposure
The WHO provides information on how to reduce mobile phone exposure:
“In addition to using “hands-free” devices, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the phone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power.”
(Source WHO Fact Sheet 193 May 2010 – Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html)
There are many sources of information on mobile phones and health. Visit our website at http://www.telstra.com/eme or go direct to some of the authorities and organisations we rely on for expert advice or general information:
You can also email us at email@example.com
Or check your device’s handbook, guide or website for information provided by your device manufacturer.
Is it just a coincident that cancer is increasing along with the large amount of counter vaccines that we are subjected to each year. From vaccines we received growing up, to continuous shots throughout our lives and if we are unlucky government recommendation on vaccines such as the H1N1. unfortunately not only cancer is at risk to our lives however our futures are also effected via lowering IQ levels and lowering fertility levels through the war on our water supply that the government deems mandatory to have chemicals such as fluoride and in some states mercury in our water to keep us safe from such things as tooth decay, no matter how hard we fight for the truth that fluoride can cause the opposite effect and mercury is actually eating away at your brain.
Along with the global eugenics plan below Alex outlines how this corporate take over is actually killing us and not preventing cancer but causing cancer along with other known issues. Although the details are not in-depth in this article, it links to many known published sources exposing what we should already know. We will continue to market this research to the public and expand on this Anti-Vaccine cause as Big-Pharma gets ready for its next Vaccination plan through the movie called contagion. We hope you to can help stop big-pharma stealing your money with funny cures, while watching you and your kids suffer from these continuous health problems.
June 26, 2011
Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:
It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.
Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!
Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, butthe FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!
It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.
Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!
You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated withcancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actuallya chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actuallycausesmore cancer than it prevents (http://www.naturalnews.com/023317_s…).
Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to97 percent of blacksare deficient (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v…).
Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031560_v…), winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html).
By blocking vitamin D production in the skin,sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.
This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.
Here’s the real secret about sun exposure thatno onein conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You canboost your internal sunscreenby eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.
The supplementastaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.
The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You canradically improve your resistance to UV exposurethrough radical dietary changes.
I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).
Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.
It is a complete medical myth that “UV exposure causes skin cancer.” This false idea is a total fabrication by the ignorant medical community (dermatologists) and the profit-driven sunscreen companies.
The truth is actually more complicated:Skin cancer can only be caused when UV exposure is combined with chronic nutritional deficienciesthat create skin vulnerabilities.
To create skin cancer, in other words, you have to eat a junk food diet, avoid protective antioxidants, and then also experience excessive UV exposure. All three of those elements are required. Conventional medicine completely ignores the dietary influences and focuses entirely on just one factor: Sunscreen vs. no sunscreen. This is a one-dimensional approach to the issue that’s grossly oversimplified to the point of being misleading.
The medical industry, it seems, does not want people to figure out they can literally eat their way to healthier skin. It’s amazing, actually:Your skin is made entirely out of the food you eat, so how could your diet not affect your skin health? Yet no one in conventional medicine — not the dermatologists, not the doctors and not the health regulators — has the intellectual honesty to admit thatwhat you eat largely determines how your skin reacts to UV exposure.
Be careful when shopping for so-called “natural” sunscreen products. While there are some good ones out there, many are just examples ofgreenwashing, where they use terms like “natural” or “organic” but still contain loads of synthetic chemicals anyway.
A good guide for checking on sunscreen products is theEnvironmental Working Groupguide (EWG) at:
Some of the products that aretrulynatural includeLoving Naturals sunscreenandBadger All Natural Sunscreen. Read the ingredients labels to see for yourself. Don’t use any sunscreen product containing ingredients that sound like chemicals:
Always buy unscented sunscreenunless for some reason you just enjoy coating your skin with artificial perfume chemicals. A typical sunscreen product is made with over a dozen cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, and they’re absorbed right through your skin. Most sunscreens, when applied as directed, are really justtoxic chemical bathsthat heavily burden your liver and can give you cancer
Search Amazon.com for “chemical free natural sunscreen” and you’ll see a listing for:
Jason Natural Cosmetics – Earth’s Best Sun Block Chemical Free, 4 oz cream
Click on the product and you’ll find a listing of its ingredients which includes:C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sorbitan Isostearate, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Ethyl Macadamiate, Calcium Starch Octenylsuccinate, Stearalkonium Hectorite
So how are those not chemicals? Ethylhexyl Palmitate is NOT a chemical? Who are these people kidding? The Amazon.com description (title) of this product is false and misleading. In all fairness, however, this product title looks like it was added into the Amazon.com system by the vendor and not the Jason company itself. But it’s an example of how the information you see from online vendors can often be misleading.
Always read the ingredientsof any sunscreen product before using it. Don’t poison yourself with sunscreen!
Perhaps more with sunscreen than any other personal care product, the “official” information distributed through the mainstream media is hopelessly misleading (if not downright false). Remarkably, no one in the media or the government is even willing to admit that fragrance chemicals are bad for your health. Similarly, no one is willing to admit thatthe chemicals you put on your skin get ABSORBED by your skin.
Without those two truths being acknowledged right up front, the rest of whatever they say about sunscreen is worthless babble. Any honest talk about sunscreen must acknowledge the simple truth that the chemicals you put on your skin get absorbed into your skin, and that most sunscreen products are made out ofa chemical cocktailof cancer-causing substances.
This is the truth about sunscreen that both the sunscreen industry andthe cancer industrydoesn’t want you to hear. It’s the dirty little secret of sunscreen: The more you use, the more you CAUSE cancer in your body! (And the more money the cancer centers make “treating” your cancer with yet more deadly chemicals known aschemotherapy.)
Sobuyer beware. Sunscreen products are a minefield of lies, fraud and disinformation designed to keep you ignorant of the importance of sun exposure as well as the health risks associated with using cancer-causing chemicals on your skin.
Stick with truly natural sunscreen products (when needed) and try to build up a healthy tanwhile consuming large quantities of superfoods and antioxidantsin your diet. Consider taking astaxanthin or other fat-soluble nutrients on a regular basis. Engage in dailyjuicingof fresh fruits and vegetables which are loaded with living nutrients. Time your sun exposure to build up a healthy tan so that you don’t need sunscreen at all. Contrary to all the misinformation we’ve all been fed, a healthy tan is actually a good sign that you’re achieving adequate vitamin D synthesis in your own skin.
Learn more about sunlight and vitamin D with these two resources:
FREE report: The truth about sunlight and vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli…).
FREE video: The Truth About Sunlight, Cancer and Vitamin D
This week’s big news—that cell phones cause cancer—isn’t new to anyone who’s been paying attention for the past 16 months.
By Russ Baker
By arrangement with WhoWhatWhy.com
June 2, 2011
OK, yesterday the mainstream, corporate-owned media covered new evidence that cell phones represent serious health risks—because a huge, lumbering mainstream international organization has finally, cautiously, weighed in (and despite another, much smaller, and more specialized international organization having weighed in years ago):
Once again, it has taken a very, very long time for some urgently important information to be addressed, however tepidly, by the establishment in a way that it can be shared by the big corporate media with the people.
Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.
Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.
A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” …
Of course, if you’ve been visiting WhoWhatWhy (or happened to read GQ of all things), you already knew about this 16 months ago. And you knew the risks are far greater and broader.
Here are a few snippets:
It’s hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem-maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem-is like saying our shoes might be killing us. Except our shoes don’t send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do-a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world…
Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe’s premier research institutions, of cell-phone and
PDA use being linked to “brain aging,” brain damage, early-onset Alz heimer’s, senility,
DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union’s environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology “could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol.”
Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor-specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone-goes up as much as 40 percent for adults.
Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.
Once again, it has taken a very, very long time for some urgently important information to be addressed, however tepidly, by the establishment in a way that it can be shared by the big corporate media with the people. Hence, for the public at large to learn of this hazard.