http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/are_the_experts_lying.htm

--------

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/bjc_2006_reply_hardell_hansson.pdf


Informant: Don Maisch

--------

----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Date: Friday, April 7, 2006 10:49 pm
Subject: Are the experts lying?
To: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Cc: Anders.Ahlbom@ki.se, Maria.Feychting@ki.se

Maria Feychting from the ICNIRP said to the Swedish major morning newspaper about prof' Hardell's study: "Several studies have been published with long-term users, but so far, no other have observed an increased risk".

"Det har publicerats flera studier med långtidsanvändare, men det är ingen annan som ser en ökad risk, säger Maria Feychting, professor i epidemiologi vid Karolinska Institutet. " http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=533742&rss=1399

But she herself found in her own study: "our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration" Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Related Articles, Links Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology. 2004 Nov;15(6):653-9. PMID: 15475713 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----- Original Message -----
From: Maria Feychting
Maria.Feychting@ki.se
To: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Cc: Anders.Ahlbom@ki.se
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Are the experts lying?

The study by Hardell that was discussed in the newspaper was about mobile phone use and risk of malignant brain tumors. Therefore, my comment in the newspaper referred to studies on malignant brain tumors, not acoustic neuroma which is a benign tumor. Acoustic neuroma was not at all discussed in the news article.

Sincerely,

Maria Feychting


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. April 2006 16:48
An: Iris Atzmon
Cc: anders.ahlbom@ki.se; maria.feychting@imm.ki.se
Betreff: A Clarification from Dr. Feychting
Wichtigkeit: Hoch


Hello Maria,

As you saw, I forwarded your clarification. Could you please relate to Lothar's reply to you below?
(Lothar is from the organization http://www.diagnose-funk.ch )

Thanks in advance

Sincerely,

Iris.


----- Original Message -----
From: Lothar Geppert
lothar.geppert@diagnose-funk.ch
To: Iris Atzmon
atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: AW: A Clarification from Dr. Feychting

...but it's still BY FAR not the only one showing a risk for malignant brain tumors for long term cellphone use - So what... It's still a lie.

Could you ask her to comment this graph? It's from the ECOLOG-Institute, Dr. Neitzke.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/diagr_rr_hirntumor_akustikusn_ecolog.jpg


Regards,

Lothar

--------

Comparing analog & digital cordless

The analogue phone category in the latest Hardell et at research is actually looking at older analogue mobile phones (as opposed to more modern digital systems such as GSM). In actual fact their was no differentation between analogue and digital in the cordless phones section, it is likely that analogue cordless phones were included in this category, _not_ the analogue phones category.

From feedback we have received and our technical assessment of example products, we as an organisation believe analogue cordless phones do seem to be far less bioactive than digital cordless phones.

Graham Philips
Technical Manager Powerwatch UK


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=uri:2006-04-06T164555Z_01_N061368_RTRUKOC_0_US-FDA-CELLPHONES.xml


Informant: Iris Atzmon

--------

Note that, as usual, the FDA refer to findings of ill-health effects from mobile phone technology as "difficult to interpret". You bet theyy're difficult to interpret - they pose the ultimate difficulty of compromising the financially highly lucrative mobile comms industry, with knock-on adverse effexts on gov't.

"Difficult to interpret", in any other sense, is a load of bollo - er, nonsense. ANY scientific data can be interpreted in terms of its findings. The only difficulty here is that it doesn't fit the game-plan of those doing the interpreting. It's a clear sign that those in authority are losing their grip when the best they can do is such a pitifully thin excuse for not facing up to scientific facts. They don't seem to have any difficulty in interpreting results of studies supporting their view that there's no risk - even when such studies are riddled with self-contradictory and unscientific assertions.

The one thing that's NOT difficult to interpret is the clearly biased position of those falling over themselves to write off any study that doesn't suit their purpose.

Grahame



... and a bit of a parallel with the London drug trial that "went wrong". ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LDTC.php )

Preferential believing (or attention) easily pushes you over the border of "not knowing what you don't know" (ignorance of ignorance). I heard David Gee who edited "Late lessons from early warnings": ( http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/tab_abstract_RLR ) demonstrate the fragility of science that ignores the uncertain, because it is a sign not of lack of certainty, but also of the unknown, and indeed of the unknowable parts of reality.

For regular science, reality is a construct, a room x by y, and if the furniture doesn't fit it's thrown out; rather than seeing that the construct is too small.

Many great leaps in science, understanding, knowledge, what you will, came from observant people spotting the little things that didn't fit: the wobble in a a distant planet, the variation in a simple experiment ...

Andy


From Tetra/mastsanity

--------

Increase in brain cancer risk from using a mobile or cordless phone for over 5 years
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1529585/

http://at-de.i-newswire.com/pr16158.html
http://openpr.de/news/82842

Wes Brot ich ess’, des Lied ich sing’.

Die Mehrzahl der wissenschaftlichen Studien fanden Effekte durch Mobilfunkstrahlung

Der Wissenschaftler H. Lai von der University of Washington hat die wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten über Auswirkungen der Mobilfunkstrahlung im athermischen Bereich die zwischen 1994 und März 2006 in erschienen sind hinsichtlich ihrer Förderungsquelle und der Feststellung eines Effektes gesichtet. http://www.mikrowellensmog.info/Gesundheit.html

Von den 308 einer kollegialen Prüfung (Peer-Review) unterzogenen Studien fanden 174 (56%) einen Effekt.

Werden diese Studien nach Förderquellen aufgeschlüsselt, dann finden sich unter diesen 215 Studien die nicht von der Industrie gefördert wurden 147 (68%) die einen Effekt gefunden haben! Dagegen gab es bei den 93 von der Industrie geförderten Studien nur 27 (29%) die einen Effekt festgestellt haben.

Zu den festgestellten Auswirkungen gehören genetische Effekte, zelluläre/molekulare Effekte, Krebs, elektrophysiologische Effekte, Verhaltensänderungen und Effekte auf das Nervensystem, die Blut-Hirn Schranke, auf Kalzium, das kardiovaskuläre System, die Wärmeempfindung, die Hormone, das Immunsystem, den Stoffwechsel, die Fortpflanzung, das Wachstum und subjektive Symptome.

Es wäre daher an der höchsten Zeit eine Politik des ALARA ("as low as reasonable achievable" = "so niedrig, wie vernünftigerweise erreichbar") zu verfolgen und die Belastung schrittweise zu reduzieren, zunächst innerhalb eines Zeitraumes von drei Jahren in Häusern, Schulen und anderen nichtindustriellen Einrichtungen, dann gesamt wie es auch Umweltschutzorganisationen (BUND) fordern.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Univ.-Doz. Dr. Ferdinand Ruzicka
Habilitiert für „Medizinische Physik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zytophysik“ (cytophysics) an der Medizinischen Universität Wien

http://www.mikrowellensmog.info



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Ruzicka

Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/