On the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies
The following are some interesting analyses by Lloyd Morgan on the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies. Particularly telling are the scatter graphs in the second entry, showing a very graphical representation of the results compared against each other.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060817_wireless_tumours.asp (Increase of risk based on phone use)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_phones_tumours.asp (Comparison of Swedish research and Interphone studies, with a link to:)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_viewgraphs.asp (The comparison graphs themselves. Three graphs are available, just click on the relevant link at the top of the page)
Best Regards,
Graham Philips
Technical Manager
Powerwatch UK
--------
This is really alarming for two reasons. Firstly, it is ANALOG phones which are being clearly shown in these studies as carrying the highest risk of brain cancers, followed by DECT, then mobiles. Secondly, we are seeing many cases of brain cancer after only a few months to a couple of years use, which is unusual in the development of cancers, which, the authors state, typically appear decades after exposure to carcinogens.
In other words if we are seeing such abnormally rapid carcinogenic development from microwave phone use in comparison to other carcinogens, what does that portend for the future?
Gary
--------
Analogue phones were higher average powered compared with GSM (0.6 watts rms max; c.f. 1 or 2 W peak, 0.125 or 0.25 W rms for GSM).
Also the networks had less base stations then, so the handsets had to work at high power for much more of the time.
I suspect that these were just promoting existing brain tumours into becoming active.
Dr John Holt, President of the Australian College of Radiologists, treated cancers with radiotherapy. To kill cells they need to be in mitosis (dividing) and not dormant. If you treat a very slow growing tumour with radiation you will kill as many or more good tissue cells as you will kill cancer cells. People have tried warming up cancer sites before radiotherapy, and this works slightly to stimulate the cancer cells to grow. However John Holt found that a 5 minute exposure to a 900 MHz cell phone next to the tumour site changed a 5% growing cancer into a 95% growing cancer for about the next 30 minutes. So he applied various microwave frequencies (mainly 450 and 900 MHz) to stimulate the cancer cells before radiotherapy and achieved much better treatment outcomes. There was no increase in temperature of the cancer sites (or, at least, nothing compared with the old method of heating by several degrees), so this is a non-thermal effect. There was some controversy over his claims because the establishment does not believe in non-thermal effects, but they are well documented.
See: http://www.wanttoknow.info/050729cancercure
I think the most worrying finding is that cordless phones over ten year use seem to produce significant brain cancer increases.
Alasdair
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060817_wireless_tumours.asp (Increase of risk based on phone use)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_phones_tumours.asp (Comparison of Swedish research and Interphone studies, with a link to:)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_viewgraphs.asp (The comparison graphs themselves. Three graphs are available, just click on the relevant link at the top of the page)
Best Regards,
Graham Philips
Technical Manager
Powerwatch UK
--------
This is really alarming for two reasons. Firstly, it is ANALOG phones which are being clearly shown in these studies as carrying the highest risk of brain cancers, followed by DECT, then mobiles. Secondly, we are seeing many cases of brain cancer after only a few months to a couple of years use, which is unusual in the development of cancers, which, the authors state, typically appear decades after exposure to carcinogens.
In other words if we are seeing such abnormally rapid carcinogenic development from microwave phone use in comparison to other carcinogens, what does that portend for the future?
Gary
--------
Analogue phones were higher average powered compared with GSM (0.6 watts rms max; c.f. 1 or 2 W peak, 0.125 or 0.25 W rms for GSM).
Also the networks had less base stations then, so the handsets had to work at high power for much more of the time.
I suspect that these were just promoting existing brain tumours into becoming active.
Dr John Holt, President of the Australian College of Radiologists, treated cancers with radiotherapy. To kill cells they need to be in mitosis (dividing) and not dormant. If you treat a very slow growing tumour with radiation you will kill as many or more good tissue cells as you will kill cancer cells. People have tried warming up cancer sites before radiotherapy, and this works slightly to stimulate the cancer cells to grow. However John Holt found that a 5 minute exposure to a 900 MHz cell phone next to the tumour site changed a 5% growing cancer into a 95% growing cancer for about the next 30 minutes. So he applied various microwave frequencies (mainly 450 and 900 MHz) to stimulate the cancer cells before radiotherapy and achieved much better treatment outcomes. There was no increase in temperature of the cancer sites (or, at least, nothing compared with the old method of heating by several degrees), so this is a non-thermal effect. There was some controversy over his claims because the establishment does not believe in non-thermal effects, but they are well documented.
See: http://www.wanttoknow.info/050729cancercure
I think the most worrying finding is that cordless phones over ten year use seem to produce significant brain cancer increases.
Alasdair
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Starmail - 18. Aug, 13:42
