Just Say No to Big Brother’s Smart Meters by Orlean Koehle
“New Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer LinkError! Hyperlink reference not valid.” Dr. Mercola January 05 2011
(
http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2011/01/05/new-evidence-identifies-strong- cell-phone-cancer-link.aspx.)
A recent study could change the debate over cell phones and cancer. A research group has reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. The research was carried out at Hebrew University in Jerusalem at the Hadassah School of Dental Medicine by Rakefet Czerninski, Avi Zini and Harold Sgan-Cohen. For many years now, skeptics have argued that the epidemiological studies pointing
to a tumor risk from cell phones must be wrong, because no one has seen an increase in cell-phone related tumors in the general population. But one of these earlier epidemiological studies found that heavy users of cell phones "showed significantly elevated risks" of parotid gland tumors. (Sadetzki et al showed 49 percent increased risk of parotid gland tumors. Another, by Lonn et al, in 2006, found parotid gland increase of 160 percent (borderline significance). So the long- term trend data recently reported by Hebrew University is not surprising. According to Microwave News:
"The parotid gland is a type of salivary gland -- the one that is closest to the cheek next to where most people hold their cell phones. Interestingly, the new ...data show no similar increases in the two other major types of salivary glands, the submandibular and sublingual glands that are farther away from the phone."
In related news, another study by Hardell et al in Sweden has confirmed that design flaws in the Interphone study (published May 2010) caused the risk of brain tumors (gliomas) to be underestimated. The Interphone study claimed that use of a digital cell phone for more than 10 years led to a 118 percent increase in the risk of brain cancer. But an analysis by Hardell et al in 2006, which experts consider a very well designed study, revealed that the increased risk of malignant brain tumors could be as high as 180 percent. A recent re-analysis of the Hardell data by the Hardell team, published December 17,
2010 in the International Journal of Epidemiology, finally now explains the difference in brain tumor risk found in the two studies. It shows the difference to be related to differences in methodology: 1) a difference in the age ranges selected for the two analyses, and 2) due to the Interphone study inaccurate classification of portable phone users as 'unexposed' to microwave radiation. When the Hardell data was recast by the Hardell team using the more limited protocol
used by the Interphone study -- i.e. considering subjects who were between 30-59 years instead of 20-80 years used by the Hardell team originally, and classifying any subject who used a cordless phone as 'unexposed,' as the Interphone study had inexplicably done -- the two data sets revealed essentially the same risk of brain tumors. This demonstrates the lesser risk of brain cancers from cell phone use reported in the Interphone study was a result of the Interphone study's design flaws.
Camilla Rees of
ElectromagneticHealth.org says: "Were a wider age range used, as in the original Hardell research (ages 20 to 80), and subjects properly classify as
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165