Not quite true, the following show a statistically significant evidence of an increase in risk of cancer:
Further aspects on cellular and cordless phones and brain tumours.
Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild and M Carlberg
International Journal of Oncology, 22:399-407, 2003.
Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003.
L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild (Örebro; Umeå, Sweden)
International Journal of Oncology, 28:509-518, 2006.
Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas
L Hardell, M Carlberg and K Hansson Mild
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:390-394
Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattson M-O (2004): Mobile telephones and cancer - a review of epidemiological evidence.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 7:351-384, 2004
Not quite true, the following show a statistically significant evidence of an increase in risk of cancer:
Further aspects on cellular and cordless phones and brain tumours.
Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild and M Carlberg
International Journal of Oncology, 22:399-407, 2003.
Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003.
L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild (Örebro; Umeå, Sweden)
International Journal of Oncology, 28:509-518, 2006.
Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas
L Hardell, M Carlberg and K Hansson Mild
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:390-394
Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattson M-O (2004): Mobile telephones and cancer - a review of epidemiological evidence. (A review of other epidemiological work)
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 7:351-384, 2004
I happen to know Alasdair Philips fairly well through his scientific connections. If you feel that he is a wack that is your prerogative, personally I couldn't care less about convincing you, I have no reason to believe that your opinion is particularly important. I was simply informing you of his background from personal experience as opposed to random internet searching. I couldn't care less whether you accept that I am in the scientific community or not, registering and posting details about myself in a profile could be faked anyway, so it's hardly like that would be proof. Sorry, but proving myself to you is very low on my agenda.
He has been, and continues to be very highly regarded in the scientific community, and pointing me to random internet pages isn't going to make me consider myself wrong. I have no idea what your experience is, but it is clearly neither science nor electromagnetic fields. I am fully aware of the increase in leukaemias around powerlines, and I am aware of a number of theories attempted to explain this. Close to the powerlines (within 70m or so where the field drops below 0.4 microTesla) the risk is expected to be due to magnetic fields. Further out there are other theories, such as Bristol University (Prof Denis Henshaw's department specifically) claiming that toxic aerosols are being charged and more likely to deposit themselves in your lungs when breathed in. This would also tie in nicely with Prof Mel Greaves' findings that leukaemia can be linked to infection. However, it is also worth noting that the average magnetic field in a house is approximately 0.05 microTesla, and no research has found any increase in cancer of any kind at this level - going through random household appliances is merely a sign of your technical ignorance on the subject.
You clearly have little knowledge of brain cancers either, as an acoustic neuroma is in fact a benign brain tumour (CancerBACUP). It is also purported that it may well trigger more malignant brain tumours of the brain.
Your criticism of the headnets and the canopies I cannot comment on from personal experience. However, the fact that the material used is also used for radar reflective applications in the military, MRI and clinical scanners, and has tests showing an over 95% electromagentic field reduction were conducted by Qinetiq, formally known as DERA - Defence Evaluation and Research Authority (not exactly an unreliable source of information) means that it may well have more merit than you give it. So maybe they do look like tin foil hats, but maybe they work anyway. Neither of us are in a position to judge, apart from your narrow minded prejudgemental attitude that you can tell something's quality merely by looking at a picture on a website.
Besides which, even under the premise that neither myself nor Alasdair have any technical merit, the point of fact is that the comments he has raised are perfectly valid and do require attention. The study did _not_ look beyond gliomas, and the conclusions in the abstract specifically stated that they could not comment on long term use (> 10 years), so to then release a press statement that mobile phones don't increase the risk of brain cancer, based purely on this report, is simply irresponsible.
I mean no personal slight when I say this, but your understanding of this subject appears to be nil aside from what you have read on the wonderful but sometimes misleading world wide web. You understand neither electromagnetic fields, nor brain cancer, and seem singly incapable of considering an opinion other than your own with trying to start an argument. I merely meant to inform and help, and cannot be bothered to argue with an ignorant fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, this is a resend with better formatting:
Not quite true, the following show a statistically significant evidence of an increase in risk of cancer:
Further aspects on cellular and cordless phones and brain tumours.
Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild and M Carlberg
International Journal of Oncology, 22:399-407, 2003.
Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003.
L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild (Örebro; Umeå, Sweden)
International Journal of Oncology, 28:509-518, 2006.
Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas
L Hardell, M Carlberg and K Hansson Mild
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:390-394
Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattson M-O (2004): Mobile telephones and cancer - a review of epidemiological evidence.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 7:351-384, 2004
Not quite true, the following show a statistically significant evidence of an increase in risk of cancer: Further aspects on cellular and cordless phones and brain tumours. Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild and M Carlberg International Journal of Oncology, 22:399-407, 2003. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild (Örebro; Umeå, Sweden) International Journal of Oncology, 28:509-518, 2006. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas L Hardell, M Carlberg and K Hansson Mild Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:390-394 Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattson M-O (2004): Mobile telephones and cancer - a review of epidemiological evidence. (A review of other epidemiological work) Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 7:351-384, 2004
I happen to know Alasdair Philips fairly well through his scientific connections. If you feel that he is a wack that is your prerogative, personally I couldn't care less about convincing you, I have no reason to believe that your opinion is particularly important. I was simply informing you of his background from personal experience as opposed to random internet searching. I couldn't care less whether you accept that I am in the scientific community or not, registering and posting details about myself in a profile could be faked anyway, so it's hardly like that would be proof. Sorry, but proving myself to you is very low on my agenda.
He has been, and continues to be very highly regarded in the scientific community, and pointing me to random internet pages isn't going to make me consider myself wrong. I have no idea what your experience is, but it is clearly neither science nor electromagnetic fields. I am fully aware of the increase in leukaemias around powerlines, and I am aware of a number of theories attempted to explain this. Close to the powerlines (within 70m or so where the field drops below 0.4 microTesla) the risk is expected to be due to magnetic fields. Further out there are other theories, such as Bristol University (Prof Denis Henshaw's department specifically) claiming that toxic aerosols are being charged and more likely to deposit themselves in your lungs when breathed in. This would also tie in nicely with Prof Mel Greaves' findings that leukaemia can be linked to infection. However, it is also worth noting that the average magnetic field in a house is approximately 0.05 microTesla, and no research has found any increase in cancer of any kind at this level - going through random household appliances is merely a sign of your technical ignorance on the subject.
You clearly have little knowledge of brain cancers either, as an acoustic neuroma is in fact a benign brain tumour (CancerBACUP). It is also purported that it may well trigger more malignant brain tumours of the brain.
Your criticism of the headnets and the canopies I cannot comment on from personal experience. However, the fact that the material used is also used for radar reflective applications in the military, MRI and clinical scanners, and has tests showing an over 95% electromagentic field reduction were conducted by Qinetiq, formally known as DERA - Defence Evaluation and Research Authority (not exactly an unreliable source of information) means that it may well have more merit than you give it. So maybe they do look like tin foil hats, but maybe they work anyway. Neither of us are in a position to judge, apart from your narrow minded prejudgemental attitude that you can tell something's quality merely by looking at a picture on a website.
Besides which, even under the premise that neither myself nor Alasdair have any technical merit, the point of fact is that the comments he has raised are perfectly valid and do require attention. The study did _not_ look beyond gliomas, and the conclusions in the abstract specifically stated that they could not comment on long term use (> 10 years), so to then release a press statement that mobile phones don't increase the risk of brain cancer, based purely on this report, is simply irresponsible.
I mean no personal slight when I say this, but your understanding of this subject appears to be nil aside from what you have read on the wonderful but sometimes misleading world wide web. You understand neither electromagnetic fields, nor brain cancer, and seem singly incapable of considering an opinion other than your own with trying to start an argument. I merely meant to inform and help, and cannot be bothered to argue with an ignorant fool.