True enough.
As a scientist, it just bothers me when a journalist doesn't represent a study properly. They never reference properly either...
Mobile phones boost brain tumor risk
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
True enough.
As a scientist, it just bothers me when a journalist doesn't represent a study properly. They never reference properly either...
Nflmir
The study will get lost in the maze of "news items from the media" because the corporate world of cell phones and other electric gadgets will bury the bad stuff.
At this point in our modern technology do you want a scare looming on the horizon that cell phones will give you head cancer?
Unless you use your own judgment and precaution.... no study is every going to be written and published demonstrating the dangers of cell phone use (or any similar product).... the lawsuits
would be flying.
The study will get lost in the maze of "news items from the media" because the corporate world of cell phones and other electric gadgets will bury the bad stuff.
At this point in our modern technology do you want a scare looming on the horizon that cell phones will give you head cancer?
Unless you use your own judgment and precaution.... no study is every going to be written and published demonstrating the dangers of cell phone use (or any similar product).... the lawsuits
would be flying.
I don't really know how to respond to that. The only way I can interpret it is as a denial of the scientific method, and as a lack of trust of oncologists. I am not sure that is what you mean though.
Too deep for you? Or are you just being argumentative which seems to be your forte.
Whatever - your response doesn't have an effect on my own knowledge.
Whatever - your response doesn't have an effect on my own knowledge.
http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic147.htm Link to topic...
Sorry about that..... but I'm not about to second guess the team who worked and diagnosed my husband at UCLA..... he had multiforme glioblastoma which didn't present until he was Stage IV
There were two choices - something he picked up in the Gulf One or a common pattern that he wore a headset in his work. The headset was determined to be a primary contributing factor his the tumor growth whether all the scientists here discount it as non-fact.
The final sentence which everyone has been pronouncing as a "done deal" is not a "done deal" yet because a satisfactory study has not been done - and glios present in various parts of the brain - each person has different outcomes, especially when they are younger than 50 which my husband was...
Causes: The etiology of GBM is unknown. However, at least two genetic pathways have been delineated in its development: de novo (primary) glioblastomas and secondary glioblastomas. De novo glioblastomas are most common. De novo GBM develops in older patients and demonstrates a high rate of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN) mutations, and p16INK4A deletions. In contrast, secondary GBM develops in younger patients and develops from a malignant transformation of a previously diagnosed low-grade tumor. TP53 and retinoblastoma gene (RB) mutations are more common in the development of secondary glioblastomas. Several genetic disorders are associated with increased incidence of gliomas (eg, tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2, Turcot syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome). An association exists between ionizing radiation and astrocytomas. Children who receive low-dose intracranial radiation have a 2.6-fold increase in prevalence of astrocytomas, and prophylactic whole-brain radiation therapy in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia increased the incidence of astrocytomas 22-fold. And the final sentence of the article... Other suspected risk factors, such as electromagnetic radiation and cellular telephone use, are yet to be substantiated by large epidemiologic studies.
Other suspected risk factors... doesn't mean they have discounted that as one source
As this particular type of cause is still being studied and that it was an area of study and concern - no doubt there are factors which lead doctors to believe that it may cause a predisposition in a person's brain for future set up of tumor growth.
Sorry about that..... but I'm not about to second guess the team who worked and diagnosed my husband at UCLA..... he had multiforme glioblastoma which didn't present until he was Stage IV
There were two choices - something he picked up in the Gulf One or a common pattern that he wore a headset in his work. The headset was determined to be a primary contributing factor his the tumor growth whether all the scientists here discount it as non-fact.
The final sentence which everyone has been pronouncing as a "done deal" is not a "done deal" yet because a satisfactory study has not been done - and glios present in various parts of the brain - each person has different outcomes, especially when they are younger than 50 which my husband was...
Causes: The etiology of GBM is unknown. However, at least two genetic pathways have been delineated in its development: de novo (primary) glioblastomas and secondary glioblastomas. De novo glioblastomas are most common. De novo GBM develops in older patients and demonstrates a high rate of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN) mutations, and p16INK4A deletions. In contrast, secondary GBM develops in younger patients and develops from a malignant transformation of a previously diagnosed low-grade tumor. TP53 and retinoblastoma gene (RB) mutations are more common in the development of secondary glioblastomas. Several genetic disorders are associated with increased incidence of gliomas (eg, tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2, Turcot syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome). An association exists between ionizing radiation and astrocytomas. Children who receive low-dose intracranial radiation have a 2.6-fold increase in prevalence of astrocytomas, and prophylactic whole-brain radiation therapy in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia increased the incidence of astrocytomas 22-fold. And the final sentence of the article... Other suspected risk factors, such as electromagnetic radiation and cellular telephone use, are yet to be substantiated by large epidemiologic studies.
Other suspected risk factors... doesn't mean they have discounted that as one source
As this particular type of cause is still being studied and that it was an area of study and concern - no doubt there are factors which lead doctors to believe that it may cause a predisposition in a person's brain for future set up of tumor growth.
Last edited:
The majority of the research I've looked at on this issue shows no correlation between cell phone use and cancer. In fact the most dangerous impact on a persons life associated with cell phone use appears to be the increased probability of being in a serious car accident.
A recent study has investigated the affect of the electromagnetic field produced by the cell phones. It does excite the brain activity in the motor cortex adjacent to the phone, but the effects are back to normal within an hour. It's when things like this are reported without the conclusions that the issue is clouded. One might think it logical that increased brain activity leads to cancer. Not so according to these Italian researchers. In fact they don't know at all, wethor it is a positive or negative. Perhaps this stimulation could be good for some patients with degenerative neuro-disorders?
Here is a search from one magazine's archives.
I suspect that this issue will continue to persist for some time.
A recent study has investigated the affect of the electromagnetic field produced by the cell phones. It does excite the brain activity in the motor cortex adjacent to the phone, but the effects are back to normal within an hour. It's when things like this are reported without the conclusions that the issue is clouded. One might think it logical that increased brain activity leads to cancer. Not so according to these Italian researchers. In fact they don't know at all, wethor it is a positive or negative. Perhaps this stimulation could be good for some patients with degenerative neuro-disorders?
Here is a search from one magazine's archives.
I suspect that this issue will continue to persist for some time.
Gilbert
I would have been glad to add the link - I didn't realize I had left it off because I cut out the beginning of the article.....
It was never my intention to imply that I wrote the article.... was it yours?
That's the gist of most of what I've seen. Although, ther4e have been few studies about the long term affects because cells haven't really been around that long.
Well I guess I better opt out - cell phones are fine.... just like cigarettes were fine for the people in the 40s who liked movies.....sarcasm sorry.... but every one seems determined to relegate cell phone use to "safe"....
I was describing a headset anyway - not a cell phone, but regardless I will continue to be cautious in their use for a prolonged time.... especially on one side of the head...
Curiousity,
I'm not saying that cell phone use is safe, I'm not qualified to say anything like that. I admit that I know very little about this. All I am saying is that the majority of the research isn't showing a correlation right now, that doesn't mean there won't be a groundbreaking study which can show the connection.
I'm not saying that cell phone use is safe, I'm not qualified to say anything like that. I admit that I know very little about this. All I am saying is that the majority of the research isn't showing a correlation right now, that doesn't mean there won't be a groundbreaking study which can show the connection.
Tonington
It's ok T - I just realized I am arguing apples and oranges..... whether I feel a certain way about cell phones is my own business - as it is everyone else's business what they want to do.
What the team finally determined months after his nine-day "illness" was that my husband probably had a tumor caused by the headgear pilots wear. I still wonder if the military allowed all the information out or not... because there have been others members struck down by these tumors... maybe they are becoming more prevalent in our electronic age. Dunno.
Because there was a lot of "foreign" pollution in Iraq during the Gulf War One...they had to check on all sources and studies... but that was their determination and it's the best I have to go on.
I don't know why it is important that I have the "cause".... it doesn't make it a better loss for me. At least some people are studying the safety of our society's toys.
It's ok T - I just realized I am arguing apples and oranges..... whether I feel a certain way about cell phones is my own business - as it is everyone else's business what they want to do.
What the team finally determined months after his nine-day "illness" was that my husband probably had a tumor caused by the headgear pilots wear. I still wonder if the military allowed all the information out or not... because there have been others members struck down by these tumors... maybe they are becoming more prevalent in our electronic age. Dunno.
Because there was a lot of "foreign" pollution in Iraq during the Gulf War One...they had to check on all sources and studies... but that was their determination and it's the best I have to go on.
I don't know why it is important that I have the "cause".... it doesn't make it a better loss for me. At least some people are studying the safety of our society's toys.
I believe it
Controlled information is a big problem. Did the manufacture even know this was going to be an issue? Did the various governments know more about cell phones then the manufactures or do they take there word for it.
What requirements do governments have for manufactures to follow before putting something on the market?
We do not know as much as we should, things have gotten out of control we believe there are laws and rules in place for everything, but who or how many people sat down to make these decisions, how do you know they though of everything.
Its all about the money lawyers and courts anything can be manipulated to get results that you want. Just by asking questions for the answers you like. Why ask questions that will not get a good response?
How many people know that computers have been build with at least three types of hazardous waste. Has the people involved in the industry even been told of potential risk.
Sure we are all environmentally sensitive to the elements and no one person is the same as the others. This could be the reason so many questions have not been asked.
Controlled information is a big problem. Did the manufacture even know this was going to be an issue? Did the various governments know more about cell phones then the manufactures or do they take there word for it.
What requirements do governments have for manufactures to follow before putting something on the market?
We do not know as much as we should, things have gotten out of control we believe there are laws and rules in place for everything, but who or how many people sat down to make these decisions, how do you know they though of everything.
Its all about the money lawyers and courts anything can be manipulated to get results that you want. Just by asking questions for the answers you like. Why ask questions that will not get a good response?
How many people know that computers have been build with at least three types of hazardous waste. Has the people involved in the industry even been told of potential risk.
Sure we are all environmentally sensitive to the elements and no one person is the same as the others. This could be the reason so many questions have not been asked.
Yes I really believe that it would.
A friend of mine had a hand held ham radio and we found a burnt out florescent tube he put the mini antenna to the tube and pressed in the transmit button and the tube lit up in that small area where the antenna was.
Try it with a cell phone and get a florescent tube put your cell phone antenna to the tube and phone someone and when you talk the tube will light up.
I came to the conclusion that when you talk on a cell phone you are transmitting a strong signal that has to reach one of the cell network towers which means for the few seconds you do talk you are killing a few brain cells.
When the cell phones were more bigger the ones that were installed in the car the cell phone makers recommended that the antenna be placed in the back window away from the driver now they are saying it is OK.