Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@xxxxxxxxx> hath wroth:

In article <6p3c33d7fdrsgerlgrn0untnamj5namgnl@xxxxxxx>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
users) has increased dramatically in the same time span.

But most cancers that are related to such thing (not "naturally
occurring" for lack of a better term") have dose-response relationships.

So, how long do you want to wait? In 1985, there were about 600,000
cell phone users in the world. Today, there are about 2.5 billion
cell phones in the world in use:
<http://www.cellular-news.com/story/19223.php>
That's about 15 years (my guess) since cell phones became sufficient
numerous to be statistically significant for cancer research. The
original 600,000 users should have developed brain cancer by now,
especially after perhaps 22 years of exposure. Look again at the
brain cancer incidence graph. Flat, no increase, since 1984.

Wi-Fi devices together in one place,
The longer you smoke the more lung cancers you see. Asbestos and radon
are both more likely with longer exposures than with shorter ones. Most
chemical cancers same way.

Asbestos and radon are both cumulative, which explains why they're
exposure related. So are all ingested carcinogens. However, the last
time I checked, the human body cannot store RF. It might store some
temporary heating, but that's very short term.

*IF* (real big if) cell phones are going to cause cancers by the
ways suggested, then you have to wait out lag times, because they will
be there.

It should have shown up by now, since widespread cell phone use
started in approximately 1985. There is the possibility that vehicle
accident fatalities induced by cell phone use exactly balances the
increase in cancer rate. However, autopsy results on accident
fatalities does not show a high incidence of brain cancer.

It has
increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
use and brain cancer should track.

Right, they should track, but not right away because the
damage with cancers are related to long-term exposures.

Is 10 years enough for tracking? If so, we should have seen an
increase in brain cancer from the 1985-1995 users of cell phones. We
haven't.

Their relative
waste hazard has little to do with their health hazard within the
context of their use.

I meant that to demonstrate the large number of cell phones currently
in use (and discarded).

However, I will grant that the decrease in SAR (specific absorption
rate) may balance the increase in cell phone usage. There may also be
non-linear threshold effects. However, if these were the case, one
would expect to see some variations in the brain cancer rate. There
have been none. The curve is flat.

May (or may not be) just that the cases haven't started showing
up yet. Look at the timeline with women and lung cancer, for example,
where they started smoking in increasing numbers, but the spike in lung
cancer in women did not begin until 20 years later. Cancers work that
way.

Wrong. The tiny spike in about 1990 was caused by improvements in
cancer screening methods that improved early detection. As I recall,
it showed up for both men and women. As a result, more lung cancers
were identified on introduction. The curve dropped immediately
afterwards:
<http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Lung-Snapshot.pdf>
Incidentally, lung cancer testing statistics are somewhat of a crap
shoot because the tradition chest x-ray generates large numbers of
false positives. The false positives tend to appear in the statistics
reported by doctors, while little effort is made in removing these
false positives from the statistics when more invasive tests show that
it's not a cancer. The few that I've seen tracked end up getting
classified as "spontaneous remission" which is a nice term of a bad
cancer diagnosis.

Incidentally, if you need some entertainment value, and have a 24dBi
barbeque dish antenna, you might try pointing it at the sun. The dish
diameter is roughly 1 square meter. The total power delivered by the
sun is about 1000 watts per square meter.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation>
Very little of this is at 2.4Ghz, but your wireless client or access
point should show a measureable increase in noise level when pointed
at the sun. I'm late for lunch or I would calculate the noise power.
Anyway, there's probably more radiation at 2.4GHz coming from the sun,
than from a nearby wireless client. (I'll grind the number later).

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
.

Relevant Pages

  • Cancer chief sees cell phone risks
    ... The director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Centers plans to issue an advisory to about 3,000 faculty and staff today about the possible health risks associated with cellular phone use. ... "Recently I have become aware of the growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer," Dr. Ronald Herberman said in the memorandum. ...
    (soc.culture.laos)
  • Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks
    ... Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks ... phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Scientists warn US Congress of cancer risk for cell phone use
    ... Scientists warn US Congress of cancer risk for cell phone use ... brain tumors are outdated, had methodological concerns and did not ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Bob Parks Whats New -- Friday, December 8, 2006
    ... PLAN FOR LUNAR GOLF IS PAR FOR THE COURSE. ... FIVE YEARS LATER THEY STILL DON'T CAUSE CANCER. ... compare cell phone use with the National Cancer Registry. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Homeopathy, curing cancer and Mark Probert
    ... > suggest this homepathic remedy be used to treat cancer. ... I said the only evidence for Ruta 6 "in humans" meaning whole humans. ... Cancer cells are more vulnerable than normal cells to a wide variety of noxious influences, which is why conventional chemotherapeutic agents with many very different mechanisms of action are able to preferentially kill cancer cells while preserving normal cells. ... "We treated human brain cancer and HL-60 leukemia cells, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)