Cell Phone Usage Safe if You are Not a Male Rat

4
2547
www.dvorak.org

Health Editor’s Note:  Good news! If you are not a mouse or rat and are not male, you are unlikely to get cancer from using your cell phone…..The cancer that the rats and mice did develop is a cancerous tumor in nerves of the heart (schwannomas), and to a much lesser degree in the brain.  Note, that the test subjects were exposed to the highest levels of radio-frequency radiation associated with the two most common types of cell phone networks (global system mobile communications and code division multiple access), which exceeded any normal usage time for a cell phone. Their exposure began before they were born and continued for two years which is the 70 in human years.  Not all of the male subjects got cancer…only 6% when compared to the non-exposed group. 

We are warned from time to time that cell phone usage can cause brain tumors, but I really do not see anyone giving up his or her cell phone until there are definitive results i.e. testing with humans and if the usage of cell phones does cause brain tumors, cancer, by then it will be too late for all of us…….Carol

Cell Phone Radiation Unlikely to Cause Cancer

Rare cancer in rats likely not an issue for humans

by Charles Bankhead, Senior Associate Editor, MedPage Today

Radiation exposure from cell phones appears to pose little, if any, cancer risk for humans, despite an association with a rare type of cancer in male rats and mice, government researchers concluded.

Male animals, but not females, had a higher rate of malignant schwannomas — arising in nerves in the heart — compared with animals not exposed to cell phone radiofrequency radiation. The increased risk occurred only in male animals exposed to the highest levels of radiofrequency radiation, which exceeded the exposure levels associated with typical cell phone usage.

“The typical cell phone call has radiofrequency radiation emissions that are very, very, very much lower than what we studied,” John Bucher, PhD, senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), said during a media teleconference to summarize the study results. “We studied the maximum that one could achieve during a call in a poorer-connection situation. We studied it over 9 hours a day for over 2 years. This is a situation, obviously, that people are not going to be encountering in utilizing cell phones. It’s a situation that allows us to find a potential biological event if one is going to occur.

“I think the message is that typical cell phone use is not going to be directly related to the kind of exposure we used in these studies.”

The complete results, extracted from studies involving about 3,000 laboratory animals, led NTP scientists to conclude the increased rate of malignant schwannomas in male rats was caused by exposure to the radiofrequency radiation. Male rats exposed to the highest levels of radiofrequency radiation had about a 6% incidence of malignant schwannomas versus none in the control groups.


Bucher and colleagues suggested that the evidence for malignant schwannomas met the risk classification standard of “some evidence of carcinogenic activity.” That descriptor ranked just below the highest standard, “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.” The schwannoma evidence is “the strongest cancer finding in our study,” said Bucher.

The study produced some evidence of an increased incidence of brain tumors in male rats, but the data left the NTP scientists with a “lower level of certainty” that exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation caused the tumors. Bucher said the findings related to brain tumors rose only to the level of “equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity.”

When the NTP released an interim report in 2016, scientists said tumors observed up to that point were “likely related” to cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposures but they had more confidence in the association for the malignant schwannomas and the brain tumors. At the time, they noted the overall tumor incidence was low, even though increased in the exposed versus control groups.

The FDA has yet to finish its review of the NTP data, but a top official said the initial impression is that cell phone radiofrequency radiation does not pose a cancer threat to humans.

“Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into account all available scientific evidence we have received, we have not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits,” Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors. Based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”

Bucher briefly reviewed the study design. Animals were assigned to control groups or to groups exposed to various levels of radiofrequency radiation. Radiation exposure began in utero and continued for 2 years. Bucher noted that a 2-year-old rat is the age equivalent of a 70-year-old human.

Animals were exposed to radiofrequency radiation associated with the two most common types of cell phone networks: global system mobile communications (GSM) and code division multiple access (CDMA).

Bucher said NTP scientists will continue to evaluate data from the study, including studies of the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on different types of tissue and DNA. Separate reports of studies involving rats and mice are available on the NTP website.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

4 COMMENTS

  1. This feels like an attempt, to white-wash a well-known issue.

    When you add several different signals, on top of one, it becomes strong.
    If you go to a store and shop a lot of objects, you’ll return home with a lot of objects.
    If you only purchase one object, you’ll return home with one.

    Living right next to large antennas are unwanted for good reasons, especially for phone-networks.
    A lot of signals are more than one signal, that’s what would be interesting to evaluate.

    Now to the real issue.
    The WIFI signal is so strong, that everything pales in comparison and it’s well known.
    It’s however ignored due to it being a convenient technology.

    A good way to handle it is to turn it off when it’s unused and then turn it on once a day or less, when it’s time to transmit data.

    This isn’t just about phones, WIFI is used in Tablets, Clocks Laptops and a lot of other things.
    So, shut off WIFI when it isn’t used, a wired connected to a workplace which never moves is better than WIFI. The devices will always search for a WIFI connection, in turn it should be turned of even if no WIFI router is close by. The WIFI router itself sends a very strong signal as it’s supposed to travel through a lot of wall and materials and it’ll of course destroy human cells in this way.

    Use something to translate the text if needed.
    Strålning/Radiation from electronics like computers
    Bärbara datorer och läsplattor eller surfplattor —
    http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/rad/barbara-datorer-och-lasplattor/
    “Smarta Elmätare” —
    http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/rad/smarta-elmatare/

    This one has information from links, that are written in English.
    Click on the links for more information.
    Vittnesmål – röster från verkligheten —
    http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/vittnesmal/

    Ögon —
    http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/risker/ogon/

    • A more relevant test, would be to emulate a satellite or antenna with a thousand signals.
      This is what we likely in minimum becomes exposed by daily.

      Cancer is fungus growing within humans, which all of nature can experience.
      Cancer can in turn be cured, unless left alone for too long as to the last days.
      It’s just a medical term to fool the dumb sheep’s, who believes everything they hear from the Mass Media.

      Cell destruction and radiation of different kinds in general, boost fungi growth by a lot.
      The body needs Iodine/Iodide, not Bromid, Fluor, Chloride and their radioactive alternatives.
      Iodine and Iodide protects the body against a lot of different kinds of radiation, so it would be interesting with clear tests based on different Iodine levels.

      Another important aspect would be the nutrients that these test subjects are given.
      A healthy subject is prone to less issues.

  2. Why does Carol Duff continue to cover up the criminality and fraud of the CDC?
    Why won’t she talk about the murder of Timothy Cunningham whose body was recently found in the Chattohoochie River? Cunningham had been missing for two months and speculation is now swirling that he had been silenced by someone within the CDC.
    The CDC has gone to great lengths to silence anyone blowing the whistle on the links between autism in black babies and vaccines.
    Obviously the CDC needs to be investigated for criminality and fraud, not to mention collusion with the pharmaceutical industry.
    As for cell phones, the addiction to cell phone usage is out of control, especially with young people.
    And we now will have the planet poisoned with G5 frequencies.

    • JohnZ, The FDA is not the CDC. Article distinctly mentions FDA findings…..not related to any CDC issues. The other department noted is the National Toxicology Program (NTP) which is a division of the National Institute of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Carol

Comments are closed.