Shocking U.S. Senate Hearing Confirms Dangers of Cell Phones -- See video

[Guest guest]

Shocking U.S. Senate Hearing Confirms Dangers of Cell Phones

_http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/01/21/US-Senate-Committee-Con

firms-Dangers-of-Cell-Phones.aspx_

(http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/01/21/US-Senate-Committee-Confirm\

s-Dangers-of-Cell-Phones.aspx)

 

_See_ (http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/default.aspx)

_http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/default.aspx_

(http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/default.aspx)

 

[ 2 VIDEOs ]

 

Witnesses before a Senate Committee testified about research into cell

phone use and its potential impact on human health, as well as the potential

side effects such as brain and salivary gland tumors.

 

 

In 2008, cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland

tumors. Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, who testified in September 2009 at the U.S.

Senate Hearing, is the principle investigator of the study that made this

finding.

 

 

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same

side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases

by:

 

-- 34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile

phone for 5 years.

 

-- 58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.

 

-- 49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours

during your lifetime.

 

 

The second video above by Electromagnetichealth.org, filmed at Columbia

University Law School at a presentation on Wireless Hazards, explains how

wireless radiation creates cognitive problems, damages DNA, diminishes

fertility, causes disorientation and navigation difficulties for birds, bees

and

other wildlife, and may contribute to Bee Colony Collapse, which, if not

reversed, will jeopardize the future of life on earth.

 

 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

 

 

About 4 billion people are now using cell phones around the world, despite

the fact that their safety is being increasingly called into question. In

fact, there are no safety standards for testing cell phones before they are

released to the market.

 

 

Meanwhile, government agencies, similar to their stance on tobacco before

the evidence became overwhelming, have essentially ignored all the danger

warnings.

 

 

Just like smoking tobacco, they fail to realize that it can take anywhere

from 10 to 30 years for brain tumors to develop from cell phone exposure,

so we are just now beginning to see some of the tragic effects of heavy cell

phone use. The truth is, we are on the verge of a _brain cancer epidemic_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/04/20/cell-phone-use

rs-240-percent-more-prone-to-brain-tumors.aspx) . It could grow to 500,000

cases worldwide in 2010, and there may be over a million cases in the U.S.

alone by 2015.

 

 

Sadly, children and teens are at an even higher risk, as their thinner

skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The

radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more

deadly.

In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more

susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Their immune systems are also not as well

developed as adults. Lastly, children face a far greater lifetime

exposure.

 

 

Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden has found that those who begin using

cell phones heavily as teenagers have _4 to 5 times more brain cancer as

young adults_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/11/cell-phones-raise\

-children-s-risk-of-brain-cancer-500-percent.aspx) !

 

 

Increasing evidence is pouring in that cell phones are not only a risk

factor for brain tumors, but also salivary gland tumors, _eye damage_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/01/cell-phones-can-d\

amage

-your-eyes.aspx) (http://emf.mercola.com/sites/articles/archi

ve/2005/09/01/cell-phones-can-damage-your-eyes.aspx) , _Alzheimer’s disease_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/02/22/cell-phone-radiat\

ion-par

t-one.aspx) and more.

 

 

Your Safety is Now Riding on a Severely Flawed $30-Million Cell Phone

Study

 

 

You may be wondering why, if there is so much data showing the risks of

cell phone use, no warnings are being made. First, the telecommunication

industry is even BIGGER than drug industry, and they have far more influence in

Washington.

 

 

This is compounded by the fact that a large percentage of retirement funds

from several powerful lobbying organizations are invested in

telecommunications.

 

 

Second, institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the

European Commission have cautioned that conclusions about possible cancer risks

from cell phones cannot be drawn until the INTERPHONE study is published.

 

 

The INTERPHONE Project -- a massive 13-country epidemiological study of

tumors among users of mobile phones -- is already lagging years behind its

scheduled completion date.

 

 

Part of the delay in putting together the final report now appears to be

internal strife, as scientists are reported to differ in their

interpretation of the results.

 

 

The GSM Association, a global trade organization of mobile operators, and

the forum, which includes Nokia and about a dozen other manufacturers,

contributed more than $3.5 million to the $30-plus million project. The

European Commission also helped fund it with contributions passed through the

International Union Against Cancer in an effort to create a barrier between the

mobile phone industry and the scientists.

 

 

Further, a team of international EMF activists -- the International EMF

Collaborative -- has released a report detailing 11 serious design flaws of

the INTERPHONE study. They say a ‘systemic-skew’ in the study is greatly

underestimating brain tumor risk, and they pointed out the following flaws,

among others:

 

-- Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same

microwave radiation as cell phones) as ‘unexposed’

 

-- Excluding many types of brain tumors

 

-- Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a

consequence of their brain tumor

 

-- Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable

 

 

You can read the full report _Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for

Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone here_

(http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cellphones-cause-b\

rain-tumors

-says-new-report-by-international-emf-collaborative/) . .

 

 

If the wrong conclusions are drawn from the Interphone studies, the

resulting lack of public warnings could have disastrous consequences for the

generations to come. And this is why I urge you to take action NOW. Do not wait

for the results of more studies to come in or for the final conclusions of

this meta-analysis, and please do not be swayed by _cell phone safety

spin_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/22/Warning-This-Cell\

-Phone-Safety-Spin-Could-Make-You-Dizzy.aspx) . .

 

 

As Lloyd Morgan, lead author of the report and member of the

Bioelectromagnetics Society says:

 

“Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment

ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion

participants enrolled.

 

Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones,

as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular

cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia.

 

The public must be informed. "

 

 

Are There “Safe†Cell Phones on the Market?

 

 

As the dangers of cell phones slowly trickle out to the mainstream media,

there have been some reports of _“safer†cell phones_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/05/Top-Safe-Cell-Pho\

nes-That-Arent-Sa

fe.aspx) , and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) even released a new

database for consumers ranking over 1,000 cell phones by the Specific

Absorption Rate, known as the SAR value.

 

 

The SAR value is a measure of the power of the cell phone and its

potential for heating tissues.

 

Wi

thin days of the EWG launching the new SAR value database, almost 500,000

people had accessed the database, indicating very encouraging new interest

by consumers in cell phone safety.

 

 

But simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value does not at all mean

the phone is safe. Camilla Rees, founder of _www.Electromagnetichealth.org_

(http://www.Electromagnetichealth.org) and co-author with Magda Havas, PhD

of “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution,â€

explains:

 

“It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing

information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its

usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ We are greatly concerned that people

may

be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how

limited a measure the SAR value is.â€

 

 

Why is the SAR value not an accurate measure of safety?

 

1. The SAR value is only comparing the isolated heating effect of

different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is

‘safe.’

 

2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible

factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Exposures to the radiation from

the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious

biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these

harmful non-thermal exposures.

 

3. SAR values are reported to the FCC by the manufacturer and have been

known to vary from the reported number by a factor of two across models of

the same phone.

 

4. The SAR value varies with the source of exposure and the person using

the phone. For example, if you are in a rural area or in an elevator or a

car, where the cell phone uses more power, your brain will get a greater

exposure from the higher power required in these instances. Under certain

conditions, the SAR value can be 10-100 times higher than reported.

 

5. Holding the phone in a slightly different way can actually render the

worst SAR value phone better than the best SAR value phone.

 

6. SAR values have been created based on simulations of exposure in a

plexiglass head filled with fluid, not a human head, and many scientists

consider them to be inaccurate and irrelevant at determining actual biological

effects.

 

 

One of the worst deficiencies of the SAR value is that it only considers

the thermal impact of cell phone usage, and it is very likely that the

_non-thermal effects of chronic cell phone exposure are more biologically

damaging_

(http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2009/07/31/cell-phones-emit-more-harmf\

ul-radiation-than-fm-radios.aspx) .

 

 

As Rees points out, and I wholeheartedly agree:

 

“Physical distance of the phone from your brain, and less usage of the

cell phone overall, more so than simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR

value, is probably a far better insurance policy.â€

 

 

I would also add to Rees’ statement -- do not use a cell phone within an

enclosed area, such as a car, train or plane, or within three feet of small

children.

 

 

Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to

surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung

cancer. Are you really willing to risk the chance of developing brain cancer

because you don’t want to sacrifice the minor inconvenience of using your

cell’

s speaker phone, or using a safe headset?

 

 

This should be of particular concern if you have children, since, just

like smoking, WI-FI does not discriminate between user and bystander.

 

 

I have written more in-depth about how to reduce your cell phone risks

before, and as a refresher, I strongly urge you to review some of that

information now.

 

 

As Cell Phone Use Increases, So do Cell Phone Towers

 

 

The good news is that you can _take steps immediately to reduce your

radiation exposure_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/12/cancer-institute-\

warns-of-cell-phone-risks.aspx) from your own cell

phone use.

 

 

Unfortunately, WI-FI is all around us, including in the form of cell phone

towers that are now being _placed on churches and even schools_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/31/now-they-are-hidi\

ng-cel

l-phone-towers-in-schools-and-churches.aspx) .

(http://emf.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/31/now-they-are-hiding-ce\

ll-phone-towers-in-schoo

ls-and-churches.aspx)

 

 

Municipalities can receive upwards of $1 million a year for allowing these

antennas to be placed on water towers or near schools, often at the

expense of residents’ health.

 

 

In Bayville, Long Island, for instance, it’s estimated that as many of 30

percent of teachers, staff and employees at a local school that is across

the street from a water tower covered with cell phone antennas are

_suffering from illnesses such as cancer and leukemia_

(http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-hhttp://electromagnetichealth.\

org/electromagnetic-health

-blog/long-island-village-receives-200000-a-year-for-placing-antennas-near-s

chools/ealth-blog/long-island-village-receives-200000-a-year-for-placing-ant

ennas-near-schools/) .

(http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-hhttp://electromagnetichealth.\

org/electromagnetic-health-blog/long-island-vill

age-receives-200000-a-year-for-placing-antennas-near-schools/ealth-blog/long

-island-village-receives-200000-a-year-for-placing-an)

 

 

Overall, it’s been estimated that living near a cell phone tower may lead

to cancer rates that are up to _10 times higher than the national average_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell-phone-

quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx) !

 

 

These structures have also been found to _interfere with bees’ ability to

return to their hives_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/07/Honeybees-Face-To\

wering-Threat-From-Cell-Phones.aspx)

(http://emf.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/07/Honeybees-Face-Towerin\

g-Threat

-From-Cell-Phones.aspx) , leading to a concerning disappearance of

honeybees throughout the world, and _causing the death of migratory birds_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/15/how-cell-phones-a\

re-k

illing-birds.aspx) .

 

 

So if the research alone isn’t enough to motivate you to think twice

before holding your cell phone up to your ear, then perhaps these “canaries

in

the coalmine†will be. The increasing rates of brain tumors and

cell-phone-linked diseases, along with the not-so-subtle interferences with

nature that

these cell phone antennas are already causing, are signs that the very

fragile ecosystem we all depend on to survive is not quite balanced.

 

 

If you want to learn more about the major deceptions going on right now in

regard to your cell phone’s real impact on your health, check out

_Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette_

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0533136733/optimalwellnessc) , by Robert

Kane. It’s a great resource for those

of you who are interested in learning the truth.

 

 

And, please stay tuned to the newsletter as we cover the latest

developments in the cell phone saga. Later this spring, for instance, a report

will

be issued laying out scientists' understanding of biological disruption from

cell phones in great detail for world governments to review.

 

I hop

e the U.S. government will study this and the Bioinitiative Report

carefully, appreciate the known links to many diseases, and modify the wireless

components of the National Broadband Plan so Internet connections are

hard-wired for our safety.

 

Sources:

_Dr. Magda Havas, PhD December 30, 2009_

(http://www.magdahavas.com/2009/12/30/interphone_parotid_gland_tumors_brain_tumo\

r/)