Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor Linked to Cell Phone Use?

Post Reply New Topic

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:00 AM
By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard
NewsMax.com

Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor is, once again, stirring debate over the safety of cell phones. Kennedy’s brain tumor, called a glioma, is the type critics have associated for years with the use of cell phones.

Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do not use cell phones held next to their ears. “I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent researcher and an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University. “I do not hold it to my ear.” Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital admitted that, he too, used an earpiece.

CTIA – the Wireless Association and the FDA both say that studies show cell phones are not a health risk. Other experts disagree. They point to research that indicates a link between cell phones and three types of tumors: glioma (the type Senator Kennedy has); cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid; and acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the ear. An Israeli study published last year found a 58 percent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after ten years of heavy use.

Since cell phones are relatively new, there hasn’t been a chance for long-term studies that will settle the question of whether there is truly a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. Some critics express particular concern for children who begin using cell phones as kids and continue throughout their lives. “More and more kids are using cell phones,” said Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly and their skulls are thinner.”

Dr. Khurana admits that cell phones are convenient and can save lives in an emergency, but he says that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors,” adding that malignant brain tumors are “a life-ending diagnosis.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” he said.

I won't use my phone held to my head either, strictly for texting or, when necessary, in speaker mode.

If you believe cell phones cause brain tumors then you believe vaccines cause autism. Same sort of pseudo science applies to both.

Close. I don't believe it causes autism, but I there is ample evidence that the mercury in vaccines can cause brain damage and that the live viruses and other chemicals they contain such as formaldehyde can cause many other health problems. I've posted videos about it in many other posts on the subject. But for your convenience, here they are and you tell me how sound the science is...

Demonstration of low concentration of mercury destroying brain cells:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5WNLOjmAiw[/youtube]

Interview with two vaccine development pioneers, who let us know what is really in them and how concerned their employers really were about public health:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaokq8v9JPI[/youtube]

It's not pseudo science to distrust the big corps that are only out for for their own bottom lines, or the FDA that is in their hip pocket. Just an example of how the FDA works: in 2004 they ignored many studies that showed VeriChip's RFID implantable chip causes cancer in mice, and ruled it safe for human implantation. Right after that, the head of the FDA retired his post and went to work for VeriChip.... hmmm. It's been known for a long time that long term cell phone usage causes brain tumors, and the tell-tale sign is that they always develop on the side of the head that the phone was most often used.

I'm not going to get into an aspie to aspie argument over this because it'll never end. I'm not here for that and I have no interest in changing anyone's mind.

I can come up with just as many links saying there is no proof cell phones cause brain cancer.

I'm not into big business bashing either..... or conspiracy theories.

Hey, to each their own. Go ahead and talk on your cell phone for hours at a time. Since the cell company-sponsored studies rebut the independent ones, I guess you could bring them up. And since it is debatable who to believe, why not go with the one that says everything is ok? Not like there's anything at risk here?

And go ahead and get your flu shot every year. Merck says the mercury is nothing to worry about. The FDA agrees. And the EPA? Well, they don't have anything to do with vaccinations so why bring them up?

And go ahead and drink your flouridated water. What is a little more risk of brain damage when poor people can't afford toothpaste for their children? Just because Germany and most of western Europe have banned the practice should be no cause for alarm. After all, Germany was one of the early pioneers of the practice... back in the 1930's I believe.

And wash it down with some BGH/IGF-1 milk. Just because it was banned in Europe and Canada for the health issues it causes is irrelevant, because our FDA said it was OK. So healthy in fact, that consumers don't even have the right to know it is in there.

And eat your GMO foods with all their additives. Just because European countries require the manufacturers to label their food as such, while our FDA makes it illegal for them to do so (or to label it as free of this stuff) is no cause for concern.

Yes I could keep going and going. Aspartame, preservatives, insecticides, mercury fillings, prescription drugs whose side effects are worse than the illness they are prescribed for, suppressed alternative cures for cancer, suppressed technologies that would have ended our dependency on fossil fuels decades ago, airline seats that are desiged to break passengers' legs in a crash so they can't escape (because the lawsuit payouts are cheaper for dead passengers than living ones that are maimed for life), etc., etc., etc.

True conspiracy theorists allege that our being deluged with all of this stuff that is making us sick or killing us is no accident - that it is a new form of eugenics that the world's elite are deliberately using to eliminate over 80% of the worlds population of "useless eaters" as they allegedly call us.

However, I'm not arguing that position. I am simply saying that when it comes to a choice between human life (or health) and a large corporation's bottom line, human life is quite cheap.

But sometimes, just sometimes.... usually after a big lawsuit... the FDA has to fess up when they f***ed up, and then admit the truth. Like today:
Mercury teeth fillings may harm some: U.S. FDA
_________________
When the last tree has been cut down, the last river poisoned, the last fish caught... then only will man discover that he cannot eat money.
~Cree Indian Wisdom

great, now the media wants us to be scared of using cellphones too?

For a champion of science, your statement is riddled with logical inconsistency. One could just as well say that if you believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer, you should be comfortable using a cell phone. In fact, vaccines, cell phones, and smoking are 3 very different phenomena, and it is impossible to accurately predict the risk (if any) of one from the others. Your argument is the worst kind of faulty generalization - lets look at the evidence itself.

Determining a possible relation between cell phones and cancer requires sticky statistical analysis, and if there is a long interval between exposure and symptoms (during which time, the technology changed), then the statistics get even stickier. Here is one review of 16 studies for your consideration.

Forgive my less than perfect writing skills. My point was that if you believe in one of these health scares, you often believe in many of them. The OP showed that to be true in his case.



How about the Danish study that tracked 420,000 users which included 52,000 users of 10 to 21 years?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1




Here's a commentary:

Health Effects of Low-Intensity Electric and Magnetic Fields (and Scientific Error)

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.8 ... detail.asp



As far as I'm concerned, unless something dramatically new comes to light, the issue is settled.

There's no way cellphones are any good for you - come on, you're sticking all that radiation right by your head, often for hours at a time, while it goes right through your brain...yeah, smart.

All you people can go on using them. And your bluetooth headsets too, I mean, why not? While you're at it, sleep with it next to your bed. And leave it in your pocket all day. Go on!!

I'm more than happy to use them as little as possible and stick with my speakerphone and hands-free on the few times I have to use it. The burning sensation around my ear is enough of a warning sign to me...

It just amazes me that after all the information has came out about the disinformation campaign the tobacco industry persisted in for decades. All of the buried studies, the deliberate lies, the manipulation of nicotine levels to increase addiction. Proven documented collusion that everyone admits is a fact, because it has all come to light and been pumped by the mainstream media. There is only one word for the strategy that the big tobacco companies (working together -- I believe they call that a cartel) employed, conspiracy. No question that they put their bottom lines above our lives and health.

So with that in mind, how can anyone be so naive to think that big corporations in other industries have any more of a humanitarian streak? That they are any less capable of working together to suppress information that would keep their products off the market? After they spent billions in R&D bringing them to the market?! Their bottom line is the bottom line. They will only clean up their acts when forced to.

Not really, they're entirely separate issues. I have yet to read much of the cell phone research, but there is one thing to say here: I saw a quoted "58% increase" in cases of particular forms of cancer with heavy cell phone use. Now, when you consider that the base incidence rate of that particular cancer is more or less negligible, the 58% increase may not actually be all that significant. I read something similar about obesity: being X% overweight increases your risk of heart disease by X%, but the initial percent risk was so low that even with the elevated risk, the level of overweightness in question was not a significant issue.

It's not a question of good or bad for you. The point is that at low levels of EMFs are benign. There are EMFs going through your body every second of every day of your life and they have no affect. It's analogous to "dose makes the poison." There are deadly naturally occurring chemicals in the food we eat but the dose is so low that it doesn't cause a problem. All those 2.4 GHz devices use the same frequency as microwave ovens. You couldn't cook your brain with a cordless phone if you held it at your ear for your entire life.

Cordless phones have a lot weaker signals because the base unit is at best a few hundred feet from the handset. Cell phones have to broadcast a lot stronger to reach a tower that is several miles away. The strength of the signal increases with distance from the tower. That is why the studies done in rural areas have higher incidences (fewer towers stretched over greater distance).

Let me ask you this... ever been on a computer with speakers blaring when the cell rang? Before you even hear the ring tone, you get noticeable interference both in the speakers and on the monitor. This stuff is shielded to prevent interfering with other equipment. And the interference effect doesn't happen from cordless phone use, wifi networking, or the radio/TV broadcast emf that always runs through us. For that matter, my boss is into HAM radio and has a 150ft tower in his back yard. He talks to people around the world via shortwave, so it has to be quite powerful. He also has a ton of computers in his house and no interference when he is using his HAM equipment. When his PDA/cell rings though? You guessed it.

Okay. I'll take my 20 tongue lashes for being obtuse. I should know better than that on an aspie forum. Of course I'm going to be taken literally.

I made that comparison because I know most aspies do not believe vaccines cause autism, myself included. In view of that though I consider it to be hypocritical to say you don't believe vaccines cause autism but then post a laundry list of equally dubious health scares that you do believe in. Where's the critical thinking?

I didn't buy into the vaccine theory years before I ever heard of AS. My discovery of AS did not change my thinking on the issue. I still don't believe it and I don't believe the multitude of other health scares that have come and gone over the last few decades.

For your reading pleasure:

Facts Versus Fears (Fourth Edition)
A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID. ... detail.asp

You can download the free PDF version by clicking on the link on the right side.

First off, my response was to the person who was referring to wireless devices such as Bluetooth which is very low power.

Yes, I'm well aware that cell phones are higher power than cordless phones. "How Stuff Works" quotes cell phones as being .75 to 1 watt, still quite low power, and by the preponderance of studies, harmless.



I've been a ham since 1970 and have run KW stations for most of that time. Few people know more about it than I do. I am intimately familiar with the ins and outs of RF interference. Sorry, but the example you cite really doesn't mean anything at all. It cannot be generalized.