Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you use a cell phone or other DEVICE, this is a must listen: [View all]KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)48. Peer reviewed studies -- Heat may be the mechanism
We have seen in statistical data that there is a correlation between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, ear, throat and salivary glands. We have seen dozen of public figures who are cell hone user pas with cancers, including Ted Kennedy, Johnnie Cochran, and Adam Yanauch.
For the logically minded:
1. If there is correlation there is a problem. Hardell and others have found correlation in heavy users.
2. Radiation may not be the mechanism. If radiation is not the mechanism and there is correlation then there is some other mechanism to be looked for.
3. HSPS may be the mechanism.
Abstract
There are several reports which indicate that electromagnetic radiation (such as from mobile phones) at non-thermal levels may elicit a biological effect in target cells or tissues. Whether or not these biological effects lead to adverse health effects, including cancer, is unclear. To date there is limited scientific evidence of health issues, and no mechanism by which mobile phone radiation could influence cancer development. In this paper, we develop a theoretical mechanism by which radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones could induce cancer, via the chronic activation of the heat shock response. Upregulation of heat shock proteins (Hsps) is a normal defence response to a cellular stress. However, chronic expression of Hsps is known to induce or promote oncogenesis, metastasis and/or resistance to anticancer drugs. We propose that repeated exposure to mobile phone radiation acts as a repetitive stress leading to continuous expression of Hsps in exposed cells and tissues, which in turn affects their normal regulation, and cancer results. This hypothesis provides the possibility of a direct association between mobile phone use and cancer, and thus provides an important focus for future experimentation.
There are several reports which indicate that electromagnetic radiation (such as from mobile phones) at non-thermal levels may elicit a biological effect in target cells or tissues. Whether or not these biological effects lead to adverse health effects, including cancer, is unclear. To date there is limited scientific evidence of health issues, and no mechanism by which mobile phone radiation could influence cancer development. In this paper, we develop a theoretical mechanism by which radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones could induce cancer, via the chronic activation of the heat shock response. Upregulation of heat shock proteins (Hsps) is a normal defence response to a cellular stress. However, chronic expression of Hsps is known to induce or promote oncogenesis, metastasis and/or resistance to anticancer drugs. We propose that repeated exposure to mobile phone radiation acts as a repetitive stress leading to continuous expression of Hsps in exposed cells and tissues, which in turn affects their normal regulation, and cancer results. This hypothesis provides the possibility of a direct association between mobile phone use and cancer, and thus provides an important focus for future experimentation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11683499
The Hardell Study
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:[33]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
...
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[37] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
...
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[37] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.
http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680%2809%2900009-1/abstract
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I almost never use the speaker to the ear anymore, but not convinced that solves the problem...
hlthe2b
Jan 2014
#1
Interestng to note how many people will so quickly dismiss the findings of Dr Debra Davis,
truedelphi
Jan 2014
#12
And how well did that "cigaretesarehealthy.gov" site work out for so many people?
truedelphi
Jan 2014
#13
I posted information from the National Institutes of Health. That's reputable and definitive.
LeftyMom
Jan 2014
#19
Science does care about claimant's credentials - if you're not a peer, you don't get peer reviewed.
FarCenter
Jan 2014
#21
Not as it relates to a claim- it has to stand on its own. Claimant's creds don't add to credibility.
X_Digger
Jan 2014
#22
You're misstating the result of that study so badly I hardly know where to start.
LeftyMom
Jan 2014
#61
Of course it is a "study" and the matter is still under investigation as I stated
KurtNYC
Jan 2014
#81
"there is not a measurable way to say EXACTLY what causes anything"? Seriously? These reply was
uppityperson
Jan 2014
#33
Remove the battery if you can, put it in one of these and then put it in the microwave oven
FarCenter
Jan 2014
#18
Just as Elizabeth Warren has no control over whether her speech on some policy she
truedelphi
Jan 2014
#41
When I was in the Air Force we used to sleep behind the 50KW transmitters-4 of them.
hobbit709
Jan 2014
#42
This at the bottom of the page on the link tells me all I need to know about credibility
hobbit709
Jan 2014
#44
Classes in critical thinking and logic should be required in every high school...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#67
Joseph Mercola, the author of the article linked in the OP, is a fucking loon...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#70