Article 11
Teddy Bear Mobile ‘Puts 4-Year Olds at Risk from Radiation’
Telegraph News, November 29, 2005 by Nic Fleming, Medical Correspondent
A teddy bear-shaped mobile phone aimed at children as young as four was launched yesterday.
The manufacturers of the Teddyfone claimed it would help parents keep track of their children while minimising potential health hazards posed by radio frequency pemissions.
With no screen and only four buttons that can be pre-programmed by parents, the device prevents users from being targeted by text message bullying, calls from strangers or inappropriate adult material.
The makers of the Teddyfone claim that the rate at which the body absorbs energy from the handset, known as its peak specific absorption rate, is 0.16w/kg - close to the lowest available. Most mobiles have SAR values of 0.4 to 0.7w/kg.
Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, advised parents earlier this year to discourage use of mobile phones by children under eight as a precaution against potential health risks.
Yesterday the agency was joined in its criticism of the Teddyfone by even the industry body that represents mobile phone operators.
A spokesman for the Mobile Operators Association said: “The companies we represent don’t market their products to under-16s, as recommended by Sir William Stewart. We believe that is a responsible policy and is in line with the advice on health.”
Paul Liesching, the managing director of Teddyfone Ltd, who said the device was aimed at four- to 10-year-olds, pointed to research showing that a quarter of seven- to 10-year-olds owned mobiles. He said parents should be able to buy low-emission handsets that also protected children from other potential dangers.
About Destina 1
DESTINA 1 INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD is setting a unique standard for the future of the direct-selling industry and Uniwave by Quantes Technology® Products. Our innovative approach has led to the creation of young millionaires globally.
“This is a basic parental decision. If you see the utility and benefits of your child having a mobile phone are greater than any potential risks, give your child a mobile phone. If you don’t, then don’t.
“One million children under 10 already have mobile phones which potentially put them at risk from text-bullying, excessive charges and inappropriate material. Teddy-fone is a response to clear demand in the market.”
The new handset has an SOS button that allows children who feel under threat to connect automatically to a parent’s mobile.
A child monitor option allows concerned parents to listen in to what is happening around their child and an optional child locator service sends parents a map of where their son or daughter is, on request, for 50p.
The handsets and two years’ line rental are free. Calls are charged at standard rates.
Sir William, the Government’s leading adviser on radiation, said in January that children under nine should not use mobiles and that those aged nine to 14 should make only short, essential calls.
He said: “When it comes to suggesting that mobile phones should be available to threeto eight-year-olds, I can’t believe for a moment that can be justified.
“My advice is that they should not have them because children’s skulls are not fully thickened, their nervous systems are not fully developed and the radiation penetrates further into their brains.”
Published research suggests that a child’s brain absorbs 50-70 per cent more of the emissions from a mobile phone than an adult’s.
Alasdair Philips, of consumer group Powerwatch, said yesterday: “Marketing a product at children when there is increasing evidence that it may be causing them both short-term and long-term harm is at the very least highly irresponsible.” Dr Michael Clarke, of the Health Protection Agency, said: “It’s up to any company to justify its product in light of our advice that children should be discouraged from excessive use of mobiles.”
Communi8, a British company, lost about £500,000 after launching Mymo, a mobile for under-eights, last year. It withdrew the product following Sir William’s comments.
A survey of 1,232 parents of children under 16 carried out on behalf of Teddyfone found that 35 per cent of respondents were concerned about the potential health hazards for children under 10 with mobiles. Nearly a quarter were worried about their child’s phone being stolen.
Article 12
What Cell Phones Can Do To Youngster’s Brain In 2 Minutes
U.K. Sunday Mirror April 1, 2004
Scientists have discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child’s brain for up to an hour afterwards.
And they also found for the first time how radio waves from mobile phones penetrate deep into the brain and not just around the ear.
The study by Spanish scientists has prompted leading medical experts to question whether it is safe for children to use mobile phones at all.
Doctors fear that disturbed brain activity in children could lead to psychiatric and behavioral problems or impair learning ability.
It was the first time that human guinea pigs were used to measure the e ects of mobile phone radiation on children. The tests were carried out on an 11- year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl called Jennifer.
Using a CATEEN scanner, linked to a machine measuring brain wave activity, researchers were able to create the images above.
The yellow coloured part of the scan on the right shows how radiation spreads through the centre of the brain and out to the ear on the other side of the skull. The scans found that disturbed brain wave activity lasted for up to an hour after the phone call ended.
Dr. Gerald Hyland -- a Government adviser on mobiles -- says he finds the results “extremely disturbing”. It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones,” he adds. “The results show that children’s brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use.
“Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. “This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.
“We don’t know all the answers yet, but the alteration in brain waves could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour.”
Previously it had been thought that interference with brain waves and brain chemistry stopped when a call ended.
The results of the study by the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella coincide with a new survey that shows 87 per cent of 11- to 16-year-olds own mobile phones and 40 per cent of them spend 15 minutes or more talking each day on them. And disturbingly, 70 per cent said they would not change the use of their phone even if advised to by the Government.
Dr. Hyland plans to publish the latest findings in medical journal The Lancet next year.
He said: “This information shows there really isn’t a safe amount of mobile phone use. We don’t know what lasting damage is being done by this exposure.
“If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles.”
Dr. Michael Klieeisen, who conducted the study, said: “We were able to see in minute detail what was going on in the brain.
“We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain.”We are worried that delicate balances that exist -- such as the immunity to infection and disease -- could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain.”
A Department of Health spokesman said: “In children mobile phone use should be restricted to very short periods of time.”
Article 13
WHO study links mobile phone use to cancer
Daily Mail, Published May 16 2010
A ten-year study on mobile phones has found that there is a link between regularphone use and brain cancer.
The long-anticipated report, from the World Health Organisation, says that prolonged use - at least 30 minutes a day - increases the chance of suffering a malignant tumour by more than a third.
According to The Daily Mail, the Interphone study was conducted over a decade, compiling data from 13 countries, and has been substantially funded by the mobile phone industry. It is a widely held belief that radiation from mobile phones and mobile masts are a health risk.
A file picture of British school children making calls on their mobile phones as they leave Grey Coat School in central London.
While the study, based on interviews with more than 5,000 brain cancer victims and published this week, reveals that only those in the ‘heaviest user’ category are endangering their health, this includes those who spend more than half an hour a day with a mobile handset to their ear.
The report said that there was no significant risk for people who used their phones less than 30 minutes a day, or who used an earpiece or headphones.
But scientists admit that they did not take into account phone users under the age of 30, which will prompt questions over the validity of the study.
And the study’s figures even suggest low levels of usage can actually protect against cancer - a result questioned by the researchers themselves.
Interphone defined a ‘regular’ user as a person who made one call a week over a six-month period.
It found the average mobile phone owner made the equivalent of two-and-a- half hours of calls a month - with heavy users significantly more.
The study has already been criticised for being deeply flawed.
New research, backed by the European Union, has been launched to investigate possible links between brain tumours in children in mobile phone use.
Article 14
Interphone study finds hints of brain cancer risk in heavy cell-phone users
Overall data are so iffy, however, that researchers remain unsure of cell safety by Janet Raloff
Web edition : Monday, May 17th, 2010
What’s the risk ? People who talk long and frequently -- and hold cells phones to their ear while they do so -- may face an elevated risk of developing gliomas, a serious type of brain cancer, according to a new study.
A major decade-long international study concludes that, overall, cell-phone users show no increased risk of developing brain tumors. The same study reports that among people who have used cell phones the most and longest — for at least 10 years and on average 30 minutes or more a day — risk of brain tumors is substantially elevated when compared to people who don’t use cell phones.
But the real enigma: For people in each of the lower cell-phone-use categories, tumor risks were substantially lower than those seen in people who used regular, corded phones. In other words, for most people cell-phone use appeared to protect against brain tumors.
The generally contradictory findings — apparent protective e ects at most doses and elevated cancer risk at the highest exposure — point to the challenge scientists have had in figuring out what to make of data collected as part of the Interphone study. Participants were recruited in 13 countries (all outside of the United States) and included 7,416 tumor patients and almost twice that many controls.
Although the researchers analyzed risks for two types of brain tumors, only data linking heavy cell-phone use to gliomas appeared due to something other than chance. Moreover, even this association was hardly iron-clad. Based on the reported 95-percent confidence interval, the chance these cancers might have been linked to cell-phone use could be as small as 3 percent or as high as 89 percent.
Here the statistics appeared stronger, with a protective effect for both tumor types — gliomas and meningiomas — in the range of 10 to 25 percent, depending on the exposure category. (And the confidence intervals indicated that the likelihood the effects were real ranged from 2 to 50 percent, again depending on recalled estimates of cell-phone exposures).
Explains Interphone researcher Siegal Sadetzki, a public health physician at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler School of Medicine, “If you look at the overall evidence, this study did not confirm or dismiss the possible association between cell phones and brain tumors. That’s the bottom line.”
Science requires data to meet “very strong criteria before you can say there is an an association,” she explains. And the Interphone data that were reported online May 17 in the International Journal of Epidemiology, did not meet those criteria, she says.
“On the other hand,” she adds, “we do we see a few indications of risk. And these indications appear among people who were exposed for the longest duration. We do see an association with ipsilateral use [tumors on the same side of the head that a user holds a cell phone to the ear]. We also see an association with temporal lobe [brain] exposure. So there are some indications of a positive association in these subgroups.”
As a result, she says, “We do have some suspicions.” Protective effects ‘can’t be real’
The paper’s authors acknowledge that the apparent brain-tumor protection a orded most of the 21,770 Interphone participants doesn’t make sense.
David Carpenter, who heads the State University of New York at Albany’s Institute for Health and the Environment in Rensselaer, N.Y., similarly finds “perplexing” that apparent protective effect of cell-phone use for all but the longest, heaviest users. In fact, he says, “This cannot be real and probably is a reflection of some flaw in the design of the study,” one that he says “results in an artificial lowering of the reported risk.”
The study concedes this is a possibility. If the effect of cell-phone use on tumor risk was zero, it should yield a risk value of 1.0 — equivalent to that assigned to the control group of non-cellusers. Any risk number below 1.0 suggests a protective effect of the exposures.
The fact that computed tumor risks fell below 1.0 for all cell users except those in the highest-use category “could be taken to indicate an underlying lack of association with mobile phone use, systematic bias from one or more sources, a few random but essentially meaningless increased odds ratios [calculations of risk], or a small effect detectable only in a subset of the data,” the Interphone authors write.
Indeed, Sadetzki says of the below-1.0 risk that Interphone found for virtually all cell-phone users: “We think this is not a true thing. So this would suggest we have an underestimation of the risk.”
Yet “even under these circumstances [the authors] find a clear elevation in risk of brain cancer with prolonged use,” Carpenter points out, especially for gliomas and tumors that occur on the same side of the head as a user typically holds his or her phone. And “this conclusion is exactly what has been reported in the earlier studies,” he observes.
As such, he contends, the paper’s general claim that there is no increased brain-tumor risk among cell users is “certainly cautious, and in my judgment excessively cautious.”
Strong suspicion of hidden biases
The new paper, written by a committee of Interphone researchers across the world, admits that biases and errors may have limited the strength of the study and prevented a causal interpretation.
Those qualifications were “added at the end of the editorial process of revsion” and are “both elegant and oracular,” argue Rodolfo Saracci of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and Jonathan Samet of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They suggest that Interphone’s authors attempted to finesse their interpretations in a way that would not unduly scare cell-phone users — even if their findings didn’t warrant such caution.
Writing in an editorial that accompanies the new paper, the two point out that “None of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure.” Tumors among the Interphone study’s participants were diagnosed between 2000 and 2004 — even though wide-scale cell-phone use got underway only in the mid-1990s. So fewer than 5 percent of meningiomas and 9 percent of gliomas occurred among people who had used cell phones 10 years or more.
Moreover, Saracci and Samet observe, the apparent protective e ect com- puted in this study is not statistically “plausible.” They argue, therefore, that “bias stands as the most likely explanation of the observed results.”
They probed a few of the types of biases to which the data appeared susceptible and concluded that if these have occurred, they would likely have served to diminish the apparent tumor risk — even amongst people in the highest-exposure group. For now, Saracci and Samet say, Interphone “tells us that the question as to whether mobile phone use increases risk for brain cancers remains open.”
More studies needed
The study’s authors, too, acknowledge that the jury is still out on cell safety, which is why they recommend further investigation of “possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones.” That’s a good idea, Saracci and Samet say, since the lower end of the high- use group studied by Interphone were people averaging only a half-hour of calling per day. That’s well below usage patterns for many people in our increasingly cell-dominated society, they say — one that’s populated by an estimated 4.6 billion mobile-phone users globally. Indeed, many people have begun jettisoning land lines for cell-phone-only service.
In a news release, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, which represents aspects of the cell-phone and wireless industry, said “The mobile industry supports the need for ongoing research,” and pointed to several studies that will be following users in coming decades. Some will even begin investigating risks to children and teens. MMF helped fund the Interphone study.
Until any followup data on heavy users come in, Sadetzki recommends that cell owners adopt “the precautionary principle:” Assume some risk might exist and therefore limit exposures. Tactics might include avoiding long calls, sending text messages instead of voice messages (that require both parties put the phone to their ears) and using a Bluetooth or other hands-free device to keep a phone away from close proximity to the head.
Article 15
“A Practical Guide to the Benefits of Uniwave by Quantes Technology”
Author: Dr.John G. Florendo, 2010
I write this book in the midst of being bombarded with a polution that is unseen, you cannot smell it, hear, or feel it either. This pollution called Electro Magnetic Radiation and Electro Magnetic Frequencies emitted by cell phones, microwave ovens, computers, TV, home appliances, hand held devises, cars, air conditioners and a host of other products have been causing severe bodily damages, causing cancer, neurological disease, immune system disorders, fatigue, sleep disturbances and a number of other ill health conditions.
At this particular time, following the release of the 10 year Interphone Study, a few states in the USA have mandated that warning labels be placed on newly bought cell phones that indicate “ these products may lead or cause cancer”. I believe this law will be a federal one eventually to protect the con-sumer and eventually a global law, again studies are published and countries realize the dangers of electro magnetic radiation and frequencies.
In June 2010, the New York Times ran an article on how San Francisco, California, mandated that the cell phone industry and retailers must display the amount of radiation each cell phone emits. The Federal Communication Commission has determined the Specific Absorption Rate ( S.A.R) to be safely at 1.6 watts per kilogram. This will have a direct effect on the electronics industry, which has a $190 billion market.
Europe has been one of the first countries to ban the use of cell phones from children under the age of 12. This was due to the recent findings that indicate child brain cancer has escalated to an unbelievable level of 31%! Michael Rich, M.D., M.P.H. a pediatrician researcher from the prestigious Harvard Medical School, has pointed out that the use of hand held game devices used by adolescents, has contributed to the weakening of the immune system and the possible development of disease in young children, due to the EMR and EMF emitted from these game consoles like the PSP, Game Boy, as well as cell phones.
Dr. Levy, a neurological researcher from the film Cell Phone Health, pointed out that it is hard to ignore the data. Cell phone use has been detrimental to the human body. Studies done at Max Planck Institute where cell phones were placed around laboratory caged rats for a few hours a day. On follow-up CAT scan 30 days later, it showed bleeding of the blood vessels of the brain. The cell phone is not the only culprit to the damaging effects on the cellular level. Microwave ovens, computers, TV, home appliances, hand held devises, cars, air conditioners and a host of other products are also culprits.
The statistics have been staggering over the last 20 years.
- Over the last 20 years there has been a staggering increase in cancers 60%
- There has been 21% more brain tumor development in children.
- Testicular cancer and sterility in men has grown to a total of 51%.
- The occurrence and development of neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s Disease, Myasthenia Gravis, Dementia and degenerative brain disorders.
The development of the cell phone has been revolutionary in electronics as well as health and disease. A recent article ran in a famous publication identified the dangers of the cell phone to the brain. It was linked to the dangerous cancer causing cigarette and the electro magnetic frequencies that are emitted from our cell phones. It was one of the only publications that identified the link between cancer and the use of the cell phone. Is it by coincidence that during that time of electronic explosion during the early 80’s into the late 90’s that we started to see the development of these disorders in the human body?
When the human body is being bombarded by EMR’s and EMF’s on a daily basis over a long period of time, can this contribute to the disruption of cellular function and atomic reaction? Can this loss of cellular energy and vibrancy be one of the major causes of sickness and disease in the world today? I believe it is and I will illustrate some of the facts from studies done with Uniwave by Quantes Technology, electro-magnetic-light energy and properties and light waves over the next few chapters.
What can be done to protect our bodies from this unseen, unheard, unfelt, no smell pollution?
The answer: Uniwave by Quantes Technology.
In my research and clinical experience on the damaging effects of EMR and EMF on the human body, Destina 1 has the only product that can safely protect as well as enhance health to improve life and longetivity.
I have devoted my entire life to the essentials of healing. My being is a direct reflection of my dedication to the universal improvement of health utilizing Uniwave by Quantes Technology as the avenue to wellness.
With my family’s “The Open Heart Foundation”, we are pledging portions of the proceeds generated by the sale of my book “A Practical Guide to the Benefits of Uniwave by Quantes Technology”, be donated to D1’s “Hope for Mankin Foundation.” Dr. John G. Florendo.
Unlimited Wellness Institute
Dr. Florendo is a Director of the “ Unlimited Wellness Institute of Las Vegas” and the developer of the “ Florendo Synchronized Healing Technique” and “ Florendo Spinal Tract Device”, author of the famous health books “ Keys To Vital Health” and “ How to Have a Hell of a Body and Still Get to Heaven”.
Dr. Florendo was awarded the “Chiropractor of The Year” Award in 1995, and developed one of the largest clinics in New Jersey from 1985- 2005. He went on to be awarded numerous masters certifications and hosted his own radio program in Las Vegas called “ The Hour of Power, Health is Wealth Program”. He now conducts research in his clinic on the overall benefits of Brain Based Therapy, Chiropractic, Nutritional Supplementation, Oxygen and Uniwave by Quantes Technology.
What’s the risk ? People who talk long and frequently -- and hold cells phones to their ear while they do so -- may face an elevated risk of developing gliomas, a serious type of brain cancer, according to a new study.
A major decade-long international study concludes that, overall, cell-phone users show no increased risk of developing brain tumors. The same study reports that among people who have used cell phones the most and longest — for at least 10 years and on average 30 minutes or more a day — risk of brain tumors is substantially elevated when compared to people who don’t use cell phones.
But the real enigma: For people in each of the lower cell-phone-use categories, tumor risks were substantially lower than those seen in people who used regular, corded phones. In other words, for most people cell-phone use appeared to protect against brain tumors.
Comments
Post a Comment