But a look at the data shows some statistical questions such as small population base, an excess of premature deaths in the control group (meaning they might not live long enough to get cancer), and of course, the dosage was constant and huge: No human would get a comparable dose during his lifetime.
But never mind. The headline is there, and people will believe it, never mind statistics.
however, this has been questioned for years: Back in 1970, I had a lymphoma patient who was in the Air Force radar or microwave type job...and there were six people in similar jobs in his military hospital (I saw him at our hospital ER, which was closer than the Naval hospital in his emergency).
But lymphoma back then and now is found in that age group, so the statistical chance was no higher in this job than in a control population.
there was only one tumor that had a couple of cases in male rats (not female rats), and in only one type of radiation from one type cellphone (not a different radiation): and it was a schwanoma of the heart.
However, among a group of 90 males exposed to the strongest levels of CDMA radiation, six developed schwannomas of the heart. For the sake of comparison, there were no schwannomas among males in the control group.
Do rats get schwanomas of the heart? This is a nerve cell tumor. Or rather the cell that sheaths the nerve. The cancerous changes are rare, usually in people with Neurofibromatosis (aka Von Recklinghausesn's disease, which is common). Usually they are in peripheral nerves but can occur in the ear (acoustic neuroma) or in the brain. They are a slow growing tumor.
But why heart schwannomas? I'm probably missing something in the literature.
the researchers concetrated on schwannoma and glial cell tumors...the latter a common and terrible brain tumor.
The researchers focused on two kinds of tumors: malignant gliomas, which arise in glial cells in the brain, and schwannomas in the heart, which begin in so-called Schwann cells.
the Mayo clinic paper suggests one epidemiological study showed no problem, except maybe (maybe) in salivary gland benign tumors (which are common), and maybe (maybe) more gliomas in heavy cellphone users.
as for gliomas: These are found in young adults, of course, but also seen in very young children: Who don't use cellphones.
- In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors.
- Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors.
- Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma — a specific type of brain tumor — for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.
and the actual incidence is low:
The most commonly diagnosed primary brain tumor of adults is glioblastoma multiforme (grade IV). The incidence is two to three cases per 100,000 population per yeaThe most commonly diagnosed primary brain tumor of adults is glioblastoma multiforme (grade IV). The incidence is two to three cases per 100,000 population per year
yet there are other problems thought to be associated with all these radio/microwave/ etc stuff in the modern world.
or are they? Take lymphomas.
so did the microwaves etc. cause my patient to have lymphoma? How about CIA head Casey: did he die because of all the microwaves at the CIA headquarters, or was there another possibility?
now read this factoid: ( Lymphoma of the brain is associated with HIV, due to immune problems in stopping another cancer causing virus from being destroyed by the body's immune system.)
no, I am not saying that these people had HIV (all of these cases were before HIV got a foothold and spread like wildfire in the promiscuous bath houses of San Francisco).
So hysteria about rare cancers from cellphones but silence on a politically correct protected disease causing brain tumors, because because no one wants to acknowledge that this disease is completely preventable, or the practices that are spreading it are not those practiced by fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.
Personally, I had one of the first cellphones, but now with smartphones, it is impossible to get through a meal without my granddaughter texting friends or my daughter in law talking business.
Reminds me of the start of the movie "warm bodies" where the zombie longs for the days when people actually talked to one another (while the memory shows people not talking to each other but talking on cellphones).
So in summary, worry about real problems that cause problems.
Like this snippet at the bottom of the LATiimes article:
the epidemic of using drugs has hit the point that the powers that be want everything legalized (read soros's open culture money).
Yet no one is noting that a drug with a long half life might have adverse effects: DUI's, shoddy workmanship, child abuse, abortion, staying unmarried (how many of my single moms refused to marry their partner because he was "immature"? (read drug user))
one only has to ask cops and doctors about the devestation to families and communities where getting high is considered normal, and the dulling of the conscience and the effects on people's ability to work, to support a family, not to wreck a car with DUI, not to lower production values by shoddy work because you are high is not discussed.
I read last week that many factories etc. are hiring illegals because local men can't pass a drug test.
Similarly, when Toyota etc. came to the US to start a factory, they went to the south, where unions were weak but also where the dirty little secret of drug use on the line in Detroit (with the unions stopping you from firing them) was a major problem for the auto industry.
in other words, when the death rate from motor vehicle accidents is 10 in 100 thousand population, and 40 percent of these test positive for drugs, maybe we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a whale.