Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules

reply to post by Phage


The industry though, uses an adult skull model for the tests.

A child's skull is more permeable to the emitted radiation.

Omnidirectional antenna is also another problem.

There's variability between the brands and within the same brand of phones.

Lastly, there's the other of the 2 - living proximity to signal mast towers/base stations.

3 high profile epidemiological studies done in Germany, Israel and Brazil showed increase of cancer the closer one lives to the signal mast towers/base stations.

Switzerland and Austria are the most visible of Europe that lowered the levels emitted from signal mast towers/base stations.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

A child's skull is more permeable to the emitted radiation.

I would be more concerned by the fact that a child's brain is a work in progress than the "permeability" of the skull.

Omnidirectional antenna is also another problem.

Why?

There's variability between the brands and within the same brand of phones.

There are standards. If those standards are exceeded something should be done about it.

3 high profile epidemiological studies done in Germany, Israel and Brazil showed increase of cancer the closer one lives to the signal mast towers/base stations.

3 flawed studies.

Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.

www.who.int...

Switzerland and Austria are the most visible of Europe that lowered the levels emitted from signal mast towers/base stations.

Nothing wrong with caution but are you sure those standards were lowered because of health concerns or could it have been political pressure?

I wasn't aware courts were in the business of, or even had the authority to, determine scientific facts. I guess now we can just leave it to the courts to decide, I bet all those research centers will be relieved.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Good catch. ...But. The real problem with proving a direct link between cell phones and brain disease is that we have polluted our entire environment with microwaves and radiation and altered the planet's electromagnetic balance to boot - how can we prove which particular factor tipped the scales in any individual case?

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Good catch.

...But. The real problem with proving a direct link between cell phones and brain disease is that we have polluted our entire environment with microwaves and radiation and altered the planet's electromagnetic balance to boot - how can we prove which particular factor tipped the scales in any individual case?

Probably the same way a smoker can sue big tobacco for getting lung cancer. They are even warned.

Our entire environment is full of pollutants that we breath everyday, who's to say it was tobacco, there are 90 year old 2 pack-a-day smokers still alive.

Smoker sues big tobacco and wins

If they can prove cell phone use is directly linked to brain Gliomas, I imagine we would see the lawsuits against cell phone manufacturers being filed by every brain tumor victim that pops up.

Sucks that most people text nowadays.

The world could use a dose of population control. Imagine half the population dying from some sort of blah blah loma in their brain? Wow.
(waits for G-Man to knock on door)


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Really? Because in the EU they just (a month or two ago) declared that phones didn't emit enough radiation (SAR) to harm anything. This is after a twelve year long investigation.

I'm sorry I don't have the link handy, I read it on a Norwegian newspaper online.

reply to post by Lonewulph

Originally posted by Lonewulph

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Good catch.

...But. The real problem with proving a direct link between cell phones and brain disease is that we have polluted our entire environment with microwaves and radiation and altered the planet's electromagnetic balance to boot - how can we prove which particular factor tipped the scales in any individual case?

Probably the same way a smoker can sue big tobacco for getting lung cancer.

IMHO - The tobacco industry was scapegoated to take the heat off all the other industrial polluters - like the oil industry and agricultural industry and the Mad Cow epidemic. Big Tobacco simply negotiated a deal to survive and build a new market (stats show smoking is on the rise again).

Problem with such lawsuits is that science NEVER claims certainty - only probability - but the law requires absolute proof. So lawsuits are actually a political recourse - subject to back room negotiations that meet political priorities.

Our entire environment is full of pollutants that we breath everyday.

Yup. And pollutants we eat and drink and slather on our skin for absorbtion through the body's largest organ. Go figure.

If they can prove cell phone use is directly linked to brain Gliomas, I imagine we would see the lawsuits against cell phone manufacturers being filed by every brain tumor victim that pops up.

I hope they do - but unfortunately, it will just take the heat off the the larger problem (large scale microwave, radiation, electromagnetic pollution altering our environmental-cell-brain interface).

Also - many such products come with the recommendation that users minimize head contact and focus on texting - such recommendations can be seen as "qualifiers" and used for legal defence.

Originally posted by soficrow
Big Tobacco simply negotiated a deal to survive and build a new market (stats show smoking is on the rise again).

Do you happen to have a link to show this?

As far as I can see, and from what I've read over the years, smoking has declined for at least the last decade, if not longer. Plenty of people jumping on the e-cig bandwagon, but I'm skeptical about their being increases in actual smokers in recent years.

Here's a chart from the CDC:



CDC

reply to post by moniesisfun

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Originally posted by soficrow
Big Tobacco simply negotiated a deal to survive and build a new market (stats show smoking is on the rise again).

Do you happen to have a link to show this?

Sure - government's secret deals with big business are always posted online. [Not.]

...smoking has declined for at least the last decade, ...I'm skeptical about their being increases in actual smokers in recent years.

You're right, overall numbers have declined but at least 1 in 4 American teens smoke (Malaysia is the worst). As a) smokers who start young don't quit, and b) kids tend to smoke if their parents do, then c) the tobacco industry should recover by the next generation.

Originally posted by soficrow

Sure - government's secret deals with big business are always posted online. [Not.]

I was referring to what you wrote in the parenthesis, obviously!

You're right, overall numbers have declined but at least 1 in 4 American teens smoke (Malaysia is the worst). As a) smokers who start young don't quit, and b) kids tend to smoke if their parents do, then c) the industry should recover by the next generation.

Eh, that's nonsense. Take a look at the chart again. It's under 1/5. Also, I started smoking at 12, and quit smoking daily at 18 I kept smoking socially while drinking until this year, and quit cold turkey. It's really not difficult. My parents don't smoke.

reply to post by moniesisfun


At present, the most recent numbers on tobacco use are from 2009 and 2007 surveys. In 2009, more than 1 out of 4 high school kids were current tobacco users.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, more than 2,000 kids under the age of 18 begin smoking every day in the U.S.

...The rates of cigarette smoking among high school juniors and seniors are still higher than those of adults. By 12th grade, more than half the smokers had tried to quit at least once in the past year. On top of that, about 1 in 7 high school boys uses some form of spit or other type of smokeless tobacco. More than 2% of high school girls use spit or smokeless tobacco. And cigars are also commonly used by high school teens.

Children and teens are easy targets for the tobacco industry. They’re often influenced by TV, movies, advertising, and by what their friends do and say. They don’t realize what a struggle it can be to quit. …

Facts about kids and tobacco

Almost all smokers start while they’re young

Nearly all first use of tobacco takes place before high school graduation. A 2009 survey from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that nearly half of high school students had tried cigarette smoking at some point. In 2009, more than 1 out of 4 high school kids were current tobacco users.

The American Lung Association analyzed a CDC survey from 2008. Looking at adults who were regular smokers, they found 85% started smoking regularly at age 21 or younger. And 68% started at age 18 or younger.

The younger you are when you begin to smoke, the more likely you are to be an adult smoker.. And people who start regular smoking at younger ages are more likely to have trouble quitting than people who start later in life.

…

Most young smokers are addicted and find it hard to quit

Most young people who smoke regularly are already addicted to nicotine. In fact, they have the same kind of addiction as adult smokers. One research group studied regular smokers during high school and after graduation. While they were in high school, only 5% thought they would still be smoking in 5 years. But 7 to 9 years later, 63% were still smoking

Most teen smokers say that they would like to quit and many have tried to do so without success. Those who try to quit smoking report withdrawal symptoms much like those reported by adults.

There is little doubt that kids are influenced by what they see daily and accept as normal.

Nationwide Study Shows That Adolescent Smoking May Be Influenced by Mothers' Smoking or Depression

Adolescents living with mothers who currently smoke are nearly three times more likely to smoke than adolescents living with non-smoking mothers.

A new study reveals that adolescents aged 12 to 17 living with mothers who are current smokers or who have had a major depressive episode in the past year are far more likely to smoke than adolescents not living under these circumstances.

…regular exposure to behaviors makes kids think it's acceptable. Which is why what's seen in movies is important too...

Smoking Scenes on Rise in Top-Grossing Youth-Rated Movies

Depictions of smoking in top-grossing, youth-rated movies increased in 2011, reversing a five-year decline, a new report shows.

The finding comes just a few months after the U.S. Surgeon General's office warned that seeing smoking in movies causes young people to start smoking.

The report found that four of the six major Hollywood studios featured more smoking in their youth-rated (G, PG and PG-13) movies in 2011. Compared to 2010, the number of depictions of smoking per youth-rated movie increased by more than one-third.

Originally posted by soficrow

You're right, overall numbers have declined but at least 1 in 4 American teens smoke (Malaysia is the worst). As a) smokers who start young don't quit, and b) kids tend to smoke if their parents do, then c) the industry should recover by the next generation.

Quit changing the goal-posts.

This is what you wrote. I showed the CDC's statistics which show it's less than 1 in 5, with the last data point reaching out to 2010. You choose another source. All good. Let's address your other points raised to me, not side-track onto points that I'm not debating, k?

A) Smokers who start young don't quit.

That's a lie. There's no other way to put it. At the very least it's an exaggeration, which is a form of lie. Quit lying.

B) Kids tend to smoke if their parents do

Okay, but tendencies are just that. It doesn't really mean much

C) The industry should recover by the next generation

That is an assumption of facts, not a statement in evidence.

reply to post by moniesisfun


This thread is about mobile phones causing brain tumours, and the current and anticipated lawsuits - I responded to someone's reference to the tobacco industry, addressed the conflict between the law and science, and described "political expediency" as the primary driver for conflict resolution between the corporate-drive-for-profit and public health. I simply made the point that the tobacco industry has NOT been destroyed by lawsuits and will recover by the next generation: "As a) smokers who start young don't quit, and b) kids tend to smoke if their parents do, then c) the tobacco industry should recover by the next generation." That's all.

The fact remains that our air is horribly contaminated by microwaves, radiation and electromagnetic pollution that affects our cells, nerves and brains. Tumours from cell phones are just the tip of the iceberg. imho, getting discussion back on topic is the way to go.

reply to post by soficrow



So you're not going to admit to or apologize for lying?

You're not going to deny ignorance?

I'll remember that for future reference when viewing your posts.

You change goal-posts, deflect, and exaggerate to push an agenda.

reply to post by moniesisfun


Hijacking threads is frowned upon. I'm happy to argue with you in the appropriate forum - just not here.