U.K. Cell Phone Study Points to Acoustic Neuroma, Not Brain Cancer

Fourth Study To Show Tumor Link; Is This Really Prospective Epidemiology?

Microwave News, May 12, 2013

A new study from the U.K. is adding support to the still controversial proposition that long-term use of a cell phone increases the risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the auditory nerve. No higher risk of glioma or meningioma, two types of brain cancer, was observed.

Women who used a mobile phone for more than ten years were two-and-half-times more likely to have an acoustic neuroma than those who never used a phone. The finding is based on a smaller number of cases than the brain tumor results but is statistically significant. The U.K. epidemiological study is the fourth to show an association between long-term use of a cell phone and acoustic neuroma.

"[W]e did find a trend of increasing risk of acoustic neuroma with increasing duration of mobile phone use," according to the team led by Victoria Benson, Jane Green and Valerie Beral of the University of Oxford. IARC's Joachim Schüz, an avowed tumor risk skeptic, is a coauthor. The trend of more tumors with more phone use is also statistically significant. The paper is being published by the International Journal of Epidemiology; a copy was posted on its Web site on May 8th.

WIthout explanation, the increase in acoustic neuroma is omitted in the study conclusion presented in the published abstract. Only the lack of an association with brain cancer is reported there.

But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new study is that it is being touted as "prospective." Prospective studies are considered superior to retrospective studies — such asInterphone— because they do not rely on people's memories to estimate past exposures. The fear with retrospective studies is that subjects with tumors, eager to explain their condition, will overestimate their cell phone use and skew the results in favor an association. In a prospective study, subjects fill out regular questionnaires detailing phone use and other possible changes over the span of the study.

It is true that the women were recruited into the U.K. study population before they developed a tumor and would not have had any incentive to misreport their phone use. But, beyond that, nothing about monitoring their radiation exposure could be called prospective. The U.K. study offers scant improvement over past efforts.

Calling the new study prospective cuts two ways. On the one hand, it gives additional support to the finding of no brain cancer from cell phones, but, on the other hand, it lends greater credibility to the acoustic neuroma association. This might explain the absence of the observed acoustic neuroma risk in the conclusion.

Exposure Assessment: “Crude” and “Extremely Limited”

"The evidence presented is less than a slam dunk," said Joe Bowman, an industrial hygienist with the U.S. NIOSH, who worked on the Interphone study. "The exposure assessment in the new study was pretty crude and no attempt was made to estimate radiation exposure," he toldMicrowave News from his office in Cincinnati. "While it is better than in past retrospective studies in some ways, it is worse in others," he added. "For example, in Interphone, a user's entire phone history was obtained."

Cell phone use in the U.K. study was based on the answers to only one or two questions posed at the time the women were recruited for the study. They were asked, "About how often do you use a mobile phone?" and were given three options: "never," less than once a day" and "every day." Those who did use a cell phone were also asked "for how long?" At the end of the study in 2009, participants were asked two more questions about their cell phone use, but those answers were not used in the data analysis.

"The study has extremely limited exposure assessment," concurred Joel Moskowitz, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2009, Moskowitz published a meta-analysis pointing to a tumor risk from cell phones. In an interview, Moskowitz pointed out that the U.K. team had not collected any information on the use of cordless phones. "This could have been an important source of RF exposure," he said.

The Oxford paper also reports a higher than expected incidence of tumors of the pituitary gland, but this increase is not statistically reliable.

Both the Interphone project and Lennart Hardell's group in Sweden have previously linked long-term cell phone use with acoustic neuroma, as did a Japanese team in 2010. The new paper does not cite the Japanese study.

Last fall, the Italian Supreme Court ruled in favor of such an association.

Two years ago, an expert panel convened by IARC classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. In April, IARC published the rationale for the decision.

Proper Toilet Position

For better posture on the toilet, try the Squatty Potty! 

Available in 7" or 9" for all types of toilets. 

Top Five Tips to Live Long and Prosper

Top 5 Tips to “Live Long and Prosper”

This infamous catch phrase by Dr. Spock more than likely is the goal of everyone reading this blog today, unfortunately, however this is much easier said than done.  To assist in this, we here at Natural Healing Tools have complied the list that we believe would be closest to what the real Dr. Spock would prescribe if he was here, instead of carrying out what seems will be one of his greatest and best looking adventures yet. 

 

 

Tip #1: Eat a Colorful and Fresh Diet

The number one way to live a healthier life is to monitor exactly what we eat.  This is a problem nationally as nearly half of Americans are overweight or obese (estimated 154.7 million American adults- according to the American Heart Association) and obesity is the leading cause of preventable disease in America today, with moderate obesity cutting a person’s life expectancy by 3 years and severe obesity cutting it by 10 years.  The simplest and best way to stay at a healthy weight, is to focus on eating a diet as colorful and close to nature as possible.  By eating a veritable rainbow of natural food, a person is able to garner as many different vital nutrients as possible, which if in a natural state are easier for the body to absorb and are more satisfying then eating processed food full of extra sugar, salt, fat, and preservatives.  However, while it would be optimal to only eat unprocessed food, in this day and age it is nearly impossible to do this.  As a solution to this problem, we would advise to follow the 90/10 rule or eating as fresh and close to nature as possible for 90% of what you eat, so that the 10% will not ruin your health, but will allow someone to engage in normal social interaction and not feel guilty about eating something that they know they shouldn’t.
Overall Addition to Life: +3 years

Tip #2: Get plenty of Exercise

The second way to live a longer and healthier life is to include plenty of exercise.  This does not mean that you have to go to the gym, but it does mean that a large amount of movement should be employed every day, whether that is taking the dogs for a walk, going hiking, practicing yoga, or whatever your favorite form of exercise is.  The important thing is that you are doing something everyday other than sitting, especially watching T.V., for most of your leisure time, as sitting for more than three hours a day for leisure was correlated in reducing life expectancy by 2 years and by watching less than two hours of T.V. a day will bump the average life expectancy up 1.4 years.  
Overall Addition to Life: +3.4 years

Tip #3: Financial Vitality

There is a correlation between income inequality and difference in life expectancy, however there is more to this tip then that.  In a program at Creighton University, low income women were given the chance to learn how to take control of their financial life and put it in order.  Before and after this program, their blood pressure, BMI, and other markers of overall health were taken.  After successfully completing the program, the women had improved markers in overall health and well being, mostly without other changes in their overall lifestyle.  In order to help live a longer life, it is vital to keep finances in order so that money does not become the all consuming stresser that it is prone to become.  Furthermore, what good is it to extend your life if you will not be able to afford those extra years in any semblance of comfort or enjoyment?
Overall Addition: +2 years

Tip #4: Supplementation

While it is nearly impossible to live a healthy lifestyle without a healthy diet, it is just as impossible to get every single vital vitamin and nutrient from diet alone that our body’s need to survive.  While it is inadvisable to over supplement, it is general consensus that certain additions are beneficial to a person’s life.  The most prominent of these are the Essential Fatty Acids which cannot be produced alone by the body and which may help decrease inflammation, heart disease, and age related diseases such as Alzheimer’s and/or dementia.  Furthermore, it has been shown that calcium and Vitamin D when taken together may increase fat loss, while using Vitamin C may include protection against immune system deficiencies and  cardiovascular disease.  While it is advisable to consume as many vitamins and minerals as possible from whole food, we do carry the products that can help fill any bases you may have missed whether that is in the form of an all natural superfood, your daily mineral requirements, or your essential fatty acids, we have you covered.  
Overall Addition: +1 year

Tip #5: Goal Setting-  The Bucket List

This tip may not necessarily increase qualitatively, but will increase quantitatively.  Similar to the advisement above to plan for that longer life you hope to live, we advise to set goals of what you want to do with that extra time you have, with these goals set around things that you enjoy or want to do.  In conjunction with good financial planning, almost any goal can be realized, whether that is to climb Mount Everest, live life seeing your children and grandchildren everyday, teaching the practices you hold near and dear to your hear, or traveling the world or even other worlds(an activity Spock would eagerly approve and recommend with approval from a physician).  The point is that it is your life and it should be lived to maximize enjoyment, whatever that form of enjoyment is to you!
Overall Addition: A happy and fulfilling life  

By following these five easy tips, a person could potentially add up to or more than 10 years to their life expectancy, while at the same time improving the way that it is lived in order to guarantee that it was a life that was fulfilling and as joyful as possible.  So with those tips in my mind, my your go forth and “Live Long and Prosper”.

Credit for Pictures, Star Trek, Spock and all related content: startrek.com, pintrest

Common Sense: Heart Attacks and Hot Water

The Chinese and Japanese drink hot tea with their meals, not cold water, maybe it is time we adopt their drinking habit while eating.

Think about the kitchen sink in your home. You don't pour fat down the drain and run cold water! That's the same as drinking ice cold beverages while eating. 

The cold beverage acts to solidify the oily stuff that you have just consumed. This slows down the digestion process. Once this semi solid 'sludge' reacts with the stomach acid, it breaks down and is absorbed into the intestine faster than solid food. The 'sludge' lines the intestine. Very soon, this will turn into fats, clogs the intestine, and can lead to cancer. 

To alleviate this 'sludge' factor, it is simple to drink hot soup, hot tea or warm water during/after a meal. This aids the digestive process and helps keep the intestine clean. 

Healthy for your diet - and great for your wallet. Water is free when eating out - order hot water instead of cold. Add a lemon for flavor! 

Reminder of Common Symptoms Of Heart Attack...

A serious note about heart attacks - you should know that not every heart attack symptom is going to be the left arm hurting . Be aware of intense pain in the jaw line may also be an early warning sign.

You may never have the first chest pain during the course of a heart attack. Nausea and intense sweating are also common symptoms. 60% of people who have a heart attack while they are asleep do not wake up. Pain in the jaw can wake you from a sound sleep. The more we know, the better chance we could survive..

A cardiologist says if everyone who reads this post shares it to 10 people, you can be sure that we'll save at least one life. Read & Send to a friend. You could save a life... 

Research Shows Botox Lessens Ability to Recognize Emotions

By Josh Dixon

While Botox has long been sought after to smooth wrinkles and any faulty facial features, a new study suggests while it may cure these physical ailments, the treatment could have long lasting effects on your ability to understand the emotions of others.

David Neal, a psychology professor at the University of Southern Carolina acted as the lead author in this research, which was published in the journalSocial Psychology and Personality Science.

In his research, Neal suggests that it is the process of Botox itself, which makes it so debilitating in reading emotions as Botox paralyzes muscles and prevents certain facial movements.

Since people read emotion by mimicking facial expressions, Neal says “if muscular signals from the face to the brain are dampened, you’re less able to read emotions.”

Researchers conducted two experiments, one of 31 women, comparing Botox with Restylane, a dermal filler, and the other of 56 women and 39 men, using a gel that amplifies muscular signals. Participants in both experiments viewed computer images of faces and identified the emotions they saw.

“When the facial muscles are dampened, you get worse in emotion perception, and when the facial muscles are amplified, you get better at emotion perception,” Neal says.

Similarly, studies have recently been conducted out of Columbia University stating that Botox may make recipients less susceptible to emotions in general.

Ultimately Neal says that users of Botox need to “consider whether these procedures are having any indirect costs – reducing their ability to empathize and understand people’s emotions.

If nothing else, this research clearly demonstrates that facial expressions are a dominant factor in the ways in which we express our emotions and ourselves. By impeding these expressions, we are impeding our ability to communicate effectively.

Bad Reaction to Cosmetics? Tell the FDA!

You break out in a head-to-toe rash after applying a sunless tanning lotion. Your son’s skin is red and blotchy after he gets his face painted at the school carnival. Your daughter’s scalp is burned after using a hair relaxer.

If you've had a negative reaction to a beauty, personal hygiene, or makeup product, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants to know.

From morning until night—styling our hair for work to showering before bed—Americans depend upon personal care products. Most are safe, but some cause problems, and that’s when FDA gets involved.

“Even though these products are widely used, most don’t require FDA approval before they’re sold in stores, salons, and at makeup counters,” says Linda Katz, M.D., director of the agency’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors. “So, consumers are one of FDA’s most important resources when it comes to identifying problems.”

The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines “cosmetics” as products that are intended to be applied to the body “for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.” But the legal definition includes items that most Americans might not ordinarily think of as cosmetics, including:

• face and body cleansers
• deodorants
• moisturizers and other skin lotions and creams
• baby lotions and oils
• hair care products, dyes, conditioners, straighteners, perms
• makeup
• hair removal creams
• nail polishes
• shaving products
• perfumes and colognes
• face paints and temporary tattoos
• permanent tattoos and permanent makeup

What to Report

Katz says consumers should contact FDA if they experience a rash, hair loss, infection, or other problem—even if they didn't follow product directions. FDA also wants to know if a product has a bad smell or unusual color—which could signal contamination—or if the item’s label is incomplete or inaccurate.

If you have any concerns about a cosmetic, contact MedWatch, FDA’s problem-reporting program, on the Web or at 1-800-332-1088; or contact the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

When you contact FDA, include the following information in your report:

• the name and contact information for the person who had the reaction;
• the age, gender, and ethnicity of the product’s user;
• the name of the product and manufacturer;
• a description of the reaction—and treatment, if any;
• the healthcare provider’s name and contact information, if medical attention was provided; and
• when and where the product was purchased.
And be sure to give the age, gender, and ethnicity of the person who had the reaction, says FDA scientist Wendy Good, Ph.D. Good, who analyzes reports about problems with cosmetics, says that information is important because it can help scientists spot trends.
When a consumer report is received, FDA enters the information into a database of negative reactions. Experts then look for reports related to the same product or similar ones. FDA scientists will use the information to determine if the product has a history of problems and represents a public health concern that needs to be addressed.
If you file a consumer report, your identity will remain confidential.

"Cosmetics are usually safe, but when they aren't, consumer reporting is essential so FDA can take action when appropriate,” Katz says. Those actions could—depending upon the product and the problem—range from issuing a consumer safety advisory to taking legal action.
This article appears on FDA's Consumer Updates page, which features the latest on all FDA-regulated products.

Cell Phone Carriers & the FCC: Cozy & Colluding An Industry Insider Speaks Out

Micro Wave News, April 2, 2013

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has never levied a fine against a cell phone company for exceeding its RF exposure limits from a base station antenna.

That's not because all of the 300,000 cell sites in the U.S. comply with the FCC rules, according to an Industry Insider with years of training and experience measuring RF radiation. He told us that he has found RF levels higher than those allowed under the FCC rules at sites across the country. The real reason there have been no fines, he said, is "because there's collusion between the companies and the government." The insider, an RF engineer, calls himself "EMF Expert"; he asked that his real name not be used.

"The carriers and the FCC have an extremely cozy relationship," said the engineer. "Whenever there's a problem, someone in the FCC's RF safety office warns the carrier and the company then puts the 'fire' out."

Over the last two years, the RF engineer and the EMR Policy Institute, based in Marshfield, VT, have identified more than 100 rooftops in 23 states where the FCC's limits have been exceeded. Back in December 2011, the Institute described the situation to the chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowksi, and the other commissioners. These findings are "shocking," the leaders of the Institute wrote, and point to "a systematic pattern of non-compliance" by the country's largest providers of cell phone service. Nothing much has changed since then.

When the radiation limits are exceeded, it's most likely close to the transmitting antenna. The strength of RF signals, like all types of electromagnetic radiation, decreases quickly with distance from the source (the inverse square law). For most freestanding cell antenna towers, the "hot" zone —where RF levels are higher than the exposure limits— is usually inaccessible, but for roof-mounted antennas, public access is not uncommon. The FCC requires that such hot zones be roped off and warning signs posted. Most cell sites are composed of multiple antennas, with some pointing in different directions. Different carriers will often place their antennas on the same site, a process called colocation.

The people most at risk of RF overexposure are those working on rooftops close to the cell phone antennas. As the EMR Policy Institute wrote to the FCC commissioners:

Workers such as roofers, window washers, painters, HV/AC technicians, building engineers and superintendents, firefighters, wireless industry workers, and others have been and continue to be concerned that their safety and health have been and continue to be compromised by exposure to RF radiation in excess of lawful limits. 

Enforcement Is a “Total Illusion”

"Enforcement at the FCC is a total illusion," Deb Carney, a director of the Institute, told Microwave News. "The public is not being protected." Carney is an attorney practicing law in Golden, CO.

More than 100 instances of antennas exceeding the FCC limits have been reported to Michele Ellison, the head of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, according to Janet Newton, the Institute's president. "To the best of my knowledge, the FCC has not taken any enforcement action," Newton said, "Neither Ms. Ellison nor anyone from her office has ever even acknowledged our complaints."

Ellison declined to comment, referring questions to Mark Wigfield in the FCC media office. "We routinely investigate RF complaints," Wigfield told us, "We take action where warranted by the facts and the commission's RF standards." When asked about the 100 violations reported by the EMR Policy Institute, Wigfield did not respond.

(In fact, in the last dozen years, the FCC has taken few enforcement actions for any type of RF source, including the much more powerful antennas broadcasting radio and TV signals, as shown in this list compiled by the FCC.)

The Industry Insider estimates that about 10% of all cell sites are on rooftops (the fraction differs from one carrier to another). And of that 10%, about 10% are out of compliance. This works out to about 1% of all cell sites being non-compliant. "It's a small percentage," he said, "but when you consider that there are some 300,000 sites out there, it is a significant number."

Asked why he was blowing the whistle on the cell phone industry for which he has long worked, the Insider replied: "Nobody is enforcing the law. You can argue about thermal and non-thermal effects until the cows come home, but these violations are not lawful and the rules should be enforced."

"Without enforcement, there can be no compliance," he said.

The Insider does not see the package of rules and proposals issued by the FCC last week as sufficient to deal with the lack of compliance on rooftops. "The section on mitigation is too ambiguous," he said. "The FCC appears to be only interested in making changes that do not add new costs for the carriers, he added, but that will not solve the problem."

"They can fix this if they want to, it's not that hard," said the Insider. "The situation is completely different in Canada and Europe. They take this seriously."

Noel Gail’s Roof in Queens New York

The EMR Policy Institute points to what happened on a rooftop owned by Mr. Noel Gail as an example of the cozy relationship between the FCC and the cell phone carriers. The story begins about three years ago, in March 2010, when Gail wanted to repair the roof on his two-story building in Queens Village, New York City. On seeing cell phone antennas on the roof of an adjoining building, he called the toll-free number he spotted on a warning sign posted by AT&T. "I called that 800 number a few times, but it was a dead end," he told Microwave News not long ago.

Gail then started calling the FCC. "After six or seven calls, I left a message on an FCC answering machine saying that I was going to call a local TV station and my attorney," he said. "But I was bluffing, I did not know any reporters and I did not have a lawyer. I just said that to get their attention." The bluff worked. Two months later, on May 11, a five-man team from the FCC made a site visit. They found the RF levels on Gail's roof near an antenna operated by Metro PCS, which was also located on his neighbor's roof, to exceed the FCC limit by 60%.

On November 10, 2010, the FCC issued Metro PCS a formal Notice of Violation. This is the only NOV that the FCC has ever issued for an RF violation from a cell phone antenna. The AT&T antennas were found to comply with the RF rules and the company was not cited by the FCC.

Even though AT&T had not responded to Gail's calls, it moved quickly once alerted by the FCC. Microwave News has learned that soon after Gail left that message on the FCC's voice mail about contacting the media, word reached Donald Campbell in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. The EMR Policy Institute calls Campbell, "The Gatekeeper," the one who decides who gets the agency's attention. Gail must have passed the test. Campbell sent a message to AT&T, and the company sprung into action as the antennas on Gail's roof rose to a priority issue.

We asked Michele Ellison, the FCC enforcement chief whether anyone from the FCC had ever gone back to Mr. Gail's roof to check whether Metro PCS was now in compliance with the FCC rules. Ellison did not respond, nor did Mark Wigfield of the FCC media office. 

The FCC did not fine Metro PCS for exceeding the commission's RF radiation limits. No one has explained why.

The EMR Policy Institute returned to Gail's roof with an experienced RF engineer about a year after the FCC issued the notice of violation. They found that the RF levels near the Metro PCS antenna were close to three times the FCC limit and the RF levels near the AT&T antenna were more than five times the allowable limit.

"I am not an engineer and I can't prove it," Gail told us, "but my feeling is that AT&T lowered the power on the antennas before the FCC arrived and then boosted it after they left."

Evie Hantzopoulos, the executive director of a New York City non-profit and a sometime cell antenna activist, tells a similar story about dealing with the FCC over a rooftop antenna some years ago. “T-Mobile constructed antennas directly facing the adjacent roof of a property next door. You could go up to the roof and walk right up to them,” she told us. “It took calls, emails, letters and more to get the FCC to inspect the site. Once a date was set, T-Mobile was notified. Then, two days before the visit, the antennas were taken down. That was the end of the story, even though we had pictures of the violation.”

“The FCC's approach to enforcement is so laissez-faire, it amounts to incompetence,” Hantzopoulos said.

No Help from the Carriers’ Toll-Free Help Lines

The EMR Policy Institute has posted two videos that describe the rooftop RF problem on YouTube ("Wireless Safety Failure Part I" and "Wireless Safety Failure Part II"). Each is about 15 minutes long; the second includes footage filmed on Gail's rooftop.

Some of the most striking parts of the videos are what workers are told when they call the toll-free numbers posted on warning signs near cell phone antennas. Most of the operators responding to the calls appear to be ill prepared to answer the workers' questions. All too often they are quick to reassure the workers that there is nothing for them to worry about.

Richard Tell, a consultant with extensive RF experience, was not surprised by what he heard on the videos. "It happens over and over again," he said in interview from his office in Colville, WA. "The telephone operators don't know diddly-squat about the RF problem."

In a December 11, 2001 letter to the FCC's Ellison, the Policy Institute urged the Enforcement Bureau to "investigate the type and veracity of the information provided to those who called."

Last July, David Dombrowski of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau in Philadelphia wrote to Janet Newton of the Policy Institute asking about operator responses to the toll-free numbers. She then sent him recordings, which the Institute had made from calls to AT&T, Metro PCS, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. "That was the last I heard from him," Newton said. When contacted by  Microwave News, Dombrowski wrote back that he could not comment because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Institute's Deb Carney wants the FCC to get tough with the industry. "The problem is that the FCC is colluding with the cell phone carriers and the result is lax enforcement," she said.

Study List: Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumors

Many scientists and doctors are linking serious health symptoms to cell phone use. Here is a partial list of studies published on the effect of cell phone use:

BRAIN TUMORS ON THE RISE
Epidemiologist Sam Milham, M.D., recently stated on CNN's Larry King Live show that there is "plenty of reason for concern" about cell phones causing brain cancer. Robert Tufel, Director of Patient Services at the National Brain Tumor Foundation. says "what we do know is that brain tumor incidence is on the rise and some of the research about cell phones and brain tumors has given us cause for concern.”

YOUNG CHILDREN ABSORB 50% MORE RADIATION INTO THE BRAIN
Research by Om Gandhi, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Utah, has shown that young children absorb up to 50% more radiation in their brains than adults when they use mobile phones. Radiation penetrates 30% for a 10-year-old, compared with just a small area around the ear in an adult. Absorption rates are greater in children because their ears and skulls are smaller and thinner. Furthermore, their total lifetime exposure to cell phone radiation will be greater than for those who began using cell phones as adults.

WHITE BLOOD CELLS DESTROYED
Biologist Roger Coghill believes that cell phone radiation may damage the ability of white blood cells to fight off infection and disease, including cancer. Coghill took white blood cells from a donor, kept them alive with nutrients and found that after seven-and-a-half hours, only 13% of the cells exposed to cell phone radiation remained intact and able to function.

MICRONUCLEI CELLS MARKERS FOR CANCER
Another study by Dr. Tice and Dr. Hook of Integrated Laboratory Systems in North Carolina found that human blood exposed to mobile phone radiation for 24 hours, had an eightfold increase in micronuclei cells, which are a diagnostic marker of high risk for developing cancer.

DNA DAMAGE
Dr. Henry Lai and Dr Singh at Washington State University reported DNA single and double strand breaks in rat-brain tissue after exposure to radiation levels below the current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standard for cell phones for only two hours. Other research by this group showed that brains prepared four hours after exposure had much higher levels of DNA breakage than samples taken immediately after exposure. Therefore, DNA damage from repeated use of a cell phone could be cumulative.

HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS IN CELLS CAUSE CANCER
Radiation expert Dr Peter French, from the Centre for Immunology Research at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, claimed that repeated exposure to cell phone frequencies well below current safety levels creates continuous manufacture of heat shock proteins within cells, which in high levels induce cancer and increase resistance to anti-cancer drugs.

TOXINS LEAK INTO THE BRAIN
In 1994, scientists at Sweden’s Lund University found that two minutes of exposure to emissions from mobile phones can break down the blood-brain barrier in rats. This causes proteins and toxins to leak into the brain, which can increase the chances of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s.

CELL DEATH IN THE BRAIN
According to Lund researcher Bertil Persson, cell changes and cell death in the brain are clearly visible under a microscope after exposure to radiation from mobile telephones.

LYMPHOMA
A 1997 study conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia (funded by the wireless company Telestras) found that in mice that were genetically engineered to be susceptible to lymphoma, exposure to pulsed digital cellular phone radiation for one hour per day for 18 months doubled the incidence of lymphoma. When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic".

TEMPORAL BRAIN TUMOR
Lennart Hardell, professor of oncology at Orebro University in Sweden, in comparing 1,617 patients diagnosed with brain tumours between 1997 with the same number of healthy people, found that cell phone users were 2.5 times more likely to have a temporal brain tumor on the side of the head where they held their phone. The risk of auditory nerve tumors was increased 3.7 times for mobile phone users. Probably the most significant conclusion of Dr. Hardell is that use of mobile phones for up to 10 years increased the risk of brain cancer by 26%, but the risk jumped to 77% for more than a decade's use. This study is the first to examine the long-term effects of using a cell phone.

EYE CANCER FOUND IN REGULAR CELL PHONE USERS
Researchers at Germany's Essen University Institute for Medical and Computer Science found a 3.3 times higher incidence of eye cancer in regular users of mobile phones than in patients who did not use them.

TUMOR OF THE AUDITORY NERVE 50% HIGHER IN LONG TIME CELL PHONE USERS
Dr George Carlo, chairman of Wireless Technology Research LLC, studies showed that the rate of brain cancer deaths was higher among hand-held mobile users than those using non-handhelds. The risk of rare tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled among cell phone users than non-users and there was a correlation between the occurrence of brain tumors on the right side of the head and use of phones on the right side of the head. The risk of a tumor of the auditory nerve was 50% higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or longer. In addition, the ability of phone radiation to cause genetic cellular damage corresponded to the amount of radiation exposure.

FALSE CLAIMS BY THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY
Dr. Carlo said segments of the industry had "repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers, including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow-up by calling for and supporting more research". He also said the industry was risking a consumer backlash similar to that faced by the tobacco industry