[ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

Thu Dec 31 12:18:25 CST 2009

   If I recall correctly, in years past Epidemiologists studied the groups with the greatest exposure to ionizing radiation to look for the health effects of ionizing radiation.  Couldn't the same principal be applied to non-ionizing radiation,?  Instead of studying bomb survivors or shipyard workers they could instead study power plant workers who spend years around large generators and transformers, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Technologists who spend their entire career's around large fluxes of non-ionizing radiation?

    I recall a conversation that I had once with a Nuclear Medicine Technologist wherein she was relating her personal experiences with MRI Technologists.  She was convinced that the large magnetic fields were having an effect of the MRI Technologist brains.  She said that they were all too nice.  If, and mind you I am not saying that it is, her anecdotal observation is correct, then perhaps the world needs more not less electromagnetic exposure and more nice people. 

    Would anyone care to hazard a comparison between the non-ionizing radiation exposure from being a patient and receiving an MRI, and using ones cell phone for years or even decades?  In medical comparisons of ionizing radiation exposure for lay people it seems that units are often expressed as comparisons to getting a chest X-ray.  Perhaps the same thought process could be used for non-ionizing radiation wherein X number of years could be compared to getting an MRI.
 Roy Herren 

________________________________
From: "Perrero, Daren" <Daren.Perrero at illinois.gov>
To: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>; Mike Quastel <maay100 at bgu.ac.il>
Cc: RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>; Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net>
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 8:23:18 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

Mike and Steve,

I don't have much cause to be involved in non-ionizing aspects of
radiation (the ionizing kind keeps me busy enough!).  From your review
of the literature, is that localized brain heating directly attributed
to radiation associated with the cell phone or is a confounding factor
involved such as the presence of a person's hand holding the phone or
other power dissipation from the phone also involved?

In a similar vein, growing up, my mother threw out all her electric
blankets when she heard the fable of induced currents affecting people's
health from their usage. Can't say I've seen any subsequent studies to
show a deleterious health affect 20-30 years later from that population
that chose to forego those blankets vs. those that kept theirs in use.

Daren Perrero

The opinions expresses are mine, all mine.....
I'm with the government and I'm here to help you (ack!)
daren.perrero(a)Illinois.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Mike Quastel
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Steven Dapra
Cc: RADSAFE; Susan Gawarecki
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

I agree that no significant clinical effects have yet been found with  
microwaves and with cell phones, and I certainly am against the hype  
on the subject. To be the devil's advocate, however, there appears to  
be some local heating to the part of the brain adjacent to the cell  
phone, the biomedical significance of which is not clear. As is well  
known, manifestation of the carcinogenic effects of ionizing  
radiation can be delayed many years, even as many as 25 years after  
the initial exposure. How long have cell phones been around - maybe  
10? It would therefore be wise to reserve judgement on the long term  
consequences of cell phone use and to encourage the use of earphones  
for those who use cellphones intensely.
Mike Quastel MD PhD (Nuc Med)

On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Steven Dapra wrote:

> Dec. 30
>
>        Thank you for posting this, Susan.
>
>        Here is a link to an article by Prof. Park in Forbes about  
> Brodeur and his claim that EMFs cause leukemia, etc., etc.  http:// 
> www.electrowarmth.com/emf.php
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 04:25 PM 12/30/2009, Susan Gawarecki wrote:
>> Below is a physicist's take on the issue. Bob Park takes no  
>> prisoners!
>>
>> --Susan Gawarecki
>>
>> >From Bob Park's "What's New" 25 Dec 09:
>>
>> 2. WARNING! CELL PHONES ARE FOUND TO EMIT BULLSH*T.
>> >From San Francisco to Maine there is a campaign to require cancer  
>> warning
>> labels on cell phones. Fact: cell phone radiation doesn't cause  
>> cancer.
>> Cancer agents break chemical bonds, creating mutant strands of DNA.
>> Microwave photons cannot break chemical bonds. This is not  
>> debatable. In
>> 1989, Paul Brodeur, a staff writer for the New Yorker, claimed in  
>> a series
>> of sensational articles that electromagnetic fields from power  
>> lines cause
>> childhood leukemia http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN89/ 
>> wn082589.html .
>> Brodeur, however, understood none of this and when virtually every
>> scientist agreed that it was impossible, Brodeur took their  
>> unanimity as
>> proof of a massive cover-up. Other anti-science know-nothings  
>> followed
>> Brodeur's lead, shifting their attack to cell phone radiation.  
>> Cell phones
>> have since spread to almost the entire population, but with no
>> corresponding increase in brain cancer. Case closed.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/