[ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones

Thu Dec 31 14:24:13 CST 2009

MRI technologists ARE some of the nicest people you will meet.

Mike's argument seems to be the same as his take on global warming.  Even if we don't 
know if EMF produces health effects, we should not rock the science boat because it will be 
good for people to use cell phones less.  I think if we really want people to be healthier, and 
we don't care too much about the freedom of the individual, we should outlaw smoking.  
Hands down, that would have a more significant impact on human health than either 
increased pollution control or cell phone usage reductions, not even counting the accidents 
that occur when folks try to fish out a smoke and light up while driving.   But Big Brother 
makes way too much money from cigarette taxes, so I won't hold my breath for that 
legislation.  

Personally, I don't see much of a moral difference between outright violation of individual 
freedoms, and nudging the population toward desired goals by scaring them with bogus 
science.  Both are reprehensible.

I wonder what which choice people would make, when asked about the dangers of cell phone 
use?

    A) I want the government to modify my cell phone usage with scary bogus science, 
    reinforced by Hollywood propaganda aimed at impressionable young people.  

    B) I want the government to modify my cell phone usage by police actions like 
    ticketing, fining, or arresting those who deviate from approved behaviors.

    C) I can decide for myself how risky my life should be, and I'll thank you not to lie 
    about what the science says or how confident we are of the conclusions.

-Gary Isenhower

On 31 Dec 2009 at 10:18, ROY HERREN wrote:

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

   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/

_______________________________________________
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/