Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78% for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56–92%), 64% for glioma patients (range 36–92%), and 53% for control subjects (range 42–74%) (6).
The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.
Nice quality vinyl bumper sticker is a not-so-gentle reminder to fellow motorists of the one of the many dangers of cellphone use: distraction! If you ever get the chance, you can also explain the other hazards as well: reaction time, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and possibly brain tumors. Good for cars, trucks, bikes, skates and just about any other moving vehicle.
If you're concerned that talking on your cell phone could cook your brain, you may want to invest in an anti-radiation phone case. The basic idea behind these cases is that they redirect the radiation produced by the phone away from the user, so it isn't constantly bombarding your skull. They can accomplish this in a variety of ways; one involves using antennas to redirect the waves, and another uses silicone or other materials to block the waves.
Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project.
The outside is made of a synthetic polyurethane that feels just like leather, although genuine leather will be available soon. The inside is made of a microfiber that won’t scratch the phone. The materials are also designed to protect your phone, should you drop it. Most importantly, an integrated FCC-certified lab tested radiation-shielding foil not only deflects and absorbs RF, ELF and Thermal radiation to greatly reduce your exposure, but it also blocks RFID signals, so that hackers cannot steal your credit card information by scanning it from afar. And no, the case will not affect phone or battery performance.
Could you please provide me with evidence that non-ionizing radiation is damaging to humans? In another post illustrating the threats of non-ionizing radiation you have said that this radiation is damaging to children, and link an article by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. However, this linked page contains no mention of non-ionizing radiation, and instead suggests that children are simply addicted to use of mobile phones, thus using them instead of sleeping. You also provided a link to a PubChem page on the negative effects of this radiation, but this page appears to no longer exist.
Our tests wre conducted with three RF meters, set at fixed position next to the iPhone. Our primary meter was the Gigahertz Solutions HFE 59B, a professional RF instrument. We also used a TES 593 (Mid-Range Consumer Grade Instrument) and the Acousticom 2 (Low-Range Consumer Grade Instrument) to compare/confirm the increases and decreases in RF and for visual reference.
Independently tested DefenderShield® technology uses a patent-pending sophisticated layering of separate non-toxic, human safe exotic materials processed for maximum radiation blocking efficiency. Each material has unique and targeted radiation shielding characteristics designed to work in unison to up to eliminate all radiation emissions from 0 to 10 GHz.
I debated whether to give it 3 or 4 stars: on features, speed of delivery, and quality of construction, it definitely deserves 4 stars. If I can measure and verify the emf reduction, then I will change the rating to 5 stars. Since the whole point of using it is to block excess em radiation, I can't really give it 5 stars without more proof that it really does so.
RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., a special lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and another signer of the recent letter to the WHO and U.N. “These proteins are used for protection,” Blank says. “The cell is saying that RF is bad for me and it has to do something about it.”
Studies in people: Another type of study looks at cancer rates in different groups of people. Such a study might compare the cancer rate in a group exposed to something like cell phone use to the rate in a group not exposed to it, or compare it to what the expected cancer rate would be in the general population. But sometimes it can be hard to know what the results of these studies mean, because many other factors that might affect the results are hard to account for.
The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and interpretation of findings.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
As our video points out: Measurements will vary with signal strength and other factors and that includes ambient energy. I talk about ambient energy in a lot of my videos-it's the energy that's in whatever environment I happen to be measuring in that's coming from a source of wireless energy that isn't the subject of what I'm measuring. My home is not a lab of course, but fortunately it's always measured very low for RF radiation.
That mystery probably stokes fears about cellphone radiation instead of soothing them, though — in part because of how we in the media cover the rare and frightening. We’ve seen the same thing with fear over nuclear power plants, according to a paper published in Science in the 1980s by psychologist Paul Slovic. “Because nuclear risks are perceived as unknown and potentially catastrophic, even small accidents will be highly publicized and may produce large ripple effects,” Slovic wrote.
An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time (22).