Here is a link to a detailed article on the latest evidence of health impacts from EMF.


http://www.sott.net/article/296952-EMF-pollution-The-health-impacts-of-wireless-RF-radiation#

Are wireless phones linked with brain cancer risk?

http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(14)00064-9/abstract

While the above referenced study does find a link to a particular kind of cancer (glioma), the number of cases is very small, out of the whole population. The great disservice to wireless phone users from such reports is that it continues to perpetuate the public's fear of cancer but doesn't indicate that there are many other less threatening but still serious health effects that impact many more users of wireless phones.

 

By Ronnie CohenNovember 11, 2014 5:09 PM

(Reuters Health) - Swedes who talked on mobile or cordless phones for more than 25 years had triple the risk of a certain kind of brain cancer compared to those who used wireless phones for less than a year, a new study suggests.

The odds of developing glioma, an often deadly brain cancer, rose with years and hours of use, researchers reported in the journal Pathophysiology.

“The risk is three times higher after 25 years of use. We can see this clearly,” lead researcher Dr. Lennart Hardell told Reuters Health in a telephone interview.

His finding contrasts with the largest-ever study on the topic - the international Interphone study, which was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and funded in part by cell phone companies. That study, published in 2010, failed to find strong evidence that mobile phones increased the risk of brain tumors.

Even if the odds of developing a glioma were doubled or tripled, however, the risk would still remain low.

A little more than 5 out of 100,000 Europeans (or 0.005 percent) were diagnosed with any kind of malignant brain tumor between 1995 and 2002, according to a 2012 study in the European Journal of Cancer (http://bit.ly/1xIlQam). If the rate triples, the odds rise to about 16 out of 100,000 (or 0.016 percent).

World Health Organization announcement about radio frequency EMF and cancer

World Health Organization announcement 
WHO announced on May 31, 2011 a warning that radio frequency EMF, such as those emitted by cell phones, may possibly be carcinogenic to humans. This is the conclusion of a WHO Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries who discussed and evaluated the available literature on the subject. The evidence is less than sufficient to support a direct cause and effect relationship between radio frequency EMF and brain cancer, but strong enough to warrant close watching for a link between cell phone use and cancer risk. With an estimated 5 billion mobile phones in use globally, nearly the whole human population is an unwitting participant in this uncontrolled experiment in EMF immersion.

Health effects of cell phone use

Have you felt confused by the conflicting messages coming from various sources, claiming that either a) there are no proven negative effects to health from using cell phones, or b) substantial evidence exists confirming negative effects to health from using cell phones? Who is telling the truth, or is anyone telling the whole truth? Are industry trade associations credible sources of information on this subject, or are government regulators, for that matter?

After meeting Dr. Nekrasov and learning about his research results, I started doing my own digging for credible information on cell phone emissions and health effects, and I found what I believe to be some very trustworthy sources. If you look at my Links on the right you will see them, and you can explore and read them for yourself. If you know of other similar sources, I would be pleased to hear from you about them.

The interview with Dr. George Carlo, on the Common Ground web site, is very revealing about the power that industry groups have in getting their way with government regulatory processes that are supposed to protect the public's health and interests. As usual, the burden falls on you and I to prove we have been harmed, after the fact, rather than on industry to prove their product is harmless (with INDEPENDENT verification!) before it is introduced to the market. The rush to get products to market dominates over the Precautionary Principle of prove no harm, first. And we the public pay the price.

Thanks for visiting the blog.
Steve