By B.N. Frank
Following the Benjamins…
Recently CBS News posted an attention-grabbing guide on their website: “Cell Phones & Cancer: 8 Dumb Ways to Boost Possible Cancer Risk.”
There are 2 references listed to validate concerns regarding possible cancer risk:
- A 2009 study by the Journal of Clinical Oncology and
- A 2011 statement made by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer.
There is also a reference and link provided to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website where the CDC claims: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question.”
What’s weird, though, is that the CDC acknowledges the IARC statement:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.” (A carcinogen is an agent that causes cancer.)
Even though they acknowledge this, what’s also weird is that the CDC didn’t acknowledge that the WHO classified cell phone radiation as a “possible carcinogen” in 2011.
However, they did acknowledge the WHO about this:
Scientists are continuing to study the possible health effects of cell phone use. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently looking into how cell phones may affect:
- Some types of tumors (a lump or growth)
- Our eyes
- Sleep
- Memory
- Headaches
If you’re wondering why the CDC is being so mamsy pamsy, look no further than this 2016 New York Times investigative article: “At CDC, a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk.”
Just weeks prior to the article being released, the CDC agency recanted the “bold” position it had made previously against the dangers of cell phone radiation.
The former director of CDC division, The National Center for Environmental Health, Dr. Christopher J. Portier, would NOT recant though.
Dr. Portier had also served on the International Agency for Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization. He said the I.A.R.C. declaration led him to seek a review of the CDC guidelines.
Oh what a tangled web they weave…
Unfortunately, the 2016 NY Times article did not include all relevant facts which led to another investigative article from Environmental Health Trust:
As a public service, Environmental Health Trust (EHT) is posting 500+ internal CDC emails, obtained as part of the FOIA request, detailing how the cell phone industry directed changes in the CDC website content.
Details include:
- Information on the risk to children’s health was deleted.
- Information on cell towers never saw the light of day.
- A scientist well known for affiliations with the wireless industry came on as a consultant to the CDC.
So there’s that.
Even though there is no mention of The American Cancer Society in the CBS News post, The ACS has been used often as a reference to dismiss concerns in regard to possible harm from exposure to RF radiation-emitting sources such as cell phones, WiFi routers, utility “smart” meters, cell towers, etc.
What’s funny about that is the ACS usually includes at least one reference that validates possible cancer risk from RF-emitting sources.
Unfortunately, ACS statements are not designed for the average reader. They are long, rambling, and stilted. The validating references are tossed into a sea of “legal speak.”
One example of this is the statement they posted on their website in 2014 in re Utility “Smart” Meters where they seem to actually contradict themselves.
First they say this:
Because RF radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk.
Then they ramble for a while, basically shaming everybody for willingly exposing themselves to other RF-emitting devices.
Eventually they say:
Because, the amount of RF radiation you could be exposed to from a smart meter is much less than what you could be exposed to from a cell phone, it is very unlikely that living in a house with a smart meter increases risk of cancer.
Huh???
Of course, most readers would already be so confused and exhausted by the time they finished reading the entire statement that they would have forgotten that the ACS said this early on:
Because RF radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk.
The ACS also passes the buck to the World Health Organization as being responsible for more research and conclusions. That’s probably why there has been no update to this statement since 2014.
So there’s that, too.
Interestingly enough, the ACS receives quite a bit of funding from the Tech Industry.
And utility company field data from Sacramento, CA show smart meter radiation levels can be higher than from cell phones.
So there’s that also.
But let’s give credit where credit is due.
In May 2016, a representative from The American Cancer Society made a statement regarding research from the $25M US National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiation Study.
It was also a long, rambling, stilted statement full of legal speak:
- It’s interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link.
- The new report covers only partial findings from the study, but importantly one of the two cancers linked to cell phone radiation was malignant gliomas in the brain. The association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding.
- And importantly, the study found a ‘dose/response’ effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, a key sign that this association may be real.
The ACS statement isn’t entirely accurate, though. There actually has been U.S. government, telecom industry, and independently funded research available for several decades already that proved harm from cell phone radiation.
Also relevant: Dr. Anthony Miller, longtime World Health Organization advisor, and many other scientists have been insisting that
radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source – such as the signals emitted by cell phones, other wireless and cordless and sensor devices, and wireless networks – fully meets criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent, based on scientific evidence associating RF exposure to cancer development and cancer promotion. (Source)
How we use our cell phones and other personal RF-emitting devices is a matter of choice. But we seem to have no choice regarding the dozens of state and federal bills that have been passed or are still being discussed which will result in installing millions of small cell towers all over the country (including in front of homes).
RF radiation emissions from cell towers also increase cancer risk. Firefighters have fought to keep cell towers and antennas away from their stations because of this. Most of the population isn’t nearly as healthy or robust as the average firefighter: “Firefighters Don’t Want Cell Towers Near Their Stations, But 50+ Federal Bills Allow Cell Towers In Residential Yards and Pretty Much Everywhere Else.”
If you don’t like where this is going, contact your elected officials and let them know. Here’s information to provide as well: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180126005137/en
Your neighborhood – or yard – could be next.
Additional related links:
- “Most Don’t Question “Sensitivity” To Air Pollution But Still Question “Sensitivity” To Electrical Pollution”
- “Dear Cell Phone Radiation Warning Naysayers, MeThinks Thou Protests Too Much”
- “’The Flu’ and ‘Microwave Sickness’ Share Many of the Same Symptoms”
- “Tech Industry Promoting Devices They Claim Not As Addictive Is Like Big Tobacco Manufacturing “Safer” Cigarettes And Smoking Cessation Products”
- “Microwaving Nature: Wi-Fi Stations in Campgrounds, Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries Accommodate Visitors While Nuking Everything Else”
- “Do We Need More Research? Or Do We Need to Stop Using Plastic Mannequin Heads and Bodies for “Safety Testing” on Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices?”
- Beyond Digital Addiction: Your Kids May Be Affected by Wi-Fi and Electronic Devices Even If You Aren’t
- “Popular Science” Magazine Still Blows Off Cell Phone Radiation Warnings Despite Reports From The World Health Organization, Dr. Oz, Stephen Colbert and Others
- “Another Article Dismisses ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS) Without Mentioning that EHS is the Same Thing as “Microwave Sickness” Discovered in the 1950s”
- “The Internet of Things and the FCC: Failure Rate Approx. 75%, Millions Already Hacked, Tax Dollars Spent”
Many things are possible but unlikely. Unless you have a smart meter inside your house or carry it around in your pocket, you are much more likely to get cancer from your wifi connection, your cell phone, or your cordless phone, not to mention tv and radio. Unlike these devices, which we hug every day, smart meters are outside the house. And while it is possible to get cancer from the RF from a smart meter, it is unlikely.
The smart meter scare is brought to you courtesy of the cell phone and cable corporations with a campaign of shifting blame and distraction. Now call up your friends and tell them!
Probably, the things most to be avoided to prevent cancer are meat and dairy products. Over 97% of meat in the US is factory farmed, using GMO feedstock, which is grown with glyphosate, which the IARC calls not a possible but a likely (ie over 50% chance)carcingen, which is “convincingly” carcinogenic in lab animals.
Dairy, which is also fed carcinogenic feed, promotes cancer, according to dozens of peer reviewed studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4166373/
Your best defense is 1) do not sleep outside next to your smart meter or put it up your brain like a cell phone
2. transition to a plant-based organic diet, with no foods cooked above 250 degrees (ie only steam or boil) since foods cooked above that temperature create acrylamide (The World Health Organisation describes acrylamide as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. ).
This advice comes from a cancer survivor.
Doesn’t that ring a bell, when questioning why would scientists investigate, DECADES back, issues like:
1. Phys Med Biol. 1979 Nov;24(6):1177-87.
Dielectric properties of brain tissue between 0.01 and 10 GHz.
Foster KR, Schepps JL, Stoy RD, Schwan HP.
2.Avoidance by rats of illumination with low power nonionizing electromagnetic energy. Frey AH, Feld SR. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1975 Apr;89(2):183-8.
PMID:1133237
3.Investigation of hydration of macromolecules. II. Studies on poly-(vinyl-alcohol) solutions by microwave dielectric method.Masszi G, Inzelt G, Gróf P. Acta Biochim Biophys Acad Sci Hung. 1976;11(1):45-50.PMID: 961367
4. Microwave hyperthermia controlled by microwave radiometry: technical aspects and first clinical results. Chivé M, Plancot M, Giaux G, Prevost B. J Microw Power. 1984 Dec;19(4):233-41. PMID: 6570132
5. Mutat Res. 1983 Nov;122(2):155-61. Sperm count and sperm abnormality in male mice after exposure to 2.45 GHz microwave radiation.
Kowalczuk CI, Saunders RD, Stapleton HR.
6. Biophys J. 1981 Aug;35(2):271-87. Resonant and localized breathing modes in terminal regions of the DNA double helix. Putnam BF, Van Zandt LL, Prohofsky EW, Mei WN.
7.Biochim Biophys Acta. 1982 Jan 4;700(1):55-8.
The EPR spectra of copper transferrin complexes at 2-4 GHZ.
Froncisz W, Aisen P.
and MANY,MANY MORE, in which, for example the abstract of 1., reads, quote (PubMed resource):
Dielectric permittivity and conductivity are reported for grey and white matter from dog brain tissue between 0.01 and 10 GHz. Between 0.01 and approximately 1 GHz, the permittivity decreases and conductivity increases as a power law of frequency. Above 1 GHz, the conductivity increases quadratically with frequency due to dipolar reorientation of free water molecules in tissue; the apparent rotational relaxation frequency at 37 degrees C is 21–25 GHz, slightly below the 25 GHz characteristic frequency of pure water at that temperature. The microwave data are analysed using the Maxwell mixture theory applicable for a suspension of nonconducting, low permittivity spheres in bulk water. From the increase in conductivity above 1 GHz, and the tissue permittivity at 2–4 GHz, the apparent volume fraction of water is approximately 0.70 and 0.55 for grey and white matter, respectively, about 10–15% lower than respective values from the literature. This discrepancy is apparently due to a small fraction of water which does not contribute to the tissue permittivity above 1 GHz. Empirical equations are given to summarise the dielectric properties of ‘average’ brain tissue at 37 degrees C for future theoretical studies of microwave absorption in the head.
or the abstract of the 4th one, (related to PHARMA and MILITARY CARTEL KNOWING how to use microwaves) quote:
“Microwave systems combining microwave heating generators (434, 915 or 2450 MHz) with microwave radiometers (1-2 GHz or 2-4 GHz) have been used for two years in hyperthermia therapy. Technical aspects (generator, radiometer, applicator), experiments and first clinical results are detailed.”
or the 5th abstract, relating wi-fi (microwaves) to POPULATION CONTROL, quote:
“Adult male mice had the posterior halves of their bodies exposed at 44 W/kg in a waveguide system to 2.45 GHz microwave radiation for 30 min. They were killed sequentially over 10 weeks and assessed for decreased sperm count and abnormal sperm morphology. The response in each assay was maximal 2-4 weeks after the exposure. This corresponds to microwaves having their greatest effect on spermatids and spermatocytes. Male fertility, assessed as the proportion of normal sperm per epididymis, was compared with results of an earlier study on dominant lethality. It is concluded that reduced male fertility correlates well with reduced pregnancy rate but less well with pre-implantation survival. Whilst microwaves clearly induced abnormally shaped sperm, those which achieved fertilization cannot have possessed a dominant mutation which would result in the post-implantation death of the embryo.”
or in particular the 6th one with the end of its abstract saying, 2 quotes:
” We suggest that this fact can affect the thermal melting of a DNA double helical homopolymer, enhancing the tendency to start from an end (if one is available). We show how certain infinite chain modes with small (M) amplitude can turn into breathing modes near the terminus, and suggest that the same phenomenon may occur near other specific base-pair sequences.”
and
“Most important however, is the existence of narrow resonant modes in this frequency region. Particularly pronounced resonances near 0.03 cm-1 and 0.08 cm-1 (approximately 0.9 and 2.4 GHz) amplify M2(0) at the terminus by about for orders of magnitude over the infinite chain value M2(infinity).”
and the last one definitely is related to the most arrogant, ANTI-HUMAN edition of National Geongraphic in Apr 2017, with the title: “THE NEXT HUMAN”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why on earth NOBODY cites ALL THESE STUDIES????? WHY NOBODY RINGS A SIRENES EVERYWHERE AROUND TO WARN EVERYONE????????????????
Is it, maybe, because around 2000 things ‘started to change in interpretation’??? Like everything else around the world??
For example, in
Radiat Res. 2002 Oct;158(4):523-33. DNA damage and micronucleus induction in human leukocytes after acute in vitro exposure to a 1.9 GHz continuous-wave radiofrequency field. McNamee JP1 et al. writes, quote:
“Human blood cultures were exposed to a 1.9 GHz continuous-wave (CW) radiofrequency (RF)… There was no significant difference in the binucleated cell frequency, incidence of micronucleated binucleated cells, or total incidence of micronuclei between any of the RF-field-exposed cultures and the sham-exposed controls at any SAR tested. These results do not support the hypothesis that acute, nonthermalizing 1.9 GHz CW RF-field exposure causes DNA damage in cultured human leukocytes.”
is it maybe because those, who wrote that, belong to: Product Safety Programme, Health Canada…???
JUST 2 books from R.O.Becker, or BioInitiative Reports, explain ALL THE FRAUD related to Wi-Fi…