Mobile phones are bad for kids
The relentless proliferation of microwave wireless technology in Brighton really worries me.
The latest of thousands of independant scientific papers showing widespread health damage from this technology - a study of "the worst type of brain tumors" by research team Hardell et al - is analysed by Lloyd Morgan, a director of the US central brain tumour registry (see http://www.powerwatch.org.uk ).
Omega see also "On the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2546167/
The study examined 905 cases of such brain tumors in subjects aged 20 to 80, and diagnosed between 1997 and 2003, with 2162 controls.
The teams' previous 12 studies found increased risks from wireless (Mobile, Analog and DECT) phones.
He continues: "The survival statistics for these tumors are very grim (e.g., one year survival is 29%) and the devastating effects, even if there is survival, can be heartbreaking including loss of physical, emotional and mental abilities".
The study found the risk increased by an average of 25% below 1000 hours of phone use, to 130, 270 and 490% for 2 - 3000 hours for DECT, Cell and Analog phones respectively, and by 20% (all types) for 1 - 5 years use, to 80% (DECT), 140% (Analog) and 180% (Mobile) after 10 years.
Morgan states: "The most troubling aspect of the Hardell et al. study is that of the early latency times it is demonstrating with regards to cellphone exposure."
"It is well known that the time from exposure to a carcinogen to the diagnosis of a tumor takes decades (25 to 40 years), yet we are seeing an increased risk of brain cancer for as short as 1 to 5 years... Could the implication be then, that what we are seeing is actually the tail of a 25 to year latency time distribution?"
I am reminded of the words of Dr Leif Salford, head of a major study into cell phone use in Sweden in the late 1990s, who said "Brain damage from intensive cell phone use is a probability rather than a possibility".
With researchers worldwide warning particularly against cell phone use by under 16s, I see a very grim future for todays' children.
(My letter)
and Alisdairs:
Following recent reports in your paper about mobile phones and base stations, readers may like to be reminded of current UK Government and Department of Health advice regarding children and mobile phones. This was first stated in 2000 and reconfirmed in 2005 with an updated leaflet. It reads:
"... the widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls. In the light of this recommendation the UK Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) strongly advise that where children and young people do use mobile phones, they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and keep all calls short - talking for long periods prolongs exposure and should be discouraged. The UK CMOs recommend that if parents want to avoid their children being subject to any possible risk that might be identified in the future, the way to do so is to exercise their choice not to let their children use mobile phones."
So the Government have legally protected the State and passed the reponsibility for young people under 16 having and using a mobile phone on to their parents.
If the children later develop serious neurological problems or brain cancer, it will have been the parents' who allowed and helped it to happen, against official advice.
All parents and grandparents should be made aware of this.
Best
Gary
The latest of thousands of independant scientific papers showing widespread health damage from this technology - a study of "the worst type of brain tumors" by research team Hardell et al - is analysed by Lloyd Morgan, a director of the US central brain tumour registry (see http://www.powerwatch.org.uk ).
Omega see also "On the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2546167/
The study examined 905 cases of such brain tumors in subjects aged 20 to 80, and diagnosed between 1997 and 2003, with 2162 controls.
The teams' previous 12 studies found increased risks from wireless (Mobile, Analog and DECT) phones.
He continues: "The survival statistics for these tumors are very grim (e.g., one year survival is 29%) and the devastating effects, even if there is survival, can be heartbreaking including loss of physical, emotional and mental abilities".
The study found the risk increased by an average of 25% below 1000 hours of phone use, to 130, 270 and 490% for 2 - 3000 hours for DECT, Cell and Analog phones respectively, and by 20% (all types) for 1 - 5 years use, to 80% (DECT), 140% (Analog) and 180% (Mobile) after 10 years.
Morgan states: "The most troubling aspect of the Hardell et al. study is that of the early latency times it is demonstrating with regards to cellphone exposure."
"It is well known that the time from exposure to a carcinogen to the diagnosis of a tumor takes decades (25 to 40 years), yet we are seeing an increased risk of brain cancer for as short as 1 to 5 years... Could the implication be then, that what we are seeing is actually the tail of a 25 to year latency time distribution?"
I am reminded of the words of Dr Leif Salford, head of a major study into cell phone use in Sweden in the late 1990s, who said "Brain damage from intensive cell phone use is a probability rather than a possibility".
With researchers worldwide warning particularly against cell phone use by under 16s, I see a very grim future for todays' children.
(My letter)
and Alisdairs:
Following recent reports in your paper about mobile phones and base stations, readers may like to be reminded of current UK Government and Department of Health advice regarding children and mobile phones. This was first stated in 2000 and reconfirmed in 2005 with an updated leaflet. It reads:
"... the widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls. In the light of this recommendation the UK Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) strongly advise that where children and young people do use mobile phones, they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and keep all calls short - talking for long periods prolongs exposure and should be discouraged. The UK CMOs recommend that if parents want to avoid their children being subject to any possible risk that might be identified in the future, the way to do so is to exercise their choice not to let their children use mobile phones."
So the Government have legally protected the State and passed the reponsibility for young people under 16 having and using a mobile phone on to their parents.
If the children later develop serious neurological problems or brain cancer, it will have been the parents' who allowed and helped it to happen, against official advice.
All parents and grandparents should be made aware of this.
Best
Gary
rudkla - 25. Aug, 12:07
