This story hit the Victoria paper only today, thanks to Postmedia news,
who reported Group 2B used when there is limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans and /less than sufficient /evidence in
experimental animals, which also goes along with Wiki's definition.
Either way, we've never bothered with these devices, not just because of
their invasive nature, but for all the questions around carcinogens,
raised decades ago.
With such a fuss happening recently, I wonder if the military is growing
more concerned with frequency interferences and threatening
sophistication. Where there's WHO, there's great influence possible.
Natalia
On 5/31/2011 10:12 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote:
News May 31, 2011 1:03 PM . May 30, 2011 Read Later
<https://www.readability.com/articles/815yykks?legacy_bookmarklet=1> .
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Cellphones+could+carcinogenic+Experts/4868280/story.html
The type of electromagnetic fields emitted by cellphones could be
cancer-causing, says an international panel of experts, including
Canadians, who studied the risk of brain cancer posed by the use of
wireless phones.
*The World Health Organization and experts working with the
International Agency for Research on Cancer said Tuesday they have
classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as potentially
carcinogenic.*
With estimates of five billion cellphone users worldwide, a working
group of 31 scientists studied the potential link between health and
cellphone use in Lyon, France, at a weeklong session to find that
exposure to electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless
communication, could be harmful.
*The dramatic findings, which will be published in the the IARC
Monagraph, are the first to offer more concrete results to one of the
most worrisome public-health questions*.
The working group of researchers tackled exposure data, hundreds of
studies of cancer in humans and the studies of cancer in experimental
animals along with a plethora of other data. The investigations looked
at the possibility of exposure associated to microwaves, transmission
of radio, television and wireless telecommunication and personal
exposure from cellphones.
*After analyzing results, the researchers classified the
electromagnetic fields as "Group B" or "possibly carcinogenic."*
*This category is used when there is inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence in animals.
Other categories include "carcinogenic," "probably carcinogenic" or
"not carcinogenic."*
Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated and 400 have been
identified as carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic to humans.
"*The evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support
a conclusion . . . the conclusion means that there could be some risk
and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between
cellphones and cancer risk," Dr. Jonathan Samet, a University of
Southern California professor who was chairman of the group, said in a
statement*.
The researchers said that additional research needs to be done to
support their findings.
The group did not quantitate the risk but previous studies showed a 40
per cent increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of
cellphone users, which was a reported average of 30 minutes per day
over a 10-year period.
"Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take
pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or
texting," IARC director Christopher Wild said in a news release.
The conclusions from the weeklong meeting could be used by
international officials to implement new safety regulations.
*Epidemiology professor Jack Siemiatycki of the University of Montreal
and Health Canada's James McNamee, a specialist in electromagnetics,
represented Canada at the session.*
Tuesday's release comes a year after the agency published results of
the largest international study on cellphone use and brain cancers
that did little to settle the debate.
Overall, the INTERPHONE study, using data from adults from 13
countries, including Canada, found "no increase of risk" of either
glioma or meningioma associated with the use of cellphones, but there
were "suggestions of an increase risk of glioma at the highest
exposure levels."
Biases in the study, however, prevented a "causal interpretation" that
would directly link cellphone radiation to the tumour.
Meningioma is a more common and frequently benign tumour, while glioma
is a rarer but deadlier form of cancer.
At the time of the release last May, Canadian researchers who
contributed to the massive study delivered conflicting messages about
the results.
Siemiatycki called the results "ambiguous" and "perplexing," and said
the study's methodological problems meant they group could not say
whether there was more evidence of a danger or safety than a decade ago.
The University of Ottawa's Daniel Krewski acknowledged there were
different ways to interpret the data, but overall said they were
"reassuring."
Meanwhile, the massive study, led by Canadian researcher and former
University of Ottawa professor Elisabeth Cardis, said "possible
effects of long-term use of mobile phones require further
investigation," noting that the majority of subjects "were not heavy
users by today's standards."
*The study also noted that cancer research involving children's use of
cellphone was needed.*
[email protected]
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
