[Goanet] The latest scaremongering regarding cell phone radiation

[Dr . Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão]

Santosh Helekar chimbelcho at gmail.com, on  Sun Sep 25 14:30:14 PDT 2016 wrote:
<<<  Just to let you know why no serious knowledgeable public health
professional nor any reputed scientific or medical organization is
taking this scaremongering propaganda seriously is because the
incidence of most cancers in most parts of the world has declined or
remained unchanged over the past 2 decades despite the fact that use
of cell phones and density of cell phone towers have gone up
exponentially>>>

COMMENT
If incidence of most cancers have declined or unchanged world over, does it 
prove that RF radiation does NOT produce cancer? Is that a medical stand? Or a 
Layman's stand?
Is it not true that The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has 
classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on limited 
evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumours among cell phone 
users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. ?
Check this site: 
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers
Cellular Phone Towers - American Cancer 
Society
www.cancer.org
Cellular Phone Towers . Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in 
the United States in the 1990s, but since then their use has increased ...

Can any medical person or scientist claim with certainty that RF field from 
mobile phones and towers does NOT cause cancer? Which authority says so?
The issue here is exactly this, the government and service providers say with 
authority that IT DOES NOT!



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

Re: [Goanet] The latest scaremongering regarding cell phone radiation

[Mervyn Lobo]

Santosh,

Every time, and it happens often, someone sends me a picture of themselves
or common friends playing darts, I feel compelled as an auditor to check if
the scorer is keeping good records. Invariably, I find interesting math -
fueled by good company and spirits.


Much as I share your angst with people who refuse to accept scientific
evidence, I also acknowledge that they will never accept what is difficult
for them to understand.


In the case of cell phone radiation, perhaps the best way to communicate or
ease the concerns of the phone radiation unhappy types is to assure all
that the cell phone is not a Brain Tumor iFairy, even though they are
manufactured by western brand name conglomerates. Keeping a cell phone
under your pillow (whether on or off) or living next to a cell tower will
not, repeat not, attract a visit by the Brain Tumor iFairy.


What does attract the Brain Fairy is ignorance. And as they say in Africa,
ignorance is a blessing only when there are HAPPY ignorant people in the
village.


Mervyn

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Santosh Helekar 
wrote:

> I see that Stephen Dias and Prof. Girish Kumar are back raising
> baseless concerns about cell phone radiation. This has now become a
> big political propaganda campaign in India and Europe. Not so much in
> the U.S.
>
> Just to let you know why no serious knowledgeable public health
> professional nor any reputed scientific or medical organization is
> taking this scaremongering propaganda seriously is because the
> incidence of most cancers in most parts of the world has declined or
> remained unchanged over the past 2 decades despite the fact that use
> of cell phones and density of cell phone towers have gone up
> exponentially. Today more than 97% of entire world population is using
> a cell phone. There are more than 6.9 billion cell phones in the
> world. In America, on an average, every person is on his/her cell
> phone for 4.7 hours a day. Within a radius of 4 miles surrounding my
> house there are 37 cell phone towers and 277 antennae.
>
> Given these facts we should be experiencing a cancer pandemic of epic
> proportions. But the fact is, the exact opposite is true. The
> following graphs provided by the U. S. National Cancer Institute (NCI)
> and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) show the
> DECLINE or LACK of increase in incidence of all cancers taken together
> in the U.S., India and many other countries, and several types of
> cancer in the U.S.
>
> All Cancers
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
> http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/All-tts-2i1.png
>
> Brain Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
>
> Breast Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
>
> Prostate Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
>
> Blood Cancer (No change)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/leuks.html
>
> Stomach Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html
>
> Lung Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html
>
> Large Intestinal Cancer (Decline)
> http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html
>
> Any rational person who looks at these hard facts would find no basis
> to conclude that cell phone radiation is a cancer-causing public
> health menace. If the global temperature showed this type of declining
> or unchanging trend then nobody would even coin the word global
> warming, let alone raise the alarm that has been rightly raised.
>
> Now as regards Prof. Girish Kumar and others like him who believe that
> there is a problem, they owe it to us to explain the near global
> decline in cancer incidence. They have scared and riled up enough
> people like Stephen Dias already. And by the way, I cannot find the
> electrical engineering professor's research on human cancer published
> anywhere in the peer-reviewed biomedical scientific literature. It has
> been several years now that he is writing and sending reports to the
> government. I also noticed that he believes in the scientific
> authority of the Prime Minister of India, and wants us to pay him due
> respect. This must be a joke.
>
> Does he not know that the only thing a true scientist respects is
> repeatedly reproduced, incontrovertible, peer-reviewed evidence?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Santosh
>