Â Â Â There has been growing concerns of whether or not RF (Radio Frequency) generated from cell phones cause brain cancer and tumors.Â So what is radio frequency?
Â Â Â Â It is a form of electromagnetic radiation energy.Â But unlike one of two types of electromagnetic radiation energy:Â 1) Ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) is known to increase risk of cancer, where 2) Non-ionizing (e.g., RF and extremely low frequency, or power frequency) is not known to cause cancer.
Â Â Â Â It is accepted within the scientific and health organizations that in order for cancer to develop there must first be damage to the DNA.Â Non-ionizing radiation has not been found to damage the DNA, or known to increase chemical carcinogenic reaction within animal research studies.Â With â€œionized energy,â€ there is a known risk to damage DNA and cause cancer.
Â Â Â Â There now have been approximately 30 studies on cell phone use.Â The current results of these studies mostly illustrate little evidence between cell phone use and disease.Â And when compared to increased cell phone use within these studies, no connection with cancer and tumors could be empirically produced.Â Youâ€™d expect after all the negative news on cell phone use and effect on health, thereâ€™d surely be data to prove this connection by now.
Â Â Â Â With that being said, there were 7 studies performed and published from a Swedish research center that reports an increased risk of cancer from the side of the head the cell phone is most often used.Â This data seemed significant because those in the study used cell phones for a 10 year period, or longer.Â But in digesting this information, it is perplexing because not only is there â€œnotâ€ an increase in brain cancer cases within the Swedish population during the time of these studies, there is also no other study group(s) globally that could make these claims.Â So how much weight do you give this study?Â Error on the side of caution is a safe bet.
Â Â Â Â The problem with this type of controlled study, the protocol must be developed in a way that considers environment, changing technology, cell phone frequency/duration and when cell phone use began in the subjectâ€™s lifetime.Â And probably a hundred other unique variables to make the test results significant enough to lay claim to cell phone use and the ill-health connection.
Â Â Â Â It is a fact cell phone technology has changed dramatically over the last 20 years and there are far more subscribers than any other time in history.Â And the demographic not participating in these studies that would be most important to understand is our childrenâ€™s cell phone use.Â If significant findings of an ill-health connection are to be identified, youâ€™d think there would be something to be concerned about within this age group. Â Why is this?
Â Â Â Â Our children have had longer lifetime exposure to the changing cell phone technologies with varying RF waves from an early age.Â Current studies thus far have been performed on adults and not on children.Â This leads to a serious unanswered question with regard to our childrenâ€™s use of cell phones.
Â Â Â Â Childrenâ€™s use of cell phones must be considered in future studies if we want to put this cause and effect connection to bed.Â And this type of study must be done uniformly within various geographies to determine â€œif at allâ€ RF waves on a childâ€™s nervous and blood brain barrier system should be an ill-health concern.Â Why is this connection important?Â The Adults nervous system is mature where a childâ€™s neurological brain is still growing to maturity.Â And with that fact, a young Central Nervous System (CNS) could likely and significantly be influenced through the blood brain barrier to neurological tissue by RF energy.
Â Â Â Â And since this type of energy may be able to significantly penetrate the blood brain barrier; the nervous system would receive the greatest absorption with device use at the ear.Â Since I have an excellent recollection of electrical systems, I know that two electrical sources (1: Generated by RF device & 2: Brainâ€™s CNS) where both conduct electromagnetic forces, cause opposing or attracting force fields upon each other.Â
Â Â Â Â This concept can be illustrated simply by thinking about two magnets next to each other.Â E.g., similar poles of two magnets (electrical sources) facing each other repel one another, while the opposite poles attract one another.Â And since our bodies are magnetically, electorally and chemically wired, how would another energy source (cell phone) offset this delicate balance for which the brainâ€™s neural electro-conductors and CNS is dependent upon?Â
Â Â Â Â The question Iâ€™d want to answer in an epidemiological study with cell phone use; â€œis it possible that these two opposing electro-magnetic forces could disrupt a portion of the brains electrical-chemical balance, thereby â€œmayâ€ also have impact on the CNS and then propagated to distal portions of the body?Â And are there other illnesses and disease that are now occurring within our children because of too much RF exposure?
Â Â Â Â A big problem with past cell phone use and disease connection studies, it is difficult to eliminate all the bias to get accurate data.Â For example, subjects recalling the frequency and duration of cell phone use in a day for one.Â And those that are diagnosed with brain cancer are more likely than those that donâ€™t have brain cancer or tumors to participate in the research.Â Also, those that had a lot of cell phone use were more likely than those with little cell phone use to participate.Â In other words, finding a baseline sample that removes bias has proven to be very difficult.
Â Â Â Â Another parameter variable that has proven to be difficult is how do you accurately account for and how do you rule out other environmental conditions that may have brought about an expected disease result that had nothing to do with cell phone use?Â What other life experiences had the participants been exposed to that may have contributed to their cancer, or tumors long before cell phone use began.Â Was the cause of disease from RF energy or something else?Â The shear fact that there is little scientific data to date to quantify and qualify the absorbing effect of RF energy on our bodies does not mean we shouldnâ€™t have a concern.Â Rather, these studies have not found a way to remove the bias to get the results we as consumers seek.
Â Here is what professional research & health organizations report on this Issue
Â Â International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) â€“ Part of the World Health Organization states, â€œThere is a possibility of carcinogenic impacts on humans, based on limited data.Â But the most significant evidence appears to be within cancer in rodentâ€™s studies and other studies with possible effects from RF energy on the blood brain barrier.â€
Â The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHAS) Recognizes there is some risk.Â However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to prove RF empirically causes cancer, or tumors.
Â The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of machines and devices such as cell phones.Â The FDA states that studies have failed to prove RF impact on biological health relationships within epidemiologic studies.
Â Both U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) state, although there are studies that raised concerns over possible cell phone use and risk, there is no statistical significance, or scientific evidence to show that cancer, tumors, headaches, dizziness, memory loss, or any other ill-health effect is from the result of cell phone use.
Â Â In Conclusion,
Â Â Â Â Parents concerns about cell phone use and ill-health effects will not likely go away until our children are brought into this type of research.Â And when these studies are done, better data will be obtained from a childâ€™s early cell phone use.Â And in a way that more accurately validates usage in environment with cause and effect data.Â A childâ€™s control study, I believe will eliminate many questionable data variables that have otherwise made it impossible to make the RF and cancer/tumor connection through adult bias studies.
Â Â Â Â So it makes sense that if research had a clinical study focused on childrenâ€™s cell phone use and then tracked the study group for a period of years, maybe then youâ€™d find a substantiated cause and effect connection.Â Although, we all hope this will not be the case.Â However, it is best to error on the side of caution, so Iâ€™ve provided the following recommendation to limit you and your childrenâ€™s exposure to cell phone RF until research proves/disproves any relative and significant hypothesis.
1.Â To ensure the heart pacemaker concern is addressed, simply donâ€™t place your cell phone in your shirt pocket.
2.Â Studies do show a connection of cell phone use and high vehicular accidents.
3.Â If you are worried about RF, then purchase a hands-free device, or ear piece to keep the phones antenna away from your ear.
4.Â Limit your use of cell phone or keep your conversations short.Â Definitely hold off from buying your children phones until they are out of their adolescent years.
5. Â Choose a phone with a low SAR value around 0.0001 watts kg.Â This value greatly reduces the RF energy that is absorbed by any part of your body the phone is next to.Â If you want more information on a phone to purchase based on the safest energy levels, visit www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. Â On this page, you will see instructions for entering your FCC ID number located on the cell phone. Â Â This number can also be found behind the battery pack.
Â Other Help/References,
Â 1.Â Call NCIâ€™s Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237)
2.Â Visit them at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol
3.Â Chat using Live Help, NCI instant messaging service at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp
4.Â E-mail, NCI at email@example.com
5. Â http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones
Marc T. Woodard, MBA, BS Exercise Science, USA Medical Services Officer, CPT, RET. Â 2011 Copyright, All rights reserved, Mirror Athlete Publishing @: http://www.mirrorathlete.org,Â Sign up for your Free eNewsletter.