Comments on: Cancer and cell phones http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/ Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:13:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Melinda http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2919 Melinda Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:25:00 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2919 Hi Dr. Gupta, I'm intrigued by the possible link between cell phones and cancer too, and just published an in-depth article on the topic in September issue of The Walrus magazine. Here's a link to those who are interested: http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.09-health-cellphone-brain-tumour-melinda-wenner/ Cheers, Melinda Hi Dr. Gupta,

I'm intrigued by the possible link between cell phones and cancer too, and just published an in-depth article on the topic in September issue of The Walrus magazine. Here's a link to those who are interested:

http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.09-health-cellphone-brain-tumour-melinda-wenner/

Cheers,
Melinda

]]> By: Bill Couzens http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2857 Bill Couzens Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:17:54 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2857 Posted by Bill Couzens, Founder Lesscancer.org I like what Devra Davis had to say on the subject of cell phones and cancer check this out- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08218/901806-35.stm Be careful with cell phones More research is needed to know if they're safe Tuesday, August 05, 2008 By Devra L. Davis Dr. Devra L. Davis is the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (preventingcancernow.org) and the author of "The Secret History of the War on Cancer." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08218/901806-35.stm Posted by Bill Couzens, Founder Lesscancer.org

I like what Devra Davis had to say on the subject of cell phones and cancer check this out-

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08218/901806-35.stm

Be careful with cell phones
More research is needed to know if they're safe
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
By Devra L. Davis

Dr. Devra L. Davis is the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (preventingcancernow.org) and the author of "The Secret History of the War on Cancer."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08218/901806-35.stm

]]> By: Sam Still http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2735 Sam Still Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:00:45 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2735 I was watching your report on the dangers of cell phones. Isn't there an issue with modems and laptops? I use my laptop sitting on my lap a good part of the day, with the external modem/card maybe 6-7 inches from my testicles. In the report it was noted that your eyes and a man's testicles were more susceptible to cancer. Did I understand that clearly? I was watching your report on the dangers of cell phones. Isn't there an issue with modems and laptops? I use my laptop sitting on my lap a good part of the day, with the external modem/card maybe 6-7 inches from my testicles. In the report it was noted that your eyes and a man's testicles were more susceptible to cancer. Did I understand that clearly?

]]> By: Michael http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2690 Michael Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:00:51 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2690 If cell phone use is linked to cancer is there not a possibility of creating phones with lower electro magnetic radiation output? Cell phone use if linked to cancer will raise the number of brain tumors with in the next 30 years is there any possibility of reducing that number? If cell phone use is linked to cancer is there not a possibility of creating phones with lower electro magnetic radiation output? Cell phone use if linked to cancer will raise the number of brain tumors with in the next 30 years is there any possibility of reducing that number?

]]> By: Sujata Bhatra http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2632 Sujata Bhatra Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:21:35 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2632 Most people are right handed. If we are seeing an increase in right-side brain tumors, then cell phones are deadly. If not, they are not. Most people are right handed. If we are seeing an increase in right-side brain tumors, then cell phones are deadly. If not, they are not.

]]> By: SD http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2615 SD Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2615 I can't say that cell phones cause cancer, but they do obviously emit radiation. Along with cordless phones, flying in airplanes (LOTS of radiation exposure at those altitudes), and microwave ovens. The problem is that the radiation doesn't dissipate once we're exposed; the effects accummulate thus potentially causing disease. Especially if our immune systems are weakened at all. Anyone been stressed lately...? Radiation is all around us in different forms and has been for years, but we don't usually hold those forms up to our heads for hours every week. I consider my cell phone use to be light/moderate, but there are times that I'll talk long distance for an hour or so because those minutes are free. Some of the entries here are causing me to re-examine my habits; I will from now on use the speakerphone for everything except brief calls. I can't say that cell phones cause cancer, but they do obviously emit radiation. Along with cordless phones, flying in airplanes (LOTS of radiation exposure at those altitudes), and microwave ovens. The problem is that the radiation doesn't dissipate once we're exposed; the effects accummulate thus potentially causing disease. Especially if our immune systems are weakened at all. Anyone been stressed lately...? Radiation is all around us in different forms and has been for years, but we don't usually hold those forms up to our heads for hours every week. I consider my cell phone use to be light/moderate, but there are times that I'll talk long distance for an hour or so because those minutes are free. Some of the entries here are causing me to re-examine my habits; I will from now on use the speakerphone for everything except brief calls.

]]> By: mk http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2613 mk Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:15:10 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2613 Basic high-school physics: Cellphones, like any other antennae, are point-sources emitting radiation in a 3-dimensional sphere. That means, like any other RF source that the intensity of the EMF field generated decreases with the square of the distance. It's like taking a magnet right next to a coin or standing a foot away. As soon as you get past a few milimeters there is no effect as the field is too weak. While the total Wattage of the RF antenna in a cell phone is ludicrously small compared to that of an actual cellphone tower, the fact that you're holding it right next to your head makes the Microwave field generated thousands of times stronger than if you were standing right at the base of a 100ft cell phone tower. The same thing applies to background radiation and all the EMF generated by all the cell phonetowers/emitters in the world. Add them all up and they still do not come close to the strength of the EMF field you get when you place your cellphone receiver (which is actually an emitter BTW) right next to your ear. Basic high-school physics:

Cellphones, like any other antennae, are point-sources emitting radiation in a 3-dimensional sphere. That means, like any other RF source that the intensity of the EMF field generated decreases with the square of the distance.

It's like taking a magnet right next to a coin or standing a foot away. As soon as you get past a few milimeters there is no effect as the field is too weak.

While the total Wattage of the RF antenna in a cell phone is ludicrously small compared to that of an actual cellphone tower, the fact that you're holding it right next to your head makes the Microwave field generated thousands of times stronger than if you were standing right at the base of a 100ft cell phone tower.

The same thing applies to background radiation and all the EMF generated by all the cell phonetowers/emitters in the world. Add them all up and they still do not come close to the strength of the EMF field you get when you place your cellphone receiver (which is actually an emitter BTW) right next to your ear.

]]> By: Ramona http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2612 Ramona Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:09:59 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2612 What about cell phone towers? Our preschool is across the road from two and I am concerned about the electromagentic radiation exposure to the 3-5 age group. Thanks. What about cell phone towers? Our preschool is across the road from two and I am concerned about the electromagentic radiation exposure to the 3-5 age group. Thanks.

]]> By: CK http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2609 CK Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:14:15 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2609 Sorry, there is a correction in the above comment. RF drops in inverse square of distance, not cubic as I mistakenly calculated in the above comment. The correct number should be as follows: a cell phone 2 feet away reduces the intensity of RF by about 14,000 times, and blue tooth reduces RF by 1 million times. Of course even using a blue tooth the user is still exposed to the direct RF from the main cell phone in addition to the RF from the blue tooth device. Sorry, there is a correction in the above comment. RF drops in inverse square of distance, not cubic as I mistakenly calculated in the above comment. The correct number should be as follows: a cell phone 2 feet away reduces the intensity of RF by about 14,000 times, and blue tooth reduces RF by 1 million times. Of course even using a blue tooth the user is still exposed to the direct RF from the main cell phone in addition to the RF from the blue tooth device.

]]> By: CK http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/28/45/#comment-2608 CK Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:05:58 +0000 http://cnnpagingdrgupta.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-2608 Hello Dr. Gupta: Whether RF radiation from cell phones is risky or not is still debatable, but we can establish a comparison of the strength of RF at various modes of usage. Suppose a cell phone placed next to ear (assume 1 inch distance from the source of radiation to the ear) has a RF intensity of 1, a cell phone 2 feet away will reduce RF by 1.7 million times. How about use a blue tooth type devise? Blue tooth device only reaches a distance like 10 feet, whereas a cell phone must reach like 10,000 feet to connect to a tower. Thus cubic of 1,000 is 1 billion; means the RF hazard, if any, from blue tooth devise is 1 billion times weaker than by placing a cell phone next to the ear. The head set is a different issue. Some claim that radiation can travel along the wire, a well known phenomena in physics. How much radiation will reach the ear if a headset user places the cell phone 2 feet away from his body is difficult to calculate; probably some one should have measured it already when one wants to start the discussion about the safety of cell phones. With best regard. Hello Dr. Gupta:

Whether RF radiation from cell phones is risky or not is still debatable, but we can establish a comparison of the strength of RF at various modes of usage. Suppose a cell phone placed next to ear (assume 1 inch distance from the source of radiation to the ear) has a RF intensity of 1, a cell phone 2 feet away will reduce RF by 1.7 million times. How about use a blue tooth type devise? Blue tooth device only reaches a distance like 10 feet, whereas a cell phone must reach like 10,000 feet to connect to a tower. Thus cubic of 1,000 is 1 billion; means the RF hazard, if any, from blue tooth devise is 1 billion times weaker than by placing a cell phone next to the ear. The head set is a different issue. Some claim that radiation can travel along the wire, a well known phenomena in physics. How much radiation will reach the ear if a headset user places the cell phone 2 feet away from his body is difficult to calculate; probably some one should have measured it already when one wants to start the discussion about the safety of cell phones. With best regard.

]]>