Tracey, I still think the term "intentionally alarming" applies here. I don't believe five minutes exposure to anything, whether it be microwaves, cigarette smoke or cell phones triggers cancer. Whereas the dangers of cigerette smoke and high power lines are well documented. We are thirty years into the microwave revolution and, after twenty years, cell phones are nearly ubiquitous. People look like units of the Borg with their Bluetooth phones permanently stuck to their ears. If all the claims about cell phones causing brain cancer were true, there would surely be a brain cancer epidemic by now. Of course, there is always the possibility I am missing something here.
While the current administration is insane in the membrane, I do believe we, as Americans, are fortunate that many technological advances we take for granted were conceived in a different regulatory climate. Aspirin is a wonder drug but it is also toxic and deadly to many. Should never have been approved. Automobiles are extremely deadly. Early editions should not have been let out on public streets. Technological marvels like the Empire State Building and the Hoover Dam should have drowned in personal injury lawsuits as thousands of men died in a rush to complete these projects under budget and ahead of schedule (and, unfortunately, since both these products were constructed during the Depression, workers were plentiful and easily replaceable). For the record, I am not condoning any of the above, just stating some inconvenient truths. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rave' > > I really do not get by what you mean by "intentionally alarming". Its > sounds like the argument the Bushies use as an argument against > addressing global warming or those "bought and paid for" doctors in the > sixties who dismissed the reports of the dangers of smoking as > "intentionally alarming". Isn't that a bury you head in the sand > approach to life? Is conducting these studies and publishing the results > are unwise when the results prove to be inconvenient? How can these > organizations present the information uncovered in a way that is not > intentionally alarming but educates the public? Is it possible that the > information uncovered is alarming in itself? > > Regarding electricity, I think you argued that the deaths from > electricity were necessary. I wonder if the families of the dead loved > ones would have agreed with y . I'm not arguing for getting rid of > electricity, I'm arguing for more testing before subjecting a > misinformed public to something potentially profitable yet dangerous and > for disclosing the potential dangers to the public before they buy. I'm > arguing that big business and their government partners should put > consumer safety before profits. > > I do not think this has to be an either or proposition. Right now, the > mobile phone industry is not doing anything to rid cell phones of the > dangers because that would be admitting they know they sell potentially > dangerous products. These companies that create these wonderful, yet > dangerous products do not do anything costly that they are not forced to > do, so the dangers are not addressed. If they were not allowed to > constantly debunk the truth to protect their pocket, maybe instead of > considering doing without these miraculous inventions, they could study > how to make them safer. > > Until 10 years ago, The mobile phone industry funded these studies. When > the studies consistently reported negative results, they discontinued > the studies. Now they work to suppress the numerous independent studies > that have negative results. I wonder if they were conducting those > studies because they originally were trying to address the safety > issues, but perhaps when it proved costly to do so, they decided to > abandon they effort. If consumers were educated about these risks, they > would be forced to deal with them. > > Regarding electricity, I do not live near power lines because 9 people > and 3 animals I have known who have lived near powerlines have died > horrible deaths as a result of multiple cancers. The fact that kids > living near powerlines are 25- 35% more likely to have childhood > leukemia affects my decisions as well. Because of this knowledge, a few > months ago, when we were looking to rent a bigger place, if it was too > close to power lines, we opted not to consider renting at that location. > I imagine you think that decision was overreacting. It took me a long > time to recover from all the people dying around me. So, I consider my > decision appropriate > > History has shown us repeatedly that the FDA, the EPA, large > corporations and bodies in a position to potentially educate us on the > safety of consumer products, tend to disregard the facts when money is > involved. "Intentionally alarming" reports were sometimes put out and > I'd like to think they saved lives Some examples are: > > Accutane, a powerful acne medicine billed as harmless and prescribed to > hundreds of thousands of pregnant. Most of these women bore children > with lower intelligence and misshapen heads. Accutane is one of the most > effective cures for extreme debilitating acne, but I do no think that > people should have had to suffer for the convenience of this drug. As a > result of intentionally alarming reports, the drug is no longer given to > pregnant women. > > RFID chips were touted by the head of health and Human services and safe > and necessary. He is now chairman of the board of one of the companies > that produce them and people who have them are developing cancers around > these devices that are embedded in their bodies. He claimed he was going > to have one put in him. He has not done so to date. If the financial > issues were not put ahead of the safety concerns perhaps they would have > found a way to create a product hat did not cause cancer. > > 25,000+ died taking Vioxx and Merck and the FDA knew this would happen > before it hit the market. If is a very effective pain killer, so is that > more important than the 25,000+ lives lost? > > People were told by the EPA that it was safe to go back to ground zero. > I got calls from friends at my job telling me about the weird haze they > walked through to get to work everyday. . Now people are getting > Sarcoidosis and other debilitating respiratory illness. They chased the > "alarmists" studying the cloud off the site. > > If we are going to be lab rats for technological and medical progress, > shouldn't we at least have the facts and be able to decide for ourselves > whether to use them? > > ravenadal wrote: > > > > I never know what to do with information like this. Oh, yeah, when > > scientific information like this is intentionaly alarming, I ignore it. > > > > My son, a sophomore in college (go Badgers!), and I were having this > > conversation last weekend. He knows I personally think the microwave > > oven is the greatest invention since the toaster. The ability to go > > from frozen steak to thawed steak in 9 minutes is still awesome to me. > > Yet, I know people my age who would not think of exposing themselves > > to "Micro Waves." > > > > This lead to a discussion of many things we take for granted that were > > extremely dangerous in their infancy. Like electricity. Extremely > > volatile in its inception. People were electrocuted. Houses burned > > down. High power lines are still a health concern. How many of you > > are willing to do without electricity? And yet, if the internet, the > > instant glut of information had been available then, can you imagine > > the outcry there would have been against the propogation of > > electricity? The crush of e-mails railing against how dangerous it is? > > > > This e-mail also reminded me of how, when I was a kid, I was > > constantly being told that sitting too close to the television set > > would make me go blind. > > > > (Thank goodness I am a touch typist!). > > > > ~rave! > > __________________________________________________________ > > The Black Prince. The Black Church. A State of Mind. > > http://www.theworldebon.com <http://www.theworldebon.com> > > > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com>, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly > > Tracey L. Minor)" <tdlists@> wrote: > > > > > > Just five minutes of exposure to mobile phone radio wave emissions can > > > trigger cellular changes that occur during cancer development, > > according > > > to new research. > > > > > > Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, > > > found that mobile phone signals induced the production of natural > > > chemicals that stimulate cell division and growth ââ¬" central to the > > > growth of tumors -- even at very low power levels. > > > > > > Until now, the mainstream scientific assumption has been that > > > electromagnetic radiation could only pose a health hazard as a > > result of > > > thermal heating. However, this may not necessarily be the case. > > > > > > According to Professor Rony Seger of the Weizmann Institute, ââ¬Å"The > > real > > > significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal > > > mobile phone radiation... The changes we observed were clearly not > > > caused by heating.ââ¬Â > > > > > > Other scientists are quick to point out that cell division occurs > > > naturally, as tissues grow and constantly rejuvenate within the body, > > > and that this study does not prove any health effects. > > > > > > Graham Philips with the campaign group Powerwatch said, ââ¬Å"Further > > > research is required, however guidance based purely on thermal effects > > > is clearly out of date.ââ¬Â > > > > > > The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), a > > > government and industry-funded investigation into the potential health > > > hazards of cell phones, launched in 2001, is scheduled to publish its > > > final report next month. > > > > > > Telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2007 > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0Y0SS5S3CQX3XQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/29/nphone129.xml > > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0Y0SS5S3CQX3XQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/29/nphone129.xml> > > > > > > > >
