Doctor Warns of Cell Usage

[Ddeere2]

The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.
The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and ____ Administration.

Mobile Tech Today

The article is kind of long and from last month, but I thought I'd share it. There's a lot I don't agree with that the doctor is saying. I'm sure a lot of people on here, besides myself, having been using cell phones for a long time. I haven't seen or felt anything change on my person and my doctor says I'm healthy. I understand that kids shouldn't use phones, but there's still no real evidence about any side effects. Its almost like the people complaining that Wi-Fi can cause cancer and what not. Also, Herberman and some other research does show some signs that cell usage may cause some rare cancer. But I highly doubt anything will happen.

[Nathanvoite]

I really think that the true public health issue is the average worker on a rooftop who stands in front of a cell phone antenna. A cell phone will max out at 300 milli Watts. A cell transmitter can pump out several hundred watts continuously. Stand in front of one of those and you WILL get hurt. Who is trying to protect the roofer, the maintenance staff, the HVAC guy, the firefighter? The cell companies make sure that the antennas are turned off for their own employees but couldn't care less about third party workers.

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

I really think that the true public health issue is the average worker on a rooftop who stands in front of a cell phone antenna. A cell phone will max out at 300 milli Watts. A cell transmitter can pump out several hundred watts continuously. Stand in front of one of those and you WILL get hurt. Who is trying to protect the roofer, the maintenance staff, the HVAC guy, the firefighter? The cell companies make sure that the antennas are turned off for their own employees but couldn't care less about third party workers.

I know for a fact that cell phone companies put up barriers and signs warning that there is an exposure issue. To so otherwise is simply not true. Now if someone ignores the barriers and signs then any injury that happens should be due to their own negligence.

[Bugwart]

A hand held cell phone is one of the weaker sources of RF in the typical home or office.

Most peer reviewed studies of the effect of cell phones on health are inconclusive.

Press releases which are stridently alarmist will get a lot of front page coverage. However, when I have gone back to read the article for which the press release was issued, I all to often find that the press release was inconsistent with the conclusoins in the article.

[Nathanvoite]

It will be interesting to see what the 'Interphone' study finds. However I believe that it will only complicate the argument with both camps using the results as 'proof' that cell phones are or are not dangerous.

[Nathanvoite]

Originally Posted by hillbilly44

I know for a fact that cell phone companies put up barriers and signs warning that there is an exposure issue. To so otherwise is simply not true. Now if someone ignores the barriers and signs then any injury that happens should be due to their own negligence.

Really hillbilly. You "know for a fact". Please see the picture attached. I deal with sites like this for a living. I see them everyday. There is no sign anywhere and what barrier is there to prevent the guy who has to change the lightbulbs on these poles from being over exposed to RF radiation?

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

Really hillbilly. You "know for a fact". Please see the picture attached. I deal with sites like this for a living. I see them everyday. There is no sign anywhere and what barrier is there to prevent the guy who has to change the lightbulbs on these poles from being over exposed to RF radiation?

REALLY, I do know for A FACT (I've worked multiple areas & states with rooftops) and I deal with cellsites on a daily basis also. I don't know who's site those are but the company I work for makes a very concerted effort to identify any issues concerning RF exposure to both workers and the general public. besides if a person is changing light bulbs they are not going to be exposed that long to RF (it doesn't take that long to change a light bulb)

[Nathanvoite]

Your argument of "Yes I KNOW for FACT" is compelling. It is on the same level as the school yard "Nuh-huh". My point remains that there is probably very little danger, if any, of injury from cell phones (the topic of this thread). The risk of injury to third party workers who work on rooftops and towers however is very real and injuries do occur. Until you can provide evidence for your opinion, here is some reading material. It is an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that confirmed a worker's compensation claim due to RF radiation exposure slightly over the FCC standard. Please note that the injuries he suffered were psychological and cognitive in nature, not burns.

AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt (07/06/2007) sp-6139, 161 P3d 1232

[Nathanvoite]

Originally Posted by hillbilly44

(it doesn't take that long to change a light bulb)

True. It doesn't take long to be over-exposed to RF radiation either. Here is the standard as evidence of my claim.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...7cfr1.1310.pdf

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

Your argument of "Yes I KNOW for FACT" is compelling. It is on the same level as the school yard "Nuh-huh". My point remains that there is probably very little danger, if any, of injury from cell phones (the topic of this thread). The risk of injury to third party workers who work on rooftops and towers however is very real and injuries do occur. Until you can provide evidence for your opinion, here is some reading material. It is an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that confirmed a worker's compensation claim due to RF radiation exposure slightly over the FCC standard. Please note that the injuries he suffered were psychological and cognitive in nature, not burns.

AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt (07/06/2007) sp-6139, 161 P3d 1232

A court's opinion (which this one is based on who know's what kind of law but that's another matter) is only valid as long as another court doesn't overturn it (which from my understanding is under appeal in a Federal Court). By you state that his injuries were pyschological and cognitive are not an RF issue. An RF injury would be a burn (since it is microwave radiation). This has nothing to do with RF Radiation (I'm afraid of something I can't see?)

[Steve B]

Originally Posted by Ddeere2

The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.
The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and ____ Administration.

Mobile Tech Today

The article is kind of long and from last month, but I thought I'd share it. There's a lot I don't agree with that the doctor is saying. I'm sure a lot of people on here, besides myself, having been using cell phones for a long time. I haven't seen or felt anything change on my person and my doctor says I'm healthy. I understand that kids shouldn't use phones, but there's still no real evidence about any side effects. Its almost like the people complaining that Wi-Fi can cause cancer and what not. Also, Herberman and some other research does show some signs that cell usage may cause some rare cancer. But I highly doubt anything will happen.

What I find interesting is that the "cell phones cause cancer" type articles always start off by scaring people but will end up saying "the results are still not completely conclusive and more research needs to be done" at the end of the article in some form or the other. I get frustrated with these articles because thus far is rehashed comments.

[Bugwart]

Originally Posted by Steve B

What I find interesting is that the "cell phones cause cancer" type articles always start off by scaring people but will end up saying "the results are still not completely conclusive and more research needs to be done" at the end of the article in some form or the other. I get frustrated with these articles because thus far is rehashed comments.

In other words, "we need more money to finish the work so open up your wallets and shower us with cash." This is the true motive behind most of the alarmism.

[Nathanvoite]

Since there is no risk to a doctor's reputation or career for raising a 'Cancer Alam', these types of headlines will continue.