There has been a lot of speculation and much debate about the link between mobile phone usage and cancer. Many still remain skeptical believing there is a lack of evidence. The following article provides concrete insight.
Australian National University Associate Professor of Neurosurgery states:
“…there are reasonable grounds to suspect a looming public health tragedy”
I was glad to receive an email from one of my patients recently with a engaging article on this controversial topic. What follows are a few highlights that I have put together from an article titled “Point/Counterpoint: There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to cell-phone-related electromagnetic radiation” in the journal Medical Physics (1).
In the article Vini G. Khurana, M.D. Ph.D., The Canberra Hospital, Australian National University Medical School, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, refers to “… the BioInitiative Report written by an international working group of scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals (BioInitiative Group) concerned with electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and health. The authors assessed more than 2000 clinical and laboratory studies and reviews and concluded that (i) the existing public safety limits for EMR exposure set by the FCC and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in Europe are inadequate to protect public health”.
Arugiong against the central proposition of the article is an accomplished scientist, John E. Moulder, Ph.D. Center for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiological Terrorism, Medical College of Wisconsin, who argues that he and three other scientists reviewed over 1700 publications relevant to the topic and concluded that “…a weight-of-evidence evaluation shows that the current evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy is weak and unconvincing.”
Dr. Khurana replied to his argument by saying “In fact, nine (82%) of the 11 long-term cell phone-brain tumor studies are not quoted in his [Dr. Moulder’s] review, understandably because these were published in the same or subsequent years.”
PRACTICAL TIPS FOR SAFE MOBILE PHONE USE:
Dr Khurana then goes on to say “How difficult can it be to adopt an evidence-based precautionary attitude when the technology we need to make our lives safer in this context is already available? Use a conventional landline. When you can’t, then remember that EMR-exposure respects the “inverse-square
law,” so use the speakerphone mode of your cellular and cordless phones, or a hands-free car kit. If you prefer a wired earpiece, buy one that is EMR-shielded. Furthermore, support regulation of the relatively unchecked proliferation of cell phone masts. Would you want one next to your child’s daycare center? If you don’t feel like heeding any of the above, please encourage children to do so, for there are reasonable grounds to suspect a looming public health tragedy.
FURTHER TIPS AND COMMENTS:
To read the entire article where the above quotes come from you can go to http://www.brain-surgery.us/khuranaMedPhys.pdf
By the way, a land line is not cordless phone working through a land line! Dr Khurana touched on that above but even though cordless phones are convenient, I have kept the landline with a wire going from the phone to the ear piece out of concern for the EMR exposure.
Dr Khurana makes a very important point above about the “inverse-square law,” which means the strength of the radiation exposure increases exponentially as the phone gets closer. I read one study which found that just moving the phone away from the ear a few inches decreased the EMR many times and reduced the occurrence of cancers too. Before we allow our kids to have phones, they should have to read information like this and agree to use the speaker phone and a cord to the ear from the phone most of the time.
Being cautious when it comes to our health is a small price to pay compared to what a healthy body does for us every day. If we truly understand that a healthy body is the single most important factor in order for most of us to maintain an active, productive, joyful life then we would have a “precautionary attitude” as Dr Khurana suggests above. The article on my website titled “Network Spinal Analysis (NSA): University Research Summary” reports on many profound improvements to quality of life that resulted from receiving Network Spinal Analysis care. That is the chiropractic method I use.
Jason Barritt B.Sc. (Hons) D.C.
References:
1. Medical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 12, December 2008
To promote a better understanding of the connection between optimal health and optimal quality of life. We know that health is so much more than just the absence of pain. Therefore we strive to have our patients reach their fullest innate potential and to achieve this through teamwork, excellent patient care, education and outreach.
No comments yet.