Cell Phone Warning Issued in 2000
When Dr. Davis started to dig, she found out that a fellow named William Stewart, who had been Margaret Thatcher’s chief science advisor, had issued a warning for the Royal College of Physicians, advising that teenagers not use cell phones. He did this in the year 2000. Dr. Davis realized that if there was indeed a danger, it was imperative that action be taken now… not decades later:“If we wait for proof of harm – and that proof is brain cancer… What we know about brain cancer is this: it can take 40 years to develop. We know that from when the bombs fell toward the end of World War II – there was no increase in brain cancer at all until 40 years after. And we know that there is an increase in brain cancer from ionizing radiation associated with that bomb.If brain cancers have 40-year latency in a population, and we wait for evidence as we did with tobacco and asbestos and population increases of cancer, we will be in huge trouble.More importantly, we have evidence that cellphone radiation interferes with sperm production, sperm quality, and sperm vitality. We know that there are millions – in fact, billions – of young people growing up, keeping phones in their front pockets. The fine print warning that comes with the Android says, ‘Keep it 2.54 centimeters from the pregnant abdomen or the abdomen of a teenager.’ …Nobody reads it. The iPhone 4S has fine print warnings also to not to put it in your pocket.1“
World Health Organization Rules Cell Phone and Other Wireless Radiation a Possible Carcinogen
Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reviewed relevant studies and declared that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents, in the same category as diesel engine exhaust, some pesticides, and some heavy metals. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that regular cell phone use increased the risk of two types of tumors – brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.Dr. Davis notes that the phrase used to describe cell phone radiation-radiofrequency energy – is misleading. Cell phones do not produce energy, she notes. They do emit radiation at about the same frequency as a microwave oven. While cell phone microwave radiation is much weaker than an oven, cell phone radiation is pulsed and digital. Its erratic signal may well account for its biological impact.“In fact, a cellphone is a two-way microwave radio,” Dr. Davis points out. “Industry has fought successfully to use the phrase ‘radiofrequency energy’ instead of microwave radiation. Because they know radiofrequency energy sounds fine. We listen to music with radios. Everybody needs more energy. What could be better than that?But radiofrequency energy is another word for microwave radiation. If people understood that they were holding a two-way microwave-radiating device next to their brain or next to their reproductive organs, they might think differently about it.”
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.