The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted Apr 03 2008, 3:39 AM Category: Health Source: The Independent Print

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation
By Geoffrey Lean

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence exclusively reported in the IoS in October that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".

Latest Health
- Government On Nutrition: Often Wrong, Seldom in Doubt
- Game Developers Face Final Boss: The FDA
- Whooping Cough Vaccination Fail
- Study: Obese Americans Now Outnumber Those Who Are Merely Overweight
- Public School "Child Nutrition Supervisor" Served Students Reeking, Six-Year-Old Pork
- SSRI Drugs Linked to Germanwings Kamikaze Crash?
- Shocker: Eat Fat, Avoid Food Pyramid, Lose Weight
- Parents ARE Being Arrested For Getting Medicine (Cannabis Oil) That Works For Their Sick Children!

Comments 1 - 3 of 3 Add Comment Page 1 of 1

Posted: Apr 04 2008, 12:07 PM

You will find a great deal of Tavistock hidden behind the 'risk assessment' business, naturally as they wish to create and control what the threats are to control or kill people. I found such a link when looking at the corporate structure of the Daily Mail, and if researching them please bear in mind what they print in the papers (which people see walking past a news stand) is very different to what they present on the Internet. Today's offering one of those nonsense scare stories on the font page.

Mobile phones emit radiation at frequencies and power levels which cause significant harm, potentially fatal. For logical consistancy that people can make valued assessments means tying all these microsciences together. In doing so however one encounters not science but politics.

In the UK cigarettes carry obnoxious health warnings by order of the government. This is an absurdity, governments kill people, not one or two but systemically and in the case of the British government globally. They have exempted themselves from the new prohibitions.

As the same cartel that controls the UK government also owns the cigarette companies there is nothing to trust in officialdom, they are always a vested interest.

I often analyse a news story from the outset by priority. In terms of risk and empowering people to assess that independently, a health warning belongs most of all on the media and about the media. The western world is substantially run by false or censured information courtesy of a media that is owned, a victim of insurgency or otherwise controlled from within or without. The consequences include torture, war and death and this is well demonstrated by recent history as fact.

I suggest properly informed people might choose to use a mobile phone and smoke but would not choose to got to war.

Posted: Apr 04 2008, 12:57 PM

Speaking in America can be deadly. It was 40 years ago today that Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr was assassinated. It would be meaningless to judge a life by its length, sometimes what risks have been taken is part of their true measure.

As for mobile phones the official line in the UK has been that this technology is new. That is a complete deception, in a programming task I once had access to papers in military bunkers which included experiments on frequency and their effects on human biology. Such research expands in line with the technical ability to utilise more of the available spectrum, the frequencies involved in cellular phone networks are old technology rather than new and indeed extracted from how military networks operate. I was once talking a chap in this territory, he would be under the Official Secrets Act so I didn't ask any compromising questions except asking for the secure keys to test his humour. I did happen to mention a story where an incident had been blamed in the media on the different services being able to talk to each other, the look on his face revealed the con the media had pulled off and that issue was his job.

The inconsistancy of government evidences the official nonsense. When a political objective is being actioned, a group is set up or used to present something to justify a change. The government claim in such circumstances despite no evidence available they have to safeguard the public interest by pre-emptive action by listening to their advisors or what is presented as an 'independant source'. Governments don't listen and act based on independant sources, they have their own choir, members which sing out of tune are outcast.

Governments do pay lip service to the public, this happens when they are replacing the leadership and they act out as if an election is in progress. Voters turning up at the polling booth lends some credibility to the whole scam.

Posted: Apr 06 2008, 9:05 PM

As a practical tip keeping the phone as far away from your ear as possible is a benefit as the exposure falls off in direct proportion to the square of the distance, therefore small increases in seperation offer bigger reductions in exposure. Similarly turning the volume up has merits compared to pressing the phone tight to the ear.

Whilst the longer call the greater the exposure one of the greatest impacts on the health of people in a nation is the standard of living. There is health cost inherent with mobile phones due to the scam behind them. Unlike with landline calls, with mobiles there is often a charge to both ends of the call.

Whilst the public are presented with an image of choice and what are apparently independant companies, that scam is routine and one could call it the front system and the crown has its own system for hiding such things though regardless such accounts are beyond audit.

I found it odd that when British Telecom first set their service up they chose a remote location, I wondered at the time if this was done to try to suggest all calls were long distance and therefore justified elivated pricing. Presentation and truth often has quite some reality gap in between.

In the UK certainly the racket operated by the regulator (OFTEL) and service providors is easily seen by the difficulty in decoding the charging system and how fast it changes. This has similarities with the US constitution, by voting you are asked to sign in that instance but they re-write the rules whenever and how often it suits the agenda.

These comments are not intended as a moan, rather to help thought and correlation by commenting on so many scams as the sum of them spells collapse and each of them harm the interests of mankind in general. As in reality these scams are monopolised the position is far worse than easily realised.

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27Drone Pilots Have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds For Exposing US Murder - 11/27Pot Breathalyzers: Coming Soon to A Drug War Near You - 11/27Georgia Sheriff Puts Up Sign Warning People Who Disagree With Him About God to Leave - 11/27City Settles After Police Chief Arrested Man For Calling Public Official A 'Liar' - 11/27World's Most 'Adorable' Drug Kingpin Is Actually The Daughter of Texas DEA Head Honcho - 11/26Bezos Beats Musk - 11/27Heroic Cops Protect Community by Raiding a Group of 90-Yo Women Playing Mahjong - 11/26

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up