|
«First ‹Previous Page 645 of 645  |
Jesus appears atop mobile phone mast | ||
Uganda | Created: 22 Feb 2007 | |
Large crowds gathered yesterday around a mobile phone mast in the northern Ugandan town of Gulu after locals spotted Jesus Christ atop the structure, Kampala's The Monitor reports. Witness Eric Odongo, who claimed he "first saw clouds on top of the mast and that Jesus appeared to be standing amidst clouds", told the paper: "I saw Jesus standing on top of the mast. He was standing between two people and was putting on a white cloth. His hair was black." The mast was soon surrounded by an excited mob, looking to cop an Ash Wednesday eyeful of Jesus, with some exclaiming: "Come, come, come look over there, between those two bars, do you see him, do you see him...? He [Jesus] is standing between those two bars." Reporters attending the scene sadly failed to confirm the sighting. Herbert Omoding, the local assistant engineer for telecoms outfit MTN, which operates the mast, admitted he'd "seen nothing unusual". Gulu's Anglican bishop Nelson Onono Onweng recounted: "I was nearby when a young man came telling us that Jesus had been sighted on the MTN mast. We all laughed him off but when I was leaving the town I saw thousands of people around the mast." He added: "The Bible does not tell us when Jesus will appear. It does not tell us that he will appear on a mast or on a mango tree. So I don't believe in the whole thing." ® *Our comments* Of course the Telecom staff did'nt notice anything - nothing is sacred to those people. |
||
|
||
Click here to view the source article. | ||
Source: The Register, Lester Haines, 22 Feb 2007 (w. comment by Henrik Eiriksson, mast-victims.org) |
Zweifel an Krebsstudie | ||
Germany | Created: 22 Feb 2007 | |
Widersprüchliche Studien zum Zusammenhang zwischen Krebs und dem Gebrauch von Mobiltelefonen stehen in der Kritik von Forschern - Angeblich sind die Daten nicht ausreichend geprüft worden. Wenn Epidemiologen nach Dänemark reisen, dann geht es ihnen meist nicht um die touristischen Highlights des Landes, die Kathedrale von Roskilde, die Strände von Jütland oder die Statue der kleinen Meerjungfrau in Kopenhagen. Sie interessieren sich mehr für die Daten der Dänen, die diese recht unbesorgt sammeln und Forschern zur Verfügung stellen. Jeder Bewohner des Königreichs besitzt eine Personenkennziffer (CPR-Nummer genannt), die ständig notiert wird – zum Beispiel beim Abschluss eines Handyvertrags und der Diagnose eines Tumors. Der Abgleich solcher Register erlaubt Studien über Krankheitsursachen, die in kaum einem anderen Land möglich wären. So konnte eine Gruppe von dänischen, deutschen und amerikanischen Forschern immerhin 420.095 Handynutzer in eine Krebsstudie einbeziehen. Anfang Dezember schrieben sie in einem Fachartikel, wegen der Qualität ihrer Daten könne „jede große Verbindung von Krebsrisiken und dem Gebrauch von Mobiltelefonen ausgeschlossen werden“. Dieser für Epidemiologen ungewöhnlich klar formulierte Satz fand sich bald in den Artikeln vieler Zeitungen und Zeitschriften wieder; auch die Süddeutsche Zeitung berichtete unter dem Titel „Entwarnung für Handynutzer – Dänische Studie: Mobiltelefone erhöhen das Krebsrisiko nicht“ (7.12.2006). Zudem wurde die dänische Studie von vielen Blättern genutzt, um einem Bericht der SZ vom 31. Januar 2007 zu widersprechen. Er stellte Ergebnisse vor, die nicht nur Hinweise, sondern einen begründeten Verdacht nähren, der langjährige Gebrauch von Handys könne Gliome, seltene Gehirntumore, auslösen oder fördern; und zwar vor allem auf der Seite des Kopfes, an die das Telefon gewohnheitsmäßig gehalten wird. Die beiden darin zitierten Studien hatten einen wichtigen statistischen Test gemeistert, und müssen darum von Epidemiologen ernster genommen werden als bisherige Daten. Kritik aus Schweden und Österreich Doch nun gerät die dänische Studie mit ihrer so klar formulierten Entwarnung selbst unter schwere Kritik. Epidemiologen in Schweden und Österreich haben Leserbriefe an die Redaktion des Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) geschickt, das die Untersuchung herausgebracht hatte. Die Autoren der Briefe, Michael Kundi von der Medizinischen Universität Wien und Lennart Hardell vom Universitätshospital Örebro sprechen der dänischen Studie ihre Aussagekraft weitgehend ab. Doch die Redaktion des JNCI hat die Veröffentlichung der Briefe abgelehnt; sie hätten nicht „genügend Priorität“. Eine ungeklärte Rolle dabei spielt einer der Co-Autoren der dänischen Studie, der zugleich Redakteur bei dem Journal ist. „Erst die Ergebnisse so rauszuposaunen und dann die kritischen Leserbriefe nicht zu drucken, das wirft kein gutes Licht auf die Herausgeber“, sagt Eberhard Greiser, renommierter Epidemiologe und ehemaliger Direktor des Bremer Instituts für Präventionsforschung und Sozialmedizin. Er teilt die inhaltliche Kritik seiner Kollegen aus Örebro und Wien: „Das Design der Studie führt dazu, dass sie das Risiko unterschätzt.“ Generell werden bei solchen Studien zwei Gruppen gebildet: eine mit einem Risikofaktor und eine ohne. Sonst sollen sie sich möglichst nicht unterscheiden, weder im Alter, noch im Wohlstand oder der Geschlechtsverteilung. Finden die Forscher dann unterschiedliche Krankheitsraten, dürfen sie annehmen, dass der Risikofaktor etwas damit zu tun hat. Viele Unstimmigkeiten Doch die Gruppen der dänischen Studie unterscheiden sich, wenn man die Kritik zusammenfasst, zu wenig im Mobilfunkgebrauch und zu viel in ihrem sozialen Status. „Die hätte man so nicht vergleichen dürfen“, sagt Greiser. Die Autoren der derart kritisierten Studie um den Deutschen Joachim Schüz, der bei der dänischen Krebsgesellschaft arbeitet, hatten von Mobilfunkgesellschaften Daten über alle 72.3421 Handyverträge bekommen, die irgendwann zwischen 1982 und 1995 aktiv waren. Etwa 100.000 davon sortierten die Forscher aus, weil sie wegen Dopplungen, Schreibfehlern oder anderen Problemen keiner Person eindeutig zugeordnet werden konnten. Weitere 200.000 schlossen sie aus, weil die Verträge von Firmen für ihre Mitarbeiter abgeschlossen worden waren. Auch hier ließ sich nicht klären, wer das Handy tatsächlich benutzt hatte. "Bei den Firmenkunden konnten wir gar nichts anderes machen“, verteidigt Joachim Schüz die Entscheidung. Lennart Hardell hingegen sagt: „Bei diesen 200000 Nutzern handelt es sich wahrscheinlich um Menschen, die das Gerät früh und besonders intensiv nutzten. Aber die Autoren haben sie der angeblich nicht-bestrahlten Vergleichsgruppe zugeschlagen“, also dem ganzen Rest der Dänen. Die Unterschiede verwischen Auch Michael Kundi bemängelt, dass die Vergleichsgruppe viele Langzeit-Nutzer enthalte. Vor allem aber sei in der Zeit zwischen 1995 und 2002 (bis dahin haben die Autoren das Krebsregister ausgewertet) die Zahl der Handyverträge stark angestiegen: Auch in der Vergleichsgruppe besäßen nun viele ein Mobiltelefon, die mittlere Nutzungsdauer betrage bereits fast fünf Jahre. Mediziner sind sich gestützt auf viele Studien zwar sicher, dass ein so kurzer Gebrauch die Krebsraten nicht verändert. Aber die kritisierten Details verwischen die Unterschiede der Menschen in den Gruppen „Exponierte“ und „Nicht-Exponierte“. Drei von vier langjährigen Nutzern von Mobiltelefonen sei so in der Vergleichsgruppe gelandet. „Fast ein Drittel der Menschen in der Vergleichsgruppe nutzt bereits seit mehr als fünf Jahren ein Handy“, sagt Kundi. Er hat in seinem Leserbrief versucht, den möglichen Fehler abzuschätzen: Würden die Daten korrigiert, ergebe sich für Nutzer von Mobiltelefonen womöglich ein leicht erhöhtes Risiko für seltene Hirntumor aus der Gruppe der Gliome. Zudem, kritisiert Eberhard Greiser, waren die 420.000 Dänen in der Handygruppe sozial deutlich besser gestellt als die Vergleichsgruppe. Wohlstand senkt allgemein die Krebsraten, wie die Wissenschaft weiß. Auch die Autoren um Joachim Schüz stellten das in der dänischen Studie fest: Die Mobiltelefonierer hatten fünf Prozent weniger Tumore als anhand der Vergleichgruppe zu erwarten war. Diskussion auf der letzten Seite Das erklärt das Team vor allem damit, dass wohlhabendere Männer seltener rauchen. Für Greiser ist das ein „kurioses Ergebnis“: Wie die beiden möglichen Risikofaktoren Tabak und Handy zusammenhingen, könne die dänische Studie nicht klären. Immerhin ist ja möglich, dass der Verzicht auf das Rauchen die Krebsraten zwar deutlich senkt, die Mobiltelefone aber von dem Vorteil ein wenig wegfressen. Es sei auch geradezu irrsinnig, so Greiser, dass bei den Frauen in der Handygruppe die durch das Rauchen hervorgerufenen Krebsfälle häufiger waren als erwartet. Einige dieser Probleme diskutieren die Autoren um Joachim Schüz auf den letzten Seiten ihres Aufsatzes. Sie räumen dabei ein, dass die Mängel ihrer Methode eher dazu führten, dass sie das Risiko unterschätzen. Das zeigt auch ein Vergleich mit gut 800 Vergleichspersonen, die Schüz für eine andere Studie angeworben hatte. Unter ihnen gab es daher Mitglieder aus beiden Gruppen der Studie an den 420000 Dänen. Doch von „Exponierten“ gaben nur 60 Prozent an, ihr Handy wenigstens einmal pro Woche benutzt zu haben. Dagegen sagten 16 Prozent der „Nicht-Exponierten“, regelmäßig mobil zu telefonieren. Wenn aber Exponierte weniger telefonieren als gedacht, nicht-exponierte dagegen mehr, kann der Vergleich ein mögliches Risiko nur unterschätzen. Kein Gegenbeweis Dennoch hält Schüz das klare Votum aus der Zusammenfassung seiner Arbeit nach wie vor für gerechtfertigt. Das erklärt sich womöglich aus der genauen Formulierung: Die dänische Studie will schließlich eine große Risikoerhöhung ausgeschlossen haben. „Einen Effekt in der Größenordnung, wie ihn Lennart Hardell in seinen Studien gesehen hat, gibt es hier bestimmt nicht“, sagt der deutsche Forscher. Hardell hatte für digitale Handys der aktuellen Technik bei intensivem, langem Gebrauch eine Steigerung der Raten eines seltenen Hirntumors auf das 3,7-fache gemessen (SZ, 31.1.2007). Doch das niedrigere Resultat von Forschern um Anna Lahkola von der finnischen Strahlenschutzkommission lässt sich mit den Daten der 420.000 Dänen nicht ausräumen. Sie hatte vor kurzem Daten veröffentlicht, wonach mindestens zehnjähriger Handygebrauch das Risiko von Gliomen erhöhe – aber nur auf der Seite, wo Nutzer ihr Telefon normalerweise an den Kopf halten (SZ, 31.1.2007). „Eine solche Steigerung in der Größenordnung von 40 Prozent wie bei Lahkola geht bei uns im Rauschen unter. Das können wir weder bestätigen noch entkräften“, sagt Schüz. Eher milde Kritik Trotz der heftigen Kritik bleibt das dänische Ergebnis für Öffentlichkeit und Fachwelt womöglich unwidersprochen: Das JNCI veröffentlicht die Vorwürfe von Kundi und Hardell nicht, in einigen Monaten soll lediglich der Leserbrief eines anderen Forschers erscheinen. Die geschäftsführende Redakteurin des Blatts, Rebecca Chasan, will keine weiteren Einzelheiten dazu nennen. Eilig hat sie es aber nicht, es gibt noch keine Terminplanung für die Veröffentlichung. Bemerkenswert ist allerdings, dass John Boice von der Privatfirma International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville bei Washington sowohl Co-Autor des umstrittenen Aufsatzes ist als auch Redakteur bei der Fachzeitschrift. Diese Personalunion von Autor und Redakteur hindere das Journal nicht daran, kritische Leserbriefe zu drucken, sagt Chasan. Zum Beleg verweist sie auf Kommentare zu einer Studie mit Boice’ Beteiligung, in der die 420000 Dänen schon 2001 analysiert worden waren. Die beiden damals erschienenen Leserbriefe aber enthielten eher milde Kritik, die mit den fundamentalen Einwänden gegen die Veröffentlichung vom Dezember nicht zu vergleichen ist. Letztlich könnten sogar persönliche Animositäten die Entscheidung über die Leserbriefe beeinflusst haben. Lennart Hardell macht dafür vor allem John Boice verantwortlich. Den Schweden und den Amerikaner verbindet seit Jahren eine erbitterte Fehde, die sich regelmäßig in kritischen Leserbriefen und persönlichen Angriffen äußert. Vor kurzem hat Hardell Boice in einem Fachaufsatz verdeckte Kontakte zur Mobilfunkindustrie vorgeworfen, was dieser heftig abgestritten hat. Boice hatte daraufhin zurückgeschossen, Hardell sei im Jahr 2002 als „bezahlter Experte“ auf der Seite des Klägers in einem amerikanischen Gerichtsverfahren aufgetreten. Damals hatte ein Arzt unter anderem Motorola verklagt, weil er ein Handy als Auslöser seines Hirntumor sah. Die Richterin aber verwarf Hardells Daten als Beweismaterial und stellte das Verfahren ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist kaum zu erwarten, dass sich Hardell und Boice jemals über die Qualität einer Studie einig sein werden. |
||
|
||
Click here to view the source article. | ||
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Christopher Schrader, 15 Feb 2007 |
Opposition to cell phone tower grows | |
Canada | Created: 21 Feb 2007 |
Grassroots opposition to a proposed telecommunications tower on Yale Road West is reportedly growing and a public meeting is being organized for March 1 at the Chilliwack Best Western. But organizer Greg Balzer says Telus officials and other industry proponents are being invited to the meeting to find a “cooperative” way to bring about “a good workable solution that keeps health and property values and alternatives in view.” “We want everybody to be on the same page, to share their views,” he says. Last month, city council approved a height variance for a 147-foot tower on an industrially-zoned property at 44325 Yale Rd. West. Mayor Clint Hames, presented later with a petition opposed to the tower, said the city has no regulatory authority over tower locations, which is under the jurisdiction of Industry Canada. However, he instructed city staff to clarify Industry Canada’s obligations for public consultation. Not content with that action by the city, Balzer and others have been organizing. Milt Bowling, a senior associate of a non-profit group based in Washington D.C., and a director of Risk Management Partners, says his research into the effects of cell phone towers on human health dates back to 1997. He says he has helped organize hundreds of communities opposed to the cell phone towers - and there is more that can be done by Chilliwack’s city council. “They can do what communities throughout the world have done - register their opposition to it,” he says. Ideally, the proposed tower would be scrapped and replaced by fibre optic cables, he says, but failing that the city could conduct its own risk assessment and recommend alternative sites. Tower opponents claim a connection between exposure to microwave emissions and leukemia, DNA damage, short and long-term memory loss and buzzing in the ears. Bowling says according to Health Canada, as long as the radiation emitted from a cellphone tower doesn’t raise body temperature by one degree Celsius in six minutes, it’s considered safe. “As long as it doesn’t cook you it’s OK,” he says. “But what about all of the other risks involved.” Only four towers have been scrapped due to community opposition, Bowling says, but many have been re-located to alternative sites. Balzer says its hoped that Industry Canada can be convinced to change its rules to make identification of alternative sites mandatory in all future cell phone tower proposals. |
|
|
|
Click here to view the source article. | |
Source: Chilliwack Progress, Robert Freeman, 20 Feb 2007 |
Families mobile phone mast victory | |
United Kingdom | Created: 20 Feb 2007 |
Families are celebrating yet another victory in the fight against mobile phone masts being installed close to homes and schools. Phone company T-Mobile had applied to Norwich City Council to install an 11.8metres mast close to St Anne's Church and the Colman Area Housing Office on Colman Road. But the mast - which would have been yards from the site of two other failed applications - has been turned down by city council planners under delegated powers after more than 100 people objected to the mast. It is the latest in a string of victories against such masts at locations across the city as a result of people power. Sylvia Gordon, 76, who lives with her husband John on George Borrow Road, close to the site of the proposed mast, said today she was delighted council officers had refused permission on the grounds it “would detract from the amenity of the residential area”. She said: “We thought it was really obtrusive to put it there and we don't think that phone companies should be allowed, for their own commercial reasons, to plant these ugly masts where people don't want them - we were pleased to know it wasn't going to be put there after all.” Mrs Gordon, who has lived in the area for more than 40 years, said people in the area have successfully seen off a host of other mast applications over the years. “I think that's the only reason they haven't been able to put them up,” she said. “It's not really acceptable for people to have these masts near to them. We think the city council has made great strides in cleaning up this ward - the verges and graffiti -and it would have been a real backward step to have put a thing there near to homes and gardens. We just don't want it.” Roy Blower city councillor for University ward, said it was the sixth mast people living in the area have seen off in recent years. “I'm delighted, once again the community has seen off big businesses trying to impose an eyesore on them,” he said. “More than 100 people wrote in whether to us or directly to the council and made known the depth of feeling in the area.” Mr Blower said the council's decision to refuse masts in the area previously could set a precedent which would make it difficult for other phone companies to try to get other masts installed in the area. A spokesman for T-Mobile said: “We will have to consider our future options in light of the council's ruling.” The Evening News, through its Put Masts on Hold campaign, has fought against the installation of masts close to homes and schools until it is proved they are safe. Last January O2 appealed against a decision by Norwich City Council to refuse permission for a 15metre mast near to the Moss Pharmacy in Colman Road even though the application had more than 500 objectors. In 2002 Hutchison 3G, now 3, had its plans for a 13m mast next to the Colman Road Area Housing Office car park rejected after a petition was raised on the grounds it would have a negative impact of the surroundings. Are you campaigning against a planned mobile phone mast where you live? Call Peter Walsh on 01603 772439 or e-mail peter.walsh@archant.co.uk |
|
|
|
Click here to view the source article. | |
Source: Evening News 24, Peter Walsh, 20 Feb 2007 |
Allergic to electricity | ||
United Kingdom | Created: 20 Feb 2007 | |
As the chief executive of a high-tech food company with a turnover of £500m and 5,000 staff, you would expect Brian Stein to have all the latest electronic gizmos. But he doesn't even watch television or listen to a stereo system, much less use a mobile phone or computer. He cannot travel by electric train, take a long-haul flight or drive a modern car, and long ago traded in his £50,000 BMW7 series for a Nissan that is now 12 years old and has 235,000 miles on the clock. For the past seven years, says Brian, he has been electrosensitive, which means he reacts to the electromagnetic radiation - sometimes known as electrosmog - given off by electricity systems and appliances. Five minutes near a mobile phone mast is enough to cause sharp pains in his head. Longer exposure produces aching muscles, heart palpitations and stomach cramps. On occasion, he says, it has caused him to bleed internally. But every doctor he has seen has told him categorically there is nothing wrong and that his symptoms are all in his mind. Officially in the UK, electrosensitivity does not exist. Sufferers of the condition, meanwhile, claim that as many as five per cent of the UK population could be affected. Electrosensitivity is becoming an issue in schools, with many parents concerned that their children are exposed to more electronic gadgets than previous generations - and that we don't know enough about the effects of the radiation emanating from them. While there is no scientific evidence to suggest radiation from wireless technology poses any immediate health risks, there has been little research into its long-term effects, something sufferers are clamouring for. People who claim to be electrosensitive say they suffer disturbing symptoms such as stomach pains and palpitations whenever they are in close proximity to a mobile phone mast or a wi-finetwork 'hotspot'. Yet most doctors say their symptoms are psychosomatic. So is this very modern-sounding malaise the ME of the Noughties? Brian, 57, believes his symptoms began as a result of using mobile phones. "I had used one since they came on the market about 20 years ago," recalls Brian, who runs Samworth Brothers, a Leicestershire company that supplies chilled foods to supermarket chains. "Then seven years ago I started to experience a tingling sensation in my face and right ear, a bit like earache. It happened only while I was using the mobile phone. At first, I could use it for 20 minutes without a problem, then only for 15 minutes. "Then one day, about a year later, as I put the phone to my head, it felt as if my eardrum had burst - there was a sharp, stabbing pain. I swore I would never use a mobile again and never have.' Unfortunately for Brian, that was not the end of his problems. Soon after, he began to experience head pains when he sat in front of his computer or drove his car. Convinced he had a brain tumour, he visited his GP, who told him that his symptoms were not consistent with a tumour. But his fears were not allayed and he asked to be referred to a neurologist who - at Brian's insistence - arranged an MRI scan, which was clear. Over the next few weeks the symptoms spread to include a sore throat, frequent chest pains and palpitations. "I wondered what the hell was happening to me," he says. "It was my wife who went on the internet, just over a year after I first started having problems, and found out about electrosensitivity. As I read through the list of symptoms, I ticked all the boxes. It was like a jigsaw fitting together." Brian began conducting a series of 'experiments'. Driving the car made him feel unwell, but getting out of it made the symptoms subside. From the internet he learned that old vehicles with fewer electrics are less likely to cause problems for people with electrosensitivity than more sophisticated models, so he began driving his wife's old Nissan, which he still uses. He also found that being near the washing machine caused a pain in his chest and watching television resulted in headaches. Some rooms in his home caused him no problems, but in others his symptoms would flare up. By this time Brian had made contact with Alasdair Phillips, scientific director of Powerwatch, an organisation that researches electromagnetic fields. Alasdair's company, EMFields, sells electrosmog detectors - devices that convert electromagnetic radiation into noise. Using one of these, Brian discovered that some rooms in his home had higher levels of radiation than others. He concluded the radiation was coming from a mobile phone mast about half a mile away, as the rooms affected were those positioned closest to it. Delighted to have identified the cause of his illness, Brian again visited his doctor — and was shocked at his response. "He told me that electrosensitivity did not exist and said now that the brain scan had given me the all-clear, he thought my symptoms were psychosomatic. I knew they weren't but it is intimidating when a doctor says that." Things were getting worse. Within two years of first experiencing head pains, Brian found that merely sleeping in a room with an electricity supply for more than a few nights caused him to develop pains all over his body and ringing in his ears. At first he switched off the house electricity supply every night, but as this caused the fridge-freezer to defrost, he had a special extension built, using a silver-plated insulating material that screens out virtually all radiation. This is where he now sleeps. Although neither his wife nor his three grown-up children suffer from the problem, they try to be sympathetic. "The children get exasperated that they cannot watch the television when they come to visit," he says, "but they are very understanding. It does make our home life challenging. "One of the biggest problems is staying in hotels when I am in London on business. If the room has wireless internet access, I wake up at 1am trembling, with ringing in my ears." All electrical appliances have been removed from his office and his secretary handles his e-mails. "Instead of doing presentations from a laptop, we use slides and overhead projectors. "If somebody needs to get hold of me, they leave a voicemail message which I collect from a land line. I have never lost a contract through being out of touch. "Because I am the chief executive, I can modify my environment. However, as a trustee of the EM Radiation Research Trust, which lobbies for more research on electromagnetic radiation, I have met many people who are severely electrosensitive like me. Everyone apart from me has had to give up work." Nobody knows how many people in the UK suffer from electrosensitivity because the symptoms vary from person to person and the condition is not recognised by most doctors. A review carried out by the Government's Health Protection Agency in 2005 estimated that somewhere between a few people per thousand and a few per million are affected by symptoms they believe to have been caused by electromagnetic radiation. But others put the figure much higher. Professor Olle Johansson, from the Karolinska Institute's department of neuroscience in Sweden, where electrosensitivity is recognised as a disability, estimates the prevalence of the condition in his country at three per cent. In the capital, Stockholm, sufferers can have their homes adapted to screen out sources of electromagnetic radiation. They can even rent council-owned cottages in areas of low radiation. And according to a report published by the Swiss Government in 2005, "electricity supply systems, appliances and transmitters for various wireless applications generate electrosmog that can be harmful to our health". In contrast, the British Health protection Agency report investigated various symptoms attributed to electrosensitivity, including fatigue and headaches, but decided that there was no proven link between them and exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The World Health Organisation came to the same conclusion: "It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to electromagnetic fields. "Examples may include "flicker" from fluorescent lights, glare from VDUs and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. "Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace. "There are also indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about electromagnetic health effects, rather than the exposure itself." "With most diseases, sufferers have roughly the same symptoms, but people who have this condition show a variety of responses," says Professor Lawrie Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, which, though funded by the Government and the mobile phone industry, is independent of both. "The symptoms are real but we do not know what they are caused by." For the past five years, the research organisation has been investigating the short-term effects of mobile phones and masts and is due to publish the summary of this work in May. "We have looked at a range of possible effects on memory, blood pressure and inner ear function," says Professor Challis. "We have taken blood samples and measured hormones. These are high-quality studies and the signs are that they do not show any short-term effects from exposure to mobile phones. "What we have found is that when extra-sensitive people are placed in conditions where they do not know whether a mobile phone is on or off, they are unable to tell more often than you would expect." Brian Stein believes the Government is reluctant to acknowledge the danger posed by mobile phones because the industry generates around £13 billion a year and brings large amounts into the state coffers through taxes and the granting of licences. Those who, like him, are convinced that electromagnetic radiation is detrimental to health have suggested various theories as to why this should be the case. Some believe an allergic reaction is at work. Others argue that pulsed radiation from mobiles or laptops using wi-fiinterferes with the body's internal electro-chemical signalling systems. The Reflex study, funded by the European Union, reported in 2004 that electromagnetic radiation caused DNA damage to cells in the laboratory, but it said that this did not prove that mobile phones could cause cancer. Recently, however, more serious concerns about mobile phones have begun to surface. Some studies, including one published in the International Journal of Cancer last month, suggest that there may be a correlation between using mobile phones for ten years or more and an increased risk of brain tumours, though the authors stress the link could be due to chance or to bias in the research. "This needs further investigation," says Professor Challis. "Cancer takes more than ten years to appear: we have seen that with cigarettes, asbestos and the atomic bomb. "We have no evidence so far of harm coming from mobile phones, but that does not mean that there is no harm. We cannot sit around and do nothing for the next ten years. Short-term experiments do not tell us much about long-term effects. The only sure way of finding out whether there are long-term effects is to study people's health over a long period." Brian disputes that there is no evidence of harm from mobile phones so far. He has received sheaves of letters from other sufferers through his involvement with EM Radiation Research and the electro-sensitivity support group ES-UK, and says there is plenty of research to back up his belief. "I don't doubt my sanity, but I am concerned about the sanity of the rest of the world," he says. "Scientists used to say the earth was flat. I have no doubt that I will eventually be proved right." For further information contact: ES-UK http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk 01353 778 151. Powerwatch, http://www.powerwatch.org.uk. EM-Radiation Research Trust http://www.radiationresearch.org |
||
|
||
Click here to view the source article. | ||
Source: Daily Mail, 20 Feb 2007 |
”La bruttezza degli impianti è inaccettabile per la vista e la salute”. | |
Italy | Created: 19 Feb 2007 |
In data di oggi 18 febbraio 2007 è apparso sul più diffuso quotidiano calabro-lucano “IL QUOTIDIANO”-Cronaca di CATANZARO- il seguente articolo,dal titolo:”La bruttezza degli impianti è inaccettabile per la vista e la salute”. Cordiali saluti. COMITATO ANTI-ELETTROSMOG CATANZARESE. Gli impianti tecnologici sono dislocati ovunque,a Catanzaro,come oramai in ogni città italiana(ma non a Salisburgo o Vienna),distribuiti a caso in ogni dove,senza un regolamento comunale che ne disciplini correttamente la localizzazione.Questa bruttezza,questo disordine,sono divenuti inaccettabili,oltre che dal punto di vista della gravità degli effetti biologici e clinici sulla popolazione(sono centinaia gli studi scientifici indipendenti che questo affermano),anche da quello dell’impatto visivo-ambientale.Le belle e dolci colline(vedi Germaneto,Siano),le strade(Corso Mazzini),gli antichi e nobili palazzi di Catanzaro(quartieri Grecìa,Fondachello),sono stati violentati ed abbruttiti per un pugno di dollari. Queste ,alcune delle ultime notizie scientifiche e giurisprudenziali. I primi studi che si stanno compiendo in Italia,all’Università di Genova,su disposizione della Magistratura di Massa,relativamente all’elettrodotto da 380 mila volt Livorno-Acciaiolo(con tensione pari a quella di cui è dotato elettrodotto transitante in alcune località del Comune di Catanzaro), ed ai quali partecipo in qualità di consulente tecnico-scientifico per conto dei ricorrenti contro il Gestore,indicano che “è stato individuato un preciso bersaglio molecolare-l’importantissimo enzima AcetilColin Esterasi AchE-che subisce una istantanea,forte e reversibile diminuzione dell’attività(intorno al 50%) a seguito dell’esposizione…con drammatiche conseguenze sullo sviluppo dell’embrione”. Il GIP di Paola(CS),su richiesta del PM,ha recentemente ha posto sotto sequestro ordinandone la disattivazione,antenna di telefonia mobile,su ricorso di privati contro il Gestore.a seguito di nostra consulenza tecnico-scientifica per conto dei ricorrenti. Stralcio del dispositivo,confermato dal Tribunale della Libertà di Cosenza,è stato tradotto in lingua inglese dal sito :www.mast-victims.org(vittime di antenne) e da questi inviato ad oltre 40 Stati di tutto il mondo;vengono ricevute visite del dispositivo via web, ed attestati di solidarietà e benemerenza ,da USA(numerose Università),India,Giappone,Brasile,Nuova Zelanda,Australia,Canada, e tutta Europa(Germania,Olanda,Austria,Francia,Belgio,Svizzzera,Spagna,Portogallo,Svezia-Karolinska Institut,assegnatario dei premi Nobel per la medicina-,Bulgaria-Accademia delle Scienze,ecc…). E’ naturale ,logico ,che alla luce di quanto sopra il Comune di Catanzaro ha il dovere giuridico-etico-scientifico-tecnologico di risolvere una volta per tutte il grave problema;cioè di riappropriarsi anche del suo territorio.E’ quello che proprio in questi giorni alcuni Comuni(anche calabresi) hanno correttamente e saggiamente deliberato,delocalizzando gli impianti “selvaggi”,ed inviduando nel contempo-congiuntamente ai Gestori- varianti ai PRG(con l’avallo di sentenze di TAR) ove allocare tutti gli impianti tecnologici;le nuove località sono state scelte con criteri che rispettano i principi di minimizzazione di esposizione ai CEM(DPCM 8.7.03) e precauzione(art.174 trattato di Amsterdam,costitutivo dell’Unione Europea).Forse che progresso e bellezza non possono navigare assieme senza subire naufragi? Prof.Ing.Giancarlo SPADANUDA-consulente tecnico-scientifico in tema di elettrosmog della Magistratura.-www.spadanuda.it |
|
|
Cancer fight 'cost my job' | ||
Australia | Created: 19 Feb 2007 | |
Cancer fight 'cost my job' 'I believe I was taken off air because of my role in supporting breast cancer victims and my ABC colleagues' Ian Eckersley A SENIOR ABC sports presenter has quit his job, claiming he has been victimised for speaking out about the breast cancer cluster, which forced the national broadcaster to evacuate its Brisbane studios last year. Ian Eckersley, pictured, who acted as staff spokesman during a six-month investigation of the cancer cluster, said he was informed by email last week that he would no longer present the sport on the weekend television news. ''It was a terrible way to learn of such a major decision affecting my 17-year career at the ABC and I was deeply hurt to find out in that manner,'' he said. There has been no specialist sports presenter on the ABC's weekend television bulletins since the Toowong site was closed just before Christmas. Since then, reporters have worked from a temporary newsroom at Mt Coot-tha with the bulletin's presenters operating from studios in Sydney. But Mr Eckersley said he had expected to be back on air when a new temporary television news studio at West End was ready next week. He said he did not accept his manager's explanation that the decision was taken for logistical reasons. ''I believe I was taken off air as sports presenter because of my role with the staff reference group in supporting breast cancer victims and my ABC colleagues,'' he said. Mr Eckersley said he was left in an untenable position, with no option but to resign and now intended to talk to his lawyer about possible legal action against the national broadcaster. But ABC network head Alan Sunderland yesterday rejected any suggestion Mr Eckersley had been victimised. ''I've got to say in the current climate, I find it very disturbing he would attempt to link this decision to the breast cancer issue,'' he said. ''I just cannot for the life of me understand how that can possibly be substantiated or sustained.'' Mr Sunderland said the decision not to have a specialist sports presenter was based on the logistical difficulties of having the newsroom and the news studio operating from separate locations about half an hour apart. With the opening of the West End news studio next week, the ABC's Brisbane operation will be split between seven sites. That does not include a facility at Channel Seven on Mt Coot-tha, where the ABC spent up to $50,000 before deciding not to move in. ABC managing director Mark Scott told an estimates committee hearing last week a decision had been taken that the site was ''not an optimal place for us''. February 19, 2007 Monday http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21247565-953,00.html |
||
|
||
Click here to view the source article. | ||
Source: Sylvie: BYLINE: Melanie Christiansen. The Courier Mail (Australia) |
Tighter laws on mobile phone antennas | |
Belgium | Created: 18 Feb 2007 |
Tighter laws on mobile phone antennas Brussels' parliament has approved a bill aimed at protecting people and the environment from the effects of electromagnetic rays, notably those produced by mobile phone antennas. According to the authors of the bill, the proposed law, which should be implemented in two years, would impose standards 47 times more restrictive than the current national law and would apply to a much broader range of frequencies. The aim is to limit the potential impact of mobile phone antennas on health. This law follows complaints from Brussels citizens about sleep disruptions after the installation of a mobile phone antenna in the vicinity of their homes. 16 February 2007 http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=36647 |
|
|
|
Click here to view the source article. | |
Source: Sylvie: expatica |
Scotland leukaemia death figures private | |
Scotland | Created: 17 Feb 2007 |
Scotland leukaemia death figures private The Herald (Glasgow) February 5, 2007 Appeal to Lords over bid to keep leukaemia death figures private BYLINE: TOM GORDON SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6 LENGTH: 387 words A SCOTTISH NHS body which was ordered to reveal childhood leukaemia statistics under freedom of information law is to make a final appeal to the House of Lords in an attempt to keep the figures secret. In the first case of its kind, the Common Services Agency (CSA) is to challenge a recent ruling by the Court of Session ordering it to hand over its records under FoI. The CSA has resisted disclosure since January 2005, when Michael Collie, a researcher for GreenMSP Chris Ballance, first asked for its records on leukaemia in under-15s in Dumfries and Galloway. Mr Collie was trying to establish whether there were cancer clusters associated with Chapelcross nuclear power station and the Dundrennan military firing range, which tests depleted uranium shells. When the CSA refused to comply, citing patient confidentiality, Mr Collie successfully appealed to the Information Commissioner. The commissioner said the CSA could apply a statistical make-over to its raw data to enable it to preserve patient confidentiality. When the CSA appealed against the commissioner's decision to the Court of Session late last year, its argument -that it was not obliged to create any new data - was thrown out by three judges. In the landmark ruling, Lord Marnoch stressed FoI should "be construed in as liberal a manner as possible." "I do not see why the commissioner should not be accorded the widest discretion in deciding the form and type of information which should be released, " he said. The CSA has now instructed its lawyers to mount an appeal to the Lords, meaning the case will probably enter a third year. Mr Ballance said the CSA was wasting its time by appealing. "I am appalled, if unsurprised, that the CSA has decided to appeal this decision. "They have failed to convince the Information Commissioner of their case, and failed to convince three eminent Scottish judges. They are now hoping they will have better luck with the House of Lords, but if justice is done the appeal will be thrown out." A CSA spokesman said: "We have been advised by counsel that we have grounds for appeal to the House of Lords, and in view of the fundamental principle at the heart of this matter - patient confidentiality - we have decided to proceed with this appeal." The Information Commissioner's office confirmed it was aware of the appeal. ------------------- Submitted by:: Sylvie Hsem |
|
|
|
Click here to view the source article. | |
Source: The Herald (Glasgow), 5 Feb 2007 |
Financial Times The truth about cancer | |
United Kingdom | Created: 17 Feb 2007 |
February 10, 2007 Saturday The truth about cancer From mobile phones and sweeteners to hair dye and deodorants, people seem determined to blame the disease on modern life and ignore the evidence. So where do these claims originate from, and is there any basis to them? BYLINE: By HANNAH KUPER and SIMON KUPER SECTION: FT WEEKEND MAGAZINE - Feature; Pg. 22 In 1993, few people used a mobile phone. Even fewer imagined the bulky new devices might have anything to do with cancer. But on January 23 of that year, a Florida businessman, David Reynard, appeared on the US television show Larry King Live. Reynard's wife Susan had recently died from a brain tumour at the age of 33. According to Reynard, she had talked on a mobile phone "all the time". Putting two and two together, he was suing the mobile phone industry for killing his wife. Reynard was not a medical expert, but his theories reached a bigger audience than those of most scientists. The show scared people across the US. And the media has been reporting on a possible link between mobile phones and cancer ever since. Larry King, whose trademark shirt, tie and braces are meant to suggest an old- fashioned news gatherer, has fed this myth on and off over the years. A later guest, Chris Newman, a doctor with a brain tumour, told King's audience that he had filed an Dollars 800m lawsuit against the mobile-phone industry. But Newman's case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled that there was overwhelming scientific evidence that no link existed between radiation from mobile phones and cancer. The judge was right. And yet, in 2005 a survey by the American Cancer Society survey found that one in three Americans believed electronic devices such as mobile phones could cause cancer. Cancer Research UK's polls show even greater ignorance among Britons about other causes of the disease. Although a fifth of people in rich countries will die of cancer, no other disease is as shrouded in myth. When it comes to heart disease, the other big killer in western countries, most people are fairly clear on the main causes: smoking and being overweight. Smoking and being overweight also happen to be two main causes of cancer, but only smoking is understood as such by most Britons. People prefer to look for the causes of cancer in the environment, outside their own behaviour. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, professor of cancer prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, says: "People try to think that what causes cancer is unrelated to them. People like to have an enemy, and if this is an industry so much the better." It's true that cancer usually comes from outside ourselves: that is, cancer is rarely in our genes. Cancer is a multifactor disease, caused by a combination of risk factors, the most important of which is ageing. While family history can play a role, other factors are responsible for far more cases: smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, poor diet and excessive exposure to sunlight are responsible for most cases. There are also many unlucky people who get cancer even though they seem to have no risk factors. In a scene from Woody Allen's 1979 film Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen) warns Mary (played by Diane Keaton) against taking a prescription sedative: Isaac: "I don't think you should take Valium. It causes cancer." Mary: "No. Half a Valium?" Isaac: "Yeah, abdominal cancer, I think." Mary: "When did they find that out?" Isaac: "That's just my theory, but I think it's correct." Most Woody Allen fans will not be seeking health guidance from his films, but even the mainstream media often broadcast information about cancer that is wrong. And that comes from the same impulse that guides Allen: to entertain. Journalists know what makes a good story - an everyday item that turns out to be deadly. Killer mobile phones are as entertaining as abducted blondes or shark attacks, and are immediately comprehensible to a person with little understanding of basic biology. Even when journalists get their information from scientists, it is often wrong or taken out of context. A classic mistake is to place too much faith in a single piece of research. Academics perform a study that finds a link between some factor and the disease, journalists pick it up, and the headlines read: "Mobile phones (or stress, or hair dye) shown to cause cancer". Meanwhile, the study may have been small or poorly conducted. It may contradict dozens of others. And it may lack a biological rationale. Good science is conducted study by study, certainly, but what matters is biological plausibility and totality of evidence from high-quality studies. No single piece of research can be conclusive. Academic authors could do a better job of helping journalists, but often they have presented their work for fellow experts, without signposts for lay readers. And, just as often, reporters demand a certainty about cancer that scientists cannot give. Because it is impossible to prove a negative, prudent doctors and researchers can never say for certain that something does not cause cancer. All they can say is that given the evidence, it is extremely unlikely. Moreover, caveats issued by academics are often seized on by journalists as admissions of risk after all. The Daily Mirror, for instance, along with many of its peers, spent years pushing the notion that mobile phones cause cancer. Finally, last year, the newspaper ran an article admitting that there appeared to be no such link: "Mobiles don't give you brain cancer says biggest survey ever." However, here's the fourth sentence of the article: "But researchers stressed the long-term effect of radiation from mobiles was still unknown as they had only been widely in use for the past 10 years." A reader who has spent years being terrified by the Mirror might conclude that these researchers simply had no idea. The shame of this is that, in the case of our mobile-phone example, scientists have a very good idea of whether they are safe or not - and the preponderance of research shows they are. This research fulfils the two tests: it examines its biological plausibility - and debunks it - and it yields consistent results (totality of evidence). As for biological plausibility, it's true that mobile phones emit radiation, and that does sound dangerous. Ionising radiation - radiation with enough energy to remove electrons from atoms, causing the atom to become charged - can indeed cause cancer. But the kind of radiation emitted by mobile phones is non- ionising, which doesn't affect your DNA, and so cannot cause cancer in any scientifically documented way. A different argument is that mobile phones could cause cancer by raising the body's temperature. If you are exposed to the energy from radio frequency, your body tissue can heat up and become damaged. But a mobile phone can't heat the tissue enough to do damage. The epidemiological studies - examining people's habits and health rather than exploring a biological rationale - also provide considerable evidence to exonerate mobile phones. Cohort studies, in which people are asked about their use of mobile phones and who are then followed over time to see if they develop the disease in question, have generally failed to show that mobile-phone users are more likely to develop brain tumours than non-users. The largest of these studies, conducted in Denmark by the Danish Cancer Society, followed 420,000 mobile phone users for more than 10 years, and found that using mobile phones was not associated with increased risk of developing brain tumours. Nor was there any association with specific types of brain tumour or with the location of tumours. Case-control studies, in which previous mobile-phone use is compared between people diagnosed with brain cancer and cancer-free "controls", show, pretty consistently, that people with brain tumours do not report more mobile phone use than the controls. A few years ago a large multinational survey called the Interphone study was launched, comparing mobile phone use among people who have been diagnosed with brain tumours with those who have not. The first reports from Interphone have not demonstrated a convincing link between mobile phones and cancer. Even when people blame themselves for cancer, they often do so irrationally. Rather than focus on obesity or excessive sun exposure, a popular theory is stress. Cancer usually takes years, perhaps decades to develop. So it is almost inevitable that those struck by the disease will identify stressful events during the time their cancer was growing: a divorce, a death in the family, a redundancy. Professor Trichopoulos says: "Everyone can think of a reason that he or she has stress. Again, this conception of an enemy who is responsible for what I am getting fits very well." The biological case for linking stress with cancer is weak. The theory is that our bodies are constantly producing cancer cells, but our immune system is constantly destroying them. However, when we are stressed our immune system weakens. This allows a cancer cell to slip through the net and start to grow to form a tumour. But a weakened immune system does not seem to lead to cancer. It's possible to create genetically modified mice that don't have functioning immune systems. Yet they don't seem to be at increased risk of cancer. Some people also have compromised immune systems for long periods of time - for example people with Aids - and while it is the case that they are at increased risk of cancer, it is usually one of the rare forms, such as Kaposi's sarcoma. If cancer were linked to immunity, we would expect to see them develop the commonest forms, like breast, prostate or lung cancer. However, the best test of the theory is to study long-term stress in large groups of humans and see whether stressed people get more cancers. For a start, are people who have experienced stressful events more likely to develop cancer? For a parent to lose a child is one of the most stressful possible experiences. A Danish study published in the journal Cancer in 2002 compared 21,000 parents who had lost a child with almost 300,000 randomly selected parents who had not. The researchers traced all deaths from cancer among these parents for up to 18 years. They found a small increased risk of cancer among mothers who had lost a child. This, they said, was mainly because these women were more likely to develop smoking-related cancers, such as lung cancer. But these women had no increased risk of breast cancer, alcohol-related cancers, infection-related cancers or hormone-related cancers. The bereaved fathers had no increased risk of cancer. It seems, then, that the bereaved mothers were more likely to smoke, and this increased their risk. Perhaps mothers who smoke are more likely to lose their children, since children of mothers who smoke are more likely to develop asthma, allergies, cot death and other problems, or else they reacted to the death by smoking. In other words, stress may have a role in causing cancer, but only by increasing other unhealthy behaviours. More common stressful experiences, including divorce and redundancy, have also been studied in relation to cancer. The results are mixed. A few studies show an association, but most do not. Perhaps, then, it's not these acute stressors, but only chronic everyday stress that causes cancer? The Nurses' Health Study, conducted by researchers from Harvard University, studied 37,562 female registered nurses in the US and showed no association between stress at work and risk of breast cancer during eight years of follow-up from 1992 to 2000. A study by researchers from Denmark's National Institute of Public Health published in the British Medical Journal in 2005 found that the most stressed women were the least likely to develop breast cancer. In 2005, the charity Cancer Research UK surveyed 4,000 Britons on what they thought caused cancer. Ninety per cent of people correctly identified smoking, and 75 per cent sunlight. However, 34 per cent said stress was a cause of cancer (which it has not been proved to be). A quarter of respondents believed that living near power lines caused cancer (studies have shown a negligible increase in risk). The same proportion believed that being physically inactive or taking hormones can cause cancer (both of which can). More disturbingly, in a 2005 telephone survey by the American Cancer Society, more than a quarter of the 957 respondents agreed with the statement: "There is currently a cure for cancer but the medical industry won't tell the public about it because they make too much money treating cancer patients." Another 14 per cent weren't sure. This aversion to fact and clamouring towards conspiracy might be amusing, were it not so deadly. Last year, Cancer Research UK asked 4,000 people about the link between being overweight and getting cancer. Most of those surveyed were overweight or obese, although 87 per cent of the obese people didn't correctly label themselves as such. "Being obese or overweight is one of the most significant preventable causes of cancer in non-smokers", noted the charity. Taking obese and overweight people together, Cancer Research UK found that "71 per cent of those at risk because of their weight did not know of the cancer connection." Nearly half these people "did not believe that eating healthily could help reduce cancer risk. Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) were unaware that regular exercise could reduce risk." In the meantime, the myths continue to abound: artificial sweeteners cause cancer. Flying does. Or hair dye. In fact, these theories all seem to centre on one spurious assertion: that modern life causes cancer. According to this idea, the way we live now is unnatural. Humans were not meant to use aeroplanes, deodorants, sweeteners or nuclear power. Stress, too, is often discussed as a modern phenomenon, even though people have experienced it since prehistoric times, for instance when faced with food shortages, disease or wild animals (all rather more stressful than a deadline at work). Perhaps a widely shared unease about modern life - a fear that we are losing touch with the way humans always lived before us - is expressed in the belief that modernity causes cancer. When researchers from the University Health Network and the University of Toronto asked almost 400 women why they thought they had got breast cancer, 42 per cent of those who had been clear of the disease for an average of nine years named stress as a key cause. Cancer can sometimes feel like an invisible disease, attacking parts of our bodies either too small or too scattered to picture. Maybe it is simply a human desire for symmetry that causes us to blame small annoyances, such as new technologies, or abstract ciphers, like emotional distress, when it strikes. But however reasonable these impulses may be, it is the job of scientists and journalists alike to remind the public that the key to avoiding cancer is not avoiding stress, throwing away your mobile phone or staying off planes. It's more banal than that - and there's comfort in that banality. If you eat healthily, exercise, avoid excessive exposure to the sun and, of course, lay off the cigarettes, you will drastically reduce your risk of dying of the disease. Hannah Kuper is a senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Simon Kuper is an FT journalist based in Paris. POWER LINES NEGLIGIBLE RISK OF LEUKAEMIA Many people fear that the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) around power lines can cause cancer. If they do, then everyone is in danger. Fears were raised by a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1979 suggesting that living near electric power lines could cause childhood leukaemia. Since then, much research has focused on EMFs and the risk of cancer in children. Studies have consistently shown no association between EMFs and cancer in adults. Most of the research on children has shown no association between exposure to EMFs and childhood leukaemia. One study from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, published in 2000, included more than 3,000 children with leukaemia and more than 10,000 controls. It found no association between EMFs and leukaemia within the usual levels of exposure to EMFs. The very few children experiencing exceptionally high levels of exposure (essentially those living within about 60 metres of a high-voltage power line) had a doubled risk of childhood leukaemia. A "doubled risk" sounds terrifying, but because it represents a doubling of a tiny chance of developing leukaemia, the overall risk remains minuscule. These children were still very unlikely to develop the disease. Those living, say, 80 metres away were safe. Another paper by the Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group, also published in 2000, pooled information from 15 different studies in various countries. It too showed no excess risk of childhood leukaemia among children exposed in the normal range, but some increased risk when very high levels of exposure were reached. It seems there is no overall effect from EMFs, but that children living very near power lines may be at slightly increased risk of leukaemia. This could be due to factors other than power lines, although many possible risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, are notoriously hard to measure. Children living close to power lines may have certain characteristics predisposing them to leukaemia: for instance, they may be more urban, which is known to be a risk factor. Moreover, EMF trials on animals have generally failed to find that exposure to magnetic fields increases the risk of cancer. And the biological rationale for how EMFs could cause cancer is very unclear. While it is true that EMFs induce electric currents in our bodies, the currents are many times smaller than the electric currents that normally run through our bodies (for instance from heartbeats). A relatively new idea is that electricity from power lines ionises the air to produce "corona ions" - electrically charged particles, which attach to particles of air pollution, making these particles more likely to be inhaled and trapped in the lung. This is called the "Corona effect". It is an unproven theory and not a likely one, as the biological rationale for it is weak. Even if very high EMF exposure is linked to childhood leukaemia, this should not prompt mass panic. Very few British homes experience extremely high levels of EMF - perhaps one in 250, and even in these households the increased risk is so small that many scientists believe it does not exist. In 2002, of the 400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia that occur each year in England and Wales, five cases might have been associated with living close to high- voltage power lines. In the list of terrors, power lines should rank very low. NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE In 1983, journalists from Yorkshire Television discovered seven children with leukaemia in Seascale, a small village near the nuclear reprocessing plant Sellafield in northern England. This meant that the occurrence of childhood leukaemia in Seascale was 12 times the national average. A committee was formed to investigate possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria. The committee confirmed the existence of a "Sellafield cluster". Research from the US was reassuring. A large study by the National Cancer Institute in the US found no increased risk of death from cancer among people living in 107 US counties containing or near to 62 nuclear facilities. In 2005, Britain's Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) published the results of its study. It showed no increased risk of childhood leukaemia or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma around any of Britain's 13 nuclear power stations. But there was a statistically significant risk of childhood leukaemia and non- Hodgkin's lymphoma around four of the 15 other types of nuclear installation, including Sellafield. Moreover, the increased risk of childhood leukaemia near Sellafield had persisted for decades. Seascale's cancer cluster was probably not the result of chance, but what was causing it? The obvious culprit was ionising radiation from the plant. However, an analysis of radiation doses showed that 80 per cent of the dose of ionising radiation received by the children in Seascale came from natural radioactivity and only 9 per cent from releases from Sellafield. This meant that for Seascale, just 0.5 of the 12 cancer cases that had occurred between between 1955 and 1992 were attributable to radiation exposure, and 0.04 cases to radiation exposure from Sellafield. The observed dose of radiation from Sellafield received by Seascale residents was therefore too small to account for the elevated rate of childhood leukaemia. To put this into context, residents around Chernobyl were exposed to far higher doses of radioactivity, which resulted in an increase in thyroid cancer (usually not fatal), but not other types of cancer. Comare concluded: "There is no evidence from this very large study that living within 25km of a nuclear-generating site in Britain is associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer." Yet an excess risk remains around Seascale. What was causing it? The large influx of people into rural areas to work in nuclear installations, and the large-scale population mixing, could increase the risk of meeting a rare leukaemia virus. Alternatively, leukaemia and lymphoma in children could be a rare response to a common, but unidentified infection, which occurs when there is high population mixing. DEODORANTS PERSISTENT RUMOURS BUT NO LINK FOUND An e-mail has been circulating for more than a decade warning that deodorants and antiperspirants cause breast cancer. The exact wording varies, but is usually something like this: "Men, don't forget to tell mom, cousins, etc... I just got information from a health seminar that I would like to share. The leading cause of breast cancer is the use of antiperspirant. The human body purges toxins in the form of perspiration. Antiperspirant prevents you from perspiring, thereby inhibiting the body from purging toxins from below the armpits. These toxins do not just magically disappear. Instead, the body deposits them in the lymph nodes below the arms since it cannot sweat them out. This causes a high concentration of toxins and leads to cell mutations: a.k.a. CANCER. Nearly all breast cancer tumours occur in the upper outside quadrant of the breast area. This is precisely where the lymph nodes are located." Other versions of the e-mail claim that these products contain carcinogens. Scientists were initially reluctant to comment on the scare stories, since the biological rationale was obviously flawed. Toxins are not removed through sweat, but mainly by the kidneys or liver, and eliminated in urine or faeces. It's true that almost half of breast cancers do occur in the upper outside quadrant of the breast, but that's simply because that is where most breast tissue is found. Cancer does not spread from the lymph nodes to the breast, but the other way round. Studies in women do not support a link between use of antiperspirants or deodorants and risk of breast cancer. In one large study of 813 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 793 control subjects, there was absolutely no such link found. Unfortunately these stories wouldn't die, and Cancer Research UK's survey found that almost one in 10 Britons believed that deodorants cause cancer. The American Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, and the National Cancer Institute posted statements on their websites denying a link between breast cancer and deodorants or antiperspirants. PREVENTION WHAT YOU CAN DO TO AVOID CANCER In 2003, the European Code Against Cancer published its recommendations for avoiding cancer (www.cancercode.org). These were developed by committees of international experts, using the latest data. The key recommendations were: 1. Stop smoking In developed countries 25 to 30 per cent of all cancers are tobacco-related, and smoking will increase your lifetime risk of developing cancer more than 20-fold. Consequently, lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world. The good news is that if you quit smoking you can avoid most of the later risk of death from tobacco. 2. Avoid obesity In western Europe, overweight and obesity accounts for approximately 11 per cent of all colon cancers, 9 per cent of breast cancers, 39 per cent of endometrial cancers, 37 per cent of oesophageal adenocarcinomas, 25 per cent of renal cell cancer and 24 per cent of gallbladder cancer. 3. Exercise regularly There is good evidence that exercise reduces the risk of colon cancer independently of its effect on body weight. Exercise may also protect against breast, prostate and endometrial cancers. 4. Eat more fruit and vegetables, and cut back on animal fats About a third of cancer deaths are associated with dietary and nutritional practices. Many studies have shown that eating lots of fruit and vegetables protects against a range of cancers, including oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectal and pancreas. Diets low in animal fats also protect from cancer, particularly breast cancer. High intake of dietary fibres protects against colon cancer. 5. Limit your alcohol consumption Alcohol consumption increases the risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus. It may also be linked to breast and colorectal cancer. The more you drink, the higher your risk of cancer. Heavy alcohol consumption is also strongly linked to liver cancer, particularly among people chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. 6. Don't sit in the sun too much, and protect yourself from it Skin cancer is caused by high exposure to ultraviolet light. Malignant melanoma, the most lethal type of skin cancer, became twice as common in Europe between the 1960s and 1990s because of increased exposure to intense sun. Intermittent sun exposure, sunburn and sunbeds are also linked to melanoma. Submitted By: Sylvie_Hsem |
|
|
«First ‹Previous Page 645 of 645  |