I think Joe Jackson said it best with his song “Everything Gives You Cancer.” Things that are promoted today as being healthy will be on the news next week as cancer causing agents. Six weeks after that, they will be back on the news as preventing cancer. It’s an endless cycle. We are all going to die of something; it’s just a race as to what will kill you first. There is even irony involved sometimes. One example would be a vegetarian crossing the street and getting run over by a meat truck.
Here's the thing. This flies in the face of EVERYTHING we know about the etiology and development of cancer. Solid tumors take 20-30 years to manifest themselves (as opposed to leukemias that can occur 3-5 years after an initial exposure to a carcinogen (ionizing radiation, chemicals or physical such as asbestos)-- eg. see data from the A-bomb survivors) after an initial insult by a carcinogen, in large part because there are multiple genetic events that MUST occur. Which are primary, secondary and tertiary, etc. are open to debate but it is clear one of the earliest changes that must occur in the transformation of a normal cell to a neoplastic site is the development of immortality. Tumor cells contain genetic rearrangements that would be lethal to a normal cell eg. trisomys, missing chromosomes, piece of chromosomes translocated onto other chromosomes, etc.
Second, one must read about the newest advances being made in understanding the development of brain tumors. Some brain tumors such as glioblastomas are the most refractory tumors to treat on earth. Ave. survival times after diagnosis is 9 months But the main thing is that it seems that changes must occur within the stem cells in the brain that reside in one particular area of the brain.
Third, even if would say that cell phones are a tumor promoter (see case of TPA and benzpyrene), what is the insult then?
Fourth, Mercola is definitely parochial, ignoring all data that might contradict with his beliefs in addition to ignoring any issues that exist with the studies quoted
Last, years ago when was on the staff at Columbia, we investigated the effects of EMF upon cells using a very sensitive assay known as sister chromatid exchanges (SCE). We did not find any effect.
You, clearly, know a lot more about this stuff than I do but how do we account for this from his article:
One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletteri. As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...
Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots?quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells?lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone."
Chance? Accident? or some direct or indirect correlation?
We are certainly in a "hotter or thicker or more intense" radio frequency radiation environment (man made non-ionizing) than ever before. I think our kids will be the guinea pigs in the long term effects of this.
There is no doubt that the right frequencies and exposures heat the internal parts of the body, and also even the size of the person matters as to how much energy they absorb from these radiation fields.
Then there is of course deeper cell destruction as well.
It is scary since it is an ongoing experiment really.
Tom
Ioninzing radiation treatment has long been used for cancer therapy as opposed to rf which is a newer idea as far as I can remember. I think the RF is used to "activate" a chemical that is infused into the area or something like that.
In any case, I am not an expert on this stuff, but from my radar days I thought we were told that it destroyed cells ability to do what they do. Not able to expound on it really and defer to your knowledge in this area.
Tom
Yes, its way beyond this old boy. When I was involved with CT imaging (x-ray) and radiation therapy gear, the only thing I understood was that by bombarding the tumor (with radiation which travel in straight lines) from a circumferance around the body (hence the dognut shape of the machines), say it was in the middle of the body, then the tumor, being in the middle of the body would receive all the radiation rays while the areas surrounding the tumor (the part you dont want to kill) would just receive the one shot through on its way to the middle, ie its like a bike spoked wheel, all the spokes converge in the middle and thus that is where the most radiation intensity takes place...now there is more to it but thats radiation thearpy in a nutshell.
Tom
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |