After only two minutes of cellphone exposure, the blood-brain barrier fails, allowing proteins to enter the brain that can cause nerve damage. “Molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood, while the phone is switched on, and enter the brain. We need to bear in mind diseases such as MS and Alzheimer’s are linked to proteins being found in the brain.” So, adds Leif Salford of Lund University in Sweden, is Parkinson’s disease. [Electronics Australia Magazine Feb/00]
What does it mean that the blood-brain barrier fails?
For how long? What size of proteins are allowed into the brain?
And the high frequency range used in today’s digital cell phones is also very close to the resonant frequency of human DNA, as well as the resonant frequency of the human skull case.
What's the resonant frequency of human DNA?
Can you even define the normal modes of DNA, or of the human skull?
Do you even know what a normal mode is?
On a New Zealand news show, Dr. George Carlo called marketing strategies aimed at children, “grotesque” after identifying as many as 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer attributable to cell phone use being diagnosed every year. (Mobile users who wear metal-frame glasses intensify the exposure to their eyes and heads). Based on current epidemiological studies, that number will reach half a million cell phone cancer cases annually within the next two years. [IsraCast Technology News July 29/05]
It's after 2007. Has anyone run the numbers to see if these half millions cell phone cancer cases have actually shown up?
Ask Leif Salford of Lund University in Sweden, who is a neuro-surgeon:
All I do is scratch dirt and raise chickens without a cell phone.
The line emphasized in bold is a bunch of baloney. In our dental office we take routine 3D radiographs and i can tell you that any metal in the vicinity of the cone beam will scatter the radiation, not concentrate or focus or multiply or alter it in any way. The idea that somehow this metal increases the radiation is bunk. If anything it would tend to block or shadow anything on the other side from the source of the radiating antenna. Again, Candor, this is now FIFTEEN year old science. . . and if there were anything to it, there would be far more reports of such results. Instead, there are reports finding the opposite.