[Swordmaker]

Hardell’s research team was itself the source of several studies included in the meta-analysis. In the October 2006 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, the investigators reported a 70% increased risk of grade III–IV astrocytomas (highly aggressive brain tumors) for analog cell phone users. This same study found a nearly 4-fold increase in risk for acoustic neuromas after 15 years of exposure to analog cell phones. Notably, there was no increased risk for testicular cancer, B-cell lymphoma, or salivary gland tumors, suggesting that the findings were not due to observational or recall bias, as such bias should have existed for all tumor types.

You do realize that science move on? When I posted to you above, the American Cancer Society listed this 2008 Swedish meta-analysis as an outlier and not exemplar of the current state of research in cellular phone research. Notice that the meta-analysis was, in many ways, self-referential. "Hardell’s research team was itself the source of several studies included in the meta-analysis." That is considered a "no, no" in Meta-Analysis, citing your own research as evidentiary. . . and is a red-flag for peer-review raising questions of preferential selection. Later studies have pretty much falsified the findings. That's why it's considered an outlier.

Secondly, unlike M. Nathaniel Mead, the author of your quoted article, I actually took the time to read Hardell's paper. . . and found that many of the Hardell studies did not involve CELLULAR PHONES as Mead reports, but rather involved analog 900 MHz - 1900MHz wireless phone hand sets in the home to a base station which then connected to a land line. These short-range hand held wireless phones required far higher power than do modern short-range digital wireless phones to transmit intelligible information, while digital signals transmit the data in discrete micro-bursts, rather than continuous waves. Being digital, the signal strength can be far lower than an analog signal and still carry intelligible information. In other words, the Swedish study was not about Cellular phones but wireless handsets. Hardell extrapolated the data from these handsets to include similar results from the higher frequency, but far lower energy cellular phones.

Thirdly, I manage a dental office. . . and see reports from the dental industry. If what you say is true, we would see a massive increase in tumors in the jaw and temporal joint area. We have not. It simply is not happening.

Fourthly, even the 2.4 increase in risk the Swedish meta-analysis came up with means that over a 60 year life time, according to the American Cancer Society, the potential of developing a tumor increases from the current rate of 0.26% rate to a mere 0.624% in a 60 year exposure window.

FINALLY, with over two and a half BILLION cellular phones in use around the world for more than 20 years, we could expect an epidemic of astrocytomas, gliomas, and non-cancerous acoustic neuromas. Candor7, it simply is not happening. There is no increase in the largest "control group" there is. . . the 2.5 billion cellular phone users in the world using their phones every day for normal use, exposing themselves to the normal emissions of their phones.

You might an annual CAT scan of your mastoid area behind your ear(s). Catch it early.

Your recommendation to Yaelle is REALLY bad advice, Candor7. It is far more likely to cause cancer than any amount of cell phone exposure could ever cause. In our office, we use diagnostic radiography in the course of doing dentistry. . . including 3D radialtomagraphy. That is a specialized CAT scan that takes up to 360 individual xRay image "slices" through the skull and then builds a 3D image in false colors showing all the tissue and bone structures. We attempt to do this with the minimal radiation exposure possible but it is always a risk which we prefer to minimize. You just suggested she get one yearly to detect a highly unlikely event. Absurd.

Out of your phobia, you are spreading FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, based on bad science:

. . . a single CT scan subjects the human body to between 150 and 1,100 times the radiation of a conventional x-ray, or around a year's worth of exposure to radiation from both natural and artificial sources in the environment.

I am not a physician nor even a dentist. . . but I am quite familiar with these things. You apparently believe what you read on the Internet from fear mongers. As I said, science moves on. . . and the science has NOT found what you are spreading fear about.

[Candor7]

the American Cancer Society listed this 2008 Swedish meta-analysis as an outlier and not exemplar of the current state of research in cellular phone research. >>>>>>>

I disagree. I have seen the damage that cellular phones do.Tumors in the ear area. No research has been done with the genuine exposures that many people have because they spend hours each day on cell phones. Thats a lot of radiation.

I agree with the Swedish study, it shows that tumors are created by that radiation. I have no concern about analog or cellular, other that the fact that creating a tumor with a cellular phone might take longer.

It takes 10 to 15 years to grow a tumor as a result of cell phone use in adults. But I have seen it work a lot faster in women and children.

You can caterwaul all you want about fear mongering. I know that the long term use of cell phones are really bad for any human being. Anyone who looks at the vase of any microwave tower can easily conclude the same. Nothing grows there.