Recent Research

>From: "David Fancy" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: [hidden email]
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: [eSens] Recent Research
>Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:09:37 -0000
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I hesitate to post this material, as it is something we all know already. I
>find, however, that
>being up to speed on current developments on research relating to ES can be
>a source of
>hope for the eventual recognition of the severity of electromagnetic health
>issues, and also
>provides me with useful statistics when in discussion with others:
>particularly loved ones
>who use cell phone.
>
>In fact, I wanted to know if there was interest within the group to work
>towards expanding
>the peer-reviewed scientific material available in our resources section.
>Although such
>material may not provide immediate relief, I know that the ability to
>provide peer-reviewed
>authoritative articles to doctors, managers, insurance agents and
>administrators can play
>significantly into the legitimacy of one's claims to sensitivity. A list of
>legal precendents in
>the areas of patient care, employer responsibility, etc might also be
>useful.
>
>I know we're not an activist group in the sense of working towards
>mobilizing ourselves
>for the removal of cell phone towers from work/living environments, etc.
>Although I
>believe that activism in such areas is necessary, I for one will have to
>have recovered
>significantly before I have the available energy to contribute to fighting
>those kinds of
>fights. Part of the process of recovery, however, is negotiating sufficient
>space and time to
>do so, and access to authoritative research can help one make one's case to
>various
>authorities.
>
>Accordingly, it might be also useful to share suggestions of how to
>negotiate issues
>around ES with employers, teachers, supervisors, etc.
>
>Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
>David
>
>PS I would just like to concur with Beau's and Sarah's thoughts on the
>definition of the
>term 'detox' and the extent to which it might sometimes be wothwhile
>exploring the
>possibility that what we are experiencing in some cases are perhaps
>sometimes not the
>results of detoxification, but rather REtoxification or reaction to an
>incitant or other.
>
>
>
>THE TIMES (on line), UK
>January 12, 2005
>
>No child's toy: warnings from the National Radiological Protection Board
>suggest that
>children are at greater risk of harm when using their mobile phones
>(RICHARD POHLE)
>
>Mobile phones tumour risk to young children
>By Sam Coates, Nigel Hawkes and Alexandra Blair
>
>
>CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were
>advised last
>night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain
>tumours and
>concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists.
>
>Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological
>Protection Board
>(NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more
>persuasive over
>the past five years.
>
>The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in
>parts of the
>industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at
>four to
>eight-year-olds.
>
>The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the first
>government-
>sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged between five and nine
>using
>mobiles has increased fivefold in the same period.
>
>In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four studies
>have caused
>concern. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are
>more prone
>to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had
>suggested
>changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in
>cancer around
>base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of
>cell damage
>from fields typical of those of mobile phones.
>
>³All of these studies have yet to be replicated and are of varying quality
>but we can¹t
>dismiss them out of hand,² Sir William said. If there was a health risk ‹
>which remained
>unproven ‹ it would have a greater effect on the young than on older
>people, he added.
>
>For children aged between 8 and 14, parents had to make their own judgments
>about the
>risks and benefits. ³I can¹t believe that for three to eight year-olds they
>can be readily
>justified,² he said.
>
>David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers,
>called last night
>for a ban on mobiles in schools.
>
>Mobile phone companies reacted furiously, saying that the report fanned
>public concern
>without presenting new research. The youth market is highly lucrative
>because teenagers
>are more likely to use video downloads and other services.
>
>The World Health Organisation is preparing to publish an international
>report, drawing on
>hundreds of studies conducted over a decade, which many hope will give a
>definitive
>judgment on mobile phone safety.
>
>The board¹s report says that while there is a lack of hard information of
>damage to health,
>the approach should be precautionary. Sir William said: ³Just because there
>are 50 million
>of them out there doesn¹t mean they are absolutely safe.²
>
>One school in the North East has begun using mobile scanners to prevent
>pupils using
>mobiles in class. ³Outside college hours it is up to parents, but in our
>care if mobiles are
>found on children, they are confiscated and returned to the parents,² David
>Riden, vice
>principal of Tollbar Business and Enterprise College in New Waltham, said.
>
>One group that appears to target young users is Richard Branson¹s Virgin
>Mobile, which
>derives much of its revenue from the 16s-35s market. It denies targeting
>under 16s but
>has cornered a large slice of the youth market with cheap voice and text
>messages.
>
>HEALTH RISK
>* Acoustic neuromas are benign tumours of the acoustic nerve
>
>* A study in Sweden has shown that they are twice as common in mobile
>phone users
>
>* They were also four times as common on the side of the head where
>the phone was
>held
>
>* Acoustic neuromas occur in 100,000 people a year and can cause deafness
>
>* They can be treated by surgery. In most cases the patient¹s
>hearing is saved
>
>* Brain tumours affect about 4,700 new patients a year in Britain
>
>* They are becoming more common ‹ the UK Brain Tumour Society says
>that incidence
>has increased by 45 per cent in 30 years
>
>* The causes of primary brain tumours are unknown, so it is hard to
>identify specific
>risk factors
>
>
>
>