by: paully1111
Total views: 1
Word Count: 616

In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: The Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,while TV newscasters proclaimed, Go ahead and talk all you want it's safe! The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it's a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry's public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide. According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there's no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security. Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they're observational in nature instead of experimental,Dr. Carlo explains. It's possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomes that still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they're judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators. Key problems with the study are: 1. There are few discernible differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn't. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it's nearly impossible to find a risk. 2. Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernible. 3. The exposed people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today. 4.From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure. 5.During the studies time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study. 6. There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users. 7.The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up. The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. "Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety."

About the Author

EMF expert and founder of the Research Center for Wireless Technology, Paul Fitzgerald, graduate from NJIT, has been studying EMF's for over 15 years now. He has done over 100 radio shows in 2006 and released his book http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

---

View PDF | Print View

---

Rating: Not yet rated

--Choose-- 0 1 2 3 4 5

Comments

No comments posted.

Add Comment

You do not have permission to comment. If you log in, you may be able to comment.
Next Article - Cell Phone's Children & Disney Seduced by the Promise of Billions in Profits?
Previous Article - Winning Tactics To Cell Phone Plans

More Related Articles In This Category

1: Information on Cell Phones
2: Ever Wondered What's In An Iphone?
3: Children Effected by Cell Towers and Mobile Masts
4: Mobile Phone Masts, Cell Towers and Health Concerns
5: Reverse Phone Number Lookup Sites Decrypted
6: Google Reverse Cell Phone Lookup
7: Reverse Cell Phone Number Lookup: Do It In Less Than 2 Minutes
8: Reverse Phone Directories: The Pros And The Cons
9: A Growing Demand For Cheap Cell Phones
10: Do Not Talk on a Cell Phone while Driving a Car
11: The Cheapest iPhone Downloads
12: A Guide To Cheap Cell Phones
13: Tips On Effective Cell Phone Use
14: Mobile Phones Buying Guide - Saving You the Ring Around!
15: Use A Reverse Cell Phone Directory To Find Anyone
16: Track Down Anyone With A Reverse Cell Phone Directory
17: Tips To Having More Fun With Cell Phone Ringtones
18: Today's Must Have Accessories For Your New Cell Phone
19: Cell Phone Radiation Can It be the Cause of Cancer, Brain Tumors, Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's
20: What To Think About Before Buying A New Cell Phone
21: What's The Right Cell Phone Plan?
22: Cell Phone's Children & Disney Seduced by the Promise of Billions in Profits?
23: Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe
24: Winning Tactics To Cell Phone Plans
25: Tips On Using Cell Phone Accessories

---

For WebMasters

Link This Article - HTML Code -

<a href="http://americanahost.com/articles/technology/cell-phones/scandalous-danish-study-reports-cell-phones-are-safe.html" target=_blank>Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe</a>

Link This Article - BBcode -

[url=http://americanahost.com/articles/technology/cell-phones/scandalous-danish-study-reports-cell-phones-are-safe.html]Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe[/url]

Copy This HTML Code To Put This Article In Your Web Site.

<h1>Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe</h1><br><br> <br><br> In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: The Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,while TV newscasters proclaimed, Go ahead and talk all you want it's safe! The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it's a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry's public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide. According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there's no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security. Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they're observational in nature instead of experimental,Dr. Carlo explains. It's possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomes that still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they're judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators. Key problems with the study are: 1. There are few discernible differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn't. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it's nearly impossible to find a risk. 2. Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernible. 3. The exposed people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today. 4.From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure. 5.During the studies time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study. 6. There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users. 7.The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up. The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. "Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety."<br><br> <h3>About The Author</h3> EMF expert and founder of the Research Center for Wireless Technology, Paul Fitzgerald, graduate from NJIT, has been studying EMF's for over 15 years now. He has done over 100 radio shows in 2006 and released his book http://www.CellphoneLies.com http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html<br><br> Keywords: <b>cell tower radiation, mercola, biopro, brain tumors, blood brain barrier, cell phone protection,</b> <br><br>Article Source : <a href="http://americanahost.com/articles"><b>Articles Directory</b></a></br> Article URL : <a href="http://americanahost.com/articles/technology/cell-phones/scandalous-danish-study-reports-cell-phones-are-safe.html" target=_blank>Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe</a></br> Article Category : <a href="http://americanahost.com/articles/technology/cell-phones/">Cell Phones</a></br> Article Author : <a href="http://americanahost.com/articles/profile/paully1111-1771.html">paully1111</a>

---

Article URL : Scandalous Danish Study Reports Cell Phones Are Safe
Article Category : Cell Phones
Article Author : paully1111