Richard, thanks for the reference to Professor John Moulders FAQ site. mcw.edu
It was excellent. Regarding your comment that the consensus of the scientific community is that there is no "substantial" evidence that RF can cause or contribute to cancer. Reading the site you gave together with reading another I got a year ago, along with other information, I conclude that this statement comes into the categories of:
1 "Science can be decided by consensus". Consensus is irrelevant. The Flat Earth consensus was wrong. Consensus is like counting sheep. A scientifically useless occupation unless wishing to drop off to sleep.
2 "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". This is usually said in stentorial tones like "We have examined the evidence and concluded there is no evidence at all that thalidomide causes mutation". Before they had actually done any studies to speak of.
In fact, there IS substantial evidence that RF at PCS frequencies in doses of 0.5 W per kg can cause cancer! Don't forget, we are not looking for numbers here such as "1 person in 10 will get a brain tumor". We are looking for "1 person in a million will get a brain tumor". You need a LOT of rats and mice to find those sort of minimal effects.
A study quoted in that http showed significant increases in lymphoma in susceptible mice. Another showed increases in mice exposed to RF plus carcinogen.
I have also heard of some research on cellphone users showing that those using cellphones had FEWER brain tumors than non-users. One of the glaring confounding variables in that is that there are more cigarette smokers who don't use cellphones. They also eat more sausages. But those variable weren't reported.
Now, on the stochaistic, probablistic, deterministic business. For cancer to happen, there are several steps needed. The primary one being sufficient energy to initiate the chemical reaction. Xrays or other high energy photons on their own can do it. Benzene or other potent carcinogens can do it on their own. Weak DNA on its own can do it. Now, if you take lymphoma, leukaemia or brain tumor prone people with their DNA hanging by a strand, add in some chemical carcinogens, then feed a little RF at PCS levels in, you have a witch's brew.
Imagine that now and then, a carcinogenic chemical molecule happens to be sitting beside a weak link in the DNA chain at the prospective tumor site, then in comes a RF photon which damn it all, just happens to get absorbed in exactly the right place on the carcinogen molecule to put it over the top in the chemical reaction stakes with the DNA strand. Hey Presto, a cell is on the road to ruin. Now if the person also has weak cell repair systems, you know, they haven't eaten a very good diet lately and their immune system was dodgy to start, the cell takes its opportunity and starts the road to fame and fortune.
We don't need bulk heating for these effects to occur, we need only an instantaneous kick in the right direction for one electron so that the bonding process can begin. That's why it doesn't matter that the RF energy is not ionizing.
We could take the tough approach and say, well, that's evolution for you and bad luck for the weak. That has got a very noble history and got us where we are today. We could make a case to continue that approach. But generally, people prefer a community approach to statistical risk and they protect the weak, rightly or wrongly.
So, is it 1 in 1 000 000, or 1 in 100 000 000 who gets a brain tumor from our CDMA handsets? We already can reasonably suspect that someone's pet lymphoma sensitive mouse is going to be in trouble.
Now, on car crashes using a handset. That is the person's choice. They can avoid that risk by not using a phone. They can't avoid the risk from a handset as it always has photons going into their brain. Unless, of course, they go to a CDMA low energy handset and avoid those lethal TDMA ones with the pulsing photons. I'm a bit nervous about the power output from a Globalstar phone. I wonder what watts they'll put out! They have to transmit at least 2000 km.
It is also not for us, the CDMA producers, to tell customers to ignore any tiny extra risk in their life because they already have hugely more risk than the handset provides. That is for them to accept or not. Lots of little risks add up to a lot of dead people, as we can readily see by counting the bodies of those we all know who have died before age 80 or so. It is up to Qualcomm to quantify the risk.
There is no evidence that Qualcomm has done any studies at all to prove IS-95 safe. They have used "conventional wisdom", previous studies etc. The evidence is thin on the ground. The CDMA Development Group should fund some studies on these sensitive mice, and preferably, sensitive people.
People like single causes. It makes things easier. But did Diana die because of no seatbelt, a weak armoured car with dodgy ABS brakes, some alcohol in the driver, because Dodi said drive fast, because a bikie pointed a camera, because people pointed cameras a year ago, because Charles was dishonest in his feelings, or was it because of Cromwell? Or was it as simple as some say, that God was having a play in the tunnel and wanted her now? He is such a fun guy!
I also am in the worry-more-about-keeping-your-eyes-on-the-road camp.
Say I,
Maurice
Ramsey, Political tract on stealing Qualcomm's intellectual property as threatened in TAG by Lucent to follow at a later date. You'll be pleased to know. I see they deleted my 31 August post. The only one. Nothing there from anyone now. |
