Cell Phone Dangers – Who Do You Trust, The Industry Funded Studies Or This Gentleman?

Dr. Martin Blank is a Columbia University professor and researcher in bioelectromagnetics. He is one of the heavyweights in this field, I consider him to be a man of integrity and I admire his work. This video gives a terrific explanation of the EMF issue, you’re gonna love it.

What you will learn in this short presentation:

–  Independent studies show very clearly the dangers of cell phone radiation (that’s to say non-ionizing radiation from a cell phone or cordless phone) and the risk of brain tumors

–  How he thinks that the results of industry funded studies have been manipulated

–  How the dangers of the antennas that are broadcasting FM and TV and the UHF are being overlooked

–  How the current safety standards on wireless technology are woefully inadequate

Cell Phone Towers Galore

Dr Martin Blank: “I should start off with this picture that was taken from a cover of New York Magazine.  And, this is an illustration of the number of antennas one finds in lower Manhattan.  I’ve got 400 antennas around me and I don’t see any of them, and they’re all doing their business.

So, we have these new developments and people are a little frightened, and we don’t know what to make of them.  How do we find out what really is behind them – what effect they are having on us and on our health.  There have been many studies and I quote one here by Hardell, and he says that if people have been using cell phone for 10 years, there’s a 10 year latency period, and there’s a 3 times likelihood of getting glioma.  And the same whether you’ve got a cordless phone or a mobile phone.  So, this is an indication that when you keep this antenna close to your head, it’s exposing the brain, and giving rise to changes that eventually lead to glioma.

Cell Phone Radiation Dangers

In this data set, there was a sub-population of people who started using the cell phone before they were 20 years old.  And if they were using it for 10 years from before they were 20, the odds ratio more or less doubles.  So, if you’re younger, not only do you have the prospect of being exposed more over a period of time, but the changes that occur in your brain apparently are much more harmful to your health.

Research that is funded by industry tends to find no effect.  Two thirds of the results are that way so there is reason to suspect any time you get industrial support – the results are suspect.  There’s a book that’s come out recently by David Michaels called “Doubt Is Their Product – How Industry’s Assault On Science Threatens Your Health”.  It’s written by someone who worked in the U.S. government, and saw how the government was manipulated ; the various agencies of government, the various people from industry who came into government.  That somehow they were able to stop the government from regulating things that were definitely dangerous.  It’s fascinating when you see the extent to which the government has allowed this to happen.

Dangers Of  FM and TV and the UHF Broadcasting

Now, I want to show you another source of RF in our environment that we don’t think about, and this is the antennas that are broadcasting FM and TV and the UHF.  This was a study published by Neil Cherry.  What he has here is a plot of cancers that developed in children as a function of distance from the antenna.  And this is given in terms of risk ratio.  And the interesting thing is, the risk falls off the further you get from the antenna.

The safety standard which is based on the thermal standard is clearly not providing any kind of protection for certainly this kind of disease. People have to look at the biology that is now known and make adjustments to what we consider safe, a safe level.  Basically, the values that we recommend as target values are micro- as opposed to milli-, a factor of approximately a thousand.

And finally, what we should really say is that we need a realistic biological standard to replace the standard that is now in place, the thermal standard.  This is not a standard at all, if it’s protective of anything, it’s protective against electrocution.  But nobody worries about that these days, we worry about other things that are far more insidious.  And that we should also institute precautionary approaches because we suspect that there may be a lot of harm associated with prolonged exposures.  Certainly, on a personal level, prudent avoidance, which means that use landlines when you’ve got the option for using landlines, limit your calls.  And finally, for the regulatory agencies, ALARA (as low as reasonably attainable).  We should aim to get out exposures down to a reasonable minimum, and that’s for people to decide.

With EMF, we know that exposure of some kind is going to have its consequences biologically.  There will be a segment of the population that will succumb at some level.  What we have to do is decide, as a society, what is the level at which we want to set that, and that’s a political decision.  I think the scientific decision is clear, that the standards have to be looked at again.”

I stopped using a cell phone a long time ago, if you are determined to carry on using yours make sure you use it safely, here my tips for safe cell phone use.

Could Cell Phones Be Causing Your Headaches, Chronic Sleep Issues, or Even Depression? Find Out How to Protect Yourself From Common EMF Problems...

Discover 21 Unique Ways to Live a Natural Healthy Life with my FREE EMF Protection Report. Just enter your name and best email address below to experience the best sleep of your life tonight…

You will also receive my free emails packed with EMF protection tips. Unsubscribe at any time. Privacy.

Add A Comment

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.