It took several decades for the US government to accept a link between tobacco and cancer. It will take many more decades to prove the link between wireless radiation and cancer. Unfortunately, by then, human civilization would have gone past Idiocracy (the movie) state and reached the Planet of the Apes state.
US government will go to war on a mere suspicion that the leader of some oil-rich country is harboring thoughts of acquiring nuclear weapons. Citing non-existent terrorists, they will ask citizens in their country and outside to give up their rights for the “greater common good.” But, when scientific studies suggest a possible health risk to the population, they prefer to look away.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the US government had formed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to conduct a large-scale study on the link between cancer and mobile phone radiation. The preliminary results indicate that there may be a risk of cancer for phone radiation. Scientific American says:
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
– Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions; 27 May 2016; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
Even before the news trickled out, the media has been flooded with articles asking people not to freak out. They are also muddying the debate by taking cheap shots at sellers of radiation shields and other such products.
The industry propagandists hide their affiliation by adding a non-disclaimer disclaimer to the article – “Views expressed in this article are personal.” Apart from them, there are sellouts from the medical/scientific profession who have been encouraged write articles and even maintain entire websites and blogs to propagate the idea that cell phone radiation is safe. All of them cite prestigious organizations such as WHO and Mayo Clinic as having cleared cell phone radiation. Unfortunately, most “studies” are just surveys made on other studies. The original studies have serious limitations and/or are not conclusive enough.
The World Health Organization (WHO) formed International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to study the issue. IARC designated that cell phone radiation was possibly carcinogenic. Possibly under pressure from telecoms, WHO later announced that there is no link. It currently has a study to be released this year that will conclusively prove/disprove the link.
The propagandists are not above making false statements or making wrong conclusions. This hack from Business Insider says that rats were exposed to radiation levels that do not correspond to those exposed to humans. With all the Wi-Fi and mobile data (2G/3G/4G/5G) networks connecting all the apps (that report back to home base all the time), Bluetooth devices, smart watches and bands including the hyped-up Internet of Things (IoT) coupled with the equally hyped-up Big Data, the rats would have got comparatively less radiation. One of the most abominable views espoused by them is that the mobile phone waves, which can pass through buildings and underground, cannot get below the skin!
If it is 100% sure that there is no risk of cancer for wireless radiation sources, then why do government websites still carry precautionary measures against cancer. These pages should be removed.
Scientists and doctors are having a tough time with demands to provide unassailable “SCIENCE-BASED” conclusions. For now, they are citing studies that show no link while advising people to take precautions. Propagandists meanwhile will laugh all the way to bank.
For removing restrictions on cell towers on hospitals, schools & homes; increasing radiation limits & ending terrestrial TV transmission ( DoorDarshan).
Mobile users haven been complaining about a lot of other issue but the usually lethargic and apathetic government has shown unusually alacrity and speed in this particular “problem”. They would like everyone believe government is really working in our interest.
GMO scientists had their corporate logo’d panties in a twist after the publication of a study linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to high incidence of tumours and morbidity in rats. The journal Food and Chemical Technology withdrew the study recently. Their reason was that the Sprague Dawley breed of rats was wrong, as they already suffered susceptible to high tumour rates.
Anti-GMO people have cited the recent hire of ex-Monsanto man Richard E Goodman as assistant editor as the reason for the withdrawal. The Elsevier company which owns the journal is notorious for monopolistic behavior in the research publications market. Their page on Richard Goodman does not list anything about his Monsanto past. (http://www.elsevier.com/journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology/0278-6915/editorial-boardrichard-goodman)
Mr. Goodman works at University of Nebraska. Their page also does not make any mention of his Monsanto years.
Google results for the Sprague Dawley rats show research papers going back to the 1960 showing that they do suffer from tumours. I did find one paper that showed that the Sprague Dawley rats were from a Monsanto laboratory.
The Sprague Dawley breed is, like many other lab rats, the result of inbreeding. Everyone knows that inbreeding results in offspring with genetic defects. But, that is what our great scientists will use. Scientists prefer them for the rate at which they multiply their numbers. If some drug or food additive causes cancer, then the results can be easily attributed to problems with the bread. That’s the corporate scientific method. If the Sprague Dawley rats are susceptible to tumours, then the solution is to repeat the study with another another breed of rat, which is not going to thrown out by the likes of Goodman. That’s the honest scientific method.
Both Koirala and Singh would charge a bomb to promote anything, even charitable causes.
It is only because of the horrible cancer treatment that they have been moved to promote the wares of the cancer industry, which btw is being expanded to cancer-free individuals so that they will start taking cancer drugs as a preventitive measure.
Billions of dollars raised for cancer research have had no impact. All cancer drugs and treatments are expensive.
Don’t be brainwashed by a brainwashed CIA butterrfly (See Project Monarch)
The media is agog with the news that Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie had had a double mastectomy, as a preventive measure against breast cancer.
It looks like Angelina Jolie had cancer and then decided to make the best of it – engage in a media campaign for the cancer industry. They are now driving gullible women in to making multiple visits to oncologists and performing expensive tests including biopsies, CTs, and mammographs. They will also be spending a huge part of their income on drugs, even though they don’t have cancer. This is because US government recently decided to make it legal for doctors to prescribe expensive cancer drugs “high-risk” women take, as “preventive medication”. Surely, the cancer industry is firing on all cylinders and the PR campaign accompanying it is a match.
Women should see through this charade. Angelina Jolie is a lifelong drug addict. She postponed having a kid so that she could “keep her figure.” She must have spent a fortune on contraceptives. To mask that, she adopted foreign kids – as if America has no orphans in need of a family. She had a kid when she was over 30. She must have also take milk-suppression drugs (as do most American women today) to get back into “business.”
Women in particular are more exposed to cancer-inducing chemicals – makeup, contraceptives, drugs, vaccines, processed food,…. The WHO has published a report titled “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – 2012” and take evasive measures. Taking cancer drugs or removing their breasts is not the solution.
Making people take medicines for diseases they don’t have and getting them take up mutilating surgical procedures is the new high-growth maximum-returns business venture for the ever-greedy medical industry. Like vaccines, these purveyors of “health” need not prove their efforts work. The jacked-up prices are an indicator that governments will be asked to bankroll the medical industry’s blockbuster business. The editorial written by Ms. Jolie provides an indicator what is in store for the taxpayer.
Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women.
This charade is a repeat of the “expensive vaccine” business plan adopted by the makers of HPV. The numbers quoted for HPV and breast cancer are very low compared to causualties caused by major diseases such as infant mortality, malaria, tuberculosis and typhoid. Governments need not fight malnutrition, lack of supply of clean water and food, and lack of hygienic dwellings. They need to spend their money on whatever the medical industry has products for at the moment. If it is HPV, then that is the big problem now. If it is breast cancer screening, then that is what governments should be worried about.
If anyone objects to the state paying for these expensive medicines and procedures, then of course they will be branded as “anti-women” or worse “anti-science.” The medical industry pays off health officials so that the vaccines are expeditiously and unquestioningly approved. They pay off politicians so that the vaccines are made mandatory and the state pays the bill. They pay off legislators so that the manufacturers are freed from liability mandated by laws in the book. They pay off doctors if they write an op-ed or appear on TV promoting the plan. They pay off journalists and media houses so that the gullible public themselves demands them. All of this costs money. That is why all prices are jacked up.
UPDATE (23 May 2013): I thought mastectomy meant that both jugs got removed. Ms. Jolie says she only got some *parts* removed from the inside, not the entire piece, as some unfortunate women are forced to do. All of these images that I created are obsolete now.
Apparently, it was no different from a boob job. Brad Pitt must indeed be a happy man now. Now, if he was high risk for anal cancer or testicular cancer, would he maim himself in a similar manner? Or, was all this a charade? A pre-emptive PR campaign to prepare the slaves for the impending US Supreme Court decision that gene patents are valid? The NYT editorial was closely accompanied by cover stories on both Time and People magazines.
Apparently, the judges were worried of the public backlash. Any idiot can be an US SC judge. You just need to know the president or the people who appointed him. No prior bar practice either as a judge or as an advocate is necessary. This is why America’s transformation into a Fascist state is a surety.