The latest stone thrown at the 200-billion-dollar-a-year
cell phone industry came from a study by neurosurgeon Vini
G. Khurana entitled Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour: Public Health
Advisory. His meta-analysis of existing cell phone studies
may not contain a lot of new information; but his rather alarming
message was carried by media around the world: “there
is a growing body of statistically significant evidence for
a relationship between the overall length of use of a mobile
phone and the delayed occurrence of a brain tumor on the same
side of the head as the ‘preferred side’ for mobile
phone usage.” He claimed a 2-4 fold increased risk following
10 years of regular use.
The cell phone industry mobilized its behemoth defense machine
calling the study a select view of existing literature. This
meant that his conclusions were not in line with all the studies
the industry has been funding around the world called INTERPHONE.
Indeed, a casual look through Pub Med and you will see study
after study refuting a link between cell phone use and brain
tumors. The cell phone industry has excelled at using “scientists
for hire” to quell public concern. They have taken a
page from Big Pharma’s playbook and have learned well
from the troubles of previous health catastrophes like international
PCB exposure at the hands of Monsanto, Bayer, GE, and Westinghouse.
David vs. Goliath
It is always interesting to watch a handful of people take
on an empire. The empire has enough money to buy votes in
the governments of countries around the world, fund studies
that reach conclusions it likes, suppress the publishing of
information it doesn’t like (professional blackmail),
parade a legion of “experts” before any court
when a legal challenge is mounted, and create enough mystery
about any potential problem in the minds of consumers that
the net result is that nothing much is ever done.
(Article continues below)
Such strategies also hijack the public health system and
use it as a shield. In essence, governments are on the take
from industry and the economics of the questionable industry
are woven into multiple other economic benefits. In the U.S.
other examples of this involve placing fluoride in water,
using nerve gas chemicals as pesticides, and poisoning the
water supple with perchlorate (playing the national security
card to prevent clean up). I bring up these examples because
all three are proven to be neurotoxic, all significantly adversely
affect the health of Americans today, and all are condoned
and allowed by our government. There are always a few Davids
throwing stones at these Goliaths, without much luck.
Dr. Khurana is not alone in his view. Last summer a relatively
small group of concerned scientists calling themselves the
Bioinitiative Working Group published a 600 page document
after reviewing over 2000 existing studies and came to similar
conclusions about the potential risks of cell phones. Even
Swedish scientists, in a country with widespread deployment
of advanced cell phone technology, have a handful of scientists
that have been warning about brain tumors since 2000, with
their most recent study published in 2006.
The small voices raising concern are offset by a massively
funded machine. Dr. Khurana’s public relations work
has the cell phone industry on the defensive, proving once
again that the court of public opinion trumps all aces.
Why Warnings Are Falling on Deaf Ears
Brain tumors don’t develop overnight, excess exposure
to radiofrequency radiation may take 10 – 20 years before
the full scope of the problem is known. The cell phone industry
is just now entering the front end of that time period. If
there is a problem, by the time governments take effective
action to ensure cell phones are safer the damage to an entire
generation will already be done.
The potential problem to our children and current young adults
is staggering, since they have grown up attached to cell phones.
Any damage cell phones cause will be worse in children, as
their brains are still developing.
Nobody questions the fact that cell phone radiation is entering
the brain of the user. The debate is on how problematic the
radiation is.
Full
article here.
