clph724b.txt
Date:  Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:28:52 -0400
From:  Joram Ragem 
Subject:  Re: CELL PHONE AND YOUR HEALTH--SOME INFO.

This message was written in a character set other than your own. If it is not displayed correctly, click here to open it in a new window.

Paul & Obel,

You are both right.

My 10th great grandfather, Ragem, knows nothing about technology. Just
politics and predictions. Perhaps the best political anlysis and predictions
ever. Which might explain why the message below is relayed by you scietists
and your institutions. I am sorry about the gloomy nature of the news below.

*Pittsburg Cancer Center Warns Of Cell Phone Risks.*
http://www.environmentaloncology.org/node/201

&

*FDA Cell Phone Facts & Consumer Information.*
http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:52 PM, wrote:

>   All,
>
>
>
> Due to the sensational nature of news reporting on cell phones and its
> risks, I did some search on US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
> US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and came up with some information
> that may be usefull. These info are available to the public at the
> respective websites or libraries. The info reveals:
>
>
>
> 1. Scientific evidence does not show a danger to users of wireless phones
> including children.
>
>
>
> 2.  UK government recommendation to limit wireless phone use by children
> was strictly precautionary; it was not based on scientific evidence that any
> health hazard exists.
>
>
>
> 3. Epidemiological studies can provide data that is directly applicable to
> human populations, but 10 or more years' follow-up may be needed to provide
> answers about some health effects, such as cancer. This is because the
> interval between the time of exposure to a cancer-causing agent and the time
> tumors develop - if they do - may be many, many years.
>
>
>
> 4. To avoid any risk you could place more distance between your body and
> the source of the RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with
> distance.
>
>
>
> 5. FCC grants permission for a particular cellular telephone to be
> marketed, FCC will occasionally conduct "post-grant" testing to determine
> whether production versions of the phone are being produced to conform with
> FCC regulatory requirements. The manufacturer of a cell phone that does not
> meet FCC's regulatory requirements may be required to remove the cell phone
> from use.
>
>
>
> 6. The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific
> Absorption Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold
> level of exposure at which harmful biological effects may occur.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Nyanja
>
>
>
> IF YOU HAVE TIME, READ MORE BELOW (Cut and pasted AS IS)
>
>
>
>
>
> *What steps can I take to reduce my exposure to radiofrequency energy from
> my wireless phone?*
>
> **
>
> If there is a risk from these products--and at this point we do not know
> that there is--it is probably very small. But if you are concerned about
> avoiding even potential risks, you can take a few simple steps to minimize
> your exposure to radiofrequency energy (RF). Since time is a key factor in
> how much exposure a person receives, reducing the amount of time spent using
> a wireless phone will reduce RF exposure.
>
>    - If you must conduct extended conversations by wireless phone every
>    day, you could place more distance between your body and the source of the
>    RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with distance. For
>    example, you could use a headset and carry the wireless phone away from your
>    body or use a wireless phone connected to a remote antenna
>
> Again, the scientific data *do not* demonstrate that wireless phones are
> harmful. But if you are concerned about the RF exposure from these products,
> you can use measures like those described above to reduce your RF exposure
> from wireless phone use.
>
> **
>
> *What about children using wireless phones?*
>
> **
>
> The scientific evidence does not show a danger to users of wireless phones,
> including children and teenagers. If you want to take steps to lower
> exposure to radiofrequency energy (RF), the measures described above would
> apply to children and teenagers using wireless phones. Reducing the time of
> wireless phone use and increasing the distance between the user and the RF
> source will reduce RF exposure.
>
> Some groups sponsored by other national governments have advised that
> children be discouraged from using wireless phones at all. For example, the
> government in the United Kingdom distributed leaflets containing such a
> recommendation in December 2000. They noted that no evidence exists that
> using a wireless phone causes brain tumors or other ill effects. Their
> recommendation to limit wireless phone use by children was strictly
> precautionary; it was not based on scientific evidence that any health
> hazard exists.
>
>
>
> *What research is needed to decide whether RF exposure from wireless
> phones poses a health risk?*
>
> **
>
> A combination of laboratory studies and epidemiological studies of people
> actually using wireless phones would provide some of the data that are
> needed. Lifetime animal exposure studies could be completed in a few years.
> However, very large numbers of animals would be needed to provide reliable
> proof of a cancer promoting effect if one exists. Epidemiological studies
> can provide data that is directly applicable to human populations, but 10 or
> more years' follow-up may be needed to provide answers about some health
> effects, such as cancer. This is because the interval between the time of
> exposure to a cancer-causing agent and the time tumors develop - if they do
> - may be many, many years. The interpretation of epidemiological studies is
> hampered by difficulties in measuring actual RF exposure during day-to-day
> use of wireless phones. Many factors affect th is measurement, such as the
> angle at which the phone is held, or which model of phone is used.
>
>
>
> *How does FCC Audit Cell Phone RF?*
>
> **
>
> After US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) grants permission for a
> particular cellular telephone to be marketed, FCC will occasionally conduct
> "post-grant" testing to determine whether production versions of the phone
> are being produced to conform with FCC regulatory requirements. The
> manufacturer of a cell phone that does not meet FCC's regulatory
> requirements may be required to remove the cell phone from use and to refund
> the purchase price or provide a replacement phone, and may be subject to
> civil or criminal penalties. In addition, if the cell phone presents a risk
> of injury to the user, FDA may also take regulatory action. The most
> important post-grant test, from a consumer's perspective, is testing of the
> RF emissions of the phone. FCC measures the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)
> of the phone, following a very rigorous testing protocol. As is true for
> nearly any scientific measurement, there is a possibility that the test
> measurement may be less than or greater than the actual RF emitted by the
> phone. This difference between the RF test measurement and actual RF
> emission is because test measurements are limited by instrument accuracy,
> because test measurement and actual use environments are different, and
> other variable factors. This inherent variability is known as "measurement
> uncertainty." When FCC conducts post-grant testing of a cell phone, FCC
> takes into account any measurement uncertainty to determine whether
> regulatory action is appropriate. This approach ensures that when FCC takes
> regulatory action, it will have a sound, defensible scientific basis. FDA
> scientific staff reviewed the methodology used by FCC to measure cell phone
> RF, and agreed it is an acceptable approach, given our current understanding
> of the risks presented by cellular phone RF emissions. RF emissions from c
> ellular phones have not been shown to present a risk of injury to the user
> when the measured SAR is less than the safety limits set by FCC (an SAR of
> 1.6 w/kg). Even in a case where the maximum measurement uncertainty
> permitted by current measurement standards was added to the maximum
> permissible SAR, the resulting SAR value would be *well below any level
> known to produce an acute effect*. Consequently, FCC's approach with
> measurement uncertainty will not result in consumers being exposed to any
> known risk from the RF emitted by cellular telephones. FDA will continue
> to monitor studies and literature reports concerning acute effects of cell
> phone RF, and concerning chronic effects of long-term exposure to cellular
> telephone RF (that is, the risks from using a cell phone for many years). If
> new information leads FDA to believe that a change to FCC's measurement
> policy may be appropriate, FDA will contact FCC and both agencies will work
> together to develop a mutually-acceptable approach
>
>
>
> *What levels of RF energy are considered safe?*
>
> **
>
> Various organizations and countries have developed standards for exposure
> to radiofrequency energy. These standards recommend safe levels of exposure
> for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the FCC
> has used safety guidelines for RF environmental exposure since 1985.
>
> The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields are
> derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National
> Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of
> Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In both cases, the
> recommendations were developed by scientific and engineering experts drawn
> from industry, government, and academia after extensive reviews of the
> scientific literature related to the biological effects of RF energy. Many
> countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the
> International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The
> ICNIRP safety limits are g enerally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE,
> with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends different exposure
> levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure
> from certain products such as hand-held wireless telephones. Currently, the
> World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for
> international harmonization of RF safety standards.
>
> The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific
> Absorption Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold
> level of exposure at which harmful biological effects may occur. Exposure
> guidelines in terms of field strength, power density and localized SAR were
> then derived from this threshold value. In addition, the NCRP, IEEE, and
> ICNIRP guidelines vary depending on the frequency of the RF exposure. This
> is due to the finding that whole-body human absorption of RF energy varies
> with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on
> whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human
> body absorbs RF energy most efficiently. For products that only expose part
> of the body, such as wireless phones, exposure limits in terms of SAR only
> are specified. The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms
> of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength, and power density for
> transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The specific
> values can be found in two FCC bulletins, OET Bulletins 56 and 65:
> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56;
> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#65
>
>
>
> *What are the results of the research done already?*
>
> **
>
> The research done thus far has produced conflicting results, and many
> studies have suffered from flaws in their research methods. Animal
> experiments investigating the effects of radiofrequency energy (RF)
> exposures characteristic of wireless phones have yielded conflicting results
> that often cannot be repeated in other laboratories. A few animal studies,
> however, have suggested that low levels of RF could accelerate the
> development of cancer in laboratory animals. However, many of the studies
> that showed increased tumor development used animals that had been
> genetically engineered or treated with cancer-causing chemicals so as to be
> pre-disposed to develop cancer in the absence of RF exposure. Other studies
> exposed the animals to RF for up to 22 hours per day. These conditions are
> not similar to the conditions under which people use wireless phones, so we
> don't know with certainty what the results of such studies mean for human
> health.Three large epidemiology studies have been published since December
> 2000. Between them, the studies investigated any possible association
> between the use of wireless phones and primary brain cancer, glioma,
> meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, tumors of the brain or salivary gland,
> leukemia, or other cancers. None of the studies demonstrated the existence
> of any harmful health effects from wireless phone RF exposures. However,
> none of the studies can answer questions about long-term exposures, since
> the average period of phone use in these studies was around three years.
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Paul Nyandoto" 
>
> > Guys:
> >
> > Here are two studies done in laboratory on sperms mortility, quality
> > etc. These studies are not done by questioning how some people uses cell
> > phones, but sperms are taken and exposesd to electromagnetic waves
> > produced by mobile phone. One study done on human sperms the other done
> > on rats sperms. Please read them. One study done in USA the other done
> > in Turkey(Europe). Just as I said most of the negative results of the
> > studies are thwarted before they reach the publications. We all should
> > be pleased that the mobile phone companies are constantly improving the
> > technology and things are getting more safer than the original mobile
> > phones. Guys you should know more when you are go ing to buy a mobile
> > phone, especially the one you are going to get for your kids. These are
> > very good studies and I hope that those who are going to refute them
> > might just be misleading the public or are having very large stakes in
> > the mobile companies. I should be clear on this, I do use mobile phone,
> > and I am not gainst the mobile phone companies, but I am still to the
> > opinion that children under 12 years should be restricted on how they
> > use the mobile phones. Let us not forget that up to today there some
> > people who still do believe that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer
> > at the time when over 250 000 people die in USA alone yearly because of
> > lung cancer alone, do not forget deaths from other smoking related
> > cancers or diseases.
> >
> > Paul Nyandoto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1: Fertil Steril. 2007 Oct;88(4):957-64. Epub 2007 Jul 12. Links *>
> Effects of cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats.Yan JG,
> > Agresti M, Bruce T, Yan YH, Granlund A, Matloub HS.
> > Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical College of
> > Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA.
> >
> > OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of cellular phone emissions on rat
> > sperm cells. DESIGN: Classic experimental. SETTING: Animal research
> > laboratory. SUBJECTS: Sixteen 3-month-old male Sprague-Dawley rats,
> > weighing 250-300 g. INTERVENTION(S): Rats in the experimental group were
> > exposed to two 3-hour periods of daily cellular phone emissions for 18
> > weeks; sperm samples were then collected for evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME
> > MEASURE(S): Evaluation of sperm motility, sperm cell morphology, total
> > sperm cell number, and mRNA levels for two cell surface adhesion
> > proteins. RESULT(S): Rats exposed to 6 hours of daily cellular phone
> > emi ssions for 18 weeks exhibited a significantly higher incidence of
> > sperm cell death than control group rats through chi-squared analysis.
> > In addition, abnormal clumping of sperm cells was present in rats
> > exposed to cellular phone emissions and was not present in control group
> > rats. CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that carrying cell phones
> > near reproductive organs could negatively affect male fertility.
> >
> > PMID: 17628553 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> >
> > 2: Arch Med Res. 2006 Oct;37(7):840-3. Links
> > Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human
> > sperm motility: an in vitro study.Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T,
> > Aydur E, Komesli G, Irkilata HC, Irmak MK, Peker AF.
> > Biomedical and Clinical Engineering Centre, Gulhane Military Medical
> > Academy, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey.
> >
> > BACKGROUND: There has been growing public concer n on the effects of
> > electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cellular phones on human
> > health. Many studies have recently been published on this topic.
> > However, possible consequences of the cellular phone usage on human
> > sperm parameters have not been investigated adequately. METHODS: A total
> > number of 27 males were enrolled in the study. The semen sample obtained
> > from each participant was divided equally into two parts. One of the
> > specimens was exposed to EMR emitted by an activated 900 MHz cellular
> > phone, whereas the other was not. The concentration and motility of the
> > specimens were compared to analyze the effects of EMR. Assessment of
> > sperm movement in all specimens was performed using four criteria: (A)
> > rapid pr
> > ogressive, (B) slow progressive, (C) nonprogressive, (D) no
> > mthe rapid progressive, slow progressive and no-motility categories of
> > sperm moveme nt. EMR exposure caused a subtle decrease in the rapid
> > progressive and slow progressive sperm movement. It also caused an
> > increase in the no-motility category of sperm movement. There was no
> > statistically significant difference in the sperm concentration between
> > two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular
> > phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute
> > adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may
> > lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell. These
> > effects may be observed later in life, and they are to be investigated
> > more seriously.
> >
> > PMID: 16971222 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> >
> > >>> Henry Mogotu 21.07.08 15:44 >>>
> > Dear readers,
> >
> > This is not a study. I'll not waste more time discussing this chaff.
> &gt ;
> > Henry Gichaba.
> >
> > Paul Nyandoto wrote:
> >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >Below is a recent study done in a very recognised university in USA,
> > >please the doubting Thomases who are living in USA can walk up to
> > >Cleveland Ohio University to see by themselves. This study has also
> > been
> > >discussed among very distinguished scientist. Mobile phones are
> > changing
> > >every time and technology is advancing, there are a lot in that
> > industry
> > >which is not being said openly and hardly reaches the consumers. You
> > >know guys we used to have analogue mobile phones but now we are moving
> > >to digital etc. Technology is constantly changing all the time but make
> > >no mistake you will live to regret for the rest of your life. In every
> > >society there are people at risk to develope cancer, but some do need
> > >triggers to i nitiate the strange cells. By the way do you know that
> > BAT
> > >(british american tobacco) head office is in England but the largest
> > BAT
> > >market (consumer of cigarettes) is in Africa, china is just coming on
> > >the way.
> > >Please read below on men sperm count and mobile phone::
> > >
> > >
> > >Fertil Steril 2008 Jan; 89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 may 4.
> > >
> > >Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending
> > >infertility clinic: an observational study.Agarwal A, Deepinder F,
> > >Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J.
> > >Reproductive Research Center, Glickman Urological Institute and
> > >Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
> > >Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. agarwaa@ccf.org
> > >
> > >OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of cell phone use on various
> > >markers of semen quality. DESIGN: Obs ervational study. SETTING:
> > >Infertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Three hundred sixty-one men undergoing
> > >infertility evaluation were divided into four groups according to their
> > >active cell phone use: group A: no use; group B: <2 h/day; group C: 2-4
> > >h/day; and group D: >4 h/day. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME
> > >MEASURE(S): Sperm parameters (volume, liquefaction time, pH, viscosity,
> > >sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology). RESULT(S): The
> > >comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal
> > >morphology among four different cell phone user groups were
> > >statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal
> > >morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups
> > within
> > >two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm
> > >parameters decreased in all four cell pho ne user groups as the duration
>
> > >of daily exposure to cell phones increased. CONCLUSION(S): Use of cell
> > >phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count,
> > >motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm
> > >parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell
> > >phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
> > >
> > >PMID: 17482179 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> > >
> > >Ihope you guys in USA can contact those scientists to give you more
> > >detalis or just buy the paper and read it youself at home peacefully. I
> > >hope Hon. Nyanja will give another twisting opinion on this study.
> > >
> > >Paul Nyandoto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>> 19.07.08 22:22 >>>
> > >>>>>T here are two types of studies than can be done to refute or
> support a
> > >claim, case control and cohort study. In case control study you compare
> > >patients with the condition and those who do not have the condition. It
> > >takes a shorter time and cheaper to do and can only suggest that the
> > >claim is possible and more study is needed to support case control
> > >studies. ThatÆs where cohort study comes in. In cohort study you use
> > >people who share the same characteristic and/or experience, i.e. live
> > in
> > >the same neighborhood, born the same day or work in the same
> > >environment. ItÆs a very controlled study, expensive and takes a very
> > >long time to conclude because you have to collect tremendous amount of
> > >data for many years. Most case control studies are usually refuted or
> > >supported by cohort study.
> > >
> > >In the studies presented here to support that radio frequency in mobile
> > >phone may cause cancer, only one was a cohort study. The first study
> > cut
> > >and pasted here u
> > >sed two cohort studies and 16 control case studies.
> > >Results: shortcomings in the studyö. In laymanÆs term, it failed. For
> > the case
> > >control study, ôMost of these results were based on low numbersö.
> There
> > >is no indication here of the number who had cancer and those who did
> > >not. The second study used 402 benign and 58 malignant patients. These
> > >were people who already had cell growths even though not all were
> > >cancerous. The third study is just a summary of public policy issues on
> > >all kinds of radiation including those from cell phones. The fourth is
> > >another case study on cancer patients and suggested only a connection
> > >between mobile phone and cancer. The finally study is ano ther case
> > >control study trying to figure out the frequency of second cancer
> > >occurrence in can
> > >cer patients going through radiotherapy. Again s study on people who
> > >already have cancer.
> > >
> > >The studies cited here do not provide ANY evidence to support the
> > >sensational claim made in, ôMEN---YOUR CELL PHONE MIGHT CASTRATE
> > >YOU/dangers of mobile phoneö. If anything the studies just show that
> > >researchers and health providers are concerned about the risk and are
> > >working hard to pin point the connection. The fact is some mobile phone
> > >users have been diagnosed with cancer and many more non mobile phone
> > >users have also been diagnosed with the dreaded disease. Brain cancer
> > >that would be more common with mobile phone use takes many years to
> > >develop and it would be very difficult to carry out this study due to
> > >the many other environmental factors associated with the users. The
> > >mobile technology is also changing everyday and people are so different
> > >in the way they hold the phone, the type of phone they use and where
> > the
> > >antenna is
> > >
> > >Cell phone operates in the frequency range of about 800 and 1900
> > >megahertz (MHz). The radiation produced in this range in non-ionizing
> > >radiofrequency (RF) energy and itÆs different from the ionizing RF
> > >energy in medical x-rays. GSM phones have various bands for each
> > country
> > >and thatÆs why cell phones only work in areas with the corresponding
> > >frequency. US dual bands are 850/1900, tribands are 800/850, 1800, 1900
> > >MHz. Europe, Africa, Asia dual bands are 900/1800, tribands 900,
> > >1800,1900 and quad bands are 850,900,1800,1900. Even though the bands
> > >overlap, even this is enou gh to cast doubt on a study done in Europe as
>
> > >opposed to one done in Africa or the US. People its not as simple as we
> > >are trying to make it. Everything is dangerous including the food we
> > eat
> > >and even water if not taken in moderation. Not all radiofrequency
> > energy
> > >in the phone penetrates your skin to get to your brain and you almost
> > >have to leave the phone on your head for years to feel the impact. JUST
> > >BE CAREFUL.
> > >
> > >The underlying secret for any scientific research is in the sponsor,
> > >design of study and interpretation of data. In most cases the general
> > >public will never know the sponsors of research published in some of
> > the
> > >worldÆs res
> > pected journals. Researchers have been known to misinterpret
> > >data especially when they need to hurry up results to refute or su>a
> > hypothesis. We see this every time a new item gets in the market.
> > >Every time I read such stories in newspapers and in scientific journal
> > >IÆm always looking behind the curtain to find out who is interested
> > >in the outcome. It becomes frustrating when you find scientist of the
> > >highest caliber on each side of the hypothesis. I donÆt mind non
> > medical
> > >journalist making sensational headlines but it bothers me when some
> > >medical doctors join with very limited data.
> > >
> > >In the pharmaceutical industry we have seen so many revolutionary drugs
> > >being launched in the market and then taken off the market within
> > months
> > >of launching. This is because scientists misinterpret clinical study
> > >data or in some cases ignore data that is pointing to a potential risk.
> > >Cases have been reported of doctors being ghost writers for medical
> > >reviews o n drugs. The fact is doctors are very busy and cannot know
> > >about all drugs so they depend on the drug makers and peer review in
> > >
> > >respected journals to learn about prescription drugs. If tdone for
> > money and the drug makers over state the indication then the
> > >patients are at risk. Cell phone case is no difference and medical
> > >practitioners are particularly expected by the public to be as close as
> > >possible to the facts. Kenyan musician Okach Biggy called doctors
> > >ôNyasaye mar ariyoö (second God) and doctors have to be exactly that.
> > >
> > >Nyanja
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *
>
>


-- 
Joram Ragem
wuod Ndinya, wuod Onam, wuod Amolo, wuod Owuoth, wuod Oganyo, wuod Mumbe,
wuod Odongo, wuod Olwande, wuod Adhaya, wuod Ojuodhi, wuod Ragem! (Are you
my relative?)