Subject: FALSE ASSURANCES PUT CELL PHONES USERS AT RISK (Brown).
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 212017 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
..........From EMF-L........
Gary shares prudent advice with us -- the world!!..........
It is curious, I think ... that so many people seem to have instantly recognized the
"P.R. campaign motive" of these two studies -- but the New York times, JAMA and
the New England Journal of Medicine did not?????........ I find it hard to believe
that they were not aware of the extent to which they were being used???!!!
....guru.......
"Dr. Gary Brown" wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [Fwd: FALSE ASSURANCES PUT CELL PHONES USERS AT RISK]
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:44:52 -0500
> From: "Dr. Gary Brown"
> To: roy@emfguru.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: FALSE ASSURANCES PUT CELL PHONES USERS AT RISK
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:52:08 EST
> From: Jeannerebillard@aol.com
> To: dlhelp@bellsouth.net
>
> Please feel free to call in you have any questions.
>
> MEDIA ALERT
>
> CONTACT: SallyAnne McCartin
> Jeanne Rebillard
> Estelle Gadomski
> PHONE: 860/435-6464
>
> FALSE ASSURANCES PUT CELL PHONE USERS AT RISK
>
> Thursday, December 21, 2000 "A reckless over-interpretation of data in newly
> released studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
> and the New England Journal of Medicine could put cell phone users,
> especially children, at risk for a rare form of brain cancer and genetic
> damage," says Dr. George Carlo, former chief scientist of the world's largest
> cell phone research effort. "If these unwarranted reassurances cause people
> to stop taking precautions to minimize radiation exposure, it will be a
> tragedy."
> Statements in the news media this week represent a dangerously flawed
> message to cell phone users. Some journalists have failed to report cautions
> contained in the studies themselves - and this has led to sweeping
> generalizations about safety that are not supported by the data. Further,
> they've failed to take into account the only validated science to date on the
> hazards of cell phones -- laboratory tests specifically designed to assess
> the future impact of cell phones on people.
> A full accounting of the science regarding cell phone health effects
> including the laboratory studies is contained in a new book; CELL PHONES:
> Invisible Hazards In The Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf, January 2001),
> co-authored by Carlo and veteran Washington journalist Martin Schram.
> Repeated laboratory studies have confirmed that cell phone radiation
> causes damage to human blood cells in the form of the development of
> micronuclei - a diagnostic red-flag that will
> "likely lead to the development of cancer," according to an article by cancer
> experts in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute last August.
> Separate laboratory studies also found that
> cell phone radiation can cause a breakdown of the blood brain barrier, which
> protects that sensitive tissue from many harmful chemicals in the body.
> "The only reliable indicators of cell phone dangers are laboratory tests
> of the type used to study pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices prior to
> their marketing. To even consider sounding the 'all clear' based on the data
> in these two studies that looked at people who used old style analog phones
> for short periods of time is dubious and irresponsible", says Carlo. " These
> types of studies will have value in 15 to 20 years when we look back on what
> has happened to cell phone users, but they have no ability to predict future
> safety. The studies are being used way out of context."
> The scientific data is compelling enough that this week the British
> government has begun distributing millions of leaflets to consumers warning
> of potential cell phone health risks.
> Further, the greatest concern is for children. The British government is
> requiring that there be warning labels on phones in England to protect
> children, supplemented by safety classes in school. Children were not
> considered in either of the two studies released this week.
> "We need to move cautiously when it comes to the health of consumers,
> especially when we are giving them assurances of safety. A year ago Phen-Fen
> was recalled, last month cold remedies were recalled, including Dimetapp, a
> popular drug given to children - and these, unlike cell phones, were given
> the "all clear" by the FDA before they were put in the hands of consumers.
> Our track record with thalidomide, cigarettes and asbestos hasn't been much
> better," says Carlo. "The fact is repeated laboratory tests raise serious
> concerns about the safety of cell phones. Those laboratory tests speak
> loudly and clearly for themselves. Consumers need to protect themselves."
>
> # # #
--
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
It is better to light a single candle
than to curse the darkness.....
WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
People are more important than profit$$
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com