phone with warning signs

What Cellphone Companies Doesn’t Tell You

WHAT CELL PHONE COMPANIES AREN’T TELLING YOU. FACTS REVEALED

Home Industry News What Cell Phone Companies Aren’t Telling You. Truths Revealed – Lance Harper

Remember the Big Tobacco, and remember the story about how they lied to customers about precisely what cigarette smoking does to you? It wasn’t until 2006 when they last told the truth about cigarettes in a court-ordered ad-campaign. Keep in mind; cigarettes were developed in 1865, with Marlboro being introduced to consumers in 1902.

Taking that into factor to consider, it took 141 years from the conception of the cigarette for the fact to come out. Big Tobacco manipulated their advertising and advertising campaigns and failed to include images of what cigarette smoking does to people. Smoking cigarettes kills 1,200 people a day. Upsetting, right?

Fast forward to today. Do you understand the something that you utilize every day that threatens and can perhaps trigger cancer? Your cell phone – the one electronic gadget the majority of us can’t seem to live without. “The Nation” released a short article in March 2018 offering readers with the complete scoop on Big Wireless, and how they convinced us to think that our cell phones are safe.

But, are they? The story is frightening and is strangely similar to the Big Tobacco story we’ve seen before. But, how many years have to go by until all of us lastly realize that our cellular phone is not safe?

The History of Cell Phone Radiation Research

Tom Wheeler was the president of the CTIA in the 90’s. He was the cordless industry’s point man in Washington. This is throughout a time when there were just six cell-phone memberships for every 100 adults in the United States.

Today, 95 from 100 adult Americans own a cell phone, and the wireless market is the most significant and fastest growing market on earth. To understand that mobile phone had been enabled onto the United States customer market a decade previously with no government safety testing is ridiculous.

 

In 1993, David Reynard took legal action against the NEC America Company. His Wife established a brain tumor, and he blamed her cell phone for this. The story received a great deal of attention, so the cell phone industry had to react. At this point, Tom Wheeler generated George Carlo, a scientist, to do a research study on cell phones. Before the research study started, Wheeler reiterated to the general public that cellular telephone is currently safe and that this brand-new research study would merely “re-validate the findings of the current studies.”

Carlo led the study for his organization (WTR) in 1995. This was the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to this day. Throughout his research, they discovered double the risk of brain growths. However, Wheeler denied that the research studies stood, specifying that they were not peer examined, and the media accepted this responsibility. Eventually, the research study was peer-reviewed and confirmed and lots of reviews since then have duplicated the findings.

The cell phone market has invested millions over the last 25 years to cover the fact about the threats of the cellular phone. “As taken place earlier with Big Tobacco and Big Oil, the wireless industry’s researchers independently cautioned about the dangers.” Essentially, they need to keep the discussion going, rather than squash any threats with real science. However, their method is to point out “friendly” studies to reveal that the total balance reveals that there is no real issue. And of these studies, “67 percent of the separately funded research studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did.”

To elaborate further on these research studies, the insurance provider will not cover cell phone radiation liability. Why? There are $2 billion in pending lawsuits over cordless radiation!

Children are More at Risk

teens using smartphone

Mrs. Sasco, the former director of public health for cancer avoidance at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research stated that “The more youthful one begins utilizing mobile phone, the greater the threat.” She also advised for more public education to notify parents about their children’s greater vulnerability, stating, “The lack of absolute proof does not mean the absence of threat.”

How Can Wireless Radiation Be Harmful?

There are two primary methods by which cordless radiation can be harmful:

Wireless radiation has been revealed to decrease the blood-brain barrier, reduced defenses against other typical carcinogens.
It has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication. For children, these risks are increased due to more extended direct exposure to electronic devices, their smaller sized heads, and lower bone density.

To Annie Sasco’s point, kids are being affected by hazardous radiation every day. If we don’t do anything about it, will they be just another victim much like those who were informed smoking wouldn’t kill you?

Where are the Government Regulations?

While there are FCC direct exposure limits, they merely do not go far enough. Could this be since the FCC is affected by the wireless industry?

FCC regulations were set in 1996 and did not represent today’s use patterns. Tests were done to imitate cell phone use on 200 pounds grown male. The FCC permits makers to do their own SAR screening and does not independently test market claims. The wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016 and invested $87 million in lobbying in 2017.

What is a Safesleeve phone case

The World Health Organization (WHO) has likewise supplied some input. Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist, led research studies for the WHO and was indirectly funded by Motorola. The “Interphone Study” was released in 2010 by the WHO. Throughout this study, they discovered an 80% increase in brain tumors in heavy users from cell phone usage. The industry and media spin on the results was “no in generally increased risk of brain cancer follows conclusions reached in an already big body of scientific research on this subject.” The Keyword is “overall.” Just because some parts didn’t show an increase, does not reject the parts that did. It is also crucial to note that WHO was also funded by cordless industry.

That stated, it is possible that the WHO reconsiders the classification of cell phone radiation to be “most likely carcinogenic” and even a “known carcinogen.” Part of the concern with why this hasn’t taken place yet, and why some analyses of research study studies can be more conservative could be due to a risk of being defunded. Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki says “Everyone understands that if your research study results from a program that radiation has effects, the funding circulation dries up.”

An NTP research study was performed where rats and mice were exposed to cell-phone radiation to see if they became ill. Ron Melnick was the designer of the study and concluded that there is a carcinogenic result. Although a small portion of the rats was affected, that does not necessarily suggest that this little percentage might translate into a considerable quantity of human cancers.

” Given the huge number of individuals who use wireless interactions gadgets, even a minimal increase in the occurrence of disease … could have broad ramifications for public health,” according to the NTP release. “The scientific proof that cell phones and cordless innovations, in general, can cause cancer and genetic damage is not conclusive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. “

So, after all, is stated and done, where do we go from here? Increasingly more people around the world are becoming addicted to their mobile phone, and this includes kids.

We should not proceed to know that yes, there is a threat, and it’s “most likely” very little. We need to do exactly what’s needed and act not only for ourselves but our loved ones and future loved ones. So, the next time you hear “cell phone radiation,” do not turn away. Your life may depend on it.