It is a widely held belief that radiation from mobile phones and mobile masts are a health risk. While the study, based on interviews with more than 5000 ...
"Interphone scientists defined a ?regular? mobile user as anyone making one call a week over a six-month period".
----- Original Message -----
From: Mast Sanity
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:22 PM
Subject: Heavy mobile users risk cancer Sunday Times
Landmark study set to show potential dangers of heavy mobile phone use
Study links mobile phone use to brain tumours
CANCER LINK TO HEAVY USE OF MOBILE PHONES
By Donna Bowater
JUST half an hour a day on your mobile phone can increase the risk of brain cancer by a third, according to a landmark report. ...
A generation's health is being ignored
I write you today with a song in my heart. It seems Interphone is finally going public about cell phones and brain tumors (although the usual media spin on the results have already begun, down playing the brain cancer aspect). I'm sure you've heard about this by now, but more will be revealed this week.
Anyway, I wanted to give you an update on our trip to Washington, DC last week, lobbying for The Children's Wireless Protection Act, a bill calling for a brain cancer warning label (with possibly softer language at the federal level, although we may have the juice we need now to stick with the brain cancer label) on all cell phones and the packaging. The meetings went SPECTACULAR, even before this new news of Interphone.
So, we met with a total of 35 reps from Congress and the Senate, 5 of these meetings were direct, in person with the Congressman or Senator, about 7 meetings with top legal staff on committees and reps, etc., and the rest with the legislative directors...the legisaltive directors are hugely important to this process. Sometimes legislators don't even read a bill, they just depend on their legisaltive directors to tell them how to vote!!!
Of those meetings, we received 2 or 3 offers of potential authorship (a legislator must author the bill in order for it to be introduced), 20 potential commitments of co-sponsorship - 15 of which are pretty solid commitments and about 5 direct on the spot, YES, I will co-sponsor and one, "I want to author this bill immediately"!!! There is of course the possibility that we will not even need a bill, just have a hearing and the FDA is forced to slap a warning label on the cell phone, and we are pushing for this, but the general consensus was that we may have to have a bill. But that may all be different now with the release of Interphone. We will see. Also, the resounding request from most of the supporters was "Don't blow my cover until after I get re-elected in November!" They are afraid of publicly supporting this bill for fear of industry backlash, supporting their opponent and ousting them from office. So they do not want to be public on this until mid-terms, when they are re-elected. Very understandable.
State side, the bill is being brought again in Maine this year and we have a commitment from a senator in CA to bring it as well!!! CA makes up 10% of the US, so this could prove to be a game changer for the federal level if we have any trouble at all moving the bill there.
Additionally, legislators in DC have expressed interest in viewing the testimonies in Maine, so we have uploaded most of the videos from the hearings that were held in March. Here is a link where we posted them on our website for viewing...
Also, we had to form another group that is allowed to spend 100% of it's efforts on lobbying (non profits are limited in this capacity). It is called The American Association for Cell Phone Safety and comprised primarilly of cell phone radiation victims who are pissed and want to do something about this!!! Some of the members are in law suits against industry from cell phone induced brain tumors, some have been damaged by their cell phones but do not have a brain tumor, some are just plain old worried about their children.
The website is 100% new so please bare with us while our webmaster is loading it.
This website will still be doing lobbying, but we must also focus on education and outreach, as we are limited as a 501c3 in lobbying.
By the way, if anyone would like to join our new lobbying group, we need you!!!
If you live in Europe, unless you know people in Iowa or NJ, you can skip to the bottom of this email...
Okay, if you live in the US, we especially need you if...
1) You live in the state of Iowa or know people who live in the state of Iowa.
2) You live or know of people who live in the following districts of NJ...
Metuchen, Edison, New Brunswick, South Amboy, Raritan Bay, Sayerville, Highland Park, South River, Union Beach, Matawan, Strathmore, Keansburg, Atlantic Heights, Highlands, Navesink, Seabright, Mammoth Beach, Long Branch, Asbury Park, Belmar, Lake Como, Spring Lake, Neptune City, Wanamesa, Oakhurst, Port Monmouth, Key Port, Morganville, York Town, Old Bridge, South River, Plainfield, Englishtown, Red Bank, Piscataway, Aberdeen, Allenhurst, Avon By the Sea, Bradley Beach, Deal, Hazlet, Interlaken, ey Port, Lake Cmo, Loch Arbour, Manalapan, Marlboro, Middletown, Monmouth Beach, Neptune, Ocean, Redbank, West Long Branch, Franklin, Plainfield.
The reps from both these areas may play a key role in the legislation. Thus we are trying to build constiuency support. Please email us or have them email us.
Thank you so much everyone for your help! We are confident we will pass this bill very soon, both statewide and eventually federally and of course ultimately world wide, these things will soon come with a health warning. But of course none of this can be done without your help and participation. It truly does "take a village". So if you know of people in these areas or would like to get the bill going in your state or country or can help in any way, don't be shy!!! Please let us know!!!
PS: Just for some closure on Joe Morrisey, which I'm sure you've already heard by now, I have included a news link...
Father, Son Charged In Professor's Death, Joseph Morrissey's Tenants, Randy Tundidor Sr. and Jr., Both Charged In Killing
Thank you for your continued support. I hope you enjoy the testimonies. Feel free to pass them on. The one from the CTIA, Vice President is especially charming, watching this man testify against putting a brain cancer warning label on cell phones for children. He also just so happened to have spent his career at the FCC prior to becoming VP at CTIA. What a coincidence.
Below is my response to the BC Cancer Agency's pathetic interpretation of Interphone
From: Arthur Joyce
Date: May 18, 2010 12:24:31 PM PDT (CA)
Subject: Interphone study report
Dear Ms. Colina: I write in response to the BC Cancer Agency's flawed interpretation of the recently released Interphone study results. It seems that depending on reporter or scientist bias, the results of this study are interpreted differently. As a freelance journalist who has been studying this issue for three years now, I can tell you two important facts that the report below overlooks:
1) an analysis of an earlier draft of Interphone by over 40 doctors, scientists and health professionals concluded that there were significant methodological flaws in the study, calling its validity into question; and 2) there are literally thousands of other studies, some going back to the early 1970s done by the US military (but kept secret until recently), showing serious biological harm from exposure to microwaves in the frequency spectrum typically used by cell phones.
The best meta-analysis done to date on some 2,000 studies is still the BioInitiative Report ( http://www.bioinitiative.org
), which?in contrast to the Interphone study?received no funding from the telecommunications industry. That the principle of conflict of interest has been so grossly ignored in the case of the Interphone study is shameful. Why else would it have taken so many years to release the results except that even with this poorly designed study, there were serious indications of increased risk of brain tumours from prolonged cell phone use?
The BC Cancer Agency does itself a disservice relying on Ms. McBride's strange, plainly wrong interpretation of Interphone. You are placing thousands of British Columbians at further risk by claiming there is no risk to using cell phones, especially to children who are more vulnerable. This is shameful, when there are plenty of studies to demonstrate risk. We should proceed, not on 100 percent scientific certainty as the industry would like, but on the Precautionary Principle.
Attached is the document analyzing the flaws in the Interphone study. Kindly pass it along to Dr. McBride and make it available to your clients should they require more information on this subject.
Sean Arthur (Art) Joyce
Informant: Martin Weatherall
Documents and links on EM Radiation
Interphone?s data on cell phones and cancer: The spin begins
Scientists Spin Negative Research To Look Good For Money As People Die
WHO study says mobile use 'can raise brain cancer risk'
The debate over whether cell phone radiation causes brain cancer continues, with a new study by the WHO now claiming that just half-an-hour daily on mobile ...