Mobile Phone radiations weakens bones

Men who wear their cellphones on a belt for many years may have decreased bone density in the pelvic area, according to a new study.

Earlier dozens of cellphone safety studies have suggested that long-term use may expose people to high enough levels of radio frequency energy to cause such health problems as cancerous and benign brain tumors and behavior problems in children. The new study on bone weakening is hardly convincing. Researchers in Turkey examined the bone density in the upper rims of the pelvis of 150 men who carried their cellphones on a belt. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours a day for an average of six years.

Bone density was compared on the side where the men wore their phones and on the opposite side. The study showed a slight reduction in bone density on the side where the men carried the phones. The difference was not statistically significant, however — meaning it could be due to chance. But the researchers pointed out that the men were fairly young and that further bone weakening might occur over time. The study was published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery.

Studies that link cellphone use to health problems have not been conclusive. However, at some point, one has to wonder if it’s prudent to make some modest changes to reduce the potential risk. For example, some experts suggest using a headset in order to keep the phone away from the head. Pregnant women, for example, are urged to keep their phones away from their abdomens. Perhaps young children, whose brains are still developing, should not use a cellphone on a regular basis.

More safety studies on cellphones are forthcoming, and manufacturers are working on lowering the levels of radiation emitted by phones. But, until then, taking precautions to keep phones a bit of a distance from the body may be sensible for heavy cellphone users.

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/cell-phones-bone-density.html

More Information is Available at www.waveban.in & www.waveban.org

---

Cell Phones radiations affect sperm count

Men who carry mobile phones in their trouser pockets may be at risk of damaging their sperm count, according to research by Hungarian scientists.

Full details of the study will be formally presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in Berlin tomorrow. Early reports of the Hungarian work attracted scepticism from other scientists who pointed to the contradictory results of other work on the subject.

Imre Fejes and colleagues from the department of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Szeged in Hungary studied the mobile phone use and sperm counts of 221 men over a 13-month period. They asked the men how long they had owned a mobile phone and for how many hours they carried it about their person in standby mode, as well as how long they spent in calls every day. They drew comparisons between those who used their phones a lot and non-users.

Heavy users of mobile phones had sperm counts that were up to 30% lower than those who did not have or use a mobile at all, the scientists say. They found that not only did using the phone affect a man’s sperm count and the motility (speed of movement) of the sperm, but simply having it switched on in a pocket was enough to do damage. Mobile phones periodically but briefly transmit information to radio masts to establish contact.

“The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effect on spermatogenesis and male fertility, that presumably deteriorates both concentration and motility,” say the Hungarian team in the abstract produced for the conference. “Further controlled randomised studies are necessary to precise the correlation coefficients.”

But the study is small and its findings do not sit well with the bulk of evidence so far on the health hazards of mobile phones.

No conclusive impact on sperm count or motility has been found by other scientists to date.

Hans Evers, a past chairman of ESHRE from the Academic hospital in Maastricht in the Netherlands, said any conclusions as to the meaning of the study should wait until scientists have been able to digest the full presentation of the results. “This research is interesting but raises more questions than it answers,” he said.

“It is an observational as opposed to interventional study, which appears not to take into account the many potential confounding factors which could have skewed the results. For example, what if heavy mobile phone users in Hungary have particularly stressful lives and jobs? What if they come from a different age group or social class than the non-users? These factors would have a considerable effect on the outcome of the research, but it is not possible to tell from the abstract whether this has been taken into consideration.”

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jun/28/sciencenews.health

More Information is Available at www.waveban.in & www.waveban.org

---

Mobile Phone Radiations damage DNA

Cell phones communicate by emitting signal in the microwave range of radio frequencies i.e. 900mhz to 3500mhz. This emitted microwave radiations are high enough to get absorbed by the phone users body, reulting into double strand breakage in DNA. All tumors and all cancers are the result of genetic damage. Most often that damage includes the formation of micronuclei–fragments of chromosomes that form membranes around themselves and appear under a microscope as additional nuclei in blood cells (which normally have just a single nucleus). The relationship between micronuclei and cancer is so strong that doctors around the world test for their presence to identify patients likely to develop cancer. The presence of micronuclei indicates that the cells can no longer properly repair broken DNA. This deficiency is considered to be an indication of an increased risk of developing cancer.

- In December 1998, Drs. Ray Tice and Graham Hook of Integrated Laboratory Systems in North Carolina have shown that blood cells exposed to cell phone radiation suffer genetic damage in the form of micronuclei. In their studies, DNA and chromosome damage in human white blood cells occurred when exposed to signals from all types of phones–analog, digital, and PCS. Damage was shown even from signals occurring at a SAR level below the government’s “safety” guideline.

- Using different methods, the above finding was confirmed by Dr. Joseph Roti Roti of Washington University in St. Louis in 2000. His research showed that human blood cells exposed to radiation at wireless phone frequencies did indeed develop genetic damage, in the form of micronuclei. This finding received a lot of notice because Dr. Roti Roti is a prominent scientist who does hiw work under funding by Motorola Inc.

This has a very serious implication. If cell phone radiation encourages the formation of micronuclei in blood cells, and micronuclei are said to be “biological markers” for cancer, then based on these studies alone cell phone use could be said to increase the risk of cancer.

---

More Information is Available at www.waveban.in & www.waveban.org

Radiation level of LG Cell Phones

Phone Model			Radiation
LG VX7000			0.67 W/kg
LG L1400			0.71 W/kg
LG F9100			0.71 W/kg
LG L1200			0.71 W/kg
LG C1300			0.71 W/kg
LG Shine II			0.76 W/kg
LG LX400			0.36 - 0.77 W/kg
LG CF360			0.68 - 0.77 W/kg
LG VX8600			0.77 - 0.78 W/kg
LG AX8600			0.77 - 0.78 W/kg
LG AX490			0.78 W/kg
LG Rhythm (UX585)			0.80 W/kg
LG eXpo GW820			0.71 - 0.84 W/kg
LG 225			0.85 W/kg
LG CG225			0.85 W/kg
LG VX9800			0.86 - 0.87 W/kg
LG CU405			0.88 W/kg
LG Tritan (UX840)			0.89 W/kg
LG Voyager (VX10000)			0.77 - 0.89 W/kg
LG VX6100			0.93 W/kg
LG UX210			0.94 W/kg
LG VX3450L			0.94 W/kg
LG LG210			0.94 W/kg
LG VX3400			0.94 W/kg
LG VX3450			0.94 W/kg
LG LG300			0.95 W/kg
LG VX5500			0.95 W/kg
LG 600G			0.96 W/kg
LG VI-125			0.51 - 1.02 W/kg
LG PM225			0.51 - 1.02 W/kg
LG LX125			0.51 - 1.02 W/kg
LG enV (VX9900)			0.71 - 1.03 W/kg
LG LX150			0.76 - 1.04 W/kg
LG VX8000			0.87 - 1.04 W/kg
LG UX380			0.79 - 1.08 W/kg
LG AX380			0.79 - 1.08 W/kg
LG Dare (VX9700)			1.09 W/kg
LG Banter (UX265)			1.10 W/kg
LG CU500			1.12 W/kg
LG CU500v			1.12 W/kg
LG Chocolate (VX8500)			1.13 W/kg
LG VX8700			1.13 W/kg
LG VX8360			1.14 W/kg
LG CU400			1.14 W/kg
LG Lotus (LX600)			0.90 - 1.15 W/kg
LG C2000			1.01 - 1.16 W/kg
LG LG2000			1.01 - 1.16 W/kg
LG C1500			1.01 - 1.16 W/kg
LG VX8100			1.16 W/kg
LG VX4700			1.17 W/kg
LG VX4500			1.17 W/kg
LG CG180			1.17 W/kg
LG AX4750			1.17 W/kg
LG CP150			1.18 W/kg
LG C1300i			1.18 W/kg
LG 410G			1.18 W/kg
LG LX160			1.19 W/kg
LG LG160			1.19 W/kg
LG Neon			1.00 - 1.20 W/kg
LG Lotus Elite LX610			0.61 - 1.20 W/kg
LG VX8300			1.21 W/kg
LG Bliss (UX700)			1.21 W/kg
LG CE110			1.22 W/kg
LG CE500			0.98 - 1.22 W/kg
LG AX565			1.22 W/kg
LG VX3300			1.13 - 1.22 W/kg
LG UX565			1.22 W/kg
LG UX260			1.22 W/kg
LG 3280			1.13 - 1.22 W/kg
LG Decoy (VX8610)			1.22 W/kg
LG AX260			1.22 W/kg
LG VX5200			1.23 W/kg
LG DM-L200			1.23 W/kg
LG AX5000			1.23 W/kg
LG UX5000			1.23 W/kg
LG VX3200			1.23 W/kg
LG AX145			1.24 W/kg
LG AX355			1.24 W/kg
LG LG357			1.24 W/kg
LG AX140			1.24 W/kg
LG LG355			1.24 W/kg
LG Helix UX310			1.24 W/kg
LG LX350			0.75 - 1.24 W/kg
LG AX155			1.26 W/kg
LG CU920 (VU TV)			1.26 W/kg
LG Glance VX7100			1.26 W/kg
LG Chocolate 3 (VX8560)			1.26 W/kg
LG Venus (VX8800)			1.26 W/kg
LG F9200			0.89 - 1.26 W/kg
LG VU (CU915)			1.26 W/kg
LG AX830			1.27 W/kg
LG AX245			1.27 W/kg
LG LG245			1.27 W/kg
LG PM325			0.51 - 1.27 W/kg
LG VX9400			1.25 - 1.27 W/kg
LG VX5300			1.27 W/kg
LG CU320			1.06 - 1.27 W/kg
LG UX830			1.27 W/kg
LG UX390			1.21 - 1.28 W/kg
LG AX390			1.21 - 1.28 W/kg
LG enV Touch (VX11000, Voyager 2)			1.28 W/kg
LG VX4650			1.21 - 1.28 W/kg
LG L1400i			1.29 W/kg
LG Chocolate (VX8550)			1.30 W/kg
LG LX290			1.04 - 1.30 W/kg
LG UX145			1.30 W/kg
LG 200C			1.30 W/kg
LG Aloha (LX140)			1.30 W/kg
LG INCITE (CT810)			1.30 W/kg
LG enV 3 (VX9200)			1.31 W/kg
LG AX500			1.33 W/kg
LG Invision (CB630)			1.34 W/kg
LG FUSIC			0.61 - 1.34 W/kg
LG AX275			1.34 W/kg
LG enV 2 (VX9100)			1.34 W/kg
LG LX370			0.90 - 1.36 W/kg
LG F7200			0.87 - 1.36 W/kg
LG Versa (VX9600)			1.38 W/kg
LG CG300			1.04 - 1.40 W/kg
LG A7110			0.45 - 1.40 W/kg
LG LG1500			1.34 - 1.41 W/kg
LG Xenon (GR500)			0.52 - 1.46 W/kg
LG Chocolate Touch (VX8575)			1.46 W/kg
LG Banter (AX265)			1.51 W/kg
LG Rumor2 (LX265)			1.04 - 1.51 W/kg
LG Rumor			N/A
LG LG830			N/A
LG Wine (UX280)			N/A
LG AX585			N/A
LG MIGO (VX1000)			N/A
LG LG380			N/A
LG UX355			N/A
LG Flare (LX165)			N/A
LG UX3300			N/A
LG AX300			N/A
LG VX5400			N/A
LG LX570			N/A
LG CU575			N/A
LG Rumor (LX260)			N/A
LG Shine (CU720)			N/A
LG UX300			N/A
LG CU515			N/A
LG UX245			N/A
LG LG260			N/A
LG VX8350			N/A
LG UX4750			N/A

N/A: This information is not available

More Information is Available at www.waveban.in & www.waveban.org

---