Address Search

Posts Tagged ‘Canada’

It is perhaps the most controversial scientific question of the last ten years. Does mobile phone use cause cancer? You would think with all the research studies performed on this topic in the last decade this question has long been answered but the answer is not a simple “yes” or “no. “

The source of the concerns are the so-called electromagnetic fields (EMF). Daily, we are exposed to two types of EMF, namely (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) which come from electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) which comes from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, base stations, antennas, and broadcast transmission towers.

Most of the research studies on the issue of RF exposure were conducted in the framework of the INTERPHONE study, a multi-country series of case-controlled studies. The countries involved were Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. The studies looked at the associations between mobile phone use and the incidence of brain tumors such as glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma and cancer of the parotid gland. The Interphone studies were funded and supported by several international and governmental agencies as well as industry groups like the Global System for Mobile communications Association (GSMA) and the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF). Several independent studies have also been also performed.

Let’s take a look at the two sides of the coin.

THOSE WHO SAY NO

The majority of articles published during the last decade report that no association was observed between mobile phone use and increased cancer risk and as a result several organizations say that there is no sufficient scientific evidence to prove that prolonged RF exposure from mobile phones can cause cancer.

(1) According to the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Denmark, a study involving 420,000 Danish mobile phone users did not identify an increased risk for cancer. This is the largest published study so far on the health effects of mobile phone use.

(2) In laboratory studies involving rats and mice (in vivo studies), exposure to wireless communication signals did not significantly increase the incidence of tumors.

(3) In vitro studies showed no induction of cell transformation by low-level RF radiation.

(4) The French INTERPHONE study did not find significant increased risk for meningioma or neuroma in mobile phone users. Neither did the German and the British studies.

(5) In a large US study involving over 12,000 participants, no overall increased risk for brain tumors were found about mobile phone users.

(6) The US National Cancer Institute says the majority of studies conducted on this subject do not show any association between mobile phone use and cancer.

(7) The World Health Organization (WHO) says that current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.

(8) Cancer Research UK says that radiation coming from phone handsets and base stations are too low to cause damage to human DNA and cause cancer.

THOSE WHO SAY YES

Many consumer groups are wary of the results of the INTERPHONE studies because of the phone industry’s strong role in the funding. The involvement of GSMA and MMF is not unusual. Industry-funded research is quite common in biomedical science. Unfortunately, there have been recent controversies regarding conflicts of interest on the part of scientists who obtain funding from the pharmaceutical industry. These incidents sadly put a question mark on the integrity of many scientific studies that are valid and bona fide, regardless of sources of funding.

There are also groups and individuals who are convinced of the hazards of EMF. Contrary to popular belief that only lay people and consumer groups believe in the mobile phone-cancer link, many scientists are actually taking a second look at the evidence at hand.

(1) An international working group of scientists formed the BioInitiative Working Group and prepared a report that raises serious concerns about the safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The BioInitiative Report looked at evidence from published and unpublished data on the links between EMF exposure and immune disorders, stress response, neurological and behavioural problems and even studies on childhood cancers (e. g. leukemia) and breast cancer. One of their conclusions is that there is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia. In addition, the report also found that the current safety standards for exposure to EMF from cell phones and other handsets are not safe at all. As supporting evidence, they cited studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.

The BioInitaive Report also found ELF exposure to be a risk factor for breast cancer and possibly other cancers as well. The Working Group is clearly demanding a re-examination of the safety standards of the telecommunications industry. However, the report does not clearly define the group’s stand about RF and cancer.

(2) The International Agency for Cancer Research classifies ELF as a possible human carcinogen.

(3) In the case of RF, Swedish researchers led by L. Hardell found increased risk for brain tumors among 2,162 users of cordless handsets and cellular phones. These researchers were the only ones who found these associations in analysing data from the INTERPHONE studies. They also looked at associations with risks for other kinds of cancer such as testicular cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with inconclusive results.

(4) Another group of Swedish researchers looked at the incidence of acoustic neuroma in a group of 752 people. Their findings did not show a link between short-term mobile phone use and increased risk for acoustic neuroma. However, a link was observed when taking long-term phone use (e. g. at least 10 years) into consideration.

(5) In 2000, a class action suit was filed against Verizon, Motorola and other wireless companies led by former employees who developed brain tumors. So far, no damages have been awarded.

(6) In early 2008, Israeli researchers found a positive dose-response trend between cell phone use and parotid gland tumors in a study that looked at 1,266 individuals.

(7) The head of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Dr. Ronald Herberman issued a memo in July 2008 warning the institute’s staff against their children’s use of mobile phones. He based his concerns on unpublished data and the fact that ” it takes too long to get answers from science. . . people should take action now.

(8) A study by Finnish researchers published in 2008 showed that RF-EMF can alter protein expression in human skin cells. This is the first study to report that RF-EMF can cause changes at the molecular level.

THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY A CLEAR-CUT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REMAINS ELUSIVE.

(1) Sample size. Studies with small sample sizes lack statistical power. Many studies published have too small sample sizes to have convincing results.

(2) Study designs. Study designs are difficult to standardize, making pooling of study results also difficult.

(3) Data collection. Data on exposure is mostly based on self-reports of phone use. Unfortunately, these recalls are frequently inaccurate. It has been observed, for example, that people tend to underestimate the number of calls but overestimate the duration of calls they make.

(4) Exposure. There many sources of EMFs around us. Radiation may come from cellular phones, hand-held phones, cordless handsets, base stations, and telecom masts. Other household appliances including microwave ovens also emit radiation. It is extremely difficult to find unexposed study participants which can be used as study controls.

(5) Time. Studying the health effects of phone use takes time. Prospective studies are still more reliable that retrospective studies but they take longer to complete. A Swedish study found an increased risk of acoustic neuroma only after at least 10 years of phone use. Most short-term studies came up with negative results.

(6) Lack of data. Most RF exposure data available are on adult phone users. Very limited RF exposure data on children are available. The hypothesis that children and adolescents as developing organisms with developing organs are especially vulnerable cannot be tested at this point in time.

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

In cases such as this when there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty, the World Health Organization recommends following the policies of precautionary principle, prudent avoidance, and ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). These cautionary policies were released in March 2000. It’s been more than 8 years and the policies remain the same. Many countries in Europe recommend similar policies.

The recommended use of hands-free technology by the US FDA and other health agencies works more for safety when phoning while driving but does not really address the safety issue of RF. Consumer groups have been demanding for years that phone makers install radiation blocking devices on their handsets. So far, their demands have remained unheeded.

Let’s hope that science comes up with the answer soon. In the meantime, it’s up to us to make the decisions concerning mobile phone use for ourselves and our families.

Over the past decade the world has seen rapid growth in cell phone users. Everyone from older adults to kids in high school seem to carry one glued to their ears, without understanding the possible health ricks associated with the use of cellular telephones.

To begin with, a recent scientific journal published in 2007 titled Long term use of cellular phones and brain tumors, concluded after assessing results from many different studies that use of cell phones for more then 10 years does show increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. Adding that the risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure, meaning tumor on the same side of the brain where phone mostly held.

Research scientists behind this journal assert that most studies to date on cell phone use and brain tumors have been mostly conducted with an insufficiently long latency period. This journal report gives excellent reviews of other studies and evidence of data entry errors, systematic bias and mathematical errors within those studies.

Argument against studies which used short term recall of mobile phone use, is well argued by giving evidence that actual use of cell phones is usually underestimated by light users and overestimated by heavy users, reducing the data strength of interphone studies. In the same way, results showing increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma from various other studies on use of mobile phone for more then 10 years are given supporting their conclusion.

Furthermore, another study published in 2006 completed by 3 scientists in Sweden also conform a increased risk for malignant brain tumors in groups with use of cellular and cordless phones for more then 10 years. Similar to the above study, the scientists associated with this report also mention the weakness of so-far studies to be their too short a latency period.

Evidence of errors in other studies for example, Danish interphone study, in which many data entry errors had occurred due to problems in understanding words of Galioma patients due to paralysis has been well argued. They propose that their method of assessing the use of cellular and cordless phones by questionnaires to be more sensible.

Moreover, interesting evidence brought up in this journal report about a completed REFLEX-study is important to mention here. The REFLEX-study which tested for genotoxic effects in cells exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields at SAR (whole-body Specific Absorption Rate) levels between 0. 3 and 2 watt/kg showed evidence for. Increase in single and double strand DNA breaks finding of choromosomal aberrations were observed in fibroblasts and intracellular increase of free radicals in HL-60 Cells.

Evidence from the REFLEX-study coupled with the evidence from their own study, the Swedish scientists concluded that the current allowed SAR of 2 watt/kg in Europe is inappropriate.

Conversely, it is important to make known to our readers that the maximum SAR level in United States and Canada has been capped at 1. 6W/kg (FDA).

Finally, a journal published in 2007 Mobile phone use and risk of glioma is 5 North European countries, show somewhat mixed results. This particular studies results were based on combined data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Southeast England, where mobile phones have been widely used for at least a decade. This study looked at reasonably large group of people. Total of 2,530 glioma patients and 6,581 controls had participated in this study.

Nonetheless, it is surprising to know that their conclusions are not as clear as in previous studies we mentioned. This study claims to find no elevated risk of Glioma among groups most exposed. Neither did they find any significant association across, categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use.

They also claim to find no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were tested separately. However, this study did find one set of analyses which indicates a possible connection. This connection was between, reported ipsilateral use 10 or more years ago associated with significantly increased risk of glioma and there was also an increasing tread with years since first use on the ipsilateral side.

Lastly, we recommend that consumers seek information about what SAR level their cell phone uses. SAR information is easily found in instructional materials that come with the phone or can be found on many web sites. We recommend consumers to use cell phones that operate at lowest possible value of SAR, and to try to limit the use of cell phones or invest in a hands free headset for cell phones until more absolute evidence is obtained.

Unemployment rates have started increasing and there are other signs of economic downturns in major economies of the world. International Labor Organization predicted that at least 20 million jobs was lost by the middle of 2009 bringing world unemployment level at above many million for the first time. Due to the survey report that the number of unemployed people may increase by more than 1 million in middle of 2009 if the recession intensifies. Advanced economies like USA, Canada, Brazil, China, Japan, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Gulf, South Africa, Spain, Germany, France, UK, Sweden, Norway, Russia and Australia have all started feeling the effects of the recession. Employment in Australia rose to its highest level in nearly four years in 2009, showing the global downturn continues to bite despite big interest rate cuts and the government pumping billions of dollars into the economy. Now Economists expected the jobless rate was raised to 5 percent. Now start your job search early, preferably before arrival. Foreigners looking to score a job search Australia in Australia typically stick with what they know, or they go the opposite route and try to do something completely different from their skill set. Figure out for yourself how committed you want to be to your job.

If your primary purpose in working in Australia is to travel around the country, then go with something that will provide you with a flexible schedule. High levels of stability, commitment and nurturance are especially important in this role. Although Australia is not yet officially in a recession, figures released in March 09 indicate that it could be headed that way. Australia economy shrank 0. 5 percent in the last quarter of 2008, the economy first contraction in eight years. Having said this, jobs for skilled labor are ever increasing in Australia. Australian jobs are open to people belonging to any field of expertise including accounting & finance, arts, design and media, administration, computer software and hardware, telecommunication, customer service, engineering and medicine, travel, tourism and transportation, human resource management, legal and counsel, marketing and sales.

The list identifies occupation sectors in which a increasing is identified in the market today. The current list shows a increasing in child care coordinators, engineering managers, accountants, anesthetists, architects, chemical engineers, civil engineers, computer professionals, dental specialists, dermatologists, electrical and electronics engineers, emergency medical specialists, external auditors, general medical practitioners, hospital pharmacists, mechanical engineers, radiographers, mining engineers, obstetricians, gynecologists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, optometrists, pathologists, petroleum engineers, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychiatrists, quantity surveyors, radiologists, registered nurses and midwifes, retail pharmacists, specialists physicians, speech pathologists, surgeons, chefs, and many more occupations. Hundreds of Jobs are advertised daily on the internet and print media but it is impossible to apply for each and every of them although you may be eligible for most of them apply for casual jobs in Australia. If you’re looking to gain experience, then get started on your job search early preferably before arrival in Australia. There are few sites which can do this for you for free. Consider volunteering if your primary intention is to travel. Volunteer or unpaid jobs Australia usually have the advantage of covering room and board as well as medical insurance. They also give you far more flexibility, so sometimes these factors can hold just as much value as a paycheck and could be the better option if your real intention is to travel rather than work.

i worked with jeff hunter and jeff hines in st catharines i know jeff hunter had yahoo when i lived down their but i’n not sure if he still does is their a way to find them? last i know is they lived on church st not sure of the house number. randy hines is jeffs little brother i’ve been trying to get ahold of them since i left their 5years ago and have had no luck i got yahoo msn and icq and tryed to search everyway i know how. i know jeff hunters here it’s just to find him. pleae help me any help would be great thanks