NY Times begins its defense of cell phone radiation by absurdly comparing it
with "pickles" as carcinogens, yet lists only one pickle characteristic,
More relevant characteristics of pickles are the ingredients: Sodium aluminum
phosphate, sodium benzoate, (benzene derivative), calcium disodium EDTA,
and carcinogenic dyes.
NY Times similarly mentions "coffee", but omits reference to agri-poisons that
can be used to process coffee, i.e., pesticides, preservatives, solvents, e.g.,
organo-chorines, -fluorines, -phosphates, benzene compounds, etc.
NY Times omits relevant pickle info, such as: "In Taipei, Taiwan, a city health
survey in 2010 found 30% of tested dried and pickled food products failed a
test having too much benzoic acid, which is known to affect the liver and
kidney, along with more serious issues like excessive cyclamate."
NY Times gives us the impression that cell phone radiation doesn't include the
ubiquitous high powered transmission towers that radiate 24/7.
But what can we expect from NY Times, with its board of directors dominated
by chemical, pharmaceutical, and high-tech reps.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:47:37 -0700, Michael H Goldhaber
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>This seems worth a thought.
>By SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE
>Published: July 16, 2011
>THREE recent events highlight the extraordinary task that lies ahead for
>First: in late May, a World Health Organization panel added cellphones to a list
of things that are possibly carcinogenic, a category that also includes pickles