More of NY Times annoyance:
"X-rays and nuclear radiation possess the energy required to alter genes and
thereby cause cancer. But the frequency of cellphone radiation is more than a
million-fold lower. If cellphone radiation is causing cancer, it is doing so
through a mechanism that defies our current understanding of carcinogenesis."
Surely NT Times editors must know that toxic stress is (generally, roughly)
calculated as toxic intensity multiplied by EXPOSURE TIME.
X-rays are brief and rare exposures. Cell-phones are constant 24/7 exposure
(from phone and cell towers).
Phone distance is adjacent the head, and cell phone relay antennae can be 500
watt (max allowed PER CHANNEL) and are adjacent apartments.
I find the lower powered medical x-ray tube power supply output (to the tube)
listed as 4 to 10 watts, via my online search. The actual output of the x-ray
tube would be much less, and exposure time is milliseconds.
Radiation stress synergistically interacts (summed or multiplied) with all the
other various industrial pollutants. NY Times argues by isolating the topic,
limiting it to merely the phone.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:25:29 -0400, Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
>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
>of things that are possibly carcinogenic, a category that also includes pickles