Tuohon TM:n uutisotsikkoon vielä..."joten ihmiselle ei ole vaaraa, ehkä…" Eihän ihmisiä edes tutkittu tuossa tutkimuksessa. Sama kuin olis kirjoittanut, että kyyhkysille ei ole vaaraa, ehkä...
Esimerkiksi tässä epidemiologisessa tutkimuksessa ilmenee lisääntynyt aivokasvainten riski (tilastollisesti merkitsevä) paljon kännykkää käyttävillä ihmisillä:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24816517Dariusz Leszczynskin blogikirjoituksesta vielä lainaus NTP-tutkimukseen liittyen:
"The most significant finding, in my opinion, is the development of gliomas in exposed animals. Increased risk for developing of the same tumor was shown in epidemiological studies. This is a very significant finding. NTP study dramatically strengthens the evidence obtained from epidemiological studies. Now, mechanism for the development of glioma should be determined. It needs to be determined whether RF radiation induces glioma by itself or whether RF radiation only assists in development of gliomas caused by other factor(s)."
Ahonen kirjoittaa tuossa Uuden Suomen puheenvuorossaan:
"Tällä hetkellä, vuonna 2016, on jo riittävästi näyttöä kausaalisuutta mittaavalla Bradford-Hill-kriteerillä, että radiotaajuisen säteilyn syöpäluokitus pitäisi nostaa luokkaan ’todennäköisesti syöpää aiheuttava’.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192496"
Toisaalta tuosta paperista (Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones.) voi lukea lopusta:
"Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised."
Eli tutkijat ehdottavat IARC:n luokkaa 1, ihmisille karsinogeeninen.
USA:n Syöpäsäätiön (American Cancer Society) jo aiemmin julkistama tiedote NTP-tutkimustulosten merkittävyydestä:
http://pressroom.cancer.org/NTP2016Quote:
"The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn't reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It’s interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link.
“The new report covers only partial findings from the study, but importantly one of the two cancers linked to cell phone radiation was malignant gliomas in the brain. The association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding. And importantly, the study found a ‘dose/response’ effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, a key sign that this association may be real.
Quote:
NTP-tutkimukseen liittyen tosiaan puhutaan pääasiassa "vain" syövän kehittymisestä, mutta on paljon muitakin terveyshaittoja, joita varsinkin pulssimainen radiotaajuinen säteily todennäköisesti aiheuttaa. Luotettavaa ja riippumatonta tutkimusta kaivataan todellakin lisää edelleen, vaikka näyttöä onkin jo paljon.
Martin Pall kirjoittaa seuraavasti kirjeessään Kalifornian lainsäätäjille:
Quote:
Thousands of published studies show biological and health effects from electromagnetic fields. We now know the mechanism that can explain these effects. The mechanism is a function of the electromagnetics of each cell—not solely about heating effects from the radiation (on which present FCC guidelines are based).This new understanding [1-7] means we can debunk the claims of the wireless industry that there cannot be a mechanism for effects produced by these weak EMFs. The 20 years plus of industry propaganda claims are false. Rather the thousands of studies showing diverse health impacts of these EMFs can be explained. We now have a mechanism, one that is supported by both the biology and the physics, both of which are pointing in exactly the same direction. I am sending as a separate document a list of 134 reviews, each of which provides from 12 to over a thousand individual citations showing health impacts of low intensity EMFs, EMFs that the telecommunications industry claims
cannot have such effects. These 134 reviews and thousands of primary scientific papers they cite show that the industry propaganda has no scientific support whatsoever.
Quote:
Tässä linkki tuohon kirjeeseen:
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 8-7-17.pdf
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
