Cellphone Shields and Brain Cancer

Cellphones release microwave radiation when they're in use, a fact that inevitably leads to fears of brain cancer.

Chris Woolston writes, "cell phones release microwave radiation when they're in use, a fact that" has "inevitably led to fears of brain cancer." but, "worries about brain cancer spawned a market for products that supposedly protect cell phone users," such as "a thin polyester patch that contains a microchip that allegedly renders cell phones harmless." in an "unpublished scientific paper," investigators stated that the device "supposedly...can convert harmful delta brain waves to helpful alpha waves." A professor of physics , claims that "it's a scam," noting that "the claims they're making aren't very clear." he added that "claims of 'natural resonant frequencies' may seem impressive," but that "people have been talking about natural resonant frequencies for years." Furthermore, "the cheap devices are extremely unlikely to possess the type of technology it would take to really absorb, deflect, or modify radiation in a meaningful way."

One site selling the biopro cell chip site says its patented technology "has been proven in numerous scientific studies to neutralize the dangers of electromagnetic radiation from cellphones and other devices." the site goes on to explain that the device "superimposes a low-frequency 'noise field' on emr [electromagnetic radiation] that resembles the natural resonant frequencies of the body's living cells. This effectively renders emr harmless."

The site for the waveshield 2000 gold claims that the device can reduce radiation from the earpiece by "50-97%." the company used to claim that similar devices blocked up to 99% of radiation coming from the antenna -- the major source of cellphone radiation -- until the ftc filed suit for false advertising in 2002.

The bottom line: most [experts] think these devices are worthless.


Even Dr. Ronald Herberman, of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer institute and one of the leading voices calling for caution with cellphones, says he is "not aware of any evidence supporting the claims of cellphone guards" and doesn't recommend their use.

He and colleagues recently offered 10 tips for reducing radiation exposure from cellphones, including holding them as far away from the head as possible, using them for only a few minutes at a time and keeping them away from children. Cellphone shields didn't warrant a mention.

Shield or no shield, the hazards of cellphones are far from certain. Some believe that the microwaves released by cellphones don't have enough energy to break apart strands of dna, the type of damage that could possibly set the stage for cancer. Others agrees that cellphone radiation "cannot directly damage dna," but think that cellphone radiation could still indirectly scramble genetic material in ways that have yet to be explained.

Findings on safety so far have been mixed. Researchers at the University of Utah recently pooled together the results of nine studies that looked for a link between cellphone use and brain cancer. As reported in the journal of neuro-oncology in 2008, they found no sign that frequent cellphone users were more likely than anyone else to get brain cancer. A danish study of more than 420,000 people also found no connection between cellphones and cancer, even in people who had used the phones for more than 10 years.

However, Australian researchers who examined 11 previous studies comparing people with and without brain tumors concluded that using a cellphone for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of developing a brain tumor on the side of the head where a person usually used the phone. (it's worth noting that some of the individual studies that they looked at concluded that cellphones didn't raise cancer risk.)

In the face of that uncertainty, Herberman urges caution. That's caution -- not cellphone shields.


Please remember, as with all our articles we provide information, not medical advice.
For any treatment of your own medical condition you must visit your local doctor, with or without our article[s]. These articles are not to be taken as individual medical advice.

*Tune in tomorrow for MIRACLE CURES IN MEDICINE

Deepen your understanding of "medical malpractice"... www.MedMalBook.com

For more health info and links visit the author's web site www.hookman.com

WHAT KIND OF SPF SUNSCREENS TO USE

SPF is often misunderstood says the Prescriber’s Newsletter.

SPF applies only to UVB...not UVA. UVB causes the familiar sunburn. SPF is an estimate of how long a person can stay in the sun without obvious sunburn.

For example, if a person would burn in 10 minutes with NO protection, then an SPF 15 sunscreen will protect 15 times longer or 150 minutes...and an SPF 30 would protect 30 times longer or 300 minutes.There's no proof that an SPF over 50 gives any measurable added benefit.

UVB ratings get the most attention, but are only part of the story.
UVA ratings will appear on some sunscreens. You'll see 1, 2, 3, or 4 stars indicating low, medium, high, or highest protection.
UVA causes skin aging and skin cancer...not visual sunburn.

Recommend sunscreens labeled broad-spectrum. These contain UVA blockers such as avobenzone, zinc oxide, and/or titanium.

You'll now see Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) in some Anthelios sunscreens. Mexoryl SX covers some of the shorter UVA rays that are not covered by avobenzone...and it's more stable in sunlight.

But when avobenzone is combined with octocrylene, oxybenzone, or other ingredients it's more stable and has a broader spectrum.

Recommend zinc oxide or titanium dioxide for sensitive skin. They block UVA and UVB by sitting on top of the skin...not binding to it.

Water resistance ratings refer to how long the product is effective during swimming, heavy sweating, etc.

Explain to patients that a product labeled "water-resistant" lasts about 40 mins in water...and a "very water-resistant" product lasts about 80 mins.

Proper application is key. Instruct people to apply sunscreen 20 minutes before sun exposure...and reapply at least every 2 hours.

Emphasize applying enough...about 1/2 to one teaspoon per body part (leg, arm, back, face, etc)...or about 1 ounce for the full body. Applying only half the amount will give only half the protection.

Advise avoiding sunscreen/insect repellent combos. Suggest using separate products because the sunscreen needs to be applied more often than the repellent. Advise patients to apply the sunscreen first, then the repellent.

SUMMARY-COMMENT:
There are new ways to help you prevent the kind of damage to your skin that can cause not only wrinkles, but also skin cancer, which is the second most common form of cancer in the United States.

• Use skin care products with UVA/UVB and broad spectrum protection. Before going outside, apply sun-resistant skin care products such as body wash, makeup, and lip balm. Use sunscreen (SPF 30 or greater) that contains a broad spectrum protection ingredient such as oxybenzone, sulisobenzone, avobenzone, ecamsule, titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.

• Buy clothing with UVA/UVB protection. Everyone knows that the more you cover up, the less chance you have of damaging your skin. But did you know that you can get additional protection by choosing clothes made from fabrics that reflect ultraviolet light? These fashions, from bathing suits to sweatsuits, come with a label that states the UPF (ultraviolet protection factor) of the clothes. The higher the UPF, the more protection you receive.

• Add UPF to your own clothes. Special laundry additives are available that apply sun protection to your clothes for up to 20 washings. You can find more information about additives and purchase them online.

• Choose sun-resistant accessories. While you are outside, wear sunglasses that block at least 99 percent of UVB rays and at least 95 percent of UVA rays. Select a sun hat made with UPF fabric. Take an umbrella with you, even when it’s not raining.


* Tune in tomorrow for Sun Allergies!

Deepen your understanding of "medical malpractice"... www.MedMalBook.com

SUMMER SALE - SPECIAL OFFER - ONLY TILL LABOR DAY 2009 ALL PRICES SLASHED 50% + FREE SHIPPING & HANDLING

Ultrasound Alternative To Mammograms

Radiologists can now suspend a patient's breast in water, and then send sound waves through the water in order to image breast tissue. The device uses 256 ultrasonic sensors to assemble 50 to 70 two dimensional slices into a three dimensional image of the breast that reveals cancers larger than five millimeters in diameter.

Each year more than 18-million women get a mammogram. But up to 15% of mammograms miss tell-tale signs of cancer. Now, a new technology that may be better at finding cancer and saving lives could be available.

So far it's been able to see almost all the cancers that are above five millimeters.
Developed by physicists and radiologists, the new technology, called computed ultrasound risk evaluation device -- or CURE -- does not use radiation, lasts one minute and is pain-free. While the woman's breast is suspended in water, ultrasound sensors transmit sound waves through the water. The device measures how the sound waves travel through the breast tissue. Computer images help doctors better pinpoint cancerous tissue.
"Based on the more limited trials it remains to be proven that it is more accurate than mammography.
__________________________________________________

HOW ULTRASOUND WORKS:

Ultrasound is a medical imaging technique that uses high-frequency sound waves and their echoes. It is similar to how bats navigate in the dark, and the SONAR used by submarines underwater. The machine transmits high-frequency sound pulses into the body using a probe. The sound waves travel through the body and bounce off any boundaries, such as between fluid and soft tissue, tissue and bone. Some of the sound waves are reflected back to the probe, while others travel further through until they bounce off another boundary. All the reflected waves are recorded by the machine, which then calculates the distance each sound wave traveled based on how long it took the sound wave's echo to return. This data is used to form a two-dimensional image based on the distances and intensities of those echoes.


Please remember, as with all our articles we provide information, not medical advice.

For any treatment of your own medical condition you must visit your local doctor, with or without our article[s]. These articles are not to be taken as individual medical advice.

TOO MANY X-RAYS ARE HARMFUL

CT scans is associated with significant radiation exposure in some patients; the risks should be considered carefully when imaging for chronic disease and when screening asymptomatic individuals .It is estimated that 1.5-2.0% of US population cancers may be caused by CT radiation exposure. A retrospective, cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center identified 31,462 patients undergoing diagnostic CT during 2007; and 190,712 CTs over 22 years. Estimated lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for cancer was calculated. In this cohort, baseline cancer rates predicted 13,214 cancers and 6,292 fatal cancers; 98 additional cancers (62 fatal) were predicted from CT.

REFERENCE:
“Recurrent CT, Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Associated Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks from CT of Adults” by Sodickson A et al. Radiology 2009;251:175-184 Colonoscopy Prevents 15,000 Cancer Cases

Please remember, as with all our articles we provide information, not medical advice.

For any treatment of your own medical condition you must visit your local doctor, with or without our article[s]. These articles are not to be taken as individual medical advice.