(News Article): Cell phone manufacturers desperately trying to hide deadly radiation risk from consumers | Health & Health Hazards | Forum

Please consider registering
sp_LogInOut Log In
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
(News Article): Cell phone manufacturers desperately trying to hide deadly radiation risk from consumers
March 10, 2019
6:17 pm
Richard Daystrom PhD
Livermore, CA.
Level 1
Forum Posts: 740
Member Since:
December 19, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Cell phone manufacturers desperately trying to hide deadly radiation risk from consumers.


Sunday, March 10, 2019 by: Ethan Huff
Tags: 5gbadcancerbadhealthbadpollutionbadsciencecell phonescell towersdeceptionEMFmobile devicesmobile phonesradiationtechnology


(Natural News) Nearly everybody has one these days, and life would be much more difficult without them. But that doesn’t mean that mobile phones and the radiation they constantly emit are safe, despite aggressive efforts by manufacturers and those connected with the wireless industry who claim otherwise, minimizing as best they can the very real risks involved with constant exposure.

Cognitive problems and brain tumors are among the many reported side effects of cell phone usage – side effects that manufacturers are required to tell you about, but that are often hidden from view. If your cell phone even came with a printed manual, it’s buried somewhere deep within the fine print. If it didn’t, well it’s likely going to take some assistance to find where it’s hiding inside your phone.

CBC News out of Canada recently did a feature on the radiation risks of cell phones as part of its Marketplace show. Many users were unable to find the safety information because it isn’t easily accessible. But once they were shown how to find it – usually hidden inside the terms of service – they were shocked to learn the truth.

On an iPhone, it was shown that the fine print warned users to avoid exposure to the radio frequency (RF) energy emitted from the device by using a hands-free cord. It also warned that carrying the phone closer than 5 millimeters (mm) from the body, which most people do as it sits in their pocket, could pose health threats.

One would think that such information would be required to be printed in large, bold letters on a sticker either on the box or the on the phone itself once it’s opened for the first time. But you’d be hard-pressed to find it this way, as are the vast majority of cell phone users – upwards of 81 percent in Canada, where sampling was taken – who say they’ve never seen these safety warnings.

The way most people use their phones is unsafe, tests reveal

Tests conducted by CBC News as part of the feature looked at how many of the most popular cell phones on the market today actually perform with regards to radiation emission. They learned that at distances of 5 to 15mm away from the body, most phones, including Samsung Galaxy, LG5, and iPhone 7, were relatively safe. But any closer and all bets are off.

Basically, it’s like this: In the way that most people use and carry around their mobile phones, radiation levels to their bodies exceed what government agencies have established as safe. Unless you carry around your phone inside your purse at all times or on a clip, chances are it’s pressed right against your body, which is closer than the 5mm distance recommended.

It may not seem like much, a few extra mm either closer or further away from the body, but distance and radiation make all the difference. For each incremental distance that it’s held closer to the body, a cell phone will emit radiation that becomes progressively more damaging. Mobile phone manufacturers know this, and yet they aren’t required to prominently display this information to users.

“Dozens and dozens of studies that show (cell phone radiation) harm have been presented to Health Canada,” says Frank Clegg, a former president of Microsoft Canada who now heads up a group that advocates for improved safety guidelines that would protect users from the pitfalls of radiation-based technology.

Clegg says government indifference to this plethora of evidence is “unforgivable,” and is working with others, including Dr. Devra Davis, founder of the non-profit advocacy group Environmental Health Trust, to increase transparency about radiation dangers in the interest of public health.

Sources include:



W. O. Belfield, Jr.

March 12, 2019
7:34 am
Level 0
Forum Posts: 20
Member Since:
December 18, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think the government has once again proven itself to be totally uncaring about it's citizens.  When it comes to pushing forth an 'agenda,' or supporting businesses that put profits ahead of the welfare of people, the government will do what's necessary.  Whether it's manipulation of information or sequestering of evidence, it seems nothing is out of bounds.

There's a lot of debate out there on the web regarding the hazards of the coming '5G' and the possible dangers to the human body.  I remember hearing about the radiation from cell phones and have made it a habit of not placing it next to my ear when talking.  Unfortunately I have been carrying it in my back pocket - so there's that. 

When reading up on this, I did come across a photo of a palm tree that was next to a cell phone tower (the tower wasn't very tall) … the tree was dying, while another tree a short distance away was alive. From what I've seen the companies that erect and service these towers are now placing smaller units on buildings, not only on top but on the side … to provide better service. Imagine living in an apartment with one of things mounted just outside.  

Funny, for a while now, every time I got my physical, my PSA was high.  In fact I had my first biopsy many years ago and a few more since then.  Back then the phones were small and one could easily carry them in the front pocket if desired.  I still have a couple of them that I've kept.  The most recent biopsy showed low-grade cancer.  So I'm going to have to address that, but wouldn't it be a kick in the pants to find out years later that carrying a cell phone in a pocket could be related.   

While civilizations live, they may still aspire, and hope - as long as their legions can hold the far frontier. - T.R. Fehrenbach

March 12, 2019
9:20 am
Richard Daystrom PhD
Livermore, CA.
Level 1
Forum Posts: 740
Member Since:
December 19, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
You should include Saw Palmetto, zinc in addition to vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and vitamin D mentioned below.


There is no doubt whatsoever that diet has a major role in allowing - or stopping - prostate cancer.  For example, a Harvard University School of Public Health study indicated that you are 250% more likely to suffer advanced prostate cancer if you eat red meat every day than if you eat red meat only once a week. The message is clear and generally ignored: move your diet in the direction of vegetarianism, and start today (USA Weekend, December 3-5, 1993, p 14). 

Vitamin D fights prostate cancer. Be sure to read this article by John J. Cannell, M.D.: https://www.vitamindcouncil.or.....te-cancer/  To learn more, I recommend a free and quick Medline search ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez ) for papers by “Holick MF.” My interview with Dr. Holick is posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/.....olick.html This may also be useful to you: http://www.doctoryourself.com/.....itamin.htm

Vitamin E fights prostate cancer. Research published in the International Journal of Cancer has shown that gamma-tocotrienol, a co-factor found in natural vitamin E preparations, actually kills prostate cancer stem cells. (1) As you would expect, these are the very cells from which prostate cancer develops. They are or quickly become chemotherapy-resistant. And yet natural vitamin E complex contains the very thing to kill them. Mice given gamma-tocotrienol orally had an astonishing 75% decrease in tumor formation. Gamma-tocotrienol also is effective against existing prostate tumors. (2,3)

W. O. Belfield, Jr.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 376
Currently Online: Pee Oui
Guest(s) 75
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10395
bionic: 9870
Lashmar: 5289
tigger: 4577
rath: 4297
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3815
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2842
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 26108
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9961
Posts: 126710
Newest Members:
Timust, Smith, Jay, lynlyn, Michelle, Goat mama, Char, Zoltan Papp, Dometheus, Don
Administrators: John Greenewald: 700, blackvault: 1777