Despite studies finding increases risk of cancer from cellphone radiation, the FDA claims they’re safe as long as you’re not a “heavy user”

Image: Despite studies finding increases risk of cancer from cellphone radiation, the FDA claims they’re safe as long as you’re not a “heavy user”

(Natural News)
A new government study presents data to suggest that mobile phone use is detrimental to humans because of all the non-ionizing radiation these devices emit. But not to worry, claims the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – we’re all apparently not using our cellphones enough for them to cause any significant harm, so keep on texting and gorging yourself on social media.

It was the National Toxicology Program (NTP) that conducted this latest research, focusing specifically on the effects of exposure to constant, high levels of radio-frequency (RF) radiation. As has similarly been found in other research, cellphone radiation is a high-risk potential cause of cancer – and the amounts of radiation given off by most “smart” phone devices these days is more than likely much higher than what manufacturers even claim, which makes them an even more serious threat.

But the FDA is taking it upon itself to play information cleanup crew by trying to bury these damning findings under the rug, or at least minimize them. The agency, which specializes in food and drugs as opposed to electronics, has somehow made itself an authority on this issue by claiming that only “heavy users” of cellphones are at an increased risk of cancer. But what, exactly, is the definition of a “heavy user?”

Truth be told, a heavy cellphone user today is much different than a heavy cellphone user 10 years ago before the days of smartphones. In fact, what was once considered heavy cellphone use is technically light use today, which means the entire assessment process in terms of risk is in dire need of an update. But is the FDA taking any of this into account with its blanket reassurance not to worry about cellphone radiation?

Non-ionizing radiation still heats human tissue and poses a serious cancer risk

Because cellphones are said to emit a type of radiation that does not cause DNA damage, many authorities are similarly insistent that cellphones aren’t problematic for humans. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is one such agency that claims cellphones are low-risk because they emit non-ionizing radiation, and at levels so low that the risk is negligible.

But what they aren’t telling you is that non-ionizing still heats human tissue, which poses a health threat that has yet to be fully assessed. The NCI, in fact, hasn’t even studied the matter to a degree that would provide any solid answers as to how non-ionizing radiation affects human tissue, especially over the longer term.

Meanwhile, independent studies have concluded that cellphone use is associated with a number of types of cancer, including gliomas and meningiomas, both of which occur in the brain. Cellphones are especially risky for young, developing children whose brains are still in their formative stages of growth and progression.

And we’re talking about average usage patterns here, or what has come to be normal cellphone usage in the year 2018. Since cancer can take several years, or even up to a decade, to develop, this suggests that cancer rates will likely begin to soar once exposure sets in and its effects begin to manifest, spurring an epidemic of health problems that most people won’t even be able to begin to fathom.

“…it is important to point out that the ‘heavy’ users of a decade ago are the ‘low’ users of today,” commented one person at

“The reality is that we are all ‘heavy’ users. Children and teens are most vulnerable and they are also going to be using phones for a lifetime. While I am certainly in favor of more research, I also think it is prudent that governments act now to create public awareness and policy to reduce exposure – as is done in many other countries.”

Read for more coverage of electromagnetic radiation and ionizing radiation.

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

Cellphone Radiation Linked To Tumors In Male Rats, Government Study Says

Cellphone Radiation Linked To Tumors In Male Rats, Government Study Says

February 3rd, 2018

Via: CBS:

High exposure to radiofrequency radiation — the radiation known as RFR and emitted from your cell phone — causes a rare cancer in male rats, according to draft conclusions released by the National Institutes of Health on Friday.

The two technical reports, one on mice and the other on rats, released by the NIH’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) show the exposure to the high levels of radiation resulted in tumors in the tissues surrounding nerves in the heart of male rats.

Both male and female rats that were exposed to high levels of RFR showed increased patterns of damage to their heart tissue, according to the researchers.

“The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,� said NTP senior scientist Dr. John Bucher in a written statement. “We note, however, that the tumors we saw in these studies are similar to tumors previously reported in some studies of frequent cell phone users.�

Related: Dr. Martin Pall, Ph.D.: Electromagnetic Field Exposure – The Cellular Effect on Humans




Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Source Article from

How The Supreme Court Could Keep Police From Using Your Cellphone to Spy on You

The cellphones we carry with us constantly are the most perfect surveillance device ever invented, and our laws haven’t caught up to that reality. That might change soon.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with profound implications on your security and privacy in the coming years. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unlawful search and seizure is a vital right that protects us all from police overreach, and the way the courts interpret it is increasingly nonsensical in our computerized and networked world. The Supreme Court can either update current law to reflect the world, or it can further solidify an unnecessary and dangerous police power.

The case centers on cellphone location data and whether the police need a warrant to get it, or if they can use a simple subpoena, which is easier to obtain. Current Fourth Amendment doctrine holds that you lose all privacy protections over any data you willingly share with a third party. Your cellular provider, under this interpretation, is a third party with whom you’ve willingly shared your movements, 24 hours a day, going back months — even though you don’t really have any choice about whether to share with them. So police can request records of where you’ve been from cell carriers without any judicial oversight. The case before the court, Carpenter v. United States, could change that.

Traditionally, information that was most precious to us was physically close to us. It was on our bodies, in our homes and offices, in our cars. Because of that, the courts gave that information extra protections. Information that we stored far away from us, or gave to other people, afforded fewer protections. Police searches have been governed by the “third-party doctrine,” which explicitly says that information we share with others is not considered private.

Pages: 1 2

If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

OCDA Clears Anaheim Cop Who Mistook Cellphone for Gun in Fatal Shooting


The Orange County District Attorney’s office released a report today justifying last November’s deadly shooting of Adalid Flores, an unarmed man, by Anaheim police officer Lorenzo Uribe. Flores fled the scene of a traffic collision on the 91 Freeway when an off-duty Los Angeles Police Department cop saw him running away with a friend. A few minutes later, the California Highway Patrol called Anaheim PD for help.

According to the OCDA’s report, officer John Yoo responded to the scene. “Fuck, let’s do this,” Flores said before running from a center divider towards a home on East Street near the freeway. Officer Uribe and his partner Scott Eden arrived at the house where a now shirtless Flores paced back-and-forth in the driveway with one hand behind his back and dug the other into his pocket. “Let me see your hands,” Uribe commanded three times with his weapon drawn. “Fuck you!” Flores responded.

Eden told Uribe two times that Flores held a cellphone. “Don’t say that!’ his partner said. Yoo thought he held a wallet. “I can’t see dude,” Uribe said. “I don’t think it’s a cell phone…I think it’s a gun.” Anaheim helicopter cop James Elliot broadcast that he believed Flores held an object in his right hand that “might be” a weapon. That’s all Uribe needed to issue a last call for Flores to show his hands. He fidgeted around, instead, for four seconds—the lapse of time between Uribe’s command and opening fire.

But police found nothing on Flores save for the cellphone Eden stated that he had seen. Paramedics transferred the 29-year-old to UCI Medical Center in Orange where he was pronounced dead from two gunshot wounds.

Uribe later told OCDA investigators that Eden only told him he thought Flores had a cellphone, although in audio recordings, his partner can only be heard saying “cell phone” without a qualifier. Uribe dismissed the assessment, perhaps because Eden was a rookie policeman with just six months on the job. He also likened Flores’ hostile demeanor to that of a “coffee pot that’s boiling,” leading him to conclude he wasn’t dealing with an “average or normal criminal.” In Eden’s voluntary statement to investigators, he recalled telling Uribe that the object was a cellphone or thought it looked like one.

The OCDA pondered facts that could undermine a jury’s belief that Uribe reasonably thought Flores was armed when he shot him, including Eden and Yoo saying they saw a cellphone and a wallet, respectively. The report also notes that both officers said in statements that they had their weapons drawn because Flores could have been armed and would have shot had he moved his arms towards them. But he didn’t and they didn’t.

For the full story visit :

Source Article from

You and your family are being barbecued by cellphone towers and it’s worse than you might think

HAWAII (INTELLIHUB) — Two cell phone towers can be found in a local hardware store parking lot which continuously pump out 1500-2000 micro-watts of radiation to the area at all times.

Biological effects from cellphone tower radiation on humans and animals begin at only 3.4 micro-watts and can be measured with a special meter, according to the EMF Safety Zone. Here, in this parking lot, we are talking about levels of 1500-2000 MW!

Cancer can be caused from prolonged exposure to RF.

Ladies and gentlemen, never stand near these antennas and if you live by one — move.

Another related video, shows similar examples:

Via Intellihub


Study proves electromagnetic fields from cell towers can amplify pain

Featured Image: Carl Lender/Flickr
©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Source Article from

New Study: Cellphones Really Are Giving You Cancer

As myself and others have been telling you for years, your cellphone really is giving you cancer. That’s the conclusion from a new mega study that backs up the reality that cellphone radiation is contributing to the development of brain tumors.

“For example, using your phone for just 20 minutes a day for five years increased the risk of one type of brain tumor threefold, and using the phone an hour a day for four years upped the risk of some tumors three to five times, study author Igor Yakymenko said.”

It’s something that has been dubbed a ‘conspiracy theory’ for some time: the notion that pressing your cellphone against your ear could be causing some serious damage. In fact, I remember being called ‘crazy’ about 5 years ago by a medical professional for investing in a pair of headphones in order to go hands-free with my calls.

But then again, I’ve also been called ‘crazy’ for going against Monsanto’s Roundup (now admittedly linked to cancer), and heavy water fluoridation (now being scaled back and found to be worthless when it comes to cavity prevention).

What This Study Truly Means

But here’s what this study truly means. Once again, we now find that it is essential to take your health (and knowledge of true health) into your own hands, and take your own measures to decrease your daily exposure to dangerous factors. Whether it’s avoiding additives in the food supply, or limiting your cellphone use and going hands-free.

As RT reports:

“Yakymenko said that cellphone use for 20 minutes a day for five years can boost the risk of one type of brain tumor by three times, while using a cellphone for an hour a day for four years and increase the risk of certain tumors by three to five times.”

Ultimately, studies like this one serve one major purpose: to remind us that we should be using common sense and knowledge to better protect ourselves each day.

Organic Non-GMO Cookbook & Shopping Guide

About Anthony Gucciardi:

Author Image

Google Plus Profile

Anthony is a natural health and self-development author, speaker, and activist whose writings have appeared in #1 USA Today and Wall Street Journal Best-Selling books and top 100 websites. As the Co-Founder of NaturalSociety, Anthony’s writings on the subject of health and wellness have reached tens of millions of readers worldwide. A proponent of an organic lifestyle, the growth of alternative news, and a dedication to aiding various non-profit organizations, NaturalSociety was Anthony’s next step in what he calls “highlighting what you won’t be hearing about on the major news networks.”

Anthony has appeared on both grassroots and established platforms alike, including routine appearances on Drudge Report, Daily Mail, RT, The Blaze, Infowars, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, Coast to Coast AM, and many others.

Follow Anthony on Twitter Follow Anthony on Facebook

Source Article from