kills brain cells since it is the same raddiowavelength as brain cells. That needs to be changed to reduce the carcinogenic aspects of cellphones. Simple. Change the radiowavelength that is transmitted from cellphone towers and used by cellphones.

The study found a correlation with higher levels of salivary oxidative stress, not a correlation with cancer. Lots of studies did NOT saw any correlation with cellphone use and cancer. See for instance the immense danish study published in BMJ (www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387): "Conclusions: In this update of a large nationwide cohort study of mobile phone use, there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association." By the way, for comment #1: Rivkah, it is not mandatory to write on things that you don't know. Lying by ignorance is still lying.

mammograms have no correlation with breat cancer treatment... The really interesting part is it was used to force women from taking mammogram every 6 months bu canceling insurance payment and pricing these services out of range of average people. Now, the tzimis of all this Danish study is that the board of directors of the fine isntitutions, that commissioned mammogram study with such fatefull outcome still retain unique insurance wich provides for mammogram 2 times a year, and take it vigorously.

I'm far from an expert on the subject (I don't even play a doctor on TV). But doesn't it stand to reason that oxidative stress evidence in saliva is similar to oxidative stress found in muscle following exercise? So, don't hearing people - the ones on the cellphones - speak a bit more than the deaf subjects of this study? Could the speaking itself be what increases the oxidative stress evidence in the saliva? Maybe it's not the cellphones at all? Did this study check the oxidative stress levels following a two week period of non-phone-use for the speaking subjects? I'm still not convinced.

There was a report to the same effect some years back. One of the authors was the Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo.

#4 Ranana you are correct! The article is badly flawed and one has to question the knowledge and partiality of its author. The experiment can be ruled out immediately as it is not randomized. It is divided into two groups hearing impaired and those who can hear. This is ripe for confounding as #4 from Raanana clearly stated. The hearing impaired speak less and perhaps this accounts for the difference. If the story is accurate, one must question the competence of the researchers, their ability to conduct a proper experiment and the measurements they took. This is another example of a low quality study that will get press for all the wrong reasons. Graham Sigurdson could use a few science classes himself. The primary risks of DDT and engine exhaust have nothing to do with their Group 2b classification. The comparison is bogus and made strictly for effect. This is a shameful article and all too typical of anti-wireless propaganda.

the study clearly compared trend in differing people who use phone by placing it next to head use phone placing it far from head It's a setup that has no flaws, as far as pattern comparison goes. **** There is an article regarding doctor who took 3 mammograms in 2 weeks to find tumor in stage 1. The first one she dismissed because she knows her tissue and she immediatelly identified switch over with someone else's rentgen. The second was poor in quality. The third one was good quality, but technician came back with negative. She knew precisely that she had a tumor because she found it by self - check and were able to shame / convince technician to bring out an image for her test. She poored over image for 2 hours and found the spot. She was cured, and got away without mastectomy. This costed her insurance company estimated 1.5 million dollars in lost income, comapre with the potential for treatment of a patient in stage 4 with 1 - 2 year sting with palliative support in hospice at the tail.