Caribarena Antigua The Best Caribbean News Portal

**tenman** » 2011-08-23 17:26

PFKAR we differ on our perceptions of the aim of Caribarena. I am glad we can agree that precautions need to be taken and that's all I have gotten from the articles I read so far on Caribarena regarding this topic.

..

**John French II** » 2011-08-23 17:24

Notes From A Native Son Of The Rock. Friends, CountryWomen/Me n, Ouadadlians, Rastas, "Pickey Head People" we must be always on the lookout and on guard against "Schills". When the BBC started to Broadcast from Antigua, the late LT Hector wrote and warned against the effects from the microwave and radio waves. Many were dismissal. It is well known that the US & the USSR had regularly bombarded each others embassy with microwave radiation. This schill hoisted herself on his own petard when he/she suggested that the case should be built on good science of which there is plenty. Beware of mongooses in rabbits clothing. These "Schills" know that the Developed Countries are not open "Sesames" and the "Wild Buccaneers Caribbean Sea" where there are no precautionary rules and regulations. The Simplest Re**al is Tobacco. Anyone who uses a Cellphone for a lengthy period knows how hot the damn thing gets. Men are discouraged from prolonged Laptop use on their laps. Talk about heat to the pubic area. As Microwave Chef says, roasted brown nuts for sale. Precaution is the Word for the Day. Heaven Help The Nation of Antigua & Barbuda - Redonda?

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 16:41

I agree with precaution. I agree that Antigua should be in step with international standards. That is not my concern here. I will state that the WHO's current position is one of caution, since a definitive link has not been made. Their stance also recognizes the problem with getting good data; it's getting to be harder and harder to find a control group who has never used a cell phone. That being said, they should be cautious if there is any indication that there may be a link. The problem is there is a lot of data out there which shows that there is no link. Caution = good, absolute claims of danger = not supported.

My concern, and my reason for posting, is that caribarena is not building their case on solid science, of which there is plenty. The authors of these articles is using nonsense to instill fear in their readership. It is dishonest journalism and should not be tolerated.

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 16:08

Thanks for the link. Here is the link to the actual article in the American Journal of Epidemiology:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/167/4/457.full?sid=7b4519cf-aae8-44b8-8e69-708ce98f4c1a

Not sure if you will be able to read it, I am on a university campus with a subscription to the journal, so it may not be freely available.

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 16:07

Long and short of it (with this particular study) is that the data for the long-term cell phone users (the ones being claimed to have a greater risk of tumors) is of questionable significance. The larger data sets show no increased risk, but those data sets which do show risk (> 10 years of heavy use on one side of the head) are made up of only 13 subjects, so it is a stretch to suggest that they are statistically significant. To drive this point home, in the same study, those who have used cell phones for > 10 years, but use it on BOTH sides of their head have a substantially lower risk of developing tumors than people who have never used a cell phone! Their risk is cut in half according to the data presented. You need bigger populations to come to useful conclusions. Larger studies and meta-analyses do not tend to show a link.

**skyewill** » 2011-08-23 15:46

You are correct

**tenman** » 2011-08-23 15:28

Cell phone radiation might cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization, which until Tuesday has said that there were no known health risks associated with cell phone use. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer has now tied mobile phone radiation to an increased risk for glioma brain tumors (see www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/229054/cell_phones_may_cause_cancer_says_the_who_what_to_do.html)

PFKAR, since the word is may why should we not take precautions? The article I provided a link to also included some of the precautions. Where the towers are concerned why don't we ensure they are placed properly? I would think that one thing we would ensure is that they are not placed near schools.

..

**tenman** » 2011-08-23 14:55

pkfar here is at least one www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm

..

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 14:38

Skayantigua,

Which study? Give me a link please.

If there is reliable data to suggest a link between cell phone use and untoward health effects, by all means it should be referenced.

If caribarena wants to point out that Dr. Mansoor (and other ministers) are not qualified for the posts they hold, I say make those claims loudly. And if caribarena wants to demand that Antigua follow international standards on cell towers, I again support the effort. But what caribarena has been doing since the beginning of their crusade on cell phones is putting forth debunked pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and greatly distorted presentation of the available data. There is no journalistic integrity in publishing a comment on cancer rates (not the final study, but just a remark made by a medical officer) and using the article as a spring board for the author's agenda to claim that cell phones cause cancer. That is all this story does.

**skayantigua** » 2011-08-23 12:18

Which brings us to this new study from researchers at Sweden's Örebro University.

The Örebro team examined two cohort studies (in which medical records for subjects who used cell phones were compared to the records of subjects who didn't use cell phones) and 16 case-control studies (in which cell phone use among subjects with cancer was compared to cell use among healthy subjects). All of the subjects who used cell phones had used them for 10 years or more. The studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Britain.

Analysis of the research produced these results:

Most of the studies found a link between cell use and increased tumor risk
Several studies found that cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas cancers of the cells that protect nerve cells

Several studies found a link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, which often results in deafness and balance problems

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 11:56

Lawrence,

Not true. Correlation is not the same as causation. There are loads of variables which can contribute to cancer rates in a given area, and it is impossible to account for them all in any single study. When larger studies are conducted, looking at several antennae in various locations, the effects disappear, meaning no correlation is found between health risks and the presence of cell towers or other sources of EMR.

**Laurence** » 2011-08-23 11:43

Well if the research will find out increased cancer cases in certain areas than they will be able to verify if it relates to cell phone towers in that specific area. I'm not sure the source but I read about a neighborhood in the US where cancer was increased tremendously in a period of 10 years due to antennas that were installed on the roofs of buildings there.

**PFKAR** » 2011-08-23 10:07

Collin, Please! Have someone who understands what they are talking about put onto this series. The argument being made by caribarena throughout this entire series has been rooted in pseudoscience, non-science, and nonsense. The science has been misrepresented, the sources have often been from discredited **s like George Carlo, and the logic has been fallacious throughout. The following:

"While she was careful not to suggest any connection between an observed increase in cancers and any cause other than lifestyle factors, there is no logical way to escape the possibility of a connection to (for example) cell phone or other electro-magneti c radiation."

Is nothing but inflammatory drivel; it is merely an attempt to poison the well. There are literally infinite possible reasons for any, as of yet unestablished, rise in the cases of Cancer in Antigua. Given the best available REAL information, it is no more likely that cell phones are responsible for cancer in Antigua than is the decrease in the number of parrot fish. Correlation (if it even exists) does not equal causation. Please stop your fear-mongering!

Title	Answers
ANY INFO ON HOLIDAY LETTINGS AT BARRYMORE BEACH CLUB RUNNAWAY BAY	0
first caribbean international bank	0
how can i get in touch with Dilana R. the professional singer?	0
Who was antigua's first Govenor General	1
WHICH ONE OF THE BIRD IS DEAD	1

Title	Answers	Hits
Was there a police report filed by Royal Caribbean Vision of the seas for the man, wife and 11 yr old child removed from the ship on December 20th, 2012 ? He allegedly attacked a man with a service dog on the ship and was set on the dock that day with hi	0	30449
PWD in shambles, what is the purpose of their position? I'm tired of these people in the dept who jsut come eac day to make you feel uncomfortable because of their miserable lives. someone needs to look into this.	0	14631
What is the world's largest airline?	2	5347
What is the amount ZDK owes for electricity ?	1	3699
any audio or video of Minister Farrakhan speech at the Multi-purpose Centre?	1	3602

13 Comments In This Article

Add comment

Follow us on Facebook

Popular Questions

Ask Your Question

Spotlight on Mobile

Latest What Ails You News

Most Read This Month In Health

Search Directory

Directory Listings

App

CARIBARENA