Mobile Phones Cause Reduced Production of ATP

[Guest]

There is not much we can say for sure about the effects of cell phone radiation on the human body and especially the human brain.

Mobile Phones Cause Reduced Production of ATP : Read more

 

[eddieroolz]

While I'm sure any form of electromagnetic waves are bound to have some negative side effects, the positivity outweighs any ATP issues one may experience.

 

[serendipiti]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]While I'm sure any form of electromagnetic waves are bound to have some negative side effects, the positivity outweighs any ATP issues one may experience.[/citation]

True ? not really I suppose, why don't we talk about smoking and its effects against stress ? If you got assured that you won't have any disease, perhaps that would be ok.
The problem I think is that if you got that far against smoking for health reasons, you must go there if the reason is another but the problem is the same...
I don't think as you, and RF from your mobile is reaching me (as in fact reaches all the universe)... let's go to court!!!!!

 

[jldevoy]

I dont think mobiles would be banned even if they were found to cause cancer, there's too much money in them.

 

[madjimms]

[citation][nom]serendipiti[/nom]True ? not really I suppose, why don't we talk about smoking and its effects against stress ? If you got assured that you won't have any disease, perhaps that would be ok. The problem I think is that if you got that far against smoking for health reasons, you must go there if the reason is another but the problem is the same... I don't think as you, and RF from your mobile is reaching me (as in fact reaches all the universe)... let's go to court!!!!![/citation]
Smokings effects against stress? If you didn't start smoking you wouldn't have the nicotine withdraw stress.

 

[torque79]

GSM signals are all around us at all times. how could we possibly avoid it? if one did not carry their own cell phone, every person walking around them in a crowd would, or the person sitting at the desk beside you would.

 

[soo-nah-mee]

As often as most people actually hold the phone to their ear these days, I think this is a non-issue.

This is assuming that that alleged damaged occurs only when the phone is held to the ear and not just within the vicinity of one's body.

 

[deck]

"GSM signals are all around us at all times. how could we possibly avoid it? if one did not carry their own cell phone, every person walking around them in a crowd would, or the person sitting at the desk beside you would."

Proximity to a RF source greatly increases it's potency. Hold a cell phone up to the side of your brain is the primary source of concern.

 

[happyballz]

[citation][nom]torque79[/nom]GSM signals are all around us at all times. how could we possibly avoid it? if one did not carry their own cell phone, every person walking around them in a crowd would, or the person sitting at the desk beside you would.[/citation]

Phone is "radio" it communicates both ways, upon recieving the signal from the tower it radios back to it; especially a lot when you are actually talking on it and considerable power is needed to send all the data...this is where the problem lies. Not so much in GSM signals from the towers flying everywhere. There is correlation between close prolonged high-powered magnetic and radio fields exposure and cancer. But just like everythingelse it affects everyone differently.

 

[happyballz]

[citation][nom]torque79[/nom]GSM signals are all around us at all times. how could we possibly avoid it? if one did not carry their own cell phone, every person walking around them in a crowd would, or the person sitting at the desk beside you would.[/citation]

Phone is "radio" it communicates both ways, upon receiving the signal from the tower it radios back to it; especially a lot when you are actually talking on it and considerable power is needed to send all the data...this is where the problem lies. Not so much in GSM signals from the towers flying everywhere. There is correlation between close prolonged high-powered magnetic and radio fields exposure and cancer. But just like everything else it affects everyone differently.

 

[mathew7]

Article: "exposed to the GSM signal for 33 minutes."
Comment: "GSM signals are all around us at all times."
The article talks about a constant flux, like a phone call. While GSM signals are all around us, they are not "stuck" near our heads. So 1 hour of 10-people talking around you would have less effect on you than 30 minutes of your call.

 

[lamorpa]

A short uncontrolled Finnish university study of 13 people doesn't strike me as a conclusive result. We're not talking homeopathy here...

 

[mayne92]

Wow, best study ever. 13 people...tested for 33 minutes...run analysis...then go public. I'm convinced!

 

[TheKurrgan]

This does seem like a wee bit of speculation.. 13 people, 33 minutes.. That IS insufficient to come to such a conclusion scientifically. Cell phones are very low powered transmitters. So low powered its a miracle they work in my opinion.
Plus its not like there is any real different from a radiation standpoint between this, and living under or new high voltage power lines.
People just need something to worry about.

 

[borisof007]

[citation][nom]jldevoy[/nom]I dont think mobiles would be banned even if they were found to cause cancer, there's too much money in them.[/citation]

Sound familiar? Big Tobacco?

 

[doive1231]

So don't use your phone when running for the bus.

 

[house70]

Firstly, the metabolism of glucose - and any other intracellular component, for that matter - is regulated via multiple feedback loops that prevent this "disaster" from happening. ATP-mediated metabolism (metabolism of glucose in the presence of oxygen), also known as Krebs' cycle, is extremely hard to destabilize like that. This is something perfected within mitochondria, which by themselves are primitive cellular organisms that managed to live in much harsher conditions that a mere cellphone -type radiation exposure for 30 minutes.
Secondly, 30-some minutes maybe have showed a slight imbalance, but did not show all these feedback loops kicking in and restoring the homeostasis of that cycle. After all, if it was that easy to perturb it, all life forms that depend on it would have disappeared already, due to natural selection (we're talking all oxygen-consuming organisms, from aerobic bacteria to humans). Not the case. Or is the author of the study imagining that Earth is/was not bathed in radiation during it's history?
Thirdly, the mere existence of this metabolic pathway as a central cycle in the whole metabolic picture that makes us tick is living proof of it's resilience; all other variants have been eliminated via natural selection (with the exception of anaerobic bacteria that only thrived in oxygen-depleted environments, essentially alien enclaves for this oxygen-rich planet).
Fourthly, mayne92 has a point: the study is so underpowered and poorly designed, any half-baked scientist would dismiss it in a heartbeat.