Mobile Phones and Brain Tumours, A Public Health Concern (KHURANA, 2008)

 
 
 
 
 
Value This
Doc
Scribd
Average
     
Pages: 69 43
Words: 19177 13640
Characters: 124710 81678
Lines: 730 623
     
     
Letters per word: 6.5 5.99
Words per line: 26.27 21.89
Words per page: 277.93 317.21

Add to your reading list

Flag_red Flag this document

Document Information

4,051 Reads | 3 Comments

Description

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Pdf_16x16 69 Pages


Date Added

04/03/2008

Category

Uncategorized.

Tags
Groups
Awards

Flame Rising

Copyright

Attribution Non-commercial

More info »

 

or use Facebook Connect

stop-radiation.com

Dr Vini Khurana, is a very competent Neurosurgeon who has the bravery to go public with his findings which are an observation of the peer reviewed scientific studies by many competent scientists from around the world. Once a scientific study has gone through the peer review process and another person notes the findings this does not discount the original peer review studies. The bravery of Dr. Vini Khurana is formidable. In my opinion a Neurosurgeon who performs Awake Craniotomy and who acknowledges the rise in brain tumours must be respected for going public to try to help persons by disseminating the facts regarding the hazards of Cell Phone use. The integrity of Dr. Vini Khurana is not impaired.

05 / 13 / 2009

John Astbury

This paper is badly written and not peer reviewed. It takes no account of confounding, does not have scientific valid methodology for proving or disproving the hypothesis etc. This needs more work if it is to be widely accepted. It is a review of reviews. It should have been reviewed against the requirements for a causal relationship and also formulated as a meta-analysis 2/10 (my opinions). Lets get some quality on the Internet PLEASE!!!

04 / 07 / 2008