An encyclopedic history of cellphone radiation research, the Times’ piece covers the particulars of several studies but also provides an informative discussion of cancer epidemiology and research methodology in general.

You may recognize the recent INTERPHONE study (covered in a recent blog here), but the article discusses many of the complexities and nuances involved in cancer research.

While the New York Times and other media stories report that no single study has yet definitively answered the title’s question, “Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer?”, they all point to one recent study (see links in our previous blog): the recent study by Nora Volkow, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that comes to this conclusion: cellphone radiation does affect brain function and brain metabolism.

What do you think? Join Q-Link on Facebook and let us know!

“GSCFFI features four days of films, panels, workshops, selected shorts and special events to inspire and build a global community focused on expanding the reach of conscious social change film and media.

The Global Social Change Film Festival & Institute creates a Global Community with local presence to promote transformative filmmaking & media that fosters Social Change.”

You can check out the finalists and semi-finalists at the GSCFFI site. Here are some trailers to get started:

Footage from CBS’ Early Show:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357476n

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/22/cell.phone.brain.activity/index.html

MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41722906/

Also, a new study out of Argentina may link cell phone use to bone strength.

See Businessweek for more.

The good news is that experimental studies show that good nutrition— literally exposing animals or cells to the natural hormone melatonin or vitamins A, E, or C before you expose them to radiofrequency radiation—may help repairdamage. So whatever you have done in the past, go forward with good cell phone practices, and good nutrition can help repair past damage.

Dr. Davis provides a brighter side.

“There are times in all our lives when a reliance on gut or intuition just seems more appropriate. I’ve discovered it is in facing life’s most important decisions that intuition seems the most indispensable to getting it right.”

Its heartening to know that the second largest company in the world (by market value) will continue to be heavily influenced by such values.

QUESTION 1: DO YOU PRACTICE YOGA NOW?
IDEAL ANSWER 1: YES, I PRACTICE YOGA EVERY DAY.

QUESTION 2: ARE YOU CURRENTLY TAKING LESSONS WITH A YOGA TEACHER?
IDEAL ANSWER: YES, I STUDY WITH A QUALIFIED TEACHER IN A RECOGNIZED YOGA TEACHING STYLE.

QUESTION 3: WHAT TYPE OF YOGA DO YOU TEACH, AND HOW DID THAT STYLE OF TEACHING YOGA DEVELOP?
IDEAL ANSWER: I TEACH “Y” STYLE OF YOGA WHICH HAS EXISTED FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.

QUESTION 4: WHAT TYPE OF YOGA TEACHER TRAINING HAVE YOU HAD?
IDEAL ANSWER: I HAVE COMPLETED (OR AM CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN) A 500 HOUR TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES CLASSES, EXAMS, AND APPRENTICE TEACHING.

QUESTION 5: DOES YOUR YOGA TEACHER HAVE A KIND AND EMPATHETIC HEART?
IDEAL ANSWER: YES.

You can read more here.

I’ve also found very qualified instructors with backgrounds in physical therapy or sports physiology. In my experience, the most important things are to find a style that fits you best and an instructor that cares. This year, I’m doing Bikram, and I really like the heat. Any tips or thoughts? Let us know on Facebook.

Subjects were exposed to a 2.41 GHz pulsed microwave signal emitted by a cordless phone base station. This is the same frequency at which many wireless routers (in fact, my own) operate. Subjects were not informed whether or not they were being exposed, but in about 40% of cases, subjects exposed to this frequency  “showed marked increases in heart rate, arrhythmias, and other disturbances in heart rate variability following exposure to active cordless phone base stations.”

From Dr. Havas’ website, via mercola.com,

This test is objective and directly measures the heart’s response to radiation and is unlike subjective testing, where scientists ask individuals if they know whether a device is turned on or off and then determine their “sensitivity” based on perception of exposure, which is just that perception and NOT sensitivity.

Below is a graph from the study showing two subjects – also via Mercola,

While this area of EMF research is still relatively young, it’s great to see new studies coming out like this one to help further shine light on the issue. For more information and a great in-depth article, check out emf.mercola.com. Holisticprimarycare.net has another good article on the study. Let us know how you feel: find us on Facebook.