Monday, September 29, 2014

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Drones (HBO)

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Why I hate so bad ISIS

Everyone who has born from a woman must freed the woman who delivery us to this sad world.
Those bastard sons's the evil and no a woman, must pay what They deserve.

Say Not to the ISIS that rape our daughter, sisters and mothers

Be our eyes,if you can not fight Them because you are weak,be the eyes and the ear, send the location of those bastard to our friend who fight for our right of see a world in harmony
لكل من ولد من امرأة يجب الافراج عن امرأة تسليم بنا إلى هذا العالم الحزين. 
الشر ولا امرأة أبناء تلك نذل، ويجب أن يدفع ما يستحقون. 

نقول ليس لISIS أن اغتصاب ابنتنا والأخوات والأمهات 

تكون أعيننا، إذا لم تتمكن من محاربتهم لأنك ضعيف، تكون عيون والأذن، وإرسال موقع تلك نذل لصديقنا الذين يناضلون من أجل حقنا 

GENEVA — An Iraqi lawyer known for her work promoting women’s rights has been killed by Islamic State fighters, the head of the United Nations human rights office said on Thursday, continuing a pattern of attacks on professional women.
The lawyer, Sameera Salih Ali al-Nuaimy, was seized from her home by Islamic State fighters last week and tortured for several days before a masked firing squad executed her in public on Monday, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations human rights commissioner, said in a statement.
Ms. Nuaimy had posted comments on her Facebook page condemning the “barbaric” bombing and destroying of mosques and shrines in Mosul, a northern Iraqi city, by the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS or ISIL. She was convicted of apostasy by a “so-called court,” Mr. Zeid said, adding that her family had been barred from giving her a funeral.
The killing follows the execution of a number of Iraqi women in areas under Islamic State control documented by United Nations monitors, including two candidates contesting Iraq’s general election in Nineveh Province, who were killed in July. A third female candidate was abducted by gunmen in eastern Mosul and has not been heard from since.
United Nations monitors in Iraq have received numerous reports of executions of women by Islamic State gunmen, some after perfunctory trials, the organization said. “Educated, professional women seem to be particularly at risk,” it added.
These killings, together with abductions and the enslavement of women and children, illustrate the “utterly poisonous nature” of the extremist group, Mr. Zeid said, drawing attention to the plight of hundreds of women and girls of the Yazidi religious minority and other ethnic and religious groups sold into slavery, raped or forced into marriage after the group overran large areas of northern Iraq.
“The fact that such groups try to attract more people to their cause by asserting their acts are supported by Islam is a further gross perversion,” he said.
The high commissioner’s statement came as his deputy, Flavia Pansieri, told the Human Rights Council in Geneva that the situation in Iraq had continued to deteriorate even since the start of the month.
At least 8,493 civilians are believed to have died in the Iraqi conflict this year, half of them between the start of June and the end of August, she reported, but the United Nations has warned that the real number of casualties could be much higher.
Information gathered by United Nations monitors on the situation in areas under Islamic State control “reveals acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale,” she said.

Nasa found a ball on Mars

NASA totally found a squirrel on Mars and didn't tell anybody

Wawaiting on NASA silly answerNASA totally found a squirrel on Mars and didn't tell anybodyEXPAND
And then – get this – THEN they accidentally posted a picture of it online. And then some people spotted it and called a spade a spadesquirrel a squirrel. Hey everybody! Look! It's a squirrel on Mars!
NASA totally found a squirrel on Mars and didn't tell anybodyEXPAND
The proof, via UFO Sightings Daily:
NASA totally found a squirrel on Mars and didn't tell anybody
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a rock. And a case of pareidolia.

Curiosity Finds A Weird "Ball" On Mars

Curiosity Finds A Weird "Ball" On MarsEXPAND
If there's one thing to be said for Curiosity's mission on Mars so far, it certainly hasn't been boring. From supposed Martian squirrels to strange flashes of light on the surface, the rover has kept us entertained. And now there's this rather odd... ball.

Although the six-wheeled rover has taken thousands of photographs of Martian rocks, the rich diversity of Mars' landscape has provided many beautiful examples of planetary geology and some geology that is downright weird.
Take this recent photographic example from the Mars Science Laboratory's Mastcam camera that was uploaded to the mission's photo archive on sol 746 (Sept. 11). While compiling a mosaic of images of the surrounding landscape, Curiosity captured a rather un-Mars-like shape atop a rocky outcrop.
Curiosity Finds A Weird "Ball" On Mars
There's a perfect-looking sphere sitting proudly on a flat rock surface. It's dusty, but under that dust it appears a little darker than the surrounding rock.
At first glance it looks like an old cannonball or possibly a dirty golf ball. But knowing that Mars is somewhat lacking in the 16th-century battleship and golf cart departments, there was likely another answer. Of course it's nothing man (or alien)-made, despite what your brain might be telling you. It's another fascinating rock. Yep, it's a spherical Mars rock.
According to MSL scientists based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., the ball isn't as big as it looks — it's approximately one centimeter wide. Their explanation is that it is most likely something known as a "concretion." Other examples of concretions have been found on the Martian surface before — take, for example, the tiny haematite concretions, or "blueberries", observed by Mars rover Opportunity in 2004 — and they were created during sedimentary rock formation when Mars was abundant in liquid water many millions of years ago.
By now we all know that Mars used to be a lot wetter than it is now. Curiosity quickly worked out that it was exploring an ancient lakebedshortly after it landed inside Gale Crater in August 2012. That ancient lakebed is characterized by obvious layering of sedimentary rock. On Earth, sedimentary rock is formed through the interaction of liquid water transporting and depositing material — the same process also occurred on Mars.
Within the newly forming sedimentary rock, pores are inevitably created and minerals seep into those pores, gradually building up an erosion-resistant mass. Over time, as the soft sedimentary rock is eroded away, the concretion remains behind. And this little sphere is one such example — the ball has either emerged from the underlying sedimentary rock that has eroded away or, perhaps, it rolled from somewhere else over time.
Now that Curiosity has reached the base of Aeolis Mons (also known as Mount Sharp), the 3.5 mile-high mountain in the center of Gale Crater, scientists are excited for the rover to begin its next round of drilling operations into the layered rock. Powdered rock samples will then be analyzed so we can gain an idea about how habitable the Red Planet was throughout its ancient history and whether or not it may have been able to support microbial life.
The long two-year journey from its landing site to Mount Sharp hasn't come without its problems, however. An unanticipated amount of wear and tear by the craggy Mars surface has taken its toll on Curiosity's wheels, causing dents, punctures and rips in the thin aluminum. This has prompted rover drivers to drive the rover backwards to limit the damage and to get help from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to image the surrounding landscape, finding the smoothest routes.
But so far, so good, Curiosity is at Mount Sharp to continue its scientific investigation into Mars' habitable history. So we can expect many more examples of interesting rocks to come, spherical and otherwise.
Many thanks to JPL's Guy Webster for quickly seeking out an answer to my questions and to Paul Scott Anderson of The Meridiani Journal fortweeting a link to this fascinating photo.
This article originally appeared at Discovery News and is republished here with permission.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Why Yahoo chess close down?

No much news from the corporate than a few words about new changes

For over 15 years, Yahoo has offered a set of classic multiplayer board and parlor games for you to enjoy. Yahoo Games deeply appreciates the passion and dedication you've shown in that time. Now, we'd like to invite you to play the next generation of Yahoo Parlor Games!

Cross-platform: The games will be available on tablets, smartphones, and the web. You’ll be able to take your games with you wherever you go

Better Gameplay: You can choose quick play to match up with a random stranger, you can invite your friends to a game, or you can join a tournament

In-app Purchases: You can purchase unlockables or power-ups with virtual currency, and some items for real money, like high-stakes pool tables and customizable card decks

Additional Features:

Sharp new look and design
Gain experience points and unlock new tables and levels
Track your progress through goals and achievements within each game
Multi-table action in Poker

As we modernize and improve Yahoo Games, we recognize that the current Parlor Games do not provide the quality that our users deserve. As of March 31, 2014, we will close down the existing Parlor Games while we transition to a newer, better technology platform that will provide a better, more consistent experience.

We will be posting more news and announcements over the next few weeks, so please like us on Facebook to keep up with the changes as they happen. Thank you for being a Yahoo Gamer. We hope you’re as excited as we are to take part in the future of Yahoo Games.

- Yahoo Games Team

A la ausencia del gigante del ajedrez nacen nuevos titanes como que ya tiene mas de 10 5000 000 usuarios los cuales fueron los huerfanos del yahoo server que cerro por falta de administration, e inteligencia,ideas no le faltaron de partes de los admiradores de yahioo,pero la poca vision de la compañia hizo que cerraran para siempre

RIP Yahoo chess 4 ever

How to use Chessy in automatic chess game

Chess trainer tutorial:How to cheat at Playok

My best chess video

Cell Phone Radiation Is Addictive

Cellular Phones

Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but their use has increased dramatically since then. According to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, there were more than 320 million cell phone subscriptions in the United States as of June 2011, which is actually more than the entire US population. Along with the large and still growing number of cell phone users (both adults and children), the amount of time people spend on their phones has also risen sharply in recent decades.
Cell phones give off a form of energy known as radiofrequency (RF) waves, so some concerns have been raised about the safety of cell phone use. With respect to cancer, concern focuses on whether cell phones might increase the risk of brain tumors or other tumors in the head and neck area.

How do cell phones work?

Cell phones work by sending signals to (and receiving them from) nearby cell towers (base stations) using RF waves. This is a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don't have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, which can break the chemical bonds in DNA.
At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy given off by cell phones are much lower, and are not enough to raise temperatures in the body.

How are people exposed?

The RF waves from cell phones come from the antenna, which is part of the body of a hand-held phone. The waves are strongest at the antenna and lose energy quickly as they travel away from the phone. The phone is typically held against the side of the head when in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person's expected exposure to RF energy. The body tissues closest to the phone absorb more energy than tissues farther away.
Many factors can affect the amount of RF energy to which a person is exposed, including:
  • The amount of time the person is on the phone.
  • Whether or not the person is using the speaker mode on the phone or a hands-free device. Using one of these allows the phone to be held away from the head.
  • The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower. Cell phones adjust their power to use the minimum amount for a good signal, so being farther away from the tower requires more energy to get a good signal, as does being inside a building.
  • The amount of cell phone traffic in the area at the time. Higher traffic may require more energy to get a good signal.
  • The model of phone being used. Different phones give off different amounts of energy.

What is the specific absorption rate (SAR) of a cell phone?

The amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user's body is known as the specific absorption rate(SAR). Different cell phones have different SAR levels. Cell phone makers are required to report the maximum SAR level of their product to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This information is sometimes listed inside the battery compartment on the phone. The upper limit of SAR allowed in the United States is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight.
But according to the FCC, comparing SAR values between phones may be misleading. The listed SAR value is based only on the phone operating at its highest power, not on what users would typically be exposed to with normal phone use. The actual SAR value during use varies based on a number of factors, so it's possible that a phone with a lower listed SAR value might actually expose a person to more RF energy than one with a higher listed SAR value in some cases.

Do cell phones cause tumors?

Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, the main concern has been over whether they might cause or contribute to tumors in this area, including:
  • Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas
  • Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas
  • Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas)
  • Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands
Researchers use 2 main types of studies to try to determine if something might cause cancer.
Lab studies usually expose animals to something like RF energy to see if it causes tumors or other health problems. It's not always clear if the results from these types of studies will apply to humans, but lab studies allow researchers to carefully control for other factors that might affect the results and to answer some basic science questions.
Another type of study looks at cancer rates in different groups of people. Such a study might compare the cancer rate in a group exposed to something like cell phone use versus the rate in a group not exposed to it, or compare it to what the expected cancer rate would be in the general population. But studies in people can sometimes be hard to interpret, because there may be other factors affecting the results that are hard to account for.
In most cases neither type of study provides enough evidence on its own to show if something causes cancer in people, so researchers usually look at both lab-based and human studies.

What do lab studies suggest?

As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren't able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.
Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.
A large study now being done by the US National Toxicology Program should help address some of the questions about whether exposure to RF energy could potentially lead to health issues. The study will expose a large group of lab mice and rats to RF energy for several hours a day for up to 2 years and follow the animals from birth to old age.
In the meantime, a recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may have some effects on the brain, although it's not clear if they're harmful at all. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain's fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown. 

What do studies in humans suggest?

Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case-control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people free of brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use.
In general, these studies have yielded similar results:
  • In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.
  • Most studies do not show a "dose-response relationship," which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
  • Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
  • A few studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.
Two large studies deserve special mention:


The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed.
Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues.

The Danish cohort study

A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain.
This type of study (following a large group of people going forward in time and not relying on people's memories about cell phone use) is generally thought to be stronger than a case-control study.
But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn't measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn't have a subscription used someone else's phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.

Studies have limitations

In summary, most studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use affects cancer risk.
First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. When tumors form after a known cancer-causing exposure, it often takes decades for them to develop. Because cell phones have been in widespread use for less than 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out future health effects that have not yet appeared.
Second, cell phone usage is constantly changing. People are using cell phones much more than they were even 10 years ago, and the phones themselves are very different from what was used in the past. This makes it hard to know if the results of studies looking at cell phone use in years past would still apply today.
Third, most of the studies published so far have focused on adults, rather than children. (One case-control study looking at children did not find a link to brain tumors, but the children with tumors in the study had developed them at a young age, and very few had long-term phone use.) Cell phone use is now widespread even among young children. It is possible that if there are health effects, they might be more pronounced in children because their bodies might be more sensitive to RF energy. Another concern is that children's lifetime exposure to the energy from cell phones will be greater than adults', who started using them at a later age.
Finally, the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude. Most have been case-control studies, which have relied on people's memories about their past cell phone use. In these types of studies, it can be hard to interpret any possible link between cancer and an exposure. People with cancer are often looking for a possible reason for it, so they may sometimes (even subconsciously) recall their phone usage differently than people without cancer.
With these limitations in mind, it is important that the possible risk of cell phone exposure continue to be researched using strong study methods, especially with regard to use by children and longer term use.

What do expert agencies say?

Several agencies (national and international) study different exposures and substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (Something that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory and human research studies.
Based on the available evidence, some of these expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing potential of cell phones and RF waves. In general, they agree that any evidence of a possible link is limited, and more research is needed to look at possible long-term effects.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see our document, Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)
The other main agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens), including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), have not formally classified cell phones as to their cancer-causing potential. However, several other agencies have commented on the possible risks.
According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the safety of radiation-emitting devices such as cell phones in the United States:
"The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems."
According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC):
"There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss. However, organizations in the United States and overseas are sponsoring research and investigating claims of possible health effects related to the use of wireless telephones."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
"Some… studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high cell phone use may be linked to certain types of brain cancer. These studies do not establish this link definitively. Scientists will need to conduct more studies to learn more about this possible risk." 
According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is currently conducting studies of the possible health effects of cell phones:
"The weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phones with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed."
According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI):
"Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly."

Do cell phones cause any other health problems?

Few other health concerns have been raised about cell phone use. One has been whether the RF waves from cell phones might interfere with medical devices such as heart pacemakers. According to the FDA, cell phones should not pose a major risk for the vast majority of pacemaker wearers. Still, people with pacemakers may want to take some simple precautions to help ensure that their cell phones don't cause a problem, such as not putting the phone in a shirt pocket close to the pacemaker.
Several studies have found that people who use cell phones while driving are more likely to be in car accidents. It is not clear that hands-free phones are any safer than hand-held phones when it comes to driving.

Can I lower my exposure to RF waves from cell phones?

There is no clear evidence at this time that RF waves from cell phones cause any harmful health effects, but studies now under way should give a clearer picture of the possible health effects in the future. Until then, there are several things that people who are concerned about RF waves can do to limit their exposure.
Use the speaker mode on the phone or a hands-free device such as a corded or cordless earpiece. This moves the antenna away from your head, which decreases the amount of RF waves that reach the head. Corded earpieces emit virtually 0 RF waves (although the phone itself still emits small amounts of RF waves that can reach parts of the body if close enough, such as on the waist or in a pocket). Bluetooth® earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC).
Texting instead of talking on the phone may be another option to reduce your exposure. But it may not be a good option in some situations, especially if you are driving.
Limit your (and your children's) cell phone use. This is one of the most obvious ways to limit your exposure to RF waves from cell phones. You may want to use your cell phone only for shorter conversations, or use it only when a conventional phone is not available. Parents who are concerned about their children's exposure may limit how much time they spend on the phone.
You may want to choose a phone with a low SAR value. Different models of phones can give off different levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value may not always be a good indicator of a person's exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker's Web site. The FCC has links to many of these sites here: If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for a phone model (which can often be found under the battery pack), you can also go to the following Web address: On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.
For safety reasons, it is especially important to limit or avoid the use of cell phones while driving.

What about cordless phones?

Cordless phones, commonly used in homes, have base units that are plugged into telephone jacks and wired to a local telephone service. They are not considered "cell" phones. Cordless phones operate at about 1/600 the power of cell phones, so they are much less likely to be a concern in terms of health effects.

Additional resources

National organizations and Web sites*

Along with the American Cancer Society, other sources of information and support include:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health
Web site:
Federal Communications Commission 
RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology
Web site:
National Cancer Institute
Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk
Web site:
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Cell Phones
Web site:
* Inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement by the American Cancer Society.
The American Cancer Society is happy to address almost any cancer-related topic. If you have any more questions, please call us at 1-800-227-2345 at any time, 24 hours a day.


Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: A multicenter case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1264-1276.
Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al, for the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:624-626.
Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:277-283.
Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. Wireless Quick Facts. 2011. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health. 2011. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
Food and Drug Administration. Cell Phones: Health Issues. 2010. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You. Accessed at on October 27, 2011.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FAQs: Wireless Phones. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: Update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. Epub ahead of print on October 19, 2011.
Hardell L, Nasman A, Pahlson A, et al. Use of cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumors: A case-control study.Int J Oncol. 1999;15:113-116.
Hardell L, Hallquist A, Mild KH, et al. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002;159:277-283.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild K. Case-control study on cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000-2003. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25:120-128.
Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular telephone use and brain tumors. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:79-86.
INTERPHONE Study Group. Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;35:453-464.
INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumor risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:675-694.
Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16:204-210.
Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Swedish Interphone Study Group. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161:526-535.
Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Straube WL, et al. DNA damage in rat brain cells after in vivo exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation and various methods of euthanasia. Radiat Res. 1998;149:637-645.
Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, et al. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA.2000;284:3001-3007.
Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Shore RE, et al. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. Neurology. 2002;58:1304-1306.
National Cancer Institute. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk. 2011. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles. 1997. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Cell Phones. 2011. Accessed at on October 26, 2011.
Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:453-458.
Repacholi MH. Radiofrequency field exposure and cancer: What do the laboratory studies suggest? Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105:1565-1568.
Savitz DA. Mixed signals on cell phones and cancer. Epidemiology. 2004;15:651-652.
Schoemaker M J, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer. 2005;93:842-848.
Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305:808-813.

Last Medical Review: 02/23/2012
Last Revised: 02/23/2012

Cell Phones / Radiation

Home  /  Cell Phones / Radiation
Emerging evidence is raising significant questions about health risks from cell phone and wireless radiation. Given the size of the potential impact, there is inadequate awareness, research, and regulation.
EHT works to educate the science community, policy makers, and the public about the current state of the science through multi-channel engagement.
Protect Your Family – learn more about what you can do as a parent or expectant family to mitigate the health risks from cellphone and other wireless radiation.
Read the fine print. Almost all cell phone manuals advise to keep 1/2″ to 1″ of distance between the cell phone and your body at all times; but the warning is buried in the fine print.
In May 2011, an expert committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified “cell phone radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans”–.a category shared with lead, engine exhaust, DDT, and jet fuel. In light of this nearly unanimous position, the IARC Director, Christopher Wild MD, PhD advised consumers to “consider ways of reducing their exposure.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has weighed in on this issue. Chairman Robert Block wrote to the FCC urging reconsideration and review of standards specifically noting that:
“Children, however, are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. In fact, according to [the International Agency for Research on Cancer], when used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.”
To learn more, read Dr. Davis’ book Disconnect.
Read Dr. Davis’s recent article on the topic here: Devra Davis: Legal But Lethal
View the stories of survivors and non-survivors for the personal stories behind the numbers.


  1. […] we are treating our children like experiments in a subject with no controls,” says founder of the Environmental Health Trust Dr. Devra Davis, who along with a group of health advocates launched a nationwide campaign called […]