Final answer on cell phone use and acoustic neuroma??

[Jim Scott]

Thanks, Paul.

Your contributions to this thread are appreciated.

I refer to my post #8 (of May 17th) where I suggested doing exactly what you've recommended for those who are concerned with cell phone radiation.  We're all willing to discuss the issue but Palace- who has been a contributing member here since 2006, just as I have - is correct when she states the it's been debated ad nauseum on these ANA forums and some of us get weary of the seemingly perpetual contention that cell phone use causes acoustic neuroma development - or might, sometimes, maybe - depending on the 'study'.

As one of three active forum moderators (a fourth is on hiatus) I'm required to read all posts and while the forums are without rancor 99.9% of the time, occasionally a discussion becomes less than cordial and needs to be reined in a bit to retain our usual decorum.  No real harm done but we don't permit threads to veer into arguments with all the attendant conflicts they can generate. 

In 2013, the AN-cell phone connection is an old debate and frankly, I wish folks could just state their concerns, with or without 'scientific studies', give their opinion and let it go at that without keeping the exchanges churning and emitting far more light than heat.  However, we don't wish to stifle cordial discussion, even if the subject doesn't lend itself to neat answers.  With that understanding I intend to leave this particular thread and trust that it will not be necessary to lock it (a rare occurrence on this site). 

Jim      

[Crazycat]

Fair enough Jim.

I will say this. When I became afflicted with my AN, I didn't even know what a cell phone was, never mind owned one. Yes, today I have one but use it as infrequently as I do my AAA card — if and when I breakdown on the road.

Over the years I've seen a great deal of hoaxing in the way of propagating this myth and, if anything, it has biased me against taking it seriously. I believe cell phones to be no more dangerous than the low calorie sweetener Aspartame, which is
another example of scare hoaxing.

These days cell phones are so popular they're part of our culture. If there is truth to the link between cell phones and brain tumors we should be seeing an enormous increase in the incidence of brain tumors of every form, cancerous and noncancerous.

But I do not see this happening.

[Palace]

People had AN tumors before cell-phones and it rather speaks for itself.  We are all entitled to what we choose to believe.  Those of us who have AN tumors now won't benefit how this discussion ends. 

I have no relatives or children however we are all concerned about future generations.

We will all be watching the latest scientific data.

[Palace]

When it comes to medical applications, there don't seem to be specific guidelines that tell us how much radiation is too much. Further, a definition of "too much" could vary from patient to patient.

For example, the patient who receives accurately targeted radiation therapy to destroy a tumor will get much higher doses than someone who gets a CT scan. That amount of exposure is just right for the cancer patient at that moment, but if a healthy person was exposed to that much radiation in general, it could be too much. At an extreme, medical overdoses are called radiation poisoning or acute radiation syndrome.

A combination of the amount and frequency of exposure, part of the body, and period of time are the factors that help define whether there has been overexposure. So, for example, several dozen mammograms over a lifetime may not be problematic, while a dozen scans in a year could overexpose a patient.

In some cases, "too much" is a result of errors. Those high doses being used for radiation oncology purposes can be harmful if the beam isn't accurately targeted. Patients may be overdosed when radiation testing equipment has not been correctly calibrated, or when a human being makes a mistake inputting dosage settings.