Posts Tagged ‘Cancer’

Cancer, Diet and Global Warming with the Producer of Healing Cancer from the Inside Out

December 4, 2008

Cancer, Diet and Global Warming with the Producer of Healing Cancer from the Inside Out

This interview is an excerpt from Kevin Gianni’s Renegade Roundtable, which can be found at In this excerpt, Mike Anderson shares on cancer, diet and global warming.

Renegade Water Secrets with Mike Anderson, who is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and film maker/producer of “Eating” and “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out.”

Kevin: So, Mike. If all this stuff isn’t working, what is?

Mike: Food. I site some studies in the film… the Office of Technology Assessment funded the Gerson Therapy. It beat the pants off conventional treatments. This was in different stages of melanoma. It just beat the pants off of conventional treatments. They don’t like these studies. They don’t want to fund them. It’s very hard.

Macrobiotics went in front of the NIH, National Institute of Health and they tried to get funding because they presented six terminal cases, cancer cases, where the cancers were totally reversed. They were all biopsied and they were all confirmed and everything. Now, wouldn’t you think that people should be interested in this? That they should fund more studies? No, they can’t get any money for anymore funding for any.

You know allopathic medicine doesn’t, their history is to shut down any nutritional approach because they are so threatened by it. Even, this was around the turn of the century, 2001 or so. It’s on the website, the Sushi Institute. Anyway, they’re totally threatened because it does work. It is more effective. Instead of destroying the body, you’re trying to build it up.

I specifically included Macrobiotics because they have a long history, 100- year history. In fact, the founder of Macrobiotics reversed cancer. But they have a long history of reversing cancers. So I look at Macrobiotics and that’s almost 100% cooked. Then I look at raw, and that’s 100% raw, uncooked. And I think the bottom line here is that, the common ground is that they are all plant-based, 100% plant-based. They are all organic. Organic is very, very important because organic food is much higher in micronutrients, the anti-oxidant families. Those are the ones that are going to fight cancer effectively. It’s a whole-foods organic diet and that’s it. Whether it’s raw or whether it’s cooked is partly personal preference, in terms of case and stuff.

Kevin: You knew that this film was going to cause some waves. So, one, how did you prepare for it? Two, what kind of feedback have you gotten from people who were not happy?

Mike: I actually did not prepare very much for it. What I did was try and make it
as credible as I can and close the loop on all the arguments. To make it as tight as possible. I’ll tell you a story. I don’t know if Brian Clement wants me to tell this or not, he was interviewed in the film, but he and his wife watched it for seven hours, seven hours looking for a loophole. They were primarily looking at some angle conventional doctors could use to attack me and they couldn’t find it. So my approach was just make it as tight as possible and as credible as possible. As a result of that, I haven’t had much negative feedback except that people don’t want to talk to me.

I have been on KPFK, they are a nonprofit, local station here in L.A. I’ve been on there and they were very receptive and so was the audience. I mean, people are hungry for this new. But getting it out there is very, very difficult.

People will say, “Oh, my gosh. You should be on major news shows,” and stuff like that. And I say, “Well, have you looked at the sponsors of those news shows? They’ll never have me on.” You know, you’ve got meat and dairy and drugs and I’m preaching against all of those. So, it’s difficult to get it out, but word of mouth is extraordinarily strong; it’s pushing this whole thing. And thanks to shows like your and others, more and more people are getting on the bandwagon.

I was at the Raw Spirit Festival in Sedona this weekend and I had a lady and her husband come out, specifically to see me. They flew out from Tampa. And it was because they saw “Healing Cancer” a month ago. Her father started off with colon cancer, it spread to his liver, now it’s in his lungs. He’s had one round of chemo; he couldn’t take it anymore. So they were looking for something. They put him on the diet and within a month all of his cancer markers had dropped dramatically. They were just thrilled by the whole thing. They wanted to fly out and just thank me because of it.

The strange thing is most people they have it in their mind that cancer is this dreaded disease that kills people. Well, you know, cardio vascular disease kills over twice as many people a cancer, that’s a pretty scary disease. But people have it in their minds that cancer is more scary, but it’s not. It can be controlled through food. People have this idea that, well, gee, cancer’s a dangerous disease you need strong medicine. You need something that will make people’s hair fall out and make them throw up all day for days on end and make them just sick. That’s strong medicine. You need just the opposite. You need something that’s going to build up the body. People, if they’ll get off this toxic diet they’re on and get on a good diet, they’ll see miraculous things happening. Not just with cancer, but the whole body will be healing.

Kevin: Let’s talk a little bit about the Rave diet. There’s a lot of people who are
on this call who don’t know what that is. So, let’s give a little bit of information on that and…

Mike: OK. I wrote the book primarily because people were asking me for something to accompany the “Eating” DVD. Because after they see the “Eating” DVD, they’ll say, “OK, I’m ready to change my diet, but what do I do?” And even though I list, at the end of the film, all kinds of books, and on the website even more, they wanted something from me. So, I put it together primarily as a very short, it reads very easily, very short guide, if you will, to how to change to this diet.

I have a transitional diet, too, because sometimes it’s difficult for people to go on the full Rave diet. So I have an easier transitional diet so they can evolve into it. One guy, for example, it was too much for him because he had been eating processed foods all of his life and he had horrendous gas because of all the fiber. So I tell people, “Ease up on it. You can go slowly,” you know, unless you have some terrible disease you’re fighting. But what it stands for, Rave is an acronym, it means no refined foods. The A is no animal foods, the V, which gets me in trouble with most people all the time, means no vegetable oils; the E means no exceptions and exercise. There are a number of sub-rules within that. It’s not just that acronym alone. Like, eat at least half of your food uncooked type of thing. Also ingredients lists, it’s got a whole explanation of how to read ingredient lists and so forth. But it’s done very well.

Kevin: No oil. Let’s talk about that.

Mike: OK. I got this primarily, started out if you look at Ornish, Essylstyn, Furman, a lot of doctors who actually reversed heart disease and have studies to prove it; they all specifically exclude vegetable oils. There are clinical studies, it tears up the arteries. Essylstyn says it’s as good for your arteries as roast beef. If you look at nutrient scales, the key to a good diet is getting the maximum amount of nutrients per calorie that you can. If you look at vegetable oils, they have the lowest nutrient value of any food on the planet. It’s all fat, very few nutrient values per calorie on it.

It’s a refined food, on top of it; the molecules in vegetable oils are unstable. They produce free radicals. It’s a promoter of some cancers, particularly skin cancers, and on and on and on. So, I just say there are substitutes for it. If you’re cooking and you want to brown potatoes or something, use applesauce or apple juice or vegetable broth or something. You have to cook it slower, but it browns just as good. So, that’s the schtook on vegetable oils. I’m telling people in the beginning with this, “Hey, you get on this you can reverse your heart disease.” I’m not going to go against all the doctors who have proven successfully through tests that you can reverse heart disease. They all exclude the vegetable oils.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it makes sense to follow the research of people that you have mentioned, like Furman and Essylstyn and these guys, instead of recreating the wheel on a theory.

Mike: Right, right. I have to follow; these guys are my heroes. I can’t challenge them and I want to, if someone comes out with a study of heart disease reversal which specifically includes vegetable oils, then I’ll take a second look at it, as will they. But so far that hasn’t happened.

Kevin: Who do you think you’ve learned the most from?

Mike: Geez, I don’t know. That’s hard. Everyone’s saying the same thing, essentially, in different ways and they’re doing their own thing. In the beginning, there were John Robbins, the emotional aspect of it, environmental, in particular. He was huge. McDougall, he was huge, too. He was giving all this reinforcement to the health. Then, of course, Fuhrman and Ornish and a number of others, Esselston. I would say probably McDougall and, in the very beginning, McDougall and John Robbins.

Kevin: Great. You mentioned global warming, again, and I think we should probably talk about that because it was an added portion of the film, “Eating.” What are some of the implications of the way we eat, as related to global warming and the environment?

Mike: It’s methane, that’s the major thing that’s been overlooked. I’m no expert in it, but what I did was summarize what the experts have said. It’s hard for people to visualize this, but there are hundreds of millions of cows, and other livestock out there, that emit methane, both through the mouths and their rear ends. It goes into the atmosphere and methane is a powerful heat-trapper, much more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere much longer, but methane really traps heat. Studies have shown that, in fact, methane has caused nearly half of the global warming to-date. The number one source of methane is the animals we raise and eventually eat. So, the good thing about methane is that it only stays in the atmosphere for eight years. If people would cut back on their consumption of animal products, you could recycle out very quickly. There could be a more immediate impact on global warming, on cooling. That’s not going to happen, but, say, everyone in the world cut back 1/3 of their meat consumption and reduced the livestock accordingly. That could have a major impact on global warming, and quite soon. Whereas carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere for so long. It’s not going to have such an immediate impact on it and that’s what we need is an immediate impact, because we’re right there, as they call the tipping point.



Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Scientific American Answers

November 26, 2008

Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Scientific American Answers
Nov. 24, 2008, 4:55 pm


The answer is, nobody really knows. Caution has been advised by some experts.

Scientific American

“There is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there claiming a link between cell phone use and cancer: Keith Black, chairman of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, says that the brain cancer (malignant glioma) that killed O. J. Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran, was the result of frequent cell phone use, based on the fact that the tumor developed on the side of the head against which he held his phone. And in May, a week after Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with a glioma, The EMR Policy Institute, a Marshfield, Vt.–based nonprofit organization that supports research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, released a statement linking his tumor to heavy cell phone use. But the NCI maintains that there is no definitive evidence that cell phones increase cancer risk.

“In other words, the verdict is still out. “We can’t rule out the possibility of risk,” Nottingham’s Challis says. “There hadn’t been as much work in this area as is now demanded.”

Source: Scientific American, November 21, 2008

Cell Phone Use Endangers Boneheads

November 21, 2008

Cell Phone Use Endangers Boneheads
he jury is still out on the relationship between cell phone use and brain tumors. But the American Association of Neurological Surgeons has issued a statement to remind people that cell phones present lots of other risks to your brain. Of course, we all know about yapping while driving. A Harvard study finds that 2,600 people die each year in accidents related to cell distraction and 12,000 more are injured. Canadian research shows that you’re four times more likely to be in an accident while on the phone.

But here are some other emergency room cases that show the dangers of talking or texting while on the move: Guy talking on cell phone on an escalator falls backward, lacerating his head, where his brain lives. Guy talking on cell phone walks into street sign, also lacerating his head. Guy texting while bicycling crashes into a tree and suffers head injury. Guy texting walks right into a telephone poll and knocks himself cold. Sir, back away from the phone. It could save your life. Or at least your dignity.


Chemotherapy Kills 27% of Sick Patients; Doctors Urged to Stop Killing People with Chemo

November 20, 2008

Chemotherapy Kills 27% of Sick Patients; Doctors Urged to Stop Killing People with Chemo

Doctors ‘rely on chemo too much’
Patient having chemotherapy
Some 80,000 patients undergo chemotherapy each year

Doctors are being urged to re-think their approach to giving chemotherapy during care at the end of life.

A review of 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of treatment found that in more than a quarter of cases it actually hastened or caused death.

The report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death said doctors should consider reducing doses or not using chemotherapy at all.

England’s cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards said he was “very concerned”.

The group of patients the independent group was looking at represents 2% of the 80,000 people who receive chemotherapy each year.

This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer
Professor Jane Maher, of Macmillan Cancer Support

They were all severely-ill patients for which the chemotherapy was mostly being used to manage their condition rather than in an attempt to cure the cancer.

After examining case notes, the group said that 35% of patients received good care.

But it found that in 27% of cases it hastened or caused death – the toxic nature of the treatment can lead to a range of problems, the most serious of which is an infection called neutropenic sepsis.

Report co-author Dr Diana Mort said doctors should be more “cautious in prescribing chemotherapy for very sick patients”.

And she added: “The process of consent may require more than one discussion.

“Patients must be made aware of the risks and side-effect of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits.”

Transfer arrangements

The report also criticised the facilities made available to patients with nearly half being admitted to general medicine wards during the last 30 days of life rather than a specialist cancer unit.

The authors recommended where hospitals did not have specialist units they should put in place transfer arrangements to centres that did.

Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: “This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer.

“It shows that doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life.”

Professor Richards said he was “very concerned”.

“I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally.”

But Dr Peter Clark, of the Royal College of Physicians, said while lessons could be learnt it was important to remember that chemotherapy carried “substantial short and long-term benefit” for the majority who undergo the treatment.


Cell Phone/Brain Tumor Connection Remains Inconclusive But They Pose Neurological Health Risks

November 16, 2008

Cell Phone/Brain Tumor Connection Remains Inconclusive But They Pose Neurological Health Risks

There has been much speculation over the last few years about whether cell phones increase the risk of developing a brain tumor. Research has not conclusively answered this question, which has left consumers confused. The majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals do not have sufficient evidence to show that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors. The problem is that cell phone technology is in its infancy, so none of these studies could analyze long-term risks. This unknown is a particular issue for children, who will face a lifetime of cell phone usage. While the cell phone/brain tumor connection remains inconclusive, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) cautions that cell phones present plenty of other risks to people’s neurological health, as illustrated by these few real-life scenarios:

~A 29-year-old male was talking on his cell phone while on an escalator, fell backwards, and lacerated his head.

~A 25-year-old male was talking on his cell phone and walked into a street sign, lacerating his head.

~A 43-year-old female fell down 13-14 steps while talking on her cell phone, after drinking alcohol. She suffered a neck sprain and contusions to her head, back, shoulder, and leg.

~A 50-year-old female suffered nerve damage which was related to extensive cell phone usage. She felt pain in her fingers and the length of her arm while holding her cell phone, and was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy.

~A 39-year-old man suffered a head injury after crashing into a tree on his bicycle while texting

~A 16-year-old boy suffered a concussion because he was texting and walked into a telephone pole.

Several studies show cell phones are a leading cause of automobile crashes. It is estimated that drivers distracted by cell phones are four times more likely to be in a motor vehicle accident. The following are some sobering statistics:

~According to a Harvard University study, an estimated 2,600 people die and 12,000 suffer serious to moderate injuries each year in cell phone-related accidents.

~A Canadian study analysis of 26,798 cell phone calls made during the 14-month study period showed that the risk of an automobile accident was four times higher when using a cell phone.

~National statistics indicate that an estimated 50,000 traumatic brain injury-related deaths occur annually in the United States, 25,000-35,000 of which are attributed to motor vehicle accidents.

Cell Phone Injury Prevention Tips

~Talk hands free by using an earpiece or on speaker mode whenever possible.

~Follow all cell phone laws applicable to your city and state these vary greatly.

~Use your cell phone only when safely parked, or have a passenger use it.

~Do not dial the phone or take notes while driving, cycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.

~Never text message while driving, walking, cycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.

~Never text message or use a cell phone while performing any physical activities that require attention.

~If your phone rings while driving, let the call go into voice mail and respond later when you are safely parked.

For more information on injury prevention, visit the AANS Web site at:

Founded in 1931 as the Harvey Cushing Society, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is a scientific and educational association with more than 7,400 members worldwide. The AANS is dedicated to advancing the specialty of neurological surgery in order to provide the highest quality of neurosurgical care to the public. All active members of the AANS are certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (Neurosurgery) of Canada or the Mexican Council of Neurological Surgery, AC. Neurological surgery is the medical specialty concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of disorders that affect the entire nervous system, including the spinal column, spinal cord, brain and peripheral nerves.

American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)
5550 Meadowbrook Dr.
Rolling Meadows
IL 60008
United States


How harmful is the Packaged Meat

November 12, 2008

How harmful is the Packaged Meat

Maneka Gandhi

tyroo_pub = “11392”;
tyroo_ad_width = “160”;
tyroo_ad_height = “600”;
tyroo_adtype = “160x600_both”;
tyroo_chnl =”1002″;
tyroo_ads_frame = “tyrooads”;
tyroo_ad_output = “html”;
tyroo_table_bgcolor = “ffffff”;
tyroo_table_headlinecolor = “006699”;
tyroo_table_Desc_color = “000000”;
tyroo_table_DisplayUrlcolor = “999999”;
tyroo_outer_table_bordercolor = “ffffff”;
tyroo_font_color = “999999”;

.adHeadline {font: bold 10pt Arial; text-decoration: underline; color: #CC0000;} .adText {font: normal 10pt Arial; text-decoration: none; color: #000000;}

(Bihar Times) When people go looking for meat, they usually look at the colour and the smell. If the colour is red and it doesn’t smell, they think that the meat is wholesome, fresh and of good quality. This is not true.

What is packaged meat ? meat that is in cellophane or any other wrapping, Sausages , ham , bacon, hamburgers, mince, frankfurters, smoked meat, heat-and-eat items such as precooked roast, cold cuts and meat containing sandwiches. This includes chicken and fish.

After the animal is killed in the slaughterhouse, the packaged meat that reaches your table is often days old because it has been processed, distributed and stored, and all this takes a long time. It undergoes deterioration from chemical and microbiological processes and the bacteria that enters all dead flesh .

But , on the shelf, it still looks red and doesn’t smell. How much is nature and how much art ? All of it is manmade , made possible by use of chemical and gas additives used for preserving the “appearance” of the meat – if not its actual composition. The additives make the meat look as if the animal was killed yesterday when in fact it is full of ecoli, salmonella and other bacteria that comes into decomposing flesh,
The following are some of the major additives:
1) Carbon Monoxide: One of the ways in which the red ,fresh look of meat is obtained is by infusing carbon monoxide into the meat before packaging it. The use of carbon monoxide to keep packaged meat looking fresh is forbidden in Europe due to food safety concerns . Carbon monoxide makes meat appear fresher than it actually is by reacting with the meat pigment myoglobin to create carboxymyoglobin, a bright red pigment that masks the natural aging and spoilage of meats. Meats containing carboxymyoglobin will continue to appear pink or reddish well beyond the point at which they begin to spoil. The presence of carbon monoxide also suppresses bad odors and the presence of slime, other telltale signs that meat is spoiled.

Packaged meat does not have this on the label as meat companies are strongly opposed to labeling that any process has been used which consumers associated with the smelly and dangerous exhaust system of their cars.

2) Nitrities and Nitrates: Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate are used in the curing process of different meats. The purpose is to inhibit the growth of food poisoning micro organisms like clostridium botulinum.  These preservatives also give cured meat its fresh pink color. However , when cooked at high temperatures they combine with the amino acids in the meat to form nitrosamines which are carcinogenic.

In order to reduce their carcinogenic activity and slow the conversion , more chemicals are added –  ascorbate and  erythorbate. But in all meat products exposed to high heat, nitrites are formed very quickly ( frankfurters, hot dogs, bacon, sausages). Attempts to reduce nitrite levels in meat by adding potassium sorbate for instance have not found favour with the industry as this chemical changes the flavour of the meat.
Another chemical that is being used as a preservative  is  35 ppm encapsulated dinitrosyl ferrohemochrome as a colouring agent and 3000 ppm sodium hypophosphate as an antimicrobial agent .

3) Phosphates: Different types of phosphate are used by the industry. The most common is tripolyphosphate which acts as a detergent and has been allowed as a dip since 1992, for removing bacteria from chicken meat that is sold with its skin on.

4) AntiOxidants: Food decays when it is exposed to oxygen. Fatty acids in oils and lipids such as those found in flesh are especially susceptible to oxidation and will take on a rancid flavor and odour. Chemicals known as antioxidants hinder the chemical reaction in fats and oils between oxygen and other chemicals, slowing the aging process.  Some natural antioxidants and processes are:  salt, sugar, vinegar, freezing, smoking, pickling, citric and ascorbic acid. But none of these are used in meat as they change the flavour and texture. So to enhance the colour in processed meats, chemical  antioxidants are used such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Propyl Gallate is also used to prevent rancidity. BHT and Propyl Gallate have been found to be carcinogenic.
5) Among the newest meat additives are the following:
·         A blend of citric acid and sorbic acid for “soaker pads:” to reduce the bacteria microbial load in packages of meat and poultry.
·         Lauramide arginine ethyl ester: Approved as an antimicrobial agent for use on ready-to-eat ground meat products, such as sausages.
·         Trisodium phosphate: Approved as a component of phosphate blends, and used to decrease the amount of juices in meat products.

When you eat any kind of packaged or tinned meat , you get all these chemicals for free ! The governments and meat industry may claim that the food additives are safe, but they said that the color additive Violet No. 1 used on beef was safe and this had to be withdrawn because it was found to be a cancer causer. Many additives have been approved and withdrawn over the years.
As a meat buyer, you are the victim of the ultimate consumer deception by the meat industry. Cooking meat cannot eliminate the health problems that occur when toxins are present, but not readily apparent, because of carbon monoxide. Even when contaminated meats are properly cooked, some toxins can survive. And meats are not always thoroughly cooked. No meat mentions that it has a chemical colour additive that hides the natural discoloration associated with spoilage. So every bite you take becomes a Russian Roulette bullet.


More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

November 4, 2008

More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

By Conor | November 2, 2008


A major concern here at GreenTaxi is the long term risk of cell phones causing cancer or any other risk to our bodies.  Walking around all day with a device sending out radio waves directly into our head seems like it must be a risk of some sort longer term.

We’ve discussed this previously and continue to wait for the WHO’s massive study results if and when they are ever released.  But any new research or opinions are always interesting.

An article out of a Baltimore TV station reports on views from a leading oncologist who has been studying this for a while.  I do not think her findings are anything new, but some of the points the article brings up in regards to the use of cellphones by children are particularly scary.

Davis said it takes 10 years for most brain cancers to develop. Pictures from cell phone companies show the electromagnetic signal goes about two inches into the adult brain — halfway through the brain of a 10-year-old and completely through the brain of a 5-year-old. Yet children are one of the fastest growing markets for cell phones.

Davis said children’s’ brains are the most vulnerable.

“Many children sleep with them under their pillow on vibrate, so the signal gets right into their head while they’re sleeping,” she said.

Studies out of Sweden are pointing to risk in youths using cellphones for more than 10 years.  Sweden has been using cellphones actively for more than 20 years, so their data goes back a bit more than other countries.

An epedimiologist there, “has told colleagues that he has findings that people who started to use cell phones as teens, by the time they reached their late 20s, had five times more gliomas.”

Please keep your eye out for further studies and information.  I will continue to post anything I can find here.

from: Green Taxi

Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks

October 6, 2008

Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks
Pittsburgh cancer institute warns of cell phone-cancer risk, defying published research
By JENNIFER C. YATES and SETH BORENSTEIN Associated Press Writers
PITTSBURGH July 24, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press

The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.
The electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones might be a cancer danger.

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don’t find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now — especially when it comes to children.

“Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn’t wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later,” Herberman said.

No other major academic cancer research institutions have sounded such an alarm about cell phone use. But Herberman’s advice is sure to raise concern among many cell phone users and especially parents.