Do Cell Phones Cause Salivary Gland Tumors?

Do Cell Phones Cause Salivary Gland Tumors?
4.61 (92.2%) 59 votes

What effect does mobile phone radiation have on your parotid gland?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

A summary of studies found no acute effects of cell phone radiation, like nausea/headaches/dizziness/fatigue, but they were just looking at the short-term effects; not considering any of the data on the potential long-term effects. No acute effects, so “future research efforts should concentrate on possible [chronic] effects. I’ve explored the studies on brain tumors and on the effects of the auditory nerve in our ear, but that’s not all there is on the side of your head. There’s your brain, your ear, and your parotid gland: the big salivary gland right next to your ear. About one in a thousand people develop salivary gland cancer in their lifetime, so the question is: “Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development?”

Well, if you have 100 people drool into a test tube, the saliva of those who use a cell phone more than an hour a day does appear to have significantly less antioxidant capacity than those who talk less. So, “[c]onsidering the major protective role of antioxidant[s]” to protect against free-radical-induced DNA damage that can lead to cancer, this could be a potential route by which cell phone increases salivary tumor risk. But this was just an observational study. Maybe those who are on their phones all day tend to eat worse diets than those who talk less?

This study is a little more convincing. They found that saliva taken from the salivary gland on the side of the head they were using the phone on had higher levels of inflammatory markers compared to saliva taken from the same person—but just from the non-phone side of their head.

Now this increase in inflammation isn’t necessarily from the cell phone radiation, but may just be from the heat generated by the phone. Just pressing anything warm against your face for an hour a day may not be good for your glands.

Does the increased oxidation and inflammation actually translate out into “cytogenetic abnormalities,” meaning cell and chromosomal abnormalities in your mouth? Those who use cell phones a lot do appear to have “an increased number of broken eggs” in their tongues. What? That’s a rather playful description of a cytogenetic abnormality associated with cancer. Okay, but what we really care about is cancer cancer. “Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development?” “This is the first systematic review” ever published to evaluate that, and…cell phone use does indeed appear to be associated with increased risk.

This is a good time to explore absolute versus relative risk. If you were asked whether you’d be willing to take a daily pill to reduce your chances of dying from a heart attack by 50%, you might jump at it. But, if you’re so young and healthy that your risk of that is only like two in a thousand over the next 10 or 20 years, then taking those 5,000 or so pills may not be worth it for you. 50% sounds great, but if you’re talking a really rare event, then it’s less exciting. So, even if cell phones did increase risk 28%, then a lifetime of cell phone use would only increase your risk of getting such a tumor from a one in 1,400 chance to about a one in 1,100 chance.

If you want to reduce your risk, though, both the heat and cell phone emissions are largely a local phenomenon, so you can use of a speakerphone or headset to reduce exposure. Or you can do more texting. Basically, until we know more, “the adoption of such precautions” is not unreasonable, “particularly among young people”—something that concerns some researchers enough to recommend young children consider minimizing their use altogether.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: rawpixel via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

A summary of studies found no acute effects of cell phone radiation, like nausea/headaches/dizziness/fatigue, but they were just looking at the short-term effects; not considering any of the data on the potential long-term effects. No acute effects, so “future research efforts should concentrate on possible [chronic] effects. I’ve explored the studies on brain tumors and on the effects of the auditory nerve in our ear, but that’s not all there is on the side of your head. There’s your brain, your ear, and your parotid gland: the big salivary gland right next to your ear. About one in a thousand people develop salivary gland cancer in their lifetime, so the question is: “Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development?”

Well, if you have 100 people drool into a test tube, the saliva of those who use a cell phone more than an hour a day does appear to have significantly less antioxidant capacity than those who talk less. So, “[c]onsidering the major protective role of antioxidant[s]” to protect against free-radical-induced DNA damage that can lead to cancer, this could be a potential route by which cell phone increases salivary tumor risk. But this was just an observational study. Maybe those who are on their phones all day tend to eat worse diets than those who talk less?

This study is a little more convincing. They found that saliva taken from the salivary gland on the side of the head they were using the phone on had higher levels of inflammatory markers compared to saliva taken from the same person—but just from the non-phone side of their head.

Now this increase in inflammation isn’t necessarily from the cell phone radiation, but may just be from the heat generated by the phone. Just pressing anything warm against your face for an hour a day may not be good for your glands.

Does the increased oxidation and inflammation actually translate out into “cytogenetic abnormalities,” meaning cell and chromosomal abnormalities in your mouth? Those who use cell phones a lot do appear to have “an increased number of broken eggs” in their tongues. What? That’s a rather playful description of a cytogenetic abnormality associated with cancer. Okay, but what we really care about is cancer cancer. “Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development?” “This is the first systematic review” ever published to evaluate that, and…cell phone use does indeed appear to be associated with increased risk.

This is a good time to explore absolute versus relative risk. If you were asked whether you’d be willing to take a daily pill to reduce your chances of dying from a heart attack by 50%, you might jump at it. But, if you’re so young and healthy that your risk of that is only like two in a thousand over the next 10 or 20 years, then taking those 5,000 or so pills may not be worth it for you. 50% sounds great, but if you’re talking a really rare event, then it’s less exciting. So, even if cell phones did increase risk 28%, then a lifetime of cell phone use would only increase your risk of getting such a tumor from a one in 1,400 chance to about a one in 1,100 chance.

If you want to reduce your risk, though, both the heat and cell phone emissions are largely a local phenomenon, so you can use of a speakerphone or headset to reduce exposure. Or you can do more texting. Basically, until we know more, “the adoption of such precautions” is not unreasonable, “particularly among young people”—something that concerns some researchers enough to recommend young children consider minimizing their use altogether.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: rawpixel via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

The previous videos I mentioned are: Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer? and The Effects of Cell Phones & Bluetooth on Nerve Function.

I also have videos about effects on cognitive function and a constellation of different symptoms in Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function? and Is Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Real?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

106 responses to “Do Cell Phones Cause Salivary Gland Tumors?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. The fact that research shows low level microwave exposures can cause DNA breakage and cancer in animals 4-7 – and probably does the same thing in humans – in humans – does not actually seem the most important point. Instead, one must understand that the simple fact that low levels of microwave exposures have biological effects opens the proverbial can of worms, with respect to all the safety studies the microwave industry has NOT done for RF radiation potentially causing OTHER diseases than cancer, while exponentially increasing human exposure to microwaves in a wide variety of new and untested frequencies and devices year after year.

    Replicated effects, observed in many different laboratories at very low levels of RF exposure,4 also include neurological damage in animals such as leakage of the blood brain barrier.8,9 Unfortunately, research has clearly established that children absorb far more RF radiation than adults, especially in the brain, making them much more vulnerable to harm.10 And obvious problems resulting from this harm may not show up immediately, but as with tobacco smoking, may take decades to appear.

    As the authors of a 2012 review of RF blood brain barrier studies observed, “… neuronal damage may not have immediately demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. It may, however, in the long run, result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of ageing. We can not exclude that after some decades of (often), daily use, a whole generation of users, may suffer negative effects such as autoimmune and neuro-degenerative diseases maybe already in their middle age.” (p 45) 9

    However, we may not need to wait decades to see effects.

    Neurological problems from RF exposure may have already shown up in two of the most vulnerable groups: In school age children, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported an alarming and increasing prevalence of autism.11 In teenagers, depression and suicides have increased, an increase that correlates with how much time teenagers spend with RF emitting devices such as cell phones and computers. 12

    And according to the CDC even in the general population, suicide has recently increased at an alarming rate—rising over 25% across the United States from 1999 to 2016, with more than half of these suicides having no known mental health condition.13 And while correlation does not prove causation, these problems have increased roughly in synch with modern society’s exponentially increasing exposure to RF radiation, and make sense with respect to the neurological damage shown to occur in animals exposed to RF at these levels.4-9

    4. Radio Frequency Color Charts that summarize many studies that report biological effects and adverse health effects relevant for cell towers, WI-FI, ‘smart’ wireless utility meters, wireless laptops, baby monitors, cell phones, and cordless phones. http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/

    5. Cell Phone Radiation Boosts Cancer Rates in Animals: $25 Million NTP Study Finds Brain Tumors. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results

    6. NTP cell phone studies — experts recommend elevated conclusions. By Virginia Guidry. https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/4/feature/feature-2-cell-phone/index.htm

    7. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Falcioni, L. et al Environmental Research, Vol. 165, pp 496-503, Aug. 2018. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367?via%3Dihub

    8. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Nittby, H. et al, Pathophysiology. Vol. 16(2-3), pp 103-12, Aug. 2009.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073

    9. Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Wireless Communication upon the Blood-Brain Barrier. [A Review]. Leif G. Salford, MD, PhD., 2012
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec10_2012_Effects_Electromagnetic_Fields_Wireless_Communication.pdf

    10. Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Morgan, L.L. et al, Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp 197-204, December 2014. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

    11. Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6706a1.htm

    12. Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates Among U.S. Adolescents After 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time. Twenge, J.M. et al, 1, Clinical Psychological Science Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp 3-17, 2018.
    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/teen-suicide.pdf

    13. Suicide rising across the US: More than a mental health concern. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018.
    https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html

    1. Geeze louise how did this get here first. I must have missed it…?

      Ok suicide rates are highest amongst what groups and what groups mostly of the young. take my word on it or not… native americans…who is least likely to have cell phone service especially out on the rez where there are no cell phone towers and whatever service a tribe can provide is marginal at best with speeds if your phone runs off internet, as there is no cell phone coverage, as mine does as well in a rural area…. so slow multiple devices can not even run ….native americans.

      Meaning your theory that is now first on this thread…is kaput.

        1. Bad joke: I sure hope a certain female’s claim to be a member of the clan (albeit a minuscule percentage) doesn’t drive them to such a drastic action. :-(

          1. She has native DNA genetic history.
            Which does not make her a member of a clan nor a native. It is strictly a percent thing by law and most all tribes excepting honorary status recognize that.
            But she has not claimed that. Clearly she(I don’t personally favor her I like Bernie) is not liked by national media. Probably because she speaks against the banks.
            How to get a tribe to make a stink or not about a thing…give them a thing. Navajo clearly favored the term redskin as offensive. But back in the day the guy enjoying the owners sky box was indeed the head of the tribe. Soon to loose reelection but it made a good photo op against renameing the team for the owner. They voted to condemn it anyway.
            Clan is another thing. You marry into a clan. It is more to prevent relatives from having kids. Clan members do not date it does not mean they are members even of the tribe or even native.
            She could be a clan member marry a Navajo they all have clans.
            In any event I picked up clearly they are stacking the deck against her n media wise. Will it work…did not last go round with Bernie so I say not. They want Biden the powers that be.

              1. Funny thing back in the day it was popular once for a brief time to claim native American heritage. But in any event it was a joke sort of…they always for some reason chose Cherokee. So much so, it became almost the same as….Cherokee…fake indian then?

                And media used the Cherokee tribe to say she was oh so wrong on this. I guess they probably need federal approval for a casino or some other thing is my cynical guess.. go Biden ;(

          2. just scrolling down, I read “albeit a minuscule percentage” … now I have no idea what anyone is talking about because I didn’t actually read this conversation, only alef1’s original post, but I have to comment on measuring Native American genes but am not commenting on whoever you’re referring to, to that I am also clueless. DNA tests are actually much more complicated than people tend to or are even lead to understand and regardless of the many tests and complexities, they only measure what shows up in that part of the DNA tested, not someone’s heritage. You could come from two full blown Germans for example, and have pulled little and mostly Italian and French from more distant relatives, so not only are DNA tests more complicated than perceived, but DNA in itself is extremely complex and extraordinary.
            But it’s MUCH more complicated when searching for Native American DNA. It’s nearly impossible to measure for Native American and Native Alaskan because they’re simply not in the database due to things like religion, etc. There are actually only two tribes in the database which are the Pima of Arizona and the … arg I forget specifically but the other is a tribe native to Central America I believe. So when someone’s DNA DOES pull up Native American, it could be because they come from one of those tribes or simply because they could come from any of a great number of tribes and their DNA happens to resemble the two that are in the database. HOWEVER, for Northern Natives and Native Alaskans, it is impossible to tell because their DNA does not resemble either of the two Native tribes in the database and actually more closely resembles the DNA of the Finish, for example and this is due to ancient migratory habits and whatever other factors. So often those who have northern Native American showing up in their DNA for example, will pull up Finish or Siberian, etc.

            Science.. the more you learn about it, the more you realize the less we know.

        2. Nevertheless all that…………… WHO clearly states cell phone radiation is a possible cancer risk.
          That has not changed since 2011.

          Kids around a thing that may cause cancer or may not..of course you keep them away from it. Alef is right on that 100% Regardless of amount of risk.

          1. When pressed, even industry scientists will admit that there exists a great deal of scientific research on both sides of the issue of whether low-level RF radiation causes harm in a number of ways (not just cancer) – with industry funded scientists mostly on one side, and industry independent scientists on the other, but with all research done by credentialed, respected scientists

            ( See: “What are electromagnetic fields? Summary of health effects, Conclusions from scientific research. World Health Organization.”
            http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html and compare to “Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations. BioInitiative Group.” http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec24_2007_Key_Scientific_Studies.pdf )

            In most situations like this, where legitimate scientific controversy exists over a potential environmental hazard, the precautionary principle would have come into play many years ago. It hasn’t. Instead of the government requiring industry to demonstrate the safety of untested RF devices through peer reviewed research studies before exposing the public to them, customers suffering ill effects with scant resources and no scientific expertise find themselves forced to go to court to try to prove that these devices can cause harm.

            As Dr. Andrew Marino put it in In 2016, in his Expert Testimony before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, with respect to the smart meter roll out by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) in 2016:

            “PECO is intentionally exposing human subjects to the electromagnetic energy from smart meters, which is something that cannot be done by any research institution in the United States without first securing permission and consent within the context of federal laws. The upshot is a Kafkaesque situation in which bona fide investigators cannot study the risks of smart-meter electromagnetic energy unless they follow stringent rules, especially the rule involving consent, and yet PECO can involuntarily expose human subjects in the absence of any oversight whatsoever.”

            (From: Expert Report [on the human health risks of EMF and Smart Meters] of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. before the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, August 8, 2016. Dr. Marino has an impeccable and impressive scientific background in this area, with over a hundred publications in peer reviewed journals on the effects of man-made electromagnetic energy on animals and human beings. Exhibit 1 lists his qualifications and research publications. http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf p34)

            1. You may be right on smart meters. Really who is to know…have they been tested, a bit probably but not a whole lot is my guess.
              I still draw the line on microwave ovens.
              But that said, you will be happy to know I now always have in use a metal thing I made for my wireless router to block the signal heading my way and not the other way…;)

        3. Ron-
          Did you think that this article was mostly about Native Americans? I think you’re missing the point. They are a tiny percent of the American population, although bigger in NM than elsewhere.
          John S
          PDX OR

      1. Not really. Unfortunately in out country, Native Americans have a plethora of good reasons to feel depressed that have nothing to do with cell phone use, and have long before their invention..

        And in the case of iGen adolescents, most of whom have now grown up with RF devices from early childhood and who would seem the most vulnerable to any such effects ( “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.” Morgan, L.L. et al, Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp 197-204, December 2014. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583 ) increases in depressive symptoms, and suicides correlated with how much time teenagers spent on cell phones and other RF emitting devices:

        “In conclusion, adolescent mental health issues rose sharply since 2010, especially among females. New media screen time is both associated with mental health issues and increased over this time period. Thus, it seems likely that the concomitant rise of screen time and adolescent depression and suicide is not coincidental.”

        The Abstract: “In two nationally representative surveys of U.S. adolescents in grades 8 through 12 (N = 506,820) and national statistics on suicide deaths for those ages 13 to 18, adolescents’ depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates increased between 2010 and 2015, especially among females. Adolescents who spent more time on new media (including social media and electronic devices such as smartphones) were more likely to report mental health issues, and adolescents who spent more time on nonscreen activities (in-person social interaction, sports/exercise, homework,
        print media, and attending religious services) were less likely. Since 2010, iGen adolescents have spent more time on new media screen activities and less time on nonscreen activities, which may account for the increases in depression and suicide. In contrast, cyclical economic factors such as nemployment and the Dow Jones Index were not linked to depressive symptoms or suicide rates when matched by year.”

        From: Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates Among U.S. Adolescents After 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time. Twenge, J.M. et al, 1, Clinical Psychological Science Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp 3-17, 2018.
        https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/teen-suicide.pdf

        1. FYI, a friend coincidentally just sent me a link to a video which based on the research I’ve seen provides a good overview and summary of the RF health issue, especially focused on the vulnerability of children:

          Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe’s (who founded PHIRE, the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment in the U.K.) presentation on “”Biological Justifications for Reducing Paediatric EMF Exposures” at recent Children with Cancer UK Conference ( http://www.childhoodcancer2018.org.uk/programme.asp ) on Thursday, Sept 13, 2018:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HJcH_ZP-y0 (30 minutes)

          1. OK Alef, the evidence is overwhelming… but what exactly are you saying? You think there is a hope in hell of slowing the electronic nightmare of our daily existance when trillions of dollars are involved? I think not, hence the despair. Even if you reject all optional forms of electronics personally, it’s all around us. Work, school, neighbourhoods, cars.

            1. Hi Barb –

              Just as with diet and lifestyle, informed individuals can choose to make intelligent decisions about tech. use to opt for healthier choices. Most of the RF exposure people get they do by choice. At home one can use a landline instead of a cellphone, and if a cellphone seems ones only option, one can decrease RF exposure 100 fold by choosing to use it in speaker mode rather than holding it next to the ear. You can have a wired computer connection rather than a WiFi connection, and when you do use WiFi, you can place the router 20 feet from you rather than right next to where you sit.

              Just as people can make better and healthier choices as far as what foods to eat once they have good information, we can make better and healthier choices as far as what tech to use and the best way to use that tech once we have accurate information about not only the benefits, but the risks.

              Although entirely avoiding RF in today’s world has become impossible, most people most of the time – if informed – can reduce their exposure 95-99% and still enjoy using of most of the tech. they have become accustomed to.

    2. “And while correlation does not prove causation, these problems have increased roughly in synch with modern society’s exponentially increasing exposure to RF radiation” and in other words, in synch with modern society’s increase in use of technology and being more “plugged in” and less connected with the real, tangible world and people around them. You could theorize more of a psychological reason if you’re coinciding depression and suicide with technology use increase. However, I don’t doubt that we shouldn’t be holding cell phones against our heads and personally, I will not own a microwave.

  2. I’m freaking out to get information on this subject. October 3rd 2018, I had surgery for a tumor on my salivary gland. What a coincidence. I’m having some complication but with some facial phisio all should get back to normal. The surgery was a success and all the facial nerves were saved. Thanks to Dr MLynarek.

    1. I think we would know about landlines already.

      My elderly relatives spent hours on the phone every day and so did I when I was younger.

      More texting nowadays, because of fear of cell phone Cancer.

      1. Hi Deb, thanks for your comment. I looked at some studies regarding land line. I found studies on cordless phones and a few case–control studies have evaluated tumor risk from cordless phone exposure. These have found a statistically significant increase in risk of malignant tumors and benign tumours related to extended hours and years of use [16,17].
        New Zealand adolescents’ cellphone and cordless phone user-habits: are they at increased risk of brain tumours already? A cross-sectional study

        1. Thanks, Spring03!

          I appreciate the link.

          It concerns me because I couldn’t afford a landline and have a cell phone which I needed for work.

          Cell phones caused information to become instantaneous, immediate and impersonal.

          It genuinely changed relationships, where talking on the phone kept the emotions and kept the relationship end of the relationships. You laugh more and cry more and talk more deeply when you get the emotional cues on a landline.

          Text, I get, “What do you think about this air purifier?” type questions. That is one of my running questions today. It is convenient because you can send photos and links to the internet, but that person and I used to laugh together and that doesn’t happen as often, even if she still makes me laugh, it is me laughing and her laughing separately. I suspect less oxytocin, but that is just a theory.

      2. Texting is convenient but it is emotionally distancing.

        I just found out today that my friend who has congestive heart failure and hives missed so much work for medical problems that she is going to be homeless again and risks losing her job for being sick too often. She has doctors notes but it has caused them to look down on her and one false move and she will be gone. Homeless and unemployed is hard this time of year because the 90 day shelters are packed.

        1. Her son has been trying to get on disability for years but they do t give it anymore.

          He has diabetes with neuropathy so bad that he can’t tell when he has to go to the bathroom plus COPD plus he has epilepsy and just had a seizure and by law you can’t drive for 2 years. Plus he has depression and addiction issues. He has almost died a few times, but it is harder to manage any of it once you are homeless.

            1. My other friend is doing a collection for the homeless in Minnesota. She said that they have a tent city out there. I think we are going to get back to those. The blue collar workers and retail workers and fixed income elderly and disability are living one or two paychecks away from homelessness and they have already gotten rid of things like cable and entertainment and leisure and vacations. Most of the ones I know haven’t had a vacation since the 1990’s. They can’t afford doctors or insurance or taxes or utilities or computers/internet. This friend lived for a long time during the heat of the Summer with no power and no a/c or fans or lights or phone. Getting sick at all is when they go homeless. I was reading about Insurance rates quadrupling and my relatives have gasped going to ER’s and specialists, so I know those are going to be out. It is going to get worse is what I know, because the professionals need more and more money and they already rose too high for the blue-collar workers and retail workers and fixed income elderly and people on disability to have any margin at all.

              1. Deb – 19 Weeks, Several years many of my neighbors were out of work and some were on food stamps. Fortunately, in the last year and a half since the the economy has gotten better, they have all found work and their self-esteem has risen. It’s amazing how people’s attitude and self esteem changes when they feel productive and independent. I keep working on them to start buying whole plant foods instead of the junk food that they have been eating, but I’m afraid that will take a while before they change that.

                1. Darwin,

                  Good news that your neighbors found employment! That is something to celebrate!

                  I think it takes hearing about it several times before coming to the understanding of what it will do for them financially.

                  It took a transition for me to go organic because the price tag in front of me was more expensive. Same for produce, in general.

                  People who don’t make a lot of money have to figure out what they can eat. Honestly, if you start in the produce aisle, you might get sticker shock. Starting in the organic produce causes me to walk around thinking “$8.99 for Microgreens?” and I end up spending $100 far too easily. I also was walking around thinking about all the prep time and that I get burned out keeping up with it and end up having the produce go bad. Those are the mental and logistical hurdles.

                  When I start off over in the grains and beans and lentil aisle, I look around and feel “I can do this.” Rice is inexpensive. Beans are inexpensive. Lentils are inexpensive. Steel Cut Oatmeal is inexpensive. Barley and Quinoa and other grains are inexpensive. Pasta is inexpensive. Vegan soup is inexpensive. Vegetables, I start with Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes now because they are inexpensive and filling, but I have solved for produce because frozen fruits and vegetables are cheaper and often go on sale. I end up with a lot more food and most of it isn’t perishable, and it comes pre-chopped, so it has worked well.

                  Having 5 to 7 recipes you actually like is the next thing. That is what I have been working on with my friend with Cancer. For her to replace Keto, she needs to taste foods and actually like it. It has to switch from what they can’t eat to having a few things they will eat. Pasta is one. Just need a few more things.

        2. I meant to say that I got that “homeless” information as a text. That woman and I used to talk on the phone for an hour every night and now I am getting an “I got a notice of eviction and they told me that I have to get out by next Monday, but I am so sick that I don’t know whether I can handle it.” text.

          1. I think about the foster kids where 75% of them weren’t learning how to read and 60% of them are ending up homeless or in prison or alternating between the two. A high percentage of the females get pregnant. There are people in my town where the father stole baby food and ended up getting arrested. Les Miserables, in about 3 years? Right about when the blood pressure meds bankrupt Medicare?

              1. Viva,

                Sorry if I have offended you.

                Cell phones and internet changing relationships is something the broader culture is discussing.

                It is something to ponder because I have been on this site for almost a year and the comment I probably give almost every day to multiple people is to thank them for how useful their contribution is.

                I will ponder if you are right and if my contribution isn’t useful and I mean that genuinely.

                I have already started praying about it.

                You have said the one sentence, which could genuinely get me to stop.

                I am going to talk with God about it because I know that if I am not useful I will not want to be doing this process.

                1. Viva might be a newbie to this site, Deb. She probably doesn’t know how your very unusual mind operates. But WE do! And we love you, anyway! :-)

          1. Tom,

            Yes, we live in a culture where people are intentionally emotionally distancing themselves. The computer is another thing.

            People who probably would be polite if a teacher or parent or potential suitor is around, go on the internet and mock people and put on fake identities and all sorts of things. Etiquette is a thing of the older generations.

            In some ways, it is more authentic, exposing what people really are on the inside.

            It is exposing everybody’s character.

  3. Sometimes it seems like so many of these indispensable “advancements” of modern life are geared to get us hooked and then slowly take us out of the gene pool. Fast food, chemicals, technology, pharmaceuticals… I think living in the actual jungle was safer!

    1. Technically we are still living longer.

      Not as long as we could live maybe and not as healthy, but longer than primitive people.

      1. Not always Deb…this speaks of two consecutive years in decline…https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/life-expectancy/548981/ Due to opioid abuse and OD deaths.
        And americans by new study produced in the UK on expectant time line of 2040, are thought to fall from our now 43rd place internationally to 60 something. Japan is always top Spain expected to rise. 1 year or so we will increase but most far more than that.
        Americans are not even top ten in living longer way way off that, but do indeed display the most advanced technology by most amount of users. One causing the other by my take probably not.

        1. Ron,

          I am surprised that the life expectancy is as high as it is.

          I feel like the elderly are skewing it higher than it will be.

          In my family, the 90-year-olds are dying within a year or two of their children.

          The people around me who were born in the 1950’s are dying and having their spouses die. 3 of my cousins who were born in the 1950’s died and 3 of my other cousins had their spouses die.

          The people I know who were born in the early1960’s are getting Heart disease, Diabetes, Lupus, and Cancer in their 50’s. The ones who partied a lot died in their 40’s.

          Looking at the generation around me born in the 1990’s, some of them are over 300 pounds and some of them have MS and some have ADHD and Autism. Not sure how ADHD and Autism will affect longevity, but it does cause problems with employment and poverty.

          I just hired a sweet autistic boy. Got to give him his first hug on Friday.

            1. Thanks Deb
              I think the various comments within it however distract (perhaps intentionally) from big pharmas role in this thing and their continued role in this thing. Media seems to be attempting to shift this into the standard war on drugs, of a couple of decades ago, which never worked and continue to not work.

              Most of these people enter into drug use as a consequence of prescribed drugs to combat pain. All the press in the world will not stop the more than a hundred law suits brought against big pharm in this regard by very many state AG’s

        2. My perception of the 90-year-olds is that they are more like my relatives who started their lives without electricity and indoor plumbing and refrigerators. They had a garden and didn’t have convenience stores or big grocery stores. They rationed during wartime. They didn’t have soda unless they made their own. Christmas, they got something like an orange as their present and probably had fruitcake whatever that is, but they didn’t do a big feast.

          If Dr. Lisle is right that it usually takes 50 years for the health issues to really start popping up, then the sixties generation who were born into a McDonalds and Burker King world are hitting that right about now.

          But the people born into the 1990’s also have so much more obesity than there ever was. Seems like each generation will have their own rates and we don’t know yet.

          1. My mind doesn’t count the dietary/sedentary outcomes until the people born at the end of the 1950’s.
            The 90-year-olds tend to have eaten calorie restriction.
            The 60-year-olds is when I first see gluttony and excess, but they had at least 10 years of pretty good habits.
            The 55-year-olds still had 5 or so years before the culture really changed,
            They are the group that I am looking at.

            I suspect these next 5 years that the death age will continue to go down and it won’t just be opioids. It will be when the lifetime of poor eating begins to bear its fruit.

            Do I think it will continue to get worse?

            In about 10 years with 3D Laser printed organs may be where the age goes way up again.

            1. Mainly, what I am saying is that we haven’t really seen the true effects of the SAD diet yet because we haven’t reached the generation where most kids were raised from birth SAD reaching the end of their lives in high numbers yet.

              Advances in medical care for emergencies and things like the flu has padded the results so people don’t know how bad it will get yet.

              I am so likely to continue to be hard hit and might lose my whole family and my friends, but organ transplants will be game changers for the younger people.

              1. You don’t understand that people don’t see it that the SAD diet is affecting longevity. People are living into their 90’s. Kids dying from opioids being on the rise doesn’t cause them to worry about junk food or fast food.

    2. Hi thanks for your comment. I guess that is one way of looking at the situation, however another way knowledge can be power and the more we empower ourselves we can benefit from the good side of technology and advancement and avoid the unpleasant consequences of them. By using this website and learning from these research reviews by Dr Greger are great way to empower ourselves.

  4. This is how radiation affects cancer. It prevents DNA repair if the exposure is repetitive. DNA is repaired all the time (even without radiation). But radiation affects the electrons of molecules and interferes with repairing. They say that non ionizing radiation is safe because it does not pop electrons from molecules. But there are many different molecules and molecules are the building blocks of cells.

    1. Agree seems a stretch. Their are differing responses to heat however depending upon temperature and type of cell.
      This study you may find interesting is on heat sensitive response to DNA of cancer cells…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971410/

      Seems a high fever killed this guys cancer. DNA damage occurs with heat as Pancho above mentions. However the ability to repair such and continue to keep the cell functioning varies. Testies to my understanding will pull the plug and kill the cells relatively easily with heat exposure as probably a environmental thing to prevent the birth of untoward amounts of devolved DNA putting a mother at risk. So to much DNA abnormality and the cells sperm just die and do not pass on the damage. Lap tops and heat on testies may be a big thing causing infertility. Heat in general.
      Just playing devils advocate, that may not be the case for salivary glands. Perhaps they are more prone to remain viable with cell damage due to heat not fully self repairing, and then prone to cancer and replication of the cancer altered gene.

      Just a guess as I really do not know. But you may find the study link entertaining or fascinating.

      1. Ron, Very interesting. I’ve also wondered if athletes who run to the point of sweating are able to avoid common illnesses passed around due to their “artificial fever” (e.g., sweating from running or whatever.) Maybe cancer, then, too? Your article made me wonder about some kind of directed microwaving as opposed to directed radiation/x-rays and wondering if that would be possible.

        Very interesting thoughts! Thanks for the link.

      2. Just a guess as I really do not know. But you may find the study link entertaining or fascinating.
        ——————————————————————————————————-

        Fascinating, thanks for posting.

        I read about Swedes (I think) who regularly do dry hot saunas for blood pressure effects. I bought a teepee shaped plastic (yetch, I hate plastic, but…) unit to set up in the winter to do the dry sauna thing.

        I don’t turn on the heat in my house in the winter except for my water distillation unit in my computer room, so this would be about the only way I can get to the temps needed to do any good.

        Just trying to figure out a good place to set it up so I can tie it off to keep the wind from tearing it down.

  5. On another note……. how’s this for a thing to make you boiling mad…. found this on a site that is typically overrun by shall we say a certain number of types…..
    “Before You Consider Swapping Real Milk, You Should Know This
    Sponsored by Milk Pep
    Dr. Tanya Altman, author of “What to Feed Your Baby” explains the why the nutritional differences between dairy milk and plant alternatives matter.”

    I will not bother to tell you what news outlet runs this add or story or whatever you want to call it. You already know,
    The thing clicked on then goes on to explain how the fake milks should not be called milk as they confuse.
    Confuse what say I very loudly and boiling mad…..real milk is mothers milk not cows milk…… fools!!! For a baby??? What to feed your baby???? It is not cows milk fool.

    Vent now off….feel free to vent. Feels good I know.

    1. Well, at least you quit your rant at a reasonable hour (9 PM). You might have had another all nighter — either blabbering to yourself or with “Still-Awake-at-5 a.m.” Deb. :-)

  6. Good question, Lonie.

    The only wi-fi object that I own is a computer mouse — maybe I should worry about IT? I rarely use my no-bells-&-whistle flip (dumb) cell phone — only if I plan to meet friends and only when necessary. (I’m still trying to figure out how to use the damn thing.)

    Guess I should get with the program one of these days. Or not.

    1. YR

      Sorry but I just can’t resist the temptation. As Oscar Wilde wrote, “I can resist anything except temptation”, so I have to ask:

      Why bother with a mobile phone? All the answers lie within, so do you really need a phone to find out when and where to meet people etc?

      That response to your post came to me from a channelled entity. Not Ramtha or Seth though. It was my inner smartarse. :)

      1. Tom,

        That would have been the type of joke that the Irish side of my family would have told. Not the channeling part but the inner smart arse (which my smart arse smart phone keeps changing into another word.)

        1. My great grandmother and her sisters were the funniest people I have ever met in my life. Nobody else has ever come close. And my grandmother and her five siblings laughed until they cried every time we got together.

          I miss all of them.

    2. The only wi-fi object that I own is a computer mouse — maybe I should worry about IT? I rarely use my no-bells-&-whistle flip (dumb) cell phone — only if I plan to meet friends and only when necessary. (I’m still trying to figure out how to use the damn thing.)

      Guess I should get with the program one of these days. Or not.
      ———————————————————————————————————————-
      A// I can say is get rid of the damn wireless mouse before it is too late… that is a gateway drug technology.

      Before you know it you will have a fiber optic line into your house and your computer will be connected to the wifi modem in your hot water heater closet and you will end up parking your flip phone and then will get the latest, greatest cell phone that also hooks up to the home wifi and you will even get a blue tooth headset and a blue tooth clicker thingy that will allow you to set your new H-1 phone on a tripod and take a photo from a distance by just pushing a button on the clicker thingy and your house will become a shambles ’cause you are always playing with your phone or you are on your wireless equipped computer(s) and… and…

      Well, anyway that’s been my experience and for me it started with the mouse. Just get rid of the wifi mouse before it’s too late

      1. Har-har, Lonhie. Yer a real corker! :-)

        Seriously, I hear bad “spy” things about the smart TV. I have a 19-inch regular job, and it’s usually on only when I want the music channel on.

    3. YR (Mostly WFPB), Actually, most wireless computer mice use Bluetooth rather than WiFi, and Bluetooth uses much less power. The Bluetooth signal usually uses 2.5 mW of power whereas WiFi uses 100mW of power, although the standards keep changing and the power limit keeps getting higher. Cell phones use much more power than either WiFi or Bluetooth, so they would seem to be of the most concern. Bottom line, I wouldn’t worry about your mouse! Hopefully, by feeding our bodies WPFs, we can repair any damage done by radio signals.

      1. Bottom line, I wouldn’t worry about your mouse! Hopefully, by feeding our bodies WPFs, we can repair any damage done by radio signals.
        —————————————————————————————————-
        I agree what we eat can probably protect against our normal daily dose of radio signals.

        Like YR I use different mouses that have the little button plugged in to the USB ports on the computers.

        In re: Blue tooth, I remember an episode of Person of Interest where Finch paired his phone with their target and then saying something to the effect of “Thank goodness for blue-tooth… makes our job (of spying on their target) much easier.” I don’t have it turned on, on my computers but while around the house I do have it turned on, on my new phone so I can listen to music or hear phone calls better through my blue tooth headphones.

        When I go out I turn blue tooth off.

  7. Exceedingly dissapointed with Gregor’s report this time. And the previous report he posted about a month back on cell phone hazards. That report cited a study from 2008. Really? Cell phone are a completely different animal now from in 2008. If he’s going to have the audacity to claim cell phones are safe then use a study that isn’t ten years old. As well, the above report (i only read transcript, did not watch video) doesn’t even cite any study dates.
    I’ve come to rely on Gregor’s expertise with nutrition and feel he is spot on. But don’t start telling us cell phones are safe until you’ve dug into more current studies, please.

    1. Michele,

      I’ve provided you with a 2018 reference and actually the radiation from cell phones has not changed much from 2008… For a good article on SAR see: https://emfacademy.com/cell-phone-radiation-charts-sar-levels-popular-phones/ and to evaluate the FCC’s indexes go to: https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid

      One of the issues that needs to be addressed and is very individual is our use format, location, and do we also employ blue tooth products. I wrote an article about some of the issues at: https://centerofhealth.com/cell-phone-radiating-causing-cancer/

      Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger <a href="http://www

      1. I think there is some hazard with some of these things or at least a potential hazard. The world health organization has recognized that and categorized cell phone radiation as a possible cancer causing agent as does the state of Calif.

        So we should exert reasonable precautions. Text when possible and do not use it for long periods of time without remote listening and speaking devices. Not really brain science…pretty simple. Don’t let kids talk on them. Cell phones, as doc mentions, are designed to broadcast for miles and miles. Bluetooth and such are simply not.They are local devices so we will not get them confused by others signals in direct proximity.
        Microwave ovens….don’t stand in front of the damn thing when on. We don’t have to run away from them after pressing the button but common senses is commonsense…..don’t stay next to them when on. Do you put your hand on a electric burner when it heats a thing of soup…no, it is a reasonable precaution with that. So it is with these things….we must exert reasonable precautions.

        Electricity itself has hazards as we all know, which can be terminal. But we have learned how to use it so it is mostly not harmful. Some in the initial, were reluctant to use it at all, when newly introduced same as cars., But to just not use them is really not practical. Eventually we all end up using new technology the trick is to use it safely.

        1. Single pole wireing without a active ground in residential use….thousands were killed, by that, before we learned how to properly ground things.
          If one though it useable but with precautions they were safe. To think it completely safe is as harmful for a person as not safe at all, both just would not work.

          Don’t sleep with any of these things next to our head I would say is also pretty commonsense. Thought about, we can develop our own standards of use which make sense. We don’t need a warning label really if we are reasonably intelligent. Though government probably should require provideing a warning pamphlet upon buying one, for those who may not know.

    2. Michele,

      I don’t know which sentence just triggered you.

      I just listened to it again and I have not heard Dr. Greger calling cell phones safe at all.

      He talked about the risk of cancer increasing with keeping the phone near your head as the way you use your phone.

      He explained the difference between absolute and relative risk to help people figure out whether to take the risk of talking on the cell phone that way.

      He explained some ways to take precautions and minimize risk and mentioned that some people think children shouldn’t use them at all.

      Is there a specific sentence, which made you uncomfortable?

      Or a specific concept?

      I found it quite useful because I don’t have a landline anymore and I have a father who is moving to Florida half the year and he doesn’t have a phone which he can text on and neither of us will have landlines, so how often and how long I talk with him on the phone will become an issue.

      My mind is going through silly things, which might not help, but which is a strategy, because I value that relationship and would not want to lose it and he isn’t really on social media and neither am I and he is very far away from going WFPB or I could just check in with him on this site.

      But my mind is saying: take antioxidants before and after long calls – and schedule short calls and maybe alternate which side of my head the phone is on.
      Those are the thoughts running through my head.

      I found the last one so exceedingly useful. The concept that bluetooth didn’t affect the nerve in the open brain was better than I expected. I don’t really understand what Bluetooth is. Does it require wifi or something like that? Hmmmm, I just realized that I was at CVS earlier tonight and they had a thing to plug into the car like a cassette where you could talk through your radio and I can go park someplace and talk to my car radio.

      My brother’s company truck has On-Star so I could go sit out in the truck and talk to the mirror.

      I will figure it out.

      1. Oh bothet, everything I write is a book.

        Anywsy to say Dr Greger said cell phones are safe is as if we were playing the telephone game and the wrong message came back.

  8. Off topic, but question I thought someone here might know the answer to… Is there a difference in antioxidant content between “regular” and ceremonial matcha? From my understanding the only difference in production between the two are that the ceremonial is shade grown and it appears a deeper green color, so there seems to be more chlorophyl but what about antioxidant content?

      1. Thank you Deb! :) Looking it over quickly now I was surprised to read in the conclusion section that the highest antioxidants were in the leaves that were lower in chlorophyl. I’ll read through the whole thing tomorrow when I have time.

  9. I was just reading about raw honey and its ability to heal the microbiome.

    Researchers, can people eat honey instead of getting fecal transplants or something like that?

    Some of us read the science without a lot of understanding. I need the pictures and charts and funny jokes.

    I appreciate being able to put honey healing the microbiome in the topic request list.

    1. Honey contains antibacterial agents and all sort of things to prevent its spoiling. Which is why other than crystallization it can remain edible for years. Bees had to have that as its properties to use it for winter months and summer. But antibiotics tried in this regard work for a little while, it seems, but the effect also seems to disappear without a change in diet, and the initial bacterial properties of the digestive tract once again reappear. Which is also probably why supplements of bacteria are marginal at best in most applications.
      So perhaps if one took it continually. But I would not say it is impossible for the bad bacteria to adapt to the honey with time, and then thrive again.
      Personally I think the essential food mass leads to the tendency of bad bacteria. What we eat in large part as opposed to any individual thing.

      A major change in diet for most Is indicated, to my opinion, to provide any lifetime result. Yes most favoring a WFPB produced thing. Which has no medical intervention profit involved nor drug that can provide profit, so perhaps not thoroughly studied.

      1. To add a complete change in diet is likely a long term result in bacterial content change. Some say it happens right away, but I tend to think in most not.
        It takes years to develop a problem, what would infer a solution would occur with immediacy?
        So such a thing may not be receptive to direct study being more findable in population study to my opinion.

          1. Ron, thanks.

            I bought some from New Zealand. Thinking that their pollution might be decades behind ours.

            I am interested because I know that I spent years eating foods with Round-Up and have had antibiotics and spent years with bad bacteria. The Food Revolution Summit spoke about whole strains from our microbiome becoming extinct because Roundup is registered as an antibiotic so it seemed like a good thing to try to see if I can bring anything extinct in America back in from a less polluted country. I don’t tend to use sweeteners ever, but the microbiome interests me. I have friends plural – who have been on antibiotics nearly every year and they both have such stomach problems. Yes, I assume time on a different diet would be the right answer.

            Okay, it is like my brain just kicked in. Boy, I mentally am so far off again.

            Dr. Greger just did sweeteners and the microbiome and getting off of them the microbiome started healing in 2 weeks or something like that. I can’t believe that things just fly out of my head and I have to work so hard at retrieving them. So, is honey a good sweetener which harms or fixes the microbiome and it is good for the gums in the primitive diet. Ha! I got some brain cells back.

            1. So anyway, nevermind about doing the honey and the microbiome thing.

              Some of us did pay attention in class, but the information flew up to the ceiling and I am going to try to pull it back down again.

              Sorry. It must be discouraging that even the people who camp here day and night don’t actually listen to a word you say.

            2. New Zealand Manuka honey is highly bacteriacidal. That’s its key marketing feature. I suspect – but do not know – that this may not always be a good thing for our gut microbiome.

              Yes, I am sure that people state that it only kills ‘bad’ bacteria and leaves the good ones alone. Frankly, this claim sounds preposterous to me. How would this even wor? Especially since we don’t even know what half those bacteria in our gut are and what effects they have on our health.

              It’s also worth remembering that sugar itself is bacteriacidal. That is why it is widely used as a preservative.

    2. be careful with honey as some of the very latest research shows it a very strong bio-accumulator , accumulating all sorts of chemicals from our environment

          1. a researcher who was on radio program said that more research was needed , but he was initially shocked at some of their first results

            1. Thank you, mrpinkerton!

              A very strong bio-accumulator!

              I have to look up the environment in New Zealand.

              Does anybody on this site live there?

  10. I want to throw a cultural one on the end of this topic.

    Kids are growing up in a very high tech society.

    My 8-year-old doesn’t have a cell phone yet, but most of her peers do. They also spend a lot of time with tablets and laptops, which her current caretaker is trying to curtail because it isn’t emotionally healthy being in front of a screen all day.

    The balance though is that for a career, the ones who are using it all their lives are the ones who will have technology as a first language and technology is still where the jobs are.

    There are people who still send their kids outside but jobs in this country depend mostly on fitting in a seriously dysfunctional culture.

    I am not recommending doing unhealthy behaviors, but I am someone who highly resisted the ways modern business run and I still resist it, but the gap between my company and theirs is wider and wider and wider. It started hurting us probably with the internet and with globalism, but I still don’t want their way of doing things. I would be so unhappy being under that highly-competitive-cut-throat-technology-instead-of-humanity-legalism-instead-of-simple-grace-authoritative-instead-of-politeness-and-communication-in-relationship system, but that is how business and government is nowadays and it is getting worse.

    I wouldn’t know how to advise young people. I know parents are trying to give their kids a competitive edge is why they keep buying the newest technology over and over and over again and I still have an old Gateway because it still works. I do have an i-phone, but that just tells you when I got a cell phone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This