You missed the point (sort of). I used the Danish study as one example because the sample sizes are significant. There are several others that have produced the same result.

I'll also repeat a small rant I posted on an anti-Xiaflex thread. Yes industry interests are sometimes involved in funding research, but in most cases, the Danish study included, falsifying the data would require cooperation and collusion among several organizations and numerous individuals who would inexplicably choose to ignore their professional ethics and risk their reputations and careers in order to assist an industry interest in perpetrating a scam on the public. It's not possible to cover up a conspiracy this widespread. This is but one of many obvious reasons why the US government is NOT responsible for the 9/11 attacks, yet there remain hordes of paranoids out there who insist it's true. BTW, the paranoid part is not my theory, I read a paper once by by a team of psychologists who believe that it is paranoid tendencies that lead people to believe in absurd conspiracy theories!!!

The two papers you mention speculate on possible mechanisms but don't even come close to establishing a causal relationship. They would be very interesting to the scientific community and possibly of significant value in eventually discovering a mechanism IF the massive proliferation of cell phones happened to coincide with a correspondingly significant increase in cancer rates but it has not, so research money is better spent elsewhere. That really was my point.

It's also worth mentioning that the bulk of the data on cell phone risk was collected when the phones were analog. The new digital phones operate at less than 1/2 the signal power of analog (around 0.6 Watts and below vs. 1.3 Watts). Even if the theories presented in your links turn out to be valid, a very low (undetectable actually) risk is now even significantly lower.

OK, so we disagree. I'll stop responding to this post because it's essentially irrelevant and no longer belongs near the top of the issues list.

It is now blatantly obvious however that you came here with political agenda. You were armed from the get go with every piece of anti-cell phone propaganda on the web, you just needed to bait someone into the right conversation as an excuse to unleash it. I seriously doubt that you even have Dupuytren's disease, otherwise you'd be aware that it was well documented as a common medical problem more that 100 years before man even learned how to generate RF energy and 150 years before human produced microwave energy.

To those who may be concerned by these posts you should know that the "Dr. Carlo" referenced as an expert in this EMF field has virtually no credibility within the established medical or scientific communities. His minimal volume of published work on the subject has bypassed scientific peer review and gone straight to mass media (i.e. generated solely for the purpose of generating profit), his educational background is sketchy, and his claims of being the only "expert" involved in the study funded by the cellular industry are false. Dr. Carlo is also an attorney who may stand to profit immensely if he can convince a few people that an industry conspiracy caused their brain tumors. In fact, if his name sounds familiar it just might be because he's already run this scam once as a major player in the multi-billion dollar silicon breast implant litigation fiasco. Of course we all know the outcome of that saga. Every single claim of causal links to symptoms was eventually invalidated by hard data and the (safe) implants are back on the market.