The whole idea of what is evidence for causation in epidemiology cannot be separated from tTindustry understood that if they could raise doubt about how you could conclude something caused cancer, that they put so much effort into getting so many receptive public health authorities to say, "Well, causation requires that these five things be met." So that is, in fact, nonsense.

It's true that non-ionizing radiation lacks the power to have damage. But its damage seems to come from its modulated signal. So every 900 milliseconds, if you have a cellphone in your pocket, it's getting half of that radiation which is getting into you as it seeks the signal from the tower.

Just a little bit of exposure to this pulsed digital signal, which is now a cellphone signal, could weaken membranes of the brain.

If you are a physician and someone comes to see you with an absolutely incapacitating headache or a swollen arm, you don't tell them, "Come back in 10 years when I've completed my study and I'll see what I can do for you."

The reality is, cellphones have to be used safely. They are today like cars and trucks - we can't live without them, but we certainly wouldn't give a car or truck to a toddler to drive. Why are we thinking it's perfectly okay to give a device that the World Health Organization has said is a "possible human carcinogen" to infants and toddlers, and for that matter, schoolchildren?

When the signal is weak, the phone is working more, you drain the battery faster, so only use a phone when the signal is weak in a true emergency.

You can do something really radical, which is turn your phone off and reclaim your private life.