Tag Archives: brain cancer

Jerusalem hospital shows off vaccine that destroys cancer in 2 shots.

Jerusalem hospital shows off vaccine that destroys cancer in 2 shots.

Early human test results suggest a vaccine can train cancer patients’ bodies to seek out and destroy tumour cells.

The therapy, which targets a molecule found in 90 per cent of cancers, eventually could provide an injection that would allow patients’ immune systems to fight off common cancers including breast and prostate cancer.

The first results of trials in people, at the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem, suggest the vaccine can reduce levels of disease. The human work is so preliminary it has yet to be published in a scientific journal.The scientists behind the vaccine hope to conduct more extensive trials to prove it can be effective

against a range of cancers. They believe it could be used to fight small tumours if they are detected early or to help prevent the return and spread of disease in patients who have undergone conventional treatment.

In the safety trial at Hadassah, 10 patients with multiple myeloma, a blood cancer, received the vaccine. Seven have finished the treatment and the developer, drug company Vaxil Biotherapeutics, reported all had greater immunity against cancer cells compared with before they were given the vaccine. Vaxil added that three patients were free of detectable cancer following the treatment.

Cancer cells usually evade a patient’s immune system because they are not recognized as a threat. While the immune system usually attacks foreign cells such as bacteria, tumours are formed of the patient’s own cells that have malfunctioned.

Scientists have discovered that a molecule called MUC1, which is found on the surface of cancer cells, can be used to help the immune sys-tem detect tumours. The new vaccine, ImMucin, developed by Vaxil and researchers at Tel Aviv University, uses a section of the molecule to prime the immune system so it can identify and thus destroy cancer cells.

Vaxil suggested that if large-scale trials prove as successful, the vaccine could be available within six years. Initial research on the vaccine, in mice, was published in the journal Vaccine, and suggested the treatment induced “potent” immunity in mice and increased their survival from cancer.
Cancer charities gave the vaccine a cautious welcome. Dr. Kat Arney, at Cancer Research UK, said: “These are very early results that are yet to be fully published, so there’s a lot more work to be done to prove that this particular vaccine is safe and effective in cancer patients.”

SOURCE

Chemotherapy Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor in Half……Correction – Marijuana cuts Cancer Growth in HALF

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

WAR ON DRUGS

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

“The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer,” said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. “When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays,” Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. “THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is,” she said.

SOURCE

The biggest experiment of our species’: With five billion mobile users in the world, conference calls for research into potential brain cancer risks

The biggest experiment of our species’: With five billion mobile users in the world, conference calls for research into potential brain cancer risks

Custom Search

By Eddie Wrenn

A scientific conference starting in London today will urge governments across the world to support independent research into the possibility that using mobile phones encourages the growth of head cancers.

The Children with Cancer conference will highlight figures just published by the Office of National Statistics, which show a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours between 1999 and 2009.

The ONS figures show that the incident rate has risen from two to three per 100,000 people since 1999, while figures from Bordeaux Segalen University show a one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.

Scientists and academics have long argued over the suggestion that radiation from mobile phones causes cancers. Those who believe there is a link say that – with five billion mobile phones being used worldwide – urgent research must be carried out to establish the risk.

But not everyone agrees. While governments, phone companies, and health agencies give precautionary advice about minimising mobile phone use, the Health Protection Agency is likely to conclude in a report due on Thursday that the only established risk when using a mobile is crashing a car due to being distracted by a call or text.

Professor Denis Henshaw, emeritus professor of human radiation effects at Bristol University, is opening the three-day conference in Westminster today.

He has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phone packets and urges more independent research.

Professor Henshaw said: ‘Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems – not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue.

‘The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it’s entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening.

‘We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.’
Keeping track: There has been an increase in the number of child brain cancer sufferers, and the ONS has also spotted a rise in brain tumours

Keeping track: There has been an increase in the number of child brain cancer sufferers, and the ONS has also spotted a rise in brain tumours

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rang alarm bells last year when it classified mobile phones as ‘possibly carginogenic’.

Professor Darius Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, said: ‘For the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic field] is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
CANCER IN CHILDREN ON THE RISE

Speaker Dr Annie Sasco, from the Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention unit at Bordeaux Segalen University, will highlight the one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.

She has concerns over the effect of radiation on children’s brains.

She said: ‘If the penetration of the electromagnetic waves goes for four centimetres into the brain, four centimetres into the adult brain is just the temporal lobe.

‘There are not too many important functions in the temporal lobe – but in a child the more central brain structures are going to be exposed.

‘In addition kids have a skull which is thinner, less protective, they have a higher content of water in the brain, so there are many reasons that they absorb more of the same radiation.’

Speaking to the Independent about the rise in brain cancer in children, she said: ‘It’s not age, it’s too fast to be genetic, and it isn’t all down to lifestyle, so what in the environment can it be?

”We now live in an electro-smog and people are exposed to wireless devices that we have shown in the lab to have a biological impact.

‘It is totally unethical that experimental studies are not being done very fast, in big numbers, by independently funded scientists.

‘The industry is just doing their job, I am more preoccupied with the so called independent scientists and institutions saying there is no problem.’

‘One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as “gold standard” in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents.

‘If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.’

However not everyone believes there is a significant risk from mobile phone radiation.

Ken Foster, professor of bio-engineering at the University of Philadelphia, downplayed the IARC’s classification.

He is quoted on Science Based Medicine as saying: ‘Saying that something is a “possible carcinogen” is a bit like saying that someone is a “possible shoplifter” because he was in the store when the watch was stolen.

‘The real question is what is the evidence that cell phones actually cause cancer, and the answer is – none that would persuade a health agency.’

The Independent said the research is split almost 50:50 on whether mobile phones pose a health hazard or not, but pointed out research from Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, who said that the balance changes if funding sources are considered, with around three quarters of studies implying no health risks being funded by the mobile phone industry.

He told the paper: ‘The mantra that “we need more research” is true, but there is already enough evidence to warrant better safety information, tighter regulation, mass public education and independently funded research carried out by teams of specialists who are not beholden to industry.

Conflicting views:

‘This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks – risk we still know next to nothing about.’

– Joel Moskowitz, University of California

‘Even if the risk is still only one in a million, with 5 billion phone users it means a lot of extra brain cancers.’

– Professor Denis Henshaw

‘Saying that something is a “possible carcinogen” is a bit like saying that someone is a “possible shoplifter” because he was in the store when the watch was stolen.’

– Professor Ken Foster

‘This is the largest technological experiment in the history of our species and we’re trying to bury our head in sand about the potential risks to cells, organs, reproduction, the immune system, behaviour, risks we still know next to nothing about.’

Governments and mobile phone companies often play down the risks and the UK’s Mobile Operators Association says there is ‘no credible evidence of adverse health effects’.

The Department of Health says: ‘As a precaution children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short. We keep all scientific evidence under review.’

The NHS also advises children under 16 to minimise their use of mobile phones.

The iPhone, Apple’s smartphone which popularised mobile computing, comes with the advice that you should keep your phone at least 15mm away from your body at all times – which may come as a surprise to those who keep the phone in their pockets at all times.

The guide that comes with the phone warns: ‘When using the iPhone near your body for voice calls or wireless data transmissions over a cellular network, keep it at least 15mm away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15mm separation between iPhone and the body.’

Other guides, such as the one that comes with a BlackBerry, have similar warnings. The BlackBerry guide suggests that users, particularly pregnant women and teenagers, keep their phone 25mm from their body.

WHAT IS THE RISK? STUDY OF 350,000 PEOPLE FAILS TO FIND CANCER LINK

A study held in Denmark last October compared medical records against phone records of around 358,000 people.

They correlated the data to see how long people owned their phones, and how many of these people developed brain cancer. Some users had owned mobile phones for more than 20 years.

In total, the group had owned their phones for ‘3.8 million years’, and suffered 10,729 cases of tumours.

When compared to the average population, they found no indication of ‘dose-response’ relation either by years since first subscription for a mobile phone or by anatomical location of the tumour – that is, in regions of the brain closest to where the handset is usually held to the head.

They concluded ‘there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association’.

Even the iPhone manual states that people should keep their phone away from close body contact

The guide, almost ironically, also suggest that users ‘reduce the amount of time spent on calls’.

Professor Leszczynski will use the conference to urge for a stronger IARC classification – ‘probably carginogenic’.

He told the Independent: ‘Since 2001 I have continuously spoken about the need for precautionary measures, especially for children. We have had enough evidence to call for that for a long time.’

The conference will also discuss other reasons for childhood cancer, such as chemical toxins in the air, food and water, and infection and genetic effects.

But the main message coming from the Children with Cancer conference is: more independent research is needed.

Professor Denis Henshaw told the Independent: ‘The public have a right to know this information.

‘We cannot and do not say there is a causal link between brain cancer and mobile phones, but we are right to consider them as one possible explanation for the increase and the public have the right to expect that this is properly investigated.

‘Even if the risk is still only one in a million, with 5 billion phone users, it means a lot of extra brain cancers.’

The conference can be streamed online at www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk

Read more: SOURCE

Cellphone Radiation Detector App Banned by Apple

Cellphone Radiation Detector App Banned by Apple

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety

Although many individuals think nothing of radiation emitted by cell phones, or even believe it to be true, there is a large amount of evidence showing how damaging cell phone use can actually be. In response to the released information and growing fear of cell phone radiation, a company has ironically released a mobile app which reportedly measures radiation levels emitted by smart phones.

Company Creates Radiation Detector App, Apple Bans it from App Store

The app was created by an Israeli company named Tawkon, and while not necessarily brand new, is relatively unknown. The lack of popularity probably has much to do with Apple’s banning of the app from their online app store since Apple rules the smartphone market. The company instituted the ban because it felt the app would be confusing to customers, though the ban was likely due to the fact that the app could only decrease sales for Apple’s iPhone. Whether Apple’s decision was driven by profit or not, there are some valid questions and concerns regarding the app’s accuracy.

Using a complex proprietary algorithm, Tawkon estimates the amount of radiation emitted by cell phones at any moment. As a way to measure the amount of radiation being emitted and ultimately picked up by the user, the company considers factors like current antenna strength, and whether a headset is being used or speakerphone is currently selected. The problem, however, is that the app depends on radiation baseline figures provided by device manufacturers. The app itself has no way of actually measuring radiation emissions, so it must rely on the publicly posted radiation emission quotes by manufacturers in order to estimate a device’s radiation output at all times.

Even if the app does rely on the figures from manufacturers, the creation of the app is a step in the right direction. Cell phone use has been shown to cause numerous problems and health complications by altering important regions of the brain. Consequences ranging from a negative influence on fetal brains to the downfall of biological systems of birds, insects, and humans has been pinpointed as a result of these devices and their respective towers (cell towers). What’s most concerning, though, is the impact they have on young, developing minds and bodies. Tons of evidence shows why children should not be using cell phones.

Although completely limiting exposure is nearly impossible, taking steps to avoid exposure to cell phone radiation is important. Simply talking on your cell phone less will result in less radiation exposure. Even placing your cell phone far away from you instead of in your pocket at all times limits exposure. You may also consider investing in an EMF protector or other similar technologies that limit exposure.

Read more: SOURCE

Cancer: 7.5 Million Strong………….and growing.

World cancer toll is on the rise, says research

Sarah Boseley
The Guardian

At least 12.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer around the world every year, and more than 7.5 million die of the disease – a toll that is steadily rising in every country as the population expands and people live longer, according to research by the World Health Organisation.

Cancer was the cause of 14% of all deaths around the world in 2008, the year for which there are the most recent comprehensive figures, but the rates varied enormously from one region to another, from 5% in Africa to 21% in the western Pacific. More than a quarter of all deaths in the UK – 27% – were from cancer.

Cancer Research UK (Cruk) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organisation, are releasing their report as the first United Nations summit opens in New York on tackling the killer diseases that every nation is now having to confront: heart and lung diseases, diabetes and cancer.

These so-called “non-communicable diseases”, which have all taken off as sedentary lifestyles, junk food, smoking and drinking have spread around the planet, are already a massive burden on rich countries and are steadily becoming one in poorer countries, too.

Cruk has high hopes of the summit, which is intended to focus the attention of government leaders on ways of preventing as well as treating the new scourge. “While it is clear that tackling cancer worldwide will remain one of the major challenges in the 21st century, this high-level meeting will finally put cancer on the global agenda, providing the biggest and best opportunity to drive forward major changes in this area,” says its report.

Worldwide, men are more likely to get cancer than women – 204 out of every 100,000 men and 165 per 100,000 women got cancer in 2008, according to age-standardised data. The incidence rate is rising fast in the developing world but is still markedly lower in Africa, where 88 per 100,000 people got cancer, than in North America and western Europe, where 334 and 335 people respectively per 100,000 were diagnosed.

Data is not well collected or kept in most developing countries, but the younger age of the population and different diets and lifestyles play a big part. The highest incidence among men in the world was in France and Australia, which had 361 cases per 100,000. Among women, it was Denmark, with 325 per 100,000. The UK rate was 33rd highest among men and 12th for women.

Four common cancers are responsible for 45% of the death toll, says the report – lung cancer, which is the biggest killer among men, liver, stomach and colorectum. In the UK, the biggest killers are lung, colorectum, breast and prostate.

For several decades, lung cancer has been the most common cancer in the world. In 2008, there were 1.6m diagnoses and the largest proportion – 55% – is now in the developing world, where public smoking bans and advertising restrictions generally do not apply.

The declaration to be signed at the end of the UN meeting will call on governments to take action against tobacco marketing. About a quarter of all adults in the world – more than 1 billion people – are thought to smoke. In Europe, male smoking has peaked, but the habit is still on the increase among young women and girls. The UK has the seventh highest lung cancer rate in women among 184 countries with reliable statistics in the world.

Breast cancer is by far the most common cancer among women, with 1.38mdiagnoses in 2008, which is a quarter of the total for women. It affects a larger proportion of women in wealthy countries, although the developing countries have high numbers and it is a growing problem there.

Reproductive behaviour – having fewer children and postponing childbearing, and breastfeeding less – as well as weight, lack of exercise and drinking are all thought to be factors in the rise in cases. Breast cancer is the most common cause of death among women worldwide.

Cervical cancer hits developing countries hardest as screening, vaccination and treatment bring the numbers down in the richer world. More than eight out of 10 cases (86%) are now in the developing world, and 88% of the 275,000 deaths. The UK death rate is low, ranked 157th out of 184 countries on mortality rates.

SOURCE

Frankenpot

Frankenpot – Marijuana gone GMO!

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Marijuana Growers: Hang onto your pot, here come the genetically modified genes!

It is painfully obvious that mad scientists have gone wild and are in charge of our health and food supply. And now, they want to grab hold of Mary Jane, Weed, Cannabis, Pot, Marijuana, or whatever else you want to call it.

Yeah, we know it has medicinal properties, and so do they. That is one of the reasons it has remained illegal for so long. Someone growing a plant in their backyard and foregoing over-the-counter pain medication, or making a tincture that helps fight cancer just might cut into Big Pharma profits, and we can’t have that. At least not until it can be strictly controlled by the very drug companies that specialize in delivering, for a hefty price, a barrage of drugs designed to, at the very least, incapacitate, and not actually cure anything.

So, here it is. The start of something big. Marijuana gone GMO:

Greenhouses lined with genetically modified marijuana sit on a mountainside just an hour ride from Cali, Colombia, where farmers say the enhanced plants are more powerful and profitable.

One greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.

Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed “a bigger production and better quality at the same time”.

A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, “Creepy”.

Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as “La Cominera”, is named for the Colombian village where it grows.

“La Cominera’s” higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant’s principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant’s two to seven percent, said the researcher. (Yahoo News)

Coincidence that this is going on just as Big Pharma is busy patenting a Marijuana pill? Notice that the genetically modified seeds are imported from Europe, the Netherlands and the United States.

Despite the US government’s staunch opposition to medical cannabis farms in Oakland and elsewhere, the feds have begun licensing a whole lot of large legal pot grows throughout the country. But this weed is not for cannabis dispensaries and their patients; it’s for Big Pharma.

The Drug Enforcement Administration told Legalization Nation in an e-mail last week that 55 unnamed companies now hold licenses to grow cannabis in the United States, a fact that contradicts the widespread belief that there is only one legal pot farm in America, operated under the DEA for research purposes. It appears as if the upswing in federally approved pot farming is about feeding the need of pharmaceutical companies who want to produce a generic version of THC pill Marinol and at least one other cannabis-based pill for a wide variety of new uses. (Cannabis Culture)

Let’s see if I have this straight. Marijuana, natural, grown in your backyard: BAD! Marijuana farms, licensed by the feds and operated by the DEA for Big Pharma, and most likely genetically modified in a laboratory: GOOD! Hey, bubee, don’t you understand that this is bad??? So, off to jail you go for growing a healthy plant in your yard, but if you splice genes in a lab and grow a GM plant, changing that plant from something healthy to something designed to kill, patent it, and hand it over to the drug companies to push, then all the riches of the planet are yours, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood U.S. government.

© 2011 Barbara H. Peterson

If you have any doubts about the medicinal properties of natural Marijuana, watch this:

SOURCE

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

By Danielle Dellorto, CNN
May 31, 2011 1:49 p.m. EDT

Cell phone use ‘possibly carcinogenic’

It’s in the same “hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. Until now, WHO has said no adverse health effects have been established. The cell phone industry maintains that there is no conclusive evidence of danger

(CNN) — Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer for mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers

“The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences,” said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Is your cell phone safe?

Dr. Gupta explores cell phone safety
Cell phone use ‘possibly carcinogenic’

The type of radiation coming out of a cell phone is called non-ionizing. It is not like an X-ray, but more like a very low-powered microwave oven.

“What microwave radiation does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain,” Black said. “So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones.

Wireless industry responded to Tuesday’s announcement saying it “does not mean cell phones cause cancer.” CTIA-The Wireless Association added that WHO researchers “did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies.”

The European Environmental Agency has pushed for more studies, saying cell phones could be as big a public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline. The head of a prominent cancer-research institute at the University of Pittsburgh sent a memo to all employees urging them to limit cell phone use because of a possible risk of cancer.

“When you look at cancer development — particularly brain cancer — it takes a long time to develop. I think it is a good idea to give the public some sort of warning that long-term exposure to radiation from your cell phone could possibly cause cancer,” said Dr. Henry Lai, research professor in bioengineering at University of Washington who has studied radiation for more than 30 years.

Results from the largest international study on cell phones and cancer was released in 2010. It showed participants in the study who used a cell phone for 10 years or more had doubled the rate of brain glioma, a type of tumor. To date, there have been no long-term studies on the effects of cell phone usage among children.

“Children’s skulls and scalps are thinner. So the radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their cells are at a dividing faster rate, so the impact of radiation can be much larger.” said Black of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

In February, a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, revealed radiation emitted after just 50 minutes on a mobile phone increases the activity in brain cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown.

Neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta says Tuesday’s announcement, “dealt a blow to those who have long said, ‘There is no possible mechanism for cell phones to cause cancer.’ By classifying cell phones as a possible carcinogen, they also seem to be tacitly admitting a mechanism could exist.”


Manufacturers of many popular cell phones already warn consumers to keep their device away from their body.

The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says users’ radiation exposure should not exceed FCC guidelines: “When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body.”

BlackBerry Bold advises users to, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 inch (25 millimeters) from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting.”

SOURCE