The pulsing causes the "Frey"effect
Our house readings are about 3000 uW/sqm peak
The Bioinitiative chart shows studies indicating that levels of between 6 and 60 uW/sqm (0.0006 and 0.006 uW/sqcm) there are significant neurological effects.It would be interesting to see how much power people emit (as black bodies at 37 C) over the microwave range.
each antenna time-slots 8 phones at a time. 24 hours a day, 365 days a yearWhen a phone is idle, the base station just checks in with it occasionally to check it is still there, and to check that it hasn't got any data to send.
My father was deputed to investigate the noise spectrum from a new electricity substation, in response to a barrage of complaints from the neighbours. After a week he returned with some delightful tapes of the dawn chorus and not a hint of mains hum, as the station had not yet been connected to the grid.
a knee replacement ...Could continuous microscopic differential expansion and contraction be the culprit?At a received power of 3mW/m2, your knee could absorb at most 0.1mW of electromagnetic energy.
In the months that the tower was powered, I lost all (4 of them lasting 2-4 decades) metal fillings in my mouth due to the tooth with the filling cracking. I had a knee replacement recently and there were two days when the healing was impaired to the extent I could no longer walk on it. When I realized it could be the radiation and shielded my leg, it improved over 36 hours to where it was before. I also realized that I had spent those two days in the lounge where the radiation was higher because I had not yet shielded that area. Could continuous microscopic differential expansion and contraction be the culprit?
This has hints of a delightful urban legend.I still have the tapes.
One has to get to the truth behind the story. Here is a possible scenario.This has hints of a delightful urban legend.I still have the tapes.
While it may be true, there are a number of cases where it is not.That makes no sense.
In the months that the tower was powered, I lost all (4 of them lasting 2-4 decades) metal fillings in my mouth due to the tooth with the filling cracking. I had a knee replacement recently and there were two days when the healing was impaired to the extent I could no longer walk on it. When I realized it could be the radiation and shielded my leg, it improved over 36 hours to where it was before. I also realized that I had spent those two days in the lounge where the radiation was higher because I had not yet shielded that area. Could continuous microscopic differential expansion and contraction be the culprit?
Reminds me of this
You tube video
from about 55 seconds.
Had this happened to the substation your father visited,It didn't.
Does that suggest that they KNOW the dangers?No.
Had this happened to the substation your father visited,It didn't.
However, getting it 5 months after the tower was powered up makes it hard to ascribe the cancer to "just bad luck".About a third of the population here gets cancer.
Quote from: CliveGeach antenna time-slots 8 phones at a time. 24 hours a day, 365 days a yearWhen a phone is idle, the base station just checks in with it occasionally to check it is still there, and to check that it hasn't got any data to send.
When everyone goes to sleep/work/school/shopping etc, the number of active devices in the cell drops, and the transmitted power drops further.
So the greatest exposure is when the phone is active (eg on a voice call, or downloading a new software release over the mobile network). And since you are closest to the active phone, you are the most exposed.
Was there a tower nearby?Yes.
After installing shielding in the roof my wife and I have been woken up twice at 3 am to 4 am feeling that the radiation is very high. This was confirmed by the meter readings.How often did you measure it when you had not been woken up?
The lung cancer rate for men followed the smoking graph almost exactly except for a delay of 20 years.That is also the crucial diagnostic for radiogenic cancers: a latency period of 5 - 15 years between cause and effect. A correlation with less than 5 years' delay between exposure and clinical symptoms is more likely to be random coincidence.
Those students must have had a high and sustained dose. Perhaps they met and spent time at a place that had standing waves from reflections. Lab experiments have stirrers to avoid such problems but they exist in the real world.Was there a tower nearby?Yes.
Or, at least, very probably.
There are lots of towers.
So the important question is not " Was there a tower near this cluster of some rare bone cancer?" but " Why, if phone towers cause this rare bone cancer, is the cancer still rare?"
equivalently, " Why are there not clusters round every single tower?"
So, what are your answers to those questions?
All is takes is one cancerous cell to start the chain.True, but it won't have any clinical symptoms until it has developed into several million cells. Hence the latency period between exposure and symptoms. Given the size and complexity of the human DNA molecule, you need to work out the probability of a nonionizing excitation producing a mutation that is viable in situ, not rejected by the immune system, and malignant (i.e. reproduces significantly faster than normal and can generate its own blood and glucose supply route).
Those students must have had a high and sustained dose.That particular fallacy is called "begging the question"
There was clearly a common causeThat is also "begging the question"
The industry controls the response to such eventsHow?
One problem is now the global lack of a control group.That didn't stop you.
Everyone is getting higher and higher levels of exposure.And, on the whole (all other things being equal) , we are living longer...
I can tell you that I know of many towers here in SA that have clusters of problemsAnd, unless you have details of how many clusters there are round, for example, trees, you don't have any legitimate call to say anything about the effect of those towers.
The studies are being done and the answers are not good. It takes time and expense to produce such studies and they are easily criticized for weaknesses. One problem is now the global lack of a control group.
When the exposure levels and the exposure times get to the point that vast numbers of people are getting ill and no other cause can be found,It would be interesting to see how far back you can find stories about this.
A human cheek cell is about 60 um is diameter. 10 V/m would mean that each cell would experience 60 times 10 uV. (Check my maths please). That is 0.6 millivolts, which is about 1/100th of the voltage across the membraneA cell membrane is about 5nm thick.
I repeat: have you measured the field strength in your home?
Physics is about numbers.
Physics is about numbers.Good point.
Water absorbs microwave radiation because the photon energy packet can raise the electron energy to just the right level before the energy is translated to vibrational energy known as heat.No, it doesn't.
If a photon from all the emitting devices strike a water molecule in a cell at the same time the molecule is in quite an unstable state.For a start, you need to define "at the same time". Then you need to define " the molecule is in quite an unstable state.".
I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.
I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.
That's not the argument at all. DNA double bonds are not the point of failure.
I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.
The principal mechanism for radiogenic tumorgenesis is the production of free radicals in the cell cytoplasm, which distort the hydrogen bonds between the strands of reforming DNA during mitosis, leading to incorrect crosslinking and local distortion of the daughter molecule. This is the underlying mechanism of stochastic effects at low dose rates. Since the trigger event occurs in a single cell, there is no threshold dose and a significant latency period between exposure and clinical symptoms.
At high dose rates or in the presence of chemical rather than physical agents, the mechanism appears to be a matter of faulty or failed repair of direct thermal or chemical damage to an organ, resulting in deterministic effects. There is a threshold dose (the fairly sharp line between the protective response of sun tan and the repair failure of sun burn) and a very rapid onset of necrosis or carcinogenesis.
I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.
PS you can't arbitrarily add the field amplitudes of EM radiation at different frequencies.
This is is called weasel-wordingNo.
Your statement is in general correct.Never mind "in general"
I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees)To what?
Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".She gets a mention here
People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas, and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas, have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar, telegraph operators, and radar exposed military personnel.Did you read that before you posted it?
so many studies in different countries using different methods are getting similar resultsYes.
NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals.How?
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:36:31
People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas, and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas, have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar, telegraph operators, and radar exposed military personnel.
Did you read that before you posted it?
What you have said is that definite exposure to relatively high intensity EM radiation from police radios and military radars apparently protects you from radiation compared to those who are exposed at much lower levels.
You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that it does no harm.
But thanks for clarifying your position.
Here's the TLDR version
"Extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum including mobile phones and base stations. All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made.".
That is as close as it is possible to get (scientifically) to a declaration that phones are safe.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:13:07
Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".
She gets a mention here
http://loons38.rssing.com/chan-9751110/all_p61.html
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:32:01
I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees)
To what?
Did you just try to put that in to sound "sciencey"?
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:13:07
NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals.
How?
What evidence is there (apart from begging the question again)?
To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.That makes no sense.
You sound as if you are arguing that God does not existI have worn worse cloaks
Why do you need to know "How"?Well, you have no direct evidence. You claim it must be true because "ZZZ"..." and I ask how did you come to the conclusion that ZZZ is true?
To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.That makes no sense.
The angle I hold my phone in bed differs from that I use most of the time.
But that's hardly the big problem.
From the PoV of a cell- how do you define polarisation?
Why do you need to know "How"?Well, you have no direct evidence. You claim it must be true because "ZZZ"..." and I ask how did you come to the conclusion that ZZZ is true?
Why do I need to know if zzz is true?
Because otherwise there's no reason to believe that you are not bullshiiting.
Did you not understand that?
s well as the many instances where people are being harmed.
Using your logic this condition does not exist because the how is poorly understood.Using your logic it is caused by pixies- because someone says it is, and it's impossible to prove that it isn't.
While it may be psychosomatic to some (there are always cases in many illnesses that have no testable symptoms - pain for example) it is not the case for the majority of sufferers.Then why has no lab testing of sufferers actually given a positive result?
He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.Interesting.
He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.
I have challenged the industry to put forward executives to volunteer to be exposed to the radiation I have in my home for 3 months.Had a rep offer me an intracavitary dosemeter some years ago, with a bias voltage of about 1000V inside an insulated but rather thin sheath. "Absolutely safe" he said. "Fine", says I. "Shove it up your backside and switch it on, and I'll buy it." Never saw him again.
how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanismsOK
How about you tackle the heavy-weights of the NTP and Ramazzini studies.How about you give a decent reference?
One so far which I itch to respond to but will have to wait because it does require some careful thought on my part.No amount of thought on your part will alter what the reports say, nor will they stop what I said being true.
The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.
[The problem hanging over the Splenda finding is that which hangs over the Ramazzini Institute in general: Quality control. No matter what substance the Institute tests for cancer, the results always seem to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings. […] All of this has made the Ramazzini Institute something of a joke in European and American science. But, of course, there’s nothing to laugh about when you use a charity conference on childhood cancer to promote an international cancer panic.
A 1972 study compared neoplasms in Sprague Dawley rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."So you need to do your epidemiology carefully even with rats!
Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.Why?
Quote
He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.
Me too.
We see the same problem with pagers. WiFi, pager, email....all reduces your control over your work flow, imposes other people's productivity cycles on your own, increases stress, induces all sorts of cerebral problems, including early onset of dementia caused by stress->muscle tension-> atlo-axial vertebra displacement -> interruption of cerebrospinal fluid drainage -> nerve sheath damage. Also presents as "asthma" due to muscular tension in the thoracic spine region.
I like
Quote
I have challenged the industry to put forward executives to volunteer to be exposed to the radiation I have in my home for 3 months.
Had a rep offer me an intracavitary dosemeter some years ago, with a bias voltage of about 1000V inside an insulated but rather thin sheath. "Absolutely safe" he said. "Fine", says I. "Shove it up your backside and switch it on, and I'll buy it." Never saw him again.
Quote from: CliveG on 17/08/2019 06:29:48
s well as the many instances where people are being harmed.
You keep doing this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
You should stop.
Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.Why?
Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditionsNo. Selfimposed stress is something quite different.
Quote from: CliveG on 17/08/2019 18:20:22
how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanisms
OK
Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.
Henry C. Lai, Natesan Ramachandran
says
"Immediately after 2 h of exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds width, 500 pulses/s) microwaves, no significant effect was observed,"
Which is interesting.
It also says "a dose rate-dependent [0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body specific absorption rate (SAR)] increase in DNA single-strand breaks was found in brain cells of rats at 4 h postexposure. "
Let's put that dose into some sort of context.
I'm about 70 Kg and I consume about 2400 Kcal per day. (About 116 Watts)
So, that's about 1.6W/Kg.
Now, there has never been any controversy about the idea that cooking a rat's brain by increasing the power dissipation by about 40 to 80% will cause damage.
So, the first study you cited shows that there's no effect at the sorts of levels that phone masts generate.
And then there's
Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electromagnetic field.
Campisi A1, Gulino M, Acquaviva R, Bellia P, Raciti G, Grasso R, Musumeci F, Vanella A, Triglia A.
where the abstract says
"No change in cellular viability evaluated by MTT test and lactate dehydrogenase release was observed. A significant increase in ROS levels and DNA fragmentation was found only after exposure of the astrocytes to modulated EMF for 20min. No evident effects were detected when shorter time intervals or continuous waves were used. "
Now that has a big red flag in the middle of it.
How come 20 min exposures give an effect, but not shorter or longer ones?
To me that's a clear indication that something else happened + was responsible for the observed change.
Then there's this
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.
A chest xray delivers a dose of about about 0.1 mSv
And a dose of about 5Sv will kill you.
So, if the data you have posted is correct then anyone in Stockholm will get 0.16 Sv per day
So they will all be dead after 5/0.16 days ie about a month.
Has that been reported on the news?
"No effects for exposure to continuous waves no matter what the duration". That also seems reasonable.Do you understand what that says?
that is bordering on a straw-man fallacy when you make the conclusion about masts.You are the one who included it here.
The specialist she consulted asked if she had a recent course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics.Why did they ask that?
I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed.By what?
Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditionsNo. Selfimposed stress is something quite different.
Old Wallaby fans will remember Keith Miller from the early 50's. A radio interviewer asked him "Is there too much pressure on cricketers nowadays?" His reply was priceless: "No mate. Flying one Hurricane against two Messerschmitts is pressure. This is just playing games for money."
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 10:53:34
I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed.
By what?
Until you can prove that it's from EM radiation, you are assuming that to be the cause.
And that's begging the question.
A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv
Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water
Psychological stress is self-imposedThat's more or less exactly wrong.
. I do a variety of tests to reduce the radiation and each one results in relief - repeatedly. Just because I have not conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study does not mean I cannot make the obvious conclusion between cause and effect.
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:41:07
Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water
No
You stick your hand in a pot that you think is full of hot water.
It hurts.
Ten thousand other people put their hands in the same pot.
Only the three people say it hurts.
They are the three people to whom you said "beware of the pot of boiling water".
. I do a variety of tests to reduce the radiation and each one results in relief - repeatedly. Just because I have not conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study does not mean I cannot make the obvious conclusion between cause and effect.
The obvious conclusion there is that you have found an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem.
I don't think anyone asked for a peer review (so that's another straw man from you, btw).
I have asked for a blind trial.
That's different- not least, it typically excludes psychosomatic effects.
uote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:31:42
Psychological stress is self-imposed
That's more or less exactly wrong.
People do not typically choose to have a relationship end in divorce or to have an ****hole as a boss or to have a sick relative.
One of the dominant risk factors for stress is a lack of control of the situation.
Her memory and her cognitive functions were degraded by the towerOr age, or some other condition, but you refuse to see those possibilities.
Why is it so obvious that I have an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem?
"Most blinded conscious provocation studies have failed to show a correlation between exposure and symptoms, leading to the suggestion that psychological mechanisms play a role in causing or exacerbating EHS symptoms. In 2010, Rubin et al. published a follow-up to their 2005 review, bringing the totals to 46 double-blind experiments and 1175 individuals with self-diagnosed hypersensitivity.[15][16] Both reviews found no robust evidence to support the hypothesis that electromagnetic exposure causes EHS, as have other studies.[4][5] They also concluded that the studies supported the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in those with EHS.[3]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Causes
Boiling/ very hot.So what?Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:41:07
Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water
No
You stick your hand in a pot that you think is full of hot water.
It hurts.
Ten thousand other people put their hands in the same pot.
Only the three people say it hurts.
They are the three people to whom you said "beware of the pot of boiling water".
Now this is a strawman fallacy.
You take a straightforward example of cause and effect, distort it and then criticize your own scenario
You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hot (and you throw in "boiling water" for good measure) because in your scenario the water is not too hot.
Clearly I was talking about water that is so hot it almost scalds, and will do so if one keeps their hand in there too long. It is possible that 3 out of ten thousand might say they feel nothing. They would probably have medical condition or just being ornery.
Clear cause and effect - the same clear cause and effect I get with EMF radiation.
Instead of debating the subject, you are debating semantics. Skipping round the edges.
You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hotNo.
Her hands started shaking.Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
Or other conditions.Quote from: CliveGHer hands started shaking.Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease
Ah, but emergency service vehicles are powered by diesel which, according to Official Sources is responsible for more deaths every year than actually occur!Why do you post dross like that?
Quote from: CliveGHer hands started shaking.Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease
Or other conditions.Quote from: CliveGHer hands started shaking.Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/tremor-or-shaking-hands/
What concerns me is that you might be so convinced that a symptom is cause by the mast that you don't go to the Dr and find out what is really causing it (and possibly getting treatment before the underlying condition gets worse)
A warning to all: beware of confusing units in radiology.
The physical unit of absorbed dose D is the gray, 1 joule per kilogram of absorbing matter. This is what we can actually measure (in principle, though it's very difficult for diagnostic x-rays)
The unit of effective dose E is the sievert, 1 gray multiplied by the radiation weighting factor wr (1 for diagnostic x-rays) and summed over the doses received by the individual irradiated organs multiplied by the organ weighting factors wt
E = wr.Σwt.Dt
Σwt = 1 for the whole body, so E is always numerically less than D for diagnostic x-rays.
E= 0.1 mSv is a good estimate for a single chest x-ray.
E = 5000 mSv is the dose that will kill 50% of the population in 30 days from acute effects.
E < 100 mSv/yr has no epidemiological evidence of reduced life expectancy
The probability of inducing a fatal cancer from a single exposure is 5% per sievert.
So now I live in an apartment away from home. I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".OK, there are apparently two (major) hypotheses here.
I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.
I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.
I put shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiationCan you please clarify the reduction in radiation that you measured?
So now I live in an apartment away from home. I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".OK, there are apparently two (major) hypotheses here.
Both follow the rules of cause and effect.
One is that your problems are caused by some physical effects of EMF in your house.
The other is that the effect is psychosomatic.
Just for the sake of discussion and explanation, I would like us to consider two other possible hypotheses.
One is that there is a physical cause in your home that is nothing to do with the mast. As an outlandish example, I'm going to suggest that your neighbour is intermittently pumping poison gas into your home (remember, this is just an illustrative idea- it doesn't have to be sensible, just possible). The important factor is that it's at your home, physical, and not EMF. Fungal spores might be a less imaginative example.
And the 4th hypothesis is that you have some other health condition which is variable and undiagnosed. I understand that people with MS often present with an unusual collection of symptoms which causes confusion.
OK, to summarise, we have 4 hypotheses.
1 EMF sensitivity
2 Psychosomatic illness
3 Some other factor at home
4 Some other factor not related to your home.
Now, you have made an observationI only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.
It's a fundamental part of the scientific method that science never shows anything to be true, but it's very good at showing when things are false.
We can, by experiment, reject hypotheses and narrow down the options that might explain a phenomenon.
Now, you have made an observationI only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.
Which of the 4 hypotheses does that observation actually rule out?
Which is why I said that we do not know what the Q factor for microwaves is just yet with regarding to tissue damage.People have been using microwaves in vast quantities since 1910. The only known effect on tissue is heating, with sharp peaks at 915 and 2450 MHz where water has strong absorption bands. Physiotherapists have used RF dielectric heating (generally up to 25 MHz) at kilowatt levels for over 100 years.
Quote from: CliveGI put shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiationCan you please clarify the reduction in radiation that you measured?
1/10th? 1/100th? 1/1000th?
Is it credible that other causes of respiratory ill health have declined?Irrelevant but entertaining:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England
And then there's
Carcinogenic effects of NonIonizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift
Magda Havas*
which seems to be a study of publication bias (Papers that say "We didn't find an effect" don't get published).
It also makes the interesting statement that "Gluthathione is an oxidant" as an "explanation / function".
In the real world, glutathione is a strong reducing agent and an antioxidant.
Do you see why I don't take this sort of "science" seriously?
And then there's
Carcinogenic effects of NonIonizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift
Magda Havas*
which seems to be a study of publication bias (Papers that say "We didn't find an effect" don't get published).
It also makes the interesting statement that "Gluthathione is an oxidant" as an "explanation / function".
In the real world, glutathione is a strong reducing agent and an antioxidant.
So we are down to assigning probability to each of hypothesis.Until you stop begging the question, there is no way we can make progress.
1) - 98%
Using strict logic, it rules out none of them.Correct.
I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect"..
I followed up on the study referenced:So did I
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7109/1fb1ddc3c362dbc16eeed27cb69a130b1b96.pdf
Do you not see that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the harm being caused?
QuoteThe Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.
so we can ignore the NTP study on the basis that cooking a rat will certainly kill it - no surprise - and boiling it in utero is not a good start in life.
So how reliable is Ramazzini?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/splenda-testing/Quote[The problem hanging over the Splenda finding is that which hangs over the Ramazzini Institute in general: Quality control. No matter what substance the Institute tests for cancer, the results always seem to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings. […] All of this has made the Ramazzini Institute something of a joke in European and American science. But, of course, there’s nothing to laugh about when you use a charity conference on childhood cancer to promote an international cancer panic.
PS:QuoteA 1972 study compared neoplasms in Sprague Dawley rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."So you need to do your epidemiology carefully even with rats!
"n the experiments with f = 2.5 GHz, for specificabsorbed energies of > 400 J/mliter the water was heated to a temperature of 100 ~ and during irradiation was partially evaporated from the cell, which was also taken into account in estimation of the absorbed energy. "
The only known effect on tissue is heating, with sharp peaks at 915 and 2450 MHz where water has strong absorption bands.which is why domestic microwave ovens are tuned to around 2.5 GHz - it's designed for cooking. 400 J/ml will boil water from 20 deg C (school physics) and most biological tissue undergoes rapid and irreversible change at 70 deg C (school cookery).
The NTP study and the Ramazzini study were taken in the scientific community as of a high standard.Not by me, as you so kindly quoted.
Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects Ronald L. Melnick...The results from these studies provided the basis for the selection of the RFR exposure intensities used in the subsequent chronic studies in rats: SAR = 0(sham), 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 W/kg.6 W/kg is about 4 times the normal heat dissipation of mammals. How long would you survive in a continuous 600W oven? The answer is about 3 hours, thanks to several highly unethical experiments.
A temperature increase of less that 1 degree Celsius. How can you claim that the rats were boiled? Heck I raise my temperature more than that with some intense exerciseOK, so just do that continuously for 18 hrs and see how you feel.
Schwannomas of the head and neck are a fairly common occurrence and can be found incidentally in 3–4% of patients at autopsySo if the normal occurrence in rats is of the same order of magnitude, you'd need to find at least 10% more than the expected number for 100 rats in order to even think there may be an effect.
Schwannomas are relatively slow-growing.so you'd need to sacrifice your experimental rats about half a lifetime after exposure to infer a correlation. Was this done in either study?
One can almost forecast the weather by monitoring the strength around a tower because the amount of water in the air absorbs the radiation and so the tower increases its power output.You know that towers change the power and direction of the signal based on the actual distance and attenuation of the signal between the tower, and the currently-active users?
Quote from: CliveG on 25/08/2019 13:36:49
Do you not see that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the harm being caused?
I saw that they were not doing science.
They say things like
"The non-thermal mechanism of the
interaction of RFR magnetic fields with ferritin is supposedly
mediated by an inner super-paramagnetic nanoparticle
(9H2O 5Fe2O3 with up to 4500 iron ions)"
Well, there is no Fe2O3 in ferritin so...
And
"Although RFR exposure (930 MHz) did not induce detectable
intracellular ROS overproduction, the same exposure in the
presence of FeCl2 in the lymphocyte suspensions induced a
significant overproduction of ROS."
So, what they say is that RF doesn't cause harm unless there's FeCl2 present.
Well, gosh!
Fe(II) compounds are known to be quite toxic due to the production of reactive oxygen species.
And some of the papers they cite are also "interesting".
I noted this one
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01039308
It talks of "n the experiments with f = 2.5 GHz, for specific
absorbed energies of > 400 J/mliter the water was heated to a temperature of 100 ~ and during irradiation was partially
evaporated from the cell, which was also taken into account in estimation of the absorbed energy. "
That's 400,000 K/Kg, and really would (at temperatures of 100C) correspond to boiling the rats.
It also, more importantly, fails to mention what they did about dissolved O2.
So, having looked briefly at the paper you cited I conclude that there is little or no evidence of teh effect you are talking about.
Why do you think the NTP and Ramazzini studies decided that heating was not a factor?Because, if they accepted that it was, all their paper said was " Heating rat cells is bad for them".
And who do you think has more credibility? ICNIRP or these scientific organizations?The international committee; two heads are better than one.
Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?Because 5 degrees is bad for us.
Why are you so sure you can discount and ignore the many studies showing cellular harm that are not heat based?Because I have yet to see a well conducted study which shows (rather than just claims) that.
You are throwing out heating and boiling statements willy-nilly and I cannot follow your logic or your references.
Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?
Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?
Because it is nonsense. The rats were exposed to up to 6W/kg for up to 19 hours.
I'll leave the arithmetic to the reader, but it takes about 250 kJ/kg to raise a rat to boiling point. 6W is 21.6 kJ/hr.
I'm surprised they were recognisable as rats at all. Or maybe the reported numbers are in some way inaccurate.
A SD rat can take a SAR of 4w/kg continuously with only a 1.5 deg C increase in core body temperature.Which, in humans would be viewed as 150% of the rise needed for a clinically significant fever.
Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.Sorry to hear that it is beyond you.
Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.Sorry to hear that it is beyond you.
I will try to explain it simply.
Nobody denies that the heating effect of high power EMR is potentially harmful.
Some say that EMR is harmful at much lower levels.
The way to distinguish is to do controlled experiments at levels where the heating effect is small.
But you keep posting results of experiments done at levels like 6W/Kg.
That level is not small.
There is significant heat (and other) stress on the animals at that power.
So, any effects observed in these experiments may be due to thermal stress, rather than any novel mechanism.
If you want to show that there is an effect due to some other pathway, you need to find data measured at much lower doses.
Just showing us more data obtained at high doses makes you look foolish (or even dishonest) and leads to frustration in those of us trying to hold a discussion about possible non-thermal effects.
That's why we start sarcastically referring to "cooking rats".
Do you not have a basic understanding of hyperbole?
Excellent thermoregulatory keps stable core temp over ambient of 5-30 degC for 60 min60 minutes is not 19 hours. 4W/kg for 60 minutes at an ambient of 5 deg C may well be tolerable, but like all mammals, rats cool by evaporation among other methods. 6W/kg for 19 hours should desiccate most mammals.
. If so, what is the mechanism?Is that meant to be a serious question?
Hyperbole is not appropriate here.Repeatedly ignoring the fact that low grade heat is a problem is much less appropriate.
Rats will adapt to stressorsJust like people; they die.
Quote a scientific study that indicates that rats heated by ambient heat instead of MW radiation also have the same outcome - namely cancer.Have you ever heard of an ethics committee?
They say that heating cannot cause cancer,Really?
You are moving the goal postsAs I explained, if you ant to talk about threats from phone masts, then citing experiments where rats are exposed at significantly higher levels is moving the goal posts.
Once you answer that - then we can move on to the studies with lower levels of radiationOK.
The fundamental problem of proof is, to my mind, the essential latency period of radiogenic tumors.
[snipped for brevity]
I wonder what interpretations are being made by visitors to this thread.Good question
The Cuban and Chinese embassy staff attacks mimicked mild concussion. They had audio effects as well. Microwave is considered as a possibility although various interests try to downplay (even ridicule) that possibility.
As a passer by I see several professionals trying to educate the ignorant.Just a quick pass-by shooting on this one.
The Cuban and Chinese embassy staff attacks mimicked mild concussion. They had audio effects as well. Microwave is considered as a possibility although various interests try to downplay (even ridicule) that possibility.
That is just anecdotal with no evidence to back it up. If that is how you support your case then you shouldn't be taken seriously in my opinion.
So the massive amount of research I have done still leaves me "ignorant"?Apparently, because it hasn't taught you how to critically evaluate a report.
And what is the profession of these professionalsI'm a chemist; these days I get paid to do risk assessment.
apart from taking a position against deeper scienceI'm still waiting for you to produce meaningful science. All the reports you have actually cited are obviously flawed.
You show how wrong your signature line is "Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates". There is decades of research and yet - nada.That works both ways. Get a mirror.
MW has been researched as a weapon by all countries.So have water cannons. Do you plan to ban water?
Even the US military does not want the possibility in the media.Who produced this coverage then?
Even the US military does not want the possibility in the media.Who produced this coverage then?
https://www.rt.com/news/weapon-us-microwave-cannon-363/
It sure doesn't look like it was obtained clandestinely.
No problem advertising them because they DO use heat.No, they use microwaves.
The MW radiation is for long-term clandestine dose dependent degradation of enemy non-combatants. I emphasize "clandestine".
It is after all, a slow poison like lead and mercury.Really?
I have headaches and disturbed dreams that only occurred after the mast was turned on.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 07:32:03
So the massive amount of research I have done still leaves me "ignorant"?
Apparently, because it hasn't taught you how to critically evaluate a report.
As far as I can tell, the way you choose whether to cite a report her or not depends on "Does it support my perspective? If so, it must be right".
And yet you fail to notice glaring errors like those I have pointed out.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 07:32:03
And what is the profession of these professionals
I'm a chemist; these days I get paid to do risk assessment.
How about you?
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 15:33:46
No problem advertising them because they DO use heat.
No, they use microwaves.
And nobody ever said that it didn't.Quote from: CliveG on Today at 15:33:46
No problem advertising them because they DO use heat.
No, they use microwaves.
Which causes heat. And this is the effect they want. It is designed to do that.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 15:33:46
The MW radiation is for long-term clandestine dose dependent degradation of enemy non-combatants. I emphasize "clandestine".
Well I'm glad you chose to emphasise that.
Because there's no sensible way you could clandestinely microwave them these days.
If you look on ebay there are dozens of microwave detectors.
That's before we start to think about sweeping for bugs.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 15:33:46
It is after all, a slow poison like lead and mercury.
Really?
I though that you said it was quick.
Yeah, I think I qualify for research and problem solving.
It is just that the agents would be testing to get ...
It is just that the agents would be testing to get ...
How?
Do they turn up in a van and knock at the door?
"Hello, I'm from the local government doing a survey on what microwave power distribution we are delivering to your staff"
"I say, sorry to be a nuisance, but could you move your desk a foot to the right so you sit in the antinode please?"
Most of are all too well aware that buildings do a fair job on scrambling microwave signals anyway. That's why we can't get reception on our phones.
And, of course, for security purposes, lots of embassy buildings aer faraday caged.
Yeah, I think I qualify for research and problem solving.
So, why do you keep posting nonsense here?
For example, it makes no sense (ie it is nonsense) to post about microwaves causing heating.
We know that.
and yet...
Ever heard of computer modelling to determine the placement of standing waves?
My example is about possible cellular damage due to non-heating effects - either the Frey effect or cellular disruption.The Frey effect is a heating effect.
My example is about possible cellular damage due to non-heating effects - either the Frey effect or cellular disruption.The Frey effect is a heating effect.
Ever heard of computer modelling to determine the placement of standing waves?
Ever heard of computer modeling for weather forecasting?
I am not sure what your point is.Even though the weather forecasters have years of good data their predictions aren't very accurate.
And the new 5G MIMO apparently takes reflections into account to calculate how to best direct the signal to a moving cell phone or device.Which is difficult- if you have two way communication. If you don't, then it's impossible.
MW -> Heatrequires high power (compared to a phone)
Pulsed MW ->Requires an even higher peak power and is thus more readily detected.
I am not sure what your point is.Even though the weather forecasters have years of good data their predictions aren't very accurate.
You are saying that the people zapping embassy staff know where the piles of paper etc (and the people) are to a precision of a few cm.And the new 5G MIMO apparently takes reflections into account to calculate how to best direct the signal to a moving cell phone or device.Which is difficult- if you have two way communication. If you don't, then it's impossible.
I'm still waiting for you to address the faraday cage.MW -> Heatrequires high power (compared to a phone)Pulsed MW ->Requires an even higher peak power and is thus more readily detected.
Around the braai (barbecue) they spoke of all the great things SA had to offer.Immediately after this post, our sponsors inserted an advertisement for mammary support underwear. Clearly targeted advertising which proves that Big Brother is reading my correspondence, though a cricket box or a moustache trimmer might have been more appropriate.
Including Frey-like noise.What noise is Frey like?
It is just that the agents would be testing to get ...And, of course, for security purposes, lots of embassy buildings aer faraday caged.
Quote from: CliveGIncluding Frey-like noise.What noise is Frey like?
What noise isn't Frey-like?
I am sure that very few of the embassy staff would have heard of the Frey effect, so the only way they could report this is if someone prompted them.
They were living in a very tense environment. Probably a case of freyed nerves...
If low heat pulsations can cause damageAnd, if not...?
If low heat pulsations can cause damageAnd, if not...?
Then maybe the attacks would not have produced results.Which is consistent with the known facts.
One test was peaks of 70 usec at peak power of 90 mW/scm and average power 0.32 mW/sqcmOr roughly 10% of the power where everyone agrees that straightforward thermal damage is expected.
I would add that a round head acts like a lens I would think.Specifically, it acts like a lens made of black glass because brains are mainly water which absorbs strongly at those wavelengths.
One test was peaks of 70 usec at peak power of 90 mW/scm and average power 0.32 mW/sqcm and at repetition rate of 50 per sec and a MW frequency of 1.245 GHz to get a buzzing sound. This was done by Frey in 1977.
We punched 100 subjects in the face, using the closed fist of a professional boxer. 98 subjects reported a broken nose, 70 reported lost teeth. The "Calverd Effect" shows that touching can cause serious damage and should be prevented by law.
Wholly predictable and apparently "as found". Here's the abstract of my next paper:
Quote
We punched 100 subjects in the face, using the closed fist of a professional boxer. 98 subjects reported a broken nose, 70 reported lost teeth. The "Calverd Effect" shows that touching can cause serious damage and should be prevented by law.
One test was peaks of 70 usec at peak power of 90 mW/scm and average power 0.32 mW/sqcm and at repetition rate of 50 per sec and a MW frequency of 1.245 GHz to get a buzzing sound.Yes, 50 pulses per second would produce a 50Hz buzz.
If the signal pickup levels from a cell tower were enough for us to hear a noise, then we wouldn't need to buy a $1000 cellphone!
I had an oldish (but still electronic) fixed-line phone that wasn't very well shielded. If you were using it when your mobile phone rang, you could hear a buzz in the fixed-line handset; it came in a distinctive pattern
I conclude from these observations that:
- Most of the radio-frequency energy to which you are exposed comes from your own cellphone handset.
.. I had an oldish (but still electronic) fixed-line phone that wasn't very well shielded. If you were using it when your mobile phone rang, you could hear a buzz in the fixed-line handset; it came in a distinctive pattern...
Well, that's what mine sounds like (also via the speakers on my PC).. I had an oldish (but still electronic) fixed-line phone that wasn't very well shielded. If you were using it when your mobile phone rang, you could hear a buzz in the fixed-line handset; it came in a distinctive pattern...
Like this ? ... https://freesound.org/people/MrAuralization/sounds/157592/
I would add that a round head acts like a lens I would think.Specifically, it acts like a lens made of black glass because brains are mainly water which absorbs strongly at those wavelengths.
oops! crossover with Alan & Clive...Quote from: CliveGOne test was peaks of 70 usec at peak power of 90 mW/scm and average power 0.32 mW/sqcm and at repetition rate of 50 per sec and a MW frequency of 1.245 GHz to get a buzzing sound.[snip]
I conclude from these observations that:
- Most of the radio-frequency energy to which you are exposed comes from your own cellphone handset.
- Even this is at sufficiently low energy that it does not produce the Frey effect
- If you are hearing things, you should be able to describe the different sounds that you hear, at different phases of a telephone call. Please describe what you hear.
That's a fairly long post and it makes several points but I think two of them warrant being repeated, lest they get lost in the noise.If the signal pickup levels from a cell tower were enough for us to hear a noise, then we wouldn't need to buy a $1000 cellphone!
andI had an oldish (but still electronic) fixed-line phone that wasn't very well shielded. If you were using it when your mobile phone rang, you could hear a buzz in the fixed-line handset; it came in a distinctive pattern
I conclude from these observations that:
- Most of the radio-frequency energy to which you are exposed comes from your own cellphone handset.
If the mast was generating a field strong enough to influence the land-line then you would know about it.
Your mobile phone does generate a field that is strong enough to affect the land-line.
So, it follows that your own mobile produces more (local) EM radiation than the mast.
So, why do people complain about masts?
The rays that do penetrate will concentrate.A good lens will focus radiation down to a spot that is about the same size as the wavelength of the radiation.
tinnitus and hearing loss ... are caused by damage to tiny "hairs" used to hear. My wife went on vacation for 3 weeks. She said her tinnitus almost disappeared during that time and has returned now that she is back in the house.The loss of hairs in the cochlea is caused by them breaking off due to excessive noise power.
My wife says that she experiences a "vibration" in her head and sometimes in her chest in the house.This sounds like low-frequency sounds.
If it did, the medical problems would be pouring into the hospitals.Can you please try to manage one post without begging the question?
So, why do people complain about masts?Because they have chosen to have a phone, but not a neighboring mast.
The rays that do penetrate will concentrate.A good lens will focus radiation down to a spot that is about the same size as the wavelength of the radiation.
At 1.25GHz thats...
about the size of your head.
So, no it simply will not "concentrate" it.
You need to stop making up dross like that
Quote from: CliveGtinnitus and hearing loss ... are caused by damage to tiny "hairs" used to hear. My wife went on vacation for 3 weeks. She said her tinnitus almost disappeared during that time and has returned now that she is back in the house.The loss of hairs in the cochlea is caused by them breaking off due to excessive noise power.
- Unfortunately, humans don't regrow these hairs (unlike some other creatures)
- So I don't think that regrowth of these broken hairs can account for the variability of noise reported here
- Some researchers are trying to regrow cochlear hairs in humans...
However, the response to the loss of hairs varies dramatically between people, and is poorly understood.
- People experience very different types and degrees of tinnitus (in frequency, amplitude, modulation, etc)
- People are bothered to different extents by the tinnitus - some aren't bothered at all, others can't stand it
So perhaps it is the relaxing holiday which soothes the tinnitus, and the return to the normal humdrum (and the apparently menacing tower looming overhead) that sets it off again?QuoteMy wife says that she experiences a "vibration" in her head and sometimes in her chest in the house.This sounds like low-frequency sounds.
You should get an infrasound/ultrasound meter to complement your microwave meter.
People near windmills have complained of similar symptoms.
But these sounds are unlikely to come from a cell tower.
So, why do people complain about masts?Because they have chosen to have a phone, but not a neighboring mast.
The mast is of course essential, otherwise you wouldn't be able to broadcast videos of your lunch/genitalia or receive scam calls, but it should be in someone else's back yard. Obviously. And then it will have to be more powerful so you can get five bar reception, take out excruciating loans, give money to casinos, and download porn in real time.
Really, BC, you do ask stupid questions! Are you old? Like over 30?
The point is that you can't "choose" to have a phone without choosing to have masts (well- you could- but it wouldn't work).So, why do people complain about masts?Because they have chosen to have a phone, but not a neighboring mast.
The mast is of course essential, otherwise you wouldn't be able to broadcast videos of your lunch/genitalia or receive scam calls, but it should be in someone else's back yard. Obviously. And then it will have to be more powerful so you can get five bar reception, take out excruciating loans, give money to casinos, and download porn in real time.
Really, BC, you do ask stupid questions! Are you old? Like over 30?
Regarding the cell phone use, you have to talk for yourself and the general population. I would be quite happy without a screen since I use mine for necessary phone calls and sms. The screen does come in handy for the camera. I also use my phone for an alarm and calculator on the odd occasions. My age (70) is showing.
Thanks for giving BC a tweek. Perhaps she should get a life and not be bored.
related to some of the nerves around the heartAtrial Fibrillation, Palpitations and other forms of Cardiac Arrhythmia become more common as we age.
[snip]QuoteRegarding the cell phone use, you have to talk for yourself and the general population. I would be quite happy without a screen since I use mine for necessary phone calls and sms. The screen does come in handy for the camera. I also use my phone for an alarm and calculator on the odd occasions. My age (70) is showing.The point is that you can't "choose" to have a phone without choosing to have masts (well- you could- but it wouldn't work).
Thanks for giving BC a tweek. Perhaps she should get a life and not be bored.
The phone companies would love to avoid the cost of building and maintaining the masts.
The populus won't let them.
People also don't like nuclear reactors and waste tips (or lots of similar things).
The difference is that you can locate them at a distance from major population centres.
You really can't do that with phone masts.
So the point Alan raised (with amusing use of irony) is that anyone who chooses to use a phone also chooses to be near a mast.
But the highest dose of MW radiation they get is, by a big margin, from the phone.
Quote from: CliveGrelated to some of the nerves around the heartAtrial Fibrillation, Palpitations and other forms of Cardiac Arrhythmia become more common as we age.
- Cell Towers became more common as we aged.
- That does not mean that one causes the other.
If you are interested, get a fitness tracker that measures your heart rate 24 hours a day/every day, you can see variation in heart rate while you are asleep.
If you are worried, see a cardiologist, who will arrange a Holter Monitor; this monitors your heart rate and heart electrical activity over 24 hours. That can produce a diagnosis of heart arrhythmia, and appropriate care (eg to deal with the increased chance of blood clots and strokes).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holter_monitor
PS: I think you are worried...
Love to avoid the cost of a mast? Surely you jest. The mast companies rent a persons space for R5,000 a month. They charge the cell companies R100,000 a month.Well, what I said was
The phone companies would love to avoid the cost of building and maintaining the masts.
The oximeter has a recording that I could download.So, you got half way to doing it properly.
You keep banging on about the biggest dose being from the phone. Please justify that with numbers. Not just the highest peak emitted from the phone in the beginning of the call.You just acknowledged it.
Love to avoid the cost of a mast? Surely you jest. The mast companies rent a persons space for R5,000 a month. They charge the cell companies R100,000 a month.Well, what I said wasThe phone companies would love to avoid the cost of building and maintaining the masts.
And you tell me it costs them R100,000 a month to do it (via a third party).
Are you saying they like spending R100,000 a month?The oximeter has a recording that I could download.So, you got half way to doing it properly.
Now all you need to do is decide not to be the one "who will not see" by actually logging the RF and seeing if they correlate.
Asking you for actual evidence, rather than hearsay and anecdote is not the act of one who "will not see", its the act of a scientist.You keep banging on about the biggest dose being from the phone. Please justify that with numbers. Not just the highest peak emitted from the phone in the beginning of the call.You just acknowledged it.
The radiation was pretty much a constant for the six months. The fluttering only occurred during that time frame. Just how much correlation do you need?Thanks.
The radiation was pretty much a constant for the six months. The fluttering only occurred during that time frame. Just how much correlation do you need?Thanks.
I think we now have enough data to examine the correlation.
"The radiation was pretty much a constant"
"The fluttering only occurred during that time "
So, one last piece of data is needed.
Was the fluttering constant?
OK, let's get technical.
Stochastic harm has no threshold dose or doserate. The probability of harm increases with dose, but the effect (a) is independent of dose, (b) has a significant latency period between exposure and effect and (c) is not recoverable. The classic example is radiogenic cancer.
Determinstic harm has a dose and/or doserate threshold, no (or very short) latency, and if localised, can be recoverable. The degree of harm is dose dependent. Classic example is sunburn or radiation erythema.
Transient physiological effects are doserate dependent with a threshold, no latency, and cease immediately when the source is removed.
So far we have agreed that very high doserates of microwave radiation can produce transient effects through pulsed heating and direct nerve stimulation. Whilst the auditory effects are not addressed by ICNIRP-based legislation, there are statutory limits on occupational exposure to heating or nerve stimulation, which are orders of magnitude larger than the field strengths you have quoted, and still below the pulse intensities required by experiment for detectable transient heating of the auditory canal.
I'm sorry you don't like ICNIRP. Unfortunately the only alternative to a self-appointed group of experts is either a self-appointed group of numpties (who seem to draft a lot of EU safety documents, including the suggestion of boiling lead aprons, a ban on the use of ovens large enough to accommodate a human, and prohibiting the use of any electromagnetic radiation that produces a transient effect - like daylight) or a bunch of political appointees. At least ICNIRP has the support of trade unions so it isn't all a cabal of evil capitalists (I used to be a trade union expert, and not afraid of causing trouble).
noticeably night timeIf you live in a residential area, then the peak traffic on the cell station will be about 6pm to 10pm.
OK, by your own criteria, you do not have the data to say if it's correlated or not.The radiation was pretty much a constant for the six months. The fluttering only occurred during that time frame. Just how much correlation do you need?Thanks.
I think we now have enough data to examine the correlation.
"The radiation was pretty much a constant"
"The fluttering only occurred during that time "
So, one last piece of data is needed.
Was the fluttering constant?
Are people machines that are constant?
Do they stay in one place and do not have good days and bad days? Night time is when our bodies are resting and are supposed to be repairing. It was at these times that the problems occurred.
Although the radiation remained high it had periods that were higher than others - noticeably night time. And when the fluttering occurred it woke my wife and when we measured the radiation, it was higher than usual.
Not a perfect correlation. And no - we did not have MW radiation monitors strapped to our chests. And no, we did not have accredited monitoring personnel checking everything.
OK, by your own criteria, you do not have the data to say if it's correlated or not.The radiation was pretty much a constant for the six months. The fluttering only occurred during that time frame. Just how much correlation do you need?Thanks.
I think we now have enough data to examine the correlation.
"The radiation was pretty much a constant"
"The fluttering only occurred during that time "
So, one last piece of data is needed.
Was the fluttering constant?
Are people machines that are constant?
Do they stay in one place and do not have good days and bad days? Night time is when our bodies are resting and are supposed to be repairing. It was at these times that the problems occurred.
Although the radiation remained high it had periods that were higher than others - noticeably night time. And when the fluttering occurred it woke my wife and when we measured the radiation, it was higher than usual.
Not a perfect correlation. And no - we did not have MW radiation monitors strapped to our chests. And no, we did not have accredited monitoring personnel checking everything.
So you can't have an evidence based opinion.
Interestingly, where the information has been gathered properly, the effect doesn't actually exist.
https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full
Quote from: CliveGnoticeably night timeIf you live in a residential area, then the peak traffic on the cell station will be about 6pm to 10pm.
- More traffic = higher radiation.
- Lower traffic = lower radiation
Before 6pm, people tend to be outside or at work. After 10pm, people tend to go to sleep.
So what do you mean by "night time"?
If people told you not to do something because they had linked it causally to something else, but had only rumors to back them up, you would ignore them, I suppose. When 300 Spanish got sicked by some brand of olive oil, you would have ignored them and put it on your salad.You have mistaken 2 for 300.
They never "proved" it was a particular brand because the problem was over before they could take samples.
You found one of the fake news science tests. Do you believe every study you ever came read? How do you tell the difference between studies that contradict one another?
The peak power takes place when there are shorted ... connections.What is a "shorted" connection?
When connected, the cell phones and the tower talk to each other to reduce their power.This is correct. They only use enough power to overcome the attenuation and interference in the wireless path.
The peak power takes place when there are ... fewer connections.I don't understand the basis of this claim.
This is in agreement with my meter.How does your meter count the number of active users?
So what do you mean by "night time"?You need to tell us about when the symptoms were experienced at night.
Quote from: CliveGThe peak power takes place when there are shorted ... connections.What is a "shorted" connection?
"Shorted" normally means a "short circuit", which only happens in wires; however, here we are talking about wireless mobile.QuoteWhen connected, the cell phones and the tower talk to each other to reduce their power.This is correct. They only use enough power to overcome the attenuation and interference in the wireless path.
If they used more than the minimum necessary power, they would:
- Shorten battery life in the cellphone, with no benefit
- Consume more power in the base station, increasing costs for the operator (and ultimately, the consumer), with no benefit
- Increase interference to more distant users, who would, in turn, have to increase their transmit power, etc...QuoteThe peak power takes place when there are ... fewer connections.I don't understand the basis of this claim.
- For all the above reasons, you don't want to use more than the minimum necessary power.
- So why would they intentionally waste power when there are few users to benefit from it?
Perhaps you are confusing two other actions:
- Searching for new devices that have just been turned on inside the cell coverage area. But this search happens all the time.
- A cell handover from an adjacent cell. By definition, these users are on the edge of the cell, with higher attenuation, and need more power. But at nighttime (after 10pm), there are fewer people using the network, and fewer cell handovers.QuoteThis is in agreement with my meter.How does your meter count the number of active users?
How does your meter count "shorted" connections (whatever that is)?
Now, answer the question:Quote from: evan_auSo what do you mean by "night time"?You need to tell us about when the symptoms were experienced at night.
And tell us about how the radiated power varied during the night.
At night (10 pm to 5 am), the tower is "roaming" to find connections and let cell devices know it is there. It does this at high power.I agree, it must scan around to locate devices that have just been turned on.
The pulsations are also worse because the transmissions may not be at full "capacity" where each time slot is operational.I agree that one way to save power at low traffic times is to combine as much traffic as possible onto a few timeslots, leaving the transmitter idle in the "vacant" timeslots.
The obvious experiment will be for Clive to record his symptoms without having access to any EM field data, and for a third party to correlate them with independently recorded field data.
It is unreasonable to expect 100% correlation with any alleged causative parameter but fairly easy to establish a probability of causation.
Some years ago a colleague was called as expert witness in a claim that a "health-giving laser" did not work. The manufacturer asserted that he could detect the beneficial effect on his skin when blindfolded. My chum noted that the machine emitted a buzz when the laser was active so, having established a positive correlation between "laser on" and "I can feel it", he first placed a bible (always available in a court of law) between the source and the skin, then pointed the laser away from the skin. Still 100% correlation. Costs awarded to the customer.
Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« Reply #201 on: 08/09/2019 13:24:50 »
Quote from: CliveG on 08/09/2019 10:51:31
If people told you not to do something because they had linked it causally to something else, but had only rumors to back them up, you would ignore them, I suppose. When 300 Spanish got sicked by some brand of olive oil, you would have ignored them and put it on your salad.
You have mistaken 2 for 300.
also, as I have pointed out, whenever anyone has actually done real science on this, it turns out not to be real.
Also the wiki page on the incident says this
"Once the origin of the syndrome was realised, public health officials organized an exchange programme, whereby those who had bought the oil could exchange it for pure olive oil, "
which rather undermines this bit of your "story".
Quote from: CliveG on 08/09/2019 10:51:31
They never "proved" it was a particular brand because the problem was over before they could take samples.
doesn't it?
and, since they point out that "It was then imported as cheap industrial oil by the company RAPSA at San Sebastián, handled by RAELCA, and illegally refined by ITH in Seville " it's clear that they do know what brand it is.
BMJ is generally credible but not entirely immune from confirmation bias (referees generally approve papers that support their prejudices) prefiltering (it takes a brave or at least selfemployed scientist to proffer a paper that disproves his sponsor's working hypothesis, or demonstrates "no effect" from an RCT) and preselection (I wouldn't offer an article supporting MMR vaccination to a journal like What Doctors Don't Tell You).
The best hoaxes and bogus results are those that made the lead article in Nature. Ultimately it's a case of caveat lector.
QuoteAt night (10 pm to 5 am), the tower is "roaming" to find connections and let cell devices know it is there. It does this at high power.I agree, it must scan around to locate devices that have just been turned on.
But it does this just as often during the day. And only a fraction of these scans will be aimed in your direction - most of the cell service area will require beaming the signal above your house = less exposure for you.QuoteThe pulsations are also worse because the transmissions may not be at full "capacity" where each time slot is operational.I agree that one way to save power at low traffic times is to combine as much traffic as possible onto a few timeslots, leaving the transmitter idle in the "vacant" timeslots.
But the peak power is just as high as during the day.
- The average power is just lower at night
- So you are saying that less exposure causes more symptoms?
That does not sound like much of a correlation.
Does your meter continually log power to a file, or is it manual, and you look at it when you are woken by the symptoms?
I think the BMJ panders to big corporates with regard to "fake news".I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancer, and has been fairly forthright on seat belts.
It has already been verified by studies that less radiation can cause problems if the radiation has a certain pulsing characteristic.No. All you have shown is that peak intensities cause transient phenomena. Beware of loose adjectives in science.
It has already been verified by studies that less radiation can cause problems if the radiation has a certain pulsing characteristic.No. All you have shown is that peak intensities cause transient phenomena. Beware of loose adjectives in science.
Remember that the average depth of the Thames is only 3 ft, but many statisticians have drowned trying to walk across it.
I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancerStrictly speaking, the first ones were German.
Are you guys guilty of doubling down a lot?Buy a mirror.
You are correct that I am wrong that 300 got sick. The fact is that 300 died. 20,000 got sickOK, I apologise for believing your figure without checking it.
You have mistaken 2 for 300.I should have said that you have mistaken 2 for 20,000.
The obvious experiment will be for Clive to record his symptoms without having access to any EM field data, and for a third party to correlate them with independently recorded field data.It's obviously a good suggestion.
We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.
The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.
Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection
If the Thames were 5 feet on average all the way across then there would be no drownings even though the average is much higher than a 3 ft average with peaks.Loose language kills!
Quotefrom: alancalverd on Yesterday at 06:15:39The obvious experiment will be for Clive to record his symptoms without having access to any EM field data, and for a third party to correlate them with independently recorded field data.It's obviously a good suggestion.It is, perhaps, a little inconvenient.
I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancerStrictly speaking, the first ones were German.Are you guys guilty of doubling down a lot?Buy a mirror.
Do you realise that your position can be represented in exactly the same way?
You discard the evidence that doesn't agree with your heart-felt belief.
So, the fact that people do that (they fall for this glitch in human thinking) proves nothing about phones or harm from them.
So why post it?
And do you also recognise that you are saying that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
Do you really think you are that clever?
Issues like human cognitive bias and the placebo effect are exactly why we conduct proper trials under controlled conditions.
And, when that research is published in respected journals you call it fake news.
You don't supply any evidence to show why you think it's wrong.
You just flatly deny it because"We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth."
Take a good look at yourself before you tell us we are guilty of bias.
The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.
Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection
The fact that you ask that says a lot about why you keep posting.
You simply don't understand evidence.
I don't usually listen to the radio but every time I get a headache I check and I find that the local radio station is playing pop music.
Should I conclude that the pop music causes my headache?
Or does it seem more sensible to suppose that the station always plays pop music (and I get headaches at random times)?
Or could it be that they play pop music in the morning and that's when I'm hungover?
Or could it be that I just don't remember the times when they were actually playing jazz- but I classified it as "pop" because that went along with my view that pop music causes headaches?
That's why you need a proper test.
And you think that doing a proper test is "fake news" because you don't even understand why we need to do one.
OK, let's get technical.
Stochastic harm has no threshold dose or doserate. The probability of harm increases with dose, but the effect (a) is independent of dose, (b) has a significant latency period between exposure and effect and (c) is not recoverable. The classic example is radiogenic cancer.
Determinstic harm has a dose and/or doserate threshold, no (or very short) latency, and if localised, can be recoverable. The degree of harm is dose dependent. Classic example is sunburn or radiation erythema.
Transient physiological effects are doserate dependent with a threshold, no latency, and cease immediately when the source is removed.
So far we have agreed that very high doserates of microwave radiation can produce transient effects through pulsed heating and direct nerve stimulation. Whilst the auditory effects are not addressed by ICNIRP-based legislation, there are statutory limits on occupational exposure to heating or nerve stimulation, which are orders of magnitude larger than the field strengths you have quoted, and still below the pulse intensities required by experiment for detectable transient heating of the auditory canal.
I'm sorry you don't like ICNIRP. Unfortunately the only alternative to a self-appointed group of experts is either a self-appointed group of numpties (who seem to draft a lot of EU safety documents, including the suggestion of boiling lead aprons, a ban on the use of ovens large enough to accommodate a human, and prohibiting the use of any electromagnetic radiation that produces a transient effect - like daylight) or a bunch of political appointees. At least ICNIRP has the support of trade unions so it isn't all a cabal of evil capitalists (I used to be a trade union expert, and not afraid of causing trouble).
I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.Then why did you ask this?
The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?
Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection
I did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me.
Mistaken about what?I'd have thought that was obvious.
A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believableJust plain wrong, and another example of your failure to understand what evidence is.
You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.
The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.
Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.
I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.Then why did you ask this?The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?
Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collectionI did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me.Mistaken about what?I'd have thought that was obvious.
You may be mistaken about the cause of the symptoms.
There are ways to rule out other effects (notably psychosomatic ones.) And, based on what you have posted here;
you have tried out none of them.A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believableJust plain wrong, and another example of your failure to understand what evidence is.
Courts work on "beyond reasonable doubt".
And you are not there yet.
I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.I don't think so.
Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability.The allegations you make are criminal.
have chosen to believe in God (although having a bit of skepticism). I think that shows I have matured over the years to being open to alternative ideas. I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic.
I haven't rejected any science, nor have I defended anyone. I merely point out that a lot of the "science" seems not to be scientific or relevant to your case, and I have suggested a simple means by which you might convince a court to award you substantial damages.You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.
The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.
Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.
This is a cop-out.
My symptoms and problems are supported by many scientific papers. And the correlation of my symptoms with the tower radiation should be a concern to the community.
I am trying to see why people like yourself reject the science showing harm so vigorously while being so determined that the cell industry is indeed protecting people and not protecting their profits.
I haven't rejected any science, nor have I defended anyone. I merely point out that a lot of the "science" seems not to be scientific or relevant to your case, and I have suggested a simple means by which you might convince a court to award you substantial damages.You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.
The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.
Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.
This is a cop-out.
My symptoms and problems are supported by many scientific papers. And the correlation of my symptoms with the tower radiation should be a concern to the community.
I am trying to see why people like yourself reject the science showing harm so vigorously while being so determined that the cell industry is indeed protecting people and not protecting their profits.
Unfortunately you seem more interested in picking a fight with your friends than winning one against your enemies, so I'll leave.
I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.I don't think so.
And I have evidence for my belief.
You have clearly said that you do not understand how evidence works.
" Why do I need 24 hour data collection?".
You have made absurd comparisons between what you and your wife think vs what 20,000 people experienced.
You have called one of the most respected journals in the world "fake news".
You have failed to grasp the situation in Spain where the officials had ample oil samples to analyse and knew exactly what "brand" was to blame.Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability.The allegations you make are criminal.
And the rules for evidence are the same in both courts anyway.have chosen to believe in God (although having a bit of skepticism). I think that shows I have matured over the years to being open to alternative ideas. I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic.
OK, that settles it.
Do you recognise that not everybody is Christian?
Do you also recognise that, if there were real evidence to support the Christian beliefs they wouldn't be calle "beliefs" and they would be universally accepted?
How did you think that saying "I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic." was going to work out on a site where many or most recognise that religion is quintessentially dogma ("a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.")
So, what you are saying is
"I believe I understand evidence because I believe in something for which there is no evidence."
The manual is worth reading.
The first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.Did nobody tell you that this is a science web site?
The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to themAnd no way of working out which bit is true.
The manual is worth reading.
The grown ups would recognise that the manual is not likely to say
"you wasted your money on this meter - the exposure to members of the public is not an issue".The first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.Did nobody tell you that this is a science web site?The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to themAnd no way of working out which bit is true.
That's where science- based in evidence, rather than faith- comes in.
Do electrosensitive people have any problem wit the CMBR which I believe has a mean frequency about 10 times higher than that used for 5G
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 06:49:57
The manual is worth reading.
The grown ups would recognise that the manual is not likely to say [snip]
Old enough to recognise that an instruction manual, produced by the manufacturer, is not going to be an independent viewpoint.Quote from: CliveG on Today at 06:49:57
The manual is worth reading.The grown ups would recognise that the manual is not likely to say [snip]
And you are how old? :)
I had to file a condonation which was not accepted by a new judge who said that he did not believe that one company had lied. They showed a graph of daily consumption which was zero for the 36 hours I claimed (with meter evidence) that it was on. I said the graph was false because it showed a test period of two hours consuming 120% of any other previous daily 24 hour consumption. The judge based his decision on the company being a reputable company. They were not a public brand - just a meter reading company for the telcos. He totally ignored my evidence.He may have ignored your evidence.
I do not make decisions based on faith in anything.Yes you do
At 45 years I softened and leaned toward a belief in God. Given the personal experiences of the last few years and those in my life I have chosen to believe in God
Second there must be my own experience and not that of some-one else.So, there's absolutely no point in you posting here.
I know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot tooThis is due to countries using "ripple control" on the mains line to control off-peak devices.
I said the graph was false because it showed a test period of two hours consuming 120% of any other previous daily 24 hour consumption.Can you clarify this statement?
The judge based his decision on the company being a reputable company. They were not a public brand - just a meter reading company for the telcos.A metering company using an electronic meter with (say) 15 minute measurement intervals is a good way to track power consumption.
he Bioinitiative color charts shows that 100 femtowatts/sqcm can cause genetic problems at resonant frequencies and 5 picowatts/sqcm can change growth rates in yeast cells.So far this means life is sensitive to certain microwave frequencies but can adapt although it can stress an organism.No, it means that single cells in vitro may exhibit electromagnetic resonances. Not sure how you measure femtowatts in the presence of everyday noise.
Do electrosensitive people have any problem with the CMBR which I believe has a mean frequency about 10 times higher than that used for 5G?I took this to be a joke, rather than a serious threat to health.
What's the effective BB temp of a phone mast?It has a spectrum quite unlike a black body...
I know that (said the spectroscopist).Quote from: Bored ChemistWhat's the effective BB temp of a phone mast?It has a spectrum quite unlike a black body...
How much power do humans emit as microwaves?
Quote from: CliveG's friendI know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot tooThis is due to countries using "ripple control" on the mains line to control off-peak devices.
In those countries, the ripples are injected multiple times throughout the day, mainly near the transition from peak to off-peak periods.
However, this is due to frequencies in the tens to hundreds of Hertz, not GigaHertz (billions of Hertz).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_management#Ripple_controlQuote from: CliveGI said the graph was false because it showed a test period of two hours consuming 120% of any other previous daily 24 hour consumption.Can you clarify this statement?
Are you talking about power (eg kW) or energy (eg kWh)?
Are you saying that:
- the energy consumed in 2 hours was 20% more than the energy consumed in a typical 24 hour period?
- Or (more likely IMHO), that the average power consumed in 2 hours was 20% more than the average power consumed in a typical 24 hour period?
- Or even that the average power consumed in 2 hours was 20% more than the maximum power consumed in a typical 24 hour period?
If the base station has been turned off for days or weeks, then it would need to recharge its batteries, which can lead to higher power consumption than you would see in a 24-hour period with continual power supply.QuoteThe judge based his decision on the company being a reputable company. They were not a public brand - just a meter reading company for the telcos.A metering company using an electronic meter with (say) 15 minute measurement intervals is a good way to track power consumption.
It helps if they are reputable and (preferably) independent.
Quote from: SyphrumDo electrosensitive people have any problem with the CMBR which I believe has a mean frequency about 10 times higher than that used for 5G?I took this to be a joke, rather than a serious threat to health.
It's practically impossible to measure the impact of radiation with an effective black-body temperature of 2.7K, in the presence of normal body temperature (300K).
Do you think that such unethical Corporates are going to tell people the truth about cell MW harm?I'm glad you have realised that companies exist to make money by selling "products".
We are not black bodies as far as radiation goes.We are, across the microwave range, pretty close being lack body radiators, and at the wavelengths of interest we are even more close to "black body" radiators because of this
But it is negligible compared to man-made radiation and life will never adapt - just age, wither and die.How many times must I ask you to stop begging the question?
We're getting a lot of people enquiring about 5G networks and health.International Russian TV and their US branch office have been stoking fears of 5G.
a large federal study showed that 2G signals could produce brain cancer in male rats. But officials discounted a direct link to humans, saying people received smaller doses.This statement from the New York Times article made me smile.
Because what we would recognise as intelligent life would have to
(a) be very similar to
(b) just one of millions of species that have evolved on one
(c) Goldilocks planet within a window of
(d) 100 years out of 13.5 billion in
(e) a region of space that we just happen to be looking at and have
(f) decided that generating huge quantities of coded electromagnetic radiation is a good idea, then
(g) pointed it in our direction
(h) sometime between 4.2 and 13.5 billion years ago for
(I) just long enough for us to detect it, on the assumption
(j ) that we will eventually exist
(k) and be just like them and that
(l) they will still be around between 8.4 and 27 billion years hence to receive an answer and that
(m) we have developed a compatible technology and
(n) worked out where to point it to intercept their trajectory in 4.2 - 13,500,000,000 years' time.
Having estimated and multiplied all the probabilities together, the Klingons decided the money would be better spent on beer.
That said, there are various swarming terrestrial species with population cycles of the order of 5 - 10 years, locusts being among the most prolific. They are clearly in touch with their mates orbiting Proxima Centauri, telepathically synchronised to devastate each others' planet in turn. In the event of overgrazing, they will fly to the other planet and wait to recolonise Earth. How do they get there? Easy. If the Nazis could build V2 rockets with slave labor in underground tunnels, surely a really intelligent species can employ termites to build a rocket capable of taking a few breeding locusts to Earth2?
Or, in the words of Tony Hancock's radio ham "Pawn to queen's rook four..... Is it still raining in Tokyo?..... G'day Bruce, love to Sheila... Come in, mayday....."
I will soon move on to the cellular disruption that causes reduced immune systems, autism, epilepsy, ADHD, dementia, accelerating aging in addition to the latent and final cancers.Are you moving on because you accept that you have no sound evidence for the current claims?
Years back, I took part in a civil defence exercise modelling the day after World War 3. Lots of cunning coded messages exchanged through CB radio. Of course anyone who had a functioning radio and was fit and safe enough to use it, probably had other assets, so the moment you broke radio silence you became a target for predators. We quickly learned that the secret of survival is not to broadcast your survival. It is reasonable to assume that other civilisations have reached the same conclusion, and we know that governments monitor our personal phone calls and politicians pay geeks to monitor anything you broadcast on antisocial media, so the threat posed by your smartphone to your life and liberty is a lot more immediate than cancer.
In short, don't expect to hear from any alien life form.
I will soon move on to the cellular disruption that causes reduced immune systems, autism, epilepsy, ADHD, dementia, accelerating aging in addition to the latent and final cancers.Are you moving on because you accept that you have no sound evidence for the current claims?
In the interest of science, perhaps I should nip one of those claims in the bud.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/22/autism-increase-mystery-solved-no-its-not-vaccines-gmos-glyphosate-or-organic-foods/
Fundamentally, what you need to do is plot average lifespan vs mobile phone use over the last 20 or 30 years.
Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autismNot many of them are still around.
I have seen such reports attributing an increase in some statistic to an increase in better reporting or a change in the way things are reported.
Lifespan - Sweden 10-20 years. Dropping.In a very negative sense
But you can disregard such reports as unscientificWell, yes, I can, because the scientific research- where they try to allow for uncontrolled variables shows that autism isn't caused by phones or vaccines.
I do not use any type of electronic communicationI am left wondering which type of non-electronic connection to the internet you used as you typed this sentence?
I'm guessing at the power of suggestion.Quote from: CliveGI do not use any type of electronic communicationI am left wondering which type of non-electronic connection to the internet you used as you typed this sentence?
Quote from: CliveGI do not use any type of electronic communicationI am left wondering which type of non-electronic connection to the internet you used as you typed this sentence?
Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autism[snip]
Are you telling us that, when you were at school, there weren't any odd, nerdy kids?
[snip]
He had prostate cancer which was in remission. It is now returning.Do you have any idea why they call it "remission" rather than cure?
Apparently the cell microwaves can get induced in wiring such as a landline telepone.In a very real sense.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.Yes, and your contention doesn't fit into the "statistics" category.
https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray
says
"Chest X-ray 0.1 mSv"
They were the first site Google found.
The second one I found
https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/cvimaging/documents/lectures/18DEC13_Fleischmann_RadiationDoseRisk_final_HANDOUT.pdf
says 5 to 8 mSv
A third
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28981835
says
The average effective doses for AP, PA and lateral projections were 0.14, 0.07 and 0.22 mSv, respectively.
The value I picked (at random) seems to be at the low end, but in the right ballpark.A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv
It seems there's a mistake in either all 3 of the pages I cited, or in the one you didn't cite.
I suspect people will form their own conclusions.
In any event, it hardly matters. If a chest xray is .02 rather than .1 that's a factor of 5.
Most people in Stockholm are not 50% dead in 5 months .
The number you cited is not just wrong, but it is absurd.
You snipped the important bit.Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autism[snip]
Are you telling us that, when you were at school, there weren't any odd, nerdy kids?
[snip]
A BIG difference between kids that are nerdy or odd and kids who cannot learn what is appropriate or not. Many on medications for mental disorders.
Anecdotal sure. But to listen to how tough it can be to have a classroom with a number of such kids...
Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autismMuch of the current increase in autism is due to the change in definition that occurred in the 2013, where it was expanded from a specific condition in infants to an "Autism Spectrum Disorder", which took in far more people, including adults.
He had prostate cancer which was in remission. It is now returning.Do you have any idea why they call it "remission" rather than cure?Apparently the cell microwaves can get induced in wiring such as a landline telepone.In a very real sense.
They use special cabling for microwave signals precisely because microwaves are attenuated very strongly by transmission through normal cabling.
So, that claim makes no sense.
This is part of your problem; you believe any old tosh that tallies with your viewpoint, even if it is obviously wrong to anyone with a grasp of science.There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.Yes, and your contention doesn't fit into the "statistics" category.
Seriously if Sweden's citizens were dropping dead, we would all have heard about it.
The population may well be shrinking, but that's a different matter entirely- it happens when people decide to have fewer kids.
Have you forgotten that you already made similarly laughable comments about Stockholm?https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray
says
"Chest X-ray 0.1 mSv"
They were the first site Google found.
The second one I found
https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/cvimaging/documents/lectures/18DEC13_Fleischmann_RadiationDoseRisk_final_HANDOUT.pdf
says 5 to 8 mSv
A third
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28981835
says
The average effective doses for AP, PA and lateral projections were 0.14, 0.07 and 0.22 mSv, respectively.
The value I picked (at random) seems to be at the low end, but in the right ballpark.A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv
It seems there's a mistake in either all 3 of the pages I cited, or in the one you didn't cite.
I suspect people will form their own conclusions.
In any event, it hardly matters. If a chest xray is .02 rather than .1 that's a factor of 5.
Most people in Stockholm are not 50% dead in 5 months .
The number you cited is not just wrong, but it is absurd.
Why do you do this?
Any uninsulated wiring or metal is an antenna.Yes, but phone wiring is insulated.
As an electrical engineer with experience in the susceptibility of circuits I should know a thing or two.You should , but...
Why are you so unscientific?
Stockholm. I justified my comments and put numbers to them. Your scorn is misdirected.
Your boredom is showing, and you are not contributing, only sabotaging the thread.I am indeed, getting bored of this.
Just to nail down a few statistics. The UK national diagnostic reference level for a chest x-ray is an entrance dose of 0.2 mGy, giving an effective dose of 0.02 mSv. The DRL is the 75th percentile of the dose delivered in UK hospitals. I would be very suspicious of any suggestion of a different value as typical.Thanks for that.
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.It's more your feld than mine
I asked for your opinion on one video and you guys go rushing off on old stuff.That's because, you say stuff like "
Stockholm. I justified my comments and put numbers to them. Your scorn is misdirected.
The twin of doubt is distraction.
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.I had the privilege of visiting the center of Stockholm in August 2019.
Well, if you will leave a bloody great fusion reactor running all the time with nothing but air as shielding.Quote from: CliveGThe European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.I had the privilege of visiting the center of Stockholm in August 2019.
I estimate the peak field strength at around 300,000,000 μW/m2.
- This was enough to cause immediate heating effects
- So I moved out of the direct beam.
These high frequencies are strongly absorbed by rain, and it was noticeably less intense during the occasional rain showers.
Here is a holiday snap of the town square of the Old Town (Gamla Stan) - just outside the Nobel Museum.
The people don't seem too bothered by the radiation....
...Most of the radiation was in the THz range....
From the last few replies that avoid the serious science it is obvious that the industry is in total control.Non sequitur.
All my opinion of course. The END.Yes, but in your opinion, the lifespan in Stockholm is, at best, 3 years.
This will lead to massive health problems and a reduction of population.Come back to remind us if the population of the Earth ever actually falls from one month to the next.
This will lead to massive health problems and a reduction of population.Many countries are experiencing a decline in childbirth rates below sustainable levels - this level is normally put at an average of 2.1 children per woman in "western" countries.
Come back to remind us if the population of the Earth ever actually falls from one month to the next.It did during the 'flu epidemic after WWI, and mankind was lucky to survive the last Ice Age.
It would, nevertheless, be a good idea to take control of the one parameter that can really improve everyone's quality of life and survival potential, with immediate benefit and no cost.Does that mean that we should improve the phone network, in order to improve people's quality of life and increase the chances that they can summon help in an emergency?
You guys just do not get it. Wait ten years - the tip is already showing.Where?
Does that mean that we should improve the phone network, in order to improve people's quality of life and increase the chances that they can summon help in an emergency?If you could improve the phone network and supply everyone with a phone at no cost, it might save a few lives, but it would ruin many more through bullying and scams.
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issuesWhat "real" issue has been avoided here?
There is little point in commenting on in vitro studies reported with incomplete data.
Lying under oath is part of the game. The one thing that is certain in a courtroom is that half the people present are not telling the truth. It is up to the judge to decide which side has the deeper pockets.
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issuesWhat "real" issue has been avoided here?
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issuesWhat "real" issue has been avoided here?
The one posed in the opening post. Namely cellular disruption and reactive oxygen species.
Many scientists and some very eminent ones are certain there is real risk.
You guys pose as having some kind of scientific background but that is as far as it goes. You are simply supporting the establishment for whatever reasons you have - and trotting out their arguments which are propaganda for the masses.
[snip]
The fear in this thread seems to be that (like the Stockholm central pump), biological molecules could have a resonance at certain frequencies. If cellphone towers emit those frequencies, the amplitude might build up until it damaged the biological molecules (eg to produce mutations or cancer), or dislocated the active site of enzymes.
The Questions:
1. Do biological molecules have a specific resonant frequency (like the pendulum on the pump)?
2. Do cellphone towers produce power at that/those specific frequency/s?
3. Could the radiation from cellphone towers create an oscillation in polar parts of molecules that could build up over time to shake apart biological molecules (or at least the active site of enzymes)?
How would you address these concerns, as a chemist, physicist and communications engineer?
There are various in vitro and in vivo studies that show this.Do you remember what happened when you posted details of the studies?
She has front temporal lobe epilepsy but has been symptom free for quite a while. She had no idea the tower could cause that. She is now worried.So, the stress of worrying about a non existent risk triggered a seizure.
I presume both of you do not believe in climate change either.I believe in anthropogenic global warming- because there's evidence.
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:14:13
She has front temporal lobe epilepsy but has been symptom free for quite a while. She had no idea the tower could cause that. She is now worried.
So, the stress of worrying about a non existent risk triggered a seizure.
Keep up the good work.
How do we do a double blind test when the towers are on almost every street corner?Switch some off and see how many complaints it still generates or, more practically
When she puts on a foil helmet and get relief, you will no doubt call that a nocebo.No, because I know what the word means.
Congratulations on fitting another square peg in a round hole.Once again, get a mirror.
How do we do a double blind test when the towers are on almost every street corner?Switch some off and see how many complaints it still generates or, more practically
REPEAT THE DOUBLE BLIND TESTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND WHICH HAVE FOUND NO ISSUES.
When she puts on a foil helmet and get relief, you will no doubt call that a nocebo.No, because I know what the word means.
I will call it a placebo.Congratulations on fitting another square peg in a round hole.Once again, get a mirror.
No sympathy for a family that is NOW stressed becase they know their house has biologically dangerous levels of radiation.No.
Do you not find it strange that the cell companies are not willing to participate in such tests?No.
What double blind tests? Give me two or threeAgain?
No other reason for contempt of court to turn on our tower and sicken me. They knew it would likely make me late in a court filing.Did it occur to you that
Do you not find it strange that the cell companies are not willing to participate in such tests?
industry doubled down and used propaganda. Even paying for fake tests.
No, they are stressed because, instead of conducting a simple scientific investigation, you stressed them at a stressful time.
There's no point in waiting for a phone company to conduct a double blind test - you wouldn't accept the result anyway. If you want to make a point, you have to do the test yourself. What are you scared of?
When people noticed the ill effects of radium, experts formed the International Commission on Radiation Protection, whose recommendations are accepted in all national legislatures and have prevented the occurrence of acute effects and reduced the occurence of latent effects to "indistinguishable" in workers and the public. But you don't like International Commissions, so you ignore the truth and pretend that "the industry used propaganda".
Quote from: CliveG on 01/10/2019 08:47:54
No other reason for contempt of court to turn on our tower and sicken me. They knew it would likely make me late in a court filing.
Did it occur to you that
(1) there's a clear reason to turn it on; they didn't build it as a Christmas tree; they built it to use it.
(2) thinking they did it to influence you is evidence of paranoia.
Quote from: CliveG on 01/10/2019 08:56:16
No sympathy for a family that is NOW stressed becase they know their house has biologically dangerous levels of radiation.
No.
Now stressed because they were led astray by someone stupid enough to think that the life expectancy in Stockholm is 3 years.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
As you say, the US radium court case was in 1928, the year that the ICRP was founded to investigate just such issues, and lay down the principles of radiation protection throughout industry.
And this quote:
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.
1600 chest x-rays = 32 millisievert, or one abdominal CT scan with contrast. Repeated daily for 3 years would almost certainly be lethal. However the parameter "1.8 GHz" carries no information as to dose, and "catastrophic damage to human DNA" can be inflicted by one molecule of sodium chloride. The statement is meaningless.
Calling me stupid now?Yes.
Do you want to me to demonstrate my IQ by showing you an IQ test I have done?Thanks, that's all the proof we need.
And what to they say? Or do they leave it to ICNIRP? The protection of the cell industry.
they then checked the tower and it was humming.Some of the sound effects in the Star Wars franchise movie were taken from humming towers. Wind in the guy wires caused the humming.
Microwaves were used in WW2 and resulted in people knowing about microwave sickness.One of the best anecdotes concerned an American radar tech who had a trapdoor to a 15 cm waveguide in his hut "somewhere in England". Knowing that microwaves can induce temporary sterility, he charged his comrades $1 to dangle their private parts therein before fraternising with the natives. The results of his order of magnitude miscalculation (some might call it fraud) are called East Anglians of my generation.
Quote from: CliveGthey then checked the tower and it was humming.Some of the sound effects in the Star Wars franchise movie were taken from humming towers. Wind in the guy wires caused the humming.
I know that time is money, and the towers (and their adjacent electronic hut) are largely prefabricated. But if they erected the tower one day, I would be surprised if it were fully functional the very next day. Connection of electronics to antennas, power lines and optical fiber/microwave link might take another day (or a month, if power companies there are as well coordinated as they are here...).
How directional is your microwave detector?
- Can you actually identify the source of radiation?
- Can you measure the angle from different places and triangulate the source of radiation?
- I assume that you ensured that microwave ovens were not in use while you were measuring? (Including the neighbours?)
And what to they say? Or do they leave it to ICNIRP? The protection of the cell industry.
The underlying principles of ICRP recommendations are that exposure to ionising radiation at work and in the community must be limited so that (a) there are no deterministic effects (b) the incidence of stochastic effects among workers is comparable or with or better than the occupational hazards of a "safe industry" (effectively less than one attributable death per 20,000 man-years) (c) the limit for members of the public should be indistinguishable from variations in natural background (d) all exposures must be as low as reasonably practicable - limits are not targets.
ICNIRP follows these principles, though the "natural background" for microwaves is below any useful level. Interestingly, natural sunlight at high altitudes exceeds ICNIRP recommendations for blue light exposure, but I'm sure skeptics would say that they are just in the pockets of the sunglasses industry.
Microwaves were used in WW2 and resulted in people knowing about microwave sickness.One of the best anecdotes concerned an American radar tech who had a trapdoor to a 15 cm waveguide in his hut "somewhere in England". Knowing that microwaves can induce temporary sterility, he charged his comrades $1 to dangle their private parts therein before fraternising with the natives. The results of his order of magnitude miscalculation (some might call it fraud) are called East Anglians of my generation.
I had a look at the papers you referenced.
One I couldn't read without paying.
Two provided evidence of the correlation of poverty with (the inability to stop phone companies putting up masts) and (increased risk to health)
Which is not news and not relevant.
The other gave evidence that the placebo effect is real.
I will leave you to work out which is which.
The many studies indicating harm that ICNIRP ignores.That's begging the question again.
"You can never win an argument with a negative person. They only hear what suits them and listen only to respond."Yes.
"Never argue with a fool. You’ll never convince the fool that you’re correct, and bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who."I'm pretty sure the bystanders on this page can tell the difference.
. No other reason for contempt of court to turn on our tower and sicken me. They knew it would likely make me late in a court filing.
"Arguing with fools is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to sh1t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."As I keep saying, get a mirror.
Point me at thread where you made a positive contribution.This one.
chest infection. He says that it is rife in the community...There are no scientific studies or even news articles.Australia and South Africa are just coming out of our winter flu season... and it is covered in the news:
many pandemics have secondary fatal effects as systems break down. Deaths to fire, starvation and lack of medical care mount as systems fail.If you want to see the effects of a severe pandemic, it is now the centenary of the 1918-1920 "Spanish Flu" (which actually originated in the USA).
There is currently a silent health crisis in Johannesburg.
I am just hearing about cancer deaths in middle-aged people that should not be happening.Who says they "shouldn't be happening"?
BTW - Can I beg you to stop telling me I am begging the question.Yes, you can beg.
Now, back to the mirror.
What positive contributions have you made?
Quote from: CliveGchest infection. He says that it is rife in the community...There are no scientific studies or even news articles.Australia and South Africa are just coming out of our winter flu season... and it is covered in the news:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/health/flu-australia-america.htmlQuotemany pandemics have secondary fatal effects as systems break down. Deaths to fire, starvation and lack of medical care mount as systems fail.If you want to see the effects of a severe pandemic, it is now the centenary of the 1918-1920 "Spanish Flu" (which actually originated in the USA).
- This killed more people than the bullets, bombs and poison gas of World War 1.
- This was before the invention of cellular mobile
- It was around the start of AM radio broadcasts (although I'm not aware of any causal link).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
So to the crucial question: Did you and your family and friends get a flu injection this year?
- This has a known effectiveness against a known and quite significant risk (and they don't claim 100% protection!)
- As compared to mobile tower effects, which are known to have an effect which is extremely small, if not zero (it is lost in the background noise of an aging population, subject to declining immune system effectiveness, and increasing heart, lung, joint, digestive and circulatory problems)
On the rare occasion that I get a flu I can get rid of it in 24 hoursThis sounds more like the common cold than influenza.
Chest infection was the primary cause.So, not microwave exposure then.
Your many one-line pronouncements of your personal opinion are not positive arguments.What about the relatively long involved ones that, for example, show that you did, in fact, say that the population of stockholm will only live 3 years.?
Positive Contributions on this forum. I have presented this forum with a number of arguments, anecdotal evidence, reason, scientific articles and other relevant articles.Anecdotes are neither use nor ornament.
This morning's Dilbert seems appropriate.Do you understand what I mean when I say "Get a mirror"?
Bald guy with goatee: I hear what you are saying and I disagree.
Dilbert: Because...?
BGWG: Because what?
Dibert: Do you have any reason for your disagreement?
BGWG: No. I am a lifestyle disagreer. I disagree with everyone all the time. The reasons are irrelevant.
Dilbert: You sound smart.
BGWG: No. I am not smart.
Dilbert: And you are attractive too.
BGWG: No. I am ugl... Okay, I see what you are doing.
You are surely smart enough to get my drift?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/I guess it was due to time-travelling mobile phones.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/
I'll bet that even if they found a harmful effect, they would chicken wire houses before stopping cell towers. This new THz stuff and IoTs, will shortly populate neighborhoods. And probably denser, then cell towers. And probably much cheaper. Great future for RF engineers, but different circuitry.
Just a guess.
Quote from: CliveGOn the rare occasion that I get a flu I can get rid of it in 24 hoursThis sounds more like the common cold than influenza.
The body needs less energy to maintain the body temperatureNo
Otherwise I have to live in the sticks where there is no radiation (and not much else).You will need to live in a fairly deep cave.
The body has built in limiter to stop it getting too high.If you could dial back the dangerous nonsense a bit, that would be good.
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 12:00:54
The body has built in limiter to stop it getting too high.
If you could dial back the dangerous nonsense a bit, that would be good.
Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 12:00:54
The body needs less energy to maintain the body temperature
No
Try looking at simple thermodynamics. (or asking a ten-year old)
Making things hotter takes more heat
When climbing a small mountain on the German Czech border I came across a small tower with a Radar installation upon it it had a warning notice telling you not to stand too close.
When I translated the warning apparently the source of danger was icicles falling from it, yes radar antennas are a source of danger
Only when heat is forced on a child could there be problems - such as being left in a hot car in the sun.... or a hot room.
And febrile epilepsy which the neurologist says may be tower related.The word "febrile" tells you exactly what it's due to.
My wife said that last night she got a headache and felt dizzy after waking from her sleep in the middle of the night. She put on one of the foil hats I have around for when I visit and she said she felt relief. She said that either the tower was putting out more radiation which I think it is, or that she is getting more sensitive with time. I think it is both.How do you distinguish that from the placebo effect?
Rule 1 of science: Don't think. Measure.
Only when heat is forced on a child could there be problems - such as being left in a hot car in the sun.... or a hot room.And febrile epilepsy which the neurologist says may be tower related.The word "febrile" tells you exactly what it's due to.
The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.
You have taken an inflexible position that EMFs are totally harmless (unless exposed to beams so powerful they would fry anything) and you argue everything from that stand-point.and you have taken an equally inflexible position. Your arguments are not supported by the science. Don't you have any doubts? Doubt is the permanent standpoint of scientific enquiry.
The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.QuoteYou have taken an inflexible position that EMFs are totally harmless (unless exposed to beams so powerful they would fry anything) and you argue everything from that stand-point.and you have taken an equally inflexible position. Your arguments are not supported by the science. Don't you have any doubts? Doubt is the permanent standpoint of scientific enquiry.
If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures.Yes they do.
If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent".And, once again,
If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures.Yes they do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698702/
Now, please stop posting dangerous nonsense.
If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent".And, once again,
Stop begging the question.
"If [Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)], then [EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent"]"
and look at each part in turn
One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.
Let's simplify the discussion. You have said "If A then A". Nobody doubts that, but it doesn't prove anything.
You have quoted several sources of in vitro tests of B, which might be related to A in extreme cases, and is all very interesting but irrelevant.
You have declined (or at least not reported) the simple test of whether your actual mast induces your actual symptoms. Don't expect much sympathy from scientists.
One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.
That's just a different logical fallacy.
Pollen can cause respiratory problems
Colds are a respiratory problem.
Therefore pollen can cause colds.
Well, clearly, it doesn't. So the "logic" of your argument fails
Also, by definition, the thing that causes febrile seizures is hyperthermia.
Seizures caused by anything else- including any that might be caused by (non thermal) EMFs are, by definition, not febrile seizures.
Why do you post nonsense like that?
I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
Who is the one with no logical sense?The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.
I think you meant to say: If A then B.I'm fairly sure that Alan intended to say "if A then A".
So it takes takes money and power to get to be believed - and who has the money and power... the cell phone industry.The phone companies have exactly the money we give them. We can stop.
What I said is : If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).But you have no evidence for "the linkage".4
I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.Who is the one with no logical sense?The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
What I said is : If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).But you have no evidence for "the linkage".4
I have not said I don't believe you. I am perfectly willing to accept that you live next to a transmitter tower and that you have all sorts of weird symptoms. What you have not done is demonstrate a causal relationship by making a blind correlation. If you can do that, it would be difficult for anyone to argue against you. "Proof by assertion" died when Galileo was born.
This might be old info, but the last time I checked, the majority of deaths from lung cancer were never smokers.
Does that mean that second hand smoke kills more than smoking?
Let us try an analogy that is more relevant. Smoking.
Here is my original statement
"If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent" (for febrile seizures). "
Let me change it:
"If smoking can cause cellular disruption/inflammation to lungs, then smoking has the possibility of being a "causative agent" (for lung cancer)."
Parsing this as I did before:
IF....smoking can (read MAY because of the IF) cause lung cell disruption/inflammation.
[Lung cancer stems from disruption in lung cells.]
Therefore smoking MAY cause lung cancer.
I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.Who is the one with no logical sense?The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
I stand corrected, thank you.
No
Because, by definition a febrile seizure is exclusively caused by hyperthermia but lung cancer is not (by definition) exclusively caused by smoking- there are other causes such as asbestos.
So, it's a bad analogy.
(snip)
Also, you forgot to answer this post; please do so.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.Who is the one with no logical sense?The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.But you have shown nothing to support the assertion that your exposure is causing your symptoms, which is presumably what this is all about.
Some science is derived from simple observation, then expanded to epidemiological studies and when there is sufficient correlation that stands out from the other causative agents,then the linkage is assumed or agreed to.Ipsi dixit
Galileo used observation and tied it to logic.Interestingly, there is no evidence that he ever made his most famous experiment! He did however make a supremely incisive logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:
Sigh. You just do not get the difference between a "triggering agent" (the fever) and an underlying predisposition.No
Go back one page and see my post # 378Thanks for confirming my point.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
Go back one page and see my post # 378
Did you read through your post and think about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:
the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.But you have shown nothing to support the assertion that your exposure is causing your symptoms, which is presumably what this is all about.QuoteSome science is derived from simple observation, then expanded to epidemiological studies and when there is sufficient correlation that stands out from the other causative agents,then the linkage is assumed or agreed to.Ipsi dixitQuoteGalileo used observation and tied it to logic.Interestingly, there is no evidence that he ever made his most famous experiment! He did however make a supremely incisive logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:
1. The little rock slows the big one. So if I attach a grain of sand to a boulder, it will float gently to the ground. Maybe not one grain. How about a sack of sand grains? What is a rock but a whole bunch of sand grains tied closely together?
2. The big rock speeds up the little one. By pulling harder on the string? Whence comes this new force?
I digress. But at least it's science.
Bored Chemist,It's a discussion forum.
I think it is time to let the reader judge for himself.
Your wordplay is twisting you into knots. You just cannot give up. Must be Compulsive Obsessive Ego Disorder.
Time for me to move on. You can carry on playing with yourself.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
You want me to be the worlds proof.I rather thought that you wanted to be the world's proof, since nobody else seems to be interested in what you claim is a very serious problem. All you have to do is to keep a diary of symptoms and compare it with instrumental measurements made automatically or by someone else, that you have not seen. Since you are exposed anyway, and have the instrumentation, it's hardly a great burden, with a massive potential gain.
You want me to be the worlds proof.I rather thought that you wanted to be the world's proof, since nobody else seems to be interested in what you claim is a very serious problem. All you have to do is to keep a diary of symptoms and compare it with instrumental measurements made automatically or by someone else, that you have not seen. Since you are exposed anyway, and have the instrumentation, it's hardly a great burden, with a massive potential gain.
But you know all this. Your persistent refusal to carry out the critical experiment suggests that you are scared of possible failure. A reasonable response from an engineer who has just designed a bridge, but not from a scientist whose job is to test the strength of materials.
I'll leave this thread for now as we have exhausted the argument, but if you do conduct the simple experiment and report the result here, I'll be the first to applaud.
I'm baffled by "box" and "covering". My suggestion was that you just go about your daily life and record your symptoms, whilst a machine records your exposure. If you involve other people who will know in some way whether a particular tower is transmitting, you damage the credibility of the experiment. The essence of a blind correlation trial is that nobody and nothing apart from the dumb recording machine knows about the cause, and you record the effect. Don't avoid other towers (there may be some you can't see), just record your symptoms as they occur and let the machine do the work.
Good luck.
(snip)
I also think you should answer my questions.
I understand entirely how to conduct a blind trial. It is entirely up to you whether you want to or not, but nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity will take you seriously if you don't.
The only valid blind experiment is for you to go about your daily life, preferably carrying a portable monitor that records but does not display whatever you think is the cause, and record your symptoms in a diary. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not use any special shielding or tell anyone else what you are doing, where, or when. You may not have access to any information about your exposure, or your proximity to any hidden source (you will obviously be aware of visible sources), at any time during the test. One of your trusted scientists (could be a sworn lawyer, if the instructions are explicit) will then unseal the recorder and immediately "publish" its readings whilst another publishes your symptom diary. By "publish" I mean circulate by timed email to several independent adjudicators - I'm happy to be one, as I am sure will BC, and we might rope in other known scientists and medics through this website. The adjudicators then investigate any apparent correlation between claimed cause and observed effect.
The problem with all blinded experiments on live humans is ensuring that the subject really doesn't know whether or when he is being exposed to the stimulus. The worry here is that we know you have a few monitors of your own, so you might need a witness, but we have statistical processes for discovering such cases too.
Too much like hard work to sort outBut answering points is part of discussion.
nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity will take you seriously if you don't.I think that ship may have already sailed.
Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« Reply #406 on: Yesterday at 15:06:51 »
The question is whether an absence of shielding or the presence of radiation is causing the symptoms. Whatever you believe to be the case, anybody with an ounce of understanding of human behaviour will need to see a demonstration that excludes your knowledge and judgement.
No experiment is ever set up to fail. That would be a waste of time. The experiment I suggest is to demonstrate the correlation between your symptoms and your exposure to a stimulus whose presence and intensity you do not know. That would be conclusive and interesting.
Your suggestion is pretty neat but more complicated than necessary. You could simply tell us what intensity of which radiation triggers which symptoms in your experience, then sit in an unshielded box and tell us when the radiation source is switched on. It's a valid single-blind that can be extended to any number of people and any type of radiation. If you like, you could use existing commercial sources like mobile phone masts, by being driven around blindfolded then sitting in a blacked-out trailer (not sure about the SA regulations, but you can't carry passengers in a moving trailer in the UK). But it would be neater to use a laboratory with a controllable transmitter.
Too much like hard work to sort outBut answering points is part of discussion.
Why are you on a discussion board if you don't want to follow the rules?
"5.Keep it a discussion
The site is for asking or answering questions, or general discussion.
"
from
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
Can't you read, or can't you count?Too much like hard work to sort outBut answering points is part of discussion.
Why are you on a discussion board if you don't want to follow the rules?
"5.Keep it a discussion
The site is for asking or answering questions, or general discussion.
"
from
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
Sigh once again. Please repeat the question(s) you want answered. You know which they are. I am confused and do not.
I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.Who is the one with no logical sense?The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.
Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?
The laboratories have problems simulating the radiation for the masts which have multiple transmitters at various frequencies and changing the power levels (pulsing) with the phone connections.No problem. In fact, it resolves an interesting issue. We'll use a spectrum analyser and correlate everything coming into the box, with your symptoms.
The laboratories have problems simulating the radiation for the masts which have multiple transmitters at various frequencies and changing the power levels (pulsing) with the phone connections.No problem. In fact, it resolves an interesting issue. We'll use a spectrum analyser and correlate everything coming into the box, with your symptoms.
The whole point of a blind experiment is that you don't know the inputs, so you certainly can't be allowed to control them. The joy of using a real mast is that the input will be reasonably random.
With you in spirit, good buddy, and possibly Skype if the experiment progresses. If it turns out to be really interesting, maybe a trip to SA is called for. Happy to chat with the university guy, whoever. An RF spectrometer should at least give you the relative intensities of everything, and a power meter will give you the absolute total, so you can work out the action spectrum from both records.
Now a similar question for you. An easy one for you. What is the answer to this? ∂∑∞∫∀∅Feel free to translate that into clear English- the language of this site.
Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)No, you did not.
I answered it.
I worked with RF emissionsDid you fall ill?
What earthly purpose would this serve?With you in spirit, good buddy, and possibly Skype if the experiment progresses. If it turns out to be really interesting, maybe a trip to SA is called for. Happy to chat with the university guy, whoever. An RF spectrometer should at least give you the relative intensities of everything, and a power meter will give you the absolute total, so you can work out the action spectrum from both records.
Thanks. As I said before, I worked with RF emissions and tests so I know my way around the instrumentation.
I will do a simple first trial which is to sit in the radiation without a box and only the meter. Then see how long it takes for the headache, and how intense it gets with time. I will record the results. Maybe do it twice.
Waste of time. If you look at the meter you will get sick.
I worked with RF emissionsDid you fall ill?
Or were you somehow immune - while you were paid to deal with them.
Now a similar question for you. An easy one for you. What is the answer to this? ∂∑∞∫∀∅Feel free to translate that into clear English- the language of this site.Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)No, you did not.
I answered it.
Show me where you mistakenly thunk you did so.
Your ignorance of such testing is showing.Actually, I'm quite familiar with it.
Your ignorance of such testing is showing.Actually, I'm quite familiar with it.
And the interesting point about it is that it does not (typically) use high levels of EM radiation.
As such, it is of course irrelevant to the discussion.
So, when you introduced the idea that you worked in RF fields, I thought you meant ones which were important- significant in the context of this thread.
I apologise for assuming that you were not raising irrelevant nonsense. I should have known you better by now.
And I guess, in much the same way, I shouldn't have expected a better answer from you than I would from a f year-old saying "I don't know" to nigh everything.
Anyway, if you don't like being made to look like an idiot, perhaps you should think about stuff before you post it.
All that knowledge, and yet you can't follow the design of a simple experiment.
Get a recording em field monitor + carry it about with you for a week or so.
Also record if you feel unwell.
Because 21st century life is full of various transmitters- some high power ones- you will be exposed to strong fields.
And if those fields make you unwell, then there will be a correlation between the two records.
By the way, was the equipment you used for measuring RF susceptibility of such a nature that you could carry it around with you, and have it automatically record the field strength?
Or was it irrelevant?
Hey Clive, have you ever heard of a SDR dongle? ~ 20 bucks on ebay. sometimes as low as 10.
This marvelous little gadget will show the lower cell spectrum. It will give you an idea. The software is free and you can record, if you have the memory.
And if you like what you see.......they have advanced models. With more features.
Yes.
Do you have a day job?
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?
Explain what went on here.
I will be taking legal action, so any help will be appreciated. Even from Bored Chemist because it will tell me what the tower company may try to use as an explanation.
9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.I presume you informed the police. Do you have proof? Did you take pictures?
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?
Explain what went on here.
I will be taking legal action, so any help will be appreciated. Even from Bored Chemist because it will tell me what the tower company may try to use as an explanation.9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.I presume you informed the police. Do you have proof? Did you take pictures?
Is the man imaginary?
Did you read the part about being under court order to have it turned off?Yes.
However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure.So, you suspect him of working there?
There is also loiteredLoitering with intent to work, perhaps?
was on his cell phoneHardly a shock, since he seems likely to work for a phone company.
My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.I presume you also have no evidence for that.
10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.What form did that proof take?
Did you read the part about being under court order to have it turned off?Yes.
Did you read the bit about our Prime Minister not signing a letter to the European Union?However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure.So, you suspect him of working there?There is also loiteredLoitering with intent to work, perhaps?was on his cell phoneHardly a shock, since he seems likely to work for a phone company.My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.I presume you also have no evidence for that.
If you take this to court they will be too busy laughing to even look at your evidence regarding the meter readings.10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.What form did that proof take?
Would it have been a matter of "my meter said...". Do you have independent corroboration?
Do you realise that, in a case where it's one person's word against another, the court finds in favour of the defendant? (and usually you would expect to pay court costs too).
Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?
A) Disobeying a court order has consequences.Typically a fine- which is often less than the cost of stopping "the job" for many companies. And that assumes that the court believes you ratehr thana rich corporation.
The man drove by slowly in a old pickup with no markings while checking the site and our house. He then did a U-turn down the street and parked where we could not see his vehicle.Cheap contractor doesn't know the area + got lost. No reason to suppose that he knew you were spying on his vehicle.
Nearly everyone in SA (poverty stricken or not) has a cell phone.And yet you seemed surprised that he used one.
Why do you want evidence that my instincts are good?Because you are talking about going to court where they will laugh themselves silly if you say you rely on "instinct".
Are you a bored cynic?If you think I'm cynical, just wait til you see the other side's lawyers.
Check the meter readingsI have a garbled summary of them- from you.
and you will find the court will have difficulty rejecting my explanation of the tower companies actionsThey will not give a toss about your view of shifty looking men without hard hats.
The man had no work clothes or hard hat, which other employees have. The man walked about slowly while on his phone and looking about. Even for the slow pace of SA workers he was taking his time and not appearing to have an objective.Government health & safety inspector. Also explains parking an unmarked van out of sight and skulking in. Probably made some fatuous order about switching off the light at night (might attract aeroplanes or keep the neighbors awake) too.
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?Because that's how electricity meters "traditionally" work.
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?11) Traditional electromechanical electricity meters integrate instantaneous power (in kW) to show energy on the display (in kWh), which is intended to be read every month or so.
12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?
There is no other reason to violate a court order and risk contempt of court.Yes there is.
Why did they not turn it off the morning they got notified?Because that's how they make money.
Because it was another distraction.They had no way of knowing if you were watching or not.
Because the graph is a "Gee Whiz" bit of engineering sleight of hand. One cannot clearly read the graph. It rises steadily for a number of days and then has a barely perceptible rise over a space of many days.Why do you ask questions to which you already have two independent mutually confirmatory answers?
Because that's how electricity meters "traditionally" work.
Traditional electromechanical electricity meters integrate instantaneous power (in kW) to show energy on the display (in kWh), which is intended to be read every month or so.
. Not INTENTIONAL LYING sir, just an HONEST MISTAKE of miscommunication.OK, so we agree that the company is quite likely to do this sort of thing.
A follow-up. Why did they not send an engineer and manager to visit me to ask me why I thought the tower was on?Because they have written you off as s some paranoid nutter who wouldn't believe anything their staff told you anyway.
Time to call in the South African Civil Aviation Authority www.caa.co.za (http://www.caa.co.za). A statutory warning light cannot be switched off unless properly permitted and notified by an official NOTAM. Emergency failure must be notified and promulgated. Prosecution by the CAA under the Air Navigation Order, for endangering traffic, rarely fails.
However bent your local judiciary may be, NOTAMS and ANO prosecutions receive international scrutiny and any other country or the ICAO itself banning flights on safety grounds will seriously upset the SA government.
A follow-up. Why did they not send an engineer and manager to visit me to ask me why I thought the tower was on?Because they have written you off as s some paranoid nutter who wouldn't believe anything their staff told you anyway.
They make money by running transmitters.
(snip)
If (as is quite likely) the fine for breaching the court order is less than the money they make then they will ignore the court and run the tower.
(snip)
They had no way of knowing if you were watching or not.
So they couldn't be doing it to influence you.
(snip)
Why do you ask questions to which you already have two independent mutually confirmatory answers?
(snip)
Because that's how electricity meters "traditionally" work.
(snip)
Why can't you see that they would do exactly the same sort of thing to run the transmitters (in spite of a court order) and keep making money?
That is how meters work! Thanks for informing an electrical engineer who once worked in a power company meter department.You asked...
How about the bill you get. Is it in unreadable graphs.I just get 3 numbers . The previous reading, the current reading and the difference.
If they are going to ignore the court order to make money, why not do it all the time?Because there's (obviously) only so many times you can play the "honest mistake" card, before the court stops believing you.
(snip)
However, while the electricity company could come and check that my current reading is 74044, they have absolutely no way of knowing when it passed the 74000 mark. (Except they know it was some time after the previous meter reading).
So they can't know if I was running a ten KW radio transmitter for an hour or so.
The power company supplying the tower is in much the same position.
There is literally no system in place that measures my actual power consumption.
If the power Co. went to court and said "he was drawing so many KW at such and such a time", it would be perjury.
(snip)
Industrial electricity suppliers generally do know the instantaneous consumption profile as the charges for 3-phase power vary by time of day, plus a surcharge for absolute maximum consumption during the charging period. However this won't tell you much about the radiated power of the transmitter since a lot is consumed in cooling the computers and even the standby consumption of the transmitter.
The law compels the Power Company to provide a special power point to masts.What is special about it?
You seem to have no problem trying to be an expert in my field.It's good to see that you are an expert.
They take the instantaneous voltage, the instantaneous current and the instantaneous angle between themIf they are doing the multiplication in anything like real time, they don't need the angle- which isn't "instantaneous" anyway.
How can I display the one A4 sheet with the two graphs on this forum. And the one page write-up.And that's where you point out that you have not yet presented the data you are complaining about.
But once more you are blind to the point I am making.If, as seems likely, their meters (like mine) show cumulative use, why would they not present to the court a graph of cumulative use?
Why not say 0.00 kWhrs for day 9, day 10 and day 11 and 142.25 kWhrs for day 15?
A one hour test cannot consume 142.25 kWhrs. The poor graph hides this number. It would mean that the power of the installation would be over 142 kW.Yes the penny has dropped that all they need to do is say they were testing the lights and heater and battery charger and whatever as well.
Has the penny finally dropped?
The law compels the Power Company to provide a special power point to masts.What is special about it?
The average kW for each day is show as 4.5 to 5 kW and 2.7 kW for the day it was switched off.
...
- The average kW for the 15th Jan is shown as 5.7 kW
- The meter company states that the 15th was "atypical" because it was a in situ test power on for only an hour.
but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.Do they pay the bill for it?
but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.Do they pay the bill for it?
The average kW for each day is show as 4.5 to 5 kW and 2.7 kW for the day it was switched off.
...
- The average kW for the 15th Jan is shown as 5.7 kW
- The meter company states that the 15th was "atypical" because it was a in situ test power on for only an hour.
OK, so typical use is about 4.7 KWHr per day. Divide by 24 hrs in a day.
About 196 Watts
And on the 15th it was 5.7 KWHr
About 237 Watts
Now the difference between the typical consumption- 4.7 KWHr and the consumption on the 15th - which was 5.7 KWHr is 1 KWHr
But the claim is that the additional about kWh was used in just 1 Hr.
So their test must have used 1 KW.
OK, that's quite a lot of power, but nothing special. If you were in this hemisphere, I'd joke about the guy turning the heater on.
Perhaps he left a fan running all day.
One property - but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.This is entirely normal and essential for any enterprise on rented property. The landlord's rent is based on the commercial value of the land plus any statutory provisions for which the landlord is liable - this may include street lighting and security but will not include significant consumables incurred by the lessee.
You seem to have no problem trying to be an expert in my field.It's good to see that you are an expert.
Would you like to explain why you are asking us mere mortals for help?They take the instantaneous voltage, the instantaneous current and the instantaneous angle between themIf they are doing the multiplication in anything like real time, they don't need the angle- which isn't "instantaneous" anyway.
If that was an attempt to "blind me with science" it backfired badly.How can I display the one A4 sheet with the two graphs on this forum. And the one page write-up.And that's where you point out that you have not yet presented the data you are complaining about.But once more you are blind to the point I am making.If, as seems likely, their meters (like mine) show cumulative use, why would they not present to the court a graph of cumulative use?
Why not say 0.00 kWhrs for day 9, day 10 and day 11 and 142.25 kWhrs for day 15?
It is, of course, rather hard for us to tell because... you have not actually given us the data.A one hour test cannot consume 142.25 kWhrs. The poor graph hides this number. It would mean that the power of the installation would be over 142 kW.Yes the penny has dropped that all they need to do is say they were testing the lights and heater and battery charger and whatever as well.
Has the penny finally dropped?
Simple, if rhetorical question.
Do you actually know what is in the tower?
One property - but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.This is entirely normal and essential for any enterprise on rented property. The landlord's rent is based on the commercial value of the land plus any statutory provisions for which the landlord is liable - this may include street lighting and security but will not include significant consumables incurred by the lessee.
Been there. My landlords had to light the communal fire exits (about 100 watts) but I had a separate meter (including continuous remote reading) for the 400 kW consumed by my machinery. However 300 kW of this was taken up by the continuous standby power of the equipment, 50 kW was variable consumption of the airconditioning, lifts, etc., and only about 25 kW by the RF transmitters, so you couldn't really tell from the consumption graph what power was being transmitted.
Oops!The average kW for each day is show as 4.5 to 5 kW and 2.7 kW for the day it was switched off.
...
- The average kW for the 15th Jan is shown as 5.7 kW
- The meter company states that the 15th was "atypical" because it was a in situ test power on for only an hour.
OK, so typical use is about 4.7 KWHr per day. Divide by 24 hrs in a day.
About 196 Watts
And on the 15th it was 5.7 KWHr
About 237 Watts
Now the difference between the typical consumption- 4.7 KWHr and the consumption on the 15th - which was 5.7 KWHr is 1 KWHr
But the claim is that the additional about kWh was used in just 1 Hr.
So their test must have used 1 KW.
OK, that's quite a lot of power, but nothing special. If you were in this hemisphere, I'd joke about the guy turning the heater on.
Perhaps he left a fan running all day.
You are mixing kW (power) and kWhrs (energy used). See my next post.
Where did I say I was asking for help on this point?
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
Explain what went on here.
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?I will have another go.
12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?
But if they get the bill which they do, they pay.So, it's not actually special.
But if they get the bill which they do, they pay.So, it's not actually special.
It is, as Alan pointed out, exactly the same as you would expect for commercial premises and a commercial tenant.
I can tell the difference between 10 minutes in the kitchen and 10 minutes in the lounge.Of course you can; one of them has a cooker and a sink.
You are quite right. The power company charges the property owner - be it an individual, a corporation or a cooperative. The owner must put in private meters for various renters.NO NO NO! That can be true for private domestic tenants but is never the case for significant industrial premises. We didn't even have the same supply company in any of the premises I have used. Because our demands were completely different (3 phase, high peak loads, etc) from the general building and fire exit supplies, we frequently renegotiated terms with competitive suppliers - it wasn't worth the landlord's time to do so for his tiny consumption. Indeed we installed a new megawatt substation, driven from the wholesale 11 kV supply, in one case, and got a rebate for supplying the rest of the street with 220V mains from our surplus!
You are quite right. The power company charges the property owner - be it an individual, a corporation or a cooperative. The owner must put in private meters for various renters.NO NO NO! That can be true for private domestic tenants but is never the case for significant industrial premises. We didn't even have the same supply company in any of the premises I have used. Because our demands were completely different (3 phase, high peak loads, etc) from the general building and fire exit supplies, we frequently renegotiated terms with competitive suppliers - it wasn't worth the landlord's time to do so for his tiny consumption. Indeed we installed a new megawatt substation, driven from the wholesale 11 kV supply, in one case, and got a rebate for supplying the rest of the street with 220V mains from our surplus!
I can tell the difference between 10 minutes in the kitchen and 10 minutes in the lounge.Of course you can; one of them has a cooker and a sink.
Do you have any understanding of the importance of "blind" trials?
No. Just a comment as to my increased perception of the harm being done to me.Perception being the important word.
I felt stomach cramps and wondered what I had eaten.What you had eaten was almost certainly "no tramadol".
Unwashed salad, cold chicken, dodgy seafood, third party pizza, short haul flying....enough to give anyone a bad time, let alone someone withdrawing from habitual opioids.
No. Just a comment as to my increased perception of the harm being done to me.Perception being the important word.
There is no evidence of actual harm caused, is there?I felt stomach cramps and wondered what I had eaten.What you had eaten was almost certainly "no tramadol".
Let us say that we did the following. I stand on your bare feet with a pair of hobnailed boots and then step back. You say "Every time you step on my feet I have pain which lessens when you step back." Could I say "You can only prove the pain is from the boots if you do a double blind test." Maybe my closeness has a psychological effect on you that translates to a referred pains in your feet. You cannot just make such simple statements of cause and effect if you want scientists and the courts to believe you. Or are there exceptions deemed fairly simple?Cause and effect with hobnail boots on bare feet is an easy one to prove to a jury because of common experience. A double blind test (of sorts) is easy to set up if you are blindfolded, wear ear defenders and press a button to indicate foot pain, an independent observer records when the boots walk over you, although you might want to add foam rubber feet at random or other materials.
Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance, meaning it has some abuse potentialIn short, it is psychoactive and addictive.
When she spends time in the house she complains that it feels like there is grit in her eyes. It is a symptom that I have experienced a couple of times before we shielded the house.That suggests that shielding the house has not improved matters and may even have made them worse. Sounds like a chemical problem.
"Upmarket food": I heard a doctor explaining to an upmarket cruise passenger that the reason he got the same malaria as a backpacker was that the mosquito did not know how much he had paid to be there. My last bout of violent stomach upset was caused by a very expensive oyster.
Short haul flying involves rapid changes of air pressure. The painful effects are exacerbated by almost any medication or illness. It makes no difference whether the cabin is pressurised (usually to 8000 ft equivalent) or not (for flights below 10,000 ft it isn't mandatory) because it is the last 8000 ft of descent that really hurts.QuoteTramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance, meaning it has some abuse potentialIn short, it is psychoactive and addictive.QuoteWhen she spends time in the house she complains that it feels like there is grit in her eyes. It is a symptom that I have experienced a couple of times before we shielded the house.That suggests that shielding the house has not improved matters and may even have made them worse. Sounds like a chemical problem.
Let us say that we did the following. I stand on your bare feet with a pair of hobnailed boots and then step back. You say "Every time you step on my feet I have pain which lessens when you step back." Could I say "You can only prove the pain is from the boots if you do a double blind test." Maybe my closeness has a psychological effect on you that translates to a referred pains in your feet. You cannot just make such simple statements of cause and effect if you want scientists and the courts to believe you. Or are there exceptions deemed fairly simple?Cause and effect with hobnail boots on bare feet is an easy one to prove to a jury because of common experience. A double blind test (of sorts) is easy to set up if you are blindfolded, wear ear defenders and press a button to indicate foot pain, an independent observer records when the boots walk over you, although you might want to add foam rubber feet at random or other materials.
Alan understands expert witness evidence more than I do, but my limited experience tells me that jurors are generally nontechnical, the word ‘radiation’ often conjures up images of harm, they also will have read press reports that there have been concerns raised about proximity of phone handsets to brain/ear. The general public rarely understand scientific evidence and tend to go with fear eg vaccines, they also tend to suspect big companies and governments of trying to hide the truth - which is out there. So if you can get a jury based on a cross-section of population to make a judgment, and you play on fear, common knowledge, etc I think there is a good chance they would find in your favour (whether or not there is scientific evidence).
A panel of judges is more likely to be swayed by the experts and would certainly understand the significance of a double blind test.
If you can devise a serious double blind test, eg in a university lab where levels could be controlled, I would go for it.
Tramadol is a codeine derivative known for its weakness.Wrong on both counts (and since you keep banging on about your field of expertise, I'm going to point out that I'm a pharmaceutical chemist).
Do you not think that pain is an indication of harm being done to one's body?
Could I say "You can only prove the pain is from the boots if you do a double blind test."
I have done a lot of short haul and very long haul flights. I have never had medical issuesThis makes you a real exception. Every aviator recognises recompression pain as being part of the job, and a descent without discomfort is a rarity. It's still the best office chair in the world, though.
The emotional tension in one's body builds up and manifests as muscle pain.precisely. It can also manifest as blistering in the absence of heat trauma, blindness, and in extreme cases, stigmata.
Tramadol is a codeine derivative known for its weakness.Wrong on both counts (and since you keep banging on about your field of expertise, I'm going to point out that I'm a pharmaceutical chemist).
And, if you don't want to believe me, try WIKI (and loc cit).
"In most cases, tramadol withdrawal will set in 12–20 hours after the last dose, but this can vary.[31] Tramadol withdrawal typically lasts longer than that of other opioids. Seven days or more of acute withdrawal symptoms can occur as opposed to typically 3 or 4 days for other codeine analogues."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramadol#Dependence_and_withdrawal
Seriously, a dose of the runs from Tramadol withdrawal is about as predictable as getting drunk if you drink a bottle of wine.
No need for speculation about dodgy prawns or upmarket pizza,
I stopped and tried CBD but that also make me feel strange despite only about 3 drops.Thanks for the confirmation that you are susceptible to psychosomatic effects.
I have done a lot of short haul and very long haul flights. I have never had medical issuesThis makes you a real exception. Every aviator recognises recompression pain as being part of the job, and a descent without discomfort is a rarity. It's still the best office chair in the world, though.
(snip)
Do you not think that pain is an indication of harm being done to one's body?(snip)
Do you understand that pain may be caused by things other than physical harm?
Are you, for example, aware of pepper?
(snip)
All opioids screw up the digestive system, often causing painful constipation or localised cramps. The relief can be spectacular.
Patients referred to the London Royal Homeopathic Hospital with long-term multiple medications were often simply put on "no meds" for 24 or 48 hours. Their recovery from multiple symptoms made it a lot easier to diagnose what actually needed treating.
I stopped and tried CBD but that also make me feel strange despite only about 3 drops.Thanks for the confirmation that you are susceptible to psychosomatic effects.
I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.
You should know that. How much of an allergen does it take to cause severe problems?Not much.
That sensitivity is likely why I am sensitive to EMFs.No it isn't.
Although my wife now seems sensitized.Told you so.
Can long term low background tower radiation sensitize most of the population?Clearly not- because it hasn't.
I think so.So, you think things even though they are clearly wrong.
However, you are right that some pain can be in the mind.Now all you need to do is accept that's what's happening to you.
Sympathy with the pot sensitivity. AFAIK my only allergy is to marijuana - serious swelling of lips, tongue and throat, just from secondary inhalation. I could get a job as a police dog - though not for long! Gitanes were a lot safer. I can recall every note I played in the Sixties, but the other guys can't even remember the name of the band.
A second language is enormously helpful. My aunt and uncle lived in France in their fifties. She had a stroke around 70 when living in the USA and apparently lost all speech and comprehension until he spoke to her in French. A second (learned rather than acquired) language seems to reside in a different part of the brain. Not sure how language is affected in genuinely bilingual-from-birth people, which would be an interesting study. As would the effect of stroke on speech in left-handers.
I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.
I am not hypnotisableI didn't say you were...
I am not hypnotisableI didn't say you were...
No.
Your claim to be not hyponitisable wasn't a nice side step.
It wasn't even a very good try.
So, as I said, thanks for showing how suggestible you are.
I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!I recognise that you meant that.
How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?Yes, there are certainly connections there.
And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?You made that bit up.
Going back to the original question, why would anyone make a downward-directed transmitter? All the people immediately underneath the transmitter can talk directly to each other with no need for a phone, and the power required to relay incoming signals downwards is negligible. The only possible hazard is from the handsets below the transmitter.
I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!I recognise that you meant that.
However, the fact is that you were sidestepping my point.
Your acceptance that you believe stuff that's not real shows that you are suggestible.
(snip)
(snip)How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?Yes, there are certainly connections there.And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?You made that bit up.
Not least, you ignore the fact that people are big bags of salty water. That's an uncommonly good way to screen a connection.
It's also important to recogniser how bad an impedance match there is between a nerve cell and any passing RF.
We know that the cells are not, in fact, very sensitive.
Because people are walking around in the fields produced by phones with no actual evidence of harm.
(just before you try to dispute that, remember the bit about suggestibility)
the inverse square law applies.Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.
Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.Me too. Even across a couple of time zones. It seems to be wired into the mammalian brain - my dog always demanded a treat (usually a fish head) at 7 pm, regardless of where we were or what we were doing.
The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.How fortunate, then, that nobody said we were.
Once more, the Emfs may aggravate the conditions she has.There's no evidence for EMFs influencing rosacea.
Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is.Dr Pall has reportedly done work on electrosensitivity.
The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell meYou are wrong.
cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.
the inverse square law applies.Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.
Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.Me too. Even across a couple of time zones. It seems to be wired into the mammalian brain - my dog always demanded a treat (usually a fish head) at 7 pm, regardless of where we were or what we were doing.
Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« Reply #514 on: Today at 12:19:37 »
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.
How fortunate, then, that nobody said we were.
The real bottom line is that all out internal workings- nerves etc are inside a bag of salt water. which tends to "short out" any external influence.
Which is why there's no evidence of harm from phone masts.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is.
Dr Pall has reportedly done work on electrosensitivity.
However, as we have discussed, the condition doesn't actually exist- every lab test for it failed to find it.
So, I think it's fair to say he's a quack.
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell me
You are wrong.
As you say the voltages are of the order of tens of mV
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.
And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a
You are applying on one criteria.Just the one you quote, and is demonstrably true. IIRC the maximum output from the handset occurs when it is seeking a connection in a weak signal area.
Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.
And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a
And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?
And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?And now we see that you are just being silly.
Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26
cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.
And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a
And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?
And, of course , there's the capacitance problem. Cell membranes are thin insulators so they have significant capacitance.
Given the finite source impedance, you can't charge + discharge them that fast.
The timescale for real signals is about a millisecond or 10.
Quote
You are applying on one criteria.
Just the one you quote, and is demonstrably true. IIRC the maximum output from the handset occurs when it is seeking a connection in a weak signal area.
Computer modelling does not verify anything. IIRC all the in vivo findings you have quoted have involved radiation intensities known to be acutely dangerous, or not replicated by independent laboratories.
I'm not saying anything. Just waiting for you to come up with a sensible demonstration of whatever you claim.
Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.Yo got one, but you don't seem to have noticed.
At least you guys are finally engaging!!!We have been doing that for 11 pages.
Done some reading have you.Yes, and in this case I did it in 1985/86 while studying at university.
There is a consensus among independent scientistsIndependent of what?
Of course you will feel better. Enjoy your holiday. And if you do participate in a genuine double-blind experiment, the world will be interested in the result.
Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.Yo got one, but you don't seem to have noticed.At least you guys are finally engaging!!!We have been doing that for 11 pages.
Again, it seems you didn't notice.Done some reading have you.Yes, and in this case I did it in 1985/86 while studying at university.There is a consensus among independent scientistsIndependent of what?
Of evidence?
Can I take your silence as acquiescence?No.
How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron?I guess that's rhetorical
But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing.That's not the reason.
But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing.That's not the reason.
Are you just deliberately ignoring the importance of blinding in tests?
Can I take your silence as acquiescence?No.
I just got tired of rebutting nonsense.How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron?I guess that's rhetorical
Mostly by personal declaration. No logical assessment of the articles I put forward.
And now we see that you are just being silly.
Cell membranes have modest, but definite impedance and capacitances.
If there's any meaningful point to measuring on a ns timescale there must be a corresponding GHz bandwidth.
And, if you measure a voltage across a resistance of 1 K Ohm or so the noise voltage is about 0.1mV.
Any "signal" below that would be perpetually lost in the noise.
And, of course , there's the capacitance problem. Cell membranes are thin insulators so they have significant capacitance.
Given the finite source impedance, you can't charge + discharge them that fast.
The timescale for real signals is about a millisecond or 10.
I have just been told about the Naked Scientist show on 1 Nov, but I did not hear it.
I gather he again said cell phone base stations are safe. He is clearly an ignoramus and is not prepared to read the science behind these things.
I think that Cape Talk, as a public broadcaster, has a responsibility to provide unbiased information.
The way this guy talks is a joke and it would not surprise me if he has been paid to say what he does.
To say that your cell hone is more dangerous is a total cop out. It is the same thing that all the telecoms companies say in order to cover their backsides!
If the naked scientist actually bothered to do some basic research and reading he, like anyone else, would see the truth. A cell phone not being used is essentially totally safe because it transmits a tiny bit of radiation every so often to check for messages, etc. You can check your signal and see maybe 1 or 2 bars. But just try dialling a number and the signal (i.e. radiation output) jumps up dramatically and your signal will show 3 or 4 bars. This is so that you have better call quality.
What he is also hiding is that cell phones have legal safety limits that are set in mm. That is the distance from your skin that a phone should be used in order to be safe! Depending on make and model, this varies between 15 and 25 mm. So yes, of course phones are dangerous because if you are placing them against your ear then you are gong to be irradiated at way over the safe limit. BUT, even so, the cell phone tower is talking back to your phone and hundreds or thousands of other phones around it. It radiates at a lowish power, true, but high enough to keep many people connected at the same time. remember the old days of dropped calls? Does not happen any more because of the massive increase in power output from the base stations. And factor in the massive increase in the number of connected devises.....
Then comes the crunch. The tower radiates 24/7. So if you live close to one, as we do, then you have no choice to not be irradiated. I choose not to use a cell phone because I have microwave sickness but I cannot choose to avoid the cell tower radiation because I cannot afford to sell my house and buy another.
So Cape Talk, please can you be more responsible and not allow those with limited education to spout forth their propaganda? I think it is your duty to get this right because it is the health of the nation that is at stake. Thank you.
I discussed the issue of cellphone tower safety (http://"https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/ask-naked-scientists/where-would-bullet-fired-space-end") on a recent edition of "Ask! The Naked Scientists" on 567 CapeTalk, South Africa.
(snip)
(snip)
My points were largely that the intensity of exposure from mobile devices (as well as home WiFi, ovens, radios etc) is far greater that the dose from a tower. I also highlighted the two independent lines of enquiry: i) microwaves are insufficiently energetic regimes to break chemical bonds and therefore low risk mutagens. ii) for a causal relationship there is a dose-dependency: ergo, the more use / exposure, the greater the documented number of cases; the latter has not been observed in relation to cell phones (at least with the 30y window of exposure so far).
Someone submitted this piece of feedback to the radio station today.
I am posting it here to show the sort of ill-reasoned abuse that people are willing to spew out with no knowledge and - in this person's case (by their own admission) without even having listened; no wonder there's a measles epidemic...
(snip)
There are times that I think you are actually a 19 year old female living at home rather than a 50 year old male with a chemistry degree. Or have you fried your brain with chemicals?I appreciate that feelings can run high in this topic, but can we please not resort to misogynistic comments.
There are times that I think you are actually a 19 year old female living at home rather than a 50 year old male with a chemistry degree. Or have you fried your brain with chemicals?I appreciate that feelings can run high in this topic, but can we please not resort to misogynistic comments.
Thank you
I did not think the comment was sexist.?!
BTW - The 2016 COSMOS study interim conclusion was that more cell phone usage and obesity showed a linkage. One could say that obese people used their phones more. Or...Correlation, possibly. Causation? Most unlikely. I have good evidence of correlation between the use of computers in schools and early-onset osteopenia, but the causation is well established and nothing to do with computers!
I did not think the comment was sexist.?!
BTW - The 2016 COSMOS study interim conclusion was that more cell phone usage and obesity showed a linkage. One could say that obese people used their phones more. Or...Correlation, possibly. Causation? Most unlikely. I have good evidence of correlation between the use of computers in schools and early-onset osteopenia, but the causation is well established and nothing to do with computers!
You call me a fool and imply that I am mentally challenged and suggestible.Let's be clear about this.
You call me a fool and imply that I am mentally challenged and suggestible.Let's be clear about this.
You said that you were suggestible.
I pointed it out, and you started to bang on about not being hypnotisable which, while related, is not the same thing.
Your repeated refusal to accept the possibility that this is psychosomatic isn't exactly a "mental challenge"- just a perfectly normal cognitive bias.
But one point of the scientific method is to get round those biases.
Where did I say I was suggestible?I thought I made it clear here
I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.
There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.No.
There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.As @Bored chemist and @alancalverd have pointed out this does not constitute proof. I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity.
I understood that osteopenia could be a lack of strenuous activity and the hiking club had women who joined to strengthen their bones. Computers are not strenuous. Is this what you are saying?No. And your response is a very good example of why it is important not to leap to the obvious conclusion.
" I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity. "There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.As @Bored chemist and @alancalverd have pointed out this does not constitute proof. I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity.
I’m sure a University lab would be interested in an undergrad experiment and could set up a room for you to work in and record your current sensations, while random levels of microwaves (including zero) are fed into the room and recorded. It would help your court case if those results confirmed your perceptions.
Key ones being the cancer in my wife's face, and the return of a prior cancer in a neighbor.lifetime incidence of cancer is about 1 in 3 and it's typically found in people over about 50.
"bandying words with @Bored chemist" - getting me/us nowhereYes. it's a fine description.
If I have my phone in my shirt pocket when driving, I am often aware that it is about to ring,I would have thought any stimulation near a nipple might bring on a feeling of anticipation. Does it happen in other pockets?
Some of the studies in #560 are interesting but they relate to very high field intensities from handsets, pretty much as expected. If I have my phone in my shirt pocket when driving, I am often aware that it is about to ring, but if it is on the passenger seat, no such phenomenon. Not an audio signal, as it is always bluetoothed to the radio, but "something" in the brain when the signal intensity is high enough.
"Flight mode" switches off the intentional RF transmission (the bit Clive is worried about) but the computer and screen driver continue to work, which produces a lot of low-level RF noise. It will interfere with an AM radio at close range. It's tolerable for passenger use in an airliner but the rule for flight crew is to switch off completely to prevent interference with AM NAV and COM systems. The bigger the phone, the worse the interference, so beware of i-phones and the like.
Too many symptoms that are not vague,
When I questioned (read "interrogated") my wife about what the feeling in her head was she struggled to describe it.
my open letter to the Chief Justice and the media may have resulted in behind the scene improvements.
End times are either here and now, or arriving soon.
Alan says he senses something. This implies that the cell microwave is capable of affecting cells and/or nerves.But only at the signal intensity of a handset, not a tower.
The problem went away when we moved again.Did he move to a place with no cell phone coverage?
This implies that the cell microwave is capable of affecting cells and/or nerves.At a high enough power, that fact was never in dispute.
The second fact is that the tinnitus disappeared.If you ask most people about "ringing in the ears" they will say that, yes- they know what you mean, but they are not currently experiencing it.
That's an indication that you are not looking at this objectively, isn't it?An unreasonable expectation, surely? Psychosomatic, hallucinatory, or an obviously broken leg, the patient can never be objective. That's where empathy comes in.
Alan says he senses something. This implies that the cell microwave is capable of affecting cells and/or nerves.But only at the signal intensity of a handset, not a tower.
Pity you mentioned tinnitus to the paint salesman. If he had brought it up first, the conversation might have been interesting, but as it happened, it can be dismissed as yet another case of internet hypochondria (previously known as Black's Disease, brought on by reading Black's Medical Dictionary). However the good news is that you have another symptomatic and sympathetic subject for your blind test.
If you carry out the test as Colin suggested here, using a source controlled by an experimenter rather than the random emissions of a tower, you won't suffer harm or discomfort because you can report the onset of symptoms and your experimenter can turn off the power immediately or after a few minutes - assuming it was on to begin with - and note the correlated disappearance of symptoms. It's a neat inversion of Milgram's classic experiment!
I was not going to interrogate and cross-examine him. I simply took it at face value.Nobody said you should, and no you did not.
the brown dog sometimes backs off as if it fears me.That's worrying. Sick dogs generally stay closer to their humans. Dogs are very sensitive to human body language. Time for a deep breath and a little self-contemplation.
the brown dog sometimes backs off as if it fears me.That's worrying. Sick dogs generally stay closer to their humans. Dogs are very sensitive to human body language. Time for a deep breath and a little self-contemplation.
Whatever the cause - our house has been a problem since the tower was put in.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Whatever the cause - our house has been a problem since the tower was put in.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Do they know the meaning of life?There isn't one, apart from the literal "common quality of things considered to be living".
Do they know the meaning of life?There isn't one, apart from the literal "common quality of things considered to be living".
I have found them to be remarkably accurate,
So, still being suggestible then?Where did I say I was suggestible?I thought I made it clear hereI had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.
I had no "prophesy" or expectation of illness or symptoms at the beginning of the tower installation.Not much good then, is it?
You expect my symptoms to be psychosomatic and so you fit my situation to your expectations.No
And if you think that using Tarot cards is an indication of suggestibility, you are again wrong in that assumption.It's not an assumption; it's a deduction.
Why should I stick to "conventional" sciences?So as to not look a fool?
Everyone agrees that there has to be an Ultimate First CauseNope, some things just happen.
Blind Chemist, sorry Bored Chemist.
And you repeat it albeit slightly differently.No, I quoted you saying something similar to, but not the same as, what I had said.
The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.
I agree with Alan, this is very anthropomorphic.The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.
Everyone agrees that there has to be an Ultimate First CauseNope, some things just happen.
For example, particles pop up out of nowhere.
They have real effects like the evaporation of black holes, the line widths of spectra and the casimir effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Now, given that you refused to look to see what scientists believe before trying to lie to me, perhaps you should do some serious apologising for thisBlind Chemist, sorry Bored Chemist.
The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.
I agree with Alan, this is very anthropomorphic.The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.
How are you getting on with finding someone to do the trials on you?
BTW - Life evolves to being very anthropomorphic in that human intelligence mirrors the Ultimate Intelligence.Citation needed. No evidence visible here. Several species from microbes to cats and dogs have evolved since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. The preservation of the weakest humans and the eradication of our nearest relatives (and the most intelligent humans) is distinctly anti-Darwinian.
But before the Big Bang, where did the Laws of Physics come from. My answer is that they are all an illusion in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence.You forgot to ask the important question.
Citation from CliveG. An expert who...No.
Careful with accusations of "Lies"! That means I am knowingly telling a falsehood.You have, in the vernacular, "got previous".
BTW - Life evolves to being very anthropomorphic in that human intelligence mirrors the Ultimate Intelligence.Citation needed. No evidence visible here. Several species from microbes to cats and dogs have evolved since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. The preservation of the weakest humans and the eradication of our nearest relatives (and the most intelligent humans) is distinctly anti-Darwinian.
But before the Big Bang, where did the Laws of Physics come from. My answer is that they are all an illusion in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence.You forgot to ask the important question.
Where did the "Ultimate Intelligence" come from?
It's more sensible to imagine the idea o some hydrogen popping up out of nowhere than that some "Ultimate Intelligence" popped up from nowhere.
Get back to us when you can explain the existence of this "Ultimate Intelligence".Citation from CliveG. An expert who...No.
You can't claim to be an expert on something that you are wrong about.
I am surprised no-one said that my reduction in sensitivity was a precursor to a cop-out if my box tests failed.Since you are failing to do the tests, it hardly matters...
I am again experiencing overall pain (fibromyalgia).Maybe you have fibromyalgia and it's nothing to do with the phone mast.
You state I am wrong. Prove it. Or at the very least provide some serious argument to support your position.No, that's the wrong way round.
Give me a link to your "popping in and out of nowhere".I did.
Sure the Laws of Physics apply most of the time.And that's another tacit extraordinary claim.
Give me a link to your "popping in and out of nowhere".I did.
You ignored it because, I presume, you have no intention of actually seeking the truth.
Here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
I am surprised no-one said that my reduction in sensitivity was a precursor to a cop-out if my box tests failed.Since you are failing to do the tests, it hardly matters...I am again experiencing overall pain (fibromyalgia).Maybe you have fibromyalgia and it's nothing to do with the phone mast.You state I am wrong. Prove it. Or at the very least provide some serious argument to support your position.No, that's the wrong way round.
You are making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
We have provided evidence for our position; you just keep ignoring it but here it is again.
" A systematic review of medical research in 2011 found no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields.[2] Since then, several double-blind experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
And loc cit.
Okay BC. You think you have all the answers. Explain terminal lucidity.What's to explain?
I experienced this with my father a few days before he died at age 95 in a hospice facility. He had dementia and most of the time he was not even aware of who I was. He would tell me about his oldest son (me) and ask me who I was.
Yet he had 15 minutes of absolute clarity. He told me that my present wife (who went to the car to get something) was a lovely women and I had finally made a great choice. Treat her right and do not lose her. It was my last moments with him. Explain to me how a damaged brain can have such clarity? Is this not a hint that there might be more to life than just machine following the principles of laws of physics?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51497433_Terminal_lucidity_A_review_and_a_case_collection
Do you have a better explanation?
the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."
Okay BC. You think you have all the answers. Explain terminal lucidity.What's to explain?
I experienced this with my father a few days before he died at age 95 in a hospice facility. He had dementia and most of the time he was not even aware of who I was. He would tell me about his oldest son (me) and ask me who I was.
Yet he had 15 minutes of absolute clarity. He told me that my present wife (who went to the car to get something) was a lovely women and I had finally made a great choice. Treat her right and do not lose her. It was my last moments with him. Explain to me how a damaged brain can have such clarity? Is this not a hint that there might be more to life than just machine following the principles of laws of physics?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51497433_Terminal_lucidity_A_review_and_a_case_collection
He got something right- possibly by accident, and you remember it because of the context.
Do you have a better explanation?
Yes, you just quoted it.the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."
You also cannot grasp the many unusual experiences I have had that give me an insight into what the Ultimate Truth probably is. And this is where science failsNo
When I talk to some people who complain about EHS I get vague answers.
But let me not convince you.I'm happy to let you convince me.
Zero times fifty is still zero.So, you now accept that the incidence is zero.
Just a question. How can you be so certain that I do not have an insight into the Ultimate Truth?"an insight into the Ultimate Truth"
How would you prove that it is Ultimate? or True?
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.How do you sleep at night with that hungry tiger in your bedroom?
Interesting that the pain killers do not stop the pain from the microwave signals. See - another lesson learned.Painkillers work on real physical pain.
This is where one has to decide on a belief.People don't actually "decided" to believe something.
I got the insight into the Ultimate Intelligence and Ultimate Truth in about 1974.... and again
Just a question. How can you be so certain that I do not have an insight into the Ultimate Truth?"an insight into the Ultimate Truth"
What does that actually mean?
Atheists "believe" that there is no God and no spirit world. And decide that absence of evidence is the crux of the hook on which they hand their belief onto. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Irrelevant to the present discussion, but untrue. Atheism is nothing more or less than the stance that the world makes sense without anthropic deities. The rationale for this axiom is that the world does not make sense if you introduce deities, but becomes more consistent and rational the more we investigate it without such assumptions.
Atheists "believe" that there is no God and no spirit world. And decide that absence of evidence is the crux of the hook on which they hand their belief onto. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Irrelevant to the present discussion, but untrue. Atheism is nothing more or less than the stance that the world makes sense without anthropic deities. The rationale for this axiom is that the world does not make sense if you introduce deities, but becomes more consistent and rational the more we investigate it without such assumptions.
This approach does in fact allow the possibility of an ultimate truth where both words are subject to proof, because unlike any theism it doesn't require an inherently unresolvable mystery or absurdity.
read as "choose to believe"
This is where one has to decide on a belief.People don't actually "decide" to believe something.
There are clearly people who have psychic events that cannot be explained without deitiesAnd once again, you make an extraordinary claim without the benefit of any evidence.
I have had a number and it gets difficult to constantly say I have some kind of brain malfunction.It's much easier once you start saying that the phones are making your brain malfunction.
Can you admit that my hypothesis has a possibility of being true?Which?
She says she is painting her house with reflective paint.That's about as close to an experiment as we seem to get.
Atheists "take a stance" (read as "choose to believe") that deities are a contradiction to their perception of the world.Please don't tell me what I choose to believe. I choose not to believe. It's a healthy way of life.
There are clearly people who have psychic events that cannot be explained without deitiesAnd once again, you make an extraordinary claim without the benefit of any evidence.I have had a number and it gets difficult to constantly say I have some kind of brain malfunction.It's much easier once you start saying that the phones are making your brain malfunction.
But that misses the point.
There are well known carefully documented malfunctions of the brain which everyone is subject to.
For example, the placebo effect.
But you refuse to accept that normal brain function happens to you.
(snip)
Do you deny that people have mystic experiences? Or psychic experiences?You haven't defined " mystic experiences? Or psychic experiences"
Get a mirror.
All you can do is try to throw doubt onto my version of what I am saying. It is a form of denial to protect your belief system.
. Just a note about simple cause and effect.Yes the fact that you believed you would be better meant that you experienced less symptoms.
I will meet with her and hear her story. She says she is painting her house with reflective paint. That must be seriously expensive.Did that get off the ground?
I will meet with her and hear her story. She says she is painting her house with reflective paint. That must be seriously expensive.Did that get off the ground?
I should market the concept. I can make you well as long as you expect to get well.It's been done.
I should market the concept. I can make you well as long as you expect to get well.It's been done.
That's the business model of practically all alternative medicine.
And the thing is that you don't seem to understand the fact.
You think it's an idea to ridicule.
Which tells us that you are wide open to exploitation, but also that you are not in a position to look at whether your on experience is in the same category.
Enjoy your break.
Perhaps while you are there you will find other people who notice that, when they get a chance to relax, their health improves; even the ones who don't live under a phone mast.
You might even learn something from that.
I noticed that the two double doses of anti-fungal (Itraconazole) I took made a growth on my arm disappear -Or it was a coincidence.
I noticed that the two double doses of anti-fungal (Itraconazole) I took made a growth on my arm disappear -Or it was a coincidence.
You never seem to accept that coincidence is even possible- which is why you are going down badly on a science web page.
So the obvious conclusion is to stop taking Tramadol (addictive, psychoactive) and Itraconazole (usually only given as a single large dose for acute conditions - can induce resistance). But then I'm not medically qualified, just literate.
With the current virus pandemic, people who can communicate their needs (eg via mobile phone towers) will fare better than those who are cut off from communications.My phone is letting me work from home, where there's nobody to give me any infection.
That strikes me as a net health benefit from mobile phone towers.
However, the placebo effect is real and powerful, so if you believe something is making you sick, it will most likely make you sick.
The problem with phone towers is that the specific absorption rate for a person with 5 m of the tower is orders of magnitude less than for the user of a mobile phone when transmitting, and there is very little evidence of sensitivity to that.
You mean that using your phone every second of your day and every day of the year and every year of decades...near your brain, will not cause health damage ?That's very probably right.
There is no evidence for harm at the levels people use.
You mean that using your phone every second of your day and every day of the year and every year of decades...near your brain, will not cause health damage ?Yes.
Try it and we will talk about later.I am currently running the experiment on my self as is everyone I know.
Someone staying all night and part of the journey near some phone tower will be much more impacted that some people using their phone.Which in both cases is approximately 0 impact.
Those two concepts are completely unrelated and so, obviously, that's not what I meant.There is no evidence for harm at the levels people use.
You mean that the phone towers power down regulary during the day like the poeple who are using their phone ?
I am currently running the experiment on my self as is everyone I know.
Which in both cases is approximately 0 impact.
Several studies have been conducted to determine whether cell phone use can cause cancer, although they were unable to establish clear evidence. One study found a slight increase of glioma, a type of brain cancer, in a small group of people who spent a considerable amount of time on their screens. However, other studies did not find anything similar.https://www.medicinenet.com/how_do_cell_phones_affect_a_childs_brain/article.htm
As of now, healthcare organizations such as the CDC and FDA have not issued any statements regarding the link between cell phones and increased risk of cancer, including brain cancer. Research is underway to investigate where there is a link between the two.
Summary: Cell phone radiation increases the risk for a number of biological and health disorders, including gliomas and acoustic neuroma brain cancer. Researchers discuss how to reduce the risk of cell phone radiation.https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cancer-18889/
Source: UC Berkeley
For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.
Large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for most or all of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
Those two concepts are completely unrelated and so, obviously, that's not what I meant.
No you dont.So there is much less impact, got it.
The average use of cell phones per day is around 3h30.
3.30 is the same as 24.00 for you ?
Are you also concerned about radio and TV broadcasts too?
Why do you think that the manufactures tried initially to lower down the power of the cell phones ?To improve battery life.
But the phone tower, if you like to say (and it would be nice to have some reference about this) is radiating at the same power as the phone when reaching some human at 5mNo.
Exposure measurements made by one of UKHSA’s predecessor organisations can be found in 2 technical reports. The first of these focused on larger 2G base stations with their antennas mounted high above the ground and was published in 2000. It included measurements taken at 118 locations at 17 different base station sites. Average exposures were found to be 50,000 times below the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and the maximum found at any location was 500 times below the guidelines. The second report was published in 2004 and focused on a sample of smaller base stations with their antennas nearer to ground level. The results showed exposures generally between 50,000 and 50 times below the ICNIRP guideline levels at accessible locations within a few tens of metres of the antennas.
You mean that the phone towers power down regularly during the day like the poeple who are using their phone ?Interference minimization between cells is important in cellular networks. As is reducing energy bills to power the cellular network.
But the phone tower...is radiating at the same power as the phone when reaching some human at 5mI think it is good advice for hang-glider pilots and sky-divers to stay at least 5m away from cell-phone towers.
Why do you think that the manufactures tried initially to lower down the power of the cell phones ?Battery life, the fact that high power transistors are more expensive, the requirements to avoid breaking teh rules on causing EM interference.
I think it is good advice for hang-glider pilots and sky-divers to stay at least 5m away from cell-phone towers.
Why do you think they did it?
?https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sar-value-why-should-you-care-mohammad-atif
A high level of SAR is known to have ill effects on humans.
- Phones with high SAR value can potentially damage the body, particularly when you hold the phones against your ears and talk on them.
- Researchers are increasingly getting convinced that the radiation from phones can damage sperm and cause infertility.
- Men may be more susceptible to phone radiation than women on fertility.
Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentationhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22112647/
Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motilityI am not impressed with the control. As I read it:
I became electrosensitive.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sar-value-why-should-you-care-mohammad-atifWHo?