Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: EmmaHildyard on 05/08/2019 10:22:42

Title: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: EmmaHildyard on 05/08/2019 10:22:42
Clive has asked...

Does living next to a mobile phone tower (which radiates downwards, not outward) cause health problems due to cellular disruption and cause an increase in reactive oxygen species in cells?

What do you think?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/08/2019 21:22:15
What would be the point of radiating downward?

The greater exposure to radiation comes from mobile handsets, not the repeater towers.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/08/2019 14:19:14
The high density of cell phone devices and the exponential increase in usage time means that each tower can only cover a small area. Large towers (the 25m one next to us) will be placed every 200-300 houses (Telco statement to us). They no longer have directional antennae, so the pattern is almost circular and they are angled downward. The radiation in our house is the highest in the area (10 meters from the base of the mast). And confirmed by Telco measurements.

Each tower is supposed to communicate with hundreds of cell phones simultaneously. To do this, it has multiple antennae and each antenna time-slots 8 phones at a time. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The power is high to establish connection and then drops to suit. A cell phone only transmits one-eighth of the time and drops to low power once connected. I use my phone about 20 minutes a day on speaker mode.

The non-stop pulsed power in our house where I live and work is designated by some scientists and bodies as hazardous to cellular biology. The pulsing causes the "Frey"effect of body tissue heating and cooling rapidly.

I have a directional meter. Our house readings are about 3000 uW/sqm peak (about 1000 rms). The cell phone is about 250 peak while ringing at a distance of about 0.5 meter. The power density and duration is not comparable.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2019 14:37:32
The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Act puts the health effects threshold at 50 W/m^2 average. This can be approached by a 5W handset held to the ear, but 3 mW/m^2 peak would not raise any official concern.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/08/2019 16:43:48
Your statement as presented is quite correct - officially. The levels are based on short term heating effects.

But it seems the science is being overlooked, which is why I posed the question on this site.

In 1994, Henry Lai showed that the brain cells of rats suffered DNA damage at levels considered safe. Since then other studies have confirmed this.

The brain cell and nerve cells let sodium in and out to cause electrical currents to the other side. Calcium channels cause a change in cellular activity that increases reactive oxygen species which are problematic for DNA damage. Even ionizing radiation does it some of it's damage through production of these chemicals in the cell. The EH Trust has a list of studies

Other studies show that even if there is not damage, there can be neurological effects at low levels. Living cells use electrically sensitive chemical channels in the wall of the cell membrane to interact and communicate. 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?UK
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2019 16:57:42
No, the UK exposure limit is based on occupational exposure at 8 hours per day.

If there is a significant neural effect, you will know it. I have seen reports of squid axon response at half-wave resonance and we use very powerful pulsed magnetic fields to test for nerve damage, but the routine use of 25 kW RF generators in MRI clinics seems not to harm the staff and only occasionally to fry the patients.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2019 19:27:39
The pulsing causes the "Frey"effect
Our house readings are about 3000 uW/sqm peak

" In Frey's tests, a repetition rate of 50 Hz was used, with pulse width between 10–70 microseconds. The perceived loudness was found to be linked to the peak power density, instead of average power density. At 1.245 GHz, the peak power density for perception was below 80 mW/cm2."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect#Research_in_the_U.S.

So you are exposed to 3mw/sq m
And the effect is noticed at 80 mW/cm2
There are 10,000 cm2 in a m2
so you are about 5 orders of magnitude below the threshold for the effect you mention.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 07/08/2019 20:30:52
Quote from: CliveG
each antenna time-slots 8 phones at a time. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
When 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.

With 5G mobile using "MIMO" antennas, transmission is very directional, so most of the radiation that you receive will be aimed at the phone in your pocket. It doesn't matter how many other phones are active, as their transmissions are aimed at those phones, not your phone.

If you are worried about it (needlessly, IMHO), it is best to download big files (eg new versions of the OS) via your WiFi - even better if you put the phone next to your WiFi point, while you make breakfast in another room...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-user_MIMO
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/08/2019 09:07:44
Some interesting answers. I will respond to one at a time over the next couple of days.

The Frey effect experiments chose certain parameters to demonstrate that when people claimed to hear microwaves that it was not their imagination. That does not rule out similar effects at different powers, carrier signal frequencies and pulsing rates. It does not rule out microscopic heating and expansion of tissue such as brain cells.

A marked increase in tinnitus was the first symptom my wife and I experienced in the first two months when exposed to the 3,000 uW/sqm. It was very noticeable to me that my ability to hear dropped quickly and considerably. I had to ask my mates to repeat themselves when sitting at the monthly lunch meeting with some old school friends. I am 70 years old but have always had excellent hearing.

When I went to a bush resort for a few days, I joined a meditation class where we were asked to listen to sounds around us. A clock ticking, a bird chirping and so on. I was not aware of any tinnitus. When I drove back into the city I noticed the tinnitus coming back. I will have to repeat this experiment to check it.

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?

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.

Johannesburg has a huge increase in cell towers. And 5G appears to be in use with hundreds if not thousands of towers. Every commercial rooftop has many antennae. They are sprouting by the day. Poles every 2 to 3 hundred meters along the roads. Among the reasons for the growth are 1) there was never a good copper network, 2) cables get stolen, 3) we have very high cell phone tariffs, 4) there is almost no regulation. So we have 2G, 3G, 4G and now 5G all broadcasting.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2019 10:38:36
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/08/2019 12:31:25
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.

This has hints of a delightful urban legend. While it may be true, there are a number of cases where it is not.

I got to know of a case where there was a law suit. The company claimed that the cell tower had not been powered on for two weeks, and this has been quoted by the company for many years.  It would seem to those in the know that the tower was indeed on for those two weeks and the claim was settled with a non-disclosure agreement.

In our case, in January this year, the tower was supposed to be off yet at 4 pm my wife developed a "tower headache" and told me at 6 pm when I got home. She hardly ever gets headaches for any reason. I measured the output with my meter and it was at full power (3,000 uW/sqm peak in our kitchen) and stayed that way for 36 hours. At 11 am, I had taken a reading to check it was off and it was. (Normal tower off reading was less that 4 uW/sqm in any direction).

The cell company produced an electrical consumption record showing no consumption during that week. They were not too smart because they added the energy consumption to a "test day" 10 days later, where the company and I agreed that the tower be powered for only 1 hours for testing. So the test day had a reading greater that any normal "full power" days which is impossible - even with battery charging which caused an additional 1/2 hour of power output on the test day. There being no power for days before and after the test day.

A worker I employed laying shielding in our ceiling complained of a similar headache and dizziness on the last days. He said "You do not understand until it happens to you".

I can get the same headache if exposed for more than an hour. The problem is that it seems the continuous exposure over six months has sensitized me and I get the headache even with about 20-60 uW/sqm.

Some tower complaints are about the noise from the generators when city power is down, and some complaints are noise from the cooling fans.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2019 16:15:42
Seems as though you have a strong case for demonstrating blind correlation, and worth investigating.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 09/08/2019 17:33:48
Quote
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.
- The blood supply to your knee can easily take away this much heat.

If you go for a walk in the garden, sunlight hitting your knee could be as much as 10W.
- The blood supply to your knee can easily take away this much heat.
- I suggest that you treat a walk in the garden as a regular part of your physiotherapy.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2019 18:29:24
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
from about 55 seconds.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 00:10:22
This has hints of a delightful urban legend.
I still have the tapes.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/08/2019 11:01:42
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.

As a young engineer, I was tasked with testing distribution substations before handover. This was often done months before the station was put into service. My first one was for an iron ore mine at Sishen in SA. After doing all my tests and verifying everything was functional, the consulting engineer arrived and asked me to switch on the transformer and manually take the tap changer through from top to bottom and then bottom to top. I said that the incoming line was already 10% over voltage and the automatic feature would drive the tap changer to put the full primary winding in circuit.

He insisted and I called the office who called the manufacturer who said I could do it, but the transformer could take it for 30 minutes and no more. When the tap changer got the point where the least amount of windings were in circuit, the racket this huge transformer made was frightening. It seemed it would vibrate off the concrete foundations. The substation shook and the windows rattled as the magnetic flux flowed out into the steel walls.

Had this happened to the substation your father visited, the residents would have been alarmed and complaining. Their windows and houses would have rattled never mind the hum. The complaint would go up the chain to upper management who would order an investigation. Down the chain, a middle manager would order a sound test be done. By this time the station was dead and waiting. And such departments do not talk to each other. Your Dad does the tapes. He can hear the substation is dead. No hum. No high voltage corona or crackle. Just his chuckling (not recorded).

And an urban legend is born.

And yes, in this case the Electricity Board IS to blame.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2019 11:17:44
While it may be true, there are a number of cases where it is not.
That makes no sense.
There's only 1 case.
It's the case where Alan's dad was there.

Here's another story...
When I bought my house there was a substation at the foot of the garden (since decommissioned + removed).
I was delighted because it kept the price down slightly.
Interestingly, it didn't feed my street- it supplied the next street along.
I have heard that they do that deliberately. The extra 100 yards or so of cable acts as a (rather low) resistance which limits the potential  fault current.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/08/2019 11:22:18
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.

Thanks for the good laugh. Love British humour. Had UK and US shows in Zimbabwe where I was born and raised.

This too has relevance. Toxic industries have a history of creating scientific doubt: Tobacco (the ones who perfected the art and are still going strong); leaded gasoline/petrol; radium paint; thalidomide; Vioxx. Global warming is a recent one as is talcum powder.

They are called the "Merchants of Doubt" (there is a book by that title), and the cell phone industry is now a "Master of Doubt" as well as a "Master of Hiding the Truth". Parody and ridicule are among the tools used to good effect.

In South African there are 10 corporate headquarters. Not one has any towers close to them and none have antennae on their buildings. One such building had massive numbers of them a few years ago and they took them all off. The headquarters of ICNIRP (the global limit recommending body that the UK follows for public and occupational exposure) and that of the WHO radiation group have readings of about 2 uW/sqm.

Does that suggest that they KNOW the dangers? I think so. What ever I may think of their ethics, they are not stupid.

The industry cannot get insurance of any health claims the may arise in the future. (Note: the coal industry just became un-insurable.)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 11:28:35
Had this happened to the substation your father visited,
It didn't.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2019 11:42:05
Does that suggest that they KNOW the dangers?
No.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/08/2019 11:49:32
Had this happened to the substation your father visited,
It didn't.

Okay. I have known some very strange things to happen so I will accept your version.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/08/2019 07:35:52
This might just be a final post. I had hoped that a micro-cellular biologist would give an opinion.

The tower was powered on 1 July 2018, was down from 12 Dec 2018 to 12 March 2019 when it was powered up again.

I had taken part in a human experiment and have suffered permanent damage as a result. Some symptoms have eased up but a decrease in memory and brain function is the worst. I have aged 10 years in that time. My digestion is dysfunctional and I have lost weight (so far so good). My wife is suffering stress, hearing loss and loss of memory function.

I moved out of the house on 7 July 2019 in order to avoid the headaches and nausea that occur within hours of being in the house.

This last Tuesday I attempted to sleep over with my wife who insists on staying although she recognizes we must sell and move. I delayed putting foil on my leg and the foil was broken at night. On Wednesday I suffered with pains in my knee, which only abated that night. On Friday I thought I was just popping in for a short visit but it turn out to be 3 1/2 hours. I again delayed putting the foil on for two hours. On Saturday I had sharp pains in the new knee joint which again abated that night. There is little doubt in my mind about the cause and effect of the tower radiation.

The most definitive indication of cell damage was a 17 year old boy in our suburb who got upper right arm cancer after a mini-tower (5G) was placed outside their home. His right arm faces the window when he works at his desk and computer. The cancer was a giant cell bone cancer which is know to only occur when a child goes through a growth spurt and has had a number of xrays or radiation of some sort.

There are other bone cancers and leukemia around the large towers in our area.

In 2013 the Italian highest court rejected any ICNIRP evidence as being industry biased and awarded damages to an Telcom executive who got brain cancer resulting in hearing loss. He used a company cell phone for 3 hours a day for 15 years. He said that the he was only supposed to use it 1 hour a day as a safety precaution.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/08/2019 07:45:33
I forgot to add that my wife was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma (malignant skin cancer) on her left cheek in the first week of December 2018. She has light and sensitive skin so she is pre-disposed to cancer on her face. She is 66 years old.

However, getting it 5 months after the tower was powered up makes it hard to ascribe the cancer to "just bad luck". Especially seeing this type of cancer was studied around towers in Brazil which found an increased incidence. It was cut out and felt fine during the power down, but now, even with the reduced radiation, she feels it is "not right". I worry about her.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2019 09:26:52
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.
It's bound to happen within 6 months of something notable.

"13) Blind-spot bias

The tendency to spot biases much more in others than you do in yourself. If, while going through this article, you could only think of others who have such biases and not yourself, then you may have fallen prey to this type of bias.

The fact that I'm noticing a bias in you of noticing others' bias makes me think that I may have fallen prey to this bias too."

From
https://www.psychmechanics.com/2015/10/13-cognitive-biases-that-impede-our.html
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/08/2019 07:11:12
@Blind Chemist

Very astute of you to notice that you too may be prey to blind spot bias. I am very aware of this phenomenon.

The reason I attribute the cancer to the tower radiation is that a number of epidemiological studies ("cohort studies") have found increases in cancers around towers. There is the National Toxicology Program study which found cancer in rats, and also the Ramazzini study which had similar conclusions.

One must always be aware of co-morbidity regarding carcinogenic environmental and genetic predispositions. Some people are genetically more likely to get certain cancers. Breast cancer is a typical one. But recently an oncologist on Hard Talk said that he is seeing breast cancers in women who should not be getting breast cancer because there appears to be no triggering factors. Not only that but he was seeing new and novel cancers.

A person we know got cancer in her left breast. She used to put her phone in her bra next to her left breast. The lady was obsessed with using her cell phone all the time. A doctor I know specializing in hematology, said that she is seeing new and novel blood cancers. In all of these case, they are mystified as to the cause. Of course we have increases in environmental pollutants and they too add to the contributing factors. But to discount microwave radiation is putting ones scientific head in the sand.

A small town in the USA had a case where some students were relocated temporarily. Four male classmates all developed a rare bone cancer within 6 months of each other (rare meaning about 200-600 cases a year in the US). Everyone said there must be a proximate cause. But they were mystified once more. Was there a tower nearby? The thinking is such that it was not a consideration.

Cancer rates have increased dramatically in the last two decades. So have other health problems. Other environmental issues are slow. The 20 year span correlates with the increase in health issues.

The Nordic countries were among the first to implement cell phone technology about 20 years ago. Their longevity which was previously increasing has shown a decline over that period. Their average IQ shows a similar decline. The previous decline in global IQ was in the 1930 with leaded petrol but that effect disappeared and IQs began increasing once more.

I see the effect in our dogs. Once a happy bouncing pair, they are now depressed. They sleep most of the time. They would rather lie down than come and great us when we get home. A side benefit is that they no longer bark at anything that disturbs them. Shame. I expect they will not live long. Yes I am aware that dogs are sensitive to their owners moods but this is too much.

Given the exponential rise in cell radiation (now 5G millimeter waves added), I would expect to see an exponential rise in health problems. (Tip - Sell any health insurance stock.) The human health experiment will tell us in no uncertain terms in a few years. The lung cancer rate for men followed the smoking graph almost exactly except for a delay of 20 years.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/08/2019 07:22:11
Quote from: CliveG
each antenna time-slots 8 phones at a time. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
When 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.

Not according to my meter!

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.

The power is maximum when phones are trying to connect or are not actively engaged in talking to each other. This means that even distant phones might be "polled" at high power.

This was contrary to my expectations. I struggle to get find articles about operation and power and directionality for the particular type (or any type) of antennae located next door. Even in court they would not give such information.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2019 07:27:09
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2019 07:28:17
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?
Unless you can answer that, you just have selection bias.
You don't have evidence.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2019 07:30:13
"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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/08/2019 07:37:28
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/08/2019 16:02:17
Interesting answers.

The high night reading anecdote was to demonstrate that low use periods do not correlate with low power periods. The fact that we were woken up by the high readings is incidental and is a minor correlation. I tried to get hold of a reliable meter that I could put a 24 hour monitor on but have not been successful. I am going to ask a University Department to assist.

With regard to EHS experiments one has to consider the fact that the industry promotes studies designed to fail. One study started out with too few people. A built-in fail. Then they made the most sensitive sick so that they opted out of the study. And they test for immediate reaction, which is a known fail. It takes me about 2 hours to get a headache. It also made me sick the next day. I went through a week of fine one day, sick the next until I realized that the sequence of events was that when I felt good I worked in the house with high radiation. The next day I was sick and stayed in bed (in the garage with low radiation). This happened five times. Clear reproducible evidence.

Although I like Wikipedia the industry targets it with excellent propaganda knowing people use it as you have done. This sentence is in your reference. "In 2010, a cell tower operator in South Africa revealed at a public meeting that the tower that nearby residents were blaming for their current EHS symptoms had been turned off over six weeks prior to the meeting, thus making it a highly unlikely cause of EHS symptoms." This is exactly the incident I referred to earlier. The legal claim was settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement. They were caught out but they still quote the lie.

In my court case (still on-going) there has been clear and blatant perjury, but one judged turned a blind eye forcing me into appeals.

Regarding cancer latency one has to know the mechanisms. Some cancers are caused when the cumulative damage is such that further damage is not repaired or the defective cell not destroyed (apoptosis or immune-system attack). All is takes is one cancerous cell to start the chain. In my wife's case, the skins cells on her cheeks were already damaged by the sun. Massive cell phone tower microwave radiation on a constant basis causes the cells to undergo defective reproduction. It is a game of probability. How many cells dividing and how many microwave photons hitting the cell at the wrong place at the wrong time? Do the numbers.

This is the problem with the unchecked expansion of cell infrastructure. Radio and TV waves had low numbers of low energy photons. (Every EM wave is made up of photons whose energy and number can be calculate using Planks Constant). Now add 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G plus all the Wifi devices. They are additive in terms of both numerical density and energy density.

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. 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.

The key problem is the macro effect of the electrical field on the ion channels which disrupt the reactive oxygen species which in turn has the potential to cause cancer. The illness comes about from enzymes being put out of balance by the electrical field. Particularly the calcium channels which are highly sensitive. Look at the production of cell materials such as the proteins that form these channels. The machinery to string various amino acids together following the gene expression in the DNA. These proteins are then folded into tight interwoven bundles in such a way as to allow only one or two ions of calcium to pass at a time if there is tiny variation in membrane voltage differential.

Take the stages of evolution of a single fertilized egg that must divide and divide. The first few divisions are all the same but then they differentiate to get top and bottom, left and right, and front and back. The signals to do this are incredibly small. And these can be disturbed by pulsing microwaves that are also polarized.

Our circadian clock was developed at the time of single celled organisms. It was used so that repair and reproduction took place at night. It is so much a part of living cells that even molluscs that live in darkness in deep water follow a daily rhythm rather than a tidal rhythm.

One has to go to a molecular level and check out the processes. They have built-in self-repair mechanisms to cope with the high levels of environmental damage. I think the figure is 1600 repairs per cell per day. Cell phone/tower radiation is not natural and the cells will not adapt.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/08/2019 16:17:11
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?
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.

There was clearly a common cause, and the families wanted answers which they did not get. The industry controls the response to such events - and that is no conspiracy theory. The response by Motorola to Henry Lai shows the "war plans" they have.

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. Everyone is getting higher and higher levels of exposure. 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, then the studies by cellular university microbiologists will finally be given their just due. I would not want to be a cell phone executive then.

I can tell you that I know of many towers here in SA that have clusters of problems. They are not studied and the anecdotal problems are suppressed.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/08/2019 17:44:19
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).

The principal excitation from radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is heating, so with very high microwave intensities you might expect some cooking of tissues with poor blood supply - cataract being the most common manifestation, with a fairly short lead time.. Yet this doesn't seem to be a reported effect of cellphone towers. 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2019 19:00:10
Those students must have had a high and sustained dose.
That particular fallacy is called "begging the question"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

There was clearly a common cause
That is also  "begging the question"
You have offered no reason to suppose that they were not just unlucky.
The industry controls the response to such events
How?
In particular, in a country like mine where healthcare is paid for by the government, how to those who provoke cancers influence the  government?
One problem is now the global lack of a control group.
That didn't stop you.
You offered a tale of 4 men, but didn't say how many other groups of 4 men didn't get cancer.

How come you only notice that it's a bad study when someone else does it?

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 problems
And, 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.
As you say
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.
I suspect that it was first said before I was born.
We are still waiting for the "epidemic".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 14/08/2019 20:03:49
Okay enough of some unscientific evidence that might worry the average person who is not science-minded. Note that very often anecdotal evidence precedes a scientific investigation.

How many proofs of harm versus non-harm does it take? Just ONE. But there are thousands since 1994. Here is one that is a bit out of date (2010) that I selected rather randomly from the list published on Powerwatch (see the the number of studies showing harm versus no harm).

Now they made sure that there was no heating effect. Note also that modulation appears to be a factor.

How do you discount such a study?

Neurosci Lett. 2010 Mar 31;473(1):52-5. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.02.018. Epub 2010 Feb 13.
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.

Dipartimento di Chimica Biologica, Chimica Medica e Biologia Molecolare, Università degli Studi di Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, I-95125 Catania, Italy. campisag@unict.it

The exposure of primary rat neocortical astroglial cell cultures to acute electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the microwave range was studied. Differentiated astroglial cell cultures at 14 days in vitro were exposed for 5, 10, or 20 min to either 900 MHz continuous waves or 900 MHz waves modulated in amplitude at 50 Hz using a sinusoidal waveform and 100% modulation index. The strength of the electric field (rms value) at the sample position was 10 V/m. 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 20 min. No evident effects were detected when shorter time intervals or continuous waves were used. The irradiation conditions allowed the exclusion of any possible thermal effect. Our data demonstrate, for the first time, that even acute exposure to low intensity EMF induces ROS production and DNA fragmentation in astrocytes in primary cultures, which also represent the principal target of modulated EMF. Our findings also suggest the hypothesis that the effects could be due to hyperstimulation of the glutamate receptors, which play a crucial role in acute and chronic brain damage. Furthermore, the results show the importance of the amplitude modulation in the interaction between EMF and neocortical astrocytes.


My note: 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 membrane. If one goes down to the distances that the voltage sensing proteins operate over, the voltage becomes even less. Other studies show that these voltage sensing proteins are incredibly sensitive.

It appears cells adapt to conditions. Hence one has to vary the microwave field. The pulsing of the cell tower radiation is of a frequency that is particularly nasty. The power pulsing for 2G, 3G and 5G can be seen at
this site wi-cancer.info/antenna_sickness. This quote appears there:
The late Robert C. Kane, Ph.D., whose career included electrical engineering for Motorola, advised: "The belief that microwaves cannot cause bond breaking in chromosomes or DNA, or damage tissue more generally is quite inaccurate. Since the energy absorption mechanism is not the same as that for ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, the mechanisms of energy transfer that cause the bond breaking may be different. However the result is quite evident--DNA and chromosomal damage…. It’s not just happening at one frequency and it’s not just being observed by researchers in one laboratory. The same chromosome and DNA damages are being reported at frequencies across the entire range, including 100 MHz [FM radio], 300 MHz, 837 MHz, 954 MHz [cell phones] 1,250 MHz, 2,450 MHz [2.45 gigahertz: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart phones], and up to 9000 MHz  [9 gigahertz: vehicle-to-vehicle radar systems]."
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.

Are you guys really so sure that cell towers are safe?

To check on levels and distances from cell towers there is a good summary of the numbers at
emfrf.com/rf-radiation-levels-from-cellular-towers/
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/08/2019 23:39:56
So you suggest an electric field of around 10 V/m might stimulate some response within a cell. Have you measured the field strength in your home?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 15/08/2019 01:02:40
Quote
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 membrane
A cell membrane is about 5nm thick.
So 10V/m would mean that the membrane experiences a voltage of about 10V/m x 5 x10-9m = 50 x10-9V
For a nerve cell,the voltage across the membrane ranges from about +40mV to -90mV.

So the external field is about 1 million times weaker than the naturally occurring voltages.

Of course, a water-filled human body modifies the volts per meter compared to what you would experience in air...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#Process_in_a_typical_neuron
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/08/2019 06:11:52
Both posts are missing the salient points made.

You are using arguments made by the cell industry to support their claims that there are no effects other than heating. The study quoted disproves that claim. Now we are talking about levels and duration for various effects in humans.

There are many other studies showing that at much lower levels (less than the levels in my house) there are hormonal disruptions and other mood altering changes. Dr Martin Palls deal with the question of potential across VGCC (voltage gated calcium channels) to cause a variety of problems. Note that we are talking about the CHANGE in potential difference to cause an effect. Indicating a huge range also misses the point.

Could you address the question of the number of studies that indicate both physical harm (such as cancer) and neurological effects?

ICNIRP, the body that sets the guidelines, ignores such studies. Once can look at their reviews and see that they actually do so.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/08/2019 06:47:02
I repeat: have you measured the field strength in your home?

Physics is about numbers.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/08/2019 14:55:03
I repeat: have you measured the field strength in your home?

Physics is about numbers.

I wholeheartedly agree.

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” ― Lord Kelvin

The initial exposure in the our home was about 3,800 uW/sqm which equates to about 1.2 V/m.

Now this is limited by the response time of the meter. When one takes a 2 V/m 900 Mhz pulse, adds a 2 V/m 1.8Gz pulse then a 2 V/m 2.4 G pulse one easily gets instantaneous 6 V/m pulses. Then factor in standing waves and one can exceed 10 V/m on a fairly continuous basis although the peaks are of short duration. This series of peaks, 24 hours a day every day can and does do harm.

You will see that 10 minutes gave no effect but 20 minutes did. The industry (through ICNIRP) maintains that dose is not a factor. It is almost a given that ANY environmental stress on living tissue is dose dependent and the longer the exposure the worse the outcomes.

My wife and I did not really experience any negative effects the first couple of weeks (that we were aware of). The symptoms and the effects got worse with time. When the tower was switched off it took 3 weeks for my wife to feel that a most of the symptoms had lessened.

The effect of tiny pulsed voltages on the cell membrane channels has been computer modeled and indicates how the pulsing interferes with the transfer of ions in the channel.

The cell companies can no longer use their standard arguments. Science and the knowledge of cellular microbiology is advancing very rapidly. Science knows the mechanism and science is able to put the numbers to the effects that are been seen.

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.

Before I purchased my RF meter I noticed that I could feel the highest radiation at a certain spot in the garden. I got a sharp pain down my right side for about 4 inches. At times in our bedroom, when lying down I also got the pain, but it would be accompanied by a sharp pain across the top of my abdomen - also about 4 inches. A doctor I consulted with examined me and discovered a small lump in my side. He said I that I had a small traumatic neuroma which was a group of nerves without the typical myelin sheath occurring from an old injury. The pain actually was only coming from the one small spot and the rest was "referred pain".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/08/2019 15:14:21
Look up Neoplasm in Wikipedia. Here is a quote

DNA damage is considered to be the primary underlying cause of malignant neoplasms known as cancers. Its central role in progression to cancer is illustrated in the figure in this section, in the box near the top. (The central features of DNA damage, epigenetic alterations and deficient DNA repair in progression to cancer are shown in red.) DNA damage is very common.

Naturally occurring DNA damages (mostly due to cellular metabolism and the properties of DNA in water at body temperatures) occur at a rate of more than 60,000 new damages, on average, per human cell, per day [also see article DNA damage (naturally occurring) ].

Additional DNA damages can arise from exposure to exogenous agents. Tobacco smoke causes increased exogenous DNA damage, and these DNA damages are the likely cause of lung cancer due to smoking. UV light from solar radiation causes DNA damage that is important in melanoma.

Helicobacter pylori infection produces high levels of reactive oxygen species that damage DNA and contributes to gastric cancer. Bile acids, at high levels in the colons of humans eating a high fat diet, also cause DNA damage and contribute to colon cancer. Katsurano et al. indicated that macrophages and neutrophils in an inflamed colonic epithelium are the source of reactive oxygen species causing the DNA damages that initiate colonic tumorigenesis. Some sources of DNA damage are indicated in the boxes at the top of the figure in this section.


Also look up Naturally Occurring DNA Damage in Wikipedia.

Inflammation is often caused by infection, such as with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) or Helicobacter pylori). Chronic inflammation is also a central characteristic of obesity. Such inflammation causes oxidative DNA damage. This is due to the induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by various intracellular inflammatory mediators. HBV and HCV infections, in particular, cause 10,000-fold and 100,000-fold increases in intracellular ROS production, respectively. Inflammation-induced ROS that cause DNA damage can trigger apoptosis, but may also cause cancer if repair and apoptotic processes are insufficiently protective.


In 2011, my late wife and I contracted systemic distributed histoplasmosis (probably because a fluoroquinolone antibiotic allowed the fungus past the lung barrier and into our blood stream. She died 6 month later from colon cancer which was likely triggered from the inflammation. I nearly died until finding out from a caver what I might have. The doctors and specialists at that time (2011) told me it was not possible because only immune compromised persons (HIV usually - which I do not have) get infected. I had to get a source of itraconazole and treat myself before the doctor conceded I indeed had it. After 8 years, I am still on antifungals. If I stop for a while I get fungal growths on my skin that look like cancer.

Both fluoroquinolone and fungal infections are known to cause increased sensitivity to cell phone radiation. Once more - scientific studies.

Yes. I am a regular walking talking lab rat.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2019 19:01:10
Physics is about numbers.
Good point.
Also, medical science is about double blind trials.
Epidemiology is about getting good numbers.
I'm still waiting for any in this thread
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.".

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2019 07:50:49
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.

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.
 
PS you can't arbitrarily add the field amplitudes of EM  radiation at different frequencies.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 11:07:14
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.

It is one of the points of failure, but we are beginning to get some consensus.

Here is a typical "safe" argument one can find in many places on the internet: (this one called scientific mythbusting as well)
Cell phones are unlikely to cause cancer because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and therefore generate mutations that can lead to cancer. This is called ionizing radiation. Radiation of this strength can knock electrons off molecules and atoms in your body, causing real harm. However, electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, and television and radio signals is non-ionizing, and therefore too weak to break those bonds. This is why we don't worry about radios, televisions, and microwave ovens causing cancer. Likewise, the radiation produced by cell phones is non-ionizing. Generally, anything below visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum is safe.

Here another articles says:
In relation to EMF and health the World Health Organization (WHO) says, "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."

This is is called weasel-wording because while it can be defended by the authors if one examines each and every part. It is however deceptive because when they say "All reviews..." they mean all their reviews. And when they say "known adverse health effect" they mean a health effect that the medical and scientific community has reached consensus on. This will not happen for a while because of the suppression of information, and the disinformation and doubt by the industry. They do give themselves and "out" by stating that there are "gaps in knowledge".

In law suits, they never state that the radiation is "safe" - only that they are following the guidelines.

Here is a quote from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift" who argues that the following "accepted science" is wrong

"Most physicists and many health authorities will tell you that NIR cannot cause cancer because it doesn’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds. For example, according to the National Cancer Institute, U.S. [2], Radiofrequency  energy,  unlike  ionizing radiation,  does  not  cause  DNA  damage  that  can  lead  to  cancer. Its  only  consistently  observed  biological  effect  in  humans  is  tissue heating.  And, according to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority  [3], there  is  no  biologically  plausible  mechanism  to support a carcinogenic effect of non-ionizing RF waves."

She goes on to say why - and that leads me to the next post about your second part.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 11:13:07
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. 

Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".
We are in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to our understanding of the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies generated by our use of electricity, electronics and wireless technology. Ionizing radiation (IR) has enough energy to break chemical bonds and is known to cause cancer. However, because non-ionizing radiation (NIR) lacks this energy, it was assumed that these lower frequencies cannot be carcinogenic. This concept is based on a flawed assumption. 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. While the mechanisms differ, the consequences of both NIR and IR are the same–oxidative stress resulting in cellular damage including cancer

So we are beginning to get consensus about free radicals, their production and their role in cancer.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 11:32:01
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.

Your statement is in general correct. But when it comes to instantaneous values that are in phase one can. If at a point in space and time two different frequencies have a peak at in the same vector direction then simple arithmetic addition can be applied. I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees) or circularly polarized. They can reflect from various surfaces and take part in the combining process.

Here is a study (Panagopoulos 2015) dealing with polarization:
In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized.

Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field.

Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR.

This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects.


He goes on:
The recorded biological effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates and intracellular concentrations of different biomolecules, to DNA and protein damage, which may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or even cancer. Under the weight of this evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 11:36:31
Missed your second last post. About to sign off and get back later but saw this from Magda Havas (2017) that I used in a prior post.


[9].EPIDEMIOLOGICAL   STUDIES   OF   CANCER   AND EXPOSURE  TO  RADIO  FREQUENCY  RADIATION (RFR)For  radio  frequency  and  microwave  radiation  generated by  wireless  technology,  the  scientific  literature  documents an increased risk of ipsilateral gliomas, meningiomas, acoustic neuromas, and salivary gland tumors, associated with mobile phone use for 10 years or longer. 

Similarly women who keep their cell phones in their bras for at least 10 years, have a greater risk of development multifocal breast cancer in the area in contact with the cell phone, and men who keep their cell phone in their pocket in standby mode have a greater risk of developing testicular cancer. 

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.

While  health  care  authorities  will  say  that  the  scientific evidence  is inconclusive, unconvincing  and/or inconsistent,  the fact  that  so  many  studies  in  different  countries  using  different methods are getting similar results cannot be dismissed so easily.  Clearly there is a discrepancy between theory and observation.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2019 18:13:11
This is is called weasel-wording
No.
It's just stating the case scientifically.
It will never be possible to say that **** is safe.
It will only ever be possible to say that all the evidence so far shows that **** is not hazardous.

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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2019 18:25:14
Your statement is in general correct.
Never mind "in general"
He's just right.
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"?

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


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.
so  many  studies  in  different  countries  using  different methods are getting similar results
Yes.
The result is that  living near a phone mast isn't an EM radiation hazard.
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)?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 18:51:49
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.

Really? It says that people near masts have a greater risk of cancer (that those who do not live close to masts) - as do people occupationally exposed (who have greater risk of cancer as opposed to those not occupationally exposed).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 19:34:01
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.

I already made the point about the inability to prove a negative in my post reply #34 where I also pointed to a list of peer-reviewed studies (Powerwatch) where the number indicating harm outnumber those not indicating harm. The site page starts with:

When it comes to EMF issues, one of the most frequently heard phrases is "There is no evidence to support EMFs having health effects" or simply "There is no conclusive evidence".

This is completely wrong; there is an enormous body of evidence out there, but public and even academic awareness seems to be very poor.


How about this article published in the International Journal of Oncology by Lennart Hardell titled World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack

....Epidemiological studies provided supportive evidence of increased risk for head and brain tumours, i.e., acoustic neuroma and glioma. The working group reached the conclusion that RF radiation from devices that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz-300 GHz, is a Group 2B, i.e. a 'possible', human carcinogen. Later studies have corroborated these findings and have thus strengthened the evidence.

Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks.

A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and cancer. An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in rats. Acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma is a similar type of tumour as the one found in the heart, although benign. Thus, this animal study supported human epidemiological findings on RF radiation and brain tumour risk.


Why is the NTP study and the Ramazzini study not indicative of harm?

As for ICNIRP the paper says this:

ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO) based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry.

In contrast to ICNIRP, the BioInitiative Reports from 2007 and updated in 2012, based the evaluation also on non-thermal health effects from RF radiation.

 The scientific benchmark for possible health risks was defined to be 30 to 60 µW/m2. Thus, using the significantly higher guideline by ICNIRP gives a 'green card' to roll out the wireless digital technology thereby not considering non-thermal health effects from RF radiation. Numerous health hazards are disregarded such as cancer, effects on neurotransmitters and neuroprotection, blood-brain-barrier, cognition, psychological addiction, sleep, behavioral problems and sperm quality.

No doubt the IARC decision started a world-wide spinning machine to question the evaluation. It was similar to the one launched by the tobacco industry when IARC was studying and evaluating passive smoking as a carcinogen in the 1990s. Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt about scientific facts is a well-known strategy used by the tobacco and other industries.


That same report lists a variety of studies that shown harm.

You do not comment on why these studies are not valid. They are scientifically accepted.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 19:42:09
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

Typical tactic of cell industry - heap scorn and ridicule. Possibly a troll paid by them put that passing phrase there. Who gets to call who a loon?

Havas
Bio
Degrees

B.Sc. Honors Biology, University of Toronto, 1971-1975
Ph.D. Department of Botany, University of Toronto, 1975-1980
Academic History
Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

2002-present: Member, Centre for Health Studies
1995-97 & 92-94: Board of Governors
1993-94: Member of Senate
1990-present: Cross Appointed to Biology Department
1989-present: Associate Professor, Environmental & Resource Studies
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

1985-89: Cross Appointed to Faculty of Forestry,
1983-1988: NSERC University Research Fellow/Assistant Professor, Instititue of Environmental Studies
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

1981-83: NSERC NATO Postdoctoral Fellow, Section of Ecology & Systematics (with Professor Gene E. Likens)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 19:44:48
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"?

To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/08/2019 19:57:15
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)?

You sound as if you are arguing that God does not exist - similar statements regarding logical fallacies.

Why do you need to know "How"? Many harmful substances were accepted as harmful long before the "How" became known. The mechanisms are now becoming understood as molecular biology makes rapid advances.

Just read some of the better ones on sites such as BioInitiative, EnviroHealth Trust and read articles by Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr, Martin Pall.

Is there a reason you are avoiding these?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:14:35
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?

You sound as if you are arguing that God does not exist
I have worn worse cloaks
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 01:19:20
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/08/2019 05:52:49
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?

You are avoiding the elephant in the room. I need not go into antennae basics. Those who are interested can look it up.

The elephant is the numerous studies that show HOW harm is caused and support the both the surveys and the complaints of people who have suffered harm.

And the studies on rats (studies on humans are illegal when one knows one is going to cause harm) that show cell EMFs (radiations) CAN and DO cause cancer.

Your digressions onto topics of minor relevance is an indication of someone who is avoiding the truth of the bigger picture. I hope the any visitors to this topic focus on the relevant issues.

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. They too side-stepped the challenge by saying something about my imagination.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/08/2019 06:29:48
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?

The direct evidence is the many scientific studies, as well as the many instances where people are being harmed. If you don't read the studies, and indicate why their scientific peers should not be accepting them, how can you say there is no evidence? The NPT and Ramazzini studies show the harm to living organisms and the cellular studies show the how.

It appears you choosing to set your bar for "scientific acceptance" impossibly high - a standard that no other field of study uses. Our knowledge is not perfect, especially in human biology. That is no reason to reject the conclusions that many scientists are reaching.

The neurologist I consulted told me that she is seeing cases where WiFi is the probable cause. One was the increase in epilepsy in young children. She had a patient who realized that there was a pattern to his illness. 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.

ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS) to cell microwaves is an accepted medical diagnosis. There is a medical doctor in South Africa who is on a disability grant for the condition. There are other countries who recognize the condition. 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.

My symptoms manifested physically in no uncertain terms, and could be related to the tower because they would only manifest when I had a day or two of exposure followed by little exposure when the symptoms mostly cleared. Regrettably there has been permanent damage to myself and my wife.

A relative of mine works in the burn unit at a major hospital. She says they also get the Stevens Johnson cases. I looked this up. It is a condition where the immune system reject the out layers of skin and mucous membranes which then peel off. It is thought (not proven) that the trigger is either a medication or a pathogen or both. They have worked out a treatment based on these assumptions. Using your logic this condition does not exist because the how is poorly understood.

After all our exchanges I can only conclude that you are swimming in that famous river in Egypt (De Nile). Or you are actively and deliberately trying to discredit the science
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2019 10:54:13
I'll admit to not having read many recent studies, but I have an interest in cancer clusters and I did chair a conference on the subject of EM health effects some years ago. None of the papers was sponsored by any industrial interest. Here's what I took away.

Lots of things can modify or disrupt cell transport and DNA in vitro. Petrol/air mixture can explode. Both phenomena are a long way from the clinical expression of cancer in vivo, or a working motor car.

The epidemiology of rare diseases cannot be usefully correlated with common  potential causes.  The example given in this thread of four boys contracting an unusual cancer demands more detailed investigation: why no girls, and why only four in a school that was fairly uniformly irradiated (even if it wasn''t, schoolkids move around during the day).

The question of uniform irradiation is important. Urban environments have higher concentrations of radio masts than rural areas, and higher concentrations of people. And in the UK there is a strong geographical correlation with social class (poor people tend to live in the east of cities (due to the prevailing west wind), at high density, and to have shorter life expectancies for all sorts of reasons, whilst the rich live longer and inhabit the west side of the city or leafy suburbs and rural estates)  so you need to review all statistics in view of such geographical nonuniformity.

There is also a question of reporting bias. The incidence of reported disease always increases when a new cause is suspected, when a new diagnostic is available, and most of all when a new treatment is marketed. Plus some causes of death are not fashionable: the low incidence of fatal heart disease in France is not borne out by post-mortem but by the reluctance of general practitioners to request a post-mortem or report an avoidable condition on a death certificate - "natural causes" is far more common than in the UK.

And of incidence bias. As we eliminate physical trauma (better roads, safer industries) and infectious disease (better drains and refuse collection) so engineers give way to doctors and all that is left to kill people is heart disease and cancer.  So the incidence of fatal cancer increases every year because people live long enough express it.

Hence a degree of scepticism or at least caution when dealing with new epidemiologies.   
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 12:19:47
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.
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.
Did he measure the temperature or the infrasound levels?
Or any of a thousand other possible causes?

How did you come to the conclusion that this story was actually evidence of an effect of WIFI?
How come you ignored the very obvious problem?

Is it because you were seeking affirmation, rather than seeking the truth?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2019 13:10:21
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/08/2019 18:20:22
I haves some urgent deadlines in the next three days. Will be back on Tuesday night.

In the meantime, how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanisms for the harm that is reported by various people (myself included 8)).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2019 22:47:17
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?

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?



Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/08/2019 07:48:41
Just a quick check to see if the "assignments" are being done   ;D. One so far which I itch to respond to but will have to wait because it does require some careful thought on my part.

How about you tackle the heavy-weights of the NTP and Ramazzini studies. They are similar and come to pretty much the same conclusions. Cancer!
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2019 09:29:48

How about you tackle the heavy-weights of the NTP and Ramazzini studies.
How about you give a decent reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Ramazzini
doesn't seem to mention  phones at all, though it seems he'd be an advocate of sit/stand desks.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?PS
Post by: alancalverd on 18/08/2019 09:39:44
 
Quote
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.

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:
Quote
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!

 
Title: Took Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/08/2019 18:20:23
Took a short mental time-out while eating dinner.

Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2019 18:47:07
Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.
Why?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 10:34:20
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.

Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions that result in real physical problems that this is your answer to all cell microwave induced symptoms? And that, even though he could now correlate Wifi (in his office and elsewhere) with his symptoms, he could still be wrong? And the neurologist could not differentiate? Doubt, doubt, doubt. Your middle name is not Thomas, is it?

Here is an analogy to your tactic of doubt due to alternative cause:
It is now accepted (was not for some time) that a 5 or 10 day course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics can possibly cause one's Achilles tendon to snap. Your response would be that there are many causes to that happening.

It happens that once more I heard of a woman who had both Achilles tendons snap within a week. The specialist she consulted asked if she had a recent course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics. She answered that she had a course three weeks ago. Once more, by your logic, that COULD be a coincidence. Yes, it could - because there is no definitive medical test to tell why many things happen. It is not like checking the metal on an aircraft wing break to check for stress or fabrication failure.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 10:38:45
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.

It seems you have some reservations about the claims made by some industries. At least there is hope.

BTW - 1,000 volts or 10,000 volts or more. It the source impedance limits the current to less than a milliamp or so, all you might get is a mild tickling sensation at the worst failure. And there has to be a failure of two insulated wires that are carrying the potential.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 10:53:34
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.

I think you are the one begging the question. I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed. It is not a claim - it is a fact.

You claim that is not possible for people to be harmed because you reject any study or report of people being harmed on the basis that they cannot be harmed (your initial premise). That is "begging the question", otherwise known as circular logic.

The industry has this down to almost an art form. "We reject any studies that microwaves less that our limit might possibly cause harm because OUR studies and reviews have come to the conclusion that microwaves less than our limit do not cause harm".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 11:00:00
Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.
Why?

Because!

Spoiler: show
Because it might be based on cell phone signals. Untested and about to destroy the population - slowly.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/08/2019 11:01:10
Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions
No. 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."
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 16:23:51
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.

The first point to make is that the study was not about masts. It was about the levels considered "safe". The safe level at the time (see ICNIRP report 1998 - basically unchanged in 2108) was a SAR of 4 W/kg for 30 minutes - based on heating.
 The paragraph is … Established biological and health effects in the frequency range from 10 MHz to a few GHz are consistent with responses to a body temperature rise of more than 1°C. This level of temperature increase results from exposure of individuals under moderate environ-mental conditions to a whole-body SAR of approximately 4W/kg for about 30 min. The same limit for heads is 100W/kg and limbs is 200W/kg. They then apply a safety factor.

So the Lai study used 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg. And showed that despite being within "the limits of no damage found", there was DNA damage. And they showed that the longer the time, the more apparent was the damage.

Your mention of living tissue energy consumption is not applicable. It keeps people at a warm level of 37 deg C as long as they can dissipate the heat. What you have used is a red herring fallacy, (an idiom meaning "to divert attention from the main question by some side issue") that is bordering on a straw-man fallacy when you make the conclusion about masts. And you throw in an unsubstantiated non-sequitur about "cooking a rat's brain".

The study by Henry Lai has been reproduced and verified a number of times since then.

Here is a good and easy read for ordinary people (relevant despite being out of date):
This was a 2011 article about Henry Lai’s work.

seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry

…He and a fellow researcher, Narendra “N.P.” Singh, were looking at the effects of non-ionizing microwave radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to the radiation.
…After Lai and Singh’s research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to “war-game” and undermine Lai’s research.
… Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.
… With Lai’s work as her foundation, Davis demonstrates a pattern of the cell phone industry’s scientific manipulation spanning decades. Davis is particularly concerned because the rate of cell phone use by children is skyrocketing—with three out of four 12-year-olds and half of 10-years-olds in the U.S. now possessing a cell phone. Even more troubling: Lennart Hardell, Ph.D., a researcher in Sweden, found that those who began using cell phones in their teens (such as Rock) had four to five times the number of malignant tumors by their late 20s as those who did not use cell phones as teenagers.





Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 16:29:46
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.


You need to read carefully and assume that the scientists are not only not idiots by have presumably had their study proof-read for errors.

"No effects for exposure to shorter intervals (than 20 mins) to modulated EMFs". That seems reasonable.
"No effects for exposure to continuous waves no matter what the duration". That also seems reasonable.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 19:17:23
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?

This one was a real toughie and took considerable research.

A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv and a chest CT scan is about 5-8 mSv from a Stanford study.
A dose of 5 Sv will only kill 50 percent, not 100%.
The average radiation in the Stockholm trains station (actually the Hay Market) was probably taken from Lennart Hardell's 2018 study and not the 2004 REFLEX study.
It was about 10,000 uW/sqm.
A Sievert is 1 Joule/kg for x-rays (Q factor of 1 meaning it is the same as a Gray).
A 90 kg man with a profile of 0.7sqm absorbing 10,000 uW/sqm over 24 hours will get a dose of 6.72 J/kg or 6.72 Sv.
1600 chest xrays at 0.02 mSv per xray is 32mSv
1600 chest CT scans at 5 mSv per scan is 8 Sv
(Some one check my arithmetic please - I can do formulae but not sums  :))

So the numbers given in the article may just be correct except for the Q factor for microwaves. That will take some doing. That said, the radiation is high!!!

So I think that is where some-one has not done their homework. I did give you a non-science site because they had some good summations.

Here  are two paragraphs in the REFLEX conclusions
...There was a strong positive correlation between both the intensity and duration of exposure to ELF-EMF and the increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and micronuclei frequencies. Surprisingly this genotoxic effect was only observed when cells were exposed to intermittent ELF-EMF, but not to continuous exposure.

...With respect to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), data showed that RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts, granulosa cells and HL60 cells. Cells responded to RF-EMF exposure between SAR level 0.3 and 2 W/kg with a significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei frequency. Chromosomal aberrations in fibroblasts were observed after RF-EMF exposure. RF-EMF at a SAR of 1.5 W/kg downregulated the expression of neuronal genes in neuronal precursor cells and upregulated the expression of early genes in p53-deficient embryonic stem cells, but not in wildtype cells. Proteomic analyses on human endothelial cell lines showed that exposure to RF-EMF changed the expression and phosphorylation of numerous, largely unidentified proteins. Among these proteins is the heat shock protein hsp27, a marker for cellular stress responses. There was no evidence that RF-EMF affected processes such as cell proliferation, apoptosis or immune cell functionality. For both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF, the results of the whole genome cDNA micro-array and proteomic analyses indicated that EMF may activate several groups of genes that play a role in cell division, cell proliferation and cell differentiation. At present the biological relevance of these findings can not be assessed.


2018 Hardell Stockhom study  ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341832/
One contrast is the Hay Market. This is popular place for marketing of flowers, fruits, berries, etc. Thus, the dealers may during the whole day be exposed to high RF radiation. The mean level was 10,728 µW/m2 which exceeds very much levels known to have biological effects.

One would expect these dealers to start showing symptoms and health issues. That was only last year. Between 1 and 3% of the population have EHS, so a few of them should have stopped trading.

No wonder Sweden is leading the world in drops in longevity and IQ.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2019 19:30:07
"No effects for exposure to continuous waves no matter what the duration". That also seems reasonable.
Do you understand what that says?

It says that the EM radiation only causes trouble when you switch it off repeatedly.
that is bordering on a straw-man fallacy when you make the conclusion about masts.
You are the one who included it here.
You concluded that it was relevant to a discussion about masts.

Don't blame me for your bad decisions.
Also, read the paper.
"Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture"
Rats sweat.
People sweat.
Cells in culture don't.

So it's completely obvious that cultured cells will be (generally) more susceptible to damage than an intact organism.

If you take the brain out of a rat, it's significantly easier to cook, because the rest of the rat doesn't dissipate the heat.

 
The specialist she consulted asked if she had a recent course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics.
Why did they ask that?

Was it because there was already other evidence of a link?
That's the point I made.
Without other evidence, a single observation usually means little or nothing. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but you don't start by assuming the first  dead rat is evidence of a pandemic.

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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 19:31:42
Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions
No. 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."

Psychological stress is self-imposed and usually involves having to make difficult choices. The monkey who had to press a button after a buzzer to stop getting an electric shock was much more stressed compared to the monkey who heard the buzzer and had no button. Deciding which Messerschmitt to focus on is a stress requiring action and decision.

Then there is physiological stress. Until 5 years ago I never really had the above stress. I just accepted that I had to work to achieve something and that I had made correct choice regarding balancing stressors. But in the last 5 years I have muscle aches all over. As if I have stressors, but nothing has really changed except something physical. It is most unpleasant. It is as if I am tensing my muscles to wait for a disaster to happen. Only codeine tablets relieve the pain. I stop them now and then for a while, but after the withdrawal goes away, the constant muscle pain becomes too much and I start again.

Is it sensitivity to EMFs that have been growing rapidly in our suburb over the last 5 years? I need to get away to see if my pains disappear.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/08/2019 19:41:07
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.

Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water and it hurts. I take it out and the pain goes away.

I do this repeatedly and I conclude that the hot water is the cause of the pain. Of course, a critic could say that it was the way I held my hand in that pinched a nerve, or that I had been hypnotized and told to feel pain when my hand was in hot water. When two people (my wife and I) get similar symptoms under similar conditions it gets more difficult to find alternative explanations. You get a medal for trying.

I have headaches and disturbed dreams that only occurred after the mast was turned on. 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2019 19:44:59
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2019 19:50:42
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".


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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2019 19:53:32
. 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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 22/08/2019 06:18:51
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 22/08/2019 06:38:03
. 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.

Why is it so obvious that I have an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem?

Point out the reasons you come to that conclusion? (Aside from the one which is that YOU have an absolute faith that cell tower radiation cannot cause problems or harm.)

I would be more than happy to take part in a double blind test. I would not be happy about exposing myself to more damage but I am willing to do so in the interests of science. Can you detail how it should be done?

You do realize that you have to account for the delay in effects. One day radiation = one day sick the next day. The  dream disturbance is quicker. Two hours of sleep with monitoring for REM and then waking me while in REM. The headache is reasonably reliable - usually an hour to two of exposure. All at the high levels (3,000 uW/sqm) with added reflections and standing waves found in our house.

Just an aside. I have had vivid dreams where I know I am dreaming. I dream in color and can see my hands. I have even pinched myself and felt pain. The only way I could tell I was dreaming was to concentrate on the clouds turning to cauliflower which they did.

I also used have extreme sensitivity. I was 35 when I got fitted for contact lenses. The doctor dropped the lens and began searching for it. Although I was teary eyed and looking forward and very short sighted I pointed to a spot on my jeans and said "There it is". I could not feel it there, but I could feel the impact. The doctor said he had to see it to believe it. You really do not appreciate how incredible our senses are and how delicate our nervous systems are. We are not chucks of meat that react only to heat.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 22/08/2019 06:50:56
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.

You are right that many people are not able to deal with bad situations. The problem is compounded because people still have choices in such situations - and they are nearly all bad. Quitting your job with a bad boss. I did that. Divorce - I have been a couple of really bad ones. In one case, I had multiple factors that put me off the chart for stress factors - yet I was able deal with them. I do admit that sometimes one's subconscious takes decisions and actions that relieve stress but not in a rational way. Just an immediate (and bad) fix.

I saw the stress in my wife with the radiation. She blamed it on too much pressure. I went over her situation a year ago and pointed out that her situation was no different. Her memory and her cognitive functions were degraded by the tower and she was forgetting to pay bills and forgetting key tasks to be done. Her hands started shaking. A lot of this eased up during the 3 months the tower was powered off.

These are difficult to measure in a person in a scientific and objective test. But the science of cellular molecular biology shows the mechanism of how it WILL happen.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2019 07:20:06
Her memory and her cognitive functions were degraded by the tower
Or 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?

Do you not remember?
I pointed out that, in every case that has been studied, "electrosensitive" effect turns out not to be real.

"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

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.
Boiling/ very hot.So what?

You still need to address a simple fact.
Nobody has been found to really have these "hypersensitivities".

It's not me being hung up on semantics that's a problem here.

It is you failing to put forward any explanation that you and your wife are affected when so many others are not.

Of course, it doesn't help that you raise "scientific" papers that talk nonsense about 1200 x-rays.
You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hot
No.
I'm saying they don't even think it's wet.
Most people don't "feel" anything from phone masts.
We are not talking about you sensing fields that are a little subtler than those sensed by others.
We are talking about you being made ill by fields that are far too small for most people to be aware of.

Now, even if by some fluke that's true, it's not a sound basis to criticise the phone industry because, for most people a phone is likely to improve their health.
I don't know how many people have been saved by being able to make a phone call for an ambulance or whatever, but it's certainly a lot more than have been killed by phone signals, for the simple reason that the latter number is zero.
(If you don't agree, post the coroner's report or local equivalent).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 22/08/2019 11:10:00
Quote from: CliveG
Her hands started shaking.
Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2019 11:17:43
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2019 19:05:45
Quote from: CliveG
Her 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.
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)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: syhprum on 22/08/2019 20:50:52
To diverge a little we are often lectured on the terrible carnage wrought on our roads from the 30 million vehicles (1700 deaths a  year) using them I wonder how many more deaths there would be if there were not vehicles available to get quick medical aid if needed
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2019 22:45:31
Ah, but emergency service vehicles are powered by diesel which, according to Official Sources is responsible for more deaths every year than actually occur!
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2019 13:15:45
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/08/2019 20:23:15
Something of an overstatement, I'll admit.

But what interests me is that the annual number of deaths actually recorded from respiratory disease (lung cancer, pneumonia and chronic lower respiratory tract disease) has decreased steadily in the UK since 2001, whilst Public Health England estimate that deaths attributable to air pollution have risen. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-2-major-causes-of-death-and-how-they-have-changed  Fig 2

I appeal for wise  counsel on this matter. What actual recorded causes of death (a) have increased and (b) are logically attributable to poor air quality?

Which statistic should we believe: PHE estimates of attributability, or doctors' death certificates?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2019 01:12:30
Is it credible that other causes of respiratory ill health have declined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 07:17:13
Quote from: CliveG
Her hands started shaking.
Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

Such an easy one. Her hands started shaking quite noticeably about 3 months after the mast was powered up. About 3 weeks after the mast was powered down, the shaking stopped. So did her headaches.

The mast was again powered up but I put  shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiation. Her hands are steady. We have the stress of having to sell our home after realizing that the judiciary is not only just and fair but actively working to bankrupt us if we continue in court. Hence I am going it alone without my wife so only I am exposed. That stress is not causing any hand shaking.

Your explanations as to why it is not radiation are only limited by your imagination.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 07:25:58
Quote from: CliveG
Her 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.
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)

I have never had so many consultations and medical tests before. The docs all say that I am a healthy individual going by the tests. More than most. But the neurologist says she is seeing cases that she attributes to microwave EMF - particularly in children. She thinks EMF sickness is real - and I chose a competent well-respected one.

The docs also admit to more cancers, autism, ADHD, epilepsy. Not just more reporting. A primary school teacher is seeing serious problems like these. One six-year only dies of a heart attack and one dies of cancer.

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".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 07:35:20
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.

We are pretty much in agreement, and nothing you have said contradicts anything in my post.

The Q factor (your radiation weighting factor wr) also has an factor that is different for different types of radioactivity. Apha particles are particularly damaging per unit of energy. Which is why I said that we do not know what the Q factor for microwaves is just yet with regarding to tissue damage.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 09:51:39
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 observation

I 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 observation

I 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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 25/08/2019 10:33:44
Quote from: CliveG
I put  shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiation
Can you please clarify the reduction in radiation that you measured?
1/10th?  1/100th?  1/1000th?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 10:39:58
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 observation

I 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 observation

I 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?

Using strict logic, it rules out none of them. Some would even say that aliens and poltergeists could be a possibility.

So we are down to assigning probability to each of hypothesis.
1) - 98%
2) - 1.5%
3) - 0.4%
4) - 0.1%

And I think I am being generous with 2), 3) and 4).
My wife felt the effects. Facial cancer is not psychosomatic. The inability to walk on my replacement knee was hardly psychosomatic. Three weeks of diarrhea is unlikely to be a state of mind. Four whole body convulsions would be hard to assign to imagination. Likewise with the scrambled dreams and tiredness.

On a number of occasions in my life I have been told that "it was all in my mind". Guess what. It never was. As a 12 year old I complained of severe stomach pains after dinner. All in your mind said my Mom. Doctor said my tonsils were so rotten the toxins were being brushed into my stomach at dinner.

Histoplasmosis - grief said my doctor from the death of my late wife. Then it got so bad he wanted to admit me to intensive care for tests. Had no idea what it could be. I learned from a caver about bat fungus. Got the medicine from someone who was taking it and 50% of my symptoms went away in 1 day. 95% cure in one week. Doctor admitted that it was histoplasmosis.

I agree with the multiple confusing symptoms. When my pains started I thought it was the fungus, then the fluoroquinolones. Now the timing and the clinical history are indicating that those two are possibly sensitizing agents, and the pain tracks the increase in cell phone radiation in our suburb.

What the probabilities demonstrate is that you might assign 1% to 1) - based on your lack of research, personal biases and not wanting to accept the possible danger. Like many other. As one journalist told me "Tough luck you are having - I like my phone and do not want know about possible problems."

There are different standards of proof. Friend tells you something happened and you have no reason to disbelieve. You tell a doctor you have back pain and after a series of questions he gives you medication. A civil law suit uses the balance of probabilities. A criminal law suit is much stricter - as is an insurance claim. Science usually lags well behind in terms of explanations. This time the science is clear - and the science it is being suppressed.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 10:46:46
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.

Medical physicists are very keen on the protection of clinical staff. As far as we know the only effect of RF radiation in vivo is cooking damage to areas that have a poor blood supply, hence cataract.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 10:49:01
Quote from: CliveG
I put  shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiation
Can you please clarify the reduction in radiation that you measured?
1/10th?  1/100th?  1/1000th?

It  varies according to month, the time of day, the room, the spot in the room. I have taken a number of videos over the past year and would have to average them or give a listing.

The maximum was about 3,000 and went down to about 30. Other rooms went from about 300 to 30. The tenant's apartment was about 30 last August but was about 300 this month. I am putting in shielding because she cannot afford to find another apartment. Her health has suffered the last few months.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 11:12:59
Is it credible that other causes of respiratory ill health have declined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England

Irrelevant but entertaining:

A few years ago my company was called to a major fire. Our client was building pallets of radioactive cargo for air shipment, when the hangar caught fire. We were tasked to advise the fire brigade on the location and dispersal of the cargo (it took 24 hours to put the fire out) then to find the residual material and arrange for its safe disposal so the site could be cleared.

The building was the size of a football pitch and almost completely destroyed - roof collapsed, loading ramp doors blown off or melted, total loss (including two vintage cars and fifty tons of roasted rotting mangoes). We knew that one pallet had been placed high on a rack so we brought in a bulldozer, cherrypicker, boots, hard hats, masks  and coveralls, and started scanning the place with a gamma spectrometer.

I arrived on site one morning to find the cherrypicker driver standing in the rain in the  car park, smoking.  I asked him why he wasn't in the wrecked building, out of the rain. "Elfin Safety, mate. It's an enclosed workplace - can't smoke inside the perimeter."   
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 13:09:01
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?

I needed to do some "catch-up".

Oops. This time I misread. I will have to read the orginal study to check whether they were using the ratio of GSSG to GSH.

Wikipedia:
Glutathione exists in reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) states. The ratio of reduced glutathione to oxidized glutathione within cells is a measure of cellular oxidative stress.[9][10] In healthy cells and tissue, more than 90% of the total glutathione pool is in the reduced form (GSH), with the remainder in the disulfide form (GSSG). An increased GSSG-to-GSH ratio is indicative of oxidative stress.

And yes, it not an unbiased article. When studies show harm, those are the important ones. Remember one has to look at the science studies themselves when reading an article summarizing studies for the lay person. And one might find the occasional "typo" as in the spelling mistake they made.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 13:36:49
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.

I followed up on the study referenced:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7109/1fb1ddc3c362dbc16eeed27cb69a130b1b96.pdf
Do you not see that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the harm being caused?

Extract:
Oxidative effects and non-cancer health effectsof RFR
A new medical condition, so-called electrohypersensitivity(EHS), in which people suffer due to RFR exposure, has been described (Johansson, 2006). ... This disorder is growing continuously: starting from 0.06% of the total population in 1985, this category now includes as much as 9–11% of the European population (Hallberg and Oberfeld, 2006). In Sweden, for example, EHS has become an officially recognized health impairment.

...Likewise, a number of psychophysical and preclinical disorders including fatigue,irritation, headache, sleep disorders, hormonal imbalances were detected in high percent of people living nearby cellphone base transceiver stations (Buchner and Eger, 2011;Santini et al., 2002).

...An allergy reaction to RFR in humans has been confirmed by a significant increase in the level of mast cells in skin of persons  under  exposure  to  electromagnetic  devices (Johansson et al., 2001).


I had not mentioned that a lady who lived 3 houses away and sold and moved 2 months after the first power-up said that when the tower was powered up she began suffering terribly from allergic sinus issues. It cleared up in less than a week after relocating.

As for the possibility that my symptoms are psychosomatic, I was focused on the illegality of the tower and suffered these effects without having researched the health issue first. So the sequence is: I get a symptom and I look it up - not the other way round.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 13:45:20
So we are down to assigning probability to each of hypothesis.
1) - 98%
Until you stop begging the question, there is no way we can make progress.
Using strict logic, it rules out none of them.
Correct.
And yet, you are apparently using it as a reason to exclude 3 of them.
I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".
.
You have already said that you know better.
Why do you keep doing it?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 14:09:27

I followed up on the study referenced:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7109/1fb1ddc3c362dbc16eeed27cb69a130b1b96.pdf
So did I
Do you remember me previously explaining why this
". Accordingly, any intensity of RFR under the ICNIRP limits can be referred to as low-intensity. "
is wrong?

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.

So, once again, I find myself asking why didn't you spot that they were talking sh1t?

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?PS
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 14:17:21
Quote
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.

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:
Quote
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!

I will agree - there is no such thing as a "standard lab rat". But one could use this argument on many studies that use rats. There is no such thing as a perfect study. There is always the possibility of error or an overlooked factor.

The NTP study and the Ramazzini study were taken in the scientific community as of a high standard. The cell industry did their best to discredit these. One can choose to believe the biased critiques which were shown to be mostly "fake news".

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. The maintenance of core body tem-perature (increases < 1 °C) and the lack of an effect of whole-body RFR exposures at 6 W/kg on rat body weights indicate that these exposure conditions did not create thermal effects that might have impacted the overall physiology of the animal leading to increased tumor incidencesin the brain, heart, or other organs of exposed animals.


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 exercise - never mind fevers which can raise temperatures from 37 to 42 degrees.

The subsequent pathology peer review of the heart and central nervous system was first performed by two quality assessment pathologists, and then by Pathology Working Groups involving 30 pathologists from NTP and external to the pro-gram.In May of 2016, NTP released partial findings from the chronic study of RFR in rats (NTP, 2016). The findings in that report were re-viewed by 8 expert peer reviewers selected by the NTP and the NIH.

He went further in this article : ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/

7) Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini study (Falcioni et al., 2018) is disingenuous. The fact that both studies carried out in independent laboratories in Italy and the U.S. found increased incidences of heart schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in Sprague-Dawley rats under different exposure environments and different RF intensity levels is  remarkable. Without knowledge or analysis of the true dose-response relationship between RFR exposure and the induction of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias of the heart, it is unreasonable to expect a linear dose-response by combining data from these two separate studies.

10) The issue raised by ICNIRP on the lack of cardiac schwannomas in control male rats in the NTP study and the expected incidence (0-2%) based on historical control rates had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018) for both schwannomas and gliomas:
“Gliomas and schwannomas of the heart are uncommon tumors that occur rarely in control Sprague-Dawley rats. It is not unusual to observe a zero incidence of uncommon tumors in groups of 50-90 control rats. In experimental carcinogenicity studies, the most important control group is the concurrent control group.


He concludes:
Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that “these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radio frequency exposure guidelines.” The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The ‘P’ in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health.
Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 14:26:12
"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. "

Note what I said in  reply #100 above
Quote
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). 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 25/08/2019 14:30:08
The bias in the industry:
Comments by Hardell following the NTP and Ramazzini studies
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY  54:  111-127,  201
Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study

Unfortunately,  WHO  itself  has  constantly  refused  to  acknowledge the carcinogenicity of RF radiation. In fact, WHO seems to rely on the conclusion of the non-governmental organization International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) instead of the IARC evaluation. That organization is even declared to be their in-house experts.

ICNIRP is  a  private  non-governmental  organisation  (NGO)  based  in  Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of the organization. Many of the ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that are dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines.

This creates a conflict of interest, since the former leader of the WHO International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Project is also the founder and honorary member of the ICNIRP. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 14:34:45
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.

Even if your assertion were supported by an actual majority vote of this mythical community, the history of science is that of consensus being overturned by calculation, which is why there is no "scientific community", just a whole bunch of guys trying to disprove each others' hypotheses. True, we drink together (hence "symposium") but so do opposing Rugby teams.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 14:40:55
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.   
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2019 16:03:32
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 exercise
OK, so just do that continuously for 18 hrs and see how you feel.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 17:28:23
Quote
Schwannomas of the head and neck are a fairly common occurrence and can be found incidentally in 3–4% of patients at autopsy
  So 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.

Quote
  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? 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/08/2019 19:19:51
Humble apologies. I forgot to look at dimensions!

6W/kg is 7 degrees per hour temperature rise. As I said, 3 hours' exposure at this level is known to kill humans and I have no doubt that it doesn't do rats much good. So it's worth looking at the Ramazzini and NTP studies a little more closely.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 26/08/2019 00:18:44
Quote
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?

It only responds to what has already happened.

The cell tower does not read (or generate) the weather forecast.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/08/2019 06:50:19
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...

This is a bit out of my league and I have to research your unsupported statements. The one above seems to be wrong. And it it not unreasonable to study the effects of MW on iron.

Ferritin: The Protein Nanocage and Iron Biomineral in Health and in Disease
Published in final edited form as:Inorg Chem. 2013 November 4; 52(21): . doi:10.1021/ic400484n

The major iron proteins in humans are globins, hemoglobin and myoglobin, followed by ferritins and then by a variety of heme and iron-sulfur proteins and iron cofactors bound directly to protein, e.g. ribonucleotide reductase. Ferritin is a superfamily of protein-caged Fe2O3•H2O biominerals. They are ancient (in Archaea), ubiquitous (in marine and terrestrial organisms,both anaerobic and aerobic) and, have a rare quaternary structure: folded, polypeptide subunits (4 α-helix bundles) that self- assemble into hollow cages; interior cage spaces(biomineral growth cavities) are ~ 30% of the cage volume.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/08/2019 07:04:43
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.

Sorry - which paper are you looking at for these extracts you are taking issue with?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/08/2019 07:17:21
Why do you think the NTP and Ramazzini studies decided that heating was not a factor?

And who do you think has more credibility? ICNIRP or these scientific organizations?

Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?

Why are you so sure you can discount and ignore the many studies showing cellular harm that are not heat based?

So far I have not seen you reference a credible scientific article that takes the top 5 key non-heat studies showing positive harm and showing why the study is flawed so badly that it is unacceptable. ICNIRP criticized the NTP study but they are not cellular microbiologists and their criticisms were easily debunked.

You are throwing out heating and boiling statements willy-nilly and I cannot follow your logic or your references.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2019 07:32:43
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 do you not seem to think that way?
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.

It's very simple.
Do you accept that heating cells in a petri dish, where they have no capacity to "sweat" will damage them more than in an intact animal where active cooling can be used?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/08/2019 10:14:17
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/08/2019 16:35:00
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.

You do realize the difference between a living breathing rat and a pot of water?

A SD rat can take a SAR of 4w/kg continuously with only a 1.5 deg C increase in core body temperature.

See
The Journal of Toxicological Sciences (J. Toxicol. Sci.)Vol.41, No.5, 655-666, 2016
Correspondence: Akira Ushiyama (E-mail: ushiyama@niph.go.jp)
Exposure time-dependent thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on the whole body of rats


There is a thermal equation for rats and living animals:
Heat Storage = Metabolic + Evaporative + Radiant + Convective + Conductive
Radiant  = Surface and Penetrating MW
Core temp = 37.2 Lethal is about 42.5
Excellent thermoregulatory keps stable core temp over ambient of 5-30 degC for 60 min
Rat brain cooling can be better than core due to nose and face cooling
Upper limit of core temp is Air temp, Humidity, Water availability, time exposed, degree of restraint, Amount of activity, prior exposure, circadian cycle.
Smaller objects have greater surface to mass ratios and can take greater SARs values.
When the temperature of a rat increases it sleeps more, moves less, licks it's tail and eats less.

ICNIRP never challenged the study on body temperatures as you are doing.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2019 19:16:41
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.
https://www.medicinenet.com/aches_pain_fever/article.htm

So, that's clearly a level at which effects would be expected in the long term.


Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2019 19:28:19
According to this
http://ratfanclub.org/nutreq.html
 "A rat needs about 60 calories a day depending on size."
And 60 Kcal per day is 251040 J/ day
About 3 Watts.
And I think the typical mass is about 250 to 500g
So that's a baseline consumption of 6 to 12 W/ kg
Dissipating 150% to 200% as much as you are "built for" is a bit of a big ask, especially on a continuous basis.

So, there's no way you can say that an effect noticed at  6W/Kg isn't essentially thermal ( caused by the thermal stress, rather than directly by the change in temperature).

If you have isolated cells which are unable to sweat then the temperature rise may well be even bigger.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/08/2019 06:20:03
Once more you ignore the basic premise.

ICNIRP set a limit based on heating in rats on the (incorrect) assumption that only heating matters.

They increased the temperature of the rats until there were behavioral changes - such as sleeping more, eating less etc.

They noted the SAR and the temperature rise. And stated (incorrectly again) that dosage is not a factor.

What NTP did was challenge these basic assumptions. They proved that the rats get can get cancer under the limits and with time.

What they did was prove that ICNIRP hasn't a clue about health issues and radiation and is promoting false information (fake news). ICNIRP does not want to admit it is wrong. The heat issue works with the ordinary man in the street with regard to propaganda value and they stick with it for that reason alone. This however is a science forum.

Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2019 07:34:30
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/08/2019 09:58:05
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?

Hyperbole is not appropriate here. It is such an exaggeration that it is emotional button pushing for non-scientists.

ICNIRP is the international body that sets the limits. They say that heating cannot cause cancer, especially if the temperature increase is low. Yet you are suggesting that it can. If so, what is the mechanism? (There are thousands of studies showing cellular harm and DNA damage at much lower levels - and no studies that show a small increase in temperature causes measurable cellular harm.)

Quote a scientific study that indicates that rats heated by ambient heat instead of MW radiation also have the same outcome - namely cancer.

Rats will adapt to stressors - either ambient heat or MW heat so that the temperature rise alone does not cause cancer.

Is MW radiation within 1 deg C of heating a carcinogen? ICNIRP says there is no possibility - and NTP and Ramazinni say they are wrong.

Why does ICNIRP not say they need further study and lower their own limits? My view is that they see an admission that they were wrong as undermining their entire propaganda campaign. Their credibility would be in doubt in the eyes of the public.

You are moving the goal posts on a matter of a basic scientific stand taken by ICNIRP rather than admit to being wrong.

Once you answer that - then we can move on to the studies with lower levels of radiation
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/08/2019 17:54:54
Excellent thermoregulatory keps stable core temp over ambient of 5-30 degC for 60 min
60 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.

Try it yourself!  You dissipate about 1.5W/kg. Enclose yourself in a closefitting Styrofoam or Celotex box, with just an air hole. See if you live any longer than soldiers and firemen who  have a maximum duration of about 2 hours in biological isolation garments on a sunny day.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2019 19:28:42
. If so, what is the mechanism?
Is that meant to be a serious question?

Do I really need to explain that stress is a known risk factor for cancer?

Or do you somehow think the rats enjoy their sauna experience?
Hyperbole is not appropriate here.
Repeatedly ignoring the fact that low grade heat is a problem is much less appropriate.
Why did you do it?
Rats will adapt to stressors
Just 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?
Where?
You are moving the goal posts
As 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.
Why are you doing it?

Once you answer that - then we can move on to the studies with lower levels of radiation
OK.
I answered it.
Now get on with the actual topic under discussion.
However, please avoid citing reports of experiments that are poorly constructed.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 29/08/2019 08:43:54
I cannot believe the misdirection and standard of comments that are being made.

They are deliberate attempts to sabotage this discussion and prevent people from seeing the truth.

I wonder what interpretations are being made by visitors to this thread.

Our great advances in science are outstripping our common sense. It is no wonder that nearly all visions are the future feature dystopian scenarios where mutants are ruled by an elite or where the world self destructs.

I have learned a lot because I was forced to examine areas that I thought were obvious (to me anyway).

I have another legal filing to make by next Monday, and must take a break from this. This thread did provide some mentally stimulation until recently.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2019 11:18:34
The fundamental problem of proof is, to my mind, the essential latency period of radiogenic tumors.

In order to generate a tumor you have to make a cell that is viable, insufficiently distinct from its neighbors  that it is not rejected by the immune system, and either capable of unlimited perfect replication at a faster rate than its neighbors or incapable of dying. It has to organise a vascular system and find its preferred nutrients, then replicate  to a size where it produces clinical symptoms  or is at least clearly distinguishable by x-ray or post-mortem.

The probability of producing exactly the right mutation in a single cell is minute, and the probability of identical mutations occurring in several cells from electromagnetic radiation is obviously negligible*, so there will always be a latency period between induction and expression of radiogenic tumors - this is one of the characteristics of stochastic harm. The other significant characteristic is the lack of a threshold: probability of incidence is dose dependent with no lower limit, but the effect is not dose dependent. It's difficult enough to demonstrate in rats, never mind humans.

If you have a legal case, it would be better based on deterministic effects. These have a threshold dose, negligible latency, and usually recover without intervention (apart from preventing infection). Think suntan/sunburn. The lack of latency means that you can participate in a blind correlation trial and prove your point absolutely, without reference to other people's lousy rat experiments.

Happy to help.


*unlike chemically-induced tumors, where a specific and selective agent will almost certainly induce pretty much the same mutation in as many cells as you like
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/08/2019 11:05:36
The fundamental problem of proof is, to my mind, the essential latency period of radiogenic tumors.

[snipped for brevity]

A reasonable and rational post. I will answer but am busy. The legal challenge is in appealing the technicalities used to unfairly get the court to dismiss the health issues and to hit us with massive costs to get me to give up.

The main case is the illegality in getting City approval (this is Africa!).

In the mean time, think about exponential increases in power and photon densities and think about probabilities.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/08/2019 13:09:27
I do. It's my job.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2019 18:15:20
I wonder what interpretations are being made by visitors to this thread.
Good question

Would any "passers by" care to comment?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/08/2019 19:48:30
As a passer by I see several professionals trying to educate the ignorant.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/08/2019 20:04:56
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 07:32:03
As a passer by I see several professionals trying to educate the ignorant.
Just a quick pass-by shooting on this one.

So the massive amount of research I have done still leaves me "ignorant"? And what is the profession of these professionals - apart from taking a position against deeper science and stubbornly refusing to budge?

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.

BTW - The amount that I have learned in teaching myself some cellular microbiology has given me an sense of wonder as to how complex life is.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 07:37:02
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.

I never gave it as a proof of MW damage. Only that the possibility of MW is being actively suppressed. Even the US military does not want the possibility in the media.

MW has been researched as a weapon by all countries. What better target than consulate staff from an opposing country?

The theories other than MW are full of holes. What do you think caused the problems?

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 09:12:40
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.



And what is the profession of these professionals
I'm a chemist; these days I get paid to do risk assessment.
How about you?


apart from taking a position against deeper science
I'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?
Nobody (except, ironically, you) has disputed the effects of high level microwaves.
So why even mention this stuff?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 09:15:02
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 15:33:46
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.

These type of weapons are for short term crowd control. No problem advertising them because they DO use heat.

These weapons are clearly design for skin heating and no doubt do just that. They do not penetrate in the way cellular microwave (900Mhz to 3GHz).

The MW radiation is for long-term clandestine dose dependent degradation of enemy non-combatants. I emphasize "clandestine". Maybe to disable a double agent with high doses while he sleeps in his bed. Or use it on dissidents to degrade them mentally. It is  after all, a slow poison like lead and mercury.

Dare I say that it might aggravate the US populace and cause a few people to do crazy things. Just a tipping point effect to add to any existing problems. When I am deprived of sleep for a few days, you don't want to push me in any way once I decide I need my rest.

Today, I went to the property on the other side of the tower site. They are complaining of health effects. Their home has a disturbing signal of bursts of high power. The pulsing is quite pronounced. They complained of an overall decline in health. Chest and heart issues never there before. The usual tiredness after sleeping was the major complaint. And joint pains at night. The lady complained of waking and feeling like the bed was shaking. I never had that symptom but it was one my wife said she got and it was quite pronounced and disturbing.

They have decided they too must sell. They are appalled at the lack of justice that cell companies can simply use fraud to get their towers where they want them. I have little doubt that the owners of the property will be feeling the effect in a few months. Their power levels are less than ours because their house is further back and the antennae are not pushing out such a high level that way. However, they too will have more pronounced pulsing.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 16:07:17
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".

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.
It is  after all, a slow poison like lead and mercury.
Really?
I though that you said it was quick.
I have headaches and disturbed dreams that only occurred after the mast was turned on.

And then you seem to have added some more anecdote about the neighbours.
Why?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 16:16:09
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?

I am an electrical engineer who was a director of engineering for a New York company. I have a world wide patent on a special natural gas burner system for heating metal can seams. And invented a flame plasma control for flame treating plastics so one can print on them (just the flame control - the treating effect was well known but at times erratic). And invented a small (to fit in a cabinet) tester for traveling wave protective relay for power lines. The company who invented the relay said it could only be tested with a full scale warehouse sized set-up. My tester was good enough to point out a slight window of slow operation (that the main company knew about). I was the one who advised an electronics company that their random failures were because of a combination of solder paste and under-temperature resin poured in humid conditions which caused a tiny bubble filled with a drop of water on a sensor joint. Six of their engineers working for six months had not solved it.

I also worked for a company designing specialized circuit boards which had to pass tests for radio emissions and radio susceptibility. We had our own specialized Faraday room with antenna and spectrum analyzers.

In one case I had to solve the problem of our stainless steel electrodes in a bread oven turning into brittle ceramic in a matter of months. Chlorine in the water sprayed onto the bread (and our red hot electrodes) to give it a hard crust. I was hired to help a vending machine company find the random mis-operations their machines were having. The software was not allowing one component enough time to settle down. I can trouble shoot electrical, electronic and the software. I was asked to fix a university project that produced three phase power (35kVA) from single phase using space vector technology. I solved it by re-writing a portion of the code written in C++ with machine code and carefully designing the interrupts to ensure no glitches.

Recently I troubleshot a solar geyser installation (the top brand) and pointed out the design flaws that were causing the problems. A poorly designed power supply and relying on a over-pressure valve on a working basis and not a safety relief. This stressed the tanks with early failures. I was asked to evaluate a major solar installation quote for a large company. I pointed out that they would need a large generator (equivalent to their highest load) when the City power failed. The supplier did not mention this - one cloud and down it goes.

I worked with a NZ company supplying equipment to the Australian army for war games using laser technology. I handled to the lightning rod specifications, mobile generating equipment and portable radio masts. Going for diesel/battery over more esoteric solutions, and telling them that the lightning expert was wrong with regard to the mobile control centers. He had the grace to concede I was correct.

Yeah, I think I qualify for research and problem solving.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 16:18:06
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 16:21:12
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.
And nobody ever said that it didn't.
What point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 16:23:54
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.

MW is everywhere. It is just that the agents would be testing to get local standing waves in a part of the room where a sweep would show slightly higher than normal power. The tests are no doubt designed to see what power and pulsation levels they can get away with. They already know the effects - just trying to see how long (in months) and how low they can go without detection. Even if they put detectors on peoples heads the operators would think it is just higher than usual. Unless they were specifically looking for this type of attack.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 16:26:11
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.

On some people and some levels.
In other it make take decades. And some may not notice the degradation in their health - blaming everything else.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 16:26:42
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...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 16:33:34
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 17:04:42
....edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2019/08/30/vaping-lung-disease-texas-healthy-teen-gupta-pkg-vpx.cnn

At 1:27 the comment..."While it is notoriously difficult to prove cause and effect". Hmm.

Really... first the anecdotes, then the science.

And when the numbers of people being harmed go up dramatically, suddenly people do not wait for the proof from science or explanations as to the mechanisms.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 17:12:06
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.

The foreign agents doing the attack would have access to the residences through cleaning staff. Ever heard of computer modelling to determine the placement of standing waves?

The attacks happened in the residents of the consulate staff, not in the actual consulates or embassies. Those attacked complained of issues at night when sleeping. Including Frey-like noise.

This would be high tech stuff. Not some local yokels playing around.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/09/2019 17:18:57
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...

I do not understand your confusion unless it is caused by your confirmation bias.

You give an example where heating from MW is the effect and we all agree on that. I say there is no need to hide this.

My example is about possible cellular damage due to non-heating effects - either the Frey effect or cellular disruption. This is an effect the cell companies and military do not want discussed or attributed to MWs. I say they want to hide these effects.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 17:37:20
Do you know why it's called the Frey effect?
It's because Dr Frey published stuff about it- about 60 years ago.
So, if the military are trying to keep it a secret... well lets just hope they do a better job with real secrets.

I'm still waiting for you to cite a scientific paper on cellular disruption at levels (significantly) lower than those which would cause thermal effects.

Obviously, it's possible that you can't- because they are all suppressed.
But then you would need to explain why there are lots of (dubious) papers which you can cite.

Are you saying that the phone companies and the military are only allowing papers by people who are borderline competent.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 17:38:15
Ever heard of computer modelling to determine the placement of standing waves?

Ever heard of computer modeling for weather forecasting?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2019 17:38:58
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 07:01:38
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.

Yes. However, it is more complicated than simple heating. It is mechanical vibrations set up in living tissue due to thermo-elastic effects, and it needs pulsations to occur. If a persons brain is experiencing such pulsations then is would be no surprise that the symptoms mimic mild concussion.

MW -> Heat = The known effect for the general population.
Pulsed MW -> Pulsed Heat -> Mechanical vibration in tissue = A little known effect

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 07:05:21
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. Who has not heard of it?

They are on quite a different scale of complexity. 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2019 07:23:10
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 -> Heat
requires high power (compared to a phone)
Pulsed MW ->
Requires an even higher peak power and is thus more readily detected.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 07:36:12
Last night at 1 am I was struck by how many people (the vast majority) have problems with cognitive dissonance.

This is the ability to hold two conflicting versions of a belief at the same time. For example, I can think at times that there is no God and other times I am sure there is (from personal experience combined with logical argument). I have to rationalize why I hold two different beliefs at different times. I could easily debate either position logically. I know all the arguments for and against.

With tower radiation, I am finding that people are either worried or are convinced some people are just exaggerating and imagining. A large part of the problem is that people want their phones and devices. They would experience severe cognitive dissonance to have to be careful about using their device and being silent about all the towers and antennae arrays. Hence the cell companies have an automatic bias for people to believe their propaganda. I see it in some relatives of ours. Others have a hard time believing it can be so bad, and decide they are not sure.

When the tower was installed I was forced to check my belief system that a) the radiation was harmless and b) that it would be directed over our heads. My research meant I had to abandon the old beliefs. Not only that, the more I researched, the more I was forced to rethink and change my beliefs.

So far you three opposing posters apparently suffer so much from the inability to change your beliefs that you read everything with a jaundiced eye (confirmation bias). You see only the negatives. You read a science study and then nit-pick using arguments that could be used against just about any science that is still developing.

I saw this very clearly in a community in Cape Town. They all spoke negatively of the people who were emigrating to New Zealand. Around the braai (barbecue) they spoke of all the great things SA had to offer. Once they made the decision to emigrate it was overnight. Then all they could see was crime, corruption and disaster. It was like flipping a switch. They knew that some people experienced "buyers remorse" upon leaving. They made scrap books with all the news headlines to remind them of why they left. They heard of the family that put all their possessions on a boat and changed their minds and flew back before the boat arrived. The boat was on the return trip to SA when they once more changed their minds and flew back to NZ.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 07:48:02
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 -> Heat
requires high power (compared to a phone)
Pulsed MW ->
Requires an even higher peak power and is thus more readily detected.

Modelling from past data and modelling from physical structures is two different things. There is no need to get precision. Just vary the frequency slightly back and forth and the high intensity spot will sweep back and forth. Enough to do the damage.

High power equals high heat. Low power equals low heat. If low heat pulsations can cause damage when reflections and standing waves intensify the absorbed power then the object is achieved. And they had weeks to do it and slowly increase power and vary pulsations and frequency until they saw a reaction. The position of the beds was probably quite well established, and the people are lying still. If a thermal scope and meters were used to detect hot-spots then this might have assisted the targeting. Just a one degree increase in head temperatures could do it. Anyhow, once more you argue it cannot be done because you believe it cannot be done. The CIA did investigate very novel ways to assassinate leaders. The umbrella gun shooting a radiactive pellet into the back of a leg was a novel way.

Faraday cage. Will have to check the past posts.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/09/2019 09:54:38
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 02/09/2019 10:11:07
Quote from: CliveG
Including 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...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 13:37:34
It is just that the agents would be testing to get ...
And, of course, for security purposes, lots of embassy buildings aer faraday caged.

You missed my point that the attacks took place in the residences. Not the embassy buildings which are shielded for a variety of reasons - mostly electronic eavesdropping.

I agree that the attacks could not take place in the official buildings that were purpose built.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/09/2019 14:28:41
Quote from: CliveG
Including 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...

They did not report "Frey" noise. They described the noise. Frey noise consists of "click, buzz, hiss, knock, or chirp. ...Something  like  that  of  a  bee buzzing  on  a  window,  but  with,  perhaps,  more  high frequencies. ... or tinnitus.."

Note the temperature differential which is estimated to be 5 millionth of a degree Celsius. Note also that the area affected is the temporal lobe of the brain although the hearing is involved. And that brain size has an effect.

I would add that a round head acts like a lens I would think. The change in speed of the wave would cause this to happen so that although the power drops off with penetration it also increases due to the lensing effect.

Here is a good paper (2003). onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bem.10163

The power threshold is extremely high, but all is takes is a single 50 usec pulse to get an effect.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2019 19:07:20
If low heat pulsations can cause damage
And, if not...?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/09/2019 06:42:08
If low heat pulsations can cause damage
And, if not...?

Then maybe the attacks would not have produced results.

Of course, this is only with regard to heat. The cellular damage due to molecular disruption would take place at much lower power, but could be devastating depending on the tolerance of the individual.

I have not forgotten that I must respond to a previous post once the legal pressure is off.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2019 07:07:28
Then maybe the attacks would not have produced results.
Which is consistent with the known facts.

Do you realise that you keep going back to begging the question?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2019 07:17:48
One test was peaks of 70 usec at peak power of 90 mW/scm and average power 0.32 mW/sqcm
Or roughly 10% of the power where everyone agrees that straightforward thermal damage is expected.
So, that's clearly enough to be easy to detect.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2019 07:19:46
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2019 08:50:58
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.

Interesting numbers. The "average power" is irrelevant: what matters to the auditory perception system (i.e. what we hear) is the peak power and prf.

A precise subharmonic of the peak absorption frequency for water, delivered at 180 times the statutory power limit for occupational exposure and with a repetition rate within the normal audible spectrum, produces an auditory phenomenon. One would be amazed if it didn't.

The auditory system responds to repetitive pressure changes (sound). Mostly these come from the outside air, but pulsed heating of the brain and vestibular lymph is indistinguishable from airborne pressure changes - indeed the system is more sensitive to internal pressure changes than external as there is no mechanical transmission loss. We use internal "bone conduction"  for some types of hearing aid where there is substantial damage or malformation to the extravestibular components of the ear.   

Since transient heating of the brain and/or cochlea pulses the sensory cells from the "wrong end", the sensation won't correspond to the normal perception of 50 Hz as a low hum: the mechanical spectral filter of the cochlea has been bypassed and the nerve impulses may be closer to white noise. 

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/09/2019 09:04:00
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.

Your can critique my comments using logical fallacies, but you have no problem using them. In this case, I presume you are being obviously facetious.

Appeal to Extremes

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

Logical Form: If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X).

Example #1:
There is no way those Girl Scouts could have sold all those cases of cookies in one hour.  If they did, they would have to make $500 in one hour, which, based on an 8 hour day is over a million dollars a year.  That is more than most lawyers, doctors, and successful business people make!

Explanation: The Girl Scouts worked just for one hour -- not 40 per week for a year.  Suggesting the extreme leads to an absurd conclusion; that Girl Scouts are among the highest paid people in the world.   Not to mention, there is a whole troop of them doing the work, not just one girl.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2019 10:45:27
A million dollars per year is certainly beyond the reach of legitimate businessmen but for the CEO of a bankrupt bank or a public service contractor with no staff (in the case of the UK, a shipping company with no ships, or a railway company that didn't even bid for the shipping contract)  it's small change!

As you say, my closing example was facetious, but the preceding biophysics is drawn from my regular lectures and interests. 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 03/09/2019 11:02:31
oops! crossover with Alan & Clive...
Quote from: CliveG
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.

I have heard it claimed that the human ear can (just) detect sounds corresponding to an average air displacement the width of a hydrogen atom.

The average air displacement in the outer ear gets transformed into an average water displacement in the inner ear by means of a mechanical transformer (tiny bones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_ear#Vestibular_and_cochlear_systems)), which matches the impedance of the air to the impedance of the water.

Since the impedance of water is much higher, the mechanical displacement of the water molecules will be much lower.

So what we are saying is that if you give someone large bursts of radiation with enough average power to give them 10% of a burn, they can hear the microscopic expansion and contraction of the fluid in their inner ear.
- I imagine that this could be very annoying and even frightening
- especially if you didn't know where it is coming from!

Now, the amount of power coming from the cell tower into your house is far lower than the close-to-dangerous levels that Frey was using.
- So it is highly unlikely that you will have any detectable effects
- Are you hearing any buzzing sounds? (apart from tinnitus)
- 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 assume that some rectifying component in the fixed phone was responding to the microwave energy from the cellphone, and amplifying it
- So I could identify the different buzzes that came from my mobile phone
- Just moving the mobile phone a couple of feet away from the fixed phone stopped the buzz in the fixed-line phone
- If the buzz were due to the cell tower, moving the mobile handset would not have stopped it 
- At no time did I get an audible buzzing in my ear when I wasn't using the fixed-line phone, and the cellphone rang

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2019 19:23:08
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!

and
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.

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: RD on 03/09/2019 20:39:02
.. 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/
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2019 21:02:43
.. 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/

Well, that's what mine sounds like (also via the speakers on my PC)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/09/2019 07:01:42
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.

No. Black glass stops absorption in a couple of millimeters. A better analogy is grayed glass. The rays that do penetrate will concentrate. It means that one cannot just rely on absorption to reduce the radiation.

We know that it MW penetrates about 50 millimeters (it cooks food throughout).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/09/2019 07:25:46
oops! crossover with Alan & Clive...
Quote from: CliveG
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.
[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.

I accept that the Frey effect as tested in the labs requires very high powered pulses.

I am not sure whether tower pulsations can give problems with hearing that are due to constant (bit low power) thermoelastic effects or cellular disruption or both.

My wife and I have not experienced the Frey effect in terms of clicks or buzzing.

Our problem with tinnitus and hearing loss only happened after the tower had been powered up for at least a month. Both of those effects 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 (as did mine I think when away) and has returned now that she is back in the house. The tinnitus does seem to have some added noise at times that seems to be a digital modulation of the continuous whine going up and down in volume mostly at short intervals.

My wife says that she experiences a "vibration" in her head and sometimes in her chest in the house. Only with the tower powered on. The opposite neighbour said much the same. I presume that it might be hearing related because both also say it feels like the bed is moving (vibrating). I have not had that.

I have hardly used a cell phone and when we had our DECT (hands-free) phone I insisted on using the wired phone. When I do use my cell phone now, I keep my conversations short and use speaker phone after propping the phone on an object. All Wifi in our house is off until we use it briefly. My phone is always off data so it does not update or transmit (except perhaps a short response to a tower checking on who is in the area) now and then. I save time and battery power.

Before I learned of the dangers of cell MW I just felt uneasy about radiation next to my head.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/09/2019 07:33:30
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!

and
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.

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?

You miss the point about the type of radiation and the power patterns. Most people do not have their phone stuck to their head 24 hours a day and talking the whole time. When not talking or updating the phone is not transmitting. Even when transmitting it is only doing so one-eight of the time. If it did, the medical problems would be pouring into the hospitals. As people use their phones more, and more towers go up, the problems are likely to increase. It is also likely that cell MW will not be blamed for a number of years.

BTW - The cell companies love to use this argument - wrong as it is. The reason is that you can control your phone usage but not the tower next door.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2019 07:35:07
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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 04/09/2019 11:40:49
Quote from: CliveG
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.
- 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?

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2019 19:48:33
If it did, the medical problems would be pouring into the hospitals.
Can you please try to manage one post without begging the question?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/09/2019 23:29:53
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/09/2019 06:14:57
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

My understanding of the physics is that any incident wave on a surface of a body with a different refractive index will undergo an angular change if the incidence is at an angle. I have not done the detail work to understand the magnitude of the change or how it relates to wavelength.

So you are saying that there will be no angular change of the incident wave because of the relative size of the object compared to the wavelength? It seems reasonable. Can you give me a reference?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/09/2019 06:28:39
Quote from: CliveG
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.
- 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?

Quote
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.
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.

I was my understanding that tinnitus involved damage to the hairs and because the hairs do not re-grow the effect is permanent. Since both my wife and I are experiencing some kind of tinnitus that varies and can disappear one wonders if this is a new area of research. Perhaps the damage is not a break off but a cellular disruption causing dysfunction. I doubt that relaxing is a an explanation of the recovery. Mine was not.

I questioned my wife about the "vibration". She said that it is not a mechanical vibration but that was the best way to describe the sensation. She thinks it is related to some of the nerves around the heart.

At other times she did get what felt like heart flutters. I got a double heart beat when wearing an oximeter which gave me an alarm. Feeling my pulse confirmed that it was beating twice as fast. It stopped suddenly after about 10 to 15 minutes.

None of these have happened before the tower. But what the heck - the Devil is here to confuse us as to cause and effect. Not to forget we have the usual human imaginations which mean that very little in life can be taken seriously. I am being sarcastic of course to  try to beat you to the punch.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/09/2019 06:34:42
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2019 07:54:21
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.
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).

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 05/09/2019 10:32:38
Quote from: CliveG
related to some of the nerves around the heart
Atrial 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...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2019 19:39:47
If your heart rhythm is unstable then you should seek professional help.
That would still be true if the issue was caused by phone tower.

As a side benefit, you can look at the data from the heart monitor and the em field monitor + see if there's a correlation
(obviously, that's only meaningful if both sets of data are logged independently. You making notes doesn't quite cut it as evidence.)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/09/2019 07:14:12
[snip]
Quote
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.
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).

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.

You are so wrong. There are regulations about where masts can be situated. In our case the company engaged in fraud and corruption to get it where it is. The City claims that the mast companies could put a mast in one's swimming pool without approval and without notification. They are wrong. If the mast had been properly approved we would have simply moved,

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. four companies usually. Figure out the profit and the time to pay off a R2 million mast. Profit profit profit. Which is why the human race is extincting itself.

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.

Take our tower at 3,000 uW/sqm 24 hrs a day 365 days a year communicating with 100 phones all the time in our segment.

And my cell phone usage. 3 calls a day for 5 minutes on speaker phone. Data off for the rest of the time. And in another room at night.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/09/2019 07:18:38
Quote from: CliveG
related to some of the nerves around the heart
Atrial 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...

I have had tests and am just fine. So is my wife. The oximeter has a recording that I could download.

These "aging problems" only occurred during the high radiation in a 6 month span and have now gone. But you choose obstinately not to see any correlation.

Quote "There are none so blind as those who will not see. Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant."
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2019 07:32:46
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.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/09/2019 16:40:25
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.

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?

The cell companies used to erect their own masts. They stopped doing that. I guess it was because it causes all sorts of problems and often needs fraud to do it. (A specialist company - you know - like the Mafia). Also four companies per mast as cell densities rise. Profit profit profit...

Dose is not the peak power but the energy absorbed over time. Just like regular radiation. So where is your math and numbers? Or even a scientific article comparing the two.

It is admittedly complicated because the pulsations and the peaks are part of what causes the damage.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/09/2019 17:17:01
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).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2019 18:19:20
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/09/2019 05:27:23
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/09/2019 05:29:10
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).

This is the issue that I have been putting off. Thanks for reposting.

I do not like ICNIRP because they ignore and avoid the science of cellular harm.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 07/09/2019 08:53:45
Quote from: CliveG
noticeably night time
If 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"?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2019 12:42:16
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.
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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/09/2019 10:51:31
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.
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

You are amazing. I feel am having a discussion with Dilberts boss.

The effect only happens to two people when the tower is powered and they are home. Usually in bed at night. It does not happen any other 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. They never "proved" it was a particular brand because the problem was over before they could take samples. They were pretty sure afterward by examining the narratives. Apparently it is common practice to adulterate some oil with cheaper ingredients (some of them harmful).

Aaah. 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?

This was one of the "made to fail" studies I mentioned earlier. To get so many participants is unusual. Note that some (2 then 3 then 2) dropped out in the beginning because they experienced severe symptoms. Those just might have been the "real McCoys". They probably had an entire group of non-EHS people doing random guessing.

Once in the USA I was asked by a friend to participate in a study group. But I do not meet the criteria I said. Just lie, we all do. You get some money and have a giggle. The lying involved giving the answer required. I declined.

I know only two EHS people who may have problems with cell phone usage. In one case the person will not openly answer my questions about what they feel and experience so I am suspicious about their claims being exaggerated. I know a whole lot of cell tower sufferers who are quite specific and their symptoms have been well documented and described in various epidemiological studies.

BTW - I also met a number of people who claimed to "see spirits" and do astral travel. I only really believed one who was consistent in her answers - and was honest with regard to some programs inducting new recruits into a "Sangoma" (witch-doctor or natural healer). Too much money incentive and too many ways to fake the outcomes she said. There are many frauds, and the EHS area is fertile ground. The study does not say how they tested people to qualify them for the study.

There are also a number of frauds among the science community - they will do studies to get money as long as they design tests that will give the result the sponsor wants.

The existence of frauds does not render all studies useless.

I will finish by saying I worked at home next to the tower on Saturday to make more screens for the window. I worked under the carport but still had quite a bit of body exposure. I shielded my head the whole time. Just after lunch I got stomach cramps and by late afternoon had a small amount of diarrhea. Hardly psychosomatic. And all pretty repeatable.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/09/2019 10:56:02
Quote from: CliveG
noticeably night time
If 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"?

I have answered this before. The peak power takes place when there are shorted or fewer connections. When connected, the cell phones and the tower talk to each other to reduce their power. This is in agreement with my meter.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:24:50
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".
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.
And re
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?

Once you start saying the BMJ is fake news, you stop sounding remotely credible.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2019 15:07:01
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 08/09/2019 23:16:25
Quote from: CliveG
The 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.

Quote
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.

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...

Quote
The 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.

Quote
This 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_au
So 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/09/2019 06:09:21
Quote from: CliveG
The 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.

Quote
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.

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...

Quote
The 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.

Quote
This 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_au
So 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.

The damage to my mental ability is showing. I normally have to proof-read every post multiple times to get rid of errors. And although there was some decline before the mast I am now experiencing a lot of difficulty with words, spelling and grammar. It has been quite noticeable and dramatic.

I meant shorter connections. Clearly a more distant connection requires more power. When the vehicle traffic is high and going past our house there are many connections that last more than a minute or two. That mean many short distance connections operating at low power.

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. The pulsations are also worse because the transmissions may not be at full "capacity" where each time slot is operational.
This means higher peak power at night time.

Of course, the cell companies keep such data and operational details away from the public. It is not general knowledge.

The experiences were at about 2 to 4 am. The meter has a "peak" reading and an "rms" reading. The peak readings were much higher than at other times, thus confirming what I have said.

Given that pulsations are the most biologically dangerous it also make sense that these were the worst times. The longer low power and the more intense high power gives a pulse frequency that may cause muscle nerves to "oscillate" thus giving the sensation of "vibration".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2019 06:15:39
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 09/09/2019 10:04:44
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 06:22:10
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.

That has already been done if you have been reading my posts.

I got  lot of symptoms over a few months before I bought the meter. At that time, I thought the tower was radiating over our head and not directly at us as it turned out.

When the tower was turned on illegally my wife said she had a "tower headache" and the meter confirmed she was right.

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 (although I would have like it)? I have taken enough readings are various times to see the pattern. A number of them were after the symptoms like the night readings.

I will answer the next post to give numbers as to why night time is worse.

How does this even remotely correlate to your anecdote? We all know the power of suggestion - which is missing in our case.

Yesterday I had to work on my car outside in the full radiation from 10 am to 1pm. I had head and leg protection on. Afterward I felt okay - but it was just delayed. At 5 pm I got terrible stomach pains - like eating broken glass. Lasted a few hours. Once more - consistency.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 07:27:57
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.

You are correct that I am wrong that 300 got sick. The fact is that 300 died. 20,000 got sick with many having chronic illnesses afterward. 1981 The Spanish Toxic Oil Syndrome.

See  researchgate.net/publication/11366790_The_Spanish_Toxic_Oil_Syndrome_20_Years_after_Its_Onset_A_Multidisciplinary_Review_of_Scientific_Knowledge
In 1981, in Spain, the ingestion of an oil fraudulently sold as olive oil caused an outbreak of a previously unrecorded condition, later known as toxic oil syndrome (TOS)... Of the 20,000 persons affected, approximately 300 died shortly after the onset of the disease and a larger number developed chronic disease...Attempts to reproduce the condition in laboratory animals have been unsuccessful, and no condition similar to TOS has been reported in the scientific literature.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome says that 600 people died. I am not sure which site you looked at.

So you would have put the olive oil on your salad even as people around you were reporting illness and death due to bad oil? Oil that was never proven to sicken? And that no mechanism could be found because human testing is illegal?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 08:06:32
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.

The BMJ published the "Danish Cohort Study" which came to the conclusion that there was no effect from cell phones.

Although still widely used by the industry and others it has been thoroughly discredited as "bad science". When the numbers are properly adjusted it does show an effect.

Here is one article summarizing the criticism.

ehtrust.org/science/danish-cohort-cell-phone-and-cancer-study/
...The Danish Cohort study was established with support from two Danish telecom operating companies—TeleDenmark Mobil (partially owned by SBC Communications, which is Denmark’s largest phone company) and Sonafon.
...The study was conducted by the industry-friendly International Epidemiology Institute (IEI) known as an industry defense firm
...Leszczynski published an opinion in The Scientist magazine entitled Scientific Peer Review in Crisis. The case of the Danish Cohort“ asking “How is it possible that the British Medical Journal allowed such a poor quality peer review?” and “Why, once alerted to serious design flaws by readers, have BMJ editors not taken any action?
...As an example of this corporate commissioned science, IEI scientists Boice and McLaughlin published a study on the mortality of aircraft manufacturing workers and found “no clear evidence” (First in 1999 with a 2011 follow up). This study was funded by Lockheed Martin Corporation at a time when the aerospace firm faced “a slew of claims” related to health concerns.  Lockheed Martin already had paid $60 million to residents and $33 million to workers in confidential out-of-court settlements.  The company still claimed there was “no evidence.”
PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES ON THE FLAWS OF THE DANISH STUDY
...“Conclusions: Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or lat
ency.”

I think the BMJ panders to big corporates with regard to "fake news".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 11:56:53
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?

There are multiple transmitters on the mast, all interacting. Let us take one.

I assume that when dialing and trying to connect both the phone and the tower go to full power. Let us call that 100%.
When connected, the phone and tower can go to very low power depending on the line of sight, interference from other signals and the amount of humidity in the air. Let us say that it could be 2% for a close signal.

Since the tower pushes less power outward than it does downward, and does not “beam-form”, any phone or device that is not close will require more power when connected. Let us assume a figure of 20% for our house.

One transmitter has eight time slots so we can allocate power depending on the number of close calls, far calls, ringing versus talking, and polling.
6:30 am Very high traffic going right past the front of our house.
Assumptions -  10% is ringing and polling. 80% is close and connected. 10% is distant.
1 pm Not much traffic 20% is ringing and polling. 60% is close and connected. 20% is distant.
3 am Almost no traffic 80% is ringing and polling. 10% is close and connected. 10% is distant.
This would give the following distributions over 100 time slots (Max power=100x100 =10,000)
10x100 + 80x2 + 10x20 = 1,260
20x100 + 60x2 + 20x20 = 2,320
80x100 + 10x2 + 10x20 = 8,120

Now the problem is compounded by the shape of the pulsation. If the max power was spread throughout the 100 time slots then one gets an occasional high pulse among the low. Say 9 low and 1 high repeated 10 times. The body deals with that. If at night, the highs are grouped together it might be possible to get 40 highs, 5 lows, 30 highs and 15 lows. The grouping of the peak power has a more intense effect on the body and the nerves, causing them to tension up, and then relax on the lows.

It has already been verified by studies that less radiation can cause problems if the radiation has a certain pulsing characteristic. There seems to be a particular range and modulation and pattern that has to be present to cause symptoms. Science now has to play catch-up to identify those parameters. They also have to use human subjects. Since you (and many others) are convinced there is no harm I assume there is no ethical restriction to using you guys.

You first need to be "sensitized" by a few months of exposure to a working tower with 3,000 uW/sqm peak. That too should not be a problem. Right? Perhaps throw in some fluoroquinolone pills for good measure. They are prescribed like candy here.

I do not have any data on how the meter calculates the peak. I assume it has a response rate and then there is some averaging. This would be needed so to get rational readings despite the some maximum peaks of 100% being present at all times. The meter company would not answer my queries as to their algorithm and response times.

The meter has no automatic features at all. Manual turn-on and measure.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2019 12:07:36
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.

The problem with peer review is that it reflects the prejudices of the reviewers, who are generally academic rather than industrial scientists. Success in academia depends very much on consensus rather than innovation.

From the other side of the fence, I can see that whilst innovative and revolutionary thinking in industry leads to profits, admitting a fault in your product can wipe out those profits, and thousands of jobs, in an instant, so a "quiet fix" is always preferable to a public confession.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2019 12:11:43
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 16:35:37
One of the more infamous "fake news" scientific articles. 13 years to retract.

From a NZ paper about a child with measles:

The paper Edward-Lasenby was seemingly referring to was published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1997, but was retracted in 2010 due to its incorrect elements and ethical violations, among other reasons.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 16:42:08
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.

Explain please. I do not follow. (Not the drowning statisticians).

Actually, now that I think about it, you have posted an example of where peaks are a problem compared to averages. 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/09/2019 16:48:29
Just reading this about out stone-age brains
politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

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.


Are you guys guilty of doubling down a lot?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 19:36:17
I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancer
Strictly 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 19:40:11
You are correct that I am wrong that 300 got sick. The fact is that 300 died. 20,000 got sick
OK, I apologise for believing your figure without checking it.
Wher I said  this

You have mistaken 2 for 300.
I should have said that you have mistaken 2 for 20,000.

Happy to clarify that you were even more absurdly wrong than I had originally thought.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 19:45:59
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.
It is, perhaps, a little inconvenient.

But it seems unlikely that Clive is different from many others who make essentially the same claim.
And it might (for any number of reasons) be easier to ask them to participate in the experiment.

It's difficult to see how the outcome would be  significantly different.

The problem is that, when I point out that the experiment(in that form) has already been done, Clve tells me it's fake news.

So, what's the point of repeating it?
Does anyone think that doing the experiment- as proposed- would actually change Clive's opinion?
Or do you think this would happen.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 19:55:17
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2019 23:02:40
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! 

5ft all the way across might be survivable for anyone over 6 ft tall. 5ft  on average, or even 3 ft on average, means there could be 500 ft depth in the middle because the beach is a very shallow slope.

"5ft on average all the way across" is the sort of meaningless drivel you might hear from a US President or an economics correspondent.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2019 23:12:41
Quote
from: 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.

It's dead easy! You can get a reasonable data logger for around £100 and hitch it to a computer and whatever EM field monitor you like, then record the EM field every minute for as long as you fancy, but just keep the kit in a locked box so Clive can't see it. Clive records his symptoms in a diary (which I guess he does anyway) and after a few days you compare the field intensity plot with the diary.

If the box is sealed and opened by a reliable witness, the evidence will stand up in any court. Best of all, get the supposed culprit to seal and open the box in the presence of a witness.

The beauty is that you don't need accurate numbers, or even orders of magnitude accuracy. What matters is the time correlation between symptoms and supposed cause.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 06:09:54
With regard to the pulsations

On Tuesday night my wife had whole body "vibrations" coming and going and this was at levels of about 10 to 20 uW/sqm because of the shielding

And I just got this today from a person I trust to be EHS. She is trying to find a meter that will give a reading of the pulsations. Unfortunately I know of none. The meters give an audio that represents the type of radiation but not accurately.
I've been using the Accoustimeter. That covers the 200MHz to 8GHz range. After numerous readings (the field intensity's been helpful too) over a long period of time, I basically can tell what the readings will be without using the meter. From an experiential p.o.v., the studies have been quite true: i.e. there are windows of intensity of exposure when effects may occur and may not necessarily be based on the readings being high. They can occur around high and low exposures. The worst is the pulsed effects, which lately have become very penetrative into the heart area, as opposed to the smooth waves. I fail to imagine how anyone can tolerate 3,000uW/sqm over a sustained period


Forget the Thames. This is a real effect and you can stick your heads in the proverbial sand but with time it will be scientifically proven. Unfortunately I think a large part of the population will be damaged by that time. Not cancer, but conditions that will bring society down.

As for setting up blind testing with meter and a logger, I need to find get both meter and logger. What do you want? It only happens to me outside in the high strength. I know when I am outside. How do I get the telcomms to cooperate to turn on and turn off and then tell us when? They will not. It is not in their interests.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 06:21:38
I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancer
Strictly 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.

I have had a hard look at myself and I repeat my claim. I say this for two reasons.

One is personal experience which is hard to beat. (Except you say it is psychosomatic which has been shown to be wrong in a number of medical situations, notably Epstein Barr.)

The second is the huge number of studies showing the mechanism for harm and the type of harm that you guys are ignoring. I am not the one doing the ignoring.

So far your responses amount to nit-picking on semantic and minor technical assumptions on your part.

Nevertheless I am happy to debate because it shows what I (and many others) are up against. I have learned a lot. The Frey effect is not involved at the power intensities involved and now (later posts) cancer and how radiation and other carcinogens promote cancer.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 06:29:45
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.

I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.

I did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me. My wife and I are affected. Your only rebuttal is that we are mistaken. Mistaken about what? The numerous and severe symptoms? That only occur around the tower when it is on?

A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believable (if one has a non-corrupt judge).

You guys are demanding scientific proof to very high standards rather that assess all I have put before you. For whatever reason, you don't want to believe cell MW could be harmful.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 07:03:58
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).

Okay, this is an important one that required some research on my part. We agree on some points.

Stochastic radiation harm. It is a probability of someone getting a cancer. The higher the dose (time and energy) the higher the probability. The effect is simply cancer and not degrees of cancer. Once diagnosed it is usually not recoverable. One can get cancer from very low doses (time and energy) and even from natural background radiation. As with all complex issues there are some minor exceptions. When the radiation goes high (hence a high dose) it can cause the cancer to die. This is radiation treatment.

Deterministic harm is where the harm is going to happen at a certain high dose and/or dose-rate. Such as radiation burns on skin (some patients where the machines were not properly operated) and radiation burns on fingers of dentists when they held the film in place. I still remember them doing this when I was a small kid. There is still some variation in the probability of getting cancer. Some people are more resistant and some people are quite susceptible.

I am going to have to continue this later.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2019 08:20:08
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.

Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection
And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?
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.
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 believable
Just 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/09/2019 08:25:34
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 10:33:26
On the question of latency - carrying on from previous post.

Here are three good summaries of other more scientific articles I have read.

verywellhealth.com/what-are-cancer-cells-2248795
verywellhealth.com/what-are-precancerous-cells-2248796
verywellhealth.com/what-is-cancer-latency-period-4057124

Last article
Another example of the importance of a latency period arises in discussions about cell phone use and brain cancer. It's been argued by some people that if cell phone use is a risk factor for brain cancer we should be seeing a significant increase in these tumors. It's important to note, however, that if tobacco smoking started and became common at the same time that cell phone use took off, we still would be wondering if tobacco could cause cancer. Obviously, smoking does cause cancer, but due to the latency period of decades, we could not have made a clear assessment of risk in the analogy. In other words, the jury is still out on the exact risk between cell phone use and cancer.

Summing up the factors
Latency period factors
-   Dose and intensity of exposure
-   Duration of exposure
-   Kind of substance
-   Type of cancer
-   Age at exposure
-   Gender
-   Genetic susceptibility
-   Additional risk factors (eg other carcinogens)
-   Medical issues like immune system suppression

Now about the cancer on my wives face. Clearly she is predisposed to facial cancer – we knew that two years ago. So the cells on her face have gone through the number of mutations required to be precancerous. All it took was the cell tower radiation on a continuous basis to complete the final mutations.

This latency period should be a serious alarm bell for authorities and the industry. Massive number of cancer patients in ten to twenty years? And young patients? Already two relatives who are young (34 years and 38 years) who had/have fatal cancer.

In the case of the 17 year old with giant cell osteosarcoma a risk factor is genes. So is radiation. And a growth spurt – lots of cell divisions. The latency is effectively unknown. But once more – tower + growth spurt = bone cancer within 3 years. Cannot prove it, but I would worry about teenagers and close towers. Plus the other 4 teenagers in the US with a mystery as to why they all got bone cancer in the same year.

The other case was a woman putting her cell phone in her bra (left breast). Got cancer and left breast removed. Long time heavy smoker. So very likely the precancerous cells were present and the cell phone was the final mutating factor.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 10:38:50
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/09/2019 10:51:10
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.

Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection
And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?
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.
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 believable
Just 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.

Sigh....

I have considered the alternate theories and find them lacking. But give you even the smallest admission then you build your whole case around that.

Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability. Why don't you try that. The witness demonstrates credibility. I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.

I was a Methodist Christian until 12 years of age. I became an ardent atheist. At 17 years I had a life crisis and became an agnostic. 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 (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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2019 18:48:49
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."

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/09/2019 22:22:11
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.

Unfortunately you seem more interested in picking a fight with your friends than winning one against your enemies, so I'll leave.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 06:26:09
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.

Unfortunately you seem more interested in picking a fight with your friends than winning one against your enemies, so I'll leave.

My intention was education and scientific interest. I have abandoned any hope of a law suit since one needs a just and fair judicial system and ours (South Africa) is totally corrupt - right to the highest levels. That has been proven to me in spades.

I find it interesting that you count me as a friend. Given the hard time you have given me. Is your rationale for leaving my "abuse" rather than my winning arguments  :). I have a quite an added number of arguments to go still. We are just scratching the surface.

Perhaps you can be persuaded to stay. I can take the hits if you can.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 06:40:37
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 first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.

The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to them, and have some justification for thinking that they are helpful. I also accept that atheists have reasons for their beliefs because I was one at one time. This was not a swipe at any category but an extreme example of how I can accept different versions of a controversial subject. I am not a church going bible reading Christian. Just one who thinks that the probability of God is about 98% and that Christians have a basic set of rules that humanity could live by. It was also a point that sometimes the only evidence is personal observation, and that this is so at the beginning of a physical phenomena. And mine were quite different to most. Only a few through-out my life but unusual.

I will not bring up religion again in this thread. Clearly a mistake on my part.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 06:49:57
This is an excerpt from an EMF meter. The manual is worth reading. They split a table over two pages which was confusing at first.

emfields-solutions.com/assets/uploads/acoustimeter-manual-v5w.pdf
Since wireless communications were first developed on a large scale, the scientific community held the opinion that “if it does not heat you it will not hurt you”, as 50 years ago, these were the only effects that were acknowledged. The average heating effect was what mattered. The units typically used now for measuring the time-averaged power of microwave frequency EMFs is microwatts of power arriving per square metre (μW/m2), and we have used this for the “average power”.

There have now been hundreds of studies finding non-thermal effects from modern wireless communication signals. This requires a change in what is measured to suit much lower signal levels with different characteristics. We believe that peak signal strength is the most appropriate way to measure complex digitally modulated, often non-continuous, signals in a meaningful manner. Signal strength is measured in volts per metre (V/m). Many electrosensitive individuals report most adverse health effects in areas that have quite high peak levels but have average field strengths below even precautionary guidelines regarding average power levels.


Here is part of a post from a person who contact me. There is a group having problems. Not just one.
When the mast first began operating, the signal was rather crude in the first few months especially. Presumed then to be 2G & 3G - which subsequently turned out to be correct. For us, there was no latency period. Symptoms appeared straightaway. Struck in the joints; electric currents stinging body; localised headaches which would shift position depending on which part of the room you're in so one could pretty much predict where the beams are entering - however, as the months went by there were some shifts evident (Councillor's assistant said she got them to shift the antenna away from the affected - which I seriously doubt); pseudo-gout; body twitches; nausea; body heating; "forgetful memory"; muscle limpness; loss of equilibrium; dizziness.
When it updgraded to 4G, we knew it straightaway, the symptoms changed. Became more penetrative into the heart/chest, stinging the tops of head, hitting eyes (pinpricks), dry eye condition; eye problems; nausea, tingling numbness etc. The multiple frequency combinations is what can be bad and I reckon dangerous.
2. There are time periods, however, when the mast gets particularly disgusting i.e. the end-start of month; mid-month; public holidays; weekends etc. During the day, it was noted that 10.30 am, 1.30 am and 3.30 am were busy times - this altered somewhat later on. Activity escalates every single day as midnight approaches. If you have a reasonably decent day (for a change) say of fluctuating between 3 and 5/10, you know that the night and overnight is going to be very, very bad (like 9-10/10) - which it always is. Last night I got to bed just after midnight and it was one of the worst nights. Strangely the signal was pretty consistent in pattern but electrically vibrating that it caused great discomfort and one is so relieved to succumb to sleep. I spoke to the neighbour across the road and she said it was a horrific night and she got struck in the feet quite a bit and she gets a lot of pain - I know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot too. I've noted the tingling numbness in the lower legs and feet is there too.
3. There is never any good day. The days are all bad. Another pattern observed re time periods is that there is some minor degree of respite during a bad day, but then the next day may be slightly worse and then you know that the 3rd day is going to be hell - which it is. So, from that it was deduced that they take the load off some tower and switch the burden to the next one and so it goes. Subsequently spoke to someone in the know and he said one tower bears the brunt for 2 days or so then it pushes over to the next.


In another area they simply burnt the mast down. Twice - before the telcomms got the message.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2019 07:40:21
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 them
And no way of working out which bit is true.

That's where science- based in evidence, rather than faith- comes in.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: syhprum on 12/09/2019 08:07:21
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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 16:02:57
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 them
And no way of working out which bit is true.

That's where science- based in evidence, rather than faith- comes in.

With regard to evidence, my interdict to shut the tower down on the basis of harm being done was accepted by the High Court. I got a fair judge because they could not "forum shop" on the urgent courts. When the telcos realized they could not win on the evidence they set about winning by bringing in all sorts of side issues.

The telcos turned on the tower shortly before I was due to file an affidavit. They knew it would make me sick. Yes, I said they were not stupid. I missed the filing by one day.

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.

Then the costs came. I got socked with a bill from the telco who was not a party, who had not asked the court to give leave to join, so there was no court ordered leave, who had to give reasons why they were taking part, which they did not, and who could not get costs because they were not listed as a party. The judge simply added them to the list of parties in his judgement. I suspect the judge was forum shopped and had his judgment written for him.

Typically a hearing of this nature would generate costs of about R20,000. I got a bill from them for R196,000. I still have to get the bill from the party (the tower company) who was a party and I expect theirs to be about R300,000. This will wipe out my savings and leave me completely broke. I was drawing up an appeal but they have shown me that I will just get more added costs. I have to drop my main suit based on a fraudulent building approval because my wife is a party and I cannot afford to have her saddled with even more costs. The Constitutional Court showed me that even there I would face bias. They declined to hear my urgent appeal saying "it was not in the interests of the justice at this time". What they really meant was "it was not in the interests of the judges, lawyers and the system at this time or any time".

This is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participants) where massive legal fees and awards are the determining factor. They could not let me win on the evidence. They had no defense. For a small hearing they had 2 senior advocates, three junior advocates and about 8-10 attorneys plus the legal head of the telco. (Advocate = barrister, attorney = solicitor). By each submitting the same long winded and irrelevant documents they could each charge me for reading what was effectively their own paperwork. And then invoice with one line saying "3 days preparation and one day in court". All for a 45 minute hearing where the bias of the judge was obvious to a couple of friends I had there. Their fear I would win on "evidence" was clear.

Yes. Even evidence obvious to a blind man can be rejected when it is politically expedient to do so. The US is known for this, although it is practiced around the world in EVERY country. Six Flags Adventure in New Jersey had judge after judge rule and then get a cushy job with a law company linked to the big corporates. See the Wall Street Journal for the article. I have no reference. I read it on a plane while in the USA where I lived for 15 years.

Faith! I am an engineer. I do not make decisions based on faith in anything. First there must be logical reasons without any contradictions. Second there must be my own experience and not that of some-one else. Anyone telling me something must be able to pass my gentle "cross-examination".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 18:09:26
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

I presume you mean Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
My initial reaction was that most sources discount any effects because the intensity/power is so small. Also it is part of the natural radiation that life evolved with and had time to adapt to – hence the double helix with built-in check and repairs.

The 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.

I wanted to get some idea as to power and frequency. This was not easy. I found a site which graphed power versus frequency. It was a log log plot. Fairly straight up to a peak of 160 Ghz and then fell away. The power was given in Watts/sqm/steradian/Hz.
Some points on the graph were: 5x 10^-19 at 10Ghz and 3x10^-18 at 100Ghz

I need my calculations and reasoning checked please.
Roughly:
To get the power a person gets standing on earth I suppose the following calculation might work
The steradian exposure is half the earths sky which would be 2pi steradians. One has to integrate over a desired section of the graph. If we took an average of 1x10^-19 Watts/sqm/steradian/Hz from 10 to 100 Ghz then we have
10^-19 x 90GHz x 2pi   watts per sqm = 0.360 uW/sqm
This is of course a number of photons hitting us in a unit time with various energies.
If we reduce the bandwidth down to 1 MHz at 160GHZ then we have
3x10^-18 x 1 MHz x 2pi = 2x10^-14 uW/sqm = 20 femtowatts/sqm = 0.0002 femtowatts/sqcm

It seems this is a constant random noise with no modulation.

EHS people are unlikely to feel CMBR because it is now so small compared to man-made radiation. It also has no modulation.

It seems EHS people get sensitized by various things. Usually a high level of radiation for a while.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/09/2019 18:15:01
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?  :)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2019 19:50:54
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?  :)
Old enough to recognise that an instruction manual, produced by the manufacturer, is not going to be an independent viewpoint.
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.
Or he may have followed the established legal viewpoint that, if it's one person's word against another, that doesn't prove guilt.
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

It's entirely possible- even likely- that your country's legal system is as corrupt as you say it is.

That has no bearing on the influence of radio waves from cell phone towers on people's health.
Second there must be my own experience and not that of some-one else.
So, there's absolutely no point in you posting here.

Why not stop?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 12/09/2019 23:09:39
Quote from: CliveG's friend
I know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot too
This 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_control

Quote from: CliveG
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?
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.

Quote
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.
It helps if they are reputable and (preferably) independent.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/09/2019 23:25:05
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 13/09/2019 09:22:44
Quote from: Syphrum
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.

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).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2019 19:12:13
What's the effective BB temp of a phone mast?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 13/09/2019 21:24:30
Quote from: Bored Chemist
What's the effective BB temp of a phone mast?
It has a spectrum quite unlike a black body...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2019 00:20:09
Quote from: Bored Chemist
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).
There are a few ways of looking at it.
The tower emits at roughly a tenth of the frequency which indicates roughly  a tenth of the temperature.
Or the tower emits over a range of frequencies, and you can look at the highest and lowest (and their intensities), then look at the ratio then fit it to a Boltzmann distribution.

How much power do humans emit as microwaves?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2019 04:45:03
How much power do humans emit as microwaves?

This might help answer that question: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html

I used data from this Wikipedia page to fill in the variables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Human-body_emission

Unfortunately, the calculator seemed to predict a power ten times what is expected. So I reduced the surface area by a factor of ten to get the right answer. If microwaves range from about 1 millimeter to 1 meter in wavelength, then the power of microwaves emitted by the human body appears to be 1.55 x 10-2 watts.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 14/09/2019 06:20:10
Quote from: CliveG's friend
I know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot too
This 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_control

Quote from: CliveG
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?
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.

Quote
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.
It helps if they are reputable and (preferably) independent.

I agree that the flickering is unlikely to be due to the radiation. Having worked and designed such circuits I can also say that it is likely due to noise ( I think SA tried ripple control and abandoned it) on the mains supply. Could the tower be injecting into the mains either by radiation or by the towers power supply? Not impossible.

The tower was powered on for about an hour and a half. The batteries powered it for about 20-30 minutes more. So the batteries draw power at about 1/4 to 1/3 of the mast power. The batteries charged while powered on and then they discharged to power the mast for a little longer.

So I am saying that they presented a bar graph of daily energy consumption and claimed that the two hours powered on (which included the energy to charge the batteries and run for a little longer) was 20% more than any other normal day. This is impossible. But what do some judges know - or even care.

In fact it just made the point even more clear - the judiciary in SA will side with large Corporates irrespective of the law or the facts. Do you think that such unethical Corporates are going to tell people the truth about cell MW harm?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 14/09/2019 06:33:08
Quote from: Syphrum
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.

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).

I did too. But I found that researching the numbers was interesting. And I found some other articles about EHS so it was not a waste of time. Now we have MW from humans being debated. We are not black bodies as far as radiation goes. The radiation is mostly infrared.

However, we live in a sea of photons given off by many sources. Living creatures have adapted to the natural (background) radiation which will cause some disruption and some mutation. But it is negligible compared to man-made radiation and life will never adapt - just age, wither and die.

It gives one more answer to the Fermi Paradox. Why no intelligent life has been detected? Because they killed themselves with Cell MW radiation before they realized it was so damaging!
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/09/2019 11:02:18
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....." 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2019 11:59:17
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".
Now please apply this new-found understanding to the instruction manual for a meter.

It is, at the least, reasonable to question data coming from corporations who have vested interests.

That's why respected journals like the BMJ require a declaration of interests from authors.
So, when you read something in a science journal (rather than, for example, enclosed with a product you bought), you can have  much greater faith in it being accurate.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2019 12:03:55
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2019 12:05:02
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: chris on 14/09/2019 22:03:01
We're getting a lot of people enquiring about 5G networks and health. Some cite claims regarding impacts of the relevant wavelengths on plants and animals. Is there any such data?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 15/09/2019 04:27:23
Quote from: chris
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.
- Meanwhile, the Russian President is promoting 5G.

We have had protests in Australia that some suburbs don't want 5G.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

Quote from: NYTimes
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.
US rats must be more technologically savvy than our local rats - I've never seen a local one using a mobile phone...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/09/2019 05:55:54
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....."

Like your reply and am aware of the other answers to Fermi's paradox.
But... the exponential rate of increase of technology in a species as advanced as ours would populate not only its own galaxy but many others in a short time. Earth is a young planet by comparison so other advanced aliens would be teeming with life all over and broadcasting to each other on a scale that we would easily detect.

And... it has not happened.

One of the theories is that advanced civilizations terminate themselves. There are two characteristics that have spurred the technological success of humankind - namely war and profit. (the Klingon values your mention) Those are likely to be mankind's down fall as well. I just add cell MW as one.

-The Amazon is burning
-The Arctic’s on fire
-The Coral Reefs are dying
-Ecosystems are crashing
-The oceans are boiling
-Emissions are accelerating
-Fertile soil is disappearing
-Insects are vanishing
Only when the last tree has withered
The last fish caught
The last river poisoned
Will we realize we cannot eat money

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/09/2019 09:21:32
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 09:51:11
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/09/2019 15:34:12
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 assume that there is no privacy anywhere at any time. I feel I was once targeted by a government agency trying to break up my relationship, after they had been monitoring my communications from SA to NZ. Cannot prove it but it was far too coincidental to be some random chance. My late wife worked with rehabilitating ex-combatants in the SA struggle and some could have been said to have "interesting" backgrounds.

If I do not want anything to get to another person I do not use any type of electronic communication. Especially when fighting with cell companies. My email was hacked one week after I sent them a letter of opposition and demand to cease construction.

With regard to the aggression of alien species I think their aggression is what will cause them to exterminate themselves. There was a great sci-fi short movie where an alien arrives on Earth and is scornful of the wars saying they are not worthy and must be exterminated. They ask for and get 24 hours to prove themselves worthy. They think they must make peace and so they do. The alien arrives back and says they are looking for warriors not pacifists. Oooops!

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/09/2019 15:46:15
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.

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. And if there is an increase that some entity (cell industry) is afraid of, then it is a nice scientific way to evade it and hide it.

Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autism and ADHD. Anecdotally they report an increase. But you can disregard such reports as unscientific and feel safe that you are in control and aware of the dangers around you.

Lifespan - Sweden 10-20 years. Dropping.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 16:33:54
Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autism
Not many of them are still around.
However, I hardly need their views on the issue while I can look in a  mirror.

Are you telling us that, when you were at school, there weren't any odd, nerdy kids?
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.

How would you explain it if there were no increase in reported incidence?

The records show the two issues mentioned on that page.
".The diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list... Then in 1995, national data tracking began to include diagnoses made from outpatient patient".

So, if there was no increase in reported incidence we would need some explanation.
But there's an increase, and it doesn't need further explanation, does it?

Lifespan - Sweden 10-20 years. Dropping.
In a very negative sense
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 16:34:25
The graphis from here.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:SWE:CHE:NOR&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:SWE&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2019 16:42:36
But you can disregard such reports as unscientific
Well, 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.

Do you realise it is not being written off because it is "unscientific".
It is being written off because it contradicts the studies which are scientific.

What would you expect  people on a science web page to say?
Would you expect them to say "Well, we know that we have the results from properly conducted experiments, but Clive says we are wrong, so we should believe him" or something like that?

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 15/09/2019 22:51:38
Quote from: CliveG
I do not use any type of electronic communication
I am left wondering which type of non-electronic connection to the internet you used as you typed this sentence?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Wishywashy on 16/09/2019 07:54:39
The RF radiation from cell phone towers can mess with your body's own EMFs, causing a many kinds of potential health problems such as headaches, memory loss, cardiovascular stress, low sperm count, birth defects and various types of cancer.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/09/2019 09:24:59
Citation needed.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/09/2019 09:36:06
Oddly enough, there is a growing hint that inadequate or pathological gut flora may be linked to autism, which provides some kind of explanation for Andrew Wakefield's extraordinary claims. His field was gastroenterology, not psychology or immunology, and it is just possible that he discovered one side of a triangle but associated it with the irrelevant vertex.

It is important to beware of cognate or coincidental phenomena presented as consequential.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2019 20:48:50
Quote from: CliveG
I do not use any type of electronic communication
I 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/09/2019 18:38:52
Quote from: CliveG
I do not use any type of electronic communication
I am left wondering which type of non-electronic connection to the internet you used as you typed this sentence?

My faux pas. I should have said I try not to use cell phone communication or DECT phones unless I have to.

Do I blame haste, old age or cell tower brain damage for such a silly mistake?  ;)

I spoke to two people the other side of our tower. They have now taken to sleeping in their office building away from the tower.He had prostate cancer which was in remission. It is now returning. Headaches, disturbed sleep and tiredness, and memory loss among a number of symptoms. So we have 4 people. One EHS (myself) and 3 others who are affected. Both couples are going to sell their houses despite their sentimental attachments. In a bad market for sellers. But hey, people need a good signal and too bad some of us must suffer.

I spoke to another woman with severe EHS. And they are putting up a fourth tower around her housing complex. She is suffering and is well aware of sources of cell microwave. Apparently the cell microwaves can get induced in wiring such as a landline telepone. She is chemically sensitive - one of the factors listed as contributing to EHS. I am also sensitive to any medications and feel any side effects very quickly.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/09/2019 18:43:06
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...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/09/2019 18:45:58
Swedish lifespan drop. Will have to find the reference.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2019 20:42:09
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2019 20:43:50
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...
You snipped the important bit.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 17/09/2019 23:16:11
Quote from: CliveG
Check with some junior school teachers as to the prevalence of autism
Much 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.

My wife is a teacher, and she sees many children who are "on the spectrum". Sometimes she sees that their parents would also have been classified as "on the spectrum", if such a definition had existed then.

So I expect that there is a genetic component as well as an environmental component (after all, your parents provide most of your genes and some of your environment).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Causes
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/09/2019 07:46:23
It's a brilliant spectrum, just like the black body: there is no lower bound, so everyone is on it. Great for marketing all sorts of drugs and excluding anyone from school who finds the National Curriculum boring and pointless. The good news is that being placed somewhere in the low infrared of the spectrum seems to be the mark of a scientific genius or a future billionaire.
 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 18/09/2019 09:29:45
...and talking of spectrum... some ASD diagnostic criteria that you won't find in DSM-5:
- Love of the color green
- Fascination with trains (and/or dinosaurs)

Favorite colours are an important topic for kids. I told my grandkids that my favorite colour was infra-red (since it's really cool, and I use it a lot in my work).
When asked to guess what colour my new car would be, Liitle Miss 5 said "I know, it's infra-red!".

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/09/2019 15:59:54
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?

Why are you so unscientific?

Any uninsulated wiring or metal is an antenna. The high frequency waves can generate signals in the wiring. The signals can also be demodulated by differences in the conductivity in one direction as opposed to the other direction. As an electrical engineer with experience in the susceptibility of circuits I should know a thing or two.

Boy, do you pretend you know it all!

Stockholm. I justified my comments and put numbers to them. Your scorn is misdirected.

Dosage from xrays can vary greatly according to the technology. I took my reference from a well-respected site. Why bang on with more scorn?

Your boredom is showing, and you are not contributing, only sabotaging the thread. If the cell industry is not paying you then they should.

I am going away to a health resort to recover for a few days. Be back next week.

Here is an excellent video to make you think in the mean time. He is an eminent scientist.

emfsa.co.za/videos/dr-martin-pall-to-the-nih-the-5g-rollout-is-absolutely-insane/

He gives many reviews on the various problems.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/09/2019 16:16:54
Another one.

youtube.com/watch?v=_Up8bqiJN2k&list=PLvjgztX_Uo3YWxfJ4gkfzWn1IV1XeA3qr&index=3

The two camps - poles apart....
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/09/2019 19:10:03
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/09/2019 19:58:40
Any uninsulated wiring or metal is an antenna.
Yes, but phone wiring is insulated.
So the important parameter is the loss factor of the insulation.
Most cables are pvc clad.
PVC is a fairly lossy dielectric, and the losses rise with increasing frequency. Phone cables would be pretty much useless for microwaves.
This is why the people who actually send microwave signals about the place use special cables.

As an electrical engineer with experience in the susceptibility of circuits I should know a thing or two.
You should , but...
You should, for example know that people use special (rather expensive) cables for microwave frequencies.
You should know that, (even if you don't understand why).
And you should recognise that the people who choose these expensive cables do so because the cheap ones won't work.
So you should realise that "cheap" cables do a poor job of carrying microwave frequency signals.
So you should recognise that those cables will do a poor job of picking up those signals.

That's straightforward scientific deduction.

And you didn't do it.
Why is that?
And, on a related note, re.
Why are you so unscientific?

get a mirror.
Stockholm. I justified my comments and put numbers to them. Your scorn is misdirected.

Your numbers seemed to suggest that stockholm should be awash with corpses.
Your boredom is showing, and you are not contributing, only sabotaging the thread.
I am indeed, getting bored of this.
But, if the point of the thread is to spread misinformation, I'm proud to be sabotaging it.

I'm not sure what you think you are contributing to a science site.
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.
Just to cut to the chase.
Clive's assertion is 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.
It's more your feld than mine
Roughly how long would it take 1600 chest x rays a day to kill you?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2019 07:32:45
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/09/2019 15:22:46
Focus. I asked for your opinion on one video and you guys go rushing off on old stuff. The twin of doubt is distraction.

Martin Pall - EMF - Cellular effect on humans

Dr Martin Pall - Electosmog

Cellular microbiologist and physicist. And hard cold facts. Don't choke now.
Title: https://mail.google.cRe: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/09/2019 15:31:04
People are growing fearful... Despite the doubts being cast. We know this from local problems with sales.

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/

Ok... time to pack my bags...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2019 19:22:23
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.

So we are forced to go back to it and remind you that you still have to address why you think nobody lives longer than 3 years in Stockholm.
We are not obliged to pay any attention to your new gish gallop until you have addressed the comments already made.
The twin of doubt is distraction.

Then stop posting the distraction about Pall and address your earlier lie about Stockholm.

If you are prepared to accept that you were spreading  scaremongering nonsense we can move on.
(well, we can move on to the point where you pretend that you can send microwaves down phone lines for any meaningful distance, then maybe we can get back you your blind assertion that the BMJ is fake news and so on...)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 21/09/2019 07:47:36
Quote from: CliveG
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.

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....

* Stockholm_Town_Square_small.jpg (153.44 kB . 800x600 - viewed 510 times)
 ...Most of the radiation was in the THz range....
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2019 12:30:11
Quote from: CliveG
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.

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....
Well, if you will leave a bloody great fusion reactor running all the time with nothing but air as shielding.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/09/2019 15:11:36
From the last few replies that avoid the serious science it is obvious that the industry is in total control.

The greed of the elite and industry, and the apathy and addiction of the masses, will result in cell microwaves spreading with exponential growth. This will lead to massive health problems and a reduction of population. Of course this will also mean civil instability and all the destruction that will come with that. The future will be what science fiction sees it to be - dystopian.

All my opinion of course. The END.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2019 18:57:33
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.

Do you not see why that labels you as " a man who has no idea how to tell fact from fiction"?

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 27/09/2019 23:54:32
Quote from: CliveG
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.

However, this has happened at a time of increasing health - it seems to be more associated with increasing education opportunities for women, the right to vote, increased work opportunities for women, and access to contraception and improved medical care.

There is a delay between declining childbirth rates and declining population - a gap that is increasing because of increasing health. And population is affected by other factors like migration and refugees fleeing conflict or persecution.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/09/2019 06:27:08
You guys just do not get it. Wait ten years - the tip is already showing.

The appropriate comment is:

"And the band played on".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/09/2019 10:45:02
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. 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2019 12:22:16
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?
Do you remember that your claims about Stockholm and Sweden were wrong?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/09/2019 16:03:20
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 06:50:13
Not one decent intelligent comment about the work of Dr Martin Pall, or the work of Dr Lennart Hardell. Both whose work shows the cellular harm and damage.

And whose work explains the symptoms I get after I visit my wife at home next to the tower.

The corruption of tower officials, telco officials and the judicial system to get towers put where-ever they want them should be a worry to all. They are prepared to lie under oath, create fictitious documents under oath, and the judges are prepared to ignore the lies and give them what they want.

No wonder that Pall and Hardell get no traction.

And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issues and doing lots of distraction the cell industry will just get stronger.

Mankind will not have to worry about pandemics and ice-ages or climate change - mankind will be the author of his own downfall. Just look at the crazy stories of people killing each other. Depression, anger and insanity of those on the edge is one effect.

My wife and I have been house hunting and will look at some today. Even away from a close mast I am realizing I cannot live in the city.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/09/2019 10:08:24
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 10:40:20
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issues
What "real" issue has been avoided here?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 19:32:06
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.

Little point in commenting - easy to be dismissive. Little data - depends how high you set your bar - which probably varies according the deep pockets you reference.

Your comments about the legal system are unfortunately correct. A corrupt system favoring the rich and powerful with the illusion of justice. Time for a change - end times perhaps.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 29/09/2019 19:37:47
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issues
What "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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/09/2019 19:53:48
Nobody is doubting that massive quantities of energy can alter cell mechanisms in vitro. The question you raised is whether minute quantities of energy can temporarily and significantly disrupt gross function in vivo, to which the answer seems to be "not adequately tested". 

My father used to quote an old French story about the scientist who trained a flea to jump on command. Then he cut off the flea's legs and said "jump" (actually, "sautez"). Nothing happened. He wrote down "Cut flea's legs off, flea cannot hear. Therefore flea has ears in legs."  Beware of casual non sequiturs.

 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 29/09/2019 21:14:53
Another holiday snap from Central Stockholm that may have some bearing on this thread.

This is the Stockholm town well, in the old town square.
- On each side it has a large, weighted pendulum (now locked, probably for OH&S reasons...), and on each corner a water spout where you would place your bucket.
- Apparently to get the pump going, the townspeople would get the weight swinging
- This would pump the water using a steady input of power, rather than large peaks of power, so I guess this makes it easier for children to fetch the water.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Relevance to Biological impacts of cellphone towers:
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2019 21:28:12
And with the posters on this site avoiding the real issues
What "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.

OK, just in case nobody mentioned this before, the answer is...
No.
Or at least, not at any level that has been detected in reasonable experiments.

You seem not to understand why I keep mentioning that stuff you posted about Stockholm.
If the stuff about phone radiation killing people was real then the deaths in Stockholm would be real.

But they aren't.

Stockholm is (among many other places) the exact experiment you need to do in order to answer the question.

And the answer is clear; they are still walking.
So you are clearly wrong.

If the epidemic happens, come back and tell us you told us so.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 05:12:59
[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?

You clearly have not bothered to read any article about cellular effects involving reactive oxygen species and calcium channels. The pulsing voltage affects the channels which then produce excess ROS which in turn causes the effects from headaches and memory loss to cancer. There are various in vitro and in vivo studies that show this.

Do I have to summarize and spell it out for you?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2019 07:18:02
See reply #300 to save you having to repeat yourself.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2019 07:45:44
There are various in vitro and in vivo studies that show this.
Do you remember what happened when you posted details of the studies?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 19:14:13
This evening I visited a family who had a lamp-post type mini-tower erected in the opposite property. I went to measure the radiation. It was about 2,500 uW/sqm in front of the house and outside the main bedroom. It was 600 to 1200 inside their bedroom. They asked for solutions. The seller of the property was aware a tower was coming and sold. The family bought it a month or two ago. They intend to set up a kindergarten.

It was powered up yesterday and last night the wife had a epileptic seizures. 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.

Coincidence? Yeah right. Like the Titanic hitting the iceberg - just coincidence that it sank.

I will revert to you on the low power studies.

I presume both of you do not believe in climate change either.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/09/2019 19:24:13
And I should have added that after a half-hour in the house taking readings I started to get a headache. It cleared up within 20 mins of leaving. Psychosomatic - of course - what else could it be (heavy sarcasm).

I will have to start wearing protective gear when I do these visits.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2019 19:59:31
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.
I presume both of you do not believe in climate change either.
I believe in anthropogenic global warming- because there's evidence.
It's interesting... Alan and I have somewhat different views on climate change, and also on a number of other issues.
However, you have achieved the remarkable outcome of getting us to both agree.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/10/2019 05:37:59
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.

Good one. How predictable. Congratulations on fitting another square peg in a round hole.

Of course, stress also causes cancer. Living causes stress. We are all doomed to die. Keep this one for the epidemiological studies that are soon going to be showing all sorts of illnesses. How do we do a double blind test when the towers are on almost every street corner? When she puts on a foil helmet and get relief, you will no doubt call that a nocebo.

This is why I say that finally, when people begin to relate deaths and illnesses to towers, it will be too late. The industry propaganda will have done its work.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 07:31:44
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 07:33:09
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/10/2019 08:47:54
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.

Do you not find it strange that the cell companies are not willing to participate in such tests? After all they could then "prove" that people are not having problems. But they will not. They know they are causing harm. 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.

What double blind tests? Give me two or three so I can critique them.

Are you willing to accept you may be wrong and that the levels I mention (30 to 3,000uW/sqm) 24 hours a day may cause harm? Give me a percentage other than zero.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/10/2019 08:56:16
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. Shame. You get your phone signal. And maybe your stock dividends.

This technology is being rolled out on a massive scale without any regard for the precautionary principle. When people started to raise the alarm as to ill-effects of radium, tobacco, thalidomide and a number of other substances the industry doubled down and used propaganda. Even paying for fake tests.

And they have willing people like you doing their utmost to discredit someone like me who has suffered, is suffering and sees the suffering of others.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/10/2019 10:56:32
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".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 19:54:36
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.
Do you not find it strange that the cell companies are not willing to participate in such tests?
No.
No competent journal would publish a report  with such a glaring conflict of interest itf they could possibly help it.

What improvement would the involvement of a telecom company bring?
What double blind tests? Give me two or three
Again?
OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 19:56:44

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.

Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 06:47:02
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".

Your extreme bias is very apparent. The sequence of events. Man notices a tower being installed. Calls me to take a pre-power on reading. I say I will do it this Friday (tomorrow). Man calls me. Says wife had a seizure. Say they then checked the tower and it was humming. I arrive and they ask me if towers can cause seizures. I measure and it is worse than their fears. I also tell them that is seems that it can cause seizures.

That such companies use propaganda and dirty tricks is well established and documented.

Read the true story of radium and you will see how long it took because the company paid for studies which showed it to be harmless. They even spread lies that the women who were sick had venereal disease. I cannot believe you are even defending the radium industry whose greed was finally exposed after it was too late for many woman who were left disfigured or dead as a result. They even encouraged the women to lick the pens to get a sharper point. Do you do any real research or do you only look at the articles that affirm your point of view?

Wiki on Radium Girls
Plant worker Grace Fryer decided to sue, but it took two years for her to find a lawyer willing to take on U.S. Radium. Even after the women found a lawyer, the slow-moving courts held out for months. At their first appearance in court on January 1928, two women were bedridden and none of them could raise their arms to take an oath. A total of five factory workers – Grace Fryer, Edna Hussman, Katherine Schaub, and sisters Quinta McDonald and Albina Larice – dubbed the Radium Girls, joined the suit. The litigation and media sensation surrounding the case established legal precedents and triggered the enactment of regulations governing labor safety standards, including a baseline of "provable suffering".
buzzfeed.com/authorkatemoore/the-light-that-does-not-lie
That was because, at that time, a small amount of radium — such as the girls were handling — was believed to be beneficial to health: People drank radium water as a tonic, and one could buy cosmetics, butter, milk, and toothpaste laced with the wonder element. Newspapers reported its use would "add years to our lives!" But that belief was founded upon research conducted by the very same radium firms who had built their lucrative industry around it. They ignored all the danger signs; when asked, managers told the girls the substance would put roses in their cheeks.

The young women's employer, USRC, denied any responsibility for the deaths for almost two years. After suffering a downturn in business because of what they saw as "gossip" that wouldn’t go away, in 1924 they finally commissioned an expert to look into the rumored link between the dial-painting profession and the women’s deaths.

Unlike the company’s own research into radium’s beneficence, this study was independent, and when the expert confirmed the link between the radium and the women’s illnesses, the president of the firm was outraged. Instead of accepting the findings, he paid for new studies that published the opposite conclusion; he also lied to the Department of Labor, which had begun investigating, about the verdict of the original report. Publicly, he denounced the women as trying to "palm off" their illnesses on the firm and decried their attempts to get some financial help for their mounting medical bills.


When Catherine started her fight for justice, it was the mid-1930s: America was in the grip of the Great Depression. Catherine and her friends were shunned by their community for suing one of the few firms left standing.

allthatsinteresting.com/radium-girls
By 1924, when dozens of radium girls were sick or dead, an independent study – one that USRC didn’t pay for – established that radioactive paint is indeed hazardous when ingested. Outraged at the implications and financial ramifications of this study, USRC did something modern readers are familiar with from dealing with tobacco and big oil companies: they paid for another study that found what they wanted to find, that swallowing radioactive paint is good for you.
One suffered a total collapse of her vertebrae, as the radiation did to her spine what it had done to Maggie’s jaw. Others developed skin cancer, cataracts, throat cancer, and other symptoms of long-term radiation exposure, such as loose teeth and hair loss.
At the time, though radium was known to be acutely dangerous, nobody had any experience with radiation sickness. Mollie’s death had been attributed to syphilis, which the company gleefully cited after the accusations and lawsuits started rolling in.

...As expected, Mollie’s corpse showed no sign of syphilis, but it had clearly been mangled by radiation. Similar results came through for the other girls who had died, and eventually, the USRC was driven into ruin by the medical and court costs.


The sensitive people like me and other are the canaries in the coal mine. Modern technology speeds ahead at such a pace that if they are wrong the consequences are disastrous on a enormous scale. In the case of cell technology - global. There is always a silver lining. Massive population reduction and a reduction in global warming.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 06:53:26
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.

They were under court order to have the tower off. The reason I suspected they would do it such a thing was that they turned of the navigation lights although the court order allowed them on as a matter of safety. When they powered up the tower, they kept the lights off thinking we would not notice. My meter went from a reading of 2 to well over 2,000 during the time it was on. 36 hours. Even when they had a letter of demand within 12hours to turn it off, they still left it on knowing that they needed to sicken me to win their court battle.

The perjury and the lies and the whole modus operandi of the SA industry is not paranoia. BTW - Do you know how many people warned me about the industry here having me killed to get rid of the legal complaint? A lot. They have a bad reputation.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 07:02:12
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.

Strawman. Show where I said the life expectancy in Stockhom was 3 years. That post come from another person.

Calling me stupid now? Do you want to me to demonstrate my IQ by showing you an IQ test I have done? I was told that it was open ended and that no-one could complete it. I did, with 100% correct answers.

Is that how far you are willing to go to discredit  someone who is demonstrating that cell towers are harmful? Just like the industry you are.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2019 08:06:33
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 12:32:38
Low power studies with real antennae:

slt.co/Downloads/News/1086/Shinjyo%202014%20Significant%20Decrease%20of%20Clinical%20Symptoms%20after%20Mobile%20Phone%20Base%20Station%20Removal%20.pdf
In  several  cases,  significant  effects  on  the  inhabitants’ health  could  be proven.  The  health  of  these  inhabitants  was  shown  to  improve  after  the  removal  of the  antennas,  and  the  researchers  could  identify  no  other  factors  that  could  explain this  health  improvement.  These  examinations  and  interviews  suggest  that  there  are possible  adverse  health  effects  related  to  RF-EMF  exposure  among  people  living under mobile phone base stations

emfsa.co.za/news/cell-tower-health-effects/
In 2004, Wolf  and Wolf, investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel. He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower.

oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/307.abstract?ijkey=9ae18f97484bfbf95e6f8c3eb92b69fe356ef640&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Distance from antennae was 24–600 m in the rural area and 20–250 m in the urban area. Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (0.05 mW/m2) than in the urban area (0.02 mW/m2). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to HF-EMF from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for headaches.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.527.1036&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re-evaluated. The enormous short latency period; less than 2 years, indicates that if there is a real causal association between RF radiation emitted from the cell-phone base station and the cancer cases (which we strongly believe there is), then the RF radiation should have a very strong promoting effect on cancer at very low radiation.

There are enough of these studies to cause alarm (in those who are astute enough to read the signs).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 12:37:59
And another recent one. 2019.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669
The analyses of data from the exposed group (n = 40), residing within a perimeter of 80 m of mobile base stations, showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei when compared to the control group, residing 300 m away from the mobile base station/s. The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/10/2019 12:42:11
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 what to they say? Or do they leave it to ICNIRP? The protection of the cell industry.

Microwaves were used in WW2 and resulted in people knowing about microwave sickness.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2019 20:14:20
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.

Now, as Alan was kind enough to calculate foor us, "same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays" each "mere 24-hour exposure " is loosely equivalent to dead in 3 years
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.

It is, in effect, a change of units.


So, that's where you said "the life expectancy in Stockhom was 3 years".
You just weren't bright enough to realise that's what you said.


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.
(1) you are foolish enough to think IQ tests rule out stupidity and
(2) you think posting something on the web is proof that it's true.

I could post a picture of a Shakespeare manuscript and say I wrote it. What proof is there that an IQ test paper was yours?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2019 20:34:56
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2019 21:14:38

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 04/10/2019 00:21:11
Quote from: CliveG
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.

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?)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/10/2019 07:32:05
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/10/2019 05:39:58
Quote from: CliveG
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.

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?)

Walk up to the control box on the pavement and either feel it or listen to it. It vibrates - whatever you want to call the sound.

The directional meter is very directional. I can sniff out hidden WiFi devices or tell whose cell phone is transmitting.
Triangulate. No need. Walk round the tower and point at the antennae. The readings go from very strong to quite weak (reflections mostly). The further from the tower the weaker the signal. (This is not true of the narrow directional antennae which are low to medium close to the tower and where the power increases with distance - with about 300 meter being the peak on level open ground.)

For distant towers (further than 500 meters) then I can indeed triangulate to find them. Although reflection can be bothersome.

The meter has an audio to discern various sources. Microwave ovens have a steady hum but only give a strong signal if the seals are faulty. Phones and WiFi have clicking sounds. 3G and 4G have a distinctive variability in them.

BTW. I insist that people turn off their cell phones near me. The wifi falls off very quickly and is of no consequence if not in the same room.

Yor comment is true of the large tower such as the one next to us. However, they are installing thousands of lamp post type masts in a very short space of time. The foundations are installed one day, and a few days later it takes one day to drop in the mast and the control box, connect them and power them. They are modular with only some bolts and some connectors.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/10/2019 06:02:50

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.

I have no argument with ICRP.

There are two things you seem to be overlooking. The many studies indicating harm that ICNIRP ignores. The many articles analyzing ICNIRP funding and operation to show it is an industry mouthpiece who insist on heating as the ONLY effect.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/10/2019 06:06:19
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.

Smile.  :)

The key fact is "knowing it causes temporary sterility." Do you know how many sperm must be rendered ineffective? This is one area of study that shows that there is low level ongoing damage that eventually becomes problematic.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/10/2019 06:15:16
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.

Sigh. So many of your arguments seem foolish to me.

In trying to debate with you, I was reminded of a proverb about debating fools.

I came up with a few nice ones. Check those that might apply. I think A) is definitely applicable. B) might apply. I just happen to like C).

A) "You can never win an argument with a negative person. They only hear what suits them and listen only to respond."

B) "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."

C) "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."

You do realize how negative you are? Point me at thread where you made a positive contribution.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2019 11:40:09
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.
That's why
You won't hear that you keep begging the question
You won't hear hat the data saying electrosensitivity isn't real.
You won't hear the point that you tried to pretend that people in Stockholm only live 3 years.

"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.
Especially when you say things like this
. 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.

How did you come to the conclusion that they didn't build the mast so they could use it?
That looks to me like paranoid rambling.

"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.
Have you not noticed that absolutely nobody here agrees with you? You are the pigeon.



Point me at thread where you made a positive contribution.
This one.
Pointing out your mistakes raises the quality of the site and that's a positive contribution.

Now, back to the mirror.
What positive contributions have you made?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/10/2019 05:39:18
There is currently a silent health crisis in Johannesburg. It correlates to the increase in cell tower installations. Bored Chemist and others would point out that correlation does not mean cause. It could however be the cause and once more I could be proven right.

Yesterday, the 60 year partner of a relative died of a heart attack. The 40 year old partner of another relative is in the final stages of cancer. I am just hearing about cancer deaths in middle-aged people that should not be happening.

Our gardener came to work on Friday. He was coughing and clearly sick. I sent him home. His chest infection that he had a week ago had worsened. This is the fourth or fifth chest infection this year. And they last weeks.

On Saturday a worker I employ to help me at the house coughed. He said it only bothered him at night. He asked to borrow money because he had to take his daughter to a private hospital because she was so sick with a chest infection. His wife is unable to work because of chest infection. He says that it is rife in the community. This is again a repeat of a number of infections this year.

My wife was sick for 4 weeks, as were a number of friends. I was sick for only three days this year.

My wife's business employs 12 workers. Up to the end of 2017, the usual sick days typically amounts to about about 2 or 3 for the year for the entire staff. In 2018, nearly everyone had taken a lot of sick leave. This year it is worse. Not only are the workers taking sick leave for themselves but taking time off to take family to hospital.

There are no scientific studies or even news articles. So this will be dismissed as anecdotal and unscientific. However, it is happening, and it fits my theory that cell microwave will slowly kill off masses of the population before people realize the cause.

And the posters on this site are helping to promote that die off by promoting the myth of safety. Which people WANT to believe. It will be accompanied by tremendous social upheaval. This is both a scientific and an intuitive (psychic?) prediction.

Yesterday (Saturday) I mounted reflective mesh screens on our tenants windows. This meant working in the high radiation areas now and then. I did not think my exposure was excessive but in mid-afternoon I had severe stomach pains which are only now dissipating. And it set my right knee joint back with inflammation and pain that had almost disappeared. My skin there felt raw and burning. It is consistent. Work in high radiation - get pains and/or diarrhea.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/10/2019 07:32:47
I should add that many pandemics have secondary fatal effects as systems break down. Deaths to fire, starvation and lack of medical care mount as systems fail.

The questions one can ask is "Will I survive? Who will survive with me? What can I do to protect myself and my loved ones?"

Need I say that religion goes through a serious growth phase, and people on the fringes of society take blame for bringing down the disaster upon humankind.

Will social media on cell phones play a role?

@Bored chemist - keep pooping on the thread. No need to tell you to strut. I was a bit concerned about you taking offense but it seems your ego knows no bounds. Blame others (me). :D

BTW - Can I beg you to stop telling me I am begging the question. You should add IMO after some of my comments.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 06/10/2019 07:52:27
I came across this article. Too relevant not to post it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/

In a landmark ruling nearly a decade ago, a federal judge ordered tobacco companies to stop lying.

After listening to 84 witnesses and perusing tens of thousands of exhibits, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia took a year to write a 1,652-page opinion detailing the companies’ elaborate strategy to deny the harmful effects of smoking.

“In short, [the companies] have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted,” Kessler wrote in United States of America v. Philip Morris USA.

Kessler noted that the Justice Department, in a racketeering lawsuit, had presented “overwhelming evidence” of a conspiracy to defraud the public. She ordered the companies to take a number of actions, including ceasing to claim there was such a thing as a low-tar cigarette that reduced the risk of disease. The evidence showed this simply was not true.

Yet in about a dozen pending lawsuits, Philip Morris continues to do just that. As of 2010, it still routinely argued that the nation’s top-selling cigarette, once known as Marlboro Lights and now called Marlboro Gold, reduces the risk of cancer.

...The irony in this arrangement is that the tobacco industry pioneered such tactics. “The tobacco industry wrote the playbook for the rest of the industries,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Whether it’s the chemical industry, whether its climate change … You see it in industry after industry.”

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 06/10/2019 08:17:39
Quote from: CliveG
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:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/health/flu-australia-america.html

Quote
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).
- 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)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2019 09:23:21
There is currently a silent health crisis in Johannesburg.

So silent that nobody knows about it?
I am just hearing about cancer deaths in middle-aged people that should not be happening.
Who says they "shouldn't be happening"?


If you are right it should be easy to check.
Get hold of the obituaries pages of the local newspapers for a year or two and simply count the deaths.

Come back when you have objective evidence.


BTW - Can I beg you to stop telling me I am begging the question.
Yes, you can beg.
That won't work.
If you want me to stop pointing out that you are begging the question just stop begging the question. It's not as if repeated logical fallacies add to the thread or to your reputation.
Now, back to the mirror.
What positive contributions have you made?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/10/2019 05:59:42
 To Bored Chemist.

This morning's Dilbert seems appropriate.

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?

The person who died of a heart attack had been hospitalized with pneumonia. Chest infection was the primary cause.

My right knee is painful in the joint and the surrounding muscles. It is hot with inflammation. And this after three weeks of being free of inflammation and pain. I am amazed at how little exposure is needed at biologically high rates. Direct radiation of about 3,000 uW/sqm plus reflections from the wall and roof of our house (with it's reflective foil inside).

Begging not to beg the question: Please, please, please. Pretty please. Take pity on me. Am I not suffering enough?

Positive Contributions on this forum. I have presented this forum with a number of arguments, anecdotal evidence, reason, scientific articles and other relevant articles. Enough for thinking people to have some concerns. Your many one-line pronouncements of your personal opinion are not positive arguments.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 07/10/2019 06:36:07
Quote from: CliveG
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:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/health/flu-australia-america.html

Quote
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).
- 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)

You may have noticed that I have been talking about the past 19 months. The illnesses are not tracking the flu season.

Pandemics. You are correct on all counts. It was simple case of disease made worse by war. I have done quite a bit of in-depth study of pandemics. The 1918 Spanish Flu originated in an army base in Kansas. Despite all the signs they still shipped soldiers to the front, and so did other countries. This promoted the rapid spread ot every part of the world. The French, English and Germans all got it. It is likely the Germans surrendered because they did not know how badly the Allies had it. It was named after the Spanish newspapers who broke the story because they were not censored. It killed people in their prime because of their overwhelming immune reaction - the cytokine storm. It came in two waves and spread around the world. I looked up many of the actual reports of the times to see the effects and the policies of the government. It was fast and deadly. Four ladies sat down to play bridge. By morning all were dead.

The Black Plague had the interesting effect of promoting democracy. The Nordic nobility were nearly all killed off hence they got a head start on people power. The land owners had to negotiate with their former serfs to work cooperatively for a decent wage. Nature (or God) has a way of leveling the playing field when the rich get too powerful.

Our medicines have helped a great deal but with viruses they rely on our immune system. Bad immune system and the vaccines start failing. They all have side effects. Even paracetamol hammers the liver. No, I do not take flu shots. The one time I did I got a mild flu. On the rare occasion that I get a flu I can get rid of it in 24 hours by boosting my immune system. A very hot room, rest and chocolate.

My prediction in 2010 was that a immune-busting pathogen would be the underlying cause of the soon-to-come global pandemic. Little did I realize (until last year) that it would be cell phone radiation. It may be low level but it is constant and non-stop.

My wife's grandson is sick again. Strep throat. His immune system is not good. Many sickness this year. And febrile epilepsy which the neurologist says may be tower related. My wife also told me that so many people she knows are sick.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 07/10/2019 08:46:26
Quote from: CliveG
On the rare occasion that I get a flu I can get rid of it in 24 hours
This sounds more like the common cold than influenza.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 09:27:22
Chest infection was the primary cause.
So, not microwave exposure then.
Glad that's sorted.



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.
The fact that you present them shows that you don't understand science.
The fact that you cite them as a positive contribution  reinforces it.

The papers you cite are typically trash- as I have pointed out at some length.

Your reasoning is also clearly faulty on a number of grounds. for example your belief that a company, having installed a mast chose to use it to trouble you rather than because that's what they  put it there for.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 09:32:05
This morning's Dilbert seems appropriate.

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?
Do you understand what I mean when I say "Get a mirror"?

Do you recognise that the whole world is using phones- without meaningful evidence of problems- and you are disagreeing.

Hint: you are in that cartoon; you are not Dilbert.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 07/10/2019 11:09:11
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 11:38:32
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 07/10/2019 12:30:18
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/10/2019 11:51:27
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/

It seems that there is confusion about the origin of the Spanish Flu. The three waves were Jun/Jul 1918, Oct/Nov/Dec 2018 and Feb/Mar 2019. Your 2014 article may well be correct. I cannot find some of the reports that I had from newspapers and medical records. They make interesting reading to se first hand accounts - true or not.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22148/
…But 1918 seems to have been particularly violent. It began mildly, with a spring wave. In fact, it was so mild that some physicians wonder if this disease actually was influenza. Typically, several Italian doctors argued in separate journal articles that this “febrile disease now widely prevalent in Italy [is] not influenza”
…Within a few weeks of that Lancet article appearing, a second pandemic wave swept around the world. It also initially caused investigators to doubt that the disease was influenza—but this time because it was so virulent. It was followed by a third wave in 1919, and significant disease also struck in 1920.
… In rural Kentucky, the Red Cross reported “people starving to death not from lack of food but because the well were panic stricken and would not go near the sick”
…It is very possible that we will never know with certainty where the 1918 virus crossed into man. In the 1920s and 1930s, outstanding investigators in several countries launched massive reviews of evidence searching for the site of origin. They could not definitively answer the question. But they were unanimous in believing that no known outbreak in China could, as one investigator said, “be reasonably regarded as the true forerunner” of the epidemic.

virus.stanford.edu/uda/
…The origins of this influenza variant is not precisely known. It is thought to have originated in China in a rare genetic shift of the influenza virus. The recombination of its surface proteins created a virus novel to almost everyone and a loss of herd immunity. However, a first wave of influenza appeared early in the spring of 1918 in Kansas and in military camps throughout the US.
…The war brought the virus back into the US for the second wave of the epidemic. It first arrived in Boston in September of 1918 through the port busy with war shipments of machinery and supplies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
There have been claims that the epidemic originated in the United States. Historian Alfred W. Crosby claimed that the flu originated in Kansas, and popular author John Barry described Haskell County, Kansas, as the point of origin. It has also been claimed that, by late 1917, there had already been a first wave of the epidemic in at least 14 US military camps
…In the United States, the disease was first observed in Haskell County, Kansas, in January 1918, prompting local doctor Loring Miner to warn the U.S. Public Health Service's academic journal. On 4 March 1918, company cook Albert Gitchell reported sick at Fort Riley, an American military facility that at the time was training American troops during World War I, making him the first recorded victim of the flu. Within days, 522 men at the camp had reported sick.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
Confounding definite assignment of a geographic point of origin, the 1918 pandemic spread more or less simultaneously in 3 distinct waves during an ≈12-month period in 1918–1919, in Europe, Asia, and North America (the first wave was best described in the United States in March 1918). Historical and epidemiologic data are inadequate to identify the geographic origin of the virus, and recent phylogenetic analysis of the 1918 viral genome does not place the virus in any geographic context
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/10/2019 11:54:27
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.

I agree. I am trying to get hold of fabric that blocks the radiation. Otherwise I have to live in the sticks where there is no radiation (and not much else). Already the house we are about to sell has aluminium foil in the roof and aluminium mosquito mesh on the windows.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/10/2019 12:00:54
Quote from: CliveG
On the rare occasion that I get a flu I can get rid of it in 24 hours
This sounds more like the common cold than influenza.

Actually it works for a number of infections. Viral and bacterial. When one raises the body temperature to 42 deg C the immune system is at it's peak effectiveness at producing hydrogen peroxide which the immune cells use to destroy their targets. The body needs less energy to maintain the body temperature and can focus on killing pathogens.

The pediatric societies are now saying that one should not try to bring down a child's fever. It is the bodies defense mechanism. The body has built in limiter to stop it getting too high. Only when heat is forced on a child could there be problems - such as being left in a hot car in the sun.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2019 17:32:49
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
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.
However the good news is that the problem's not real.
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Febrile_seizure
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/10/2019 06:14:57
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.

You are the one who is not logical, and alarmist. Check out the following:

uspharmacist.com/article/managing-fevers-in-otherwise-healthy-children
One of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding fever in children is that fever can lead to seizures, brain damage, and death. Fevers do not cause brain damage or death, and it is important for parents to understand that fever differs from heatstroke.
Pyrexia (fever) differs from hyperthermia caused by heatstroke, which is defined as a core body temperature exceeding 104°F plus impaired central nervous system function attributable to either exposure to high environmental temperatures or exertional fatigue in high ambient temperatures. … Exercise and hot weather are the main causes of heatstroke.


aappublications.org/news/2019/05/03/idsnapshot050319
Evidence supports a beneficial effect of an elevated temperature as well as a possible adverse effect of fever on the clinical outcome of an infection.
Most mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish experience an elevated core temperature during an infection, suggesting that fever is part of an adaptive host defense response. The metabolically expensive increase in body temperature that accompanies an infection seems unlikely to have evolved unless fever benefits the host. Perhaps some physiological alterations that occur during a febrile response may be responsible for increased resistance to infection.
Certain observations suggest a beneficial relationship between elevated temperature and outcome of an infection. Microbes may replicate less efficiently at an elevated temperature than at a normal temperature. Certain immune responses such as leukocyte migration may be enhanced at higher temperatures. However, treatment of fever is based on the assumption that fever has a harmful effect and that reducing an elevated temperature will be benefici
al.

medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003090.htm
Fever is an important part of the body's defense against infection. Most bacteria and viruses that cause infections in people thrive best at 98.6°F (37°C). Many infants and children develop high fevers with mild viral illnesses. Although a fever signals that a battle might be going on in the body, the fever is fighting for, not against the person.
Brain damage from a fever generally will not occur unless the fever is over 107.6°F (42°C). Untreated fevers caused by infection will seldom go over 105°F (40.6°C) unless the child is overdressed or in a hot place.


And why do you think that tribal healers in nearly all societies used sweat lodges where the sick person was placed in a heated hut? Because it worked!!!

When they said red meat and eggs where bad form one I said "Not if I am healthy and workout". I had very low cholesterol Same with salt - I need salt to replace what I sweat out. It is very low in natural foods, and I cramp if I do not have it. Why do you think animals seek it out - salt licks for example, or elephants eating mud high in salt.

Common sense goes long way in many things. I have a natural intuition about things that have helped me a lot during my life.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/10/2019 06:22:22
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

Wow, your logic can really get twisted at times. Especially when you take sentences out of context as you so often do.

The body burns fuel to maintain a temperature that is higher than the ambient. The colder the ambient the more fuel it burns. And the higher the ambient the less fuel it burns. I was proposing raising the ambient temperature quite a bit (not dangerously so).

If the body spend less time on burning fuel for heat it can be more efficient at fighting pathogens. Hence hot room.

Try common sense. A six year old might be able to assist.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/10/2019 07:25:48
Back to cell radiation. I heard on the radio that there is a big increase in allergies and sinus problems in the big SA cities. The professor said that it was due to an increase in pollen count which in turn was due to an increase in global warming. He said that the pollen count indicators were not a good measure because they only had one actual pollen trap, and the counts were extrapolations and estimates.

There could be another cause in addition which is cell MW. When they turned on our tower, a lady three houses away got bad allergies. Three months later they moved out of the area and she reported that her allergies disappeared almost immediately. Admittedly her case could have other factors, but the timing is suspicious.

Our tenant came back from a ten day vacation. Was relaxed and healthy. Within two days she has been sick with sinusitis.

There are science studies which show that cell MW causes an increase in histamines, and that mast cells and autism may be related. Here are some interesting articles. Some deal with how to reduce one's risk.

mastcell360.com/are-your-cell-phone-wifi-router-and-other-emfs-hurting-your-mast-cell-activation-syndrome-and-histamine-intolerance/
...So why are there some studies showing that EMFs don’t affect people? It is because of the way the study was designed. If you test short term EMF exposure on the general public, you probably won’t see a rise in symptoms. But people with Mast Cell activation Syndrome, Histamine Intolerance, Heavy Metal Toxicity, Mold Illness, Lyme, and certain Genetic Variants are much more sensitive to EMF radiation. Further, the longer you are exposed, the more likely you are to have symptoms.
...5G is another new concern. I’ve been reading reports of people who felt well, went out of town, and were very sick shortly after returning home. They learned that 5G was turned on in their city while they were out of town. There are a lot of reports online of increased EMF related symptoms with 5G. My city will be getting 5G at the end of the year. Do you have 5G yet?


researchgate.net/publication/257461889_Autism_and_EMF_Plausibility_of_a_pathophysiological_link_-_Part_I

...Although autism spectrum conditions (ASCs) are defined behaviorally, they also involve multileveled disturbances of underlying biology that find striking parallels in the physiological impacts of electromagnetic frequency and radiofrequency exposures (EMF/RFR).
…Many studies of people with ASCs have identified oxidative stress and evidence of free radical damage, cellular stress proteins, and deficiencies of antioxidants such as glutathione. Elevated intracellular calcium in ASCs may be due to genetics or may be downstream of inflammation or environmental exposures. Cell membrane lipids may be peroxidized, mitochondria may be dysfunctional, and various kinds of immune system disturbances are common. Brain oxidative stress and inflammation as well as measures consistent with blood-brain barrier and brain perfusion compromise have been documented.
…Various vital but vulnerable mechanisms such as calcium channels may be disrupted by environmental agents, various genes associated with autism or the interaction of both. With dramatic increases in reported ASCs that are coincident in time with the deployment of wireless technologies, we need aggressive investigation of potential ASC - EMF/RFR links.
…The evidence is sufficient to warrant new public exposure standards benchmarked to low-intensity (non-thermal) exposure levels now known to be biologically disruptive, and strong, interim precautionary practices are advocated


ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012122
...Exposure to artificial radio frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has increased significantly in recent decades. Therefore, there is a growing scientific and social interest in its influence on health, even upon exposure significantly below the applicable standards. The intensity of electromagnetic radiation in human environment is increasing and currently reaches astronomical levels that had never before experienced on our planet. The most influential process of EMF impact on living organisms, is its direct tissue penetration. The current established standards of exposure to EMFs in Poland and in the rest of the world are based on the thermal effect. It is well known that weak EMF could cause all sorts of dramatic non-thermal effects in body cells, tissues and organs.
…The phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the form of dermatological disease is associated with mastocytosis. The biopsies taken from skin lesions of patients with EHS indicated on infiltration of the skin layers of the epidermis with mastocytes and their degranulation, as well as on release anaphylactic reaction mediators such as histamine, chymase and tryptase. The number of people suffering from EHS in the world is growing describing themselves as severely dysfunctional, showing multi organ non-specific symptoms upon exposure to low doses of electromagnetic radiation


alisonvickery.com.au/emfs/
…In the middle of these two extremes is where histamine intolerance, mast cell activation, depression, along with many other “syndromes” belong. Many symptoms are the body’s attempt to restore homeostasis. A root cause (or stressor) can be far removed from the symptom.
…And yes it is an imbalance but with a cause often far removed from the brain (think diet, microbiome, brain detoxification, and especially EMFs!).

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: syhprum on 09/10/2019 14:02:44
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 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 09/10/2019 15:56:09
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

Nice one.

Of course, when standing under a dish type antenna, the radiation is directed in a beam over a person. Besides, who would spend a month or two standing under one of these, so the long-term extended dose would not happen. These communication links are not pulsed in power, and in that way are not so problematic biologically.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/10/2019 17:33:08
Rule 1 of science: Don't think. Measure.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2019 21:22:13
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2019 21:23:39
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/10/2019 05:26:22
Rule 1 of science: Don't think. Measure.

I agree. Which is why I have now two meters. One for 800 Mhz to 2.7 GHz and and one for 2.7 GHz to 6 GHz.

But first I think. Of the basics of what I am dealing with. Then how to do an experiment to give more information and provide more facts and observations. Measurement of variables is part of this.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/10/2019 05:42:35
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.

Hot room for kids with a fever is not good. Use common sense. But a warm room with loose clothing allows the body to regulate it's temperature while providing the benefit of allowing the fever to do its work efficiently. Some people panic and cool the body then have problems with swings and possible over-temperature as the body tries to compensate.

Febrile (meaning fever) tells us that convulsions can accompany fevers. But there is still an underlying cause. If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures. And only some kids get seizures with fevers. So think. Why does a seizure happen? The brains are somehow being disturbed, or have a tendency to be disturbed. 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". The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.

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. Your arguments are discredited by the science. Don't you have any doubts? You would have been a "Flat-Earther" in earlier times.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/10/2019 08:46:20
The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.
Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 10/10/2019 17:21:44
The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.
Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.

Quote
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.

Do those probables mean that EMFs are excluded from a possible cause?

Inflexible position and doubt. Is there an echo in here? Did you just copy and paste my comments?

There is doubt and then there is acceptance of facts. I have no doubt that the Earth is NOT flat. I find it hard to believe that some actually think it is. On EMFs I find it hard to accept that people are so sure there is no harm at the levels the public is exposed to by phones and towers.

Next post I will do a list of questions to show who of us may be inflexible and blind to the science.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/10/2019 18:38:19
Probables do not exclude possibles, but they do tend to push then to the margins.

Anyway, it's good to see that you have some means of measuring something. Now all you need do is carry out a double blind experiment: get someone else to measure whatever it is that you think is causing you problems, and see if their measurements correlate retrospectively with your diary of events. A little science can go a long way to convincing people that your hypothesis has merit.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2019 18:53:46
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/10/2019 18:55:09
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/10/2019 13:53:33
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.

My first reaction is that you are the one who should stop posting nonsense that endangers just about everybody - namely the notion that cel phones and cell towers pose no risk.

But to your link. One needs to use a good dose of common sense. Do not take every article at face value.

The first point. Febrile seizures in children are not dangerous as you claim. From your link : "The overwhelming evidence from human and animal models suggest that the outcome of short febrile seizures is benign. " Show me an article that suggests that my post is both nonsense and dangerous.

The second point. Use common sense. Loose clothing and a warm room for kids. Only lightly pat their heads with a wet cloth for comfort. Putting them in a ridiculously hot room is what you imagine I suggest that your imagination to that effect is nonsense.

Read the article carefully. They say "Remarkably, hyperthermia provoked by medication overdose or hot baths often provoke seizures in young children, indicating that increase in brain temperature may suffice to generate seizures." Where are the scientific articles to support this statement? Did they do a study where they gave hot baths to children and observed seizures? More likely it is "reported" - a synonym for "anecdotal" is it not. How old were the children? How many reports were there? How high did their core temperature get? How hot were the baths anyway? Did they have a "silent" illness?

Now to the rats. Did you not notice how they got to increase the core temperature of the rats? 45 to 50 degree C hot water for 30 minutes. There is a scale of water temperature versus effect. See news.jm.com/blog/too-hot-handle.  45 degC is the start of the threshold of pain. 50 degC is the start of the threshold of severe pain. While reversible, the tissue contents are inactivated, and the human skin goes from light red to bright red.

Goodness gracious. Talk about boiling a rat. No wonder they have a seizure. Imagine the cellular enzymes given off by the skin of those rats.

Check out any article on hot tubs. They recommend that 42 deg C be the maximum. I find that 43 is too hot for me for longer than 5 minutes. And that 35 deg C be used to kids and that they do not stay in longer than 10-20 minutes. Remember that smaller mass gives a greater surface to volume ratio so those rats would be really hot very quickly. I do not believe that their core temperature only went to 39 deg C.

Now check out sauna temperatures (for the hot room safety for adults like me). I cannot take an ordinary sauna (65 degC to 120 degC) for longer than 10 minutes as much as I like the heat. Who can get their room to sauna temperatures. I have to use three heaters for the 24 hours. And I struggle to get it to the temperature that I can lie on top of the bed with only my shorts and feel pleasantly hot while I sleep. I also do not pour water onto the heaters to increase the heating effect.

Lastly is "normal body temperature". It use to be 96.8 deg F but is now taken to be 98.2 deg F. Typical adults can vary from 97 to 99 deg F. Babies and children range from 97.9 F to 100.4 F. Some healthy older patients range from 94 deg F to 99.6 deg F.

Perhaps you should stop scaring people with your imagination of what you think I am saying. You will have them afraid to bathe their children.

Just as an aside. I went to a popular beach just after winter ended. The ocean temperature was about 4 deg C. People were just getting their feet wet. I walked in and swam for a good 20 minutes. I came out a bright purple - and some teenage boy muttered "Show-off" as I walked by. Do I care about what they think? I have never been one to try ot impress people. I went in because I enjoy swimming.

I did Basic Army training in South Africa. It was the middle of winter and I could not get enough to eat. Our group complained bitterly about the small portions. And they ran and ran us. After two weeks I stopped going to the toilet and  week later I reported sick. They asked me what was wrong. I said I was cold. They sent me outside to clean up leaves while I waited for the doctor. A colonel came by and asked me why I was sitting. I got up and got dizzy. He got two guys to take me to the infirmary. A nurse said I complained I was cold. They took my temperature. It does not register on the thermometer she said. The doctor said "Impossible. He should be dead." They plotted my temperature as they surrounded me with heaters. It stayed on the base line for 6 hours.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 11/10/2019 14:02:11
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.

You need to explain your comment with regard to my post. Take the formal definition of "begging the question", and explain the parts and the logic as it applies to my post. Just want to see where you went wrong, and whether you truly understand the logical fallacy (or are just trying your luck).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/10/2019 17:38:47
OK,
The question in contention is essentially, "Does EM radiation from phone masts cause (measureable) harm in humans exposed to it?"
We can look into the details. One factor you have cited is that it allegedly causes you difficulties with thinking and memory.
And here's a definition of bagging the question  form here
https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

There are other pages that say much the same thing.
That page cites a few examples- here's one.
"Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely."

My view is that your 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""
is of essentially the same type.


Now, let's analyse it
"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
"Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)"
There's no actual evidence (at least, in this thread) that the condition is true.
That, of itself isn't a problem. It's a conditional clause.
Now, you have said that the EM exposure harms your ability to think and remember.
That's dementia.
So you are, as part of the meaning of the whole tread, claiming the truth of first clause
"Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)".

Now, let's look at the second clause:
"EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent"  "
Well, I guess we have to clarify- causative of what?
However the context is such that it must mean "causing the sort of health issues that the whole thread is about".
It can't for example, refer to causation of bad poetry or causing undercooked beans.

So, what you have said can be re-written as
" If EMFs cause dementia then EMFs are a causative agent for dementia."
Now, that statement is true- but useless.
If you want to argue that, sensu stricto, it's actually a tautology, rather than begging the question, that might be a valid technical distinction. I'd argue that your statement can be  summarised as "if [the thread's premise is true], then [the thread's premise is true]. That's an example of begging the question.

It hardly matters. My underlying point stands.


You keep trying to use logical fallacies to make a point.
Well, it's not going to work, so please stop it.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 12/10/2019 05:59:11
"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

You did what I thought you were doing (erroneously). You are taking a proposition or hypothesis and turning it into a series of logical statements to prove an argument.

You do this by parsing.

[If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)]
is a proposition (a hypothesis) and not a statement of fact.

The second part [then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent]
is an extension of the hypothesis.

One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.

I am not sure that this is begging the question either.

But I conditioned it in this way.
IF....EMFs can (read MAY because of the IF) cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs MAY cause febrile seizures. (I phrased it with the word "possibility").

We are still debating the question of whether the evidence and the science studies show that EMFs cause brain problems. Just expanding the scope by linking the two issues, and I think that is justified in science.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2019 08:46:17
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/10/2019 12:11:43
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/10/2019 05:18:25
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.

I think you meant to say:    If A then B.
What I said is :   If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).
Because of the linkage, it works two ways. If B is proved true then A might be true.
This means that trying to prove B gives us more information and increases the chances that A might be true.

You are asking for scientific testing for my experiences. That to me is a cop-out. It was like the judge saying I have two people saying opposite things and I believe B because they are a corporate and you are a private citizen. He ignored my argument that what B was saying was physically impossible. Why? Because I did not hire a science "expert" with 30 years of electrical experience and 10 years of testifying in court to say that what B said was impossible. He took the position that he did not have to make a personal judgment based on common sense.

I will be going to court to get a declaratory judgment that the corporate knowingly made a false statement under oath. And yes, I will be looking for the science experts to give affidavits because some judges have no common sense. This was such a key issue that the judge should have called for oral testimony from both of us and allowed cross-examination. He did not, because his mandate was to get rid of me. I will try appealing through the usual channels.

You are saying the same. "I do not believe you because you have not scientifically verified your statements. Until you do, to me they are just anecdotes and anecdotes are no proof". So it takes takes money and power to get to be believed - and who has the money and power... the cell phone industry.

Until, of course, people start have more and more problems and finally people start connecting tower and cell phones to their problems. And saying "Gee, maybe CliveG was right." Too late then.

Readers here have choices.
1) To believe you that, because there is no scientific proof that I am telling the truth about being harmed, that towers cause no harm.
2) To believe you that the many studies I cited are not credible and are flawed despite being peer-review scientific studies (because Bored Chemist says they are flawed).
OR
3) To believe that I am a credible person whose symptoms only manifest in the presence of tower radiation and that they should take precautions.
4) That the science articles I have quoted, together with the review of the amount of studies showing harm, is sufficient evidence for them to worry about the harm, and to give more credibility to 3).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 13/10/2019 05:27:51
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?

Febrile seizure are a combination of hyperthermia AND other factors. If the other factors are not present then NO febrile seizure. This is evident because some kids get hyperthermia and no seizure.

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.

And there are two type of febrile seizure. Short ones that do not repeat, and long ones that do repeat. The latter are indicative of an underlying epileptic condition. And once more I say that the neurologist said she is seeing more epilepsy - some of which is uncovered with febrile seizures.

Who is the one with no logical sense?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2019 09:48:18
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2019 09:49:34
I think you meant to say:    If A then B.
I'm fairly sure that Alan intended to say "if A then A".
It makes sense in the context, and it's a fair summary of what you actually said.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2019 09:50:42
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/10/2019 14:13:18
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 04:58:46
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?

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.

And we know that smoking causes SOME lung cancer. That SOME is now alarge portion. The increase in cases that began to show grew to be the major part of the "causative agents".

So febrile seizures have multiple causes. When there were no EMFs, then obviously EMFs could not be a causative agent. When febrile seizures started increasing, then the increase might be attributed to EMFs.

EMFs are a new technology akin to smoking. The massive increase in radiation appears to be causing medical problems. Those medical problems (such as cancer and heart attacks as well as epilepsy and febrile seizures) are increasing. The cell companies would have you believe that EMFs are NOT among the causative agents.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Simply because you (Oh Wise One) says so. A fool such as I, thinks that there might just be a delay of decades before the harm becomes very apparent to all fools (not you, of course).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 15/10/2019 05:07:15
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 05:18:50
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.

You are right that there is no conclusive proof of the linkage. We do not know conclusively the details of exactly what causes febrile seizures. We have some clues, like brain dysfunction. The science is showing that brain cells can be disrupted and altered by EMFs - even low level EMFs. That disruption or change may make some children predisposed to febrile seizures. Because we cannot take the same child (or even a twin or clone) and compare it to a child that has had considerable exposure to emf radiation then we cannot do your double blind trial.

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. Science then has the task of trying to detail the mechanism. That did not die with the birth of Galileo. Smoking was linked and then science tried to catch up. In the case of EMFs, science has done a good job of detailing the mechanisms - such as calcium channel disruption.

Galileo used observation and tied it to logic. People did not understand his linkage and the underlying science. People have not changed. They still believe the authorities and at the moment the authorities are the governments who are being paid and lobbied by the cell industry. People do not understand the underlying science. You seem capable of understanding it, but are rejecting it.

A local activist said that even the cell companies agree that cell EMFs are dangerous because they post warnings on cell phones. The issue is the level and the dosage (time exposure). Cell companies use 10,000,000uW/sqm without any dosage whereas the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 05:27:40
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?

For a minute I thought I had got it wrong. But no...

lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/resource-library/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
....Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.
...Between 2005 and 2010, an average of 130,659 Americans (74,300 men and 56,359 women) died of smoking-attributable lung cancer each year. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 7,330 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers every year.
...Nonsmokers have a 20 to 30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer if they are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work.


cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. Tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Many are poisons. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 15/10/2019 06:03:30
I stand corrected, thank you.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2019 07:29:47
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.

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.

Also, you forgot to answer this post; please do so.
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 08:41:05
I stand corrected, thank you.

No problem. I had to look it up to confirm. When you challenged me, I did think I may have got it wrong.

I had read some articles and focused on the smoking linkage and did not really focus on what percentage. Your post has the benefit of educating all of us just how bad a particular carcinogen might get. Worse still was the industry getting doctors to promote smoking as healthy.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 09:17:53

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)

Sigh. You just do not get the difference between a "triggering agent" (the fever) and an underlying predisposition.

Large portions of the population are subjected to carcinogens daily for extended periods and yet do not get cancer.

Many children have fevers and do not get seizures.

In both cases, there are other factors. Smoking IS a causative agent for those who would not otherwise have a predisposition, and EMFs MAY be a causative agent for children who would not otherwise have a predisposition.

If one's immune system goes down, a person can get all sorts of diseases and illnesses. My immune system may have been compromised by the fluoroquinolone antibiotic prescribed for what was now clearly a fungal infection. The medicine probably also caused the lung to allow the fungus in. All the doctors and even the specialists in fungal medicine said I absolutely could not have histoplasmosis because it was only seen in terminal HIV cases. I had to get medicine from some-one else at first because the doctors would not give me a prescription. That was 8 years ago. Now they are changing and grudgingly accepting that a few immuno-competent people can get it but they do not know how. And yet  it seems you think the doctors and scientists know it all and are demi-gods.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 15/10/2019 09:24:28

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?

Go back one page and see my post # 378
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/10/2019 15:37:38
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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:

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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2019 19:28:40
Sigh. You just do not get the difference between a "triggering agent" (the fever) and an underlying predisposition.
No
You refuse to accept the meaning of the word "Febrile".
If the problem isn't caused by a fever (for example if it was caused by something else like an EMF)  then it's not a febrile effect.
What you are saying is that "seizures that are caused by fever may not be caused by fever."
That view is plainly absurd.
No matter what you say, this will remain true, so you should stop wasting time and accept it.


There are, of course, other causes- just as smoking isn't the only cause of lung cancer.
But, if the cause isn't fever, then the effect is definitively, not febrile. That's what the word means.




Go back one page and see my post # 378
Thanks for confirming my point.
I asked this
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?

At the time I was referring to your silly claim that febrile convulsions are caused by mobile phones,even though the convulsions were well documented centuries before the phone was invented.

And your initial reply was to ignore the question- so I prompted you again.
This time you said
Go back one page and see my post # 378

Well, I can go back a page, or I can see post 378.
I can't do both, beaus the reply is on this page.

And, if I look at reply 378 I see that it doesn't answer the question.

Nowhere in that post do you address the fact that you're obviously wrong- febrile convulsions don't time travel.
Nor did you answer the question about whether or not you considered how easy it is for me to point out your foolishness, nor did you answer the question about why you keep posting stuff that makes you look silly.

So, once again, in respect of the convulsions caused by something that hasn't been invented, and your suggestion that I look at something on this page, by going to another page,


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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2019 19:37:02
OK, let's see if I can get this through to you with an analogy.
Plenty of animals sting people.
But only bees cause bee-stings.
So, playing football with a wasp nest may well result in stings.
But it will not result in bee stings.

Plenty of things cause seizures
But only fevers cause febrile seizures.
Strychnine will cause seizures.
But it will not cause febrile seizures.

It's hypothetically possible that EMF will take the same role as strychnine. (Though you have provided no real evidence for this  at levels relevant to phone masts).
It's hypothetically possible that they may cause seizures (Though you have provided no real evidence for this  at levels relevant to phone masts).

But they can't cause febrile seizures.

Do you see the analogy there?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/10/2019 05:11:45
Bored Chemist,

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/10/2019 05:51:34
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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:

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.

Galileo observed phenomena in nature. He then applied logical thinking to explain them. One can have a thought experiment or a real experiment or both. Einsteins bending of light took many years to get the right conditions to conduct an actual experiment. Galileo observed the tides and applied his knowledge of physics and mathematics to a mental model.

I have no problem with reductio ad absurdam. It works.

The thalidomide disaster was a lesson in testing for problems before global release. We have forgotten that lesson with EMFs. Note the observations without evidence but with suspicion due to "linkage".

wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
...Although the Australian obstetrician William McBride took credit for raising the alarm about thalidomide, it was a midwife called Sister Pat Sparrow who first suspected the drug was causing birth defects in the babies of patients under his (William McBride's) care at Crown Street Women's Hospital in Sydney.
...In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co. She subsequently was given a distinguished service award by President John F. Kennedy.


I have the same linkage. When exposed to the neighbouring tower I get (consistently) either headaches or stomach pains and /or diarrhea. You want me to be the worlds proof. Or your proof. I want the world to wake up to the possible danger. But then, the world needs depopulating and so nature (God?) weans out the weakest.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2019 07:24:29
Bored Chemist,

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.
It's a discussion forum.
You are expected to answer reasonable questions.
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2019 08:02:58
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. 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/10/2019 13:04:12
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 am in agreement. I will get hold of people that could be credible at conducting such a study. I want my own witnesses there that I can rely on.

My reticence is understandable. I will have to spend about 3 hours in high radiation which I am fairly certain does permanent brain damage. I would have to do this a number of times to eliminate coincidence and increase the confidence factor. I have to eat the same food every day, and take the same medication and do the same amount of exercise. I will need a recovery period of two days after each time in the box. How many times do you think I have to do this? What score would you accept? If I did it ten times (a 30 day period) with 5 exposed and 5 unexposed with a random sequence unknown all until the start of each (take white and black marbles out a bag after I am in my box). If I get a 100% score would you accept that I am affected by radiation?

It has to be done under the tower in the same spot. So I would have make a box to sit in and the box would have to have two coverings. One transparent to emfs and one opaque and I should not be able to tell the difference. I suggest I be blind folded and with ear coverings so I do not pick up slight differences.

I am on holiday next week. No postings. I also have to get more legal work done since I am going to challenge the cell companies and the judicial system. My test results will help my case. I will buy another meter (I already have two) to check the frequencies as well.

I am not exposed anyway as you claim. When I visit the house I usually take precautions to shield myself. The problems have happened when I did not shield myself because I thought the time exposure would be minimal, or that I was out of the bad zones. When I had problems I realized I was underestimating the exposure - both duration and level.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2019 15:01:17
You don't need a lot of witnesses. You just need someone to compare your diary of effect with an independent measure of whatever you consider to be the cause. You must not have access to those measurements or any other clue as to the presence or intensity of the alleged cause, during the experimental period. If you have to be present anyway, there's no additional burden on you.

If you carry a portable recorder of whatever the cause may be, you can just live your normal life and then get someone  to compare the recording with your diary. You may need to find an expert to set up a recorder that doesn't give you any clues, but this sort of thing is fairly common in medical research. You can take as long as you like (or as long as the recorder can manage) over the experiment.  You will then have incontrovertible proof of your case.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 16/10/2019 16:01:43
Once more. The radiation from the tower next door causes the symptoms, especially if it is at places where it is about 2,000uW/sqm. That radiation has the type of pulsing that is harmful. I will try to determine the frequencies and the pulsation. I have a relative who teaches radio at the university. Hopefully I can persuade him to bring some equipment.

So I have to be exposed to that radiation. When I am driving past the many mini-towers in the road they expose me to levels that are high for short periods. Only about 10 to 20 seconds at a time. I will take care to avoid those during the month. People I know who are sensitive say they plan their driving to avoid such towers. Perhaps I could even get one of them to take part. At other times of the day my exposure is about 2-4 uW/sqm which is what one would find in many houses.

The witnesses are necessary to make sure that I do not know which covering is being put on, and that I do not have access to a mini-meter to know whether the radiation in the box is present or not. The people outside can just check that the tower is radiating as usual and has not been switched off for some reason. I do not want anyone casting doubt on the procedure. I also want independent people to monitor and testify that the experiment was properly conducted.

I have realized that when there is radiation in the box I should be able to know it within an hour by the headache I anticipate I will get. There will be no need to stay the full 3 hours then. I would be prepared to do a couple of full three hours if I wear protective headgear and am in a prone position. This is when I anticipate getting stomach pains a couple of hours afterward and possibly diarrhea that night.

There must be no way of signalling me what covering is on. That is the tricky bit. I should perhaps make an insulated soundproof box as an inner box and then the covering put over (transparent or opaque to radiation). The covering should look and feel the same to onlookers and just have a label for the person choosing based on the marble they pick once I am in the inner box. Complicated but magicians work by getting that information. They cheat. I want no accusations of cheating.

I figure that maybe we should choose 3 black and 3 white marbles and then randomly pick from a mixed bag so we do not know the exact ratio of black to white in the trials. That way I would not be able to do 5 of black or white and declare the rest.

Please feel free to comment. I do not want you to start picking holes in the procedure because you do not like the result.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2019 16:24:18
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2019 18:33:49
I agree with Alan; it's a perfectly simple experiment.
I also think you should answer my questions.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/10/2019 05:44:14
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.

I am even more baffled that you do not seem to have grasped the problems I am having and how they are occurring.

What you are proposing is not a blind experiment at all. No matter what the recorder/meter says.

I do NOT have symptoms:
a) when I am not at our house OR
b) when I am at our house and shield myself or stay in the low radiation areas OR
c) when I am at our house, am unshielded, and am in the high radiation area for less than 20 minutes.

I ONLY have symptoms (and I have them every time ie consistently):
a) when I am at our house. AND
b) do not shield myself AND
c) am in the high radiation area for more than 20 minutes.

So if I go to the house and follow the above rules I will know when I would be getting symptoms. I do not need to look at the meter. How is this a blind experiment?
 
It would be a blind experiment if I spent time in the garden without shielding in the high radiation area for more than an hour and did not know if the tower was transmitting because the Telcons would be participating in the experiment and turning it on or off. I have said before that they will not participate in such a test because they KNOW it will prove me right. How do you think we knew they turned the tower on against the orders of the Court? First my wife got a tower headache. Not a nocebo effect because we both thought the tower was off. THEN I checked with the meter.

I have to be in a high radiation area close to the tower to get an effect. So I have to be either shielded or not shielded and not know whether the shield is in place or not. The inner box prevents me from knowing whether the outer shielding box is in place or the non-shielded box.

Tell me you now finally understand.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/10/2019 05:51:30
Your suggestion would work if I constantly wore clothing (including a beanie) that blocked radiation and had the recording device inside the clothing. I would have to have another set of clothing that did not block the radiation and that I could not tell the difference. Then I would have to visit my home every third day and stay outside for a few hours. Someone would have to randomly chose the two sets of clothing and give them to me. In this test it would be easy for me to cheat. I would be able to tell which set was which because I was not being monitored.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/10/2019 05:54:54
(snip)
I also think you should answer my questions.

Too much like hard work to sort out and do another put down. It is not because you think you have "got me". We have moved on. Life can sometimes be disappointing.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/10/2019 08:49:24
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/10/2019 09:52:24
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.

I also understand entirely.

Please critique what I have proposed based on what you now understand the issues to be.

Thanks
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/10/2019 11:30:06
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 17/10/2019 12:56:07
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.

I am struggling to understand why you do not comprehend that if I shield myself when I go home, which I do, and if I do not go into the high radiation areas, which I make every effort not to do, then I do not experience any ill-effects.

Do you want me to make an effort to go out of my way to take time in high radiation areas without shielding? That would not be what I call "a normal day".

Are you trying to have me perform an experiment that is set-up to fail?

In my experimental set-up, the two outer boxes can be labelled A and B (under a flap) so the experimenters only know the letter of the box and not which box is a shielding box. Observers (witesses) would not see the labels so they would not know whether A or B was being used. I would hand in sealed envelope with the test number as to which test I deem I am exposed to radiation - with the reasons why. The experimenter would hand in a similar envelope with the test number and paper with either A or B according to the outer box used. This means I have to spend the full 3 hours in the box. I am not prepared to do that.

An hour an a half is enough time. I would have to endure a headache for possibly an hour. Okay I figured out how to get around that. I have a head shield with me in the box and can use it when I need it. And take it off before I am let out. I would have to pump some air into the box while I am in there. No problem.

After 10 trials, there are 10 envelopes. The A and B boxes are then checked to see which one does shielding. That way, if A is the shielded and I match the shielding vs non-shielding in all 10 cases, I think I have made my point (and proof). This is a double bind where neither the subject nor the experimenter know which box is being used.

The boxes would be MDF fiber board and can be made to look indistinguishable with careful assembly. Some-one would mix them around after each test so that observers do not know if a box is being re-used - not really needed but an added precaution. Or put in a tent. The lining would be in the inside of the outer boxes, and then painted so one cannot see which is which is one glimpses the inner part. I would sit with just a pair of shorts. Simple cloth shorts provided by the experimenter. That way I would not have any gadget on me to tell me if there is radiation or not.

Thank you helping me (in an indirect way) improve my experiment.

If it works then maybe some people may be prepared to sponsor a proper experiment in a lab with different pulsing modulation. I know I will be harming myself by taking part but what the heck. I am old and damaged already.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/10/2019 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2019 18:55:28
Too much like hard work to sort out
But 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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2019 19:00:35
nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity will take you seriously if you don't.
I think that ship may have already sailed.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 05:05:56
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.

Do you not see that absence of shielding and presence of radiation are one and the same thing? I only wear shielding when near the tower.

If I am near the mast and not in the shield house and not wearing shielding and exposed for more than an hour I get symptoms. You say that under those conditions I may be affected by a placebo effect where I expect symptoms. I have said that some of those condition occurred and I was not aware of them. Only when I got the symptoms did I review my movements and the times spent and discovered that I was wrong in estimating the length of time or in thinking I was out of the radiation.

But I get what you are saying. I have to conduct a blind (or double blind) experiment to eliminate any possible knowledge - subconscious or not - and also have a neutral observer.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 05:08:48

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.


Of course experiments are set up to fail. Hundreds of them - paid for by the industry. One can read the set-up and know the result - no harm detected. On could say it is not a failure because it gives the industry the result they paid for.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 05:37:26

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.

I have told you the intensities. 3,000 uW/sqm gives me a pain in my side within 10 minutes. 2,000 gives me a headache within 2 hours. 600 will sometimes give me a headache within 30 minutes if walking around in it - possibly due to the standing waves within a house giving severe peaks. 3,000 will give me stomach pains in lying prone in it for more than 2 hours - followed by mild loose stool. A day of walking in and out 3,000 to 300 will give me stomach pains and diarrhea. Sleeping in 50 will disturb my sleep and I will wake tired. 50 will also wake my wife at times with her muscles vibrating depending on the pulsing

Read my posts a bit more carefully and tell me how I arrange to switch the tower radiation off and then on.

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. It can be done but it is not easy. They also would have problems simulating the reflections and standing waves from walls and other objects.

I can ride in a caravan, which is also illegal here but who is going to know, and be taken to various sites so I do not know if I am parked at an active site or not. Many caravans are aluminium so that would be a problem. I could be put on a wheeled platform in a box and wheeled around our property but I would pretty much know where I was. Or on a trailer with a box - even more illegal - but hey science can be risky. The back of a pickup truck would work. They ahve to park outside the mast and they will be approached by the security companies if no prior arrangement is made first.

You are not reading or comprehending my posts.
A) You cannot extend it to any type of radiation. Living cells are disrupted by certain pulsing frequencies. The carrier frequency no doubt plays a part also. We could do a whole lot of experiments on people to determine the parameters but experiments on people that have the possibility of harm are illegal (last time I checked).
B) You cannot extend to any person. Different people have different sensitivities. I am much more sensitive than my wife because of pre-existing conditions. People can be made sensitive by prolonged exposure - months in 300 to 3,000 uW/sqm. Since that definitely causes permanent damage and possibly cancer it is illegal.

So my suggested double box, double blind still seems the best. I do thank you again for your contributions. It also gives me an idea of the opposition I will face.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 05:42:54
Too much like hard work to sort out
But 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/10/2019 06:51:02
Too much like hard work to sort out
But 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.
Can't you read, or can't you count?
It's the questions I asked repeatedly.

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2019 09:38:49
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 12:02:21
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.

We? Are you coming to Joburg to do the test? With your equipment? Or are you with me in spirit?  ;D

I was hoping to get the university guy to do a test of the spectrum and the power pulsations. On almost needs multiple receivers tuned to each incoming frequency and plot each power graph simultaneously, or do one frequency at a time.

"joy of using a real mast" - fine when you are not the guinea pig under test.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 12:09:51
This one?

Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any  artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)

I answered it.

Or this one?
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?


No I did not. I do not know. I do not know. No I don't.

Happy now?

Now a similar question for you. An easy one for you. What is the answer to this?    ∂∑∞∫∀∅
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2019 14:49:49
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 18/10/2019 18:31:19
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2019 19:47:16
Waste of time. If you look at the meter you will get sick.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2019 00:54:40
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)

I answered it.
No, you did not.
Show me where you mistakenly thunk you did so.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2019 00:55:38
I worked with RF emissions
Did you fall ill?
Or were you somehow immune - while you were paid to deal with them.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2019 00:56:22
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.
What earthly purpose would this serve?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/10/2019 05:35:01
Waste of time. If you look at the meter you will get sick.

Strange. The meter was not necessary for me to get sick at other times.

Almost any place in our yard is high radiation. I do not need to look at the meter to know that. Since the towers have battery back-up it is almost a certainty they will be transmitting. All I wanted to do was consciously establish what the onset of symptoms feel like. I have not done that before. I just suddenly realize I have a headache, and that it is a "tower-headache" ie one at the back of my head near the top.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/10/2019 05:45:06
I worked with RF emissions
Did you fall ill?
Or were you somehow immune - while you were paid to deal with them.

You should do some reading on radiation. Dose is the key factor. Length of exposure and level of exposure. In the case of cell tower radiation the pulsations have to be there.

When we looked for emissions, they were usually very very low because they were from a circuit board that should not be radiating. We used an receiving antenna in a Faraday cage room (one lined with copper) and swept the frequencies. When we checked for susceptibility, we put the device and the transmitting antenna in an absorptive chamber which was also a Faraday cage room and we stayed outside while the frequencies were swept at high power to try to get the circuit to mis-operate. At no time were we exposed.

Your ignorance of such testing is showing. Angels would fear to tread in such an area of expertise, but not you.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/10/2019 05:47:32
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)

I answered it.
No, you did not.
Show me where you mistakenly thunk you did so.

The symbols are randomly chosen and make as much sense as some of your comments.

As for not knowing where I answered you - all I can say is what Charlie Brown would say "Oh, Good Grief."
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2019 13:25:47
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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 19/10/2019 18:17:13
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.

So tell us where and how you gained your "familiarity" with EMC lab testing?

Check these two sites

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7766/6046db7909c805a556b900a58d19828fc4fe.pdf
Page 29
Based on the previously mentioned ANSI standards used by the TTAC Group for EMC testing, the following specificationswere used to test the camera:•The camera will be exposed to an RF field intensity of 50 V/m•The frequency range will be 30 MHz –2.5 GHz•The frequency range will be 80% amplitude modulated with a 1 kHz sine wave•The frequency will sweep at a 1% change rate of the fundamental frequency•There will be a 3 second dwell time on each individual frequency


slideshare.net/monikakhanna/radiated-susceptibility-analysis-software-rs-analyst-overview
Slide 5 Consumer and Industrial 1 to 30 V/m at 1 or 3 meter test distance 80Mhz to 6 Ghz
Slide 8 Military 6 V/m to 200 V/m   1 meter test distance 10kHz to 40Ghz


1V/m is 2652 uW/sqm.
The power density and the frequencies are similar to what the cell towers put out. They are also modulated.

Explain why you think my experience has nothing to do with the cell tower?

I worked in R&D in City Power in Johannesburg. We had spectrum analysers and tested equipment very roughly for EMC. We soldered on a wire "aerial" of six inches and then held a walkie talkie next to the circuit. We cut the wire shorter and shorter until there was no disruption of the circuit under test. That was at 1 inch.

I know measurements and equipment. I lectured engineers who had applied for entry to get a professional certification. The subject was measurements.

A physics experimenter claimed to have invented a machine that extracted energy from the "ether" - the underlying quantum field. Her machine tested as 100% power in and 110% power out. Even with sophisticated measurements. The University lecturers and Hewlett Packard instrumentation engineers were baffled although they did think it was a measurement problem. I was hired to help her but I refused because I knew the reason for the results - and demonstrated it to a university man. Grounding. Just grounding. Isolate everything and use a common center for the ground point. Especially the instrumentation. Now the true readings came out. 100% in and 95 % out. Experience AND a logical analytical sense. I did not pop her bubble or expose her because her rich father left her a lot of money as long as she pursued this pipe dream.

There you go again. Rushing in....
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2019 19:30:18
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 20/10/2019 01:13:11
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 05:53:47
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?

GROAAAAN!!!

Do you have a day job?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 05:59:20
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.

Now this is a really helpful post. Thanks.

I have been looking at cheap spectrum analyzers and am about to buy one.

The SDRs are really interesting. I see the chip technology can sample up to 6G with direct A2D. Impressive. I will search some more in this area to find one that is suitable. I need to go up to 2.5Ghz. Cell frequencies here are typically 0.8 to 2.5GHz and 3.6Ghz for the 5G that has been rolled out.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Hayseed on 20/10/2019 06:14:52
10-4.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 06:34:40
Here is something that will interest amateur detectives and logical thinkers.

- 12 December 2018 the tower was ordered powered off except for safety.
- 13 December 2018 the tower was powered off including the safety navigation lights.
- 9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.
- 12h45 I had to leave for the afternoon so could not continue to monitor the man.
- 9 January 2019 at 18h30 my meter indicated that the tower was transmitting at full power.
- 10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.
- 11 January 2019 01h00 tower still on
- 03h00 tower is off
- 12h45 I get letter from Atlas lawyers denying the power was on
- 14h00 I get a call asking if Atlas can conduct a measurement test on 15 January
- 15 January 2019 11h00 Atlas and test company arrive and take power off measurements
- 11h30 Atlas tries to power on and area power goes off
- 12h00 Power is on and measurements are taken
- 12h30 Atlas tell me the power is off and show me cell phone picture of breakers
- 13h00 the transmitters stop.
- 19h00 the navigation lights come on at night (and each night afterward)
- 7 March 2019 in court the metering company submits a graph showing daily consumption
- There are two graphs cumulative consumption in kWhr  and average power in kW
- They show no power consumed on the 9th, 10th and 11th
- For 9 days (2 Dec to 11 Dec) there is a consumption of 10,000kWhrs
- It is not possible to gauge the added consumption for the 15th Jan but it looks like more than 1 typical day
- 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 meter company states that their modem was quiet for the period from 12 Dec 2019 to 15 Jan 2019.
- 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.

Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/10/2019 08:19:37
Warning lights are not always required on towers under 200 ft high unless they are close to an airport (for obvious reasons) or charted as official sea or river navigation marks. Is this an exceptionally tall phone mast or in a navigationally busy area? I've had a mobile phone cooked by the weather radar of a 737, so you may need to expand your spectral analysis.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2019 09:45:02

Do you have a day job?
Yes.
My day job is to assess risks.
But Saturday is part of the weekend.

Do you have a day job?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2019 09:52:46
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
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.
Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 13:04:03
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
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.
Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?

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?

Suspicious man. I would alert our area security. The police are useless. However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure. There is also loitered and was on his cell phone until I had to leave. My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2019 13:20:21
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 loitered
Loitering with intent to work, perhaps?
was on his cell phone
Hardly 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).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 17:10:40
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 loitered
Loitering with intent to work, perhaps?
was on his cell phone
Hardly 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).

A) Disobeying a court order has consequences.
B) 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.
C) The man open the gated area with keys (the thieves who stole the batteries a few weeks ago used side-shaft to break the fencing and the locks). 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.
D) Nearly everyone in SA (poverty stricken or not) has a cell phone.
E) Why do you want evidence that my instincts are good? Are you a bored cynic?
F) Check the meter readings and also use your logic (I know that is a hard ask, but try) and you will find the court will have difficulty rejecting my explanation of the tower companies actions. But that is what I am asking readers to do.

I have a video recording of my meter and my wife showing the radiation was on. But I do not need that for evidence if you read through the steps I laid out.

I have caught people out before in a court case where things did not add up and my cross-examination of the opposing party showed them the truth. First the government lawyer put his head down to hide his smile, then the arbitrator hid his smile behind his hand, and finally the opposing parties lawyer's face dropped as he realized what I was exposing and why he had problems with his own witnesses. The penny took a while to drop with the opposing party. They had a hard time accepting they had been scammed and played for fools. Just like in the movies, after 2 days of a hearing, I had read and re-read the documents until 2 am before a sheet of paper with the security alarm records on it caught my attention. What a sweet moment.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 20/10/2019 17:28:15
Let me give BIG hint.

Ask WHY the Telco (Atlas Towers) did what they did at various steps.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2019 18:21:36
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.
Good luck.

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 readings
I have a garbled summary of them- from you.
What can I check?
and you will find the court will have difficulty rejecting my explanation of the tower companies actions
They will not give a toss about your view of shifty looking men without hard hats.
They might, if you can prove it, care about the tower being used when the court said it shouldn't be.
But they may well not accept your evidence.
Title: Let meRe: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/10/2019 05:11:03
Let me give you the questions that should be asked. This is what scientists and detectives do to solve a problem.

1) Why does the tower have a navigation light?
2) Why did they NOT keep the navigation light on?
3) Why did they turn the tower on despite a court order not to do so?
4) Why did they not turn it off the morning they got notified?
5) Why did they send two crews that morning to the tower who did nothing but walk and talk?
6) Why did they wait until they turned it off to send a formal letter that it was not on?
7) Why did they then ask for a test on the 15th (the 18th was the filing date)
8. What was the ostensible purpose of the test?
9) Was there one or more ulterior motives for the test? What were they? IMPORTANT!
10) Why turn on the navigation lights after the test?
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?
12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?

Bored Chemists answers have some truth in them. They show what a rotten society we have where corporates ignore the law because they simply pay the cost of doing business, and how rotten the legal system is that ignores justice and the suffering of ordinary people. And the apathy of society until it gets critical.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 21/10/2019 05:19:03
The biggest hint of all.

Who supplies the electricity and how do THEY meter the usage!

(Not the metering company employed by Atlas.)

What would happen if there was no "test day"?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/10/2019 09:53:12
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/10/2019 19:23:36
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?
Because that's how electricity meters "traditionally" work.

You seem determined to attach some "special" significance to things that are probably run-of-the-mill greed and stupidity.
Saying those sorts of things in court will not go down well.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: evan_au on 21/10/2019 20:44:54
Quote from: CliveG
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?
12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?
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.
Electronic meters store the consumption in smaller blocks like every 5 or 15 minutes. These smaller blocks can be accumulated produce a cumulative graph.
12) You can effectively differentiate the energy readings by just adding up the energy of one day and dividing by the number of hours.

These are just different ways of presenting the same information.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 26/10/2019 05:14:43
Okay. Back from an interesting holiday in Uhlanga (near Durban). More lessons. Will post soon.
I thought of giving some multiple choice answers but I will give the answers I had in mind.

1) Why does the tower have a navigation light?
   Because it is the law and part of their license. When they put the tower up the lights were mounted on the same day and powered with an extension cord.

2) Why did they NOT keep the navigation light on?
   Because it might fool people into thinking the transmitters were also off. People would say "but we never saw the lights on the night of 9 and 10 January. They hoped we would not notice until I was sick - but my wife noticed within hours.

3) Why did they turn the tower on despite a court order not to do so?
   Because they fully intended to make me sick to miss the upcoming deadline. There is no other reason to violate a court order and risk contempt of court.

4) Why did they not turn it off the morning they got notified?
   Because they needed to make me sick to the point I could not work. They know it takes time - a few days and not just a few hours. They also wanted a distraction that would occupy my time which should have been used for drawing up and serving the affidavit.

5) Why did they send two crews that morning to the tower who did nothing but walk and talk?
   Because it was another distraction. They could then say the tower was checked. Yes it was but checked for what? They opened no cabinets. They took no readings.

6) Why did they wait until they turned it off to send a formal letter that it was not on?
  Just in case I decided to get witnesses to verify my readings.

7) Why did they then ask for a test on the 15th (the 18th was the filing date)?
   Because they now needed to cover up the fact that they forgot that the Power Company would be billing them for the power used. The lawyers probably told them they needed to do this. Of course, the billing would show an energy usage of about 38 hours, so I can still insist on those invoices. It added to the distraction, and added to my health problems because they wanted me to witness the tests. I could not stay with them the whole time and had to go into the garage to escape the radiation.

8. What was the ostensible purpose of the test?
   I thought that they wanted a really expensive test to counter my readings. Later I thought it was to add to the costs against me. It was when I did not see it on the bill of costs that I really thought about why they tested.

9) Was there one or more ulterior motives for the test? What were they? IMPORTANT!
   They needed to  cover up the consumption that would show on the Power Company bill.

10) Why turn on the navigation lights after the test?
   They had failed to fool us that the tower was off and not transmitting. Now that it was an issue, they turned them on without turning on the transmitters.

11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?
   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.

12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?
   Another "Gee Whiz Fool the Judge" graph. Because whether 38 hours of consumption or 2 hours of consumption are shown it only confirms that the tower was powered up. Slightly more than a normal day because the batteries were charging. On both the 9-11 period and the 15 period. They could slither out of perjury by saying that the 9-11 period had recorded but not transmitted the consumption and so it was added to the 15 period. But 38 hours of consumption. The manager will blame his engineers for not pointing this out. Not INTENTIONAL LYING sir, just an HONEST MISTAKE of miscommunication.

I am going to blow up their graph and draw lines to better show the kWhrs. Both graphs are fuzzy and small so that it makes it difficult for me to do so.

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? The two crews could have done that. Either crew could take me to the site and show me the circuit breakers. After the test, I was shown a cell phone picture of the breakers to prove it was off. They knew the batteries would keep it going to another 20-30 minutes which happened.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/10/2019 12:03:58
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2019 12:31:41
There is no other reason to violate a court order and risk contempt of court.
Yes there is.
There is the obvious reason.
They ran the transmitter because that is what they do for a living.
They make money by running transmitters.
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.

Saying they did it to make you sick is paranoia.
Why did they not turn it off the morning they got notified?
Because that's how they make money.

What would you have done in their situation?

   Because it was another distraction.
They had no way of knowing if you were watching or not.
So they couldn't be doing it to influence you.

Again, that's paranoid thinking.

How do you think that would play out in court?
 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.

Again, your refusal to look at straightforward facts makes you look like an idiot.
If you do that in court you will lose.
. 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.
"blame  it on an honest mistake" - maybe sack some poor clerk who gets the blame for not filing the right paperwork.

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2019 12:33:01
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 03:16:28
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.

Others had advised us to do this. I just had so many other issues. No wonder they then did it after the test. I had advised them in writing it was off. I will find out some more.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 03:50:13
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.

Here is me at the hearing the last court appearance. A non-lawyer arguing for condonation for being one day late on a filing of an affidavit.

Tell me why the tower company had 2 junior advocates in court and 4 attorneys. And one Telco had a senior advocate and a junior advocate and 2 attorneys as well as the head of their legal department. And the other Telco had a senior advocate and 2 attorneys. It seemed there were other professionals of some sort. Not the two who gave false affidavit evidence for fear I would insist on cross examination. If they were genuine they would want to be there to answer questions. I am learning how the law game is played.

The first and second Telcos were not named by me as parties (Respondents) because they only rent on the tower. Yet they appeared and intervened. The first Telco simply repeated the tower company arguments. The second Telco applied (as the first should have) to be joined in the main review. The stated reasons were that if I succeed on the health claims as one judge thought I would, their business would be in serious trouble. (Their only defense in all their affidavits to the health claims, was that it was within the ICNIRP limits.) And they are right. It was why our Constitutional Court refused to give me a hearing. Politics, not justice.

One cannot hire an advocate to appear in court on health reasons. It is not because one cannot prove one's case, it is because that advocate would be shunned and not get business. Remember the radium girls trying to get legal representation. While in the US, one may be able to make a name and get big money from companies, here the companies pay off the lawyers to abandon the case - in my opinion - judging from failed lawsuits.

The first Telco ramped up their costs bill to a ridiculous amount by changing and swapping advocates so they could triple charge and adding irrelevant material. But they did not realize how well I research the law. They MUST get leave and so they will lose all their claim. I confirmed this with a lawyer who was impressed that I picked it up. Unless the Court once more delivers a false and unjust ruling that I would have to appeal.

They are using SLAPP tactics. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participants. Where one uses massive money claims to make a bad case go away. They are afraid I will win. THAT is their motivation.

Care to contribute to my fund as I fight on?
Or are you worried you may lose your cell phone communications and live longer?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 04:06:11
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?

If they are going to ignore the court order to make money, why not do it all the time? Why wait for a week before my filing date.

How literal you take a "distraction". Me watching? Please! Distract me from doing the affidavit by interacting with them on a side issue. You need to get with the legal tactics employed by big corporates.

Mutually independent proves what?

That is how meters work! Thanks for informing an electrical engineer who once worked in a power company meter department. How about the bill you get. Is it in unreadable graphs. One showing the consumption and one showing the money you must pay? In my bill I get EXACT numbers - one to the accuracy of the meter and one to the nearest cent (rounded down I hope).

They want the money from running the transmitters but they need to win at all costs. Their business model is threatened.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 08:53:53
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.
It is usually based on the readings which I took and emailed them. (It's currently 74044).

I ca go + read the meter any time I want. I could even set up a web cam to watch it if I really wanted.

But, obviously, that has nothing to do with the issue.

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.


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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2019 11:36:24
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 12:59:55
(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)

You seem to have no problem trying to be an expert in my field. And as a result you are so wrong.

The Power Company has an energy consumption meter that records the kWhrs of energy consumed. It is typically read once a month and the customer billed.

This is not your ordinary industrial user or domestic user. The law compels the Power Company to provide a special power point to masts. This mast company then hires the services of a metering company to record the usage by means of metering that is communicated by modem to a server (their words)(probably by fiber since they have put in a number of cables to the tower) on an ongoing basis. The data is probably stored every 15 minutes to give them a daily profile.

The reason that they use a separate meter company is because the local power companies need to make money by charging ridiculous amounts to various customers. The fact that the consumption for a six month period (the actual readings are erratic and most readings are estimates) can be more than a small town does not stop them going to court and claiming. And what does the court say to the customer "Where is your proof?". (Just like you!) One golf course had such a metering company put in private meters and hence were able to prove that they were being grossly (an understatement) overcharged. In the millions!

It is likely they can also read and graph the instantaneous power in kW. Yes, such meters have existed almost from the time of electrical generation. They take the instantaneous voltage, the instantaneous current and the instantaneous angle between them and do the multiplication either digitally or in an analog fashion for the older types.

But once more you are blind to the point I am making.
Why not say 0.00 kWhrs for day 9, day 10 and day 11 and 142.25 kWhrs for day 15?

Note my mistake of 10,000 kWhrs for 9 days should be 1,000 kWhrs for 9 days giving a typical daily consumption of about 110 kWhrs per day. (See - even I was fooled by misreading the poor graph.) The average kW would be 4.58 kW which is close to their second graph. There are about 12 transmitters on the tower making each transmitter have a power rating of about 4.58 less 40% for other equipment divided by 12 = 229 watts. About right.

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.

Has the penny finally dropped?

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 13:02:53
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.

Most of your answers show some understanding. My post to BC gives the detail of what is going on.

Do you follow my logic?

How can I display the one A4 sheet with the two graphs on this forum. And the one page write-up.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 13:11:06
The law compels the Power Company to provide a special power point to masts.
What is special about it?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 13:36:57
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 them
If 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.
Why not say 0.00 kWhrs for day 9, day 10 and day 11 and 142.25 kWhrs for day 15?
If, as seems likely, their meters (like mine) show cumulative use, why would they not present to the court a graph of cumulative use?

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.

Has the penny finally dropped?
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.
Simple, if rhetorical question.
Do you actually know what is in the tower?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 13:45:00
The law compels the Power Company to provide a special power point to masts.
What is special about it?

One property = one power box and meter.

Exception by act of Parliament for Comms companies who get what they want.

One property - but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 13:52:45
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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 13:53:23
but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.
Do they pay the bill for it?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 17:18:20
but tower company renting on that property gets another dedicated power point.
Do they pay the bill for it?

We do. By paying them for their expensive service. But if they get the bill which they do, they pay.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 17:19:56
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2019 17:21:54
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 17:39:34
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 them
If 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.
Why not say 0.00 kWhrs for day 9, day 10 and day 11 and 142.25 kWhrs for day 15?
If, as seems likely, their meters (like mine) show cumulative use, why would they not present to the court a graph of cumulative use?

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.

Has the penny finally dropped?
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.
Simple, if rhetorical question.
Do you actually know what is in the tower?

Where did I say I was asking for help on this point? This is a discussion forum and I am getting your point of view and seeing how detailed I must be to get an explanation across.

Average sine wave power is calculated by the rms voltage, the rms current and the cosine of the angle between them.
If the angle is zero the load is resistive and behaves like a DC load. If the angle is plus or minus 90 deg then the load is either fully capacitive or inductive and the average power is zero because the energy flow in on one part of the cycle and out on the other part. The other terms you need to know are kVA and kVAr.
Try electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-in-ac-circuits.html

Note: I worked starting up big power istallations in SA in my early career. Transmissions lines act as inductors. When the line gets too long the power goes in (the magnetic field) and comes back out and no power gets to the other end. To transmit long distances one needs series capacitors every 100 km or so. I worked on these. Imagine telling someone of a single capacitor rated at 400,000 volts (above ground) and capable of thousands of amps. They had to take full fault current also so we had a "power zener" (a special carbon electrode gap) to limit the fault voltage across the bank. Each of the phase banks was mounted on 6 meter ceramic posts. But I digress.

How do I display a PDF page here?

I have used various techniques to get a page which fairly accurately show the cumulative readings. I blew it up and then used measuring tools to get distances on the graph. 9 days of usage shows as 1.77 units. The 1 hour of test usage shows as 0.20 units. If I assume a constant power usage then the nine days is 384 hours = 1.7 graph units and the 0.20 graph units would then equate to 74 hours.

I calculate the hours of both the illegal turn-on and the test period to be 64 hours but if they upped the power (which I think they did) then my graphing would show a possible 64 hours.

The power consumption for the lights is minimal. Cooling fans are minimal. Check the daily variation on the daily power average. The variation is low. I have a very good idea of what is in the various boxes and on the masts. Not make and model but certainly equipment type and consumption.

If I subpoena the power company records then I will be shown to be correct. Do you grasp the magnitude of the claimed hours run and the actual hours run. A 6400% error on my part is not possible without an arithmetic error. A 10 hour error is only 15 percent error. How would the metering company explain such a discrepancy?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 17:49:43
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.

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.

But the tower company avoids fraud by direct billing from its own power company point. And the energy consumption is for the tower only - mostly the power amplifiers for the transmitters, then the power for the receivers, for the communications (modems to fiber or dish) and the lights, fans, alarms and battery chargers.

The battery charger stores energy and releases it so a short duration of transmission one gets the pretty much same power for the time period except for the inefficiency of the battery system. That accounts for the discrepancy for the higher power.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 18:02:28
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.
Oops!
But, since you have data for power that rather undermines your claim that you only have data for cumulative energy use.

Where did I say I was asking for help on this point?

Here
Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
Explain what went on here.

and here.
11) Why show an accumulated kWhr on a graph rather than numbers for each day?
12) Why show average kW for each day on a graph instead of daily consumption and the number of hours?
I will have another go.
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 if the average power is 4.7KW and the power on the 15th was 5.7KW
then that's a net energy of 112.8 KWHr  and 136.8 KWHr respectively
So, there's a difference of 24 KWHr
So the apparent "excess" power during the test is 24 KW

That's a lot, but it's still not 142 KW

And my point still stands.
There's some indication that they used 24KW of power for an hour (though their "1 hour" may actually have taken some more time in setting up etc- winch pulls the peak power down).
But there's no evidence that they connected any or all of all that to the transmitter.

You are making up your claim about what they did- because you simply don't know.
You were not there.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 18:05:41
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 18:08:21
Enough on the power fraud. It was useful to define the issues.

At the beginning of my holiday last week I stopped all medication. No more pain tablets. I am now very sensitive to the radiation. I can tell the difference between 10 minutes in the kitchen and 10 minutes in the lounge. After 2 hours in the house (despite the shielding) I have to leave because of the pain in my body. Not my head because I wear a head shield. Within 10 minutes of my leaving tonight a lot of the pain had disappeared.

Yesterday I spent 8 hours at home. Tried to be inside most of the time while supervising the worker but there were a number of periods outside. By 4 pm I was wasted. I came back to my apartment and slept till the morning. Took half a sleeping tablet to fall asleep because I felt so ill. There will be very little doubt about the box test I propose.

Tuesday I see the neurologist again. I have some questions because I have learned more. Alzheimers is one topic. Unfortunately I am in the early stages which advanced rapidly near the tower. It too involves calcium channels. The bone marrow produces amyloid proteins that are defective. Some liken it to a cancer. But I have to do more reading and understanding.

It would seem I have been hammered by the background cell radiation in the last few years. I no longer need the anti-fungal it seems but it is early days. The fluoroquinolones seem to have been a catalyst because there was too great a period from the last time I took them and the slow onset of my medical problems. The increase in my problems coincides with the increase in cell towers in our area.

But there is another story which I will leave until tomorrow. Anyone reading most of what I have said in this thread should be alarmed. But denial can be strong if people do not understand the physics AND desire that alarmists like me are hopefully wrong (although I am not).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 27/10/2019 18:20:25
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.

No. It is not. If it was, the owner of the property would get the total bill for the property and the tower would have a private meter to determine the tower usage. But the tower get a second and separate box and meter from the power company. The owner has no idea of the tower energy and the company wants that to be that way. The less info out there the better for them.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2019 19:08:02
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2019 20:01:28
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!
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 04:13:12
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!

Okay. I might be wrong for SA as well. However, at a meeting opposing the tower a real estate man wanted to know how they got a separate supply when he said he could not get it done for any other property. We have only one supplier Eskom also known as Eishkom. (Standing SA joke - Eish is a local expression of amazement or shock.) They distribute through the municipalities but they too are a monopoly.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 04:16:05
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?

Did I say this was a test or a proof?

No. Just a comment as to my increased perception of the harm being done to me. Which should assist my double blind test.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 05:04:45
Here is the new lesson.

I have been trying to find a way to reduce or discontinue any medications. There were times I was taking 3 Tramadol tablets a day. They have side effects that are unpleasant. The neurologist prescribed Gabapentin but even in the lowest dose I felt dizzy and weird so I stopped after a few days. She then prescribed Tegratol - a half tablet twice a day. It helped a little but I was still not happy. Two weeks ago I tried half Tegretol at night (it helps me sleep) and one Tramadol in the morning for the pain. The Tramadol would take 3 hours to take effect so sometimes I set my alarm for 4 am and take it then.

Sunday 20 October I took my last medications.

Monday - we flew to Uhlanga at lunch time. The weather was overcast and cool. We walked on the beach but spent some time in the room on the 15th floor and ate chicken and a salad in the room. I felt stomach cramps and wondered what I had eaten. During the trip we got up at 5 am most of the time and did an early beach walk.

Tuesday - the weather was partly raining and we spent most of the time in the room with my wife reading a book and me sleeping. I was having some withdrawal. In the afternoon I got sharp stomach cramps followed by diarrhea. I told my wife it must be the dried fruit I have been eating the last two days and did not have any more.

Wednesday - the day was sunny but with some wind. We spent time by the pool. At 5pm we went to a good seafood restaurant. I was feeling good with hardly any pain, and my knees were not a problem. That night my wife said she had a knot in her stomach and I felt nauseous as if I had food my stomach was not used to. I was up most of the night. We both blamed the calamari we had.

Thursday - Fantastic day. Sunny and not too hot and humid. Spent from 8am to 2pm by the pool. Felt great. Took some pizza up to the room. At 7pm my wife said she was worried about the pain in her stomach. We went to sleep at 8 pm. I woke at 10 pm with a growing queasiness, the same sensation as the night before. This time I said it cannot be the food. WiFi. Luckily the service panels had broken off the flat wall cabinets where the wiring and cabling for the WiFi and fiber modem and TV connections were. One in the bedroom and one in the living room. I turned the power off both. Within 10 minutes I started getting relief and after 30 minutes my stomach had settled down enough for me to sleep.

Friday - Another great day. At the pool again. Now I was not feeling any pain when outside. The hotel shielded us from towers and there was no radiation from the sea. At 1pm we got on the 1 hour flight home.

The flight. After 40 minutes into the flight I told my wife I had headache, mostly between my eyes. I had pain when pressing the bones around the inside part of my eye sockets as well as the bridge of my nose. My wife suggested I had sinus pain. No, it is outside, not inside I replied. It is the WiFi in the plane I said. Many people on their cell phones. I also had a slight queasiness.

We got a taxi for the 30 minute ride home. The pain/stomach issues had gone and I was feeling okay. But as we drove into suburbia with its many masts I began to feel the general pain which had started me on pain tablets.

Now that I am not on medication, I am aware that at the apartment where I stay to avoid the cell tower, the radiation is a typical 2-6 uW/sqm and I can at least tolerate this. I sleep better and am less tired. But even 2 uW/sqm continuously is going to be bad for people in the long term. Hence my prediction of a solution to climate change by dropping the population.

When I am at the house with the tower radiation, I can feel the overall pain that was the reason for me to start on pain tablets.

Can you imagine the harm being done to people as the suburban background radiation slowly degrades their body? A long slow rot that is being blamed on every other toxin and pollutant BUT NOT CELL RADIATION! Yeah right! Sperm damage, bone marrow damage, brain damage - and lots more.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2019 07:06:56
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2019 07:28:07
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".
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 10:08:35
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.

The salad was an upmarket sealed pre-washed package. The chicken had been roasted in the hour before we bought it at the upmarket (the best) retail outlet. The seafood was from a restaurant that if you did not make reservations you could not get seating. Umhlanga is an upmarket seaside resort. The pizza was from the hotel restaurant and the hotel was very upmarket. I have never had an upset stomach from dried fruit but there is always a first time.

Initially I blamed the food. I have a delicate stomach. If the food is off, I will get cramps and diarrhea within 4 hours of eating it. Like clockwork. But this was different. Not cramps but queasiness that lasted for hours. Except when I turned the WiFi off.

I have been through the withdrawal a number of times and know what it feels like. Mostly the shakes. And only a couple of days. Twitchy legs. Tramadol is a codeine derivative known for its weakness. The other times were from a stronger dose that I barely tapered off.

Short haul flying. No food or drinks before, during or after. Walk on, sit down, walk off. Why would that cause problems?

The other fact you overlook is that I had no pains when on the beach or at the pool even though not taking pain tablets. Do you know when I last felt that way and was not on pain tablets? About 3-4 years ago. The pains came and went depending on my location. Room or no room. I said to my wife when we were in the room that I had pain across my shoulder blades. Minutes later by the pool the pain was not there. That was Wednesday and I did not relate it to the room.

Since I did not think either myself or my wife were susceptible to WiFi (even though we keep all WiFI in our home off) I do not think it was a placebo/nocebo effect.

So now I have another possible test where the WiFi can be set to a random pattern and that experimenter is not aware of and is only made known at the end of the test. Double blind.

My wife has to go and see an eye specialist. The insides of her eyes are blistering and turning yellow with considerable reddening. 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.

So now we come to the central nervous sleep apnea. The waveforms of my breathing show a slowing down to zero and then a slow return to normal. Obstruction is a sudden stop and a gasp. After Saturday I was fatigued and had to lie down and sleep. I was also aware that the muscle tiredness was such that it was tiring to breathe. If the cell emf tires out the muscles by constant on/off pulsing stimulation then no wonder all my muscles are painfully tired.

I will be adjusting my sleeping patterns to see how I do if I have had a good day with no radiation.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 10:27:20
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".

At this point I am saying it is a perception. I have to test my susceptibility and see how low the radiation can go before I cannot perceive any negative effects. It is a worry that it is so low. Can I live in a city or town without a reflective space suit, and a fully shielded home?

Do you not think that pain is an indication of harm being done to one's body? I do. Even low grade pain.

I was thinking of your kitchen no kitchen as not a double blind.

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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Colin2B on 28/10/2019 16:56:31
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2019 17:27:48
"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.

Quote
Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance, meaning it has some abuse potential
In short, it is psychoactive and addictive.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 19:02:08
"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.

Quote
Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance, meaning it has some abuse potential
In short, it is psychoactive and addictive.

Quote
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 cruise ship - that is an oxymoron. They are cattle wagons rife with pathogens just waiting. Oysters - some are okay and others are seriously problematic. Because of my sensitive stomach I usually eat quite bland food such as raw oats and milk for breakfast for example. At restaurants I usually have fried food. Never a salad at a restaurant.

Tramadol can be abused and addictive - just as alcohol can. Even caffeine can be a problem for people to stop. The withdrawal for me is quite mild and only a few days. The issue is that if the pain returns after the withdrawal or I cannot function, I go back. Now that I am pretty sure my pain is EMF based I  am not having a problem - as long as I stay out of high radiation areas. I thought that "high" was 3,000 uW/sqm but I now know that 300 affects me if I am in it for 2 hours or more and that 30 is too much for me to sleep in. I now think that 3 is too high for 24 hour "background" radiation.

I have done a lot of short haul and very long haul flights. I have never had medical issues. Except in the last few years with swelling ankles if I do not wear stockings and walk about. Like ground based systems, inflight Wifi is increasing in speed and hence radiation, especially as more passengers use it.

The house shielding is not great but vastly better than none. Tonight I visited my house and had dinner with my wife. Wearing my foil hat the whole time, and my mesh legging over my knee. After two hours I had to leave. I could not take the pain. It is hard to describe how it feels. Kinda like being in a seriously stressful situation which lasts. The emotional tension in one's body builds up and manifests as muscle pain. Shoulders, back, spine and legs. Like an over wound spring. And some of the queasy feeling also. Pain and queasy dissipated rather quickly once I left.

The problem is not only the level of radiation but the time in it. I worry about her but she says what can she do. It is her home and she has things to do. The gritty feeling in my eyes only occurred while I was staying in the house before I installed any shielding. It only happened twice to me, and lasted about a day each time. It felt like a sandy lump on the inside of my eye almost in my nose.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 19:16:28
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.

All well put. No arguments from me. SA does not have juries. The judges follow the system and toe the line. I have abandoned any hope of justice in the system. I have been before judges who could not care less. There is no consequence for basing a judgement on which party is least likely to appeal. Even if appealed the rot goes all the way to the top. They simply dismiss with one line saying there is no chance of success. That way there is no hearing. Africa has a reputation for systemic corruption and it is well entrenched here in my experience and opinion.

I am aware of the importance of expert witnesses and their qualifications and influence having been involved with a couple of matters requiring them. It seem to me that when a corporate can say the country will have massive job losses the politicians listen and the top administrative judges steer the case to a judge who can be relied upon to get rid of the matter. Even testimony and a demonstration of a miracle from Jesus himself will not affect the outcome.

My gut feeling tells me I cannot win no matter how strong my case is. I checked with my guardian angels who also advised against it. In no uncertain terms.  ;)

I will be trying to do the double blind tests, although getting any professional who wants to keep their job will be difficult. My attorney told me he cannot get an advocate to give an opinion even though I asked that it be strictly "off the record" so no-one would know.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 28/10/2019 19:24:02
To Colin2B:

You may have suspected that my hobnailed boot example was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Thanks for your opinion though.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2019 20:05:05
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,





Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2019 20:16:44
Do you not think that pain is an indication of harm being done to one's body?

I think green is an indication of the presence of chlorophyll.
But that does not mean that I think the statue of Liberty is a plant.

Do you understand that pain may be caused by things other than physical harm?
Are you, for example, aware of pepper?

Could I say "You can only prove the pain is from the boots if you do a double blind test."

Yes.
(if there was not adequate evidence based on other things).

But what if, having had a foot amputated, I still suffer from phantom pain in it when I see you stand on my artificial foot?
Do you understand that there is no physical damage to me in that case?

Do you understand how, in that case, a double blind (or, even single blind) test would show the difference?


Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2019 23:46:17
I have done a lot of short haul and very long haul flights. I have never had medical issues
This 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 29/10/2019 09:09:54
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 have stopped taking Tramadol on about four occasions prior to this last stoppage so I pretty much know the effects of stopping. Mostly shakiness, aches and very tired so I tend to sleep. No diarrhea that I remember. A couple of times I tapered down and a couple of times I did not. The only real difference that I remember was the severity of the withdrawal. I stopped for about a week each time and restarted because of the return of pain and also feeling I could not function mentally - which I needed to do because of legal deadlines. The most I took was 2 at 4 am and 1 at 12 pm. I tried 4 daily a couple of times but felt dizzy and out of it.

A couple of times I stopped because I wished to get it out my system and see how the Tegretol on its own worked. The Tegretol made me feel a bit better but did not relieve the pain. I tried mixing the two and taking them at different times. On one occasion I stopped so I could try THC oil. I took two drops on my tongue and felt strange for 2-3 days so I did not try again. The other occasion I stopped and tried CBD but that also make me feel strange despite only about 3 drops.

 In the week prior to stopping this last time, I was taking one Tramadol (50 mg) in the morning and a half a Tegretol (half of 200 mg) at night. Some articles say that Tegretol may reduce the effect of Tramadol.

The article you reference (which I already had because I research what medicines I am taking) states "Long-term use of high doses of tramadol causes physical dependence and withdrawal syndrome". I do not think that 50 mg a day is a high dose.The max single dosage is 200 mg with  a limit of 400mg daily.

When I first started taking Tramadol the effects were very obvious to track. Nothing for two hours, then reaching peak effectiveness after 4 hours. After 7 hours the effect decreased and after 9 hours the effects had gone.

I will concede that the Tuesday diarrhea may be partly Tramadol related. I concede because it is difficult to separate what is causing what.

Nevertheless I am happy for the comments. It is important to figure out which issues might be medicine and which might be Wifi. I think I can rule out food as a cause. That said, a full stomach is not the same as an empty one for either the medicine or the Wifi.

I am looking at my medical history and see that I had a couple of presciptions of Myprodol for pain as early as 2012. I blamed the histoplasmosis but maybe the fluoroquinolones taken at the beginning of the bat fungus infection played a part. I will visit my doctor and get a summary of my history.

At the moment I feel great mentally. I feel calm and at peace with the world. I do have a little shoulder pain but it is easily bearable. I am going to try exercise once more. I had no problems on holiday with lots of walking and an hour of water aerobics. I am also going to go out of the city for a few days to where there is virtually no signal and see what happens.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2019 09:57:52
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2019 19:59:31
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 00:52:10
I have done a lot of short haul and very long haul flights. I have never had medical issues
This 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)

You may be correct. I never noticed it before. Usually one gets it from sinus pain when the sinuses are blocked. Aerosinusitus or airplane headache. I do not have blocked sinuses. I use salt water or colloidal silver solution on the odd occasion when I get congestion. Clears it right up.

I have a nose that was broken as a teenager and is slightly skew from being pushed in from the right.  Oh well, time for a story to make things interesting.

When I was 15 the local church decided to invite some reformatory boys to the Sunday night get-together for teens. Brotherly love. What a mistake. The older 17/18 year-olds just left and the two 16 year-olds who stayed were nasty. I stood up to them and one night after everyone went home I hung around to confront one of them for stealing from my younger brother. The guy was slightly bigger than me but when he said "Let's go talk in the alley" I knew the fight was on. I expected his mate to be there but I thought I could take on both of them. I was quite athletic and reasonably strong.

Although I was academically smart I was not street-wise. My dad was a regimental sergeant major who fought in WW2 and taught unarmed combat and then became a construction foreman. He was tall and powerfully built and used his fists (or his boots) to sort out problems. He was also a handsome ladies man who was a ballroom dancing champion. But he hated cowardice and we were raised to take death before dishonour.

I got to the alley and there are another five including the bigger ones. I p*ssed myself knowing I was in serious trouble. But I stood my ground and argued. Then I got hit with brass knuckles from the side. I turned to the attacker and again got hit from the right side. Not only did I not go down, I said "I will kill the next guy who hits me." They muttered and decided to leave. I was lucky not to be knifed. The small colonial town of Bulawayo in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) had a tiny but violent subculture.

My face swelled up like a Halloween pumpkin and turned all colours - red, black, purple, yellow. My cheek bone was broken, as was my nose. I was real sight at school. A week later, the reformatory relocated to another town. I do not know if my dad had anything to do with it, or whether it had been planned, or whether the schools refused to have them, or all of the above, but they were gone.

With time, my nose got hard and sharp on the bridge. Turned out to save me when I was attacked by a violent criminal who was out on parole in Auckland NZ. It was in a university residence and I was 57. The man head-butted me when I grabbed his arms to prevent a punch. I grabbed his throat and throttled him, standing sideways so as to not get kicked between the legs. He tried to gouge out my eyes with his thumbs while spitting like an animal.

I threw him against a sideboard and onto the floor then put him in an head-lock. I had to push his head forward to choke him into unconsciousness. I nearly killed him, but relented and put him in an arm-lock. Two cops arrived and called for backup saying they knew how violent the guy was. What! I am sitting on him and have him completely subdued. The thin skin on the bridge of my nose had split and there was very little blood, but he had a massive swelling on his forehead. Like a egg. His throat was purple. Probably only my third fight but one can learn a lot from TV. And probably some help from God. I had a bit of concussion in the following week.

Thanks for the advice. If there are alternative reasons for my pains I need to consider them and factor them in. It could be that the Wifi played a part. There was a slight queasiness in my stomach during the flight.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 01:00:59
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)

One guy died from eating a spicy hot fishcake. His throat swelled closed.

However, you are right that some pain can be in the mind. When I was a teenager I learned how to hypnotize people. One could tell a person that if a particular girl touched him lightly he would have extreme burning pain.

Fascinating, the human brain. 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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 01:15:14
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 learned the hard way how that can happen. I went to hospital to have hemorrhoids removed. The nurses gave me injections of morphine and I did not know to say "No" until a sister told me why I was not able to pass water or stool. Instead of 1 night I was there 5 nights. Since then I am careful not to get constipated. Raw oats for breakfast and lots of water. So even with opioids I do not have problems.

Before my mom went into frail care I brought her to my home to see if I could give her home care. She was on a bunch of medication. Pain tablets, laxatives, blood pressure tablets, antidepressants and a couple more medications. I weaned her off them all in two weeks. She did not need them. When she went into frail care I told them she should only get a paracetamol if she really complained. The other patients had daily doses of multiple tablets.

So I agree that being off medication is a good thing. When I have pain or nausea now, it seems to be when I am in cell phone radiation of some sort. Staying out of it means no pain or just some that I can tolerate.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 01:32:15
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.

Some people are highly sensitive to chemicals. You should know that. How much of an allergen does it take to cause severe problems? I once unknowingly ate a marijuana cookie at a party. I hallucinated for four hours. Most amazing though. More real than reality.

That sensitivity is likely why I am sensitive to EMFs. Although my wife now seems sensitized. Can long term low background tower radiation sensitize most of the population? I think so.

I visited the neurologist yesterday and asked her about Alzheimer's. She said the MRI of my brain showed shrinkage that was normal for my age. It was even and no cause for alarm. I told a friend the doctor said that I had the brain of a politician - nothing was left on the right side of my brain and nothing was right on the left side of my brain. I had to tell him it was a joke I saw that day in the paper.

The doctor did give me an Alzheimer's test. I had difficulty with some parts. Fifteen words starting with the letter "F". I battled. Later in my low emf apartment the words would just not stop coming to mind. She said I should learn another language to improve the interconnections. I cannot replace the dead cells which caused the shrinkage. Yes, getting old is not for sissies. A new and novel life lesson for me. Pity I have to die and take my experience with me.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2019 12:08:33
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 12:24:08
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 12:29:26
You should know that. How much of an allergen does it take to cause severe problems?
Not much.
But, since they don't cause mental issues they are not relevant.
Why did you mention them?

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.

What are you doing on a science site?

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 18:59:09
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.

When I have a break maybe at Xmas in the bush I may take some of the THC. It worries me though. The highs can be fantastic - but I had two horrific experiences from sharing a joint. Hallucinations again - in and out - from very low amounts. However, with the tincture the dosage is precise so maybe I do a little more each day and note the effects. Will make sure I am in a safe area with pleasant music. Emerson Lake and Palmer - Lucky Man - which put me as a pilot on a intergalactic space craft and woken out of stasis to fight a pirate craft. My life on earth was just a dream to keep me occupied during the long voyage. My nervous system and brain were connected to every part of the ship and I was one with it. Firing the huge cannons was out of this world. The ship was so massive and fast that the turns occupied solar system distances.

We were taught Afrikaans at school (similar to Dutch which I can follow). I tried to learn languages of countries I visited to get by. Swedish in Sweden, Spanish in the Dominican Republic. Living in Brooklyn NY I took Italian classes. But here I will learn Zulu or Xhosa (or the combo everyone seems to use). I already know some Fanagolo (a native command language used on the mines - pidgin - vernacular Zulu with some Xhosa, English and Afrikaans.) Words for Hold, Push, Pull, Water, Meat, Eat, Home, Take and so on. I have been meaning to do that for some time. French and Thai were difficult. German I can follow a lot of.

I have a lot of serendipity in my life. And today I learned (again - and the hard way) what happens to me with bad food. I had just finished with the legal costs attorney and went for lunch at  local dairy farm. Expensive and beautiful surrounds and a great day. So I was lulled and seduced by the pastrami on a bagel. Used to love it in New York City. I worried about it but the other options were not great. I sniffed at the meat and ate a little by itself. Seemed okay. Same with the garnish. I had half before I decided not to have any more. Like clockwork. Pain after 4 hours and the rest of the sequence. My wife said "Don't you remember the exact same thing happened the last time you went there and had the same meal". No, I only vaguely do. But not the same as on holiday at all.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 19:10:46
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 hypnotisable no matter how much I want to try it.

And my memory on this is excellent, being long term and noted in writing when my memory overall was good. I was very good at hypnosis and had thoroughly researched it. You cannot accept it because you probably do not believe in the existence of a spirit world.

Even at that time I knew how some experiments turned out to be just very sensitive sight and hearing (and smell) of the subjects. Like reading the book in reflection of a person eyes through the tiny slits of the supposedly closed eye. Or hearing the sub-vocalisation of people concentrating on a word. So I would have people in another room in the house.

I could relate the experiences in detail but I do not want to derail the thread.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 30/10/2019 19:54:34
There are interesting articles about Alzeheimer's and the sensitivity of the gut.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterochromaffin_cell
Release of the vesicles occurs after chemical, neurological or mechanical stimulation of the EC cells and is predominantly calcium dependent, suggesting excretion via exocytosis. The combined effect of increased calcium flux and a liberation of stored calcium within the cell changes the cell potential triggering release of the 5-HT vesicles. The vesicles pass from the basal margin into the surrounding lamina propria for interaction with nearby nerve synapses, lymph and blood vessels.

Again and again one finds the references to calcium channel signalling.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyloid_beta
...The ion channel hypothesis postulates that oligomers of soluble, non-fibrillar Aβ form membrane ion channels allowing the unregulated calcium influx into neurons that underlies disrupted calcium ion homeostasis and apoptosis seen in Alzheimer's disease.

...The suggested mechanisms by which amyloid beta may damage and cause neuronal death include the generation of reactive oxygen species during the process of its self-aggregation. When this occurs on the membrane of neurons in vitro, it causes lipid peroxidation and the generation of a toxic aldehyde called 4-hydroxynonenal which, in turn, impairs the function of ion-motive ATPases, glucose transporters and glutamate transporters. As a result, amyloid beta promotes depolarization of the synaptic membrane, excessive calcium influx and mitochondrial impairment. Aggregations of the amyloid-beta peptide disrupt membranes in vitro.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease
The first symptoms are often mistakenly attributed to ageing or stress. Detailed neuropsychological testing can reveal mild cognitive difficulties up to eight years before a person fulfils the clinical criteria for diagnosis of AD. These early symptoms can affect the most complex activities of daily living. The most noticeable deficit is short term memory loss, which shows up as difficulty in remembering recently learned facts and inability to acquire new information.

One realizes just how sensitive living cells are to tiny tiny changes in voltage around and in them. For instance, how does a hair follicle know when to stop growing certain hairs like on ones arm. Voltage differentials if I remember correctly. How does a fertilized cell know which is up and down and which is left and right. Voltage differentials. How else?

And do you think the cell can operate properly under pulsating fields? Even tiny fields? Despite the marvelous repair and check mechanisms there are still mistakes that are not corrected. The amyloid beta results from improper folding of the proteins. The mechanisms for folding are probably incredibly sensitive and here we go bombarding the cells with microwave radiation.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2019 20:28:20
I am not hypnotisable
I didn't say you were...
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/11/2019 04:56:35
I am not hypnotisable
I didn't say you were...

Nice side-step.

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2019 06:51:18
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 01/11/2019 09:27:47
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.

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?

(You are the one insisting on answers to all your posts - how about quid pro quo?)

And here is where you can ignore my request.

I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!

Since you have repeated an unsubstantiated (and wrong) claim about my suggestibility, please add argument to support it.

I have a track record of not following the herd and being a maverick. That is not indicative of suggestibility.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/11/2019 16:19:47
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. 
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2019 19:17:56
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.
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)
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 04:35:13
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 answered this. They are only slightly downward (maybe 15 degrees) but are not directional. 20 meters in front of the antenna at 20 meters of height above the ground has the same power level as 5 meters from the base of the mast at ground level because each point is about 20 meters from the antenna and the inverse square law applies.

Essentially they are non-directional. A circular pattern. They are intended to cover a very short distance from the mast, say 300 meters, rather than the directional antennae which had to cover 2,500 meters. This is because the mast can only handle a certain amount of cell phone traffic. The number of cell devices and the amount of time spent on a cell device has sky-rocketed hence each mast can only handle a small area. And this means a much higher density of masts as well.

And I also explained the difference between cell radiation from a cell phone and that from the mast. Even if one's cell phone was communicating 24 hours a day to a distant tower it is not the same. It is only transmitting 1/8 of the time because of the time slots it is allowed to use.

There are about 12 to 24 antennae on the mast, so one would need 12 to 24 cell phones transmitting 24 hours a day in one's house to match the number of working transmitters. The one has to multiply that by 8 to get the radiation to occupy the full time slot spectrum available.

The mast also searches for phones and changes power levels to adjust to the lowest power. Phones close to the tower would require minimal power, but they are at max power while ringing and establishing the connection. Power pulsations are a key factor in causing harm.

So one needs 192 cell phones being switched on all of the time and then briefly off at 2 minute intervals (to get the power level adjustments) for 24 hours a day in the house to get the same as living next to a tower. Assuming the phones are just lying around and not next to an ear.

People choose phones but dislike towers. So the industry propaganda is that the phones give much more radiation dosage than towers to lower community resistance. The subject is complex enough that the majority of people and even engineers simply accept it because it takes analysis to discover the truth.

The truth is also borne out by the problems around masts. My wife has asked me to build a mesh cage that she can put over herself when she sleeps. She is struggling. Our bedroom is only about 20-30 uW/sqm. The neighbors on the other side are asking for a meeting because they have moved out of their house a month ago. They have about 200 to 600 uW/sqm.

We are finding another house to buy (at a big loss) because of the health hazards. The neighbors do not want to move. I have suggested a massive metal fence to shield the entire house from the tower - and redirect the radiation to the owners who apparently have no problems - yet.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 05:15:02
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)

Not real? On what basis do you say that? Do you know for a fact that the Ultimate Existence is only the physical phenomena that science experiments can currently measure?

Our current understanding is that everything physical exists in a quantum energy sea, and that matter can pop in and out of existence in that sea. Can you imagine how ridiculous that would have sounded two hundred or more years ago?

So why can humans not be mentally tuned to another form of energy. A shadow spirit world that has intelligence and intelligent entities in it. You probably accept the possibility of a multiverse with different universes coexisting but are absolutely certain that a coexisting universe of spirit with a weak connection cannot exist.

I know what I saw and heard. No one suggested it to me, except to inform me that it may be possible.

What you are doing is using one of a number of standard techniques used by some to discredit personal observation. "Ha, ha, ha - methinks the man is feeble minded to say he saw me kill my wife. The blood on my hands is from my holding her poor dead body in my arms."

Dream on and delude yourself that "you" are simply a bag of salty meat that will eventually rot and be eaten by the worms. While you may be right, you cannot, with certainty, explain some experiences that happen to people. I cannot and I have had a few. Some of them I would accept the possibility of a brain malfunction but others cannot be explained that way.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 05:36:26
(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)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are not reading the references I have been giving you, and you are no expert in the field of cellular microbiology.

Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is. The protein sensor folds upon itself a number of times to increase the sensitivity. The ion channels in the cell membrane have to detect a voltage differential that is a fraction of the voltage of the cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts. And it has to react only to a change caused by an imbalance in only its specific ion - sodium or calcium.

The minute imbalance is usually caused by a release of ions from a neighboring cell. Look at nerve and neuron signalling. There is no electrical impedance matching. If there is a voltage caused by sudden imbalance then the ion channel reacts. If the voltage imbalance is due to a pulsation from a microwave emf that has penetrated the brain then the channel can be confused. It may turn on and off a number of times causing a cascade of false interaction with surrounding cells. Leading to fatigue and maybe even failure.

The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.

We are a complex community of cells joined together and communicating to each other with speed and incredible complexity. On a molecular level. A sodium channel can open and allow a million sodium ions a sec through the opening. Only sodium - and not calcium, or hydrogen, or potassium ions.

The various proteins that form tiny machines to produce more proteins, or to replicate, must signal each other in order to perform the function. The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell me how they function because maybe I am reading all the wrong science.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 10:42:09
Two follow-ups.

Hair follicles. There are three phases, Growth, transition and rest. Short hair like eyelashes have a long rest and a short growth. One does not notice the hairs falling out and being replaced. This was also answered on Naked Scientist.

My wife's eye problems. She has rosacea. This can cause eye irritation. Once more, the Emfs may aggravate the conditions she has.

Edited to add:
I wondered what determined the timing of various phases in different follicles in different parts. It seems that FGF5 is produced by the hair follicle itself. But what starts that cycle? How do the stem cells know they has been active for a certain time?

Life has all these built-in timers and clocks. How do they work? I know that when I was traveling on business (frequent) and needed to set my alarm clock, I would wake up 3-5 minutes before the alarm. Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2019 12:06:02
the inverse square law applies.
Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2019 12:08:19
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2019 12:19:37
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.
Once more, the Emfs may aggravate the conditions she has.
There's no evidence for EMFs influencing rosacea.

There is strong evidence for stress aggravating it.

By repeatedly banging on about this scare story, you are probably making her condition worse.
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.
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
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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:17:25
the inverse square law applies.
Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.

You are applying on one criteria. And repeating cell industry propaganda.

Read my post - I detail multiple mast antennae, and periods of transmission.

That said, holding a cell phone to one's head while ringing is a no-no. Or even talking to a distant tower.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:22:30
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.

We agree. Hurray! Me too with time zones. And no familiar sounds or lights to give a clue as to time. 3 am or 4 am were typical times I needed to get up in an unfamiliar hotel room.

The precision with which some people can add up columns of numbers or multiply big numbers is another instance of the brain having an unknown precision and skill - and doing it without fail. Better than a Boeing Max!

While the fallibility of the human brain is used against anecdotes, there are examples of precision and accuracy. My brain used to be (not any more) precise and analytical.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:34:51
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.

You said we were in post number 507 by saying: " Not least, you ignore the fact that people are big bags of salty water."
And you repeat it albeit slightly differently. Do you not remember or are you being facetious?

You miss the point entirely. Microwaves penetrate hence the efficiency of heating. Your model of a human is so wrong that one cannot begin to debate with you. 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?

Your leap from statements 1 and 2 to conclusion 3 is mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:41:15
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.

His work has been computer modeled and shown to be correct. I asked him in an email and he was gracious enough to point me to the study.

He is an eminent university scientist - unlike the paid-for sponsored studies treating people like lumps of dead meat whose only response is to show a temperature increase.

His analysis and hypothesis explain the thousands of tests In vitro and in vivo that demonstrate harm.

As for quackery - apply your infamous mirror test. And remember to engage brain before hitting the keys on the keyboard.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:44:46
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

Read my post carefully. The equilibrium voltages are in the order of tens of millivolts. The differential to unbalance those voltages are tiny fractions of a millivolt and very fast.

I did not mean just "tell me", I meant show and tell me. Give me an scientific paper that either estimates those differentials or measures them.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 15:48:06
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2019 15:48:16
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.

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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2019 15:49:53
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?
Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2019 16:33:12
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.
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.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 16:34:48
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?
Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.

Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.

The patch clamp techniques are used. What studies would you refer me to for the latest in values and ranges?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 16:43:35
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.

Hmm. Done some reading have you. One must remember that we are talking about localized areas that are very small. Injecting some ions by using the resting potential can rapidly change the potential across the protein that is doing the measurement for the channel. Theoretically, how fast can a protein sensor respond to a change in potential, and what would be the effect of the channel opening even briefly. Could it cause neurons to mistakenly unbalance the equation regarding which inputs are being activated?

I have to read up on this a bit more and refresh my memory. I am talking from memory and as we know it is getting faulty.

At least you guys are finally engaging!!!
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 02/11/2019 16:47:44
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.

Are you saying that there is no dose dependence, no pulsation issues, no long term effects and no sensitization? That just short bursts are more dangerous than 24/7 immersion?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2019 22:33:07
I'm not saying anything. Just waiting for you to come up with a sensible demonstration of whatever you claim.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/11/2019 03:47:29
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.

Computer modeling is used all the time to indicate the variables that may be involved and what the magnitude of those effects may be. It is used successfully in many branches of science. While it may not constitute "proof" it can be used to reinforce various theories. In this case the hypothesis that ion channels can be influenced by cell phone microwaves. To dismiss computer modelling without even looking at the study is not very scientific of you IMO.

Let me try another approach.
a) ICNIRP is the international self-appointed body that sets a recommended safe level for radiation.
b) ICNIRP maintain that the only harmful effect of emfs is heating.
c) Based on heating, they set a safe level with a safety factor built in
d) If they are correct then no experiment should see harm being done at lower levels
e) There are experiments that show harm at lower levels
f) There were no heating effects
g) The conclusion is that ICNIRP is wrong about heating and a safe level.

Now what we need to do is to determine the mechanism other than heating that is involved, and what a safe level may actually be. This has been studied thousands of times since 1994. There is a consensus among independent scientists that reactive oxygen species (ROS) may be involved. One way to generate intra-cellular ROS is to disturb the ion channels.

Harm to humans falls into two categories. Serious bodily harm such as cancer, and stress harm. The stress harm, such as headaches, cognitive decline, digestion disturbance and the like are harder to prove a connection. Such proof will involve much more sophisticated tests, or the results of many years of epidemiological studies around towers. Given the massive rollout of towers and output power, it may be a disastrous human experiment.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 03/11/2019 03:52:16
I'm not saying anything. Just waiting for you to come up with a sensible demonstration of whatever you claim.

Okay. I am going away on Tuesday to a health hydro for three days to see if the pains I have go away. There is almost no radiation in that area. Hence no internet and very bad cell reception.

I will be starting on the tests I have proposed sometime this month.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/11/2019 08:39:06
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/11/2019 09:58:05
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 scientists
Independent of what?
Of evidence?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/11/2019 03:23:44
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.

What I want is for the pain I have over most of my body to go away. The resort has almost no radiation. But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing. The food is excellent and it will give me a chance to kick-start my attempt to lose some weight by eating less. I already eat healthily.

I have had to increase my salt (sodium) intake because the heat has made me drink much more water. The lack of sodium manifests as mostly as pain in my calves. I eat almost no processed food and so must add salt to my diet. There is very little no sodium in natural foods of any kind. Animals eat dirt or use salt licks.

If I do not have enough water I start to get a dehydration headache. These pains are recognizable and are different than the pains I get from radiation. This is why I say that I must get a pre-determined menu to take while doing the box experiment. Enough water and enough salt.

How about a comment on my logic about cellular harm and not ICNIRP heat?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/11/2019 03:25:59
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 scientists
Independent of what?
Of evidence?

Your snarky comments are noted. How about my approach to ICNIRP being wrong about heating? Can I take your silence as acquiescence?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 04/11/2019 05:44:35
I came across this article. My question is: Why is it no longer okay to experiment on State mental patients but is okay to experiment on ordinary citizens like me using cell tower radiation. How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron? And I suppose I will be denied the pleasure of sticky toffee?

edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/health/swedish-cavity-experiment-wellness/index.html

...In Sweden in the 1930s, studies found even 3-year-old children had cavities in 83% of their teeth. Such extensive decay wasn't unusual; dental care was very poor in most countries. Treatment was basically non-existent and rotting teeth were typically pulled. Toothlessness was so prevalent in the United States that the military restricted recruits for World War I and World War II to men who had six intact opposing teeth.

...In medical terms at the time, an "idiot" was a person with an IQ below 25, who functioned at the level of a normal toddler. An "imbecile" had a IQ of between 26 and 50, whose intelligence was about that of a child of seven. "Morons" functioned at about the intellectual level of a child of 12.

..."They were given toffees or caramels that stuck in their teeth," Kanger said. "The teeth were destroyed. And after they were ruined, these people were in terrible pain. It was actually horrible."

...Today, the thought of ruining anyone's teeth for an experiment is unthinkable. But it wasn't long ago that people with disabilities were considered subhuman by many, making experimentation morally acceptable to some
.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2019 08:42:37
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
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2019 08:46:02
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?
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/11/2019 04:47:54
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?

No. Just conducting some preliminary research to establish parameters and expand my experience. Something I always did when inventing so as to refine the invention.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 05/11/2019 04:52:53
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

Rebutting. Mostly by personal declaration. No logical assessment of the articles I put forward. The proper terminology is "scornful out-of-hand dismissal".

Shame on you. Making fun of me because I am an idiot (or am I just at the moron stage?).
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2019 07:46:56
Mostly by personal declaration. No logical assessment of the articles I put forward.

Maybe mostly that.
ButI did put forward the science behind my claim that you are talking hogwash



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.


And, once again, you seem to have missed it.

Do you understand that the point of a discussion forum is that you reply to points that are raised?
You shouldn't  just carry on with your gish gallop of anti-scientific nonsense.

Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: chris on 05/11/2019 21:04:32
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.

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...

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
Post by: CliveG on 08/11/2019 05:59:44
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)

I have located the podcast you reference. 1 November 2019.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ask-the-naked-scientists/id287114592
The segment start at 8 min 15 sec.

I want to listen to it again and note the points, and then carefully respond. That will be later today.