Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => 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, Universitŕ 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 Ł100 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.