The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of CliveG
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - CliveG

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37]
721
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 15/08/2019 14:55:03 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/08/2019 06:47:02
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".

722
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

723
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 14/08/2019 20:03:49 »
Okay enough of some unscientific evidence that might worry the average person who is not science-minded. Note that very often anecdotal evidence precedes a scientific investigation.

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 Here is one that is a bit out of date (2010) that I selected rather randomly from the list published on Powerwatch (see the the number of studies showing harm versus no harm).

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

How do you discount such a study?

Neurosci Lett. 2010 Mar 31;473(1):52-5. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.02.018. Epub 2010 Feb 13.
Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electromagnetic field.
Campisi A1, Gulino M, Acquaviva R, Bellia P, Raciti G, Grasso R, Musumeci F, Vanella A, Triglia A.

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

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


My note: A human cheek cell is about 60 um is diameter. 10 V/m would mean that each cell would experience 60 times 10 uV. (Check my maths please). That is 0.6 millivolts, which is about 1/100th of the voltage across the membrane. If one goes down to the distances that the voltage sensing proteins operate over, the voltage becomes even less. Other studies show that these voltage sensing proteins are incredibly sensitive.

It appears cells adapt to conditions. Hence one has to vary the microwave field. The pulsing of the cell tower radiation is of a frequency that is particularly nasty. The power pulsing for 2G, 3G and 5G can be seen at
this site wi-cancer.info/antenna_sickness. This quote appears there:
The late Robert C. Kane, Ph.D., whose career included electrical engineering for Motorola, advised: "The belief that microwaves cannot cause bond breaking in chromosomes or DNA, or damage tissue more generally is quite inaccurate. Since the energy absorption mechanism is not the same as that for ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, the mechanisms of energy transfer that cause the bond breaking may be different. However the result is quite evident--DNA and chromosomal damage…. It’s not just happening at one frequency and it’s not just being observed by researchers in one laboratory. The same chromosome and DNA damages are being reported at frequencies across the entire range, including 100 MHz [FM radio], 300 MHz, 837 MHz, 954 MHz [cell phones] 1,250 MHz, 2,450 MHz [2.45 gigahertz: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart phones], and up to 9000 MHz  [9 gigahertz: vehicle-to-vehicle radar systems]."
And this quote:
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.

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

To check on levels and distances from cell towers there is a good summary of the numbers at
emfrf.com/rf-radiation-levels-from-cellular-towers/

724
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 13/08/2019 16:17:11 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/08/2019 07:27:09
Quote from: CliveG on 13/08/2019 07:11:12
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.

725
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

726
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 13/08/2019 07:22:11 »
Quote from: 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.

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.

727
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

728
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

729
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

730
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 10/08/2019 11:49:32 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 11:28:35
Quote from: CliveG on 10/08/2019 11:01:42
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.

731
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 10/08/2019 11:22:18 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/08/2019 18:29:24
Quote from: CliveG on 09/08/2019 09:07:44
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.)

732
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 10/08/2019 11:01:42 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/08/2019 00:10:22
Quote from: CliveG on 09/08/2019 12:31:25
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.

733
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« on: 09/08/2019 12:31:25 »
Quote from: 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.

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.

734
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

735
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

736
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« 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.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 55 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.