[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[CliveG]

@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.

[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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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

[alancalverd]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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".

[CliveG]

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, UniversitĂ  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/

[alancalverd]

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?

[evan_au]

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

[CliveG]

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.

[alancalverd]

I repeat: have you measured the field strength in your home?

Physics is about numbers.

[CliveG]

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".