[evan_au]

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?

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.

[Bored chemist]

If it did, the medical problems would be pouring into the hospitals.

Can you please try to manage one post without begging the question?

[alancalverd]

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?

[CliveG]

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?

[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?

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[evan_au]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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.)

[CliveG]

[snip]

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.

[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."

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[alancalverd]

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).

[Bored chemist]

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?

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[evan_au]

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"?

[Bored chemist]

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

[CliveG]

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.