[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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

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...

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.

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:

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.

[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.

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...

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.

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:

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".

[alancalverd]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

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?

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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?

[CliveG]

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 latency.”

I think the BMJ panders to big corporates with regard to "fake news".

[CliveG]

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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.

[CliveG]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.