[alancalverd]

If the Thames were 5 feet on average all the way across then there would be no drownings even though the average is much higher than a 3 ft average with peaks.

Loose language kills! 

5ft all the way across might be survivable for anyone over 6 ft tall. 5ft  on average, or even 3 ft on average, means there could be 500 ft depth in the middle because the beach is a very shallow slope.

"5ft on average all the way across" is the sort of meaningless drivel you might hear from a US President or an economics correspondent.

[alancalverd]

from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 06:15:39The obvious experiment will be for Clive to record his symptoms without having access to any EM field data, and for a third party to correlate them with independently recorded field data.

It's obviously a good suggestion.It is, perhaps, a little inconvenient.

It's dead easy! You can get a reasonable data logger for around £100 and hitch it to a computer and whatever EM field monitor you like, then record the EM field every minute for as long as you fancy, but just keep the kit in a locked box so Clive can't see it. Clive records his symptoms in a diary (which I guess he does anyway) and after a few days you compare the field intensity plot with the diary.

If the box is sealed and opened by a reliable witness, the evidence will stand up in any court. Best of all, get the supposed culprit to seal and open the box in the presence of a witness.

The beauty is that you don't need accurate numbers, or even orders of magnitude accuracy. What matters is the time correlation between symptoms and supposed cause.

[CliveG]

With regard to the pulsations

On Tuesday night my wife had whole body "vibrations" coming and going and this was at levels of about 10 to 20 uW/sqm because of the shielding

And I just got this today from a person I trust to be EHS. She is trying to find a meter that will give a reading of the pulsations. Unfortunately I know of none. The meters give an audio that represents the type of radiation but not accurately.
I've been using the Accoustimeter. That covers the 200MHz to 8GHz range. After numerous readings (the field intensity's been helpful too) over a long period of time, I basically can tell what the readings will be without using the meter. From an experiential p.o.v., the studies have been quite true: i.e. there are windows of intensity of exposure when effects may occur and may not necessarily be based on the readings being high. They can occur around high and low exposures. The worst is the pulsed effects, which lately have become very penetrative into the heart area, as opposed to the smooth waves. I fail to imagine how anyone can tolerate 3,000uW/sqm over a sustained period


Forget the Thames. This is a real effect and you can stick your heads in the proverbial sand but with time it will be scientifically proven. Unfortunately I think a large part of the population will be damaged by that time. Not cancer, but conditions that will bring society down.

As for setting up blind testing with meter and a logger, I need to find get both meter and logger. What do you want? It only happens to me outside in the high strength. I know when I am outside. How do I get the telcomms to cooperate to turn on and turn off and then tell us when? They will not. It is not in their interests.

[CliveG]

I doubt that. BMJ published the first reports linking smoking with lung cancer

Strictly speaking, the first ones were German.

Are you guys guilty of doubling down a lot?

Buy a mirror.

Do you realise that your position can be represented in exactly the same way?

You discard the evidence that doesn't  agree with your heart-felt belief.

So, the fact that people do that (they fall for this  glitch in human thinking) proves nothing about phones or harm from them.

So why post it?

And do you also recognise that you are saying that you are  right and everybody else is wrong.
Do you really think you are that clever?

Issues like human cognitive bias and the placebo effect are exactly why we conduct proper trials under controlled conditions.

And, when that research is published in respected journals you call it fake news.
You don't supply any evidence to show why you think it's wrong.

You just flatly deny it because"We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth."

Take a good look at yourself before you tell us we are guilty of bias.

I have had a hard look at myself and I repeat my claim. I say this for two reasons.

One is personal experience which is hard to beat. (Except you say it is psychosomatic which has been shown to be wrong in a number of medical situations, notably Epstein Barr.)

The second is the huge number of studies showing the mechanism for harm and the type of harm that you guys are ignoring. I am not the one doing the ignoring.

So far your responses amount to nit-picking on semantic and minor technical assumptions on your part.

Nevertheless I am happy to debate because it shows what I (and many others) are up against. I have learned a lot. The Frey effect is not involved at the power intensities involved and now (later posts) cancer and how radiation and other carcinogens promote cancer.

[CliveG]

The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.

Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection

The fact that you ask that says a lot about why you keep posting.
You simply don't understand evidence.


I don't usually listen to the radio but every time I get a headache I check and I find that the local radio station is playing pop music.

Should I conclude that the pop music causes my headache?

Or does it seem more sensible to suppose that the station always plays pop music (and I get headaches at random times)?

Or could it be that they play pop music in the morning and that's when I'm hungover?

Or could it be that I just don't remember the times when they were actually playing jazz- but I classified it as "pop" because that went along with my view that pop music causes headaches?


That's why you need a proper test.
And you think that doing a proper test is "fake news" because you don't even understand why we need to do one.

I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.

I did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me. My wife and I are affected. Your only rebuttal is that we are mistaken. Mistaken about what? The numerous and severe symptoms? That only occur around the tower when it is on?

A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believable (if one has a non-corrupt judge).

You guys are demanding scientific proof to very high standards rather that assess all I have put before you. For whatever reason, you don't want to believe cell MW could be harmful.

[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).

Okay, this is an important one that required some research on my part. We agree on some points.

Stochastic radiation harm. It is a probability of someone getting a cancer. The higher the dose (time and energy) the higher the probability. The effect is simply cancer and not degrees of cancer. Once diagnosed it is usually not recoverable. One can get cancer from very low doses (time and energy) and even from natural background radiation. As with all complex issues there are some minor exceptions. When the radiation goes high (hence a high dose) it can cause the cancer to die. This is radiation treatment.

Deterministic harm is where the harm is going to happen at a certain high dose and/or dose-rate. Such as radiation burns on skin (some patients where the machines were not properly operated) and radiation burns on fingers of dentists when they held the film in place. I still remember them doing this when I was a small kid. There is still some variation in the probability of getting cancer. Some people are more resistant and some people are quite susceptible.

I am going to have to continue this later.

[Bored chemist]

I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.

Then why did you ask this?

The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.

Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection

And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?

I did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me.

Mistaken about what?

I'd have thought that was obvious.
You may be mistaken about the cause of the symptoms.

There are ways to rule out other effects (notably psychosomatic ones.) And, based on what you have posted here;
you have tried out none of them.

A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believable

Just plain wrong, and another example of your failure to understand what evidence is.

Courts work on "beyond reasonable doubt".

And you are not there yet.

[alancalverd]

You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.

The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.

Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.

[CliveG]

On the question of latency - carrying on from previous post.

Here are three good summaries of other more scientific articles I have read.

verywellhealth.com/what-are-cancer-cells-2248795
verywellhealth.com/what-are-precancerous-cells-2248796
verywellhealth.com/what-is-cancer-latency-period-4057124

Last article
Another example of the importance of a latency period arises in discussions about cell phone use and brain cancer. It's been argued by some people that if cell phone use is a risk factor for brain cancer we should be seeing a significant increase in these tumors. It's important to note, however, that if tobacco smoking started and became common at the same time that cell phone use took off, we still would be wondering if tobacco could cause cancer. Obviously, smoking does cause cancer, but due to the latency period of decades, we could not have made a clear assessment of risk in the analogy. In other words, the jury is still out on the exact risk between cell phone use and cancer.

Summing up the factors
Latency period factors
-   Dose and intensity of exposure
-   Duration of exposure
-   Kind of substance
-   Type of cancer
-   Age at exposure
-   Gender
-   Genetic susceptibility
-   Additional risk factors (eg other carcinogens)
-   Medical issues like immune system suppression

Now about the cancer on my wives face. Clearly she is predisposed to facial cancer – we knew that two years ago. So the cells on her face have gone through the number of mutations required to be precancerous. All it took was the cell tower radiation on a continuous basis to complete the final mutations.

This latency period should be a serious alarm bell for authorities and the industry. Massive number of cancer patients in ten to twenty years? And young patients? Already two relatives who are young (34 years and 38 years) who had/have fatal cancer.

In the case of the 17 year old with giant cell osteosarcoma a risk factor is genes. So is radiation. And a growth spurt – lots of cell divisions. The latency is effectively unknown. But once more – tower + growth spurt = bone cancer within 3 years. Cannot prove it, but I would worry about teenagers and close towers. Plus the other 4 teenagers in the US with a mystery as to why they all got bone cancer in the same year.

The other case was a woman putting her cell phone in her bra (left breast). Got cancer and left breast removed. Long time heavy smoker. So very likely the precancerous cells were present and the cell phone was the final mutating factor.

[CliveG]

You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.

The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.

Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.

This is a cop-out.

My symptoms and problems are supported by many scientific papers. And the correlation of my symptoms with the tower radiation should be a concern to the community.

I am trying to see why people like yourself reject the science showing harm so vigorously while being so determined that the cell industry is indeed protecting people and not protecting their profits.

[CliveG]

I understand testing and correlation. You forget I have a lifetime of engineering and technical problem solving where others were baffled.

Then why did you ask this?

The night time symptoms happen first and then are confirmed with the meter.

Note - in all cases the meter confirms the symptoms. Why do I need 24 hour data collection

And why, if you understand testing, do you say this?

I did not need scientific proof. I solved the problems. That was proof enough for me.

Mistaken about what?

I'd have thought that was obvious.
You may be mistaken about the cause of the symptoms.

There are ways to rule out other effects (notably psychosomatic ones.) And, based on what you have posted here;
you have tried out none of them.

A court does not need scientific proof. It works on the basis of what it practically believable

Just plain wrong, and another example of your failure to understand what evidence is.

Courts work on "beyond reasonable doubt".

And you are not there yet.

Sigh....

I have considered the alternate theories and find them lacking. But give you even the smallest admission then you build your whole case around that.

Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability. Why don't you try that. The witness demonstrates credibility. I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.

I was a Methodist Christian until 12 years of age. I became an ardent atheist. At 17 years I had a life crisis and became an agnostic. At 45 years I softened and leaned toward a belief in God. Given the personal experiences of the last few years and those in my life I have chosen to believe in God (although having a bit of skepticism). I think that shows I have matured over the years to being open to alternative ideas. I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic.

[Bored chemist]

I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.

I don't think so.
And I have evidence for my belief.
You have clearly said that you do not understand how evidence works.
" Why do I need 24 hour data collection?".

You have made absurd comparisons between what you and your wife think vs what 20,000 people experienced.
You have called one of the most respected journals in the world "fake news".
You have failed to grasp the situation in Spain where the officials had ample oil samples to analyse and knew exactly what "brand" was to blame.

Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability.

The allegations you make are criminal.
And the rules for evidence are the same in both courts anyway.

have chosen to believe in God (although having a bit of skepticism). I think that shows I have matured over the years to being open to alternative ideas. I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic.

OK, that settles it.
Do you recognise that not everybody is Christian?
Do you also recognise that, if there were real evidence to support the Christian beliefs they wouldn't be calle "beliefs" and they would be universally accepted?


How did you think that saying "I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic." was going to work out on a site where many or most recognise that religion is quintessentially dogma ("a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.")

So, what you are saying is
"I believe I understand evidence because I believe in something for which there is no evidence."

[alancalverd]

You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.

The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.

Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.

This is a cop-out.

My symptoms and problems are supported by many scientific papers. And the correlation of my symptoms with the tower radiation should be a concern to the community.

I am trying to see why people like yourself reject the science showing harm so vigorously while being so determined that the cell industry is indeed protecting people and not protecting their profits.

I haven't rejected any science, nor have I defended anyone. I merely point out that a lot of the "science" seems not to be scientific or relevant to your case, and I have suggested a simple means by which you might convince a court to award you substantial damages.

Unfortunately you seem more interested in picking a fight with your friends than winning one against your enemies, so I'll leave.

[CliveG]

You may not need scientific proof, but if you are only interested in grumbling about your symptoms, there is little point in discussing it in a science forum and no way you can prevent the spread of your identified menace to public health, or get it removed from your home.

The essential point of a scientifically valid investigation is that the result is transferrable, and even if it doesn't demonstrate 100% correlation between supposed cause and observed effect, a court can demand remediation or compensation on grounds of probable causation, or at least order further tests.

Surely, as an experienced engineer, you rely on objective data before taking action? The reference books were written by scientists, not people who were convinced of the strength of tissue paper and unwilling to submit their hypothesis to test.

This is a cop-out.

My symptoms and problems are supported by many scientific papers. And the correlation of my symptoms with the tower radiation should be a concern to the community.

I am trying to see why people like yourself reject the science showing harm so vigorously while being so determined that the cell industry is indeed protecting people and not protecting their profits.

I haven't rejected any science, nor have I defended anyone. I merely point out that a lot of the "science" seems not to be scientific or relevant to your case, and I have suggested a simple means by which you might convince a court to award you substantial damages.

Unfortunately you seem more interested in picking a fight with your friends than winning one against your enemies, so I'll leave.

My intention was education and scientific interest. I have abandoned any hope of a law suit since one needs a just and fair judicial system and ours (South Africa) is totally corrupt - right to the highest levels. That has been proven to me in spades.

I find it interesting that you count me as a friend. Given the hard time you have given me. Is your rationale for leaving my "abuse" rather than my winning arguments  . I have a quite an added number of arguments to go still. We are just scratching the surface.

Perhaps you can be persuaded to stay. I can take the hits if you can.

[CliveG]

I think I have shown that I have been thorough in my outlook and my research.

I don't think so.
And I have evidence for my belief.
You have clearly said that you do not understand how evidence works.
" Why do I need 24 hour data collection?".

You have made absurd comparisons between what you and your wife think vs what 20,000 people experienced.
You have called one of the most respected journals in the world "fake news".
You have failed to grasp the situation in Spain where the officials had ample oil samples to analyse and knew exactly what "brand" was to blame.

Criminal courts use beyond reasonable doubt. Civil courts use balance of probability.

The allegations you make are criminal.
And the rules for evidence are the same in both courts anyway.

have chosen to believe in God (although having a bit of skepticism). I think that shows I have matured over the years to being open to alternative ideas. I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic.

OK, that settles it.
Do you recognise that not everybody is Christian?
Do you also recognise that, if there were real evidence to support the Christian beliefs they wouldn't be calle "beliefs" and they would be universally accepted?


How did you think that saying "I do not want to side-track but give an example of not being dogmatic." was going to work out on a site where many or most recognise that religion is quintessentially dogma ("a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.")

So, what you are saying is
"I believe I understand evidence because I believe in something for which there is no evidence."

The first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.

The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to them, and have some justification for thinking that they are helpful. I also accept that atheists have reasons for their beliefs because I was one at one time. This was not a swipe at any category but an extreme example of how I can accept different versions of a controversial subject. I am not a church going bible reading Christian. Just one who thinks that the probability of God is about 98% and that Christians have a basic set of rules that humanity could live by. It was also a point that sometimes the only evidence is personal observation, and that this is so at the beginning of a physical phenomena. And mine were quite different to most. Only a few through-out my life but unusual.

I will not bring up religion again in this thread. Clearly a mistake on my part.

[CliveG]

This is an excerpt from an EMF meter. The manual is worth reading. They split a table over two pages which was confusing at first.

emfields-solutions.com/assets/uploads/acoustimeter-manual-v5w.pdf
Since wireless communications were first developed on a large scale, the scientific community held the opinion that “if it does not heat you it will not hurt you”, as 50 years ago, these were the only effects that were acknowledged. The average heating effect was what mattered. The units typically used now for measuring the time-averaged power of microwave frequency EMFs is microwatts of power arriving per square metre (μW/m2), and we have used this for the “average power”.

There have now been hundreds of studies finding non-thermal effects from modern wireless communication signals. This requires a change in what is measured to suit much lower signal levels with different characteristics. We believe that peak signal strength is the most appropriate way to measure complex digitally modulated, often non-continuous, signals in a meaningful manner. Signal strength is measured in volts per metre (V/m). Many electrosensitive individuals report most adverse health effects in areas that have quite high peak levels but have average field strengths below even precautionary guidelines regarding average power levels.

Here is part of a post from a person who contact me. There is a group having problems. Not just one.
When the mast first began operating, the signal was rather crude in the first few months especially. Presumed then to be 2G & 3G - which subsequently turned out to be correct. For us, there was no latency period. Symptoms appeared straightaway. Struck in the joints; electric currents stinging body; localised headaches which would shift position depending on which part of the room you're in so one could pretty much predict where the beams are entering - however, as the months went by there were some shifts evident (Councillor's assistant said she got them to shift the antenna away from the affected - which I seriously doubt); pseudo-gout; body twitches; nausea; body heating; "forgetful memory"; muscle limpness; loss of equilibrium; dizziness.
When it updgraded to 4G, we knew it straightaway, the symptoms changed. Became more penetrative into the heart/chest, stinging the tops of head, hitting eyes (pinpricks), dry eye condition; eye problems; nausea, tingling numbness etc. The multiple frequency combinations is what can be bad and I reckon dangerous.
2. There are time periods, however, when the mast gets particularly disgusting i.e. the end-start of month; mid-month; public holidays; weekends etc. During the day, it was noted that 10.30 am, 1.30 am and 3.30 am were busy times - this altered somewhat later on. Activity escalates every single day as midnight approaches. If you have a reasonably decent day (for a change) say of fluctuating between 3 and 5/10, you know that the night and overnight is going to be very, very bad (like 9-10/10) - which it always is. Last night I got to bed just after midnight and it was one of the worst nights. Strangely the signal was pretty consistent in pattern but electrically vibrating that it caused great discomfort and one is so relieved to succumb to sleep. I spoke to the neighbour across the road and she said it was a horrific night and she got struck in the feet quite a bit and she gets a lot of pain - I know when it's bad her dimmer light flickers a lot too. I've noted the tingling numbness in the lower legs and feet is there too.
3. There is never any good day. The days are all bad. Another pattern observed re time periods is that there is some minor degree of respite during a bad day, but then the next day may be slightly worse and then you know that the 3rd day is going to be hell - which it is. So, from that it was deduced that they take the load off some tower and switch the burden to the next one and so it goes. Subsequently spoke to someone in the know and he said one tower bears the brunt for 2 days or so then it pushes over to the next.

In another area they simply burnt the mast down. Twice - before the telcomms got the message.

[Bored chemist]

The manual is worth reading.

The grown ups would recognise that the manual is not likely to say
"you wasted your money on this meter - the exposure to members of the public is not an issue".

The first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.

Did nobody tell you that this is a science web site?

The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to them

And no way of working out which bit is true.

That's where science- based in evidence, rather than faith- comes in.

[syhprum]

Do electrosensitive people have any problem wit the CMBR which I believe has a mean frequency about 10 times higher than that used for 5G

[CliveG]

The manual is worth reading.

The grown ups would recognise that the manual is not likely to say
"you wasted your money on this meter - the exposure to members of the public is not an issue".

The first point is that you are not recognizing that there are different standards for "evidence" in different fields and in everyday life.

Did nobody tell you that this is a science web site?

The second point is that I believe that nearly all religions have some truth to them

And no way of working out which bit is true.

That's where science- based in evidence, rather than faith- comes in.

With regard to evidence, my interdict to shut the tower down on the basis of harm being done was accepted by the High Court. I got a fair judge because they could not "forum shop" on the urgent courts. When the telcos realized they could not win on the evidence they set about winning by bringing in all sorts of side issues.

The telcos turned on the tower shortly before I was due to file an affidavit. They knew it would make me sick. Yes, I said they were not stupid. I missed the filing by one day.

I had to file a condonation which was not accepted by a new judge who said that he did not believe that one company had lied.  They showed a graph of daily consumption which was zero for the 36 hours I claimed (with meter evidence) that it was on. I said the graph was false because it showed a test period of two hours consuming 120% of any other previous daily 24 hour consumption. The judge based his decision on the company being a reputable company. They were not a public brand - just a meter reading company for the telcos. He totally ignored my evidence.

Then the costs came. I got socked with a bill from the telco who was not a party, who had not asked the court to give leave to join, so there was no court ordered leave, who had to give reasons why they were taking part, which they did not, and who could not get costs because they were not listed as a party. The judge simply added them to the list of parties in his judgement. I suspect the judge was forum shopped and had his judgment written for him.

Typically a hearing of this nature would generate costs of about R20,000. I got a bill from them for R196,000. I still have to get the bill from the party (the tower company) who was a party and I expect theirs to be about R300,000. This will wipe out my savings and leave me completely broke. I was drawing up an appeal but they have shown me that I will just get more added costs. I have to drop my main suit based on a fraudulent building approval because my wife is a party and I cannot afford to have her saddled with even more costs. The Constitutional Court showed me that even there I would face bias. They declined to hear my urgent appeal saying "it was not in the interests of the justice at this time". What they really meant was "it was not in the interests of the judges, lawyers and the system at this time or any time".

This is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participants) where massive legal fees and awards are the determining factor. They could not let me win on the evidence. They had no defense. For a small hearing they had 2 senior advocates, three junior advocates and about 8-10 attorneys plus the legal head of the telco. (Advocate = barrister, attorney = solicitor). By each submitting the same long winded and irrelevant documents they could each charge me for reading what was effectively their own paperwork. And then invoice with one line saying "3 days preparation and one day in court". All for a 45 minute hearing where the bias of the judge was obvious to a couple of friends I had there. Their fear I would win on "evidence" was clear.

Yes. Even evidence obvious to a blind man can be rejected when it is politically expedient to do so. The US is known for this, although it is practiced around the world in EVERY country. Six Flags Adventure in New Jersey had judge after judge rule and then get a cushy job with a law company linked to the big corporates. See the Wall Street Journal for the article. I have no reference. I read it on a plane while in the USA where I lived for 15 years.

Faith! I am an engineer. I do not make decisions based on faith in anything. First there must be logical reasons without any contradictions. Second there must be my own experience and not that of some-one else. Anyone telling me something must be able to pass my gentle "cross-examination".

[CliveG]

Do electrosensitive people have any problem wit the CMBR which I believe has a mean frequency about 10 times higher than that used for 5G

I presume you mean Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
My initial reaction was that most sources discount any effects because the intensity/power is so small. Also it is part of the natural radiation that life evolved with and had time to adapt to – hence the double helix with built-in check and repairs.

The Bioinitiative color charts shows that 100 femtowatts/sqcm can cause genetic problems at resonant frequencies and 5 picowatts/sqcm can change growth rates in yeast cells.
So far this means life is sensitive to certain microwave frequencies but can adapt although it can stress an organism.

I wanted to get some idea as to power and frequency. This was not easy. I found a site which graphed power versus frequency. It was a log log plot. Fairly straight up to a peak of 160 Ghz and then fell away. The power was given in Watts/sqm/steradian/Hz.
Some points on the graph were: 5x 10^-19 at 10Ghz and 3x10^-18 at 100Ghz

I need my calculations and reasoning checked please.
Roughly:
To get the power a person gets standing on earth I suppose the following calculation might work
The steradian exposure is half the earths sky which would be 2pi steradians. One has to integrate over a desired section of the graph. If we took an average of 1x10^-19 Watts/sqm/steradian/Hz from 10 to 100 Ghz then we have
10^-19 x 90GHz x 2pi   watts per sqm = 0.360 uW/sqm
This is of course a number of photons hitting us in a unit time with various energies.
If we reduce the bandwidth down to 1 MHz at 160GHZ then we have
3x10^-18 x 1 MHz x 2pi = 2x10^-14 uW/sqm = 20 femtowatts/sqm = 0.0002 femtowatts/sqcm

It seems this is a constant random noise with no modulation.

EHS people are unlikely to feel CMBR because it is now so small compared to man-made radiation. It also has no modulation.

It seems EHS people get sensitized by various things. Usually a high level of radiation for a while.