[chris]

I discussed the issue of cellphone tower safety on a recent edition of "Ask! The Naked Scientists" on 567 CapeTalk, South Africa.

My points were largely that the intensity of exposure from mobile devices (as well as home WiFi, ovens, radios etc) is far greater that the dose from a tower. I also highlighted the two independent lines of enquiry: i) microwaves are insufficiently energetic regimes to break chemical bonds and therefore low risk mutagens. ii) for a causal relationship there is a dose-dependency: ergo, the more use / exposure, the greater the documented number of cases; the latter has not been observed in relation to cell phones (at least with the 30y window of exposure so far).

Someone submitted this piece of feedback to the radio station today.

I am posting it here to show the sort of ill-reasoned abuse that people are willing to spew out with no knowledge and - in this person's case (by their own admission) without even having listened; no wonder there's a measles epidemic...

I have just been told about the Naked Scientist show on 1 Nov, but I did not hear it.

I gather he again said cell phone base stations are safe. He is clearly an ignoramus and is not prepared to read the science behind these things.

I think that Cape Talk, as a public broadcaster, has a responsibility to provide unbiased information.

The way this guy talks is a joke and it would not surprise me if he has been paid to say what he does.

To say that your cell hone is more dangerous is a total cop out. It is the same thing that all the telecoms companies say in order to cover their backsides!

If the naked scientist actually bothered to do some basic research and reading he, like anyone else, would see the truth. A cell phone not being used is essentially totally safe because it transmits a tiny bit of radiation every so often to check for messages, etc. You can check your signal and see maybe 1 or 2 bars. But just try dialling a number and the signal (i.e. radiation output) jumps up dramatically and your signal will show 3 or 4 bars. This is so that you have better call quality.

What he is also hiding is that cell phones have legal safety limits that are set in mm. That is the distance from your skin that a phone should be used in order to be safe! Depending on make and model, this varies between 15 and 25 mm. So yes, of course phones are dangerous because if you are placing them against your ear then you are gong to be irradiated at way over the safe limit. BUT, even so, the cell phone tower is talking back to your phone and hundreds or thousands of other phones around it. It radiates at a lowish power, true, but high enough to keep many people connected at the same time. remember the old days of dropped calls? Does not happen any more because of the massive increase in power output from the base stations. And factor in the massive increase in the number of connected devises.....

Then comes the crunch. The tower radiates 24/7. So if you live close to one, as we do, then you have no choice to not be irradiated. I choose not to use a cell phone because I have microwave sickness but I cannot choose to avoid the cell tower radiation because I cannot afford to sell my house and buy another.

So Cape Talk, please can you be more responsible and not allow those with limited education to spout forth their propaganda? I think it is your duty to get this right because it is the health of the nation that is at stake. Thank you.

[CliveG]

I discussed the issue of cellphone tower safety on a recent edition of "Ask! The Naked Scientists" on 567 CapeTalk, South Africa.
(snip)

I have located the podcast you reference. 1 November 2019.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ask-the-naked-scientists/id287114592
The segment start at 8 min 15 sec.

I want to listen to it again and note the points, and then carefully respond. That will be later today.

[CliveG]

(snip)

My points were largely that the intensity of exposure from mobile devices (as well as home WiFi, ovens, radios etc) is far greater that the dose from a tower. I also highlighted the two independent lines of enquiry: i) microwaves are insufficiently energetic regimes to break chemical bonds and therefore low risk mutagens. ii) for a causal relationship there is a dose-dependency: ergo, the more use / exposure, the greater the documented number of cases; the latter has not been observed in relation to cell phones (at least with the 30y window of exposure so far).

Someone submitted this piece of feedback to the radio station today.

I am posting it here to show the sort of ill-reasoned abuse that people are willing to spew out with no knowledge and - in this person's case (by their own admission) without even having listened; no wonder there's a measles epidemic...
(snip)

I have been a great fan of yours and enjoy your show on Cape Talk when I happen to catch it. Your memory and your analytical skills are impressive. I used to be like you and peaked at 38 years of age. I am 71 now and experienced a slow decline since then and then, with the cell tower next door, a rapid decline in 6 months.

I regret to say that while I do not agree with the pejoratives used by the writer about you, I have to say that the writer make some key points.

One is that you are talking about a tower as if it is a single cell phone talking to one person's cell phone. The tower has about 3 x 2 x 4 transmitters at 200 watt input. And each transmitter talks to 8 cell phone using time slots. That is 24 transmitters consuming 4.8 kW. A cell phone transmitter has a comparable 0.6 or 3 watt input.

The transmitters and receivers are not comparable in terms of gain. The receivers on the tower are separate and are possibly more sensitive.

We live 10 meters from the base of a tower. While it is talking to all the distant phones it is transmitting at high power and allocating only a tiny portion of the low power signals to nearby phones.

The tower transmits 24 hours a day every day.

I have a radiation meter that I use. The devices in our home emit a small fraction of the power we get from the tower. Come and visit us and get a hands-on kitchen experiment.

My wife and I have been forced to buy another home and will be selling the one next to the tower. The most important criteria was that it not be on a corner where they typically put the small (lamp-post type) masts. Despite putting in radiation shielding I have been forced to rent an apartment while we house hunted. Others are having medical problems as well.

You said: The third point here is that, as far as we know, there is no evidence that the wavelength microwaves used in these transmissions between the mobile phones and the towers is harmful to our tissues. With your reputation, you have been an excellent spokesperson for the industry (appeal to authority fallacy) and hence I understand the anger of the writer who suffers next to a tower and cannot sell their home.

What you mean is that as far as you know, there is no evidence. And you do not qualify what is harmful. Headaches, memory loss for example. Are those not harmful?

With respect, it is my opinion that this is an area where you have relied on the wrong specialists to give you information. And again with due respect (constructive criticism), you are an internet source and talk show radio host and in your own words are to be viewed with skepticism.

You can dismiss my words and carry on with your busy schedule or you could take a moment to pause and look at some of the thousands of peer-reviewed science articles showing harm other than heating and other than cancer. I believe you have the capability to analyze and evaluate them. I hope you have the humility to have an open mind.

Dr Martin Pall and Dr Lennart Hardell are two leading scientists. The Enviro Health Trust and the BioInitiative sites are two having references to scientific research.

I looked in detail at the COSMOS study you referred in 2011. I think it has severe problems, one of which is that it is dependent on (and partially funded by) the cell industry.

With warm regards.

[Colin2B]

There are times that I think you are actually a 19 year old female living at home rather than a 50 year old male with a chemistry degree. Or have you fried your brain with chemicals?

I appreciate that feelings can run high in this topic, but can we please not resort to misogynistic comments.
Thank you

[CliveG]

Our dogs are dying.

I said that I could see a change in their behavior. More depressed and lacking the spark they used to have. They should both be in their prime and live to a ripe old age. The slightly older black dog likes to lie in the area with the high radiation. Two nights ago she refused her food and walked into the kitchen to sit next to my wife. Last night she refused her food completely. The other brown dog is showing distress in her eyes. We will be taking them to the vet for an examination.

After spending 2 nights at the health hydro with no radiation my right knee finally got back on track and is nearly where it was 4 or 5 weeks ago before the high tower radiation exposure. The heat and the pain are almost gone, and I can walk normally again. The pains I had mostly disappeared and I was able to lose 3 kg. I will stay on the weight loss regime although the tower causes nausea and I tend to eat to ease the discomfort.

BTW - The 2016 COSMOS study interim conclusion was that more cell phone usage and obesity showed a linkage. One could say that obese people used their phones more. Or...

Yesterday, I had to work on our house to ready it for sale. I was there from 8 am to 4 pm working inside (with head and leg shields on). At 3 pm, I had stomach cramps and at 4 pm I had to go to the toilet because I had a loose bowel - almost diarrhea. I must finish the mesh suit for my torso and the left leg.

The doctor at the hydro confirmed that I need a nose job to open up my nasal passages, and I have an appointment with an ENT. The bone on the right nostril is almost closing off the passage.

Finally night rain in Joburg. Desperately needed as we are on water restrictions.

[CliveG]

There are times that I think you are actually a 19 year old female living at home rather than a 50 year old male with a chemistry degree. Or have you fried your brain with chemicals?

I appreciate that feelings can run high in this topic, but can we please not resort to misogynistic comments.
Thank you

Will do. In my defense I did not think the comment was sexist. It was simply the image I had in my mind. I suppose the poster reminded me of someone I knew. As a 71 year old, I grew up in an age where someones sex did "type" them to a certain extent. There was no malice in my posts but I can see how it appears.

The comments about me are not exactly respectful, but I agree that our banter is not in keeping with the tone that such a forum deserves. I agree to up the tone and will be civil to others.

[Bored chemist]

I did not think the comment was sexist.

?!

[alancalverd]

BTW - The 2016 COSMOS study interim conclusion was that more cell phone usage and obesity showed a linkage. One could say that obese people used their phones more. Or...

Correlation, possibly. Causation? Most unlikely. I have good evidence of correlation between the use of computers in schools  and early-onset osteopenia, but the causation is well established and nothing to do with computers!

[CliveG]

I did not think the comment was sexist.

?!

I should not go further for fear of making things worse. But in the interests of full disclosure I will step into the lion's den.

I had not checked your profile and used a mental image of who you were. You may recall I referred to you as "she" and was not corrected. Profiles are typically gender and age. So I guessed a gender and an age. In hindsight, one could say that my choice of female was stereotypical.

Personally, I do not see women as inferior or deserving of discrimination, and sexism has that aspect. My late wife was a strong competent businesswomen who commanded respect, and this applies to my present wife. My late wife was abused by men and demeaned. She was therefore stunned when I told her that there could only be one chief in a marriage and she was it. I said I was an advisor and she made the decisions. Same with present wife.

I shall be more careful when invoking gender. Are there differences between the sexes these days? I still open car doors for my wife. And she still gets annoyed when I do not immediately pour her drink when dining out.

You call me a fool and imply that I am mentally challenged and suggestible. I referred to you as living at home with your parents which was meant to imply immaturity. However, I shall avoid any future trading of barbs and banter. I take no offense at any of your jibes and shall avoid responding in like to yours.

[CliveG]

BTW - The 2016 COSMOS study interim conclusion was that more cell phone usage and obesity showed a linkage. One could say that obese people used their phones more. Or...

Correlation, possibly. Causation? Most unlikely. I have good evidence of correlation between the use of computers in schools  and early-onset osteopenia, but the causation is well established and nothing to do with computers!

I understood that osteopenia could be a lack of strenuous activity and the hiking club had women who joined to strengthen their bones. Computers are not strenuous. Is this what you are saying?

Obesity can be hormonal and hormones might be disrupted by cell phone emissions. So there could be causation. However I did say that I was not impressed with the COSMOS study.

I am once more getting the type of general pain that I started taking pain tablets for. At the coast and at the hydro I did not have the pains, even after exercise. Both places had low radiation.

The doctor at the hydro told me that people have a nasal rhythm where tissues swell on one side then the other. When I sleep and the left nostril swells, the right nostril is unable to take over. Fixing my nose should help my sleep. Proper sleep is needed for the brain to do it's house-keeping and remove toxins and debris. Cell towers interfere with sleep - that was quite evident from my head-shielding needed to get restful sleep.

Our dogs have been behaving oddly in the last months. They seem confused and mix up routines. We have upped our attention and care. We give them extra rubs and are adding more of the canned meat and gravy to their food. This has improved their mood. Hopefully the problem is more mental than a physical sickness. It is my opinion that the mental issue is likely caused by the tower because depression and memory loss is a symptom.

[Bored chemist]

You call me a fool and imply that I am mentally challenged and suggestible.

Let's be clear about this.
You said that you were suggestible.
I pointed it out, and you started to bang on about not being hypnotisable which, while related, is not the same thing.

Your repeated refusal to accept the possibility that this is psychosomatic isn't exactly a "mental challenge"- just a perfectly normal cognitive bias.

But one point of the scientific method is to get round those biases.

[CliveG]

You call me a fool and imply that I am mentally challenged and suggestible.

Let's be clear about this.
You said that you were suggestible.
I pointed it out, and you started to bang on about not being hypnotisable which, while related, is not the same thing.

Your repeated refusal to accept the possibility that this is psychosomatic isn't exactly a "mental challenge"- just a perfectly normal cognitive bias.

But one point of the scientific method is to get round those biases.

Where did  I say I was suggestible? I did not say so, because I do not consider myself suggestible. Why would you make such a statement?

There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration. Too many symptoms that are not vague, with no prior suggestion that they could happen. And too many symptoms in others. Key ones being the cancer in my wife's face, and the return of a prior cancer in a neighbor.

The many stories I have heard about people discovering that a tower or wifi is affecting them is that they make the connection that the intermittent relief they get from illness occurs when the radiation is turned off or they are in an area with little or no radiation. No-one first made the suggestion that their symptoms were EMF related. The two periods of relief I got from generalized pain have been during stays in areas with very low radiation. Why would I subconsciously "wish" such suffering upon myself?

Many doctors do not have the time to play detective and diagnose a condition. People often diagnose themselves and then confirm the diagnosis. This has happened to me a few times as I have related in this thread.

You are banging the drum of the cell industry who would like to categorize EHS as psychosomatic. They are succeeding, which is why the harm will be recognized too late for humankind, and population reduction will be achieved. Same would say God works in mysterious ways but I would say that if God wishes to save the planet from mans inability to self-regulate then such a tactic is logical - and God can remain hidden as "Nature" appears to take over.

Unfortunately there are side effects such as mental problems including depression and suicidal thoughts. People having problems with rage and impulse control. Welcome to the Dystopia foretold in the new science fiction.

[Bored chemist]

Where did  I say I was suggestible?

I thought I made it clear here

I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.

And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.

[Bored chemist]

There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.

No.
You have asserted- without evidence, that you believe the chance is small.
That just isn't good enough.

[Colin2B]

There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.

As @Bored chemist and @alancalverd have pointed out this does not constitute proof. I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity.
I’m sure a University lab would be interested in an undergrad experiment and could set up a room for you to work in and record your current sensations, while random levels of microwaves (including zero) are fed into the room and recorded. It would help your court case if those results confirmed your perceptions.

[alancalverd]

I understood that osteopenia could be a lack of strenuous activity and the hiking club had women who joined to strengthen their bones. Computers are not strenuous. Is this what you are saying?

No. And your response is a very good example of why it is important not to leap to the obvious conclusion.

[Bored chemist]

There is a possibility of my symptoms being psychosomatic. I have pointed out why it is small to the point of not being a consideration.

As @Bored chemist and @alancalverd have pointed out this does not constitute proof. I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity.
I’m sure a University lab would be interested in an undergrad experiment and could set up a room for you to work in and record your current sensations, while random levels of microwaves (including zero) are fed into the room and recorded. It would help your court case if those results confirmed your perceptions.

" I’m not sure why you are bandying words with @Bored chemist when setting up a blind trial would offer definite proof of your sensitivity. "

 "It would help your court case if those results confirmed your perceptions."
Well, just imagine that, deep down, Clive knows he might be mistaken.

What would the test do for his court case then?

[Bored chemist]

Key ones being the cancer in my wife's face, and the return of a prior cancer in a neighbor.

lifetime incidence of cancer is about 1 in 3 and it's typically found in people over about 50.

Why do you consider two cases of cancer to be of any significance?

[alancalverd]

Many cancers "return", given time. Treatment mostly cures the symptoms and doesn't address the cause of natural cancers. The consequence of healthy living is the avoidance of trauma, poison and infection, so the body malfunctions all by itself.

[CliveG]

An apt description - "bandying words with @Bored chemist" - getting me/us nowhere - circles within circles.

I would appreciate an explanation of the link between osteopenia and computers. An internet search was not helpful. I had no choice but to guess.

The timing of the cancers coincided with the tower radiation. Not the level of proof demanded on this forum but enough to make the ordinary person worry. Especially when many studies indicate that pulsing cell tower microwaves can disrupt cellular activity and cause cancer through reactive oxygen species that result from the effect on calcium channels.

The NPT/Ramazinni studies and the WHO categorization that cell microwaves are a possible carcinogen are supportive of a possible link. It is my opinion that if epidemiological studies were done on people around the non-directed towers in SA (high biological radiation) then there would be a quicker result. I do not see that happening here. This forum refuses to acknowledge the many studies that worry a portion of the scientific community.

The problem with lab tests may be that one is trying to correlate a healthy rat to older people with a predisposition to cancer. If the effect of MW EMFs are slight and require 10 to 20 years for clear links to be established, then perhaps what is required is a sensitive subject to get a quick response. How about predisposing the control group and the test group (of rats) to cancer? One might get a quicker and more significant test result.

Fighting injustice, dealing with the pressures of moving house, and dealing with equipment failures due in part to the almost daily power outages is unfortunately occupying my time. I am going to use Correx (a plastic cardboard used for signage) to construct the boxes.

The Courts in SA have proven themselves to be captured by industry and protective of the legal profession so I cannot win there no matter what. Another ConCourt case of mine was dismissed with a single line saying that I had no chance of success. A euphemism for saying the system will not give me a hearing despite the constitutional principles involved. Perjury and biased judges are allowed to go unchallenged yet again.

I met yesterday with a woman who claims to be hypersensitive to both chemicals and emfs. She says that she can sense emfs very quickly. She has a remarkable story about curing herself after doctors were no longer able to help her. I will interact with her further. Perhaps she would agree to some testing.