For Once A Legitimate Complaint About Radio Tower Radiation…
June 16th, 2009
|
| Share |
There are plenty of people going around claiming to be sensitive to electromagnetic signals or that a cell phone, wifi or broadcast tower in their area is somehow destroying their health or will give their children cancer. In all cases, the complaints about radiation have been totally bogus, but now one has surfaced that may actually… gasp… have merit!
Radiation from a broadcasting tower off Soule Road makes it unsafe for at least one family to stay in parts of its home for more than 30 minutes per day, according to a preliminary report from a study conducted by Mid-State Communications.
After a funeral on April 16, Steve Lloyd of Floyd returned to his house at 8665 Soule Road and heard music from the God’s Country radio station playing from a TV – not a radio – in his bedroom.
“I told my wife, ‘It sounds like it’s coming from the TV, but it’s not on,’” Lloyd said.
Lloyd, 48, later noticed the WOKR FM radio station, which normally is broadcast on 93.5 FM, came in on many other frequencies in his house.
And in the following days, things got much worse.
Lloyd and his wife started getting headaches and diarrhea, felt nauseous and tired and got blisters on their skin, Lloyd said. Believing their health problems to be connected to the radio antenna recently added to the tower, the family moved in early June from its home to a camp about 25 minutes away on Kayuta Lake, Lloyd said.
At Lloyd’s request, Mid-State Communications studied the radiofrequency radiation levels at Lloyd’s house and neighboring properties. Company radiation detectors started going off as soon as workers stepped out of their vehicles there, according to the preliminary report.
In Lloyd’s home, exposure levels fluctuate above and below the FCC’s exposure limit, according to the letter. In high strength areas of the home, people should be limited to no more than 30 minutes of exposure per day, the report states.
Michael Long, Mid-State Communications radio division manager, stressed it was just a preliminary report but confirmed the company conducted it.
“He has a legitimate reason to want people to look into it,” Long said of Lloyd.
Mid-State Communications officials wouldn’t comment further and aren’t going to charge Lloyd for the work because they are concerned about conflicts of interest that could be caused by their ties to local municipalities, law-enforcement agencies and the Educational Media Foundation.
Possible effects
On Monday, Lloyd plugged the TV in his bedroom back into the wall, and the TV immediately made a sound and started playing music. He also demonstrated that when he changes the frequency on his radio, the music stays the same.
Lloyd’s neighbor Doug Helfert, 33, also said Monday he was concerned. Helfert had been having headaches and feeling very tired lately but didn’t connect it to the antenna until talking to Lloyd, he said.
“I had no clue,” he said.
Another neighbor, Kelly Hinkston, 49, said she first noticed something was wrong when gospel music from the radio station started playing through her computer speakers. Then she began feeling unusually tired and sick, she said.
“I had headaches,” she said. “I’m not a headache person.”
Okay… well I can see how Christian music would give someone a headache. But seriously: the levels in this case seem to be extremely high and reports are that this happened after some modifications were made to the broadcast tower. It’s possible that the antenna gain is not directed properly and that this is causing the signals to be focused toward homes in the area. It could also be that there is a leak somewhere in the feeds to the antenna that is causing the RF current to be conducted away from the tower and thus create ground noise.
Health effects from this kind of exposure are highly unlikely. The FCC sets limits for exposure by the general public to RF radiation from broadcasting with an extremely large safety margin. Even at well above these levels, no biological damage has been observed and the only proven mechanisms for biological effects of RF radiation – dialectic heating and related effects, would not be of concern in these circumstances.
That being said, there is good reason to complain here. The signals in this circumstance are so strong that they are overwhelming the tuner of the television and radios in the homes of locals, flooding the demodulator with unwanted signals and thus making it impossible to hear anything else. This is known to happen in circumstances where very high power transmitters are not properly positioned or directed and many ham radio operators have found that their close neighbors complain about noise on their telephone lines or televisions and radio.
Beyond these kind of effects, this kind of radio field can slow down cable modems and DSL systems by adding noise to the signals. It can interfere with cable television, satellite systems, cordless phones, cell phones and nearly any other wireless device. Even if on a different frequency, this kind of excessive RF radiation can flood receivers and even interfere with the oscillators on transmitters. Hearing the transmissions directly can occur on any equipment with an FM receiver, including televisions. It is less likely to hear the transmissions on speakers or other unamplified devices (although static or pulses may be heard). In the case of the computer speakers, it’s possible that this effect may be caused by flooding of the sound card of the computer, which may have a Frequency Modulation Synthesis system as part of the sound rendering circuitry.
In addition to interfering with wireless devices, in extreme circumstances, high power RF fields can occasionally cause damage to certain electronic systems or cause them to operate in an undesirable manner.
So… While the direct health effects are likely nill… this is a rare circumstance where the complaint actually has merit.
Additional Info:
It seems WROK is only licensed to broadcast at 3kw. That makes it a real pea-shooter of a radio station and negates any possibility that it could cause health effects unless a person was basically hugging the transmitting antenna. The antenna is relatively low and appears to share the mast with some additional antenna systems (possibly microwave relay). Given the low power, it confirms that this is almost certainly a severe malfunction such as a missalignment or a leak of RF current into the local ground or possibly the local power grid.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 2:32 am and is filed under Good Science, Misc, inverse square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 29th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Mark said:
The only time that this is really a safety concern is when they’re working on high power RF transmission systems when they are turned on.
—-> This is a totally arbitrary statement….
The only time that this is really a safety concern is when they’re working on HIGH POWER RF Transmission..
Dr. Buzz, what is HIGH POWER?
It is a totally arbitrary thing…
Considerably greater power than anything a consumer will likely encounter (perhaps with the exception of marine radar or in some cases, ham radio gear). High power meaning infrastructure and broadcast grade stuff – multiple kilowatts to megawatts of power.
—-> Ladies and gentlemen, this man is not telling the truth….According to WHO is that the meaning of high power….HIM? He admits later that cell phone wattage was reduced from 3 watts to .6 watts…. Since 3 watt cell phones were a CONSUMER product and .6 watt cell phones are ALSO a consumer product, doesn’t it disturb you a little that so far the FCC has gone from 3.0 to .6 (point 6)….Umm, how safe was that 3 watts again???? Why the big reduction???? People, this man is not sincere. Any rational person would see that the FCC themselves reduced the exposure guidelines…(on consumer products)….
——> and any truly informed and honest person would ALSO have admitted to you that the exposure to RF radiation and Electromagnetic Fields is very dependent on the distance from the SOURCE…. Holding a Cell Phone (a CONSUMER product) up to one’s head, produces exposure to the human body that is far in excees of broadcast antennas that may be 20 miles away when measured by any standard. What this man is doing is lying by omission….NOT telling you that a “low power” device held to one’s head — and used many hours a day — and NOT telling you that a WI-FI router that may be in your bedroom and operating 24 hours a day results in exposure levels far in excess of the broadcast equipment he refers to is simply hogwash….
—>Further — is he ADMITTING that those HIGH POWER sources cause harm??? What harm do they cause?
—-> This debate isn’t a debate at all…The guy is basically saying that smoking 12 packs of cigarettes a day may hurt you…..I am saying that smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day may hurt you….Are either of us wrong??? Who would you then rather listen to? The voice of reason and precaution? or the voice of the man speaking here — who hasn’t the decency to act like an adult.
Mark said:
and what about the TYPE of signal…?
There are slight differences between different frequency ranges. The high UHF and low microwave stuff is all roughly the same. However, once you get into the lower ranges, like under one Mhz, you start to see inductance become a much bigger factor than capacitance reactant.
————-> Aha….Nice try….So let’s us assume they are more or less the same (which they are not) but let’s assume they are…..How does that rebut the scientific and real world evidence that people, plants, animals and cells are being injured by these frequencies and modulations, etc? The point is, you can’t and don’t redute that — for you are not here for honesty — you are here for propaganda and you are telling a monster lie.
There is a slight difference between medium frequency versus VHF/UHF versus low microwave versus high microwave. High microwave would be the C-band and above. Those frequencies start to have very low penetration power and so actually when you go beyond the S-band (aroudn 2.5 ghz) acute injury without immediately noticing it is less of a concern.
———–> He says that when you go beyond the S-BAND, acute injury without immediately noticing it is less of a concern….So he is saying that < than 2.5GHZ acute injury with immediately noticing it is more of a concern…Guess what folks….Cell phones < 2.5Ghz…..Cell Towers <2.5Ghz .. Wifi < 2.5Ghz, DECT Phones (cordless) many are less than 2.5 More weasel speak folks….”In general, that doesn’t matter too much…” How weak is that. How bout being exposed for a few years Sir? or a decade like the folks that are getting ill from cell towers….Folks, this man gets worse by the sentence…The plain fact is that accumulated chronic exposures are very important to consider when considering your health and that of your children….He says “it doesn’t matter TOO much.” Oh…does it matter at ALL? It certainly does — he knows it and this is why he is doing a magic dance.
Mark said:
and what about the MIX of exposures in the real World?
What do you mean? As long as none are of a dangerous level, there’s no problem.
———-> I mean what I say. Much of the scientific research — even that which indicates harm assumes a very unnatural environment…and it still finds harm. In the real World, you may have a Cell Tower Antenna with 6 different carriers — operating at 6 different frequencies, pulsing with different modulation, using different carrier signals — you might ALSO have elevated Magnetic Fields — Elevated Powerline Harmonics and Elevated Electric Fields — In addition you may have Wi-fi in the bedroom, use a computer all day — live NEAR a cell tower at WORK AND at HOME, etc…. — and just maybe YOU are the one person on this website that may be really, really ill….You see, THAT is a real world exposure….and not ALL people are exposed this way….If people do not do the MEASUREMENTS (EMF and RF Measurements) thay have NO IDEA what their exposure is, so you can keep perpetuating your scam. Scientific studies often use just ONE frequency in a shielded room, exposing a rat brain for just 2 minutes — and comparing that to a human person, in the unshielded World, who is exposed 24 hours a day for 10 years + — and ironically they STILL find harm….When you add it all the mixed exposures together — it is truly devastating…
…and do the FCC standards take into consideration Pregnant Women (no), Elderly (no), Infirm (no.), Children, (no.) — In short, those standards are just drivel….
Mark said:
Your assurance of safety is nonsense.
Fine. Then go to the IEEE or HPS or some other credible body of professionals and ask them if they disagree.
—-> As you know sir there is CONSIDERABLE and CONSISTENT debate and disgreement within these bodies of credible bodies…This man would LIKE you to think that there is concensus and lack of debate and dissent on this….and that is very far from the truth….Part of this scam is identifying “authority” organizations and then failing to disclose the enormous vested interests that are defended by these so-called authorities…
Here’s just one example…As of very recently, there were 14 Scientific Studies on the World Health Organization’s Website talking about the health hazards of Cell Phone Towers….. 80% of those studies…not 10 or 20% — 80% showed evidence of HARM. These studies were accepted by WHO and indexed on their site…(there are more studies now, but they are behind…) — So WHAT is the official “WHO” position on Cell Phone Towers and health….?? Here’s a hint “There is NO scientific evidence….blah…blah…blah…”
——> In other words — even when the evidence points in the direction of caution — THEY LIE. Yes…big word, but you can prove it by doing the research ….. It will be COMMON knowledge that Cell Towers cause massive illness — and sadly, it is ALREADY well substantiated.
Mark said:
What we define as HIGH POWER today is more than likely 10’s of thousands if not millions of time higher than what “HIGH” power should be defined as…
Ha! That’s a laugh. So then what? Half a watt should be defined as “high power”
………..> Wow…this man is naive…Folks, putting a cell phone to your HEAD is not the same thing as living 25 miles from a radio tower…. Buy even a CHEAP RF Meter (www.lessemf.com) and drive around…. It is quite obvious that .6 watts to your head is a VERY powerful signal…..Now, if it was 10 MILES away, not THAT powerful…but it is not….One might also say that a Cell Tower at 61 V/m (volts/meter) is not that strong too — but is that so for the person that lives eye-ball to eye-ball 100 feet away from it? and eats, sleeps and tries to live near it? The answer is no…People the man posting is not a truthful man. You will now him by his fruits…Looks how he speaks to us all here.
Anyways, I’m sorry to inform you of this, but the reality is that power today is much lower than it was in the past, sometimes dramatically. Back in the 1980’s early analog phones put out a good three watts of power. Today they have much better coverage and digital error correction. Few phones put out more than 500 mw.
—————->They are also used way more frequently (unlimited minutes), that we now have ubiquitous cell towers — that we also have nearly ubiquitous Wi-fi?? (and for the record, the 3 watt phones were not designed to be held to the ear…The antenna was in a seperate part of the phone — so it is an invalid comparison..they were also analog and not PULSED, DIGITAL SIGNALS which are implicated as a major part of this problem.
Todays digital systems are nothing compared to years past when a microwave video link to a remote transmitter might be 400 watts. In the 1960’s police cars had to occasionally carry an extra pack of lead acid batteries in the trunk to power the 150-200 watt radio on the dash. Microwave relay systems have been around since the 1940’s and initially were kilowatts per transmitter.
————-> Yes…this is like saying that TODAY’S asbestos isn’t like yesterdays….We used to inhale it by the pound! People this is just such a stupid thought process. The truth is that microwave systems from the past were mostly point-to-point systems…Cell towers of today are designed to diffuse the radiation (i.e. spill it everywhere) by DESIGN — a wholly impossible comparison with what he claims were so much more powerful in the past…There are over 2,000,000 cell towers in the U.S. virtually all of which where built since the late 80’s…that means WAY more people living in CLOSE proximity to these disaster towers — and resultingly, many, many more sick people….and many more to come if people like this guy are perceived as experts and not snakes. He tries to fool based on arguments that even a child with an RF meter can dispute….Not to mention of course, ignoring all the research about the Radar Operatiors who fell ill due to these exposures….HE WANTS for you to assume that BECAUSE people have been smoking for so long (by anology) it is PROOF that smoking is safe….
——-> Does it?? Of course not….Only ALSO making the observation that people are still dying of lung cancer and emphysema…does the fuller picture emerge. This stuff was NOT safe then and is NOT safe now…but he won’t tell you about those studies, will he?
During the early Cold War, defensive radar systems were located near many cities to search for Soviet bombers. They could be megawatts each.
————> AND?
Such powerful systems are not necessary in most circumstances today. Digital encoding with error correction, high quality DSP’s and better low noise amplifiers makes that less important.
—————-> And this proves safety HOW?
Mark said:
…and as we go — even today — many countries around the World are evaluating what they consider to be high power…and they have virtually NO agreement — looking at the same science…
Politics.
——————> Ladies and Gentlemen, it is politically VERY expensive to buck the trend of safety standards that are fraudulently set and widely defended. The POLITICS he refers to are within the organizations that are politic-ing for the status quo…The countries and regions that have awoken to these dangers do so at great peril….it is a VERY unpopular positiion to take….It is POLITICS that keep the rest of this story from emerging…and this man is a bad shill for it.
Mark said:
So, while it is your intent to be helful, recognize that one person’s HIGH POWER may be DEVASTATING…and recognize that LOW power may be devastating too…
Think of how much venom is in a BEE sting – and it can topple a 250 pound body builder if he is allergic…
So you’re suggesting people are allergic to radio waves? That’s a laugh.
———————> Sir, you are really just making fool of yourself now…My point is that people and cirumstances VARY….size, shape, age, health status, exposure levels, patterns of exposure, etc….and that because both ENVIRONMENTS and PEOPLE vary — it is quite probable that we will have very different assesements of risk to be considered….You are laughing at and disparaging people you’ve never met, never spoken to and not honestly listened to…Just because YOU don’t know that SOME people are more exposed and potentially more affected by toxic environmental exposures, does not make you right…
By way of additional example — I do NOT have Asthma…but I don’t deny it exists…
I don’t have SHRIMP allergy either — but I don’t deny it exists
I don’t have LEAD poisoning, but I don’t deny that many Children do….
The point is DIFFERENT EXPOSURE and DIFFERENT PEOPLE yield DIFFERENT RESULTS….
——-> I am sure willing to listen to what is being said about allergic like reactions from Cell Towers and other RF exposures…..HISTAMINE and MAST cells seems pretty interesting when you consider the sicknesses being reported.
Gangi S, Johansson O
A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans
Medical Hypotheses 54: 663-671, 2000
Link to the abstract in PubMed
Johansson O, Gangi S, Liang Y, Yoshimura K, Jing C, Liu P-Y
Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field provocation experiments.
Journal of Cutaneous Patholology 28: 513-519, 2001
Link to the abstract in PubMed
———> Why don’t you actually READ some of the stories of people that claim illness from a Cell Tower….? Google “Mast Victims ” (a tower is a Mast) —
Mark said:
…and many people are being overexposed, without their consent and for durations that have NEVER been seen before relative to these types of pulsed, digital signals…
———–> Sir….have you ever used an RF Meter? Have you been to a Child’s Bedroom 100 feet from a Cell Tower — BEFORE the Cell Tower is switched on? and AFTER it is switched on?? Clearly not…You are really perpetrating a fraud on the readers here…. People buy an “Electrosmog Detecktor” and drive all over the place….especially if you live near a city….just drive and listen….Virtually NONE of those towers existed prior to the mid to late 80’s…Now there are 2,000,000 of them — If you drive to a very rural area (where cell towers don’t work) and take measurements, THAT is rougly what we always had exposure wise…. Now drive to any downtown…OUR EXPOSURES HAVE RADICALLY CHANGED and that is why NOW, AS WE SPEAK, MANY PEOPLE have fallen ill — and figured out why.
Pulsed signals are as old as radio. Actually, the first signals were pulsed. It’s called CW or Morse code – you pulse the radio signal on and off. Digital is ancient too. Sure there’s more you can do with it now, but digital pulsed radio new?? HAH! My grandfather was the radio operator on a Merchant Marine ship from 1943-1948. They had a device on it known as a “teletypewriter” it received data from pulsed radio using something called BAUDOT, which is a five bit digital alphabet.
———-> Sir, you and I both know that what you are saying here is absolutely nonsensical. CW is CONTINUOUS WAVE — and is not pulsed like the digital signals of today…This is just absurd…And HOW many people living next to a Cell Tower are there now vs’ one guy on a boat? And IF those guys on that boat got sick and died at age 50 or whatever — would YOU know about it??? Would the public know? Well, if they read widely on this, they’d get hints…there have been some serious studies of Radio Operators that showed serious harm…..The REASON why MORE people are aware of this issue is NOT because of the INTERNET…It is because MORE people are HIGHLY exposed and this the numbers are starting to mount.
Of course there was always pulsed radar too. And highly modulated television data via microwave. How do you think they broadcast live news before satellites? Each station was linked by a system of microwave relay. A massive network of repeater stations would relay signals containing multiplexed video feeds.
———–> Another massively misleading paragraph….Ladies and Gentleman…pointing a Satellite Dish at the sky is NOT the same thing as pointing a cell tower at your bedroom, or sleeping next to a wireless router or living in an enviroment with extremely elavated magnetic fields…It is also not the same as talking on a cell phone up to your brain for 4 hours a day….And comparing the old POINT-to-POINT TV Towers with the DIFFUSE microwaves EVERYWHERE IS NOT THE SAME…This guy is too much.
Mark said:
So if you’re listening….stick with what the science is clearly showing –
I am
Mark said:
These signals are NOT biologically compatible and what anyone says about “high” or “low” is just a game of relativity….
Really? Well then I hope you’re currently in a tank of liquid helium, because I have some news for you: Everything that is above a temperature of close to absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation. It emits it starting at low frequencies and the warmer it gets the higher they go.
———-> Yes Sir…and X-Rays and Nuclear Accidents are harmless, right?? People – this man is truly not well…. His arguments are based on nothing but hot air…The fact that EVERYTHING emits Electromagnetic Radiation has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING…. Buy and RF Meter and find out just how much radiation is coming from your local woodpile….We ALL know that there is MERCURY in the water….BUT when it is CONCENTRATED and INGESTED it become a problem.
CONCENTRATED (by analogy) exposure to RF and EMF Radiation causes harm by dose, modulation, duration and intensity…He wants you to believe that for example a DROP of water is the same as ALL WATER….or that a firecracker is the same as a nuclear weapon because they both explode…..A squirt gun is the same as a 9 mm pistol because they are both guns…He is a master magician….Don’t be fooled by his hypothetical nonsense….
Ever seen a thermal image of a person? That’s the low infrared, but people also emit even lower frequencies all the way into the high microwave.
———-> Yes, I’ve used a thermal camera….This has NOTHING to do with the safety of cell phones, cell towers, Wi-fi and powerlines EMF’s — but nice job trying to deceive the public.
Mark said:
Even so-called low power is millions if not billions of times more than what the Earth — and you living on the Earth would experience without some company erecting a Cell Tower Antenna on your local Church roof.
HA! That’s a laugh. The power emitted by these is trivial compared to the stuff you find in nature. Lightning emits enormous pulses of energy as do celestial objects. Ever heard of a geomagnetic storm? No, I didn’t think so. Anyways, on occasion the energy produced by solar winds colliding with the upper atmosphere causes a disturbance which is amplified by the ionosphere and causes great fluxes in the geomagnetic fields.
It has been known to produce enough rf energy to cut off radio communications and on rare occasions has overloaded power grids.
———-> Ladies and gentleman – again, just deception…Maybe if he keeps changing the subject enough he’ll finally get around to the truth….Lighning strikes kill people Sir….and if you put “Lightning” everywhere….as in dumping all sorts of RF / Microwave energy on people in their homes and workplaces, then over time, we can expect more sickness and suffering…Precisely what the literature supports and precisely the clinical experience of people that have been “struck” by simply TOO much of this MAN-MADE, DIGITAL, MICROWAVE and LOWER FREQUENCY EMF Radiation…
———–> The working of our cells and communication are very delicate and easily thrown off of homeostatis…..The bell is tolling….We have built an energy environment that is wholly incompatible with sustainable life, vitality and healthy furtherence of this species….It may take 20 years for this to be common knowledge..but for those with the initiaitve, it is information that is available right now…
.
Go read a book please..
——-> Please.
Mark said:
There is a massive deception going on –
Be very mindful …. NOT ONE OF THESE COMPANIES (CELL TOWERS) are telling the public that the towers are safe…they are telling the public that they are LEGAL.
Why is that?
The bell of truth is ringing….
Ding! Ding!
The Wireless Revolution will end in total calamity…
Some people have already the the scars to show…Do not disparage them.
Consider LISTENING to them instead.
———->
Yada yada yada. Listen up, stupid. There are no scars from this unless someone has been sitting in the beam of a multi kilowatt microwave transmitter. The wireless revolution is nothing new. Sure, new technology is making consumer products wireless where they were not before, but none of these frequencies or powers are anything new.
—————-> He concedes here…”making consumer products where they were not before”…Not a PERSON that has been affected by a cell tower or cell phone of wi-fi could have been affected by 3G wireless for example more than say 10 years ago….it didn’t exist in any large way (if at all.) SO, if someone TODAY recognizes that after installing a Wireless router they get headaches, depression, can’t sleep, fatigue, etc…then something IS NEW isn’t it..??? What is new is THAT person’s exposure…..and if enough people with these relatively NEW exposures are starting to reveal the same things…then just maybe we ought to LISTEN to their experience for clues…..and stop the name calling. You admit my points over and over again both directly and by what you choose to omit…..And the fact that what you claim is NOT new has existed for YEARS and you FAIL to HONESTLY report on the studies from even the 1950’s that showed serious harm…and research from Russia and other countries (Google Microwave Sickness) further proves that you are just not an informed enough person to have a sincere voice here.
The last major step in opening up the electromagnetic spectrum was the magnitron in the early 1940’s.
The consumer Wireless Revolution started off just after World War I when the first vacuum tube radios started to appear on store shelves.
——-> and this proves what?
Quote Comment
——————> This mans comments, attitude and deception speak louder than anything I can say..If he were on a witness stand, he would crumble like broken glass — for he would have to account for all the moving parts of his fallacious and hole-filled arguments…
For the sincerely concerned and interested — you should be….It is drunk minded people like this gentleman that are driving the bus of life over a cliff with all this wireless madness and pretending to be sober.
Little if anything this man has said is sober or temperate…..Not to mention polite or respectful of the many people that have every right to speak and share their personal experiences who do so at great peril and at not personal benefit….They do so to warn others.
Get to know your enviroment, so you don’t have to take words from this man or me for that matter. The truth exists all its’ own — you must simply discover it.
Buy a GAUSSMETER (many models, many brands… I like Trifield) and an Electrosmog Detektor….It will give you a glimpse of your World
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 4:26 am
drbuzz0,
If Depleted Cranium is going to become a soapbox for this sort of ignoramus to come and rant I’m not sure it will continue to be a place where any sort of rational discussion can be carried out.
Engaging with posters of the above sort becomes tiresome very quickly, because they will always try to drown out any attempt to criticize them with more and more verbiage, claiming as the one above does, that they have the right to be heard.
Unfortunately if some steps are not taken the net effect is going to be an increase in this type of commenter, who will eventually drive more sober ones away.
I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to run your site, but you should be aware that this has gotten out of hand on other websites in the past, and draconian changes to the commenting policy was forced on them by these sorts of antics. While it may not be time for that here you might want to begin thinking about other solutions.
DV8
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 9:42 am
DV82XL said:
Are these not the ones we need to get to the most? Why limit it to people who agree with you. The old adage “preaching to the choir” comes up. If it is nothing but people who already understand this coming in to agree then what have we got?
Perhaps the best policy is after trying to be rational with someone like “Mark” just say that you have made your point and he won’t listen and leave him be. He is obviously past the point of being swayed.
Also, his chronic lack of ability to use the quote feature is very annoying. It’s pretty hard to read his long drawn out and illogical argument.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Mister Fisk said:
Of course, I was not suggesting that they be edited out, only that some control be exercised against themultipage rambling polemics that these often devolve into.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
DV82XL said:
My comments aren’t truly intended as a reply to some of the posters here. The reality is that some of these folks have revealed their characters with name calling and ad hominem attacks.
I rebut their posts for the benefit of those people that are becoming aware of this problem, but may be havng some doubt.
Allowing the ignorance and rank bitterness to go unchallenged here would be convenient and expedient, but these posters that shout out loud do a disservice by disparaging things they have not explored and discourage others from doing so.
If the posts require length, then I’ll do the job — They’ll get shorter when there is less dishonesty, manipulation and bias to overcome.
While not a popular and safe position, the fact remains:
*******
“People very much DO get ill as a result of Electromagnetic Fields and RF Radiation to which they may be exposed…sometimes due to invividual biological variations and sometimes owing to anomalies in exposure and sometimes to both.”
*******
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Mark said:
No. The power is reduced because newer digital systems don’t require as powerful a transmitter and if you tried to make small cell phone transmit at three watts the battery would go dead within a few minutes. That is why the big reduction.
3 watts is still perfectly safe. The exposure guideline has not been reduced. You can still buy a five watt walkie-talkie.
Mark said:
No, it’s not logical or reasonable. You’re using an example that is entirely different to try to make it seem so. You’re the liar here. RF radiation is not like cigarettes. It does not have carcinogenic materials that build up.
Better Analogy: buzz0 is admitting that the flame from a blow torch can be dangerous but then saying that warm socks from the dryer are not. You are saying that all heat is dangerous regardless of the temperature. He is correct because there is a certain level bellow which you will not be burned. This is a perfect analogy because the primary danger from RF radiation is dialetric heating.
EVEN BETTER EXAMPLE: Some bathrooms have a heat lamp so when you come out of the shower you don’t feel cold. Is it dangerous to stand under this 100 watt heat lamp? Not at all. What if you stood under a 100,000 watt heat lamp? You’d be burned to a crisp.
Mark said:
No, he is stating fact. There is some difference in penitration between low frequency, low microwave and high microwave. Actually all cell phones operate at bellow 2.5 ghz. What is your point?
No frequency doesn’t matter too much in calculating the health effects until you get to much different parts of the spectrum.
Mark said:
Put up or shut up. Don’t mention studies or make vague refrence to them. Show the actual studies. Give links to the numbers.
Seriously, dude, you’re really spinning a crazy yarn here with twisting this ****. You’re trying to make it sound like we’re saying older stuff is safer because it’s older. That’s not the point. The point is we’ve been living with this stuff for years and we have decades of experience and science data on this. Nobody was dropping dead from this crap in 1950 and they’re not now and we have decades of research to show this.
The knowledge in this are is not outdated. Sometimes science moves on and new ideas replace old ones. Sometimes it turns out the old ones are perfectly fine and were valid all along. All data we have from 50+ years of working with microwaves and radio signals tells us we were right all along.
This nonsense about digital signals or signals with different modulation being different to the body is just that. You’re throwing out a lot of unrelated information to try to complicate this subject. It’s really not complicated.
Just use the infrared light analogy and it all becomes very simple and logical: A small amount warms you slghtly but enough will burn you to alive.
Point being even if some areas of the spectrum behave a little different than others, none of it matters when it’s bellow the level of significant thermal damage to cells, which does not occur unless you have enough energy to heat the tissue by more than a couple degrees.
I’m not an expert in this area. We do, however, have a regular commenter who is certified as a safety inspector for RF field safety who is an expert and I’m sure he’ll be able to do even better.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Mark said:
This is of course an admission that this commenter is using these pages as a soapbox, not to engage in debate.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
DV82XL said:
Actually, it is a recognition that there are some here that aren’t here for
an honest discussion. They are instead here to name call and bully.
I’m aware that folks like that are unlikely to be persuaded by anything that
impeaches their limited view of any serious matter, although one can try.
For the folks that are sincerely in search of information, I offer my efforts.
If the more entrenched others begin to understand the issues — GREAT! — but
I seek more to serve the more pleasant, kind persons that may stumble upon this blog.
When you guys get into the name calling and antics, you’ve already decended into something
non debate-worthy, so keep an eye on yourself.
When you further ignore the abundant science that does exist that upsets your worldview, even after having some of it pointed out to you — you also signal your lack of debate intentions.
So…maybe you ought stick to the issues.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Mark: You have so many factual errors in your comments I don’t even know where to start and it would take me a page and a half to note them all.
Let me just mention some of the simpler ones:
Modern digital modulation (such as in 3G) does not “pulse” some of the older TDMA systems might have something like that, but 3G is based on CDMA which is a broad band signal that is encoded over a large channel. It has spread spectrum aspects. If you look at the modern signals on a spectrum analyzer they look almost like noise, because they are filling an entire channel with data. This is not just pulsing. Pulsed signals are more like the first generation of digital transmission like the old teletype-style of transmission.
The signals are not in any way stronger or more wide band than years past. You know what is a super wide band signal? FM television in analog form. This was used for a long time to transmit from remote live reporting to station headends.
Were old systems point to point? Some were. Many were not. People complain that they are near a transmitter. I’ll have you know that for decades every police station, every fire station, every school bus dispatch and many other places had much more powerful stations. You’d be amazed how many companies and organizations had private two-way systems. Utilities, construction companies, snow plows, school busses, taxi companies.
Putting it next to your ear? You think today’s cell phones are powerful. Yes the old 3 watt ones had a seperate antenna. That’s because they were huge and needed a big battery. However, there were handheld phones that had one or two watts. The old Motorola “brick” phone was much more powerful than today.
You have completely misunderstood buzz0’s description of how over 2.5 ghz is less dangerous. All he means is that relatively speaking, SAR becomes less of a direct concern as frequency goes up. That does not mean that 800 mhz is dangerous IF AT LEVELS BELLOW THERMAL SAR LIMITS
Our standards have not really been tightened since the last revisions in the mid 1980’s nor do they need to be. The fact that systems today often are lower power comes down to what is necessary. You don’t want a portable device to put out more power than it needs because it drains the battery.
The instrument you recommend is dead wrong. That looks like some kind of AC field meter. You need a power density meter. They have a specialized probe that collects a broadband area of spectrum and it provides an accurate isotropic power density. It says it has an RF field measurement function, but it doesn’t give you the ambient power density for a given area. Your meter is useless.
Magnetic and electrical fields are not the same as radio waves. There is not a hard and fast line, but we are talking about very different behaviors. Microwaves do not behave the same way as a simple low frequency field and the two are not applicable to each other.
Your rantings are so wrong, they are “not even wrong” There are not just factual errors, but you have the whole concept wrong. If you really care about this so much you need to start at square one and try to learn some things. You should look around your area to see if there is a beginner course for RF safety. If you live in the United States, you can look for a company in your area that provides OSHA approved RF safety instruction. The basic course will take only a few days and it is held at community colleges or sometimes other locations. It only costs a few hundred dollars at the most. This will not make an expert of you, but they are designed to teach enough of the fundamentals for workers who work with broadcast antenna systems or something like that. If you want to take it further you can get a certification from the FCC and/or OSHA. They are not terribly expensive.
You need to come to an understanding of what we mean when we talk about RF fields and ambient RF. There is always ambient radiation at all frequencies and all parts of the spectrum. You need to stop getting into this idea of pulsed waves of “real world mixed signals.” The issue is related directly to power density. Frequency matters in so far as the absorption rate of human tissue. However, that is a secondary issue.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I think DV82XL has a point about allowing this site to be overrun with the kind of vicious garbage Mark and his fellow-travellers are putting out.In all his profuse verbiage above, he hasn’t really made many actual points, just ranted and raved about how everyone else supposedly doesn’t know what they’re talking about while simultaneously demonstrating to anyone with the least bit of knowledge on the subject that he either has no understanding of the science, or ignores such understanding as he does possess.
Does anyone have a link to the news article from a few years ago in which an Austrian lab tech was caught out faking data, trying to show that cell phones damaged DNA? I’ve read about it here, but I’m not sure where to find it.
If there were any merit to claims of danger from cell phone use, that sort of fraud would not be necessary to produce a case.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Finrod said:
There have been several here are two
Scientist Faked Data Linking Cancer to Electromagnetic Fields, Probe Finds
Fraud Case Rocks Anesthesiology Community
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
And surely, you guys are smart enough to consider the intersection
between 21 studies showing harmful health and biological effects and
50 pages of stories where real people ALSO just happen to be reporting that
they have fallen ill as a result of these towers…
Read the studies FIRST and then read the EXPERIENCES?
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=journal
Coincidence?
Not at all…
You are just not informed of what is NOW known by many —
After you’ve read the studies, then get back to me…until then, you guys are just blowing smoke.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Mark, noting that Gordon has taken the time to ably demonstrate the depth of your ignorance and misunderstanding of the science in this field, why would anyone believe that you even understand the studies you have referenced?
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Finrod said:
Hello Finrod,
I’ll tell you what.
Why don’t you err on the safe side and assume that I am
incapable of understanding any of the studies.
Okay?
So now, with THAT in mind —
Why don’t YOU read them and see if YOU understand them, okay?
Once YOU understand them — explain them to Gordon and the other attack squad here
and then we can all agree that the crew here is just not informed on the health issues here.
But take it one step at a time — read the studies yourself, k?
Get reading…!
Thanks,
Mark
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I’ll note that one of the studies you claim shows a potential problem: “Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 1: A population-based cross-sectional study in Germany” the conclusion was in fact that”
“A substantial proportion of the German population is concerned about adverse health effects caused by exposure from mobile phone base stations. The observed slightly higher prevalence of health complaints near base stations can not however be fully explained by attributions or concerns.”
Now that is not a proper conclusion because it dismisses the possibility of any psychosomatic effects out of hand without an explanation of why, given that they are admitting that there is a physiological component present. This is not explained away in the text of the study.
At any rate Phase II of the same study in fact found no meaningful correlations so the Phase I study cannot be counted as support anyway.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Whether I agree that 3G signals are not pulsed or not (and modulated) the point of his statement is that “The signals are not in any way stronger or more wide band in years past”…
Folks visit http://www.antennasearch.com and put in your home address…take a look at all the towers and if you can take a look at the dates of when they were installed. This isn’t that hard. There are approximately two MILLION more antennas in residential areas that didn’t exist in 1980…To say that that the signals are not stronger in someone’s neighborhood who just had a cell tower installed that was not there is a joke.
When is it DAYLIGHT, are the SUN’s rays stronger on Earth?
No tower = darkness
Tower = daylight.
Erecting these towers all over the place and NOT considering the scientific research as well as the abundant and growing clinical experience of people that are essentially assaulted by these towers is not scientific.
…and you’d be amazed at the numbers of people now experiencing insomnia and other sleep disturbances, headaches, swollen lymph nodes, depression, anxiety, loss of appetite, hypoxia (lack of oxygen getting to your tissues), inability to concentrate, forgetfulness, dizziness, irritability, nausea, hyperactivity, fatigue, vision problems, dry eyes, eye inflammation, weakened immune system, allergies, frequent urination, night sweats, extreme thirst…as a result of the “amazing” roll-out of this technology despite the scientific warnings to the contrary.
We all understand that we have had many radio systems in the past. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific and clincial experiences of people who from exposures have fallen ill.
I think this man would have you believe that because the OLD cell phones were MORE powerful and by assumption potententially more toxic, that the current crop of cell phones is SAFE. Huh?
So, the old cell phones were like 45 Colts to the Brain and the new ones are say .22’s?
I don’t concede the the newer phones are safer at all…The digital signals, the marketing toward “unlmited minutes” and higher SAR rates due to antenna placements, etc all add up to exposures well beyond what is safe for the human body….Oh yes…of course, sone of the people that are sick sort of count too…I mean if we are willing to count people that actually do have sickness that coincides with the Scientific Literature:
http://antipixel.com/blog/archives/2003/10/01/more_cellphone_sickness.html
The FCC does not care about BATTERY LIFE. The SAR ratings were designed to PROTECT human health and they are based on a FLAWED approach that only includes THERMAL acute effects….So, your point, while appreciated is outdated and incorrect. I have posted here just a small sample of biological and health effects that occur way below FCC limits….If you read them, you and I will agree that the FCC did not consider these things when setting the standards….
You will also have a bigger understanding of why in many other countries safety standards are being reduced — simply because they are keeping up with the state of the science…something that seems a little threatening to many people here…not sure why honestly.
Sir…what I recommended was a Trifield Meter for EMF exposures (electromagnetic fields) and a basic RF Meter or something called an Elecktrosmog Detektor to give some incling of RF levels….There are certainly better devices, but these are inexpensive and can get interested persons a certain level of insight as to how their lives may have changed — as their exposures have changed.
I’ve done more than 100 site valuations for many people that have contacted me — and the very true experiences of people who have been injured by exposures due to very elevated EMF’s — and VERY elevated RF (as in those that live on hilltops adjacent hilltop transmitters) with no trees and topography to dampen the signals is truly devastating….
Get out there and start asking questions….It will lead you to what is TRUE…What is true is that REAL people, RIGHT now are being essentially murdered by the placement of these towers near homes, schools, hospitals, etc…and since even smart people like you haven’t seen the studies and had the courage to speak directly with some of these folks….this will carry on for some time.
You are not correct in what I have suggested and I think you are aware from my postings that I am quite aware of the differences with EMF and RF.
Sir, aside from our debate about the pulsing or not of 3G, you have said nothing to refute any of the health related information I have shared on this site…
Do you deny that there are now proven non-thermal effects from this RF Radiation exposures?
Do you deny that the FCC set guidelines only based on SHORT term HEATING effects?
Do yo deny that since 1980 approximately 2,000,000 antennas have been erected that broadcast 24 hours a day / 7 days a week –now in many residential neighborhoods?
You guys are truly not seeing the forest through the trees.
Read the studies I’ve posted….look around…
Listen to the people that have DIRECTLY experienced illness as a result of both EMF and also RF exposures…
You haven’t looked, so how can you be so sure that you know that OTHER people do NOT get sick?
I am always open to learning more….
The truth is I have several Health and Safety officers and once briefed, they actually agree with the data that has been presented here…Why? For no reason other than that it is true.
Our understanding of this issue is evolving…You might with to do so as well.
You are wrong in assuming that these things are safe, proven safe and free of health hazards….
Even the attorney’s for these firms (i.e. Cell Tower Companies) make no such assertions…they merely state the towers are LEGAL…Why is that?
Because they know they are unsafe.
…as would you, if you’d do your homework.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Mark said:
I see your grasp of the law is as weak as your grasp of science.
A lawyer only is permitted to extend an opinion in legal matters, it is not their place to discuss any other factors in a case they are retained for. Even doing so is a violation of ethics in most places. This proves nothing.
I’ll also note that in another study you posted as positive evidence “Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations” there was no effective control group and again report that they did not factor in confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to the base station in their statistical analysis.
The commentary also noted that an important limitation, “given the large number of health concerns examined in the study, is the possibility that some associations occurred by chance”. The commentary suggested that “an alternative possibility is that illness occurs as a psychologically mediated response to a perceived hazardous exposure”.
How can you hold such a study up as proof of anything other than sloppy science.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Look if the only thing you are basing your conclusions on are a collection of abstracts its no wonder you are as ignorant of the science as you appear to be. Invest 20 minutes are you kidding me? Its taken me over an hour to find copies of and to read through the two I’ve commented on, you can’t learn anything about the quality of a scientific paper by looking only at the abstract. You have to look at the design of the study, and look at the data and look at the analysis to get some idea if there is anything of note or the researchers are just treading water to keep their jobs.
You can’t just throw out something like this and be taken seriously.
At any rate the two studies that I picked at random from your list, that you claimed showed positive evidence of this effect show nothing of the sort at all, that already tells me a lot both about the quality of the work in this area, and your capacity to understand the subject.
I’m afraid you have nothing to offer on this this subject that I cannot find with any Google search on the matter.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
DV82XL said:
Let me ask you — until I got here how many of those Google searches did you do?
Of those 194 studies, how many had you read?
Of the 50 pages of some people’s direct experiences, how many had you considered?
I did not indicate that I had a MONOPOLY on understanding….I’ve been here to get you to see some things that maybe you have not been told…
I did not form my opinions based on study abstracts….and neither should you.
What I DID suggest is that you invest 20 minutes — not that you will STOP there, but to get you to see that you are not as aware of the fullness of this issue as you assume.
..and frankly, you did not impeach the valididty of the studies I submitted …
Even if you think you did — read the other 192 and get back to me.
You are NOT informed of the significant health risks associated with exposure to non-thermal exposures to non-ionizing radiation….If you were, we would not be debating…we’d be agreeing.
Back to EMF for a second…Have you read The 28 Million Dollar California EMF Study?
or did you not Google that yet?
Read it ———-> http://www.ehib.org/emf/
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Thank you Mark. I was kinda hoping you would do this, honestly. I have a policy of not taking down comments because I don’t agree with them or because the person is making a scientifically invalid point. I don’t believe in censorship and I do not think my info would mean much if it could not stand up to critisism.
However, repeated comments of an extremely long and repetitive nature, especially including long irrelevant lists of material that has been copy-and-pasted is considered “flooding” and is a form of spam. It makes the page difficult to navigate and the comments.
Posting three or four comments for every one comment you’re refuting, with each being dozens of lines of copied text is not a valid two-way exchange. It’s simple flooding.
Thanks, I appreciate this a lot, because it gets me out of the issue of having someone annoying as hell who is not technically violating anything. This makes it easy.
Welcome to the ban list.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
As I said I’ve gone through a pile of these before (when I was getting paid to do so) and I’m not going to do this again, particularly since you are saying that will not by swayed by any criticism I post.
You obviously do not understand the remarks made BY THE RESEARCHERS in these papers are fatal errors, they render any results they have gotten useless. Only the first authors were honest enough to revisit the study in another paper and report they found nothing. The second took the weasel-way out and trashed their own paper in comments. This was the pattern that I found the last time I waded through this sewage: poor study design; small samples; no controls; prevarication in the analysis. The other major flaw you find is claiming positive results when in fact the results are well within any rational error interval making them indistinguishable from noise.
Even the in vitro work, that I trust more anyway, suffers from experimental modalities more reminiscent of undergraduate work (and I suspect many of them are just that) than proper biophysics.
If you want to stand on this nonsense that is your affair but since you show no signs of extending the same degree of open-mindedness that you have been demanding of us there is really no point. And again, if you have not taken the time to read these studies in there entirety, and have made no effort to acquire enough of a background to understand them, I am just wasting my time.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Finrod said:
Understood. The thing is with these types, I prefer not to be the one to “fire the first shot” – just because of the implications. I don’t want to be the one to raise the stakes and come off as dismissive or unable to take the heat. Thus, I’m willing to humor them for some period of time.
The thing is that they will start off by making points and debating. However, once they get their contentions shown to be false, they realize that they can’t deal with it. They’ve come to a place where their claims won’t be handled with kid gloves – they will be required to withstand criticism.
Without exception they will resort to saying the same thing over and over or just flooding the comments. At this point they’ve gone beyond disagreement and have shown their true colors. They can’t take it so they just try to flood everyone else out of the comments by posting over and over and over.
They have shown their true colors. They had the opportunity to make their point. They turned into a screaming little bitch. They get their ass banned and there’s no doubt that they had plenty of opportunity.
I don’t ban because of disagreements over content. I ban because of spamming.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
DV82XL said:
Bah. I don’t think that will be a problem. Every time this happens they make a train wreck of themselves and who can resist looking at a trainwreck?
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Point taken, and then again it would seem you DO have a policy to keep it from getting out of hand.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Hi, I’ve got a question about this EM sensitivity thing. Is it possible this phenomenon may be some form of mass hysteria?
Most of the symptoms the sufferers have seem similar and it seems to match some of the characteristics of the wiki article for mass hysteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
My medical knowledge is mostly limited to wikipedia and House, so please excuse me if I’m wrong.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2009 at 12:21 am
galdefmk4 said:
For certain that’s a big part of it because as you have guessed there is much about this that points in that direction. However that isn’t the only thing at work here.
There is problem with people and communities that while they don’t necessarily buy into the EM sensitivity thing worry that fear of it will drive down the price of their properties. I think a great deal of the opposition to cellphone towers and other antenna structures are rooted in this, because the health issue is better leverage.
And then there are the researchers. The general public doesn’t really know how research works. First and foremost you have to realize that this is the way most of these people make a living, and much of the money comes from grants. Several organizations will supply money for work done in their area of interest. Researchers write a proposal, the organization supplies some funding and a paper gets published after the work is done.
However it is a game of balance. On one hand if you come out and say outright that this whole line of inquiry is a huge waste of time and funds, you will never see a nickel of grant money again, but if you fake results and get caught you are out on your @ss. So what they do, and everyone in science knows what is going on, is that you find some result as favorable to your sponsors POV as you can but then find a way to remark that you have not found much of anything. Failing that you run the experiment or study in such a way that it is obviously irrelevant, like by using small samples or not running controls.
Meanwhile the bulk of the grant money collected is being used for more important work and they get to buy groceries and pay thier rent.
This worked great for years but in the age of the Internet and with people like Mark with too much time on their hands and too little knowledge of the subject, fork through this dung and start to believe that they understand it. And that’s at the bottom of this mess.
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Hey Doc,
Some blogs have a character/word limit for each comment. Could something like that along with a limit of no more than 2-3 posts in a row from one person help keep the Marks in line before you need to ban them?
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am
just checking where the discussion has gone as i signed off of follow up comments to save time getting into debates and arguments and see this has really taken off. not that anything, any link, any argument, any studies will convince anybody of the health risks of emf’s & rf but here’s another offering for the grist mill. I am sure that most of you know that the woman who is head of WHO is electrosensitive and cannot be around cell phones but that doesn’t stop the WHO from quarterbacking for the telecom industry. They receive too much money from Bill Gates to say or do too much but there is much out there and more coming that will force them to update their policies. This just in:
Wireless Technologies Cause Harm to Children and Adults, Legislators and Journalists Are Told
Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009; Today The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (?NISLAPP?) mailed a report on the health hazards of wireless technologies to Governors, Members of Congress, President Obama and his Administration, as well as to thousands of health and environmental journalists.
Legislators and journalists are being urged to learn about the health consequences of microwave radiation exposure from cell phones, neighborhood antennas, wireless networks, wireless routers, DECT portable phones, and the potential health consequences of further chronic exposures from wireless broadband and new wireless utility technologies.
The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy is encouraging all to become engaged with this important public health issue impacting adults and children, as well as animals and nature.
Co-authored by Dr. Magda Havas, Assoc. Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, and Camilla Rees, Founder of http://www.ElectromagneticHealth.org, ?Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution? reviews the independent science on the health hazards of wireless radiation and offers recommendations to the public on how to live more safely in a wireless world…..
READ MORE: (http://sn.im/l5qf d)
Amazon.com Listing – http://sn.im/l6xgb
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 1:30 am
david said:
Oh yeah… them. They’re actually funded by a law firm. See: http://www.swankin-turner.com/projects.html
They’re the same ones who made a stink about aspartame, “mercury poisoning” from dental fillings, flouridization of water.
I’ve seen some of their statements before. Their science is roughly as good as their website design.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 2:46 am
david said:
These types of accusations are stock and trade of this whole electrosensitive nonsense and to date I have seen less proof of this than I have for the effect itself. You people post the studies, as flawed and as silly as they are, and can produce reams of testimony from people that think they are victims, but not one shred of evidence that anyone is getting paid off. You seem to take this as a given, and it does nothing for your credibility.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 6:09 am
Mark said:
I couldn’t be bothered. I frankly have far more important things to do with my time. I do appreciate the efforts of tireless champions of science and rationality who are willing to wade through this tripe to show how and why it is wrong. They have more patience than I have.
Tell you what though (well, not you specifically, because you’ve been banned), I do recall that the guy who died from cancer after making all those ads for Marlborough once said that he offered an executive from the company a cigarette after a shoot, and the exec baldly stated that there was no way he’d smoke that sh*t.
Can anyone from the other side point to any telecommunications executives who refuse to use mobile phones because of the perception of danger? That would be a real eye-opener.
It has to be a real instance though, not just something you made up.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 7:08 am
Finrod said:
What I wanted to illustrate was that it doesn’t seem to matter to these people what the studies say. Papers that find no effect are handed up as proof in the same lists as those that claim to. Frankly I doubt if they read any of them beyond skimming the abstracts – something the poster ‘Mark’ more or less admitted to.
But trying to argue with them by pointing out flaws in the studies they hold out is generally a waste of time, because as you’ve seen, even when the very authors of these studies admit outright the work is compromised and therefore valueless, the fools tell you to your face you haven’t. Look what our banned friend wrote after I pointed this out in two of the papers he tabled:“…and frankly, you did not impeach the valididty[sic] of the studies I submitted …” You can’t fight this sort of entrenched stupidity.
One unfortunate thing though that should be pointed out, is that full text of much of the serious research on this matter (all of it negative) is not available to the general public, or is not easy to get because of fees. However the junk is always easy to find and easy to get, and this doesn’t help.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
studies do show both sides, that is true however the original studies that were commissioned by motorola were suppressed because they didn’t like the findings. there are three things to consider and those are it is either harmless, harmful, or somewhat harmful and with the bulk of studies weighted towards the latter two it begs prudence and further study. meanwhile our schools and libraries are no place for wi fi that bathes kids with rf all day long. we should not be experimenting on our kids. the united states has a long history of testing biological weapons on it’s own. this is fact and can be documented in less than 15 seconds. just the release of radioactive material on the population of the northwest was enough to make a case against ever trusting any government agency ever again. so, where does that put the fcc and it’s regulations? look at the chart below and that should speak volumes. anybody who knows anything about this knows that the frequency can be adjusted to that of the human brain and render us helpless– dead in our tracks. are you so naive that you don’t think that is a consideration of the military industrial complex or are you going to spit out “conspiracy theorist”. so there are many reasons to be dubious of having all of this among us. better to be precautionary then to regret it later. anybody who argues in absolute terms here negates their own credibility. you should admit that you are highly opinionated, getting old and crotchety, and have worked with rf intimately and have survived but that in itself is not enough
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO RF/MW RADIATION
Exposure standards for public exposure to RF/MW radiation at cell phone frequencies in other countries is, in some cases, substantially lower than the US and Canadian limits (Table 1). The World Health Organization EMF Research Program is involved in a multi-year effort to review RF/MW health effects and make recommendations for exposure standards. In the interim, other countries around the world show considerable variation in what they consider safe exposure levels:
* Saltzberg (pulsed)………………………….. 0.1 microwatts
per centimeter squared
* China……………………………………………6.6
microwatts per centimeter squared
* Russia…………………………………………..10 microwatts per centimeter squared
* Italy……………………………………………..10
microwatts per centimeter squared
* Switzerland……………………………………4.2
microwatts per centimeter squared
* Auckland, New Zealand………………….50 microwatts per
centimeter squared
* United States ……..around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared
* Canada …………….around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared
There is substantial controversy among regulatory agencies in the federal government over the RF/MW exposure standards now in effect. A growing body of scientific evidence has linked RF/MW exposure to biological effects and health effects at levels lower than current FCC RF/MW standards allow. With respect to pulsed RFR, amplitude-modulated RFR and chronic low-level exposure there is uncertainty about risk, and no presumptive assurance or
warranty of safety can be made (see FDA and US Government Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group comments above).
Share Article
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
dm said:
This is one of the major problems in any attempt to have a meaningful discussion with people like you. You seem to be under the impression that you can hold up a collection of studies and say that the very existence of them proves something is there. It just doesn’t work like that. Like the other poster who was banned from this site, I strongly suspect that you have not read in their entirety these studies and vetted them for exactly what they say, and how they where carried out.
For example in the H-P Hutter, et. al. paper I mentioned above, there was a very small sample space of only about 300 persons, and the researchers relied on subjective reports of symptoms. It should be apparent even to you the walking up to someones house and asking them if they experienced more headaches or had more trouble sleeping since the cell phone tower was built (which is what these people did) biases the results to the point of meaninglessness.
Now had they asked the subjects to keep health logs over a reasonable interval like three months, had not told them this was an EM study, had they done this for twenty or thirty sites and included the same number of sample groups from areas without towers. Had they done these things and then found a statistically valid, and by that I mean complete with a full Bayesian analysis, they would have some creditability. As it stands most of these studies look like they were done by high school students, and it is the quality that counts in this sort of thing not quantity which seems to be at the root of your arguments.
The bald fact is that the overwhelming results when proper methods are used finds no impact to health, it is only the poorly designed studies that find correlation and then at levels that are indistinguishable from experimental noise. Drawing any conclusion from garbage like this is just not valid. I don’t know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in: I have looked at these studies, and I do have the background to interpret them, and there is no real evidence. There just isn’t.
Endlessly claiming that there is evidence when there is not by listing subjective anecdotal reports of an effect, poorly framed studies, and holding up political opinion as fact just doesn’t cut it, and what is worse all of you that pursue these ridiculous ideas, not just the EM crowd but just about every one of the groups that claim cover up and conspiracy are swiftly becoming the collective equivalent of the Boy that Cried ‘Wolf’ and are going to have the effect of desensitizing the public from seeing the real issues.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Both the US and Canada adopted standards based on the IEEE C95.1 recomended standards. It’s explained in pretty simple plain language here: http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/exposure_regs.html#howstandard
They came to the conclusion that 4 watts per kilogram was the lowest level at which physical effects could be observed (note that this was not to the point of injury but where there was enough dialectic heating to observe some noticable effects).
They came up with a safety margin of ten to one. So the limit for controlled exposure (such as occupational or for short times in a controlled enviornment) is .4 watts per kilogram. For the general public, such as at the base of a cell transmitter they go even further to .08 w/kg – a huge safety factor of 50 to one.
Even so, you don’t usually really get to the point where you come even close to this in most circumstances on the ground or anything.
so you’re looking at maybe 4 watts to cause some discomfort and how much to cause a real injury? I don’t know, but at least something like 8. That’s a pretty descent safety margin.
Not that this is even the real danger you worry about when someone is working on an antenna. As far as injuries and deaths in the field go, RF exposure is not the big hazard. The thing that gets communications workers is falling, or rather the abrupt stop at the end.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
i am sorry, it is not good enough to keep saying that studies you don’t like the results of are not legitimate studies. you say this over and over again about studies that are legitimate, were controlled studies and carried out by very competent people whose opinions are at least as valid as yours because their work represents a lifetime (in many cases) of accumulation of knowledge. i would bet that you are a republican. you are in good company though, the FDA just deleted all the material from its site that could have implicated RFR with health problems and in its place stated that there are no health problems. WOW. It’s that easy.
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/9625-1
Here is a link to the story that was delivered to radio stations nationally today by Public News Service.
Good timing, given the FDA’s recent announcement that cell phones are not harmful!
Listen to the audio story (its on the right–click the play button)
Best,
Camilla Rees
http://www.electromagnetichealth.org
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
david said:
If you look back I did not just write that they were invalid, I described why they were invalid. They were not controlled unless there is a control group, which they don’t have. They are not legitimate if the samples are too small, or the statistical analysis is done wrong or if the results fall in the error bars.
Who did these is not the point. Science is not a popularity contest and many many well respected researchers have been found wrong over the course of their careers, this is par for the course in science. Furthermore they are not extending an opinion – they are coming to a conclusion, and these can be right or wrong.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I’ve cited plenty of studies in the past. Some of them truely enormous and very well controled:
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=1493
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=698
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=421
I’m going to have to make a post just listing all the damn studies because there are a lot of big good studies. (There are also a lot of crappy small and poorly done studies that find various problems)
Quote Comment