Cell towers kill

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
D V
Cell towers kill

A silly comment about evidence & delusion had the last word on a thread connected to the most pressing health & enviro. issue of our day. (Actually, the moderator's last word could be read as an endorsement of that silliness. On the "note" of allowance of this thead extension, might be dispelled that interpretation.)

Timebandit & those of his ilk are directed to http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/11/05/con-cell-radiation.html#soci... , lots of useful comments by commenter  deevertwo throughout, provoked by those of the ilk.

Here again is the Lai & Levitt review in question (notable here for its NRC publisher, and timely for its coinciding with the live issue before HESA),

http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/RpArticleViewer?_handler_=...

INSPQ is apparently finalizing its topical report as well for the Quebec ministry that requested, which we are told might still take several months to appear publicly.

The lengthy old thread here was at http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/brain-cancer-linked-youngsters...

Ready to possibly dispel delusions of 'bandit et al. Ready to talk about 'evidence'.

 

Unionist

Cell towers kill - primarily, when they fall on you.

If you see a rickety cell phone tower, be sure to call 911 on your mobile phone asap.

 

D V

In my experience, when telling young people about the dangers of their phone use, a very common response is a self-defensive giggle orsome odd look  But unionist doesn't seem a young person -- what's the excuse for the odd failed attempt at humour?

 

Two important recent papers left out of Lai & Levitt, one in Belo Horizonte (but in Portuguese) mapping cancers increasing significantly within a 1 km radius as victims live nearer a cell tower; the other the most sophisticated statistically to date (WHO discouraged these types of study -- but hard to break it to very many Canadians about corruption of an int. org.; eg re that past fake flu pandemic, Canadians patted themselves on the back for being the best jabbed) from Selbitz, Bavaria (in German, but translated now, see

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38565331/Specific-Health-Symptoms-and-Cell-Pho... ).

 

But, great idea, Unioinist, keep th e killing infrastructure going, so when it does you in , you'll be able to call your 9-1-1 real fast.

 

 

milo204

every day our bodies are being pummeled with radio waves, micro waves, 60 cycle hum and all the rest, especially if you live in the  city.  alone each might not have much of an effect but together these things wreak havoc on our bodies.  i think this is another issue that receives little attention because these technologies make so much money no one would ever regulate them since there is no such thing as a safer alternative.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
i think this is another issue that receives little attention because these technologies make so much money no one would ever regulate them

 

Announce that you're shutting them all down, and it won't be the voices of the very few who'll lose money that you'll be hearing.

 

How many people are ready to live without their iPhone, BlackBerry, computer, microwave oven, GPS, plasma TV, etc., etc., etc, at this point?

 

Quote:
WHO discouraged these types of study -- but hard to break it to very many Canadians about corruption of an int. org

 

Are they ON THE TAKE? In the pocket of Big Tele? Don't put yourself in danger by answering directly! Does the rooster crow at midnight?

Unionist

D V wrote:

In my experience, when telling young people about the dangers of their phone use, a very common response is a self-defensive giggle orsome odd look  But unionist doesn't seem a young person -- what's the excuse for the odd failed attempt at humour?

I always blame the audience when I don't get enough laughs.

Quote:

But, great idea, Unioinist, keep th e killing infrastructure going, so when it does you in , you'll be able to call your 9-1-1 real fast.

Rogers er, Roger.

VanGoghs Ear

Hey DV

Here's a real newsflash - These new technological marvels called automobiles actually kill(often instantly) tens of thousands of people every year. 

I'm sure that with your help if we quickly get this information out to the public - people will abandon their autos and we can start a brave new world where humans are not voluntary slaves to these dangerous technologies that wreak havoc on our minds, bodies and ecosystem.

 

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:

Cell towers kill - primarily, when they fall on you. 

Cool

al-Qa'bong

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

Hey DV

Here's a real newsflash - These new technological marvels called automobiles actually kill(often instantly) tens of thousands of people every year. 

 

Compound automobiles with drivers on their mobiles, and you have a festering stew of homicide brewing.

jacki-mo

Recent article on how most medical research publications are false:

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

D V

'Ear, that is a mostly wrongful if common comparison made by advocates & opponents both, about cars etc. What can be used constructively from the comparison is about, say, having relinquished lung capacity in acquiescence to insane adulation of the internal combustion engine, but a human has to draw a line at his/her brain, no? What % are you willing to give up?

Other deleterious aspects of car culture can figure usefully in comparison, but not so much in the direct killing & maiming aspect, I do not think. What you are doing, is repeating the best that one hapless "health" "expert" (Habash, at HESA Apr 29) could come up with: "I'll tell you one thing. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year by car accidents. Nobody complains." The risk analysts' specialty, something a leftie should be aghast at -- read the very important The Procrustean Approach (online, 2010) by Don Maisch, esp. re Graham's influence re risk analysis & its horrific bearing on our issue, .http://international-emf-alliance.org/images/pdf/The_Procrustean_Approac... .

Cars are unfortunately pointed to I think by Devra Davis et al as an example of how safety can be improved, so safe cell phones can be had, there even exist some patents waiting for public encouragement. One e.g. relates to the late Ted Litowitz' insertion of noise into modulation, so aspects of cell stress get cancelled. Andrew Godsworthy (also Apr 29 HESA witness) is emphatic about the urgent need for this, but some (incl. myself) are not so optmistic, eg Dimitris Panagopolous, also at HESA Apr 29 -- non-verbatim transcript or audio via
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4478290&... & http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEnti... .

 

Fidel

Jeez, I never knew brain cancer could be so funny. Let's dregulate everything.

D V

milo', "every day our bodies are being pummeled", but the point now is that wireless mania has put it over the top, the suffering of too many people cannot be kept out of even telecom-controlled mainstream view. Back a generation ago, Dr Maschi in France I think coined the term electromagnetic pollution, and healed a lot of people with simple things, his reward inquisitorial removal from his position, finally with honour reinstated only some 40 years later I think. He talked about slow mass electrocution. Another interesting way to put it re mass micrwowvae exposure via cell telephony etc, is about it like being a slow motion nuclear bomb. Don't be taken by non-ionizing vs ionizing talk. If one thing has gross & direct xenobiotic effect, the other can act mor subtly and has grave long term consequences, shorter & shorter term the more one has been exposed. Which brings it back to why the attention now resurfacing. There have been waves of public attention to higher & lower frequency matters, a lot spurred b y the work of Paul Broduer, starting around '77 with his New Yorker articles & then The Zapping of America, which he followed up with work re power lines etc. A great book to see the corruption of process is Andrew Marino's '85 Electric Wilderness, about a NY transmission line controversy & legal proceedings and Marino's research findings about eventual rodent sterility. Good intro about corruption by pioneer reseacher in the field of bioelectircity, the late Robert O. Becker .

But there are "alternatives", and it has a lot to do with scaling down dependecies, sharing, relocalizing, alternative technologies shunted from development by aggressive pushing of cell mania.

 

Fidel

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

Hey DV

Here's a real newsflash - These new technological marvels called automobiles actually kill(often instantly) tens of thousands of people every year.

Actually more people are surviving car wrecks due to improved car designs. Using simple, easy-peasy to understand Newtonian laws of physics, they managed to come up with air bags that save lives. And flimsier car frames and bodies aren't necessarily a death sentence for the person driving the other car nowadays. It's all about controlling kinetic energy and dispersing it away from the driver and occupants.

Van Goghs Ear wrote:
I'm sure that with your help if we quickly get this information out to the public - people will abandon their autos and we can start a brave new world where humans are not voluntary slaves to these dangerous technologies that wreak havoc on our minds, bodies and ecosystem.

I think a better analogy might be tobacco and cell phones. Because you can't use a car to order up some artery clogging pizza and cheesecake. A car doesn't fit in your pocket and mess with your reproductive organs. People should use the precautionary principle, and cover their testicles/ovaries when dialing for pizzas and yacking  over cell phones in general.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

And many rush to the kill.

 

Solidarity.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

D V you can see some people appreciate the posts. 

 

Keep on keepin' on

Fidel

[url=Static">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870426920457527048221560221... in Cellphone Study[/url]

WSJ wrote:
The final results of a major international study of the potential link between cellphone use and cancer were published last week. The finding: Using a cellphone seems to protect against two types of brain tumors.

Even the researchers didn't quite believe it.

Even the researchers don't believe the results of their own study, which was partially funded by the cell phone industry. You'd almost not wonder why the study's research scientists have widely differing opinions concerning the [url=http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/05/20/lessons-from-the-interphone-study/]... study's design flaws[/url].

WSJ wrote:
Only the people who talked on cellphones the most had a significantly greater chance of developing glioma—40% greater—than those who didn't use cellphones.

So only those who talked on cell phones "the most" had a significantly enhanced risk of developing gliomas, the deadliest type of brain tumor. A 40% greater chance.

Has anyone in this thread ever played Russian roulette? Because I get this strange feeling that talking on cell phones is a lot like playing an extended game of Russky roulette over ten, fifteen, maybe 20 years before you find out whether you've won or lost.

And so now I'm of the assumption that if you get the hell off the phone and, instead, use your mobile as a puck in the street for extended periods of road hockey, your risk of developing brain cancer would be about the same as it is for those who don't talk on cell phones at all. But don't quote me, quote the Wall Street Journal.

D V

 The Russian roulette reference, I must have already recommended ex-Motorola insider the late (brain affliction, dead along with lawyer, same, before their lawsuit got going) Robert C. Kane's (online, 2001), Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, that someone did the great public service putting at http://www.scribd.com/doc/21783803/Cellular-Telephone-Russian-Roulette . It is a clinical examiniation of the how it all was pushed ahead with full cognizance of dangers. Davis some time ago, well before her book was out, but after she was part of topical Senate hearings I think, appeared on a teevee show called Dr. Oz that I saw online, which began with an image surely based on Kane's book & title, a revolver turning to point at the viewer. (I just tried to find the video, looks like it might have been dismantled.)

As for cancer focus,  even a small indication of rise in "cancer  risk" (on which typically far too much focus in a culture obsessed with bullethole forensics versus listening to one's own body), that must be seen as an index of a lot of very very bad stuff going on under the skull & elsewhere. Early in my research I found from CIW,

.......

"The decline in the share of the population that considers itself in excellent or very good
health is most marked among Canadian teenagers. Whereas over 80% of 12-19 year
olds reported excellent or very good health in 1998, only 67% did so in 2005."

"This is matched by a steadily increasing share of teenagers who report problems with everyday functions (memory, thinking and mental wellbeing), an increase of 6.4 percentage points."

...........

But I am more interested here in Fidel's road hockey, how one is done in by far field exposures, even from texting, smart meters, etc etc and of course, cell towers.

 

 

D V

NRC-published paper authors interviewed (for general public) at
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/levitt-lai/

 

 

VanGoghs Ear

My analogy to automobiles may have been misunderstood - of course we should continually try to make technology more safe but even if it was absolutely proven that cell phones can increase the risk of developing cancer - many people would just say I can live with that risk.

 

Fidel

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

My analogy to automobiles may have been misunderstood - of course we should continually try to make technology more safe but even if it was absolutely proven that cell phones can increase the risk of developing cancer - many people would just say I can live with that risk.

Ah! The utilitarians making it real again. I see what you're saying now. A 40% increased risk for a glioma among heavy duty users over just ten years is an acceptable risk and reasonable trade-off compared to the benefits of bombarding public space with microwave pollution. Hey at least we can phone 911 on the spot with mobile phones in cases of emergency. There's that and much more. It's all good.

D V

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

 many people would just say I can live with that risk.

 

Indeed. But should not particularly people who favour "socialized" medicine, for example, be adamant that such "risks" not be taken?

The only NDP-er on the HESA committee, which begins in one week deliberating what to do with all the damning info put before them during three meetings, is Carol Hughes, replacing Megan Leslie for the issue. I expect her & whatever BQ MPs show up to lean seomwhat favourably. Have to work on the evasive Libs., unfortunately. I have met with Kirsty Duncan and am trying to meet with Carolyn Bennett, if the latter will sit on for what she heard at the meetings, not being on HESA now ; but the former I heard 2x at the last meeting talk about "expert panel",something NOT needed before action.

 

Of course there is no delucion that any even majority favourable report would be heeded by the Harperites, who have six months to do the expected zero. But the publicity & increased public education by all this political activity are essential.

 

Fidel

I can't imagine what in hell it would be like without cell phones and a regulated telecom industry. Canadians might not have the overall risk factor freedom to enjoy a one in two chance of developing cancer at some point in their lives. How dull and grey that world would be without a little risk taking in our lives.

We should insist on and demand our right to contract brain cancer if we want to!! Anything but make the cell phone industry accountable to our corporate stooges in government and to the public. Because that would be communism!! [/utilitarian cap off]

And we should consider [url=http://www.olpcnews.com/images/cell-phone.jpg]this little one's[/url] right to be a guinea pig for the cell phone industry. He has certain free market rights, too. It's all about freedom, baby. Yeah!

VanGoghs Ear

I see people are still smoking. Why hasn't the government banned that yet Fidel? Because of elections is my guess. I don't smoke and I don't even own a cell phone but I'm typing this on a computer unfortunately.

Tear Down the Towers!

Fidel

VanGoghs Ear wrote:
I see people are still smoking

I think they should ban cell phone advertising targeted at young people [url=as">http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/french-gov... is done in France already[/url]. And apparently the French want [url=http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/france-bans... ban cell phones[/url] for anyone 14 years old or younger.

And, [url=http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178]Lakehead University[/url] has demonstrated that it's possible for a university and its campuses to have total internet connectivity without cell phone masts or WiFi.

VanGoghs Ear

right on

Fidel

Right on. We'd just like to force the cell phone industry to come clean on cell phone safety instead of hiding behind their tiny warning labels in packaging meant to be ignored and discarded after people buy their shitty cell phones and crappy PDAs.

D V

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

 but I'm typing this on a computer unfortunately.

if i go more than a few minutes my right eye has to be shielded, can't touch a mouse without thumb going numb (lots of "keyboard shortcuts" for me) & then there is vertigo...and now:

"Why using a computer can cause depression",
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-153281/Why-using-cause-depress... .

My access does not have the Nov.issue of American Journal of Industrial Medicine yet, only to Oct.

"three-year survey of 25,000 workers" - sample size ok for you?

"Lead researcher Dr Tetsuya Nakazawa said: ‘ This result suggests the prevention of mental disorders and sleep disorders requires the restriction of computer use to less than five hours a day.'"

 

 

Fidel

Yup. I've worked in tech, and most of the health and safety committees I've been on have all concluded that it's really important to get away from tech several times a week and for hours on end. Fresh air is good. And I make it a personal rule not to watch much TV and not playing video games except when visiting with younger family members who suck me into playing COD and NHL Hockey for PlayStation. And i get beat a lot when I do play.

al-Qa'bong

I have "Coast to Coast," a radio call-in show with that Norrie fella, on the computer right now.  Cell phones, according to the space cadets who phone in (they're phoning in), are just as dangerous as the claims made by babble's space cadets.  One cure for the built-up electrical energy in your brains, according to an expert ol' George has on, is to walk barefoot in the grass for a few minutes.  This'll straighten out your biomagnetic field.

We must be ever-vigilant.  One never knows what fiendish gizmo the Illuminati will come up with next.

Fidel

40% increased risk for heavy users, al-Qa'bong. What did the jokers have to say about that?

I think everyone should try to avoid bad cell phone hair days.

[url=Cellphones">http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/independent-study-concludes-cell-phones-c... DO cause brain tumors, says latest study[/url] Double the risk for heavy users

Quote:
According to the authors, “...it is time for governments to mandate precautionary measures to protect their citizens." They note that children are among the heaviest cell phone users, with over 3 million people seemingly at risk for brain tumors from cell phone microwave exposure.

Full Report to be published, Nov/Dec [url=http://journals.lww.com/jcat/pages/default.aspx]Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography[/url]

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That view is unsupported by the preponderence of evidence. 

Fidel

They said the same thing about tobacco and lead in paint and gasoline. Corporate science bought them years and years of quality denialism. And very many people suffered ill health as a result.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

IMHO, the concerns about cell towers/antennas are mostly NIMBY bullshit.   The concern is mostly because folks don't like "the look" of the things.  Folks will talk about the alleged health effects, but deep down it's just NIMBY "I don't like the look of cell towers".

If you know anything at all about radio communications, the higher the antenna, the better the signal gets out and the better the receive capability...and also the less likely it is that there's going to be any health effects.

Cell antenna transmitters are not pumping out the kind of rf power that for instance broadcast transmitters are.   Cell transmitters typically have an output power of 5 or 10 watts in an urban area...and they might be 60 watts in a rural area.   If you look at a typical big city broadcast transmitter, they're pumping out 50-100,00 watts so folks who work on these kinds of antennas need to be very careful.

If there's a concern about health risks, I'd be much more concerned about the handheld units.   They're putting out 750 milliwatts to a watt, but rather than being a hundred or two feet in the air, the handset is held an inch or two from your head.

Now, why do I think the folks who scream about the health effects of cell towers are full of shit?   Because they never talk about the cordless phone handsets that folks have in their homes.    These things also operate on microwave frequencies these days much like cellphones.  Instead, it's all about "the towers".

 

 

D V

Timebandit wrote:

 the preponderence of evidence. 

Industry (Injury) & sidekick Health (Death) Canada usually say "weight" of evidence. But the weight is that of indutsry-abettor $ generating the mass of studies. Underfunded/defunded independents from a sci. pt. of view alone should be more interesting, since they disproportionately show harmful effect. Who has a real interest in sabotaging a remarkable technology? It is obvious who has an interest in the opposite. When it comes to skewing, co-author of the paper mentioned above, Lai, long ago showed around 3/4 industry-connected showed no harm, 3/4 the other way for the others. That alone should set off alarm bells. Apparently in allied eserach the same proportions prevail. See esp. the seminal work of Sheldon Krimsky, Science in the Private Interest. Also David Michaels', Doubt is Their Product. Now Devra Davis', Disconnect. McGarrity & Wagner, Bending Science. Robert C. Kane, Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Donald Maisch, The Procrustean Approach. (last two online)

Fidel

And with some of us, it's talk now and ask questions later WRT cell phone and wifi safety. Why wifi? It's shitty tech anyway.

And why play spin the pistola with what could be a loaded gun and one that looks a lot like a cell phone? It makes no sense to me. Why play Russky roulette with your noodle? And what about your kid's noodle? My God that makes no sense.

Jingles

Cell towers kill [url=www.implosionworld/cbc1.htm]pilots[/url]

Quote:
On Sunday, April 22nd 2001, 38-year old Gilbert Paquette was killed when his single-engine Cessna 150 struck a 1,217-foot tall communications tower while flying in heavy fog over a remote region of upper Quebec Province.

They had to do a controlled demolition to get the plane and pilot's body down. 

Probably a proof-of-concept for 9/11.

Fidel

Ya whatever crazy George II and Dick Cheney says happened on 9/11 is good enough for you.

And the US Air Force' word on blue book is gold-plated, too. We know. Trust and obey, it's the only way.

D V

Jingles wrote:

Cell towers kill [url=www.implosionworld/cbc1.htm]pilots[/url]

Quote:
On Sunday, April 22nd 2001, 38-year old Gilbert Paquette was killed when his single-engine Cessna 150 struck a 1,217-foot tall communications tower while flying in heavy fog over a remote region of upper Quebec Province.

They had to do a controlled demolition to get the plane and pilot's body down. 

Probably a proof-of-concept for 9/11.

If the transmitter was off for a time, locals must have slept easier, for instance. An important Swiss study done in the 90s on FM transmission & effect on sleep led to their government's major reduction in allowable public exposures, clearly showing deleterious effect in sleep. Insomnia is now a mass phenomenon (as is Frey effect hearing), subsequent to mass rollout of latter day wireless mania with antennae everywhere, and continual sleep suppression diminishes immune function which leads to all kinds o' bad stuff. Toronto Public Health also in the 90s found this study & approach to be important enough to recommend (but sheepishly not try to enforce as they should have) their "prudent avoidance policy" 100x less (still way too high, though) than fed. Dept. o' "Health"  Code 6 .

As for Jingles'  other ref., there are important connexions as well. I take it from Fidel's remark that Jingles accepts the bogus story about boxcutter hijackers, the main means of identifying which were alleged cell phone calls made from doomed planes. Problem is, those calls were not possible to make at the time & at the altitudes. More proven lies , like about cell phone & infrastructure safety.

 

Jingles

Quote:
Insomnia is now a mass phenomenon

From the bizarre grab bag of symptoms you're throwing up here, it is clear that cell towers do have one demonstrable effect: it disrupts and destroys peoples' bullshit detectors. Do you have a source for that insomnia claim?

I see too that microwave radiation hasn't affected your ability to make ad hominem attacks or to attribute wildly inaccurate beliefs to those whom doubt your fantastical claims.

BTW, just to clarify something: most cellular frequencies are not in the microwave band. They are UHF. 

Also, wifi occupies the same frequency bands as cordless phones.

What I think is driving all this mass hysteria moral panic is the fact that in most peoples' limited understanding, radio transmission is akin to magic. I see no difference between the cellular panics or witchcraft accusations. In both cases, cause and effect are grossly misunderstood, and an easy, visible target is blamed. It is rather funny to see such and ancient practice carried on into the age of the iPhone.

D V

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
Insomnia is now a mass phenomenon

From the bizarre grab bag of symptoms you're throwing up here, it is clear that cell towers do have one demonstrable effect: it disrupts and destroys peoples' bullshit detectors. Do you have a source for that insomnia claim?

I see too that microwave radiation hasn't affected your ability to make ad hominem attacks or to attribute wildly inaccurate beliefs to those whom doubt your fantastical claims.

BTW, just to clarify something: most cellular frequencies are not in the microwave band. They are UHF. 

Also, wifi occupies the same frequency bands as cordless phones.

What I think is driving all this mass hysteria moral panic is the fact that in most peoples' limited understanding, radio transmission is akin to magic. I see no difference between the cellular panics or witchcraft accusations. In both cases, cause and effect are grossly misunderstood, and an easy, visible target is blamed. It is rather funny to see such and ancient practice carried on into the age of the iPhone.

This really does come up over & over by people who refuse to look into the masive dissenting sci. lit. or pay attention to umpteen anecdotes, the reference to witch trials & the like . What is so bizarre is that the persecution & orthodoxy is on the unexpected side of mattter, per defende of the killing status quo.

As for ad hominem, where was that committed? Again a preferred tactic of staus quo defenders is to call dissenting researchers 'quacks' or something similar, or to attribute mania to those pleading for public health sanity. As for what you attribute to me, I am not concerned, I just figured  it useful to comment about that allied delusion about the events back in '01, which ref. I didn't bringng up by the way.

 

Best to stick to the originating CBC story & better still a review of the review article -- where does it err?  Studies reviewd too "poor"? Ten how about more $ for better ones?  And why would WHO, apparently co-opted on this via IEMFP & ICNIRP (read Maisch), discourage cell mast studies? That smell good to you? And if studies too "poor", if you throw up the common orthodox and arbitrary charge of too small sample size or some such, you still have to contend with every decent look at the matter coming up spelling danger, for from general malaise to cancer counts. And what about the better still Brazilian & German studies I mention not included in Levitt & Lai?

Substance would be useful to participants & readers here, would it not?

Insomnia is maybe one of most common symptoms of RF exposure, I gave the example of FM. Melatonin suppression seems to be a focus for many. I don't know where you'd want to go on the insomnia issue. Here's a suggestion, fooling around with the swath of spectrum the atmosphere is not opaque to, what makes you confident that things with cells in their bodies are adapted or adaptable to that?  Too nebulous? Well, you mention 2.45 gHz stuff, have a look at the recent cardiac effects paper, http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Havas-HRV...

 

 

 

Jingles

There are people (and I was one) who work in close proximity to high energy radio frequencies. Perhaps a study of the health of these workers vis the general population would show a higher incidence of ill effects among the workers. Is there such a study? I'd like to blame HF radiation for male pattern baldness, but I have a feeling it's probably genetics.

For example, we know that coal miners suffer from black lung far more than people who use coal to heat their houses. So, people who work in the communications industries should suffer more from the effects of the exposure than the general population. Right? 

D V

E. Euro. research led the way, paying attention to how people said they felt, vs idiotic Western thermal effects only focus. Suffering occupational subjects were studied as the main ones of course exposed in earlier decades. A symposium in Warsaw in 1973 has much interesting material, one paper was put at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35452882/Sadcikova-Clinical-manifestations-of-... . From Canada itself, same year:

.................

from:

"Environmental Pollution by Microwave Radiation - A Potential Threat to Human Health" [my punctuation; '73]

Dept of Anatomy, Queen's U., Del Blanco, Romero-Sierra, Tanner authors (with fed. Dept. of Engineering)

21 pg pdf

"Recently 10 mW/cm^2 has been accepted in the USA as a safe level for a period of 0.1h.

The latter is a lower limit for thermal effects to take place and therefore does not take into account biolgical effects likely to occur at the non-thermal level. However, recent reports in the Russian literature describe harmful effects arising from MW radiation of low intensity on people living and working near radar installations. This confirms our own experimental findings in another area.

[...]

The status quo of safety levels established by different countries is an indication of the lack of knowledge of the extent of biological effects.

[...] standards have been established by assuming plane waves of linear polarization travelling in free-space reaching points of interest located in the far zone of the radiating element, and far from any disturbing component - including the biological specimen itself.

[...] standard environmental conditions [...] are postulated [...] no previous history of the biological system [...] assumed to be "normal".

These are indeed very strong assumptions that raise questions as to the validity of the nowadays commonly accepted standards of safe exposure.

[...]
[...]

Strong experimental evidence of biological effects produced at much lower MW levels forced Eastern countries to (where low-level studies were pioneered) lower those levels by a factor of 1000. [...] effects that appear during an irradiation time much shorter than the life span of the system under consideration. It is therefore possible (and almost certain) that lower level fields may induce biological effects in the long term.

[...] theories have appeared in recent years proposing mechanisms whereby low intensity MW fields can affect biological systems, particularly in regard to effects on the central nervous system [...].

[...]

The possibility of direct interaction between EM fields and a macroscopic system such as the human body may be significant.

[...] The interaction of an external MW field generated by a living system should also be considered. Little is known about the MW spectrum generated by living organisms.

[...]

Knowledge of weak ineraction is sparse because of the minute strength of these interactions. The tendency is to disregard them on the assumption that they are insignificant. However, biology provides an incredible number of cases that prove otherwise.

[...]
[...]a substantial increase in MW background activity is feared that may endanger human health. [...] present standards revised [...] long term effects [...] low intensity [...]In particular a study of possible accumulative effects [...]must be conducted."

.................

I probably won't have time to feed you more for a day or so. But I'd like some hair back, too.

Fidel

Jingles wrote:
There are people (and I was one) who work in close proximity to high energy radio frequencies.

So you're saying you've stood directly in the line of sight of a microwave communications dish for extended periods of time? I doubt it. That is, unless you're trying to explain to us how exactly you managed to blow your mind.

Jingles

If I'd fried my brain, I'd be claiming Jack Layton wants us out of Afghanistan.

Fidel

Ya don't ever stand in front of a rooftop microwave transmission dish or whip antennae while their in use. Because you'll re-sequence your DNA.

Buddy Kat

Jingles wrote:

There are people (and I was one) who work in close proximity to high energy radio frequencies. Perhaps a study of the health of these workers vis the general population would show a higher incidence of ill effects among the workers. Is there such a study? I'd like to blame HF radiation for male pattern baldness, but I have a feeling it's probably genetics.

For example, we know that coal miners suffer from black lung far more than people who use coal to heat their houses. So, people who work in the communications industries should suffer more from the effects of the exposure than the general population. Right? 

 

There have been studies as far back as the 50's that linked microwaves to all kinds of health problems ..the most common were cataracts and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who has never had cataract surgery who has worked around microwaves for extended periods of time......funny tho , if you try and locate those studies they are gone. Used to be in the public library ..now gone. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to find obscure copy's. Maybe not or perhaps the cell phone and government regulators did an old fashion nazi book burning behind our backs.

 

So check out those co workers and maybe even  livestock in the neighbourhood, ask farmers about cataracts in livestock..pets etc. Go and see an eye doctor...maybe even you have become a victim and will soon be under the vegamatic eye slicing machine.

 

I really think that for the general public to actually show concern..real instant proof has to be produced ...just like the parents parading there children in front of the tv camera's showing the effects that WIFI in schools is having on them. I applaud those parents for standing up for their children.

 

It's pretty hard to prove long term " anything" and what seems to be a motto operandi of government and their many supported polluting industry's like oil and gas is "If it kills you in the long run , it's ok" if it kills you instantly it's bad illegal etc. etc. I guess we can now add the cellphone industry to that list of government protected industry's that thrive on killing people for profit.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Jingles

Then I'd have superpowers.

But I'd only use those superpowers responsibly: for personal gain and evil.

Those whip antennas will fry you:

http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/occ_health/OHch15.pdf

VanGoghs Ear

The idea that people would always do what is in their own best interest unless tricked to do otherwise seems a common misunderstanding of human nature especially when it comes to our relationship with technology. 

polly bee

Buddy Kat wrote:

 

I really think that for the general public to actually show concern..real instant proof has to be produced ...just like the parents parading there children in front of the tv camera's showing the effects that WIFI in schools is having on them. I applaud those parents for standing up for their children.

That's how I felt too.  They believe that the wi-fi is potentially harmful to their kids, and they acted to remove the harm.  Good on them.  It's only wi-fi - not like they are taking away mathematics, or school lunches, or physical education.  Wi-fi in the school is mostly used for checking facebook between classes anyways.  I have read both of these threads, and all the linked info, and in the end I am not sure.  So not sure in fact, that I have disconnected the wi-fi in my house for the time.  There is a chance that this technology could be harmful to my kids (and everyone else) and I would much rather err on the side of caution.

I fail to see what's wrong with being cautious.

Jingles

Quote:
 I applaud those parents for standing up for their children.

Child services should be called in to protect these kids from stupid parents. 

Pages

Topic locked