Cell towers kill

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.

'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... .

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.

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

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)

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 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 [i]not[/i] 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 [s]hysteria[/s] 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...

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.