Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks
There is a lot of paranoia surrounding cell towers s and possibly human health risks. What is important to understand is that radio frequency field intensity is related to the inverse of the distance squared. The exposure that you get from being in the vicinity of a cell tower is hundreds of times lower than the exposure you get using a cell phone.
The only exception to this might be in a situation were cell phone antennas are operated on top of a roof and people are allowed access to that roof top so you can get right up close to the antennas.
Some early studies of cell phone usage showed some adverse health effects, a slightly increased risk of brain tumors and cataracts among them. However, the largest and most recent study did not show any increased risk.
This isn't to discredit earlier studies however. The earliest cellular handsets operated at power levels up to four watts. Without any external input your brain normally produces about 12-25 watts of heat. An additional 4 watts is a significant heat load and it's not heat that is distributed evenly but rather concentrated near the antenna. So it is extremely likely that there were significant health risks with these phones.
The next generation cut that power to 1 watt maximum. Still enough for mild thermal effects and possibly some marginally increased risks.
The next generation after that which still operated at 900 Mhz had a maximum transmit level of about 250 milliwatts, a quarter of a watt. This is really approaching a power level where thermal effects are becoming insignificant. These phones only operate at maximum power if they are in a poor signal area.
The very latest generation operating at 1.8 GHz uses a maximum power of 100 milliwatts and will step down to as little as 1 milliwatt if the signal level is good. This is not enough to cause significant thermal heating and is safe.
The field strength you are subject to from cell towers is a small percentage of the field strength you are subject to using even one of these modern phones. They represent no threat.
For cell phone users, more towers reduces your exposure because your modern cell phone steps down it's power when the signal is strong. If you're a few hundred yards from a cell tower, that cell tower doesn't require that your phone transmit at a high power level for it to receive it. If you are several miles, then your phone must transmit at a higher, but still safe, power level.
The only exception to this might be in a situation were cell phone antennas are operated on top of a roof and people are allowed access to that roof top so you can get right up close to the antennas.
Some early studies of cell phone usage showed some adverse health effects, a slightly increased risk of brain tumors and cataracts among them. However, the largest and most recent study did not show any increased risk.
This isn't to discredit earlier studies however. The earliest cellular handsets operated at power levels up to four watts. Without any external input your brain normally produces about 12-25 watts of heat. An additional 4 watts is a significant heat load and it's not heat that is distributed evenly but rather concentrated near the antenna. So it is extremely likely that there were significant health risks with these phones.
The next generation cut that power to 1 watt maximum. Still enough for mild thermal effects and possibly some marginally increased risks.
The next generation after that which still operated at 900 Mhz had a maximum transmit level of about 250 milliwatts, a quarter of a watt. This is really approaching a power level where thermal effects are becoming insignificant. These phones only operate at maximum power if they are in a poor signal area.
The very latest generation operating at 1.8 GHz uses a maximum power of 100 milliwatts and will step down to as little as 1 milliwatt if the signal level is good. This is not enough to cause significant thermal heating and is safe.
The field strength you are subject to from cell towers is a small percentage of the field strength you are subject to using even one of these modern phones. They represent no threat.
For cell phone users, more towers reduces your exposure because your modern cell phone steps down it's power when the signal is strong. If you're a few hundred yards from a cell tower, that cell tower doesn't require that your phone transmit at a high power level for it to receive it. If you are several miles, then your phone must transmit at a higher, but still safe, power level.
posted by Nanook at 12:15 PM
23 Comments:
Hello, I live below 4 cell phone towers in New York City, and have a terrace of which they are above me. Is there a way to get a RF reading done, without buying one for 800 dollars? Should I contact the cell phone company?
If you are further than 25-30 feet away from the cell towers then the radiation you are receiving is less than what you are going to get from your cell phone.
Further, the antennas are going to radiate primarily in the horizontal plane, relatively weak lobes up and down, so you're not going to get much if you're significantly below them.
Other than paying for an expensive meter I don't know how you would get readings done. I suppose you could enlist the aid of an engineering firm but I'll lay odds that will be far more expensive.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Those towers typically will operate with a power of around 35 watts. When you compare that with the power of a UHF television station or a high power radar station which may operate with millions of watts, it's nothing.
If you are still concerned you could wrap yourself up with aluminum foil, or get a basement apartment where most of the incident radiation will be blocked by earth.
Seriously though, I don't think there is any cause for concern.
Cell phones CAN CAUSE brain tumors over long-term useage...
..does your EAR tell you that??
If you are talking 1980s era cell phones which operated at power levels of several watts next to your skull, then I would agree. There you have significant THERMAL effects heating tissues considerably above their normal temperatures for extended periods of time, of coarse THAT will cause tumors.
However, most modern cell phones have power levels of a maximum of 100 milliwatt, 1/10th of a watt, not enough power to cause measurable thermal heating. There is no statistical cancer link at these power levels and there is no reason to believe there would be one.
So if you've got a 1985 brick, then, yes, go trade that puppy in now.
With respect to the towers, because the RF field strength falls off rapidly as you distance yourself from the source, the energy you are going to intercept from a cell tower is far less than what you will from a telephone even though they operate at significantly higher total power levels, because the telephone is millimeters from your ear and the towers tens or hundreds of meters. The only possible exception being if you have a cell site on your building roof and you get up on the roof. Then you may be exposed to fields that are potentially dangerous, particularly if you are exposed over time.
There are known non-thermal cancer ties to low frequency (60 Hz) power, particularly, those frequencies cause ions to spiral as they go through ion channels in cell walls and this impedes their transfer and has been implicated in cancers.
But at cell frequencies, 900 Mhz, 1.8 Ghz, 2.5 Ghz, at these frequencies issues are only really known at thermal levels. If you can find any credible research to the contrary I'd be interested in a reference but I haven't found any.
Hi, this is Lohan. I happen to live in India currently, and recently I heard that cell phone companies here use 7620 microwatt/m2 in their towers while the allowed level is just 600 microwatt/m2. I have no clue about this, and would like to know your openion. By the way, I stay about 50 meters away from the closest tower. Thanks.
I am not familiar with India's radio regulations. I had a first class radio telephone license here in the United States but the laws and regulations are different.
However, a field of 7620 microwatts per square meter is still just 7mw. The human brain dissipates between 25 watts and 100 watts of energy depending on how busy it is, what it is doing. 7mw is not enough to cause even very localized significant temperature differences.
There is no known mechanism for microwave induced carcinogenic effects below thermal levels.
Unless you're very close to a cell tower, as in standing right in front of the antenna, you are not going to intercept enough energy to have thermal effects.
If you are 30 feet away, the power that you'd receive from a cell phone held to your ear is far greater than that from the cell tower even though the cell tower operates at far higher power because field strength drops off rapidly with distance from the radiating antenna.
Cell towers were never a hazard, telephones that posed a significant threat are the 1980's vintage 5-watt, 3-watt, and maybe to a mild extent 1-watt units. Todays 250mw and 100mw units do not have enough power to produce significant thermal effects even held up to your head.
If you have a building and you have cell antennas on the roof, then I would be concerned about spending time on the roof in close proximity to those antennas. That's about the only situation where the radio frequency field strength is going to pose a threat to human health.
At lower frequencies you have some entirely different issues. At 60 Hz power line frequencies there is an effect where the AC magnetic field causes ions to swirl as they go through ion channels in cell walls reducing the efficiency of ion transport. This particular mechanism is associated with cancers at below thermal power levels, most commonly with leukemia and lymphoma.
As you go higher in frequency the effect on ion transport decreases and by the time you've even reached medium wave frequencies it is not significant. It is only barely significant at power line frequencies.
Old statistical data, when 3 and 5 watt hand-held units were common, did show some correlation with brain tumors but modern statistical data, even some very large studies involving half a million subscribers, do not, at least none that I am aware of. If anyone knows of any modern large scale studies that do I'd be interested in the specifics.
Just a minor correction, when I said, "only situation where the radio frequency field strength is going to pose a threat to human health", I was referring specifically to cell phones.
There are to be sure other situations that I do find troubling, specifically UHF television transmissions using power levels in the megawatts, there, if you're close, you've got power levels about that which can cause thermal effects, VHF and FM transmitters at 100KW, you'd need to be very close, but still there is concern for thermal effects.
Military applications, the military operates multi-megawatt radar systems, I'd be worried about effects from those if I lived near such an installation.
HAARP, transmits gigawatts of energy into the ionosphere in the high frequency range, but they intentionally beat two high frequency signals together (mixing occurs in the non-linear ionosphere) to get a low frequency (audio) signal that can penetrate the earth to be able to see below earth structures.
The frequencies they use are in the sub-audio and low audio range. Those have significant potential to induce cancers. In addition, those in the human brain wave region are a threat to mental health. It is known that the human brain will entrain to external magnetic fields of sufficient strength. This could cause various mood changes, excitability and irritability, or sleepiness and lethargy.
There is much speculation that HAARP is in fact intended to do this, but being a government military project, real information is unobtainable. What is obtainable makes it all sound rather innocent and harmless, but there is no way the kind of resources would be poured into such a project without more significant applications than those publically acknowledged.
Hmm.... that's a whole pack of information. Gonna take some time for me to digest :) A million thanks Nanook.
I have just moved into an apartment building and found out from a neighbor that wireless company is putting tower on the roof of my new apartment. The building has 3 floors and I live on 2nd floor. My apartment is not directly below antenna but about 60feet (20 meters) to the side. Should I worry about it, also is there some kind of insulation they should put below it to reduce radiation. Another thing is that I have not seen any work permits or licenses, and they are still working there. I am wandering if they even have license to do it.
I (my organism) always don't likes any long exposeds to RF emitters (gms tower and phones, wi-fi lan) -i have malaise....
Madnes or oversensitisation?
Did you test rf meter nearby (300-1500m) cell tower?
Did you read Benevento Resolution? http://www.icems.eu/docs/BeneventoResolution.pdf
I live on rustic area and gsm company want to build cell tower in the centre of village ...
Community say NO! But still no effect. Priority: gsm company! Possible risk is meaninglessly! :(
where is precaution?
Dirty game!
I find this page today:
Safe?Risk?
http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/CellTowers/CellTowers.htm
sorry form my eng.
Pawel/.pl
Pawel: Your English is adequate for me to understand what you are saying.
I really would like to see a double-blind study that takes people who, like yourself, believe themselves to be sensitive, and determine if they really are. In other words, separate the physical effects from the psychological effects.
If you didn't know there was a tower there would you still be sensitive? I'm sure that you would assert that you would, but in reality I don't know. It's not something I can totally dismiss but at the same time the field intensity of a cell tower is going to be less than a cell phone you or someone near to you is using because of the rate that signals fall off with distance unless you happen to be on a roof standing right next to the antenna.
There are signals in our environment that are so much stronger as well. A cell tower might operate at around 30 watts or so per antenna. UHF television stations operate with multiple megawatts of power (a megawatt is a million watts), radar installations might have peak power well above the megawatt level, wireless subscription tv services operate at somewhat higher power levels (several hundred watts).
So if one really was sensitive to these frequencies, I would expect to be swamped by all these other sources. But I do believe there are sensitivities that are hard to explain scientifically.
I used to live within a couple of blocks away from a 100kw FM station and a 40Kw FM station. Next door to the stations, the signals at ground level were so high you could unplug Christmas lights and they'd glow at about half brilliance. I had a friend that lived next door, and another friend who ran a television repair shop on the other side. He had free security lighting because when you turned the power off, the fluorescent lights would glow about half brightness.
With all that RF floating about, I didn't notice any real negative effects, but I did notice that I'd think of a song, turn on the radio, and it would be playing, almost as if on a subconscious level I could somehow detect the modulation.
We used to take a 7 watt Christmas lamp and hook a loop of wire to it and walk around showing people how we could light up a Christmas light with nothing more than a wire, no battery, no cord, and we could do it indefinitely.
Anyway, I'd sure like to see a study of folks like yourself to see if that sensitivity really could be scientifically detected.
Don't trust Nanook. Use your common sense.
Check this site out:
http://members.aol.com/gotemf2/BC/ridge/#death
If only sense were common. Your post demonstrates that it is not. The fact that people are upset about antennas doesn't make them a health hazard, except in as much as stress hormones associated with worrying about them do.
Rather than trusting me, or trusting common sense, the more sensible thing to do is actually educate yourself. That means, actually learn the science, learn how RF fields propagate and how signal levels relate to power levels and distance. Learn about the direction characteristics of cell tower antennas. Once you actually educate yourself you'll learn that people who are espousing common sense are actually possessed of something far more common than sense, paranoia.
Tmobile plans on placing a 150ft monopole cell tower about 15-25ft from my backyard where my children play for hours at a time. My bedroom is about 50ft from this pole. Is this dangerous for us? If not why? How do you know so much about rf's? If this is not dangerous why are so many cities passing laws to keep these off of their property around the children?
Thanks
some research about it and found conflicting reports. I graduated from Law School and during my studies I learned that we cannot trust regulators as politicians receive a lot of money from corporations to pass the laws. One view of our government is that corporations in the fear of lawsuits will not put anything dangerous on the market. I live right below the cell phone tower, in the beginning I worried about it and researched it. After I read about it I found out facts and I feel OK living under it. There are more dangerous places such as right by high voltage power lines, airports radars, etc. I guess if I had kids I would worry more. I would look for RF meter and checked the radiation before and after installation. Also, if you are organized community I would file the lawsuit against installer, cell phone company and everyone involved in building it to pay for the measurements. I remember some kind of lawsuit in which the holding was that corporation must take fear of the community in to the account even if the fear might not be scientifically supported. I doubt that they will stop work, but they might pay for measurements.
Trust me when I say I don't trust regulators. If you've read much of this blog that should be obvious.
Of coarse measuring is the only way to determine exactly the field from a cell tower at any given location, but calculations give good approximations and at distances greater than 30 feet or so you're dealing with levels orders of magnitude less than a hand-held cell phone held to your head.
So precision isn't really required. The studies regarding cell phones held right against your head are inconclusive on the whole. Some that I've seen show an increase in tumors 2x that of non-cell phone users, others show no significant difference. Those that show large increases tend to be older studies when cell phones were higher powered.
If you are a cell phone user, you're better off being near a tower because then your cell phone, which is going to be the majority of your radiation exposure, will transmit at much lower power.
I am sufficiently uncomfortable with cell phone exposure that I minimize the use of mine, however, I am not troubled by the existence of a tower a few hundred feet away.
60 Hz high voltage power transmission line radiation, that's something I am concerned about. The high power lines should be converted to DC transmission, it eliminates radiation, improves efficiency, eliminates susceptibility to space weather and cascading failures, and improves capacity using the same wires and insulators.
nanook seems to be working for the cellphone companies. Do they pay you for misleading people on this forum.YOu want medical research studies and evidence: HERE!
http://www.bioinitiative.org
http://www.brain-surgery.us
http://cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/2006/12/21/cancer-fears-and-cell-masts/
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1440
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027699/index.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687491.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/heavy-use-of-mobile-phones-can-lead-to-fertility-problems-in-men-421362.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/browse_thread/thread/209e00af0cfe991f
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html
http://www.topnews.in/health/mobile-phones-risky-kids-says-researchers-23182
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkeMLOIAEKU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up4EiRZ8IC8
www.ellectropollution.com
www.emfnews.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VDBxo_eMhA&feature=related
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/49330/Suicides-linked-to-phone-masts-
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/243721.html
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger right?
I don't, nor have I ever, worked for a cell phone company.
I have worked 17 years for a normal land-line telephone company and I also have had a 1st class radio telephone license and worked in broadcast engineering where power levels 100,000 times those of cellular phone towers are used, and you are being immersed in that radiation but instead of being concerned with that you worry about something with 1/100000th the power.
This is not rational on your part.
But let's look at some of your references. The very first one you give, bioinitive.org says this:
"The overall epidemiologic evidence suggests that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma. For longer use, data are sparse, since only some recent studies have reasonably large numbers of long-term users. Any conclusion therefore is uncertain and tentative. From the available data, however, it does appear that there is no increased risk for brain tumours in long-term users, with the exception of acoustic neuroma for which there is limited evidence of a weak association."
And this is just said of phones, which are a far greater than hazards due to the inverse square distance law; the fields a user is subjected to from the phone is far greater than the towers.
And this has been my position, there is possibly some hazards associated with the phone although as your own source points out this is extremely weak and tenuous at best.
I do agree with what bioinitiative.org has to say about low frequency (power line) and RF radiation standards, I do believe low frequency 50hz and 60hz fields are unhealthy and in addition that radiation represents wasted energy. Switching to DC power transmission would eliminate that radiation and we'd got approximately 15% more power for essentially free by just eliminating the losses.
I also agree with bioinitiative.org's argument that RF field exposure limits need examination, two areas that I believe are particularly in need of examination are the broadcast industry, (where unlike the cellular telephone industry, I have worked), where millions of watts are used in UHF TV transmitters that are very near cellular frequency, AND those higher UHF channels are very near cellular frequencies but operating at 100,000 times the power, and with modulation schemes that involve among other things a 60 Hz component. These transmissions, I would absolutely argue are harmful.
Another area that I think needs attention is high powered radar, some of the military radars operate at tens of megawatts, or a million times that of cell phone towers. These are real concerns that rational people who actually take the time to learn the science should be concerned about, and the folks at bioinitative.org are. Since you are citing them as a source, you should at least read their material.
The good news on the broadcast industry is that the digital formats used for television and radio operate at power levels far lower than their analog counterparts and in the case of television, that 60hz component is lost in the digital transmission. This is important because any electrically non-linear item can demodulate an AM transmission (which the video component of analog TV is), and many aspects of the human body are non-linear and in my opinion there is adequate proof that both 60 Hz fields are harmful and UHF signals that are at or above thermal levels are harmful and a 5 megawatt UHF television transmitter is definitely above thermal levels.
Your second reference, http://www.brain-surgery.us, perhaps you can provide a more specific URL, I've looked at the domain, I see no reference to RF, cell phones, or cell phone towers. Let alone any studies.
http://cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/2006/12/21/cancer-fears-and-cell-masts/
Now this a good example of paranoia. Six people on an apartment flat get cancer in a ten year period, after cell towers were installed.
This doesn't constitute a study at all and what the paranoid writer implies is completely contradicted by the actual study information provided by your first reference.
But again, it's by paranoid people that don't understand the science.
Among other things, cell phone antennas are highly directional in the vertical plane and send a signal straight out, very little radiation emerges significantly off of 90 degrees from vertical, thus people UNDER these antennas aren't subject to significant radiation from them.
A scenario where you could get exposure is where let's say you have a fifteen story building right next to a thirty story building and there are cell phones on the roof of the fifteen story building and they for some reason put the antennas right on the edge of the roof next to the thirty story building.
Now, you've got an apartment on the thirty story buildings 17th floor, which just happens to be exactly parallel with the roof of the 15 story building, and your apartment balcony is closer than 30 feet from antenna tower.
Now that would place you in a situation where you would be receiving radiation stronger than a cell phone emits (if you are within 30 feet and at the same height as the antenna) and given that there is tenuous evidence that the cell phones are actually harmful then you would have a scientifically valid reason to be concerned about cell tower radiation. But not in the situation described in this paranoid article by a another blogger which is in no way a study. All this is is a statistical anomaly, and not even a very significant one when you consider than about half the human population will develop a cancer in their lifetime and this is an entire apartment flat over a ten year period.
It also says absolutely nothing about the age of the people involved or other environmental factors, but the RF factor isn't significant just based upon the design of cellular antennas.
Your forth reference, http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1440, developed a case of breast cancer and decided it must be caused by the cell company even though this contradicts the actual studies cited in your first reference which showed NO correlation between human tumors with the exception of a tenuous link to one involving auditory nerves, and cell phones, let alone towers.
This person further goes on to state that 77 percent of the 15 closest households experienced some major health issues but did not define major or what those issues were, and further that when the towers were removed they had a renewed sense of wellness, which frankly if you have some idiot in your neighborhood that has you convinced that you're going to get cancer from them, of coarse you'd have a renewed sense of wellness. It's purely psychological but yes, you'd feel better if you believed that.
And then what also is ignored, but stated in the article, is that she had a "successful photography business", do you know how carcinogenic chemicals used in photographic film development and printing are?
You're fifth source, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027699/index.html, again more anecdotal evidence, no study involved, and frankly if you understand statistics and cancer risks you wouldn't be surprised even if the tower weren't present.
Your sixth source, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687491.ece, not a study but simply an article about how a phone company gave in to paranoia and removed the tower.
Your seventh source, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/heavy-use-of-mobile-phones-can-lead-to-fertility-problems-in-men-421362.html, suggests a relationship between cell phones and male fertility issues.
I'll start by volunteering the fact that I have four children.
Now, this is also not a controlled study; this isn't a study of a random population that determines if cell phone usage is associated with cell phones, it's a study of people who already have fertility issues relating those to phone usage. It doesn't mention that things like stress also cause these issues and that someone who spends more than four hours a day on a cell phone might potentially be under more than the normal amount of stress?
And again, it's talking about cell phones not cell towers.
And then your eight reference, the most humorous of all since I happen to know a bit about this particular issue. This article at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html suggests that cell towers are responsible for colony collapse disorder in bees.
The article itself contains old information suggesting 70 percent of commercial bees are missing on the east coast.
That was true two years ago but isn't today.
The mystery of colony collapse disorder has been resolved. First, it almost exclusively affects commercial bees being hauled around from site to site for pollination and has very little effect on native bee populations. The commercial bees are stressed more than the natural population.
But, the cause of colony collapse has been determined to be a fungus that eats at the bees gut and they starve to death. Further, the bees on the east coast have already genetically adapted to this fungus and their populations have returned in spite of the fact that the cellular towers are still there and this problem has now moved to the west coast where the bees have not yet adapted to this fungus, but we know from experience it took about two years for them to adapt on the east coast so they will likely do the same here. So this article is just totally off-base.
Your ninth reference, almost sounds like a study, until I looked at in detail, http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/browse_thread/thread/209e00af0cfe991f. First off the "possible new link" they mentioned involves power levels of 2 watts / kg. Modern cell phones operate at 100mw max, some models 250mw max, so these power levels never are reached, even at maximum power, which unless you're very far from a tower they won't be at, but there is an argument for more towers instead of less. Again, no mention of towers just phones, and all speculative no actual study. But then it gets even better, I look at where that was originally sourced from, Business India Wire; and I invite everyone to go Googling and find other articles from that source and decide for yourself how credible it is.
Your tenth source, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html, again no study, just paranoid speculation. Since tumors can take more than a decade to develop, studies that haven't found cell phones cause cancer must be flawed. Um yea, if you can't prove over a ten year period that they cause cancer then you just haven't waited long enough.
Your 11th source, http://www.topnews.in/health/mobile-phones-risky-kids-says-researchers-23182, still more speculation. The speculation being that children's brains are more susceptible to radiation and therefore, even though we have no actual evidence that cell phones cause cancer, children should be banned from using them. Even in that speculation, no reference to towers only to the phones themselves.
Your 12th source, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkeMLOIAEKU&feature=related, no real information except the tragic tail of a 7 year old who developed cancer and there is speculation that cell phones, other electrical devices, or power lines may be involved, and then a doctor siting anonymous studies that show a 40% increase in brain tumors across the board, but absolutely nothing that specifically implicates cell phones or towers. Yes, radiation levels on the whole are up, and cell phones and cell towers account for a very small percentage of that, and yes again I agree with the bioinitiative.org's premise that EMF exposure limits need to be looked at, and I am absolutely convinced that AC power transmission, the 50Hz and 60Hz magnetic fields ARE dangerous, and actually I believe the 50Hz to be slightly more dangerous (and in general as you go lower in frequency even more so) because these frequencies cause issues with ion transport through cell wall membranes by causing the ions to spiral through the ion channels. This disrupts normal biological activity in the cell, but this is a power line frequency issue.
I am also convinced that the power levels of OLD cell phones were definitely hazardous, especially the 5 watt and 3 watt models. There is much less of a case to be made for newer 250mw and 100mw (1/4 watt and 1/10th watt respectively) models.
And herein lies a problem with the issue of cell phone safety. Studies that don't go back more than ten years are not seeing a correspondence between cell phone use and cancer; those that go back more than ten years are dealing with old high powered technology that was sufficiently high power to have thermal effect and there is no question in my mind that those were dangerous. But again, because of the way RF fields fall off, the inverse square law (or in free space with no gain it would be inverse cube, in the real world it's actually somewhere between those two extremes because of reflections), cell tower radiation is far less than what a cell phone user gets from the phone.
Your 13th source, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up4EiRZ8IC8, a guy trying to cell stupid gimmicks that purport to protect you from cell phones.
First, if you actually listen to this and don't have a brain tumor already, you will know it's so much BS, no studies, and a lot of totally bogus claims.
Your thirteenth source http://www.electropollution.org/ sites "the Globe", and hell if you can't believe the Globe who can you believe. Again only relating to cell phones and not cell towers but even the claims made about cell phones are patently absurd and disproven by actual studies referenced in your first source.
Your 14th reference, http://www.emfnews.com/, since he's convinced that cellphones are a hazard it must be so, but even better, he sells "RF Headsets" to protect you from the danger.
Hey, better and cheaper, go to the grocery store and by some Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil. Wrap your head in it and preferably everything above the neck and you should be protected.
Your 16th source and 14th source are different URL's to the same video information.
Your 17th source, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/49330/Suicides-linked-to-phone-masts-, no study just anecdotal evidence, we found 22 people who committed suicide that were closer than average to cell towers. Never mind the 10,000 more that were average or farther than average.
It also suggests that higher speed data involves higher power levels and not really the case. Actually the trend is the opposite.
Your last source, http://www.indianexpress.com/story/243721.html, they've developed a protocol to study but haven't yet.
So you've provided 18 references, only ONE references a specific traceable study, none of them ARE actual studies, and it agrees with my position.
Those of you who feel highly emotional about this topic, don't believe me, but also don't go to whack sources and believe them. Take some time to learn the science. Study how RF fields decrease with distance, study possible biological effects at what power levels and frequencies they occur, because you're not going to believe me, and allowing our policies to be dictated by the paranoids will also be harmful to society.
The best thing you can do is actually educate yourself.
That said; I maintain my position that, with the exception of the scenario I outlined here, the cell towers aren't a risk, cell phones MIGHT be but again everything I can find suggestive to that is more than ten years old involving higher power levels.
I would be interested in any controlled double-blind studies showing cell phones (or towers) to be hazardous.
Please though real studies, not wacko speculation or anecdotal evidence or evidence that is more than ten years old when power levels are as much as 50x higher than with modern phones.
I do not believe cell towers will show up as a risk in any controlled double blind study; I think there is potential for that with cell phone but I think it is low.
now i am certain nanook is a paid debunker. paid by the cell company mafia. This is standard operating procedure. All public forums are infiltrated with paid debunkers like nanook. Just imagine the time and effort you have put into painstakingly debunking the information put forth by me.
My second reference www.brain-surgery.us is a paper presented by a reputed neurosurgeon from the Australian National University.He has won many awards for his work.
All the other references that you cite as paranoia on my part are actually real news. News that deserves attention and calls for caution at the very least.
What do you want as evidence ? A brain tumour in your family before you will agree to the ill effects of microwave radiation on human tissue.
Also check out Dr George Carlos site www.safewireless.org. Dr carlos was hired by the telecom mafia in the US to study the effects of radiation oh human health in 1993. What he found was so startling that the telecom mafia tried to suppress his findings in that report. Dr Carlos quit and founded the wireless initiative.
Listen to his audio interview (10th interview under audio) on the resources page and watch the videos. get hold of a documentary "Cell Phone Wars" EDUCATE YOURSELF - like you say.
Also google "RF mind control patents" and you may get an idea as to why those 22 kids committed suicide.
Any technology that kills more people than it saves is worthless.
Any civilization that is far too clever to survive without wisdom will in all probability perish.
If I were a paid debunker, paid or otherwise, why would I have left your original post or all of your material up?
I left it up so everyone could go look at it themselves. Not a single study amongst them and only ONE of all your sources referenced studies, and it doesn't support your position.
Why don't you take the time to get a little education instead of just regurgitating other peoples paranoia?
It was difficult to find a site that rationally approached this situation with scientific data rather than anecdotal evidence. Thanks for taking the time to provide this information
For those of us not mathematically inclined, can you give an example of how intensity of the signal of a cell phone near your head compares with a cell tower, say 300 feet away? It would be helpful to see the actual computation. And how does this compare with safety standards for exposure?
Again, thanks for taking the time to provide this information.
Well, I can sense microwaves from cell towers and wireless internet. I realize not everyone can, but if you look at, say, skin sensitivity to the sun it is easy to realize we do not all have the same sensitivities. I for one can sit out in the sun for hours and not get burned, but I do not turn around and tell people who get burned quickly that it is all in their minds.
I live about 200 feet from cell antennas on a two story building. The level in my yard was .03microwatts/CM², when I had the levels checked. This was with the meter setting in the narrow frequency band setting for cell towers.
If I am in my yard my head gets a feeling of pressure. If I stay out longer than 15 minutes I get heating. WiFi causes heating in my head as well. I find that my sensitivity is linked to my exposure. The more direct exposure I get to the cell tower, the more sensitized I become so my strategy is to avoid the direct line of sight and, while aluminum foil does offer shielding properties it would be rather hot to wear in the summer. I could see sewing it into a hat for the winter. I have a silver/nylon mesh scarf that I wear for the very limited time that I spend in my yard. I also wear it at night while I am sleeping. It is my understanding than in addition to causing the polarity to twist in cells in our bodies and thereby interfering with all cellular functions, the microwaves are interpreted as light by our pineal glands and interfere with its function.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home