Do cell phone tower cause cancer?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019

Tel Aviv University asserts that cell phone tower radiation significantly increase cancer risk.I found this paper on Google Scholar,a great resource. I searched ''cell phone radiation and cancer''.Up popped this paper.http://www.mreengenharia.com.br/pdf/Netanya_Israel.pdf

I am researching 5g  radiation at the mo.Dr Devra Davis on You Tube  has several lectures on radio frequency radiation.

23
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Short answer - no.

5
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Longer answer. 

If you search the internet you can find a paper showing any chosen thing causes cancer. There is a lot of crap out there.

We have done the experiment. We have filled this country with mobile masts. There is no data to show an increase in cancer near the masts we have. Even a tiny effect would show up.

3
 plyometrics 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Not sure about that, but there is some research that suggests if you unscrew your belly button, your bottom falls off. 

Scary shit. 

1
In reply to paul mitchell:

Yes, line the walls of your home with aluminium foil. 

The brain is particularly sensitive to this radiation. A skull cap built from similar material will provide protection. 

Anyone know if I can get my childhood vaccinations undone? 

2
 Reach>Talent 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Tinfoil hats are actually an illuminati conspiracy to help increase the effectiveness of the lizard people's mind control beams! 

http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahim...

 freeflyer 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Nonono. Tinfoil hats only protect you against alien brainwaves, but good suggestion re wall lining. For cellphones, you need the magic crystal which you attach to the middle of the hat; it focusses the radiation and sends it out to blast the incoming armadas. I happen to have a large number of tested crystals of varying power available on my website crystalblox.com 

1
In reply to Reach>Talent:

Wow, it all makes sense now. 

OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019

Doctor Davis seems to know a bit more than you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...

17
 Yanis Nayu 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I know PHE (or the HPA as I think they were then known) looked for links maybe 15 years ago and found none. 

 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Dr Davis seems to spout a load of crap according to these guys:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-phone-fears-and-...

 Joez 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

The ScienceVs Podcast just did an episode on 5G. 20 minutes ish. I'd reccomend giving it a listen

Edit: here's a link https://traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT8053346013.mp3?updated=1572566038

Post edited at 17:13
 kevin stephens 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I would have thought that if there is a danger it would be much worse from holding a phone next to your head in a weak signal area (phone automatically goes to full power) than from being a respectable difference from a mast

1
In reply to paul mitchell:

Ah, YouTube: home of the finest peer-reviewed research.

 Tom Valentine 16 Nov 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

That's an area which is getting proper attention, as I understand it. Nevertheless I'm surprised at the level of flippancy this thread has provoked.

6
 john arran 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> That's an area which is getting proper attention, as I understand it. Nevertheless I'm surprised at the level of flippancy this thread has provoked.

Proper attention is good. A solitary study from 23 years ago based on 8 observed cases is rather less convincing.

 DancingOnRock 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Radio waves below visible light are non ionising. They cannot cause damage on a cellular/DNA level. Every time you go outside you are bombarded with radio waves from the sun. They don’t harm you. At the very high frequencies above visible light Ultra Violet can cause harm but not through your clothes. 
 

The worst that can happen from high power microwaves is that they’ll cook you, but they cannot cause cancer. 

Post edited at 18:05
2
 Jim Fraser 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

NON-IONISING
We divide electromagnetic radiation up into ionising and non-ionising. Ionising is the dodgy stuff up at frequencies beyond visible light. Stuff like x-rays and gamma rays and, more routinely in ordinary human existence, the UV that gives you skin cancer. The radio frequency spectrum is in the non-ionising range. In very intense examples, it causes heating (microwave oven) and even burning. So in intense examples, the risk level rises to a similar level to that of having a hot tap and a kettle in your house.

POWER LEVELS
So I am sitting in my living room and the Vodafone 4G (Band 20, 800MHz) is three bars out of four and -90dBm from a mast 440m away. -90dBm is 1 picoWatt (10 to the power -12 of a Watt) or a millionth of a microWatt. Three other 4G masts near me are detected at about a tenth of that and another eight 2G signals at similar levels and some 3G.

So lots of mobile phone RF but it only amounts to a few picoWatts at an urban location within a few hundred metres of several masts. What else is there?

My wifi is reaching the living room armchair with 1000 times more power on each of two channels than my good Vodafone mobile signal. Next door's wifi too and half the street's wifi is reaching in here with more power than Vodafone 4G.

Mobile phone masts can often output 100W or 200W but TV masts across the UK output up to 200kW for main centres, 20kW for regional masts, but of course much smaller for your relay in the local valley. 

Adding up all the TV and wifi, though it varies greatly across the country, can add up to a hell of lot more RF radiation than mobile phone systems. 

PROPAGATION LEVELS & PATTERNS
Huge numbers of people have campaigned about the location of mobile phone masts across the last three decades. Here are a few examples.

The community in a long and sparsely populated glen objected to a mobile mast being constructed there 20 years ago and still they have no signal. Now that mobile signal is part of essential national infrastructure, their prosperity and safety is under threat. Volunteer agencies and local authority services find it difficult to callout volunteers or organise services. There is an Airwave mast there and fortunately emergency services can use that during emergencies. The Airwave mast is licensed for a power output that exceeds what the mobile mast would have had but of course even though Airwave is the same kind of technology it is not labelled "mobile phone" and so is acceptable.

There are countless cases of successful objections to councils making money from having masts on top of council buildings including schools. Much of this occurred when most masts used simple vertically-polarised antennae. The safest place to be in relation to a vertically polarised antennae is underneath it where the propagation is at a minimum. Now all these masts are across the street from schools and beaming maximum radiation into classrooms so that the little darlings have enough signal to use whatsapp during classes.

RADAR OPERATOR ILLNESSES
There is some information out there about cold war radar operators dying of cancer. These are guys who were operating fairly primitive and sometimes experimental systems where the electronic devices used to generate high-powered radio waves emitted spurious x-rays. It remains difficult to assign these cases to a cause of RF exposure. 

CONCLUSION
I am happy that there is no international conspiracy to cook the plebs and fry our brains and give us cancer. If there were such a conspiracy then the rich people would soon stop it before it reduced the number of potential customers and people who could clean their toilet, supply their cocaine, and take away their voluminous rubbish. 

I do think that the number transmitters pumping out RF in developed countries is a little excessive. Once 2G is switched off in the UK during the next decade and all mobile calls are on 3G, there will be a bit of a reduction but that will be balanced by the 5G rollout. The absence of native call and message capability in the 4G and 5G standards is probably a mistake.

Post edited at 18:18
2
 patrick_b 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

More recent, home-grown conclusions:

https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3077.full#REF1

 wercat 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

if there is a risk from exposure (and I would tend to caution) I'm pretty sure that more people would be receiving a higher intensity of exposure per square cm from using their own phone than from a mast - (inverse square law - intensity reduces with the square of the distance from the source)

Of course there could be some ridiculous decision to put a mast over someone's living room with a plywood ceiling in which some few cases could be an exception.

Don't forget the idea of tinfoil hats is, ahem, "grounded", ahem, in science and engineering principles - The Faraday Cage.

1
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

This is an area in which my peers and I have provided a decent amount of anecdotal data.

Over 25 years ago now One2one introduced their free calls after 7pm deal. Within a year mobile phones went from being the preserve of yuppies and drug dealers to everyone I knew having one. Back then we had four TV channels, we'd never heard of the internet and I didn't even have text messaging. What did we do of an evening? We spent literally hours every night with a mobile phone stuck to our ear chatting to our mates. We'd heard the scare stories about the cancer risks, but we dismissed them. Fast forward to today, and how many of us have suffered a cancer in the brain or head? Not one. Not just me and my mates, but in the whole population. There is no evidence of an increase in cancers among this group. The exposure we subjected ourselves to is a million times the power of a mobile mast in the vicinity (inverse square law) and we suffered no ill effects, even 25 years later.

1
 wercat 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

A friend of mine recounts the helicopter they were in (flying in to a US Base in Berlin in the 80s) "jumping in the air" when all the occupants felt a sudden and disturbing heating effect on one side of their bodies and faces when they were caught in the beam of a very high power radar.  The pilot apologised a moment later when he'd stopped swearing.

 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

You're right, we have been a bit too flippant. The OP will no doubt get the hell out of here and post somewhere more friendly to his views. What we should be doing is engaging with him and refuting his arguments in a non-dismissive way. I'm not very good at this, as you can see.

The rise of woo and quackery is a serious issue, which is why I do always try and tackle it wherever I see it.

3
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Yes indeed,phone  to your head is more powerful than from a mast.masts  take time to cause long term effects, d n a damage.More than one research paper has said that a switched on phone in the pocket may cause infertility to males.

Of course,you can pretend you haven't read this and keep a phone in your pocket.Otherwise you can adopt a better safe than sorry policy,and carry it elsewhere.I've seen videos where women have breast cancer in the exact spot  they keep a switched on phone in their bra.Cancers near the surface,not deeper,which is more usual.

Post edited at 18:51
16
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

Which is why I quote from a Tel Aviv University research paper....

OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Flock of dead starlings are rather interesting.Timed exactly with a 5G test.https://www.facebook.com/UnconventionalParent/videos/2279860875629264/?v=22...

13
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

If a 5G test could do this, why is this not a regular occurrence near any powerful radio transmitter?

It's simply a random unconnected event, like the Tel Aviv cancer cluster. That's why we don't accept anecdotes as evidence. We conduct proper controlled trials.

2
 Jim Fraser 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Just a wee wifi tip. If you are having trouble with your wifi then it should not be your first instinct to scatter repeaters about the place and increase total RF power in you home.

First sort out the channels. Often, with everyone in the street on 2.4GHz ch1/6/11, there is RF mayhem, so simply using 5GHz will sort it. Maybe even do the neighbours a favour and switch off the 2.4. 

This probably sounds like rubbing 2 sticks together to light the gas hob but you do know that you can still plug the bloody thing in? 

OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

The UK govt denies any effect for 5g.Cancer Research UK are part funded by the UK govt.Follow the money.The United nations and World health Organisation have both closed down their radio frequency research bodies.One wonders why.

Post edited at 18:44
30
 Timmd 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> I am happy that there is no international conspiracy to cook the plebs and fry our brains and give us cancer. If there were such a conspiracy then the rich people would soon stop it before it reduced the number of potential customers and people who could clean their toilet, supply their cocaine, and take away their voluminous rubbish. 

If I was callous enough (and rich), I'd probably just live far away enough from the transmitters, and ponder that there's enough humans to supply my needs with any increase in cancers taken into account. There's people like that who exist I mean.

Post edited at 19:00
1
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Joez:

Sounds like a professionally jovial hatchet job.

3
 deepsoup 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Flock of dead starlings are rather interesting.Timed exactly with a 5G test.https://www.facebook.com/UnconventionalParent/videos/2279860875629264/?v=22...

Ah, I see.  When you said at the top of the thread "I am researching 5g  radiation at the mo" you were using the word "research" in its more modern sense meaning "I am having a good old google and cherry-picking any old shite I can find that agrees with my preconceptions."  

Unless you're just taking the piss, in which case well played for insisting that you were referring to a respectable scientific paper earlier then posting that ludicrous Facebook video immediately afterwards.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/5g-cellular-test-birds/

2
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to patrick_b:

Quite a rigorous report.However it does NOT cover 5g masts, which will be sited next to homes and offices in many cases.My concern is more with 5G than 3G and 4G.LLoyds of London will not insure any claims against 5G. What I am saying is, look at this.Do your own research.

16
 DancingOnRock 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Probably because they’ve come to the conclusion that there’s no more research to be done and it’s all a waste of money. 

2
 DancingOnRock 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

What’s the difference between 5G, 4G and 3G?

 john arran 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Quite a rigorous report.However it does NOT cover 5g masts, which will be sited next to homes and offices in many cases.My concern is more with 5G than 3G and 4G.LLoyds of London will not insure any claims against 5G. What I am saying is, look at this.Do your own research.

Yet your OP references a report from a study made, I believe, even before 3g was  in use, never mind 4g or even 5g.

If you're satisfied that earlier technologies weren't a serious threat then why did you link to a paper suggesting they might have been?

1
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Ah OK. I was waiting for that one to come out. You've lost the evidence argument, so it's out with the government conspiracy. Anything that doesn't fit your view is just government lies.

Do you really believe that governments are capable of covering something this big up, when all the evidence suggests that organising a couple of drinks in a brewery would be way beyond their capabilities? If governments really are that capable, why the f*** can't they sort this country out?

2
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

That's a good point...

The tinfoil hatters are always up in arms about the latest technology, saying it's somehow different from what we had before and therefore more dangerous. They seem to have forgotten that people made the same scare stories about 2G, 3G and 4G. There is nothing new about techno-fear. When the first railway was built people claimed that a train couldn't go faster than 30mph or the passengers would suffocate.

1
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Radio frequencies can affect the immune system.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713003276

I just tried posting a research paper on A Facebook Stop 5G group,the London Stop 5G group,of 1 000 members,to find that the page has been taken down,at least for the moment.

Post edited at 19:27
5
In reply to paul mitchell:

Delegation is the art of management.

I'm not concerned about this at all, as I believe that you, or the source you quote, are spouting baloney. So I'll delete being bothered about it to you.

I expect reports back at quarterly intervals. Let me know if at any point you need the assistance of mental health professionals.

T.

4
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

Try watching DR Davis before pronouncing.

8
 john arran 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

The whole of Facebook should be taken down on the grounds of promoted misinformation

1
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

Governments look after us and are never corrupt? Well,THAT is a fantasy.

7
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

That's not what I said at all. I said they were incompetent. I'm sure they are corrupt, but they are not capable of covering something like this up. If they were, smoking would still be promoted.

1
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Check this video by a brain cancer expert,particularly minutes 20 to 40.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnc-W6I94Y8&fbclid=IwAR2TRVZ7Nt4sM5dPhf...

9
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Nah. Youtube is awash with conspiracist bullshit. It's impossible to watch it all. I'll let someone else do the boring work and sum it up for me thanks.

2
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Try the website  bioinitiative.org.  Here is a very long list of contributing professors,experts in biomagnetics and biology.

https://bioinitiative.org/participants/

5
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

That's clearly a conspiracy theorist website. It's interesting that the only reputable-looking site that you've linked to, sciencedirect.org, both studies show no conclusive evidence of damage from RF. One just explores a theoretical way in which it could happen.

You can post stuff like this forever, the fact remains that millions of people have been using mobile phones heavily for decades. If damage was occurring, we would be seeing significant evidence of it by now.

2
 Tom Valentine 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Pursued by a bear:.

Let me know if at any point you need the assistance of mental health professionals.

And so the flippancy continues, now with the implication that the OP is mentally unwell.

I didn't think that joking about mental health was OK any more.

Post edited at 19:48
9
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019

https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

Go to number 3 on the list.The effect of mobile phones on sperm viability.

7
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

So if the government is covering up all the evidence, how come that site is still live?

2
OP paul mitchell 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Devra Lee Davis, (born June 7, 1946) is an American epidemiologist and writer.[1]

Davis works on disease prevention and environmental health factors. She served as the President Clinton appointee to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board from 1994 to 1999, having won bipartisan Senate confirmation. She was Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology, the first of its kind in the world, and presently acts as President of Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit organization focusing on drawing attention to man-made health threats. She lectures at American and European universities and her research has been covered in major scientific publications as well as being highlighted on major media outlets like CNN, CSPAN, CBC, BBC, and public radio.[2][3] In recent years, her attention has become focused on the health hazards of exposures to man-made sources of electromagnetic radiation, especially those from wireless devices.

She has also authored more than 190 publications in books and journals ranging from The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association to Scientific American.   Extract from Wikipedia.

5
 Tom Valentine 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> You can post stuff like this forever, the fact remains that millions of people have been using mobile phones heavily for decades. If damage was occurring, we would be seeing significant evidence of it by now.

How many decades after the start of  smoking tobacco did it take to establish the link with lung cancer? 

As I understand it, mobile phones have been around for less than 4 decades in the UK. 

Post edited at 20:27
8
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+long+did+it+take+to+discover+the+link+between+smo...

7 years from the first suspicion to incontrovertible evidence, according to the first result.

1
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I just Googled the same for asbestos, and it's shocking how long the evidence had been available that it was harmful, and yet it was still being used. It goes to show that governments and industry will happily foist dangerous stuff onto the public in spite of the evidence.

Of course the difference here is that despite a huge amount of research, no evidence has been found for a link between RF radiation and cancer.

1
 SouthernSteve 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Where are the landing pages for that journal?  A quick search finds no publisher site to answer the questions

1. Has the paper been peer reviewed?

2. What are the criteria for acceptance?

These are essential points. This could be a vanity publication paid by the authors with no scientific merit.

1
 Tom Valentine 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

I didn't ask about the first suspicion: I asked about the first usage.

Speaking of which, vaping has been a UK phenomenon for over a decade now and research can't actually establish much in the way of directly attributable damage.  But I don't know many (apart from hardened ex-smokers) who are totally confident about the safety of the practice - or who would take the piss out of people who had reservations.

Post edited at 20:35
2
 jkarran 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

The conspiracy nonsense pushback against 5g seems stronger than for previous generations, I just wonder if its organised/or hast rated (and if so to what end) or if it is just the consequence of increased bidirectional access to the Internet and the ever deepening echo Chambers that has created.

Jk

 Jim Fraser 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> How many decades after the start of  smoking tobacco did it take to establish the link with lung cancer? 

> As I understand it, mobile phones have been around for less than 4 decades in the UK. 

About one and a half. We knew the WW1 generation of smokers were dying off in the early 1930s. However, that was in amongst diphtheria, TB, mustard gas and a host of competing pathologies. Only in the severe pollution events of the 1950s did the public and political consciousness properly accept that drawing a load of rubbish into your lungs would kill you.

 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I know you did, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. People have been smoking for thousands of years (probably), but no one was looking for a link to disease. As soon as someone raised the suggestion that smoking was harmful, it was proved very quickly.

People have been exposed to man-made RF energy for about 100 years. The first TV transmissions in the UK were in the 1920s. 

2
 Jim Fraser 16 Nov 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> ... ... or if it is just the consequence of increased bidirectional access to the Internet and the ever deepening echo Chambers that has created.

Is it time to call stupidity by its real name?

1
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to jkarran:

It's the decline of knowledge due to Facebook. Now that any idiot can publish their crackpot theory and gain the same audience as a respected researcher, uncritical people looking to confirm their worldview have all the "evidence" they need.

It's genuinely a frightening prospect. Look at the rise of the anti-vaxxers. Hundreds of years of progress in eliminating human suffering pushed back by morons on the internet.

 mullermn 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

If Pefa’s on the singles market I think we may have found her soul mate. 

2
 Tom Valentine 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

So your one and a half decades equates to the rise of vaping in the UK up to now. My impression is that medical advice about the practice is still fairly circumspect because the long term effects just aren't known.

Post edited at 20:53
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

'delete being bothered'. Ha!  The power of autocorrect.

Delegate, of course.

T.

1
 wintertree 16 Nov 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Radio waves below visible light are non ionising. They cannot cause damage on a cellular/DNA level. 

Not actually true.  

More and more ways are being found that near infrared light can have biological effects through non-thermal mechanisms including DNA damage and causing cell death.

Terrahertz waves excite all sorts of large scale vibrational modes in DNA and proteins.  Given the emerging understanding of how vibrational modes transmit information between binding sites on proteins (vibrational allostery) to functional effect, I certainly have no interest in exposing myself to non-ionising THz radiation until a lot more time has passed to identify long term effects.

I think the “3G/4G/WiFi causes cancer” guff is a crock of shit.  5G is similar in terms of its frequency bands and is well below THz.

But we don’t know anything like enough biology to 100% rule out biological consequences of non ionising radiation - negative or positive.   What we do know suggests 3G/etc/etc is not measurably harmful - and the lack of evidence otherwise becomes more compelling every day.

 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to wintertree:

This.

As with all the best conspiracy theories, this one is plausible. But that doesn't make it true.

When I first heard of electrosensitivity I thought it sounded plausible. It's plausible that electromagnetic waves could have an effect in the brain, body fluids are conductive and in rare individuals could form a tuned antenna that caused certain wavelengths to affect brain activity. It's not an impossible scenario. However, whenever anyone claiming to be elecrosensitive has been tested they have found no evidence to link their condition to electromagnetic radiation. It's all just woo.

1
 john arran 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

We have a gite guest at the moment who's convinced she's badly affected by wifi. Claimed she couldn't sleep the first night because the wifi was on all night.

Later the next day she thanked me for turning off the 2,4Ghz network, although I hadn't touched anything.

I managed to find a way to turn off the wifi in her apartment only during the night-time hours, she was delighted and has been happy as Larry since.

Do I know for sure she's a crank? No

Do I suspect self-delusion? Erm...

1
 Martin Hore 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> Over 25 years ago now One2one introduced their free calls after 7pm deal. Within a year mobile phones went from being the preserve of yuppies and drug dealers to everyone I knew having one. Fast forward to today, and how many of us have suffered a cancer in the brain or head? 

I'm beginning to be convinced, after purposefully avoiding excessive use of a mobile phone close to the ear for most of the last 20 years for this reason. I'm not quite certain 25 years is long enough - I'm still a little worried about my exposure to asbestos 40 years ago because the mean "gestation time" of asbestos related cancer is over 30 years - but it is beginning to look like we don't need to worry about mobile phones as a cause of cancer. Which is good news.

Martin

 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Martin Hore:

What is convincing you?

I'm a bit worried about exposure I may have had to asbestos in the 70s, but that's because there is solid evidence that asbestos exposure is harmful. I'm not worried about my exposure to RF, because there is no evidence.

Edit: I think I misread your post. did you mean that after years of distrust you are now convinced that mobile phones are OK?

Post edited at 21:40
 Hooo 16 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

Hide the SSID and switch it back on, see if she notices. It would be a good experiment, albeit unethical.

 Toerag 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

You should know better than to try to beat the UK hive mind, which, by all accounts, is pretty 'kin smart.

4
Removed User 16 Nov 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> But we don’t know anything like enough biology to 100% rule out biological consequences of non ionising radiation - negative or positive.   What we do know suggests 3G/etc/etc is not measurably harmful - and the lack of evidence otherwise becomes more compelling every day.

I worked with RF for many years in a number of companies. You hear stories, you see people get cancer and it's noted that that was the third person from that department that got cancer in the last decade or so, stuff like that. None of the incidents you hear about can ever be thought of as being statistically significant in any way but you know what, I wouldn't ever want to work beside an RF source, live under a high voltage power line or near big HF radio transmitter. I do suspect that long term exposure to electromagnetic radiation at levels below those which are currently deemed safe can damage your health.

That said, Hoo is absolutely right that we have spent the last two decades conducting a massive experiment into the effects on health of exposure to RF from mobile comms and found nothing to cause concern.

1
 profitofdoom 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

"Do cell phone tower cause cancer?"

In my highly expert (ha-ha-ha) opinion you/we are a zillion times more likely to be killed by boozing, or driving badly, or smoking dope than by a cell phone tower

Therefore if I was a worrier, which I'm not, personally I would worry a zillion times more about those 3 activities than about cell phone towers

Thank you for your attention

1
In reply to profitofdoom:

> "Do cell phone tower cause cancer?"

> In my highly expert (ha-ha-ha) opinion you/we are a zillion times more likely to be killed by boozing, or driving badly, or smoking dope than by a cell phone tower

> Therefore if I was a worrier, which I'm not, personally I would worry a zillion times more about those 3 activities than about cell phone towers

> Thank you for your attention

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-anxiety-of-facebook/

And Facebook .  Anxiety kills

 Toerag 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

>  I do think that the number transmitters pumping out RF in developed countries is a little excessive.

What would make most sense would be to have a single network used by all operators. It's ridiculous that we have towers in desirable places hosting all 3 networks.  I note that the networks are going to share a rural network in an effort to reduce costs.

>Once 2G is switched off in the UK during the next decade and all mobile calls are on 3G, there will be a bit of a reduction but that will be balanced by the 5G rollout. The absence of native call and message capability in the 4G and 5G standards is probably a mistake.

2G will exist for a long time to provide backwards compatibility for old equipment that just does speech calls.  3G users will migrate to 4&5G before 2G dies.  The frequencies currently used by 3G will be re-used by 5G, then the same will eventually happen with 2G.  5G is simply different encoding running on existing and additional higher frequencies. Because the lower frequencies currently used for 2,3&4G are much less prone to attenuation than the new higher ones used by 5G they WILL be reused.

Post edited at 21:56
 profitofdoom 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

> .............Anxiety kills

A good addition to my list, I think - I agree with you

 Oceanrower 16 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> I've seen videos where women have breast cancer in the exact spot  they keep a switched on phone in their bra.

I know lots of women. Statistically, just  over half the people I know are women. 

I don't know a single one that keeps her phone in her bra.

Do you want to think about that sentence and come back to me?

 Jim Fraser 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Toerag:

There certainly are those who believe that 3G will go before 2G but where are all the calls going? 2G on its own was severely over-stretched for capacity in many locations in the UK until the 4G rollout when 3G went in as well. I am not aware of anywhere getting an EDGE upgrade which would be a necessary upgrade if 2G were staying with us. There is an idea that thousands of instruments are out there sending back stuff over 2G. Well most of these are 20 years old and due for replacement. 3G has native capability for voice calls, SMS and data and is the ideal existing service level for under-pinning mobile network capability. 

We're British of course, so who's to say we won't fk it up.

 birdie num num 17 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

Tinfoil hats are very efficient for reflecting RF and microwave energy originating from above the head but the radiation that enters from the chin end gets reflected and focussed within the cranium, cooking the cerebral cortex like an overdone sweetbread, studies have shown that in some cases this greatly benefits the wearer, so conclusions are mixed

1
 Alex@home 17 Nov 2019
In reply to freeflyer:

> ... I happen to have a large number of tested crystals of varying power available on my website crystalbolox.com 

FTFY

Andy Gamisou 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I know lots of women. Statistically, just  over half the people I know are women. 

> I don't know a single one that keeps her phone in her bra.

> Do you want to think about that sentence and come back to me?

My wife keeps her phone in her back pocket (even when climbing, even though I keep suggesting to her that it's not an entirely good idea).  So far she hasn't developed carcinoma of the bum. 

I offer this data to the scientific community to do with what they will - although I'd quite like a share of the Nobel prize once it's awarded.

 DancingOnRock 17 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Flock of dead starlings are rather interesting.Timed exactly with a 5G test.https://www.facebook.com/UnconventionalParent/videos/2279860875629264/?v=22...

The birds were taken for post mortem study and they found they’d all died from taxus from ingesting poisonous Yew Berries. 

 wercat 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

those were medium wave transmissions, not even low VHF! Wavelength in hundreds of metres!  Slow scan TV.

 Hooo 17 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

Yes, and I bet there were people writing to The Times to complain about the health risks back then.

There have always been people who are scared of new technology. Unfortunately​, some of them have overcome their fear enough to start using the internet.

 GrahamD 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

Even immediately below a base station antenna, power levels are very low as the elevation radiation pattern is very tightly controlled. 

 birdie num num 17 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

If you live near a mobile phone mast, a cheap way of cooking a burger is by using the Num Num parabolic grill. The cheapest (entry level) model retails at £99.99 and can zap a quarter pounder in two minutes....60 seconds per side, perfect for a small family barbecue or for patient friends.

The best seller though, is the binary mirror model that does both sides at once in seconds. This comes with a full set up service for the optimum angle of inclination and costs a mere £399.99

 jimtitt 17 Nov 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

One assumes it comes with an app so I can control it with my smartphone?

 birdie num num 17 Nov 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

Better than that. Not only can you control it with your smartphone....in remote areas, you can actually cook your burger with your smartphone aerial radiation using the universal smartphone grill accessory in conjunction with the Num Num parabolic grill. 

 DancingOnRock 17 Nov 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

Does it come with its own 32 amp 3 phase USB charger?

 Tom Valentine 17 Nov 2019
In reply to GrahamD:

Is this why the NHS advises that schools with base stations in the proximity should ensure that their emissions are regularly monitored?

Post edited at 18:52
Removed User 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

How is sewage relevant?

 Tom Valentine 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Their word not mine - ask them.

 Dave Garnett 17 Nov 2019
In reply to SouthernSteve:

> 1. Has the paper been peer reviewed?

> 2. What are the criteria for acceptance?

> These are essential points. This could be a vanity publication paid by the authors with no scientific merit.

I think the numbers are too small to be meaningful but I’d also be interested in the BRCA-2 status of those affected.  This is a big risk factor in Israel, especially in Ashkenazi Jews, which means there’s a strong familial link.  I could imagine one extended at-risk family could easily account for the apparent discrepancy.

 jkarran 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> Is it time to call stupidity by its real name?

Maybe.

Stupid isn't the problem, it's the reach stupid is given by these new tools. 

Jk

Lusk 18 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Pah! Forget phone signals ... THIS: https://www.safespaceprotection.com/emf-health-risks/emf-health-effects/pow...

is where the real and palpable risks lies.

 Hooo 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Is this why the NHS advises that schools with base stations in the proximity should ensure that their emissions are regularly monitored?

Do you have a link? I tried Googling and found nothing.

 Hooo 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Lusk:

Yes, but you can protect yourself for only $299.00, with their device:

"The EMF Adapter uses the building’s electrical circuitry to send a corrective, harmonizing resonance signal through the wiring of the entire space."

Surely one of the roles of government should be to stop people like this? Stoking ignorance and fear so that they can sell useless products to protect against non-existent threats.

 wercat 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

that sounds like RF noise cancelling by applying an antiphase signal.  Can't imagine any health benefits though.

I wish OpenReich could apply such a technique round hear, the VDSL is deafening

Post edited at 08:44
 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

I can't do links but 

NHS. Home > Health A-Z  / Mobile Phone Safety/ Mobile Phone Base Stations.

Page last reviewed 20/2/2019  

Nempnett Thrubwell 18 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Try watching DR Davis before pronouncing.

I'll wait until President Trump appoints Dr Davis as Chief Medical Officer. That will be the perfect endorsement for the good Drs credibility.

 Dave 88 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

If they do (which I would refute), then it is probably just to ensure that levels stay below ICNIRP guidelines.

Someone is probably checking that school computers have been PAT tested, should we take this to mean that there is a serious health risk from a PC?

1
 Dave 88 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Ok, there is no section relating to base stations. There is one for ‘Mobile Phone Safety’. Nothing about monitoring schools, but it does state that “....there are no health impacts from long term exposures....”.

So, thread closed? Or are the NHS in on it too?

 mullermn 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave 88:

> Ok, there is no section relating to base stations. There is one for ‘Mobile Phone Safety’. Nothing about monitoring schools, but it does state that “....there are no health impacts from long term exposures....”.

> So, thread closed? Or are the NHS in on it too?

Mobile exposure makes you sick. The NHS needs sick people to justify itself. FOLLOW THE MONEY, SHEEPLE!!!1!one

 Toerag 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> There certainly are those who believe that 3G will go before 2G but where are all the calls going? 2G on its own was severely over-stretched for capacity in many locations in the UK until the 4G rollout when 3G went in as well.  There is an idea that thousands of instruments are out there sending back stuff over 2G. Well most of these are 20 years old and due for replacement. 3G has native capability for voice calls, SMS and data and is the ideal existing service level for under-pinning mobile network capability. 

The only reason to use 3G rather than 2G is for faster data, and the same for 4&5G.  4&5G offer VoLTE which is essentially voice & SMS using the data bearer. At present a number of operators drop out 4G data sessions to allow speech and SMS over 2/3G, then reinstate it. This stops with VoLTE. Thus the current usage of 2&3G for speech will plummet, allowing frequencies to be re-purposed for 4&5G. Aside from old reliable 2G only phones belonging to grannies there are shedloads of telemetry systems using 2G which won't be changed out anytime soon.

Post edited at 12:10
 Dave 88 18 Nov 2019
In reply to mullermn:

I’m not sure that the NHS’s problem is lack of customers...

 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave 88:

I'm not particularly worried about mobile phone safety. I just think all the arrogant piss-taking  put-downs are a bit out of order.

For whatever reason, the NHS don't consider the matter quite as risible as a lot of people on here.

There IS a section relating to base stations - you just haven't managed to find it.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/mobile-phone-safety/risks/

3
 Kid Spatula 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

A section which essentially states "Don't worry about it" and is there to allay the fears raised in the first post. 

1
 DancingOnRock 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Absolutely. There is definitely a risk from base stations. Maintenance engineers must isolate the power before standing in front of them. If you think about what 200watts of microwave energy can do to a human body, you’d be right. It’s the equivalent of getting into your microwave oven and setting it to defrost. The result won’t be pretty. 
 

So, yes. If you had a mast near you, you’d want it audited, to make sure it’s only outputting a couple of hundred watts. 
 

But it’ll cook you, it won’t give you cancer. 

 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Kid Spatula:

You can interpret it how you want - I just want to correct anyone who says the paragraph doesn't exist.

 Dave 88 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Ok I stand corrected, there is a paragraph which states that. It’s right below the one that says there is no health risk from them.

I understand you’re annoyed by people being dismissive of the issue, the problem is that a lot of people on here actually know a great deal about the subject. Unfortunately when some have failed to listen to evidence and reason, what’s left to do but be dismissive? Where does it stop, should we treat anti-vaxxers and flat earthers with any sort of patience beyond an initial explanation of the facts?

1
 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave 88:

I take your point but if you read back you will see that the "evidence and reason" lasted precisely two posts from the same person, one of which was basically the word "no" which falls a long way short of being either. 

Anyway your point about anti-vaxxers being equated with flat earthers has surely got to be good enough for a new thread.....     

2
 krikoman 18 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

It's what's turning everyone androgynous and gender fluid, I switch my phone off since I started fancying the bloke next door.

2
 Dave 88 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Anyway your point about anti-vaxxers being equated with flat earthers has surely got to be good enough for a new thread.....     

I’m not opening that can of worms!

 DaveHK 18 Nov 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> I switch my phone off since I started fancying the bloke next door.

Has he switched his phone off too? 

 Hooo 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

OK, people did start taking the piss straight away, but that's UKC I'm afraid. However, that wasn't the end of the reasonable posts. Several people did try to engage reasonably with the OP, to an extent in excess of what he deserved IMHO. This is a poster whose "research" involved digging out some dubious and obscure claims, while ignoring all the reputable websites that he must have seen in the process. It then degenerated into conspiracy theory and Facebook vids of dead birds. You've then found something on the NHS website that you believe adds credence to the OPs position, and in the process you chose to ignore the absolutely clear message on the same site that states there is no evidence of harm. 

Really, the posters on this thread have treated the subject with all the respect it is due, and I hope that any further pushers of pseudoscience and quackery get treated the same. 

Post edited at 18:42
1
 Tom Valentine 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

I was never looking for information to back up the OP's stance. I said at 13.10 that personally I had no worries about mobile phone emissions. As Dave 88 has gleaned, I was more concerned about the speed with which people resorted to piss taking and sarcasm. What I did was read around to see if other bodies were as dismissive of people's concerns and found the NHS page. There is no evidence to support the OP's fears but those concerns are addressed seriously, even having an OFCOM link supplied for people to request further monitoring in the event that they live near a base tower or, for instance, have one in their kids' school playground. 

I can imagine in twenty years' time when  someone like Paul raises a few concerns about vaping there will be a bunch of critics airing their expertise along the lines of "What silly c*nt ever thought that vaping could be harmful- it's only f*cking vapour- the clue's in the name, innit.?Maybe he has mental health issues ha ha..."

Post edited at 19:17
4
 Hooo 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

On the contrary. In 20 years time I would expect there to be rock solid evidence regarding the safety of vaping, so I'd expect a similar response to the one on this thread if someone posts contradicting it.

Right now, questioning the safety of vaping is a valid enquiry, because the evidence isn't in yet.

1
 gravy 18 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

"Fig. 1 The hypothetical mechanism for the mobile phone – cancer link."  now note the word "hypothetical" and the conclusions: (I paraphrase) "This is a potential mechanism  ... and would need to be considered in designing future ... studies".

So no evidence presented in this paper of a link whatsoever.

They refer to evidence of heat shock protein response in C elegans (a nematode worm widely used as an animal model) but for lots of good reasons this can't be extrapolated to mammals. It's worth noting the paper in question cites another paper (Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves / nature, 2000) as evidence but this nature paper was retracted in 2006 after they discovered it was bollocks and they had simply been cooking the worms by mistake.

Reading papers by choosing the titles that you think agree with your argument is not a good plan

1
OP paul mitchell 18 Nov 2019
In reply to gravy:

This Prof has a Ph D in genetics and bio chemistry,from Caltech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkN9a99GK1A&feature=player_embedded&...

youtube.com/watch?v=bsaB7ewFsN0&

Post edited at 23:24
 gravy 18 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

And your point is?

Mine would be that he has some issues and probably needs some grounded bedding to compliment his wire underpants.

1
 Tom Valentine 19 Nov 2019
In reply to gravy:

Once again' I have no particular worries about mobile phones and health but I get the impression that the absolute confidence displayed on here isn't echoed worldwide.

For instance, the European Parliamentary Research Service published an article in March this year entitled "Mobile Phones and Health: Where Do We Stand?". It concludes "It is evident that consensus is far from being reached on the issue..."     while further up the page in a boxed insert is a contribution from the European Environment Agency which reads..." The EEA advocates to inform citizens about the risks........it advises users not to place the handset against their heads, given that text messaging nor hands free kit lead to lower radiation levels. The EEA also suggest that mobile handsets could be labelled as a "possible carcinogen"......"

As far as I know both the EPRS and the EEA are bona fide bodies and as I said, the publication date is March 2019.

As stated before,  I don't have any worries about handset use and radio masts near my house but I think it's unwise and unfair to ridicule people with genuine concerns while literature like this is being published.

Post edited at 01:02
 DancingOnRock 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/635598/EPRS_BRI(2019...

There is no reliable evidence that phones cause cancer. Many of the experiments carried that show a possible link are flawed and don’t follow proper scientific procedure. Which unfortunately means that further research is needed. ie if you carry out an experiment that shows a link and the experiment is found to be flawed, the results of the experiment can’t be relied on but ironically neither can they be fully dismissed. 

 Hooo 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

That's sounds reasonable, and it's possible that if the OP had done a bit of research and restricted his posts to reputable sources then we might have had a better quality discussion with less piss-taking.

But he didn't. He opened with a link to an anti-tech conspiracy (as far as I can tell) site, which I'd bet he hasn't looked at beyond the paper he linked to. He then went rapidly downhill from there, posting any random drivel that had cell phones and cancer in the title. This sort of thing is happening everywhere on the internet now, it's very boring and I believe it's dangerous. For example, an  electronics forum I visited has an instant ban for anyone posting about free energy devices or other attempts to defy the laws of physics. They're not trying to suppress anyone, they're all just sick to death of trying to reason with people who just post random junk they've dredged up with a search on a subject they don't understand.

 gravy 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I don't think anyone here is being ridiculed for a genuine concern...

1
 Hooo 19 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Google Scholar is a great resource, but you need to be careful with the results. They are not necessarily proper peer-reviewed papers. From Wikipedia's article on Google Scholar:

Google Scholar strives to include as many journals as possible, including predatory journals, which "have polluted the global scientific record with pseudo-science, a record that Google Scholar dutifully and perhaps blindly includes in its central index."

 Tom Valentine 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

So, as a layman (like Paul, I assume) what are we supposed to make of information from "respectable" papers like the Observer? They published an article called "The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones" on 14/7/18 which purported to be about  research producing some worrying results. It's easy for people with real life expertise to dismiss stuff like this because they they "know better" or, more likely, can pick holes in the methodology; not so for the ordinary Joe . For instance, it uses the buzzword "peer-reviewed" to describe the research so it's already convinced a large number of readers of its veracity.

Their sister journal published a rebuttal a week later with accusations of cherry picking and so on, so now the reader is left with two articles to consider , each undermining the validity of the other ( surely most people can't avoid looking at the details about the author of the rebuttal and wondering if he earns a living outside of academia as well.) 

None of this has affected my attitude to phones, as I keep saying, but assertions that all the research is done and dusted seem a bit wide of the mark to me. The World Health Organisation says "...epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers which become evident within shorter time periods.." so the implication is that long term risks have yet to be evaluated fully.

(And I note that Looking Glass/ Mirror Guy on "Watchmen" isn't 100% convinced yet, either. )

Post edited at 08:53
 wercat 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Wireless World was/is a pretty reputable journal, read by professionals, more so than Camm's Comics.   I recall an article I read in WW in the 1970s about Scandinavian research into the effect of using powerful hand held radios at VHF and UHF close to the head.  They were a bit concerned as they discovered, particularly at UHF That the effect of cavities like the eye sockets and interior of the skull could increase the intensity of radiation because of the size of cavity relative to the wavelength.  IIRC they suggested that sets with a power level of more than a couple of hundred milliwatts should not be used with the aerial close to the head and were not happy that this level was completely safe.

Probably long long forgotten now, just like the effect of saltwater on electrically very short HF aerials in very heavy seas making it nearly impossible to get a distress call out any distance.

 mullermn 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> As stated before,  I don't have any worries about handset use and radio masts near my house but I think it's unwise and unfair to ridicule people with genuine concerns while literature like this is being published.

Self perpetuating problem. The reason touchy feely statements like the ones you quoted get used is because it’s out of fashion to just say ‘you’re wrong, get over it’. Everyone’s a special snowflake and their concerns must be indulged even if they are based on nonsense. 

Of course then what happens is that people see that grey area in the language and latch on to it as evidence that they must be on to something, and the cycle continues. 

Plus, when you’re dealing with people of a scientific mindset you rarely get blanket ‘this can never cause a problem’ statements if that’s not proven to be correct, even if there is mountains and mountains of evidence showing that it has never been shown to have cause a problem despite lots of thorough attempts to do so. 

Post edited at 09:16
 gravy 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

You could try  the method of (a) deciding there is a problem and a conspiracy and then (b) cherry picking "evidence" based on juicy titles or professor youtube without reading or applying any scepticism and (c) not listening to the opinions solicited if those opinions contradict (a).

 Dave Garnett 19 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> This Prof has a Ph D in genetics and bio chemistry,from Caltech.

OK, but he's also one step away from literally wearing a tinfoil hat.

In the interview he says that it's known that EMFs cause neuropsychiatric effects.

Here's one his papers where he reviews the evidence.

J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. Epub 2015 Aug 21.

Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression.

Pall ML1.

Author information

1

Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, 638 NE 41st Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-3312, USA. Electronic address: martin_pall@wsu.edu.

The full paper is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%3Di...

Here's the abstract.  

Abstract

Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional evidence confirm this mechanism. Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome, and the focus of this review is whether these are indeed well documented and consistent with the known mechanism(s) of action of such EMFs. VGCCs occur in very high densities throughout the nervous system and have near universal roles in release of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones. Soviet and Western literature shows that much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain and peripheral nervous system, such that nervous system histology and function show diverse and substantial changes. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies. 18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose-response relationships. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes. In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects.

I haven't chased down all the references cited but here are my impressions.

1. It seems perfectly logical that a sufficiently powerful EMF could activate voltage gated ion channels in a large variety of cells.  I haven't yet seen any details of how these experiments were done or what range of strength of fields were used.  I would be surprised if it was anything like comparable to a real world situation, but I don't know.  There's a lot of speculation both in the abstract above and the rest of the paper.  I've had papers rejected for a lot less!

2. Even if these experiments turned out to be credible, I would say they would be the equivalent of exposing cultured cells to high levels potential carcinogens over long periods and then equating that to a cancer risk in a whole organism (which they are not, in themselves).

3. Most of the pathology discussed is very subjective.  Depression, insommnia, headache, fatigue, mild depression, lack of concentration - all hard to quantify, very common and extremely easy to associate with any number of possible environmental factors.  The sort of people who are concerned about EMF are pretty self selecting as people who have a high level of general anxiety, I would say.  It's very easy to be aware you live under a power line and then conclude that you are depressed because of it.  If you believe it's doing you harm then it probably is, even if it's switched off.

4. There have been various reports of cancer clusters associated with power lines or other EMF sources.  To my knowledge, none of the epidemiology has ever stood up.  Some cancers naturally occur in clusters because infection or environmental pollution.  If you can find me some evidence of one that correlates with EMF to the extent of being statistically significant over a matched control community, I'd be interested to read it.

5. I accept that there may well be a subtle effect of being constantly exposed to EMF.  It might well cause some mild cognitive effects.  The brain works on the basis of massively complex and subtle changes in membrane potentials and fields.  Some people think it is based on quantum effects.  So far, I don't see any evidence but I suspect we don't yet know enough to know what we'd be looking for.  However, so far I'd say that allowing a fear of this to develop into anxiety neurosis is far bigger (and more easily measurable) risk.     

Post edited at 10:15
 Tom Valentine 19 Nov 2019
In reply to mullermn:

I would never consider a statement like "It is evident that consensus is far from being reached " to be touchy feely but we all see things differently, I suppose.

 mullermn 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I would never consider a statement like "It is evident that consensus is far from being reached " to be touchy feely but we all see things differently, I suppose.

If they limited the pool of correspondents to people that know what they’re talking about then a consensus would exist. Unfortunately the necessary desire among the scientifically minded to always be open to new evidence means that Professor Batshit and co get to muddy the waters long after they would be excluded from a non-scientific discussion. 
 

 jkarran 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

> It's the decline of knowledge due to Facebook. Now that any idiot can publish their crackpot theory and gain the same audience as a respected researcher, uncritical people looking to confirm their worldview have all the "evidence" they need.

I don't think that's a full explanation. More to the point if it is Machiavelli would be disappointed to see such a powerful tool wasted, left in the hands of fools pushing and pulling in totally random directions.

jk

Post edited at 12:29
 GrahamD 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Its counter intuitive but handset radiation by the head is many times stronger than from a phone mast even a few metres away.  Also counter intuitive is the fact that handset radiation diminishes significantly when there are more phone masts ( the handset doesn't have to talk as loud to be heard).

So the bottom line is that if you are worried about handset radiation, campaign for more masts !

JoJamison 19 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

An IEEE article (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016593) found that mmWave frequencies conduct to the interior of the body through the sweat glands. acting like a helical antenna. An Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0 ) found bacteria and cells are affected by mmWave frequencies. Another study in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669 ) linked mmWaves to DNA damage in human blood. I'm still buying my 5G devices but just FYI it really isn't ALL fear mongering.

 Hooo 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

TBH I don't know what your layman is supposed to make of it. Mainstream newspapers do have a habit of publishing pseudoscience scare stories, so I'd distrust them all on a subject like this. A few years ago on national TV there was an appalling "documentary" scare story about WiFi in schools that drew a lot of complaints. Unfortunately your layman is not going to grasp the difference between "It's impossible to prove absolutely 100% that there is no possible risk to health" and "there is evidence that there is a health risk", so if they're a worrying type they are going to interpret the former to mean the latter. 

As I've already said several times though, posting rubbish like the dead bird stuff is going to get people dismissing you and taking the piss.

 wercat 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

not sure that WW published popular scare stories in the 70s.  Quite a learned publication.

OP paul mitchell 20 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

Frequency and irradiation time-dependant antiproliferative effect of low-power millimeter waves on RPMI 7932 human melanoma cell line

by Amerigo Beneduci, Luigi Filippelli, and Giuseppe Chidichimo

Anticancer research

The biological effects produced by low power millimeter waves (MMW) were studied on the RPMI 7932 human melanoma cell line. Three different frequency-type irradiation modes were used: the 53.57-78.33 GHz wide-band frequency range, the 51.05 GHz and the 65.00 GHz monochromatic frequencies. In all three irradiation conditions, the radiation energy was low enough not to increase the temperature of the cellular samples. Three hours of radiation treatment, applied every day to the melanoma cell samples, were performed at each frequency exposure condition. The wide-band irradiation treatment effectively inhibited cell growth, while both the monochromatic irradiation treatments did not affect the growth trend of RPMI 7932 cells. A light microscopy analysis revealed that the low-intensity wide-band millimeter radiation induced significant morphological alterations on these cells. Furthermore, a histochemical study revealed the low proliferative state of the irradiated cells. This work provi...

OP paul mitchell 20 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

EMFScientists.org

youtube.com/watch?v=My5leLBbNqI&

 Dave Garnett 20 Nov 2019
In reply to JoJamison:

> An IEEE article (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016593) found that mmWave frequencies conduct to the interior of the body through the sweat glands. acting like a helical antenna. 

I don't think that's what it says.  Here's the abstract.

In the near future, applications will come online that require data transmission in ultrahigh rates of 100 Gbit per second and beyond. In fact, the planning for new industry regulations for the exploitation of the sub-THz band are well advanced under the auspices of IEEE 802.15 Terahertz Interest Group. One aspect of this endeavor is to gauge the possible impact on human health by the expected explosion in commercial use of this band. It is, therefore, imperative to estimate the respective specific absorption rates of human tissues. In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. This approach is justified when the impinging wavelength is greater than the dimensions of the skin layer. However, in the sub-THz band this condition is violated. In 2008, we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer could be regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band. The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still very unclear, but it is obvious that the absorption of electromagnetic energy is governed by the topology for the skin and its organelles, especially the sweat duct.

So, what they actually have is a model that suggests that sweat ducts (full of salty water) behave differently to the previous simple modelling of skin as 'an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water' (which it very obviously isn't).  Fair enough, and intuitively obvious. 

They say they have 'demonstrated' this, but I can't find any paper published by them in 2008.  In any event, I don't see any evidence for your statement that anything is transmitted to the interior of the body.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  If it is, maybe this matters, maybe it doesn't.  

Edit: actually, it occurs to me that, assuming that the EMF passes through the body, the fact that it's mostly full of salty water plus quite a lot of other rather carefully regulated ion gradients and fluxes is probably a lot more important than the idea that sweat glands can be modelled as approximately helical (which they aren't really).

Just posting links to publications isn't the same as reading them. 

Post edited at 10:00
 wercat 20 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I think a precautionary approach is wise, mainly for handset use.  The cases where a mast is placed with its near field occupied by humans for more than a brief interval must be pretty rare.

I'm probably condemned due to years of abuse of RF ...  I first gave myself an RF burn at school over 45 years ago by deliberately tuning up an old military transmitter (albeit only a few watts) into my finger to see what it would be like.  Mind you there was probably a far greater RADHAZ from the luminous paint and dials and meters

It is quite interesting to see a low energy mains fluorescent bulb lighting up a few inches from a transmitter though, and that is down in the 5MHz range.

Post edited at 11:14
 gravy 20 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

You are probably doing more harm to yourself sitting at your computer writing these posts and looking up random cranks in case they fit your original hypothesis. Save yourself (and us) by going for a nice relaxing walk while the sun is out.

JoJamison 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I do enjoy reading publications and sharing what I’ve read.  I hope you’ve also enjoyed what I’ve shared.  I’m just happy that I’ve had the opportunity to participate in this discussion.  If you observe figure 1 in the study “The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin,” it demonstrates that the upper coiled portion of the sweat ducts could be regarded as a helical antenna at these frequencies, then transmitted by a waveguide-like structure internally to the body.  The main idea is that the surface of the body is not the absorbing shield we once thought.  The authors conclude “In light of our work and a growing number of publications showing the frequency of 5G can have serious biological effects, we believe that current efforts to accelerate the implementation of 5G should be delayed until additional studies are made to assess the critical impact on human health.”  There is a taboo right now about bringing up the effects of EM.  Even to mention possible EM effects can cause a lot of backlash, as seen by your previous posts.  There are a lot of wild conspiracy theories and bad science out there, but this does not mean the whole subject is invalid.  We should welcome and encourage these studies.  Deploying 5G will likely proceed at a rapid pace, humans will be bathed in electromagnetic radiation for generations, and it behooves us to understand the implications.  Perhaps we’ll learn we are largely safe and be relieved.  Perhaps we’ll learn the details of specific impacts and can design future systems to avoid them.  Without further study any blanket statement of the safety or harmfulness of 5G radiation is an assertion, not a fact. 

 Hooo 20 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

From what you've posted it sounds like a reasonable article in a reputable publication, saying that there could be risks and these should be investigated. I don't have any problem with this. It is necessary to do all this research and publish it to ensure our safety. The problem is when non-scientific people read the research, interpret a possibility of an effect as a major risk, and blow it up into a scare story.

 Tom Valentine 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

With respect, part of the problem is when people say things like "We have done the experiment", implying that it's all settled, finalised and no further investigation is needed.

Added to which, dividing society into "scientific people" and "non-scientific people" seems a bit arbitrary.

 Hooo 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think that "We've done the experiment and found no evidence of harm" is a pretty accurate summary of the situation for the non-technical person who wants to know if they should be worried. Obviously it's not the whole truth, and you make a good point. It is condescending to assume the general public are too dumb to understand the detail and just brush them off with "it's fine, don't worry about it". 

Nempnett Thrubwell 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> With respect, part of the problem is when people say things like "We have done the experiment", implying that it's all settled, finalised and no further investigation is needed.

I would say the method of publication (or more specifically where the various promoters post links to) has a lot to ay about the validity of the experiment,

If it is a report in the New Jersey Medical Journal - it will have a bit more gravitas than if it is posted on a questionable website - which some of the links above seem to lead to.

 LeeWood 21 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Apparently cancer rates of all kinds are increasing and something evidently is responsible, radio waves apart we have a plethora of chemicals in environment and food, sedentary lifestyles.

So you could just say 'modern western lifestyle offers so many advantages I'm prepared to suffer for those benefits'

But anyway its not just cell phones is it, microwave ovens, bluetooth, wifi, our world of proposed convenience has run away with itself. All helps to make us more sedentary, time to trade in your electronics - an axe and a spade will recompense hugely

1
OP paul mitchell 21 Nov 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

Specific reference in this video to brain cancers in Israel and USA. youtube.com/watch?v=pr9Z0WeGtDk&

1
cb294 21 Nov 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

Lifestyle is one thing, but the number one driver of increasing cancer rates is that we simply no longer die of other stuff, in particular infectious diseases, before cancer or dementia eventually gets us. The latter shows the same pattern: Any reduction in incidence is immediately negated by increases in the at risk age cohorts.

Of course, there are certain cancers with a different epidemiology, we are talking about a whole zoo of different diseases here. Basal cell carcinoma (white skin cancer) is one example.

CB

OP paul mitchell 21 Nov 2019
In reply to cb294:

Oxidative effects in this case are undesirable.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557?src=recs...

Also,a Danish study found that cell phones can affect autism to a statistically significant degree.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEm4z7TntM&list=PLf41Jom1MpoZu_JqaQHOS...

Post edited at 20:20
5
 LeeWood 21 Nov 2019
In reply to cb294:

> Lifestyle is one thing, but the number one driver of increasing cancer rates is that we simply no longer die of other stuff

QED benefits outweigh disadvantages, we can suffer contented

cb294 22 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

taylor francis is where you send your rubbish if it has been rejected everywhere else (similarly crappy alternatives are available). youtube does not count at all.

If someone could prove a link between radiation and cancer that would not only be statistically detectable in a large proband cohort (I am not really aware of such a study, but from a mechanistic viewpoint it would not surprise me too much) AND that risk would be of the same magnitude as other risks we happily accept it would definitely be a huge story within biomedical science. There is no conspiracy to hush up negative effects of mobile phone radiation, it is just that epidemiology becomes ever more sensitive and we seem to look at effects at the statistical detection limit for practical study designs. 

That said, electromagnetic fields have indeed been shown to modulate cell behaviour in culture, e.g. cell migration in scratch assays, an culture model of wound healing (something I have personally seen in a lab next door). However, the field strengths in these experiments were usually quite a bit higher than what you get from your mobile.

You are correct, though, in that we do not formally know whether in the long run there is no link between mobile radiation and cancer at all. The effect cannot be big, though, otherwise such a link would have been long established. Simple precautions are easily taken, though: I have e.g. asked my son to charge his mobile over night not on the shelf next to the headrest of his bed, but on his desk 3m away (or even on a book shelf outside his room, but this is apparently impossible if you are 16). As has been pointed out above, the radiation from the mobile itself will be orders of magnitude higher than that of the antenna mast due to the inverse relation between intensity and the square of the distance from the source.

Unfortunately or luckily, depending on your POV, the one epidemiological study I am aware off that initially did suggest a link between mobile radiation and cancer, in that glioblastomas in Japanese teenagers were correlated with handedness*, has apparently not been replicated, either with larger cohorts in Japan or elsewhere

CB

* in the same way that skin cancers on the forearm were found to be linked to which window you roll down while driving, i.e. typically on the left arm in the Southern USA, but on the right in Australia. This epidemiologically showed that there is a link between sun exposure and cancer.

OP paul mitchell 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

My very handy microwave oven will be going in the  bin after watching this one.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sIeKRhclQI&fbclid=IwAR2a8iMJ_X6KB2agjc...

I do not endorse the product he recommends.

Post edited at 00:25
 wercat 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

what quackish uneducated rubbish he spouts!  If he was showing high levels of Microwave emission I would be scared.   Presumably he is going around confiscating all sources of magnetism!

Who is he?

Post edited at 09:41
 Hooo 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Here's a link for you: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+worry+cause+cancer

I suggest you get rid of your computer, stop watching crap on YouTube and get outside. Seriously, there is more evidence that stress and worry causes cancer than EMFs. Your​ web browsing activities are causing you harm.

OP paul mitchell 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Hooo:

What say you about this watercress experiment? Classrooms have higher radiation levels than  a house.https://www.facebook.com/certifiedshungite/videos/2708732729192930/UzpfSTY2...

Also,a smart meter affecting  the heart.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIobFr3m8kk&t=2s

Post edited at 18:19
5
 Gone 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Think about it. If RF emissions stopped seeds germinating, you would expect to see patterns in fields surrounding masts. You don’t, despite there being a lot of masts in fields. (Crop circles are something else). 

 SouthernSteve 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Why are you so against mainstream science? The data you have presented is largely not checked through peer review and follows uncertain scientific principles. 

It is mainstream science that gets you to work each day, allows you to phone, email, watch videos and hopefully cures you when you are ill. The common lack of trust and backlash against the work of principled sensible people (scientists) means for instance that people deny climate change, fail to vaccinate their children and still think that MMR causes autism. This seems to be a growing trend in our society and can be very harmful.

Deadeye 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I was going to answer "no" to your original question.

The science has been done; the issue has been determined.  No.  They don't.

It's like climate change.  No more evidence is required; the matter has been resolved.  Anthropomorphic climate change is real and cell phone masts don't cause cance rin those living near or passing by.

However, also like climate change, there's a persistent group of people that won't accept oerwhelming evidence yet cling like a limpet to the merest scrap of any counter-theory no matter how weak or laughable the reasoning behind it.

This isn't a small social effect either - the same instincts to mistrust the rigorous yet have faith in the ludicrous has brought us a looming crisis in vaccination amongst allegedly otherwise well-educated people.

So, as you appear absolutely determined to regard cell phone masts and microwave ovens as dangerous, I won't dissuade you - that's the fair thing to do.

I will view you as a fool though.  Sorry about that, but there you are.

 john arran 23 Nov 2019
In reply to SouthernSteve:

... spread widely and effectively by social media - notably Facebook and Youtube, who seem to have no difficulty in turning a very blind eye to circulated and damaging lies as long as it increases their profit margins. That's where the real change can and should be made.

 Tom Valentine 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

No, the science has not entirely  been done and the issue has not been entirely determined. This  dismissive attitude is part of the problem. The consensus that you are promoting doesn't actually exist.

While ever EU agencies and WHO agencies say there still needs to be research into long term effects ( by which I assume they mean an average lifetime) you can't blame the man in the street for being circumspect about the whole subject and not simply taking UKC advice about it.

Hoo's post at 8.08 Thursday allows an inkling of understanding about a society we live in where not everyone is qualified in relevant science to the topic and has to make do with information from the media that we have available to us. This includes pronouncements from government bodies and so on , whether you like it or not.

Post edited at 19:36
5
 Hooo 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

What say you about this then?  youtube.com/watch?v=XNa0wBLSbjo& It must be true if it's on YouTube.

Up thread someone made a joke about your mental health. I honestly think you need to give this a break for a while. You've been on it for a week now, posting absolute junk. Your obsession with this subject is not healthy.

1
 wercat 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> What say you about this watercress experiment? Classrooms have higher radiation levels than  a house.https://www.facebook.com/certifiedshungite/videos/2708732729192930/UzpfSTY2...

> Also,a smart meter affecting  the heart.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIobFr3m8kk&t=2s


Eon themselves admitted that pacemakers are affected on the phone the other day.  I was interested in the practical implications of the mobile phone technology they said it used, like interference to Freeview in fringe areas (not a silly query as a set of temp traffic lights using RF knocked out our freeeview for the ten days they were there in the road further away than our meter.  The Eon caller said "it's only pacemakers that are affected".

 wercat 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

This documentary footage shows what happens with too much RF in the home ...

Please watch for your own sake

youtube.com/watch?v=F-8RItOZE30&

Deadeye 23 Nov 2019
In reply to wercat:

> This documentary footage shows what happens with too much RF in the home ...

> Please watch for your own sake


Thank you!  I've had an epiphany.

Paul and Tom are right after all.

Deadeye 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> No, the science has not entirely  been done and the issue has not been entirely determined. This  dismissive attitude is part of the problem. The consensus that you are promoting doesn't actually exist.

> While ever EU agencies and WHO agencies say there still needs to be research into long term effects ( by which I assume they mean an average lifetime) you can't blame the man in the street for being circumspect about the whole subject and not simply taking UKC advice about it.

> Hoo's post at 8.08 Thursday allows an inkling of understanding about a society we live in where not everyone is qualified in relevant science to the topic and has to make do with information from the media that we have available to us. This includes pronouncements from government bodies and so on , whether you like it or not.


"Get in the sack"

 Hooo 23 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

OK, I'm going to have one last go. Here's an experiment you can do yourself.

I watched the watercress video. It's made by Devra Davis' Environmental Health Trust. Can we trust them to carry out genuine experiments and tell the truth? Well, here's how we can find out...

Do the experiment yourself. Get a WiFi router and some cress seeds and repeat what they did. It's easy to do, and it will prove once and for all if WiFi is harmful or if Dr Davis is a lying crank. Obviously you know where my money is, but try it yourself and let us know how you get on.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...