Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

New 4G Mobile data may kill your free view TV


Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
11 Jul 2012 4:44PM
Lack of proof is the problem - how many people have died or become seriously ill through use of a mobile phone or by living near a mobile mast?

We put up with motor vehicles even though they kill about 2000 and injure about 200,000 on British roads alone. How do casualties from mobile phones compare with those sort of figures?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 5:03PM
Your response highlights significant problems with with pressure groups:
firstly, just because some research is done by government does not make it de facto bad science. You may disagree with the conclusio but the merit is in the methods used
Just because research is done by lobby groups does not make unbiased. Many of them truly believe they are acting in the interests of manking, because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) there is a danger and they want to protect other people from this danger whether it exists or not. They fact they are not doing it for money is comleltely irrelevant.
Poor scientific technique is poor scientific technuique, no matter what the merits of the case


Quote:One of the most startling findings from this report plus from other research since, is that damage is caused by the radiation from cell towers at far lower intensities than previously realised.


How does that relate to tower emissions? In every section conclusion I have read it effectively says 'no conclusive evidence' and then starts to talk about 'may be harmful to health', quotes anecdotal evidence and then reels off possible ways it could cause harm. IN other words, this report does not provide proof. It provides reasons for further research and hypothesis. No more. [Edited to add: I would go further - the way it is structured it is designed to pander to the scaremongers.]

Relating to genotoxicity, Sectioin V conclusion says: "other than the study by Phillips, there is no indication that RFR at levels that one can experience in the vicinty of base stations and RF transmission towers could cause DNA damage"
Section IV: it says that it is justified to conclude EMF can change gene expression but does not relate the levels to that seen near transmission towers (poor science given the nature of the document). And admists more work is needed


Quote:Even China and Russia which are not generally considered by western media to have the interests of their citizens at heart, have set much lower 'safe' levels than the UK.

Meaningless. It just means they have different considerations which may or may not be valid. I could equally say that the managers of the London Underground are putting passengers' lives at risk because the levels of radiation exceed those permitted in nuclear power stations. Yet I don't see rampant epidemics of cancer among the passengers.


So I will repeat: If you want to use this doubt as a reason not to build towers 'just in case' (the precautionary principle) then fair enough. But please admit that and don't try to clog up a valid public debate with poor quality data.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 5:38PM

Quote:Your response highlights significant problems with with pressure groups:


I should restate that as:


Quote:Your response highlights significant problems with with the way reports from pressure groups are used in public debate:
Kako 8 143
11 Jul 2012 6:30PM
Carabosse, Unless you are talking about exhaust emissions,cars don't kill anyone...it is the driver either through poor driving or neglecting maintenance on the car or the pedestrian larking about in the road or drunk.

You are right about the lack of proof being the problem. As there is no safe level of radiation and every dose has the potential to cause cancer and its effects are culmulative then i suggest that anything exposing the entire population of the country to radiation 24/7 is a major cause for concern. Of particular concern with this type of radiation is that it is pulsed, this apparently is more damaging to the body. A leading scientist has stated that the whole mobile phone infrastructure is the largest biological experiment ever undertaken on the planet.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 6:44PM

Quote:As there is no safe level of radiation

Interestingly that is coming under increasing doubt. Look at the Japanese nuclear plant after the tsunami - according to such thinking we should have seen radiation deaths yet not one has been verifiably reported. Epidemiological review of the Hiroshima/Nagaskai bombs suggest that actual genetic damage is far less than originally claimed. Ditto for Chernobyl. A lot of sicentists, including those working within Friends of the Earth are wondering if the 'zero level of safety' argument holds true in actual life.


Quote:A leading scientist has stated that the whole mobile phone infrastructure is the largest biological experiment ever undertaken on the planet.

I suppose you could call it 'an experiment' in that we have not had manmade background radiation to this extent in the past. Equally you could say that about any 'new' activity. The wording is hyperbole unsupported by any hard evidence, merely a personal interpretation of as yet unknown risks.
Kako 8 143
11 Jul 2012 8:58PM
An interesting link here on the Dr Mercola site with some fairly recent updates on the dangers from phones and wifi.

Most basic simple precaution you can take with regard to your mobile is to keep it at least 6" from your body, definitely a bad move to stuff it in your pocket.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 9:10PM
You are doing it again!

Call that an update? Headline comment at the very start of that article:


Quote:What Happens When Humans are Exposed to Man-Made Electromagnetic Fields, 24/7?


The simple answer to this question is, no one knows.



The rest of the article (all 2,800 words of it) is conjecture about what may be happening (no proof presented ) and what you can do to mitigate risk if this article scares you. Nothing more, nothing less.
You will have to do better than that, I'm afraid.
Kako 8 143
11 Jul 2012 9:42PM
mikehit,

Control your ego, you're beginning to sound like a shill for the mobile telecoms industry. I'm not posting these for the benefit of someone who questions whether anyone might have been killed by radiation from Fukushima or that Chernobyl was a relatively minor affair. Any information dated 2010 ,2011 is 'recent' when taken in this context, particularly as the government seems to be continuing to base its 'safe exposure' figures on information that is over a decade old.
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 9:43PM

Quote:Dr Mercola
That's a name we've come across before. A modern snake oil merchant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:15PM

Quote:mikehit,

Control your ego, you're beginning to sound like a shill for the mobile telecoms industry. I'm not posting these for the benefit of someone who questions whether anyone might have been killed by radiation from Fukushima or that Chernobyl was a relatively minor affair. Any information dated 2010 ,2011 is 'recent' when taken in this context, particularly as the government seems to be continuing to base its 'safe exposure' figures on information that is over a decade old.



I disagree with your source data therefore I am automatically the 'shill' of big business and have been brainwashed, and bcause I voice an opinion contrary to yours I have an ego problem. Hmmmm.
I am but a cynical scientist who just wants to be shown evidence, not opinion presented in a way that misleads people. You seem more intent on finding reasons to discredit me than discussing my comments on your 'evidence'.




Quote:particularly as the government seems to be continuing to base its 'safe exposure' figures on information that is over a decade old

You are conflating two issues (another favourite tactic typical of conpsiracy theorists and scaremongers): proving that the government definition of 'safe levels' is based on wrong information does not automatically lead to the conclusion that radio masts are dangerous. Yet this is the logic you use.
Even the papers you quoted say there is no evidence of health problems so why you keep repeating this as 'fact' I cannot understand.



An interesting reference, Keith.
But then again it is probably no more than a conspiracy of government and big business to discrediit a potential Nobel Prize winner whose views are subversive and so detested by 'the system'.Wink
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:29PM

Quote:Control your ego, you're beginning to sound like a shill for the mobile telecoms industry.

From what I can see, Mikehit is questioning the validity of the evidence you have provided, just because someone is looking for real evidence of an effect based on solid data doesn't make them a shill...and even if he was, his points are still valid AFAICS.
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:43PM
Dr Mercola has sadly been discredited more than once and his references include others who sell similar items. What you notice is a lack of ability to show scientific data and a tendency to make bold statements or reference each other, but never direct research. I wonder why? Of course they are selling a cure for those of you who suffer from electrohypersensitivity symptoms

I love this bit
Quote: What Happens When Humans are Exposed to Man-Made Electromagnetic Fields, 24/7?

The simple answer to this question is, no one knows.

But it then goes on to tell you of symptoms and blames them on the very item they just said no one knows. I wish they would make their minds up. The internet does help Snake Oil vendors sadly.

Oh for some proper research. RF energy can be harmful, but all the professional studies I have seen are looking at much higher energy densities than in WiFi or mobile phones. Also given the time such devices have been around we should have noticed some form of effect.
triumphv8 7 453 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:44PM
p1020867.jpg



Well this is the biggest EMF I have going through my body at the moment and it isn't coming from wifi or a mobile mast ?

You can see some higher frequency distortion but insignificant compared to the main signal.

Can anyone guess what it is ?
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:49PM
Is it a new pair of vibro-pants ?
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
11 Jul 2012 10:50PM

Quote:Can anyone guess what it is ?

I can't but I'm intrigued.

I've, at some point, been plugged into just about every monitor-attached device that modern medicine could throw at me but I don't recognise that as being any of them!

. . . and I'm still around!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.