4G (LTE) health warning report slated

I work across the road from a base station with MTN, Vodacom, 8a & Cell C 2G. Vodacom & 8ta 3G, so there are a lot of frequencies flying around that area, and I am not experiencing any problems nor are my colleagues.....

Bored housewife is what she is.....
 
Warning-from-EMRRFSA-website.jpg

And I've been blaming the booze all these years.......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jannie, your side probably has done more calculations than I have, but how deep does a 1900Mhz signal propagate human tissue and bone?
 
Jannie, your side probably has done more calculations than I have, but how deep does a 1900Mhz signal propagate human tissue and bone?

One of those 'it depends' answers. Specifically on the power levels.

Guess you're actually asking about SAR?

Safe levels are set at below 2W/Kg.

A Sammy S2 is about 0.3W/Kg, while an iPhone is over 1W/Kg.

(The above statement was provided free to all Apple haters. Go boys! :))
 
Last edited:
One of those 'it depends' answers. Specifically on the power levels.

Guess you're actually asking about SAR?

Safe levels are set at below 2W/Kg.

A Sammy S2 is about 0.3W/Kg, while an iPhone is over 1W/Kg.

(The above statement was provided free to all Apple haters. Go boys! :))

Ok, but from the tower's themselves? Surely it must be lower than that?

To add fuel to the fire, a BB Bold 9900 is 1.27W/Kg!
 
Ok, but from the tower's themselves? Surely it must be lower than that?
Radically lower due to the Inverse-Square law.

The numbers quoted in the opening article are good examples. The ICNIRP limit for a base station is set at 58 V/m. The BioInitiative bunch called for 0.6 V/m. From what I understand the EMRRFSA supports this number.

But even at only 30 meters, the levels a Dorny's own house was measured at 0.0049 V/m. That's over 100-times LESS than what these groups demand.

So unless you literally (and I mean literally) live on the tower, a mobile tower will never radiate as much efective power as the handset you hold right next to your ear.

And the more you block new towers, the harder your handset (the very thing you hold up next to your ear) must work to give you a signal. Exactly the opposite these people think they're achieving.
 
Last edited:
I would love to throw my Engineering Electromagnetics textbook at them : /

I wonder if these people have wifi routers? would be quite amusing.

The placebo effect is a horrible thing isn't it. New tower + fearmongering = mysterious symptoms that can't be explained.
They could complain that they are being slowly cooked by the radiation :o
 
Radically lower due to the Inverse-Square law.

The numbers quoted in the opening article are good examples. The ICNIRP limit for a base station is set at 58 V/m. The BioInitiative bunch called for 0.6 V/m. From what I understand the EMRRFSA support this number.

But even at only 30 meters, the levels a Dorny's house was measured at 0.0049 V/m. That's over 100-time LESS than what these groups demand.

So unless you literally (and I mean literally) live on the tower, a mobile tower will never radiate as much power as the handset you hold right next to your ear.

And the more you block new towers, the harder your handset (the very thing you hold up next to your ear) must work to give you a signal. Exactly the opposite these people think they're achieving.

Very nice answer

hmmm -what about we build her a shack on top of the tower, let her stay there for a year or two, and check afterwards if she have grown some sense? :p
 
Last edited:
I would love to throw my Engineering Electromagnetics textbook at them : /

I wonder if these people have wifi routers? would be quite amusing.

The placebo effect is a horrible thing isn't it. New tower + fearmongering = mysterious symptoms that can't be explained.
They could complain that they are being slowly cooked by the radiation :o

Witness Dr. Ben Goldacre on the nocebo effect (mild NSFW language):

[video=youtube;O1Q3jZw4FGs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q3jZw4FGs[/video]
 
Where does one apply to have an LTE tower erected on your property?

I would love one as I see it can cause weight loss. I can save a fortune if the missus stops buying these one-pill-every-8-hours-will-make-u-lose-10kg-in-2-weeks diet supplements, the magic shaker that shakes your fat way (makes a nice towel-hanger though) and the rarely-used Virgin membership...

Come on MTN, PM me and we can talk.
 
The plants went black???

Who's downloading so much!!

LTE has been in operations in euro for couple years now, if there was something wrong with LTE we should have known by now
 
Where does one apply to have an LTE tower erected on your property?

I would love one as I see it can cause weight loss. I can save a fortune if the missus stops buying these one-pill-every-8-hours-will-make-u-lose-10kg-in-2-weeks diet supplements, the magic shaker that shakes your fat way (makes a nice towel-hanger though) and the rarely-used Virgin membership...

Come on MTN, PM me and we can talk.

Be careful here. It states weight loss and GAIN. So your sneaky plan might just backfire on you. :)

In any case I can vouch for this being accurate. For 10 years now I've lived within 100 meters of a cell tower. In this period I've gained and then lost around 25Kg's. Clearly the towers are to blame. :rolleyes:
 
My bet is that is you secretly switch off the tower, people will still experience the same side effects :)
 
At times like this I long back for the days before the internet when kookoos wore tin-foiled hat in private and left the rest of us alone. But maybe this is the "for every action there is an opposite reaction" law. The more kookoos are connected the harder they fight not to be connected :-)

Oh well, time to go read http://educate-yourself.org/ to know what is really going on in the world :-)
 
I would like to know if this lady owns a TV, microwave and other electronic devices in her home?
Does she know how much radiation they give off?
Does she ever go out into the sun for more than 30 minutes a day (maybe while she is busy checking her trees)?
She gets more radiation in that 30 minutes from the sun, than she got from the cellphone towers in the last year.
 
My bet is that is you secretly switch off the tower, people will still experience the same side effects :)

Uhhhh.... we're talking about TREES here. The article was about TREES this time, not people. I think you should take very careful note of that before we go one step further. This is a slightly different game we are playing this time. Trees do not fake symptoms. They do not suffer psychosomatic illnesses, nor display nocebo effects.

I've investigated many cases of trees being scorched and stunted by cellphone towers, bending away from them etc. One case involved a tree doing a literal U-turn away from a nearby mast. The Arboricultural Association checked out this case, and said that there was no other explanation for what was going on, other than the radiation. These trees were scorched, deformed, bending away from the mast, and cancerous. The Association happy to quoted as saying, "Trees are stronger than humans -- if this radiation's doing this to the trees, what's it doing to us?" Nearby, there was a row of pine trees that were busy dying for no reason, about 100m from the mast.

But I saw these pine trees at Tracey-Lee Dorny's home with my own eyes, and if I hadn't, I would not have believed what happened there. Apparently the arboricultural person who came in to inspect, kept saying -- "When was there a fire? Yes, but when was the fire?" -- because this is exactly what it looks like. One side of the tree is more scorched in each case, like someone directed a flamethrower at this grove. This is really, really dramatic damage, and there's no doubt that all these trees will die unless something is done. They've all been perfectly healthy for years -- now what is causing this? In an otherwise quiet residential suburb, with no industry, no agricultural pesticides, no water problems? No one has come up with any even remotely plausible alternative explanation. I would be happy to entertain any reasonable ideas against what I saw. They can be tested if they are viable suggestions.

The other thing is that there are hundreds of scientific papers indicating exactly this kind of damage to trees from microwaves. I've made several references to this on this forum, including the Skrunda studies, where tree ring dating showed that the stunting of trees started exactly with microwave exposure. The US Geological and Wildlife Service also released a report with extensive evidence of trees being severely damaged by radiation from cellphone masts.

One of the most interesting observations was that much of what was called 'acid rain' damage in Europe, was actually being caused by microwave radar beams. This was pointed out by a retired Siemens electrical engineer called Wolfgang Volkrodt, who saw vast swathes of pine trees being devastated in the line of microwave beams from Cold War radar stations. This damage was all being blamed on acid rain from motor car exhaust pollution. But the damage was nowhere near highways -- it was in the line of radar stations.

He investigated further, and became convinced that the whole catalytic converter story in Germany, that cars needed to clean their exhaust fumes to prevent acid rain, was actually a big ploy by right-wing German politicians to boost apartheid South Africa, source of 80% of the world's platinum. I have two of Volkrodt's full reports in hard copy, but they're not on the Internet any more. You can find a story about him here, translated from the German, titled Directional Radio Beams Cut Breaks into Forests:
http://www.emrnetwork.org/pdfs/volkrodt_background.pdf

Might be interesting for Jannie van Zyl to research what an Electronic Engineer has to say on the subject, and I will be digging out Volkrodt's reports. It would be totally disastrous for the SA economy if it were revealed that the whole catalytic converter story was an apartheid scam. Imagine that!
 
But I saw these pine trees at Tracey-Lee Dorny's home with my own eyes, and if I hadn't, I would not have believed what happened there. Apparently the arboricultural person who came in to inspect, kept saying -- "When was there a fire? Yes, but when was the fire?" -- because this is exactly what it looks like. One side of the tree is more scorched in each case, like someone directed a flamethrower at this grove. This is really, really dramatic damage, and there's no doubt that all these trees will die unless something is done. They've all been perfectly healthy for years -- now what is causing this? In an otherwise quiet residential suburb, with no industry, no agricultural pesticides, no water problems? No one has come up with any even remotely plausible alternative explanation. I would be happy to entertain any reasonable ideas against what I saw. They can be tested if they are viable suggestions.

Did the same people check them when they were healthy? Before the Tower was erected? How do they know they were healthy?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X