The dangers of 4G fear mongering (column)

Can 4G fear mongering have a negative impact on cellular network coverage?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 75.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • Total voters
    52
There is nothing so powerful as fear mongering.

Can't we move these people to the moon or something (where they can get fried by some REAL radiation?) :D
 
I have seen a tree's leaves color brown and then fall off due to somebody making a very hot fire underneath said tree.

Also, sometimes a burning veld fire will do the same - the leaves will not burn, but the heat from the veld fire will damage the leaves, they go brown and fall off.

So...

Quite simple to make people get the heebie-jeebies from any kind of cellphone mast - you just choose a suitable tree specimen somewhere in relation to said cellphone tower, then lightly "burn" said tree on one side only to give the impression of radiation burning...
 
Cellphone towers dont burn anything. I have a giant palm tree one 30 meters away from me. While this scaremongering is normal BS from non-technical people... it should not be censored. Any crazy person should be allowed to stand on their soap box and have their say.'

Anti-science people are anti-science people, be they creationists, wifi-ists, climate change denialists whatever. Expect a list of 5 scientists in non-related fields to say wifi`s kill :D

Many scientific studies have investigated possible health symptoms of mobile phone radiation. These studies are occasionally reviewed by some scientific committees to assess overall risks. A recent assessment was published in 2007 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).[4] It concludes that the three lines of evidence, viz. animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans".
Click to expand...

In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[17] The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) considers this report inconclusive.[18]
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever undertaken – has now been published and did not find a solid link between mobile phones and brain tumours.[19]
The International Journal of Epidemiology published[20] a combined data analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
In the press release[21] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[22]
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,
continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile phones when responding to a questionnaire.[17][23]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[24]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[25]
Click to expand...

etc....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

This is hardly a misunderstood area with the amount of research that has being put into it.

I guess its just all those evil scientists working together to undermine the real truth.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
 
Cant cellphone suppliers sue newspapers that provide false information without proper facts?

Also, I vaguely remember this being near the coast? (Correct me if I'm wrong, having a hard time finding the original article on Google.) We had trees planted in our property and they "burned" because of the climate and sea breeze. They weren't coping so close to it.
 
Nether said:
Cant cellphone suppliers sue newspapers that provide false information without proper facts?

Also, I vaguely remember this being near the coast? (Correct me if I'm wrong, having a hard time finding the original article on Google.) We had trees planted in our property and they "burned" because of the climate and sea breeze. They weren't coping so close to it.
Click to expand...
Nope, this is Joburg. See other thread on LTE/4G "burning" trees here on MyBB. http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/400245-4G-(LTE)-health-warning-report-slated
 
This crazy nutjob of a freakshow managed to get an article into the Saturday Independant (Durbans Saturday paper) this weekend...
 
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. :whistle:
 
Beri said:
well if vodacom said it is ok then we know it is ok. they do not lie to people
Click to expand...

Did you read the article, specifically the paragraph about cellphones potentially posing more of a risk than towers, before you posted that? Also that fewer towers means that cellphones compensate by increasing the power of the cellphone's output signal to a far away tower.

You don't have to believe Vodacom, but if you are going to harp on about who wrote the article without actually reading what was written you will forever remain ignorant.
 
j4ck455 said:
Did you read the article, specifically the paragraph about cellphones potentially posing more of a risk than towers, before you posted that? Also that fewer towers means that cellphones compensate by increasing the power of the cellphone's output signal to a far away tower.

You don't have to believe Vodacom, but if you are going to harp on about who wrote the article without actually reading what was written you will forever remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

So i take you also know the "crazy lady" Where did you meet her to form your opinion that she is crazy. Or are you a doctor? DDT was also said to be safe and look what that did. Maybe you should get your head out your a$$.
 
The World Health Organization has some explaining to do



10 out of 14 peer-reviewed scientific studies on people exposed to Mobile-Phone mast (cell-tower) radiation show adverse health effects.


Despite the abundance of scientific evidence of harm, the WHO fact sheet #304 about "Base stations and wireless technologies" claims:


"From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations.

The above statement from the WHO is simply not true and clearly not based on the available scientific evidence.

A recent independent review of Mobile-Phone mast studies by Prof. Michael Kundi has shown that the studies do conform to the specified WHO / ICNIRP standards of scientific quality, including their assessment criteria of consistency and replication.

For some reason, the rationale behind the WHO fact sheet on Mobile-phone masts did not include any of the studies showing harmful effects. This fact sheet was authored by Mike Repacholi and Emilie van Deventer.


The WHO has ignored all the studies that show harm to health from Mobile-Phone mast radiation.

We want to know why! because:

•All these studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and are referenced either on the WHO database or on PUBMED.

•All these studies conform to the WHO and ICNIRP standards of scientific quality, including their assessment criteria of consistency and replication.

•Several of these studies provide accurate RF exposure measurements.

•At least three additional epidemiological studies on chronic exposure to mobile phone bases stations with POSITIVE results (showing harm to health) have been published in peer-reviewed journals on animals.


In 2006, Bio-Engineer Jean-Luc Guilmot collected the all then existing Mobile-Phone mast studies and showed that 80% of those studies documented harm to health in people exposed.

Mr. Guilmot wrote a letter to the WHO asking why this was not reflected in the WHO fact sheets. He never received an answer.

In May 2008, head of the WHO EMF project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer spoke at a conference in Copenhagen. At that conference, a representative from Mast-Victims asked her why the WHO fact sheet does not mention the evidence of harm from Mobile-Phone masts (PDF) that is recorded in the WHO's own research database.

Dr. Deventer replied that she was aware of the studies in question, but that they "were not performed according to correct protocol".

This claim by Dr. Deventer is most curious because no one in the scientific community has heard of this alleged WHO acceptance protocol for Mobile-Phone mast studies.

Following the Copenhagen conference, Mast-Victims wrote a series of letters to Dr. Emilie van Deventer, asking for a copy of the mentioned "protocol". We never received an answer.

In September 2008, Dr. Deventer spoke at a Conference in London, where Mast-Victims also attended. Prior to Dr. Deventers talk, we requested that she would publicly explain where the mysterious WHO "protocol" had gone.

Unfortunately, Dr. Deventer suddenly had to leave immediately after her talk so she could not take questions nor explain about the "protocol".

Now the year is 2009 and we want answers!

Mr. Jean-Luc Guilmot has updated his request to the WHO. Read his excellent letter here (PDF) and see his list of Mobile-Phone mast studies here (PDF).

Mast-Victims has also recently sent a letter (PDF) to Dr. Deventer at the WHO, asking why she has never answered our questions about the evidence of harm from Mobile-Phone masts and the "protocol" that supposedly voids it.

We have not received any reply yet.


We urge everyone to write to the World Health Organization and demand that they come clean on the health risks from Mobile-Phone masts!

http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=who&
 
j4ck455 said:
Did you read the article, specifically the paragraph about cellphones potentially posing more of a risk than towers, before you posted that? Also that fewer towers means that cellphones compensate by increasing the power of the cellphone's output signal to a far away tower.

You don't have to believe Vodacom, but if you are going to harp on about who wrote the article without actually reading what was written you will forever remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

yip like you said ignorance is not good. just read some more before you open your mouth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X