iBurst makes massive revelation in Craigavon tower battle

[r00igev@@r]

@dantex Can I sell you an iBurst modem? Give you a reason to visit us more often?

 

[MickeyD]

Dunno if they are moving it or any of the details of the settlement, I was not part of the group negotiating with iBurst.
The iBurst rep did say it is down because of regulatory issues, amongst others...
This alone confirms what many of us were saying from the outset;there were numerous irregularities in the approval process.

Like I said before, they were hoping nobody would notice...

AFAIK iBurst (and other operators) have facilities management companies that do this on their behalf. Yes, it does not absolve the operators from any blame (if any) but I would imagine some harsh words between them (and some penalties!).

 

[Karl Muller]

Game changer?

Surely the funniest part of this saga is an iBurst rep on this forum saying the mast was removed for "aesthetic" reasons. Yes, it was not pretty.

I consistently advised the Craigavon residents to focus on regulatory issues rather than health. With no health regulations in place in South Africa, obviously the operators want to skew the debate into an area where they know they are at home -- i.e. the Wild West.

But as this particular story closes down, it's worth noting a recent entry in Microwave News, which is without question the best source of information on the whole health question. It's titled "Game Changer?" and says:

It's only a short letter buried in the back pages of a journal, but it could change the entire cell phone–cancer controversy.

A group at Hebrew University in Jerusalem has reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors in Israel over the last 30 years. Rakefet Czerninski, Avi Zini and Harold Sgan-Cohen found that these tumors have quadrupled since 1970, "with the steepest increase" after 2001. Their letter appears in the January 2011 issue of Epidemiology; it's a free download. They are with the Hadassah School of Dental Medicine at the university.

The reason this is so important is that three years ago Siegal Sadetzki, the leader of the Israeli Interphone study group, reported that heavy users of cell phones "showed significantly elevated risks" of parotid gland tumors; the trend was apparent as early as after only five years of use.

Sadetzki's results and those of others pointing to increases in the risk of developing brain tumors or acoustic neuromas, have met with widespread skepticism because, critics say, no one has seen an uptick of the these tumors in the general population. Now, the team in Jerusalem has seen exactly that — though no one is claiming to have shown a causal association. Even so, the new finding is guaranteed to rekindle concerns about the possible link between cell phones and cancer.

The parotid gland is a type of salivary gland — the one that is closest to the cheek next to where most people hold their cell phones. Interestingly, the new Israeli data show no similar increases in the two other major types of salivary glands, the submandibular and sublingual glands that are further away from the phone.

Earlier this year, another group at the Hebrew University's Hadassah School of Dental Medicine found that, in a test on human volunteers, the parotid gland adjacent to a cell phone had higher rates of saliva secretion, and lower protein secretion, than did the parotid gland on the other side of the face.

Israelis are well known as exceptionally heavy users of cell phones. There has been a sixfold increase in the number of minutes used from 1997 to 2006, according to Czerninski and coworkers.

It's well worth taking a look at the graphs on http://www.microwavenews.com/

Now, as this article says, no one is yet claiming a causal link. But for those of us who have been watching this situation, it's just been a matter of time before the statistics started showing an unambiguous and steep increase in very particular illnesses -- precisely in those parts of the body that are most exposed to the radiation, as this study shows. Take a good look at this graph, and remember it well. I am certain it will prove to be the tipping point in this debate, because in the end, you simply cannot hide what is happening.

The best figures I have seen indicate that some 30% of the population is going to prove vulnerable to this radiation. Those of you who pour scorn and insults on people raising health issues and trying to get the most basic precautionary principles and warnings in place, will have your turn in the doctor's surgery. Please don't say that you weren't warned, when you find you are diagnosed with a brain tumour or the like.

If you look at Microwave News, you'll see that a third study has now found a highly significant link between cellphone use and acoustic neuroma, tumours of the inner ear. The Interphone study (described by the head of the Finnish government's radiation protection bureau, Dariusz Leszczynski, as "garbage in, garbage out") went to great lengths to hide this by correcting for "recall bias" -- i.e. because you get a tumour in your left ear, you mistakenly start thinking this was the ear you used to hold your phone against. Here is an interesting case from South Africa of the cricketer Clive Rice, who is deaf in one ear from having an acoustic neuroma removed:

"The first symptom was I couldn’t hear when I was on my cell phone. I
kept turning up the volume and wondering what was wrong. But then when
I walked down the passage at home, I would occasionally bump into the
wall, which was a bit disconcerting..."
http://www.davegemmell.co.za/?p=51

I can't help thinking of the joke where the coroner says of the bad guy with ten bullets in his back: "Worst case of suicide I ever saw." Clive Rice's case, where he remembers that the first symptom of his tumour was that he couldn't hear on his cellphone, would have the Interphone researchers saying: "Worst case of recall bias we ever saw."

One day, the lies will be exposed. Until then...

 

[r00igev@@r]

Surely the funniest part of this saga is an iBurst rep on this forum saying the mast was removed for "aesthetic" reasons. Yes, it was not pretty.

I consistently advised the Craigavon residents to focus on regulatory issues rather than health. With no health regulations in place in South Africa, obviously the operators want to skew the debate into an area where they know they are at home -- i.e. the Wild West.

But as this particular story closes down, it's worth noting a recent entry in Microwave News, which is without question the best source of information on the whole health question. It's titled "Game Changer?" and says:

It's only a short letter buried in the back pages of a journal, but it could change the entire cell phone–cancer controversy.

A group at Hebrew University in Jerusalem has reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors in Israel over the last 30 years. Rakefet Czerninski, Avi Zini and Harold Sgan-Cohen found that these tumors have quadrupled since 1970, "with the steepest increase" after 2001. Their letter appears in the January 2011 issue of Epidemiology; it's a free download. They are with the Hadassah School of Dental Medicine at the university.

The reason this is so important is that three years ago Siegal Sadetzki, the leader of the Israeli Interphone study group, reported that heavy users of cell phones "showed significantly elevated risks" of parotid gland tumors; the trend was apparent as early as after only five years of use.

Sadetzki's results and those of others pointing to increases in the risk of developing brain tumors or acoustic neuromas, have met with widespread skepticism because, critics say, no one has seen an uptick of the these tumors in the general population. Now, the team in Jerusalem has seen exactly that — though no one is claiming to have shown a causal association. Even so, the new finding is guaranteed to rekindle concerns about the possible link between cell phones and cancer.

The parotid gland is a type of salivary gland — the one that is closest to the cheek next to where most people hold their cell phones. Interestingly, the new Israeli data show no similar increases in the two other major types of salivary glands, the submandibular and sublingual glands that are further away from the phone.

Earlier this year, another group at the Hebrew University's Hadassah School of Dental Medicine found that, in a test on human volunteers, the parotid gland adjacent to a cell phone had higher rates of saliva secretion, and lower protein secretion, than did the parotid gland on the other side of the face.

Israelis are well known as exceptionally heavy users of cell phones. There has been a sixfold increase in the number of minutes used from 1997 to 2006, according to Czerninski and coworkers.

It's well worth taking a look at the graphs on http://www.microwavenews.com/

Now, as this article says, no one is yet claiming a causal link. But for those of us who have been watching this situation, it's just been a matter of time before the statistics started showing an unambiguous and steep increase in very particular illnesses -- precisely in those parts of the body that are most exposed to the radiation, as this study shows. Take a good look at this graph, and remember it well. I am certain it will prove to be the tipping point in this debate, because in the end, you simply cannot hide what is happening.

The best figures I have seen indicate that some 30% of the population is going to prove vulnerable to this radiation. Those of you who pour scorn and insults on people raising health issues and trying to get the most basic precautionary principles and warnings in place, will have your turn in the doctor's surgery. Please don't say that you weren't warned, when you find you are diagnosed with a brain tumour or the like.

If you look at Microwave News, you'll see that a third study has now found a highly significant link between cellphone use and acoustic neuroma, tumours of the inner ear. The Interphone study (described by the head of the Finnish government's radiation protection bureau, Dariusz Leszczynski, as "garbage in, garbage out") went to great lengths to hide this by correcting for "recall bias" -- i.e. because you get a tumour in your left ear, you mistakenly start thinking this was the ear you used to hold your phone against. Here is an interesting case from South Africa of the cricketer Clive Rice, who is deaf in one ear from having an acoustic neuroma removed:

"The first symptom was I couldn’t hear when I was on my cell phone. I
kept turning up the volume and wondering what was wrong. But then when
I walked down the passage at home, I would occasionally bump into the
wall, which was a bit disconcerting..."
http://www.davegemmell.co.za/?p=51

I can't help thinking of the joke where the coroner says of the bad guy with ten bullets in his back: "Worst case of suicide I ever saw." Clive Rice's case, where he remembers that the first symptom of his tumour was that he couldn't hear on his cellphone, would have the Interphone researchers saying: "Worst case of recall bias we ever saw."

One day, the lies will be exposed. Until then...

As a matter of clarification the iBurst Rep on this forum is "iBurst" and that is not me.

I am happy to humour you on any technical issues.

 

[eltherza]

I am certain it will prove to be the tipping point in this debate, because in the end, you simply cannot hide what is happening.

The best figures I have seen indicate that some 30% of the population is going to prove vulnerable to this radiation. Those of you who pour scorn and insults on people raising health issues and trying to get the most basic precautionary principles and warnings in place, will have your turn in the doctor's surgery. Please don't say that you weren't warned, when you find you are diagnosed with a brain tumour or the like.

So why are the craigavonians happy with the cellphone towers and not making cellc + vodacom + mtn + telkom + 8ta + virgin + neotel take down their towers?

I mean, cellphone tower is MUCH worse than iburst tower. iBurst only has 1 frequency to "poison" all of us with. Check out the spectrum usage: http://manypossibilities.net/spectrum/
See how small iBurst is using compared to everyone else?

Radio stations use long wavelengths allowing great distance and penetration - DSTV is also throwing down radiation onto us from space (as well as the other countless satellites up there)

It's so absurd to believe 1 tower is causing illness when there are so many other sources out there. If you were REALLY serious about peoples health you'd be attacking these sources too. Or maybe a better use of your time would be to make sure fourways goes at least 1 month without a water cut?

 

[dantex]

@dantex Can I sell you an iBurst modem? Give you a reason to visit us more often?

:wtf:

 

[r00igev@@r]

:wtf:

Merry Christmas!

Might I suggest an iBurst UTD with a wifi router as the perfect stocking filler. No unsightly lines need to be strung across the neighbourhood to pollute the view. You can also install it yourself and don't need to wait to be phoned by the installer at your gate while you are on holiday at the coast.

 

[Karl Muller]

As a matter of clarification the iBurst Rep on this forum is "iBurst" and that is not me.

I am happy to humour you on any technical issues.

Well, you can actually humour me on a few “technical” issues.

The first is: if you are simply iBurst’s “technical” outjie and modem salesman on this board, why did you take it upon yourself to reveal the interesting datum that the Craigavon mast was removed partly for “aesthetic” reasons? According to the short article on TechCentral, a “non-disclosure” agreement was signed between residents and the company regarding the mast’s removal. iBurst basically refused to comment officially on the settlement. So why does the “tech” representative feel free to reveal what the official spokespersons were not prepared to talk about? The word “disingenuous” was invented to cover this kind of behaviour. Was this something you just heard around the water cooler, and thought you would share with us? Is this the way iBurst comments publicly on issues like this, when the other signatories keep to their word and do not disclose the nature of the settlement?

A more serious technical issue, which I would very much like you to clarify. There was huff and puff on this forum about iBurst using “beamforming”, which concept I initially took at face value. I then downloaded a Kyocera document on iBurst technology, which used the word “beamforming” in the title, in the first paragraph, and in other parts of the article. You can find this document referenced in my criminal charges against iBurst, which you can find in full on www.mast-victims.org (“Masts, lies and experiments”). I was quite prepared initially to accept that iBurst used some sort of “beamforming”. So I was very surprised to get an official iBurst document, submitted to the Gauteng planning department, in which Sasan Parvin, CTO of iBurst, emphatically denied that iBurst uses “beamforming”. I spoke to him on the phone, and he repeated this denial several times, telling me that this term was just a kind of “analogy” (sic). The most I could understand of what he was saying is that a “null beam” is used in the direction of a user terminal when this UT is transmitting to the base station.

Now, the Kyocera article shows clear “beams” being sent to three user terminals. One would expect these beams to spread out, but the diagram shows these three “beams” spreading out and then each converging nicely to a point on the three UTs. That seriously cannot be correct - - even a laser beam spreads out as it radiates. Kyocera furthermore claim that they can individually service three UTs just 20cm apart at a distance of 100m. Now, this would be a pretty good “beam” even for military radar, and Parvin was at pains in the official document to deny that iBurst uses anything like military radar phased arrays.

So, exactly what is iBurst doing to achieve this kind of discrimination in its unique spatial division multiple access system? The only thing I could imagine is that it creates a complex interference pattern, and adjusts it so that constructive interference nodes of the different channels coincide with the different user terminals. This is quite different from “beamforming”, indeed, and would mean that a highly complex and very dense pattern of radiation is laid around a mast. In my submission to the World Health Organisation, I described iBurst as a system employing “unprecedented spectral density” (something Kyocera basically boast about, in showing how many UTs a single mast can service). This spectral density might go a long way towards explaining the horrendous health problems that surfaced in the area - - and people who think this was all “hysteria” should please explain why several dogs got ill, and children less than two years of age showed the same patterns of illness as their parents. (And why one family, who were completely unaware that there was a mast, was wondering why their health went for a loop and only found out about the iBurst controversy later.)

Anyway: since you are very much the “technical” man, perhaps you can now clarify once and for all exactly how this technology works, and exactly what kind of radiation footprint is experienced around an iBurst mast. Please make sure that what you say is consonant with what Kyocera themselves reveal about their technology, or else explain the differences very clearly for us, so that I can take this up with Kyocera themselves.

A couple of other issues. You get very clever about my allegation that the lurker “Klos” is none other than Jannie van Zyl:

"Klos" =
1) @pigspotter
2) bin Laden
3) ibb
4) Scarlet Pimpernel
5) The Incredible Hulk

You don’t seem to have any problems associating with your former CEO or his blatant lies, and you think that it’s a big joke that he logs on using pseudonyms to lie further, and to insult and defame people. Well, I have unfortunately had enough experience of Jannie van Zyl to be able to spot his style at a glance now. So here is my list:

Jannie van Zyl =
1) “Klos”;
2) “Neo” (also on MyBB, when he thinks he’s being a philosopher);
3) “Zalman” (on BBLounge - - interesting that Arthur Goldstuck’s father was called Zalman, as I saw in a tech article, which I suspect is where Van Zyl got this odd name from);
4) “Douglas” on TechCentral (on the article regarding the criminal charges I laid against him - - and Van Zyl can explain himself in court why he chose this name, I know exactly why he did).

Take a look at the distinctive arrogant style, the similar grammatical errors, and the self-serving nature of the posts, and I think any unbiased observer will see exactly what I mean. So, you know so much about “Klos” - - can you add another actual pseudonym for this lurker, instead of making up rubbish? I’m quite sure he’s been busy elsewhere, these were just the ones that caught my eye. You suggest I take the identity of Klos up with the management of this forum; @rpm, are you prepared to reveal the identity of this egregious lurker, who feels quite free to insult and defame people who have the guts to write under their real names?

So, a final question for you, @ r00igev@@r, and I’m really interested in this. If you are an iBurst technical rep, a public representative of a public company, can you explain why you choose such a strange and anachronistic “nick” for yourself, and one which identifies you with some of the very stupidest ideology of the apartheid era? I say this advisedly, because I had many arguments back in the day with people warning of the “Red Peril”, and I really wish I could meet them again today to ask them if I wasn’t dead right, and they weren’t dead wrong. If you think I was sympathetic to Communism, you couldn’t possibly be more mistaken. But maybe you have another reason for this quite provocative pseudonym, in which case I think - - as a salesman in the New South Africa - - you should explain yourself a little. If it means what it seems to mean, though, I would like you to clarify why you choose to associate yourself with this particular political ideology. Do you not think this might just possibly alienate some of your clients from the other side of the tracks? Or is this actually the message you are trying to send?

Over to you, over.

 

[isie]

So, a final question for you, @ r00igev@@r, and I’m really interested in this. If you are an iBurst technical rep, a public representative of a public company, can you explain why you choose such a strange and anachronistic “nick” for yourself,
.

maybe because Ronald is a weasley,
A soul-less ginger haired weasley.

No offence Ronald or any other gingers out ther

 

[Kloofvreter]

I ****en hate activists.

 

[Lounger]

Terrific post Karl! I look forward to the 'comeback' (unlikely).
I'm also keen to know why the owner allows so many pseudonyms. Friends perhaps?

 

[r00igev@@r]

Over to you, over.

Dear Karl,

I am willing to assist you with any technical issue with iBurst connectivity so please feel free to PM me your UTID and I'll investigate. The diatribe presented appears to be a misreading of the use of multiple RF transceivers in which I cannot find any connectivity issues that require my assistance. Furthermore, your perverted insinuations that I am a right-wing racist go beyond the pale. I did in some way agree with you that anonymity is often misused, but given the above hypocrisy, my opinion is that I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

 

[arf9999]

Any positive points that Karl Muller may introduce are completely clouded over by some of the neurotic, paranoid bull**** that he types. Sometimes it is best to be silent and thought to be ignorant, than to speak and confirm it.

 

[Lounger]

Any positive points that Karl Muller may introduce are completely clouded over by some of the neurotic, paranoid bull**** that he types. Sometimes it is best to be silent and thought to be ignorant, than to speak and confirm it.

Which part do you disagree with or are you just ranting as well?

 

[arf9999]

Well, you can actually humour me on a few “technical” issues.


A more serious technical issue, which I would very much like you to clarify. There was huff and puff on this forum about iBurst using “beamforming”, which concept I initially took at face value. I then downloaded a Kyocera document on iBurst technology, which used the word “beamforming” in the title, in the first paragraph, and in other parts of the article. You can find this document referenced in my criminal charges against iBurst, which you can find in full on www.mast-victims.org (“Masts, lies and experiments”). I was quite prepared initially to accept that iBurst used some sort of “beamforming”. So I was very surprised to get an official iBurst document, submitted to the Gauteng planning department, in which Sasan Parvin, CTO of iBurst, emphatically denied that iBurst uses “beamforming”. I spoke to him on the phone, and he repeated this denial several times, telling me that this term was just a kind of “analogy” (sic). The most I could understand of what he was saying is that a “null beam” is used in the direction of a user terminal when this UT is transmitting to the base station.

Now, the Kyocera article shows clear “beams” being sent to three user terminals. One would expect these beams to spread out, but the diagram shows these three “beams” spreading out and then each converging nicely to a point on the three UTs. That seriously cannot be correct - - even a laser beam spreads out as it radiates. Kyocera furthermore claim that they can individually service three UTs just 20cm apart at a distance of 100m. Now, this would be a pretty good “beam” even for military radar, and Parvin was at pains in the official document to deny that iBurst uses anything like military radar phased arrays.

So, exactly what is iBurst doing to achieve this kind of discrimination in its unique spatial division multiple access system? The only thing I could imagine is that it creates a complex interference pattern, and adjusts it so that constructive interference nodes of the different channels coincide with the different user terminals. This is quite different from “beamforming”, indeed, and would mean that a highly complex and very dense pattern of radiation is laid around a mast. In my submission to the World Health Organisation, I described iBurst as a system employing “unprecedented spectral density” (something Kyocera basically boast about, in showing how many UTs a single mast can service). This spectral density might go a long way towards explaining the horrendous health problems that surfaced in the area - - and people who think this was all “hysteria” should please explain why several dogs got ill, and children less than two years of age showed the same patterns of illness as their parents. (And why one family, who were completely unaware that there was a mast, was wondering why their health went for a loop and only found out about the iBurst controversy later.)

Occam's razor. In order to service three separate UTDs in close proximity, is it not more likely that IBurst will use different RF frequencies? I also think that you may be confusing a diagram showing radiation patterns, with a specific beam to a particular UTD. But that's just supposition, I don't care enough to go find the documentation in question.

I do, however, recommend that you read a very good book by Dr Ben Goldacre called Bad Science.

 

[arf9999]

I'm ranting. Karl seems to slip off his tinfoil hat just long enough to make wild accusations (some of a personal nature) that add zero value to his arguments. The more he does it, the less he looks like an authority on the subject and more like a kook. The scales are tipping towards kook at the moment.

 

[ginggs]

This thread has outlived its purpose. The tower in question has been relocated.