[Opinion] Cell masts - the slow, silent killers

T

Trompie67

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,424
M

MrGray

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,391
Trompie67 said:
There is a difference between those contracting / living with the disease & those dying from it. Mortality has dropped as treatment has become more successful. The incidence of cancer has however increased per the article I posted.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you look at the trend stats, where there is increased incidence, the types of cancer are far more easily attributable to lifestyle factors - breast, lung, prostrate, colon and melanoma. Much of the increase has to do with the third world adopting western lifestyles. The incidence of the kind of cancers in sensitive tissues like the brain (which you would expect to be most susceptible to em) have been steadily decreasing. The overall point is that you would expect a huge spike from the mid-90's onwards (or the mid 2000's if there was a longer term effect) due to the sudden almost 100% saturation of cellular networks in urban areas. No such spike is apparent. Cellphone use went from 0 to 100% globally in less than ten years - there is no correlating spike in any major disease group so common sense dictates that there is no causative factor.
 
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,150
DerekMain said:
That seems like almost the same argument as "We shouldn't investigate the Gupta state capture until we've investigated the apartheid-era state capture."
Click to expand...
WAIT, what if cell masts killed bees and prevented senseless deaths like this?
 
T

Trompie67

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,424
garp said:
Yes, but if you look at the trend stats, where there is increased incidence, the types of cancer are far more easily attributable to lifestyle factors - breast, lung, prostrate, colon and melanoma. Much of the increase has to do with the third world adopting western lifestyles. The incidence of the kind of cancers in sensitive tissues like the brain (which you would expect to be most susceptible to em) have been steadily decreasing. The overall point is that you would expect a huge spike from the mid-90's onwards (or the mid 2000's if there was a longer term effect) due to the sudden almost 100% saturation of cellular networks in urban areas. No such spike is apparent. Cellphone use went from 0 to 100% globally in less than ten years - there is no correlating spike in any major disease group so common sense dictates that there is no causative factor.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that. Merely disputing the blanket statement that cancer has been on the decrease, which is clearly not the case.
Delving into the causes is an entirely different matter - something the OP is pretending to try & do with half-baked theories concocted from cherry picked excerpts of research papers.
 
M

MrGray

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,391
Trompie67 said:
Not disputing that. Merely disputing the blanket statement that cancer has been on the decrease, which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I originally referred to mortality not incidence.

Trompie67 said:
Delving into the causes is an entirely different matter - something the OP is pretending to try & do with half-baked theories concocted from cherry picked excerpts of research papers.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Lupus

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
50,972
Trompie67 said:
Not disputing that. Merely disputing the blanket statement that cancer has been on the decrease, which is clearly not the case.
Delving into the causes is an entirely different matter - something the OP is pretending to try & do with half-baked theories concocted from cherry picked excerpts of research papers.
Click to expand...
But in 2012 there were only 14 million incidents of cancer? So is it possible that it fluctuates yearly and viewing one year 28 years ago and another one now. Isn't the best way of measurement?
I cannot find a graph though :( cause it would be interesting to see.
 
Johnatan56

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
30,955
DerekMain said:
Whenever EMF researchers have presented papers to show the harm of EMF, these were refuted because they could not prove a mechanism of these effects occurred. The first study shows how such a mechanism could occur.

How many citings would be acceptable for you?

So 500 isn't enough - are you saying only research that studies every single person who uses a cordless phone is acceptable?

Like I said - you will find whatever means to trash the research that shows harms of EMF. You don't want to be convinced.
Click to expand...
No, but 500 again, is still pretty insignificant, especially as they can cherry pick their stats.
DerekMain said:
I hear you RE hysteria and hostility. Unfortunately one of my many failings is that I respond in kind. I have merely responded to the hysteria and hostility I have encountered here. Not an excuse - just an explanation.

I don't agree that cancer rates have declined - I think the opposite is true. Do you have any links to research that shows this decline?

There are just as many research papers that show the harms of EMF. Take a look at the International EMF Scientists Appeal.

To date, 220 scientists from 41 nations have signed the Appeal. Each has published peer-reviewed research on biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, including extremely low frequency fields (ELF) used for electricity or radio frequency radiation (RFR) used for wireless communications.

These EMF scientists are raising serious concerns regarding the risks for humankind and nature from ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF sources (electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation) generated by electric and wireless devices from electrical power sources and the global wireless communications infrastructure. These scientists recognize that current international EMF exposure guidelines do not protect against long-term exposure or low-intensity effects, are insufficient to protect the health of humankind, and do not take into account the risks for all other biological organisms.
Click to expand...
220? That's nothing.

Then in regards to Cancer diagnosis, a higher number of people got older, over three quarters of cancers are for people over 55, and then types of cancer, e.g. HPV, gastrointestinal stuff due to higher obesity.

You need to take into account the types of cancer, not just all of them.

And to add on that, we are getting better at screening cancer, so rates will increase as we actually detect it, while the actual death rate should hopefully decline.


EDIT:
DerekMain said:
Yes - the denialists.
Click to expand...
So, because I disagree with you I am labeled negatively? You can't even give proper facts and I'm the bad person here? You really need to understand how debating, and the scientific community in regards to academic papers, works.
Why don't you tell that to WHO / ICNIRP - they still use research from pre-1998 to justify their claim that their are no adverse health effects from EMF.
Click to expand...
Because there are quite a few modern papers who keep testing those academic paper's findings, making them still relevant today. Remember what I said about those papers that are acknowledged as the leaders in their field? They're still the leaders as they constantly get proofed as we progress, the moment they fail they will be disregarded.

The papers you linked have pretty much all been debunked.
Most governments follow the WHO line with all its flaws. The cell industry is extremely powerful and wields influence over governments (and WHO). They know on which side their bread is buttered. But that is changing - people are becoming more aware and are beginning to put pressure on their governments. We in SA have always been a bit behind the curve - it'll happen here too.
Click to expand...
There are multiple other organizations that research this. In regards to money, there are companies with way more of it in e.g. the consumer tech field like FB and Google who could easily bribe in regards to privacy laws and yet EU enforced one of the most stringent privacy laws.

You are making assumptions again without proof.
Please post any links to those studies.
Click to expand...
They've been previously linked, I don't see the point in linking more. You have the entire WHO database plus some you've linked yourself.
In my opinion, science these days is a fraud. Firstly, people with vested interests pay for their scientists and research. Anybody who doesn't tow the line is denied funding for their research. Then we come to the publishing of papers. Many of them are squashed at this stage - they may show absolute proof of whatever but they never see the light of day. If you want to know what the results of some research will be, find out who funded it.
Click to expand...
If science is a fraud, then why are you even here? All the papers you linked that were con, with most of them pushing their own agenda, you should take your own words to heart.
In regards to them showing absolute proof, no they don't, they pretty much are all flawed. It is really easy to get published tbh, but quite difficult to pass a proper peer review.
The scientific community works by always doubting everything, these papers that counter are good, but without proof, and especially those making baseless assumptions, they are pushing an agenda instead of trying to advance EMF research.
Remember, most want to write/discover/find something that's new, and you can often see it by the amount of buzzwords in an academic paper or the lack of proper backing (in terms of references) or misconstruing papers or groundless assumption as most of the papers you linked have done.
 
Last edited:
M

mr_norris

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
3,886
DerekMain said:
That seems like almost the same argument as "We shouldn't investigate the Gupta state capture until we've investigated the apartheid-era state capture."
Click to expand...

No, Sinbad is onto something here. As the title of the thread says, cell masts are slow, silent killers. That means we have time to sort out the killer bees, then get back to this.
 
D

Donavan_Aarons

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
11
Deadmanza said:
You are obviously not as passionate about this whole thing as you say. Pretty sure with the right tools, you could quite easily turn off a cell mast.
Click to expand...
I turned off one once by accident, it barely took 20 minutes for their techs to arrive and turn it back on.
 
T

Trompie67

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,424
Lupus said:
But in 2012 there were only 14 million incidents of cancer? So is it possible that it fluctuates yearly and viewing one year 28 years ago and another one now. Isn't the best way of measurement?
I cannot find a graph though :( cause it would be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the figure 14 million in 2012? It isn't mentioned in the article you linked to, so I'm not understanding where this figure comes from?
The only reference to 14 million I can find is NEW cases. As in, in 2012 there were 14,1 million NEW cases of cancer reported.
That does not translate to only 14 million people had cancer in 2012, just that 14 million were newly diagnosed.

You're confusing total number of people living with cancer in 2012 to the number of people newly diagnosed in 2012.
 
Lupus

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
50,972
Trompie67 said:
Where do you get the figure 14 million in 2012? It isn't mentioned in the article you linked to, so I'm not understanding where this figure comes from?
The only reference to 14 million I can find is NEW cases. As in, in 2012 there were 14,1 million NEW cases of cancer reported.
That does not translate to only 14 million people had cancer in 2012, just that 14 million were newly diagnosed.

You're confusing total number of people living with cancer in 2012 to the number of people newly diagnosed in 2012.
Click to expand...
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/worldwide-cancer
They might only be new cases reported but I can't find anything that indicates the number of people with it.

https://www.cansa.org.za/global-cancer-statistics/

It seems that yearly there are an additional 11 + million added a year with 7 million + dying. The most prevalent is lung taking 5 million of that 7. Then it's breast, I'm not sure where your figure of 42 million would come in? Unless they are counting those who've gone into remission as well?
Cause 7 million dying while 11 million are new leaves 4 million which half of that should be survivors and the other half moves on to further treatment and hopefully cure.
I'm not arguing I'm just trying to figure out where your article got it's figures from as I cannot find similar stats.
But as previous posters have said if there was a danger from EMF why aren't we seeing those types of cancers increasing? Why isn't there a large pool of engineers who work on satellites, radio masts, cell towers and related that don't have these cancers? There should be massive spikes in brain tumors, leukaemia, thyroid issues and bone cancer if these things caused it as the EMF around us is immense. I mean my area alone would probably have 100s if not 1000s as for a long long time all it was serviced by was iburst towers and there are massive sentech dishes nearby.
 
T

Trompie67

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,424
Lupus said:
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/worldwide-cancer
They might only be new cases reported but I can't find anything that indicates the number of people with it.

https://www.cansa.org.za/global-cancer-statistics/

It seems that yearly there are an additional 11 + million added a year with 7 million + dying. The most prevalent is lung taking 5 million of that 7. Then it's breast, I'm not sure where your figure of 42 million would come in? Unless they are counting those who've gone into remission as well?
Cause 7 million dying while 11 million are new leaves 4 million which half of that should be survivors and the other half moves on to further treatment and hopefully cure.
I'm not arguing I'm just trying to figure out where your article got it's figures from as I cannot find similar stats.
But as previous posters have said if there was a danger from EMF why aren't we seeing those types of cancers increasing? Why isn't there a large pool of engineers who work on satellites, radio masts, cell towers and related that don't have these cancers? There should be massive spikes in brain tumors, leukaemia, thyroid issues and bone cancer if these things caused it as the EMF around us is immense. I mean my area alone would probably have 100s if not 1000s as for a long long time all it was serviced by was iburst towers and there are massive sentech dishes nearby.
Click to expand...

From your link https://www.cansa.org.za/global-cancer-statistics/

Follow this link: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx shows that in 2012 there were 32+ million people living with cancer.
At a glance

There were 14.1 million new cancer cases, 8.2 million cancer deaths and 32.6 million people living with cancer (within 5 years of diagnosis) in 2012 worldwide. 57% (8 million) of new cancer cases, 65% (5.3 million) of the cancer deaths and 48% (15.6 million) of the 5-year prevalent cancer cases occurred in the less developed regions.
Click to expand...
 
T

Trompie67

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,424
^^ I agree with you regarding EMF - I think a great deal of it is fearmongering by those unwilling to be educated.
 
Kelerei

Kelerei

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,437
Was the original post written by one of those Craigavon luddites?
 
j4ck455

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
7,502
DerekMain said:
There is ample evidence that radiofrequency radiation (RF) causes an increase in the risk of cancer, infertility, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders (like Alzheimer’s & Parkinson’s) , electrohypersensitivity, DNA changes, heart disease, immune system deficiency, and more.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that any of that is caused by cellphone towers which are sufficiently far away and elevated to pose zero risk to anyone.

That said, if you use a cellphone, the phone is a transceiver that is in close proximity to your body and can cause damage, especially if it is an old phone that inefficiently manages power levels when it transmits.

And to make things worse, by blocking cellphone towers, cellphone tower objectors are responsible for causing cellphones to transmit at higher power levels due to a shortage of nearby towers.
 
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,150
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top