Didn't we have this issue with microwave radiation years ago?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer IDEA Fitness member Kickboxing Certified Instructor Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I've worked in the wireless industry for almost 20 years building networks for every carrier in America. Every time one of these studies comes out, another one follows soon after debunking it. The type of radiation emitted by cell towers and phones is of the non-ionizing type, which is the same as OTA television signals, and AM/FM radio. Keep in mind, TV and radio towers transmit at exponentially higher power levels (tens of thousands of watts) than cell towers. UV rays are more dangerous than radio transmissions. The only reputable study concerning health effects due to cell phone use I've ever seen involves the effect of heat generated by the device, but there were still questions of whether it was RF related or due to the battery getting warmer.
I've known people in the industry who have suffered RF sickness, but they were unknowingly exposed to upwards of 90 watts of power over an eight hour day in an enclosed equipment shelter. Most people will never find themselves in that situation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that basically no jurisdiction can prevent the construction of towers solely based on environmental effects of RF as long as the structure complies with FCC rules.
I've worked in the wireless industry for almost 20 years building networks for every carrier in America. Every time one of these studies comes out, another one follows soon after debunking it. The type of radiation emitted by cell towers and phones is of the non-ionizing type, which is the same as OTA television signals, and AM/FM radio. Keep in mind, TV and radio towers transmit at exponentially higher power levels (tens of thousands of watts) than cell towers. UV rays are more dangerous than radio transmissions. The only reputable study concerning health effects due to cell phone use I've ever seen involves the effect of heat generated by the device, but there were still questions of whether it was RF related or due to the battery getting warmer.
I've known people in the industry who have suffered RF sickness, but they were unknowingly exposed to upwards of 90 watts of power over an eight hour day in an enclosed equipment shelter. Most people will never find themselves in that situation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that basically no jurisdiction can prevent the construction of towers solely based on environmental effects of RF as long as the structure complies with FCC rules.
Well yeah but how do you explain Bat Boy??
Just kidding. Thanks for the excellent explanation!
Why are you asking for comments on an article about a study that hasn't even come out yet, on a website whose purpose seems to be microwave scaremongering?
"An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time"
Didn't we have this issue with microwave radiation years ago?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer IDEA Fitness member Kickboxing Certified Instructor Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
Well, for me, what's wrong with the article:
1. Most of the effect was due to an unusually low incidence of cancer in the control group, not an unusually high incidence of cancer in the experimental group.
2. The sample sizes were small, and even a single incidence more or less of cancer would drastically shift results.
3. The doses that the rats were exposed to were many hundreds if not thousands of times higher than typical human exposure. Even ionizing radiation, which we know is carcinogenic in high doses, is not carcinogenic in low doses. In fact at low doses, ionizing radiation actually protects against cancer. You can't extrapolate the response to a low dose of something from the response to an extremely high dose.
4. Rat studies are prone to overestimate cancer risk. Rats have a much higher incidence of cancer compared to humans, and many things are carcinogenic to them at levels that have no effect on humans.
Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
People take issue with this and other articles posted because you don't seem concerned at all about the lack of scientific rigor used in the studies and the way the information is presented. You find articles which support your view of the world and when challenged on them claim that science hasn't caught up to what you or the author knows to be true.
I'm very sorry to hear of your friend's cancer diagnosis but unfortunately cancer is a multi factorial disease which very likely does not have a single cause. Maybe spend some time helping research ways to help your friend during his battle with this disease (meals for the family, help around the house, etc) rather than looking for scary articles to post here to try to convince MFP users of the evils of cell phones.
4. Rat studies are prone to overestimate cancer risk. Rats have a much higher incidence of cancer compared to humans, and many things are carcinogenic to them at levels that have no effect on humans.
Case in point: saccharin being labeled carcinogenic because massive doses caused bladder cancer in rats, a finding that it turns out does not apply to humans.
Note that this is how scientists tend to think about any new study. They take the results seriously, they point to questions that demand further investigation, but they remain skeptical that this is the last word. The press should strive to follow suit.
Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.
Replies
How did Gale miss this one?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, I remember being told never to watch your food cooking in the microwave because deadly radiation.
I love watching popcorn popping in the microwave. I need a flashlight to see inside because the 'wave is lined with mesh.
My aunt insisted that anyone who did would become infertile.
Please don't tell my daughter.
I've known people in the industry who have suffered RF sickness, but they were unknowingly exposed to upwards of 90 watts of power over an eight hour day in an enclosed equipment shelter. Most people will never find themselves in that situation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that basically no jurisdiction can prevent the construction of towers solely based on environmental effects of RF as long as the structure complies with FCC rules.
Well yeah but how do you explain Bat Boy??
Just kidding. Thanks for the excellent explanation!
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..
To be fair, my aunt was a complete looney-tunes, but I think that was standard early 80s woo.
I won't tell your daughter she does not exist. I can see that that might upset her. ;-)
Bat Boy is a direct, and very obvious product of shakeology.
"An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time"
Source: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
RIP Deathbox thread...
Why you say that? What is it about the $25 million dollar USA study that makes you state that? You do not have like it or believe it. I am aware not all are interesting the science behind understanding the increase in brain cancer. I have a 40 year old friend with this type of cancer. He was told they see it most often in farmers and from cell phone usage. That is why this $25 million dollar study caught my attention. The validity of this subject will be come clear with time. If it is just an age related thing we will not see more cancer in 20 to 30 age group do the road is my guess on the subject.
Well, for me, what's wrong with the article:
1. Most of the effect was due to an unusually low incidence of cancer in the control group, not an unusually high incidence of cancer in the experimental group.
2. The sample sizes were small, and even a single incidence more or less of cancer would drastically shift results.
3. The doses that the rats were exposed to were many hundreds if not thousands of times higher than typical human exposure. Even ionizing radiation, which we know is carcinogenic in high doses, is not carcinogenic in low doses. In fact at low doses, ionizing radiation actually protects against cancer. You can't extrapolate the response to a low dose of something from the response to an extremely high dose.
4. Rat studies are prone to overestimate cancer risk. Rats have a much higher incidence of cancer compared to humans, and many things are carcinogenic to them at levels that have no effect on humans.
People take issue with this and other articles posted because you don't seem concerned at all about the lack of scientific rigor used in the studies and the way the information is presented. You find articles which support your view of the world and when challenged on them claim that science hasn't caught up to what you or the author knows to be true.
I'm very sorry to hear of your friend's cancer diagnosis but unfortunately cancer is a multi factorial disease which very likely does not have a single cause. Maybe spend some time helping research ways to help your friend during his battle with this disease (meals for the family, help around the house, etc) rather than looking for scary articles to post here to try to convince MFP users of the evils of cell phones.
Case in point: saccharin being labeled carcinogenic because massive doses caused bladder cancer in rats, a finding that it turns out does not apply to humans.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting
Particularly the last paragraph:
High dollar amounts do not equal unbiased studies.
While it is a shame that your friend has been afflicted with cancer, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to cell phone usage as the cause. How many other environmental or genetic influences could be the source? Countless.
I had never heard of the website in the OP until now, but after looking at it, it appears to be nothing more than a tin-foil hat, scare inducing, agenda driven piece of gutter journalism. I have stood in front of radiating cellular antennas for hours at a time, and have worked closely with others over the same time frame who are unaffected.
So I ask you this - why is it that tens of thousands of professionals (there are over 28,000 tower climbers in America alone) have not seen the same effects as the n=1 story of your friend?
The only person I have known who was diagnosed with cancer that may have been cellular related was a bench technician who opened a mislabeled repair port on an RF filter and was exposed to cadmium.
Funny how people who fall into the traps these studies set are the same who refuse to believe cellular radiation, aside from modulation schemes, is no different than TV, AM/FM, HAM radio, CB, infrared, GPS, WiFi, baby monitors, cordless home phones and garage door openers.