But how cautious should we be? I see people protesting about mobile phone masts in the streets. The Sun is a known carcinogen; but they march along the road with their skin exposed. Indeed, we NEED sunlight - and it's violently radioactive.

By comparison, the power of a mobile phone is trivial, and the damage impossible to measure. Why do you feel we 'haven't evolved' to cope with radiation, when we need it?

Guy, you should be very cautious. We certainly do not need artificial pulsed radiofrequent waves, they do not even exist in nature. Of course it is a question of dosimetry. The maximum of permanent radiofrequent radiation should be about 10 mikroWatt/m2. The damage by mobile phones is not trivial. Anyway double DNA breaches. Distortion of cognitive functions. Both were found and found again, so it's a scientific fact. Yes, you can measure the effects. People can talk and tell you how they feel - many have sore ears, stinging headache after use of a mobile telephone. The brain currents change - that can be measured. Not only mobile telephones and masts, also DECT telephones and base stations, C2000 (TETRA), digital babyphones, WLAN networks etcetera. The effects are certainly not trivial. BMW has set the maximum in his industries to 100 mikroWatt/m2 to protect the workers. Insurance companies refuse to insure the health risks by GSM masts. They know what they are doing. In the meantime our governments serve the industry and set limits to 20.000.000 mikroWatt/m2.

Tom, we can see several mechanisms for harm. Double DNA breaches. Derangement of the fine electrobiology of our nervous system. You are right that it does not make sense to have masts in residential areas. But also people should get rid of DECT telephones, WLAN and WIFI networks, digital amateur masts, digital babyphones etcetera. Otherwise they are still subjected to a mix of radiofrequent radiation which will make them sick on te long run.

Rod is absolutely right. The biological effects of the radiofrequent radiation has been researched for decades and the results are alarming. The national radiation protection board (nrpb) however still says the are inconsistent. Yes, and the moon does not exist because sometimes it is full, sometimes half and sometimes you don't see it at all. Moreover, every simple mind can understand that electromagnetic waves cause currents in bodies and these currents disturb the biological functions. You don't sense anything, though your body tries to keep balance, but many people will not succeed. A wide scope of dysfunctions will appear, some of them even seemingly opposite (high or low scores). People will become 'electrosensitive' and get microwave radiation sickness. There are many of them already. I am one. The first victims were military using radar. Citizens victims came since the 80-ies, the introduction of the computer monitor. And many victims arise since the early 90-ies, the introduction of mobile phones, DECT telephones, TETRA etcetera.

François, I had to leave my loved appartment too and move, the financial constraint is heavy, the health constraint as well, but at least I can sleep, though I suffer from the DECT telephones of the neighbours. You are not the only 'radiation refugee', there are many who had to move. I wish you courage and good luck.

Guy, there is no mast hysteria. The people who develop radiation sickness are normal, sensible people and they rationally come to the conclusion that there is a correlation between their symptoms and the electromagnetic radiation, by trial and error and by measurement with simple devices. Of course they also develop anxiousness, because the consequences are a horror scenario in a society where it is not recognized. It is more or less a modern kind of pestilence. No wonder that some people who are not electrosensitive yet, but hear and see the stories, show hysteria. No wonder that some of the victims go almost crazy. You can't blame them. The problem is that the governments and industries are not ready to accept the facts.

Read http//www.score.su.se/pdfs/2004-6.pdf
Check the many websites on electrosensitivity and microwave sickness.

Frans

Frans, as a matter of interest, where are you living now? and how do you find a place without RFI?

Another chapter in the saga of the phone masts.

Edited by author 01-30-2005 11:04 AM
Frans, thanks for your message /m6 - you'll find it's easier to click on your URL if you put a colon into it!

Here's the "abstract" from the pdf:

Abstract

The aim is to understand dilemmas to public deliberations by exploring three themes that are formulated as questions concerning the unknown, the unsensed and the unsayable. Further examination of these themes can help to improve our understanding of the relation between bodies, environments and invisible risk as well as the dilemmas to and the need for public deliberations over risk.

Its tentative argument is that the importance of certain knowledge for policy-making, the unsensed character of risk as well as problems of articulating certain experiences can be refuted on the basis of more extended views of science and policy, sensory experiences and the use of language. It argues that 1) certainty is not an unconditioned prerequisite for risk regulation. The boundaries between ‘uncertain’ and reliable knowledge are drawn in negotiations that take place in hybrid science-policy communities, 2) the senses do play part in judgements over ‘unsensed’ risk.

There is however a need to reconsider sensory experiences in a way that fundamentally challenges the modern distinctions between sensations,emotions and cognitions, 3) the problem of articulation is only relevant within a particular understanding of language. Within a wider understanding of language the issues formulated as articulation problems rather says something about social problems and how kinds of social organisation make whole orderings of knowledge possible.

These three themes are discussed in relation to a case: how risk, knowledge and sensory experiences are debated in the case of 3G (third generation mobile phone system) transmitters. The material used are various actors’ (authorities, researchers, local people, activist and interest groups) statements and reactions on the 3G development and radiation and electromagnetic fields generated by 3G transmitters. It examines how we can understand the known and the unknown, the sensed and the unsensed and the sayable and the unsayable in relation to the particular case.

The trouble with clicking on "electrosensitive" for Google, is that you can't help wondering what these people are on.

I tried http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega248.htm

Here's a sample:

In a front page article for yesterday's Russian online newspaper Pravda.ru, Yuri Solomatin, a member of the Ukrainian parliament who chairs the committee responsible for Chernobyl ecological issues, says that weather disasters in Europe during 2002 were caused by an advanced
weapon which could trigger a global catastrophe.



Solomatin accuses the United States --or elements in it's command structure--of risking a global catastrophe by using the USA's HAARP electromagnetic transmission system for weather modification and possibly mental manipulation of populations in the former Soviet territories.

Solomatin warns that a new HAARP station in Greenland will extend the range of the weapon from the Pacific to the Atlantic coasts of the Eurasian landmass. He asserts that only low power deployment has been used to date and that high power transmissions could trigger a planetary catastrophe. He also airs his concern that these weapons are in the possession of other countries.

He calls on the Ukrainian parliament (of which he is a member), and his country's scientific establishment to investigate and develop Ukraine's stance on the matter.

Unpublished comments by Yuri Solomatin, which sickOfDoctors.com has reviewed, also implicate HAARP technology in the crash of a Soviet SU-27 jet-fighter at an air show above the Skynliv airdrome near the Ukrainian
city of Lvov on 27 July 2002, which left 83 dead and 199 injured.


-------------

It's bollox, isn't it?

Edited by author 05-06-2005 05:19 AM
Anonymouse Coward,
your sample is off-topic.

Guy asks 'should we keep our heads down and hope mast hysteria goes away?. He wants to develop a view on how society should cope with 'mast hysteria', if I understand him right. My point is society should take the health effects of radiofrequent radiation (especially the digital and pulsed GSM, UMTS, WLAN, WIFI, DECT, C2000/TETRA, DVB-T and many other sources) seriously. I know from my own experience. François tells the same. It should not be understood as 'mast hysteria' but as 'microwaves hysteria'.

The only sensible thing to do is to acknowledge the problem, to compensate and help the people who are handicapped by the radiofrequent radiation, to balance the positive and negative effects of the technology. Eventually, the technology should be left, if the health damage is too much. Check: http://www.acnem.org/journal/23-2_septembe...phones-hallberg.htm

Alas, governments and companies are keeping the information about non-thermal biological effects away from the mass and try to hush by PR-stories about safety and (thermal) limits. I think this is the most stupid thing to do, because 'mass hysteria' will increase.

Guy, in the article 'Phone masts near schools: what does Sir William know?' you ask what does Sir William Stewart know that we don't know? Nothing. His interpretation is different. (By the way, he has warned also for WLAN and WIFI, but that has not been covered by the media).

The Health Council says (regarding non-thermal effects) 'results of research are not consistent and we don't know how it works, so we don't give a negative advise'. Stewart's interpretation is different. He says 'it is too early to be sure', so his advise is to take precautious measurements. The interpretation of people who have experience with the health effects is more different. They say the effects exist, so the research suggesting 'no effects' must be wrong. Maybe because the research fellows do not fully understand how it works. The advise of these people (like www.stopumts.nl) is negative.

You write: 'In the circumstances, nobody can actually say whether there's a risk, or what the risk is, or what you could do to reduce the risk.' That is not true. The insurance companies estimate the risk up to extremely large, so they don't cover the risk at all. BMW in all its factories limits the DECT-frequency to 100 mikroWatt/m2 maximum (compare to the Dutch limit of 20.000.000 mikroWatt/m2!), because BMW does not want to take the risk to injure the employees. Of course the risk can be estimated. Risk is chance times damage. We know that the damage for people invalidated by radiofrequent radiation is huge and invalidating (even the WHO does acknowledge this), so the personal risk (though the chance is low) is very high. The risk for the whole population together also is very high, because the chance is very high. It is likely that everyone already undergoes the changes of the cognitive function, the lumping of red blood cells, the double DNA breaks by radiofrequent radiation, etcetera. The effects may be limited, but the mass risk is huge.

You write in your summary:
1. there is no known risk from being near a mast. Wrong! There is a thermal risk (within a few metres) and an non-thermal risk (within hundreds of metres).
2. the risk from using mobile phones could be higher (than from a mast). True! But one can choose to use a mobile phone or not, or to limit the use. The mast is always on.
3. it is in theory possible to discover a risk factor. Wrong! It is practice in the life of many people already.
4. to let your children in the sun is to take more risk. Probably not. The sun does not send pulsed radiation with a density like GSM, UMTS, TETRA, DECT etcetera.

Thanks, Frans. I hope someone else will join in: for me, the clock struck 13 when you said: 4. to let your children in the sun is to take more risk. Probably not. The sun does not send pulsed radiation with a density like GSM, UMTS, TETRA, DECT etcetera.

The sun generates ionising radiation, which is lethal. Anybody who can say, with a straight face, that "probably" a mobile phone is more dangerous, forfeits my attention. For me, it says: "Here is someone who doesn't know the first thing about what they are discussing."

We aren't going to agree. I'll let you have the last word...

Edited by author 05-20-2005 12:51 PM
Dear Guy,

of course I know the sun generates a.o. ultraviolet. The effect of radiation is related to dose, that goes for every frequency range. Of course we cover ourselves against too much ultraviolet. We cannot cover however against the man-made elektrosmog by pulse-modulated GSM, UMTS, DECT, WLAN, WIFI, TETRA. This radiation penetrates everywhere. A level of 0,2 V/m (100 mikroWatt/m2) is quite normal these days and that is too much. A permanent load of 100 mikroWatt/m2 triggers non-thermal effects in the long term. Radiofrequency radiation influences the central nerve system, neuronal firing, cerebral blood flow, EEG, brain and cognitive performance. This is no joke, it causes microwave sickness with a lot of symptoms. Yes, and maybe the risk for cancer in the long term will increase too, like when you don't cover yourself against the sun. The density of the man-made radiofrequency radiation is extreme compared to the natural radiofrequency radiation; moreover the character is pulse-modulated and that is more harmful. Read the Jülich MUT-report. They say a non-thermal dose causes the effects.

I don't see why we cannot agree. I suppose you don't have enough information yet about the non-thermal effect of radiofrequency radiation. Don't let this be the last word. Go on and raise your objections!

Guy arent you burying your head in the sand when you say:-

"there is no known risk from being near a phone mast. Radio waves have been around for 100 years or more, and the power of signals from TV stations and radio stations broadcasting thousands of watts is two or three orders of magnitude higher than the 100W limit of a modern mobile phone mast - but TV signals don't harm people"

Guy, you must know that the power level isnt the concern but the nature of the radiation - countless studies strongly suggest microwaves that can affect human tissue.

If you are truly unaware of the vast body of research indicating health effects from EMF, look up the summaries by independents like Niel Cherry, Gerard Hyland, Grahame Blackwell. Refute it if you can, but it is disingenous to pretend that it doesn't exist. But you are in good company at least as that is what the industry and the government do.

[http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/docs/dec03%20...%20basestations.doc]

You also ignore all studies specifically into masts.

There are only SIX known studies that specifically consider the effects of masts on people! All six show clear and significant ill-health effects from headaches to cancer increases. There are no known studies of the health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects. [Dr Grahame Blackwell http://www.starweave.com/masts/]. The six ‘phone-mast’ health studies are:-

1) Santini 2002; Significant and diverse health effects within 300m of base stations - see Fig 3)
2) Dutch TNO study found significant effects on wellbeing-headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc from 3G mast emissions less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines.
3) Spanish study “The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.”
The committee recommended safety levels thousands of times lower than ICNIRP.
4) Wolf (2004) found fourfold increased incidence of cancer (compared with the national population) in people living within 350m of a phone mast.
5) Naila study Germany (2004) found trebled risk of cancer near cellular antenna/masts
6) Austria May 2005, measured immediate significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80m. All the testees said they felt unwell during the radiation.

Can you answer Dr Blackwells main charge:-

In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that:

(a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts; or
(b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects;
 
is completely and blatantly untrue.

Edited by author 06-19-2005 04:39 PM
All the studies I am aware of (eight epidemiologic, two provocation) find a negative impact of mobile phone masts on well-being and health. There are many more studies about the effects of mobile phone use. Again, all of them find negative results. Moreover, there are numerous documented cases of victims with symptoms of several stages of microwave sickness. There is no reason at all to suppose that pulsed radiofrequent radiation by GSM, 3G (UMTS), TETRA, WLAN, WIFI, DECT and other wireless communication systems is no risk. The only research finding inconsistent results is in vitro or in vivo in laboratory animals. The epidemiologic research about well-being of animals (storches, bees) gives negative effects.

Guy, the only way to avoid radiation hysteria is to give all the information (also about non-thermal effects at densities far below the limits the NRPB advises for thermal effects) to the people, and let them decide themselves. No information means more hysteria, because people will hear the horrifying stories of the victims anyway.

We support those individuals suffering from the very real sickness of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, EHS. Some few react differently from the rest of us and idiopathically to electromagnetic fields, EMFs, from all sources including mobiles and masts. Ask our 220 supporters/victims if it is real. Also the forty concerned scientists of the Electromagnetic Biocompatibility Association who met at the Royal Society of Medicine in September 2003 deciding unanimously that
'Electrical hypersensitivity is Real - not Imagined'.
Arcane theoretical stances (though necessary to physics and electronics)pale when confronted with the desperate and sometimes agonising human reality.
What starts with headaches, whistling tinnitus and tingling progresses with increased disturbance of bodily EM fields and messengers, especially in the brain, to major homeostatic imbalance and chaos if avoidance of EMFs is not practised. And belive me in today's urban Wi-Fi hi-tech world that ain't easy. Our sufferers cannot even watch 'Celeb' Big Brother!
Rod director charity ElectroSensitivity-UK, see http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk

Edited by author 01-12-2006 06:49 PM
First, Rod, I have to say: I have no idea how to evaluate this information, and I'll follow up before I offer an opinion beyond this one.

But I do feel that you're lending your support, by proxy, to a movement which is a lot easier to form an opinion about; the mast hysterics.

That there are people who are hypersensitive to various things is incontrovertible. I'm one of those who finds grass pollen unusually toxic, for example; I have friends who would literally die if they ate shell-fish or nuts. Is it the case that there are also some people who are hypersensitive to EM radiation? - I honestly don't know! but I can see how it could be possible, because there are strange features of human physiology.

Does this justify the screams of the hysterics who say mobile phones are killing children?

Well, yes; if society also should wipe out all nut trees on the planet and nut sales; if we should put all dogs to death because of the small, but finite risk of toxocariasis, or if we should ban the motorcar because of the quite high risk of accidents.

What the hysterics say, simply, is that mobile phones are killing us all. What you're saying is "Actually, some people may suffer real discomfort because of some aspects of modern life." And you quote a number of 200. That's... well, it's hard to put this any other way than "it's unfortunate!" - but does it justify what the hysterics are saying?

---

Mast hysteria: is 'electro hyper sensitivity' a real disease?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1406103/

If you don't have EHS, it is really easy to dismiss as hysteria, and industry and its dependent media will do all they can to reassure you that you can continue to buy and use their products. Please consider the size of the industries that would be negatively impacted by an admission of harmfulness. The tobacco industry pales. Few in America know that the former head of the WHO, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, found she was EHS and had herself tested to avoid charges of hysteria. She removed all doubt. Still, the head of the ICNIRP, Dr. Michael Repacholi, who served under her, continues to say it is all imaginary. Folks, that is how loudly money talks.