The dangers of EM radiation from cell towers is finally getting to the guinea pigs

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Apr 20, 2011 13:54

Read me again. I was addressing techno's pseudoscience and scattergun spin. I just used the currently blatant Fukushima radiation to illustrate his partisan lack of honesty, or inability to consider his own inherent logic.

Oh, and I dumped the TV years ago. Not because of the radiation factor, so much as the programmatic content of the carrier waves.

But back at your natural radiation soakage; we have evolved to suit these frequencies and exposures over millions of years. Industrially generated sources require we adopt a precautionary approach. At one time lead was a prevalent pollutant, and vested interests preferred it not be labelled as such. Thats the nature of vested interest. I'm sure you can cite as many parallel cases yourself. We are not machines, and children and embryos are particularly susceptible. The tobacco lobby or Nestle's pseudo-medical advisory clinics to dupe women into using their cash-cow formulas with resultant devastation through lack of clean water to mix their powder, and the recidivist evasions of responsibilities are well documented, and indicate the concerns and duplicity of corporate collective motivation.

Its always advisable to check that pig-in-a-poke. No use lamenting later when the cat escapes the bag. Its a bad navigator presumes there are no rocks under strange waters. The corporate approach is increasingly(because of over-emphasis on competitive intensifiction)reluctant to credit counter argument to dividend/share-price carrots. That too is evolution, though legal, social and political rather than biological.

by Gerald Wed Apr 20, 2011 13:12

I dont't really want to step on anyones toes here, but I have a few points to make.

3 years ago, I finished my dissertation examining the effect of (a specific type) of EM raditaion on plant growth. Quick summary of results: It did nothing. But as part of my disseration required an exhaustive search of scientific literature in relation to EM radiation and it's effect on biological organisms. There is a LOT of research out there, all using different EM types, proximities, end points and subjects. Many argued the positive impact of EM radiation on plant growth, many argued the negative imapct but the overall raw data saw no significant difference. But this is neither here nor there, as this was relating to effects on plants, and we are talking about humans here.

My point is, that that was a rather obscure field of research and still there was a glut of data, free for anyone to read and check (some require subscription to journals etc). Feudal Castro said ;
".... a right to proper scientific information",

"And proper unbiased research on GM, chemical and other stuff that corporations want to introduce into our environments, without fear of job losses to the researchers."

But there is proper scientific information and unbiased research. Free for anyone to look at and poke holes in. I did a 10 second search on PUBMED for articles with "electromagnetic radiation" and "health" (not anywhere close to a comprehensive search strategy, mind you) and BAM, loads of primary resources. You want GM/Chemical/other stuff? Been done. Being done. More to come. Sure GM companies etc. are going to release their own biased data but theres nothing stopping you looking up all the other research that has been done by academics who are trying to refute it. Because there is shedloads of it. Empower yourself.

And if you want to arm yourself with the tools to spot shit research, without the need for a degree and post grad studies, just read Ben Goldacres "Bad Science". Entertaining and informative.

by Feudal Castrato Wed Apr 20, 2011 03:27

we're already drinking lots of corporate poison that we don't know about
therefore we shouldn't object to being forced to drink even more corporate poison and the poisoners should not be held responsible for poisoning you

or

you've shot yourself once (out of ignorance of how guns work) therefore you shouldn't complain if somebody else now shoots you again (to make a profit) and they should not be accountable for shooting you

thats really not an argument.

There is a point thats being glossed over here. Its about having some control / choice in the matter
Too often corporate interests ride roughshod over our choices by polluting the commons
And those enlightened individuals that have a problem are shamed or blackmailed or browbeaten into shutting up.
All in the name of corporate profit and pushing costly "externalities" on to the public

(1)Mobile phones, wifi and tv's are an individual choice and we can CHOOSE to use them, or not.
(2)Phone masts are put up by corporate interests beside our houses. And because of the way the system is set up, there is little choice in the matter and little any single individual can do to stop them.

(1)=Choice.....(2)=No choice

Smoking is harmful to health. Smokers however are free to smoke or not individually. However as a society we chose to put a ban on smoking in public places to prevent other people's bad choices impinging on innocent bystanders. As a society (for once) we appreciated the subtleties of this distinction and struck a sensible balance between individual freedoms and common good. The air is common to all.
As is the electromagnetic environment.

While I totally agree that people should address the major sources of such EM pollution in their immediate environment that they have control over if they are concerned about EM radiation, I still think they also have a right to have some some say in and control over how their environment is polluted by vested corporate for profit interests, be it through pollution, chemical releases, waste dumping, radiation etc, or through EM radiation

Private for profit corporate interests will always take the most profitable course of action if not properly regulated by society and more often than not that is through dumping the costly "externalities" such as keeping the common environment pollution free on to the community

what oil company ever cleaned up after itself properly after the oil and profit was gone? what mining operation ever cleaned up its toxic legacy or worker medical bills properly after the resource (and profits) were mined out?

I could cite numerous instances of deliberate corporate irresponsibility. Its all around us. Look at the BP oil spill. Its cheaper to buy off political capital than cleaning up and paying fishermen etc. Exxon valdez, ditto, ecuador oil companies, logging companies, bhopal, and a million others.

Surely we have a right to draw a line in the sand about being forced to drink more corporate poison in a manner that we have no control over.
And a right to proper scientific information about the things we are already exposing ourselves to by consuming/using these products.

And proper unbiased research on GM, chemical and other stuff that corporations want to introduce into our environments, without fear of job losses to the researchers.

The point is about choice and what sort of common environment we want to have for ourselves and our children to live in. And whether we want to yield that choice to greedy corporate interests who really don't give a shit about the commons and just want to make a quick profit.

Corporations/companies may have many human rights but they don't need clean air, water and they don't get cancers or diabetes or allergies. Therefore these things only enter into their calculations if we humans force them.

Turn off your TV, use the computer / mobile phone as little as you can. stop buying hundreds of useless toxic chemicals and spraying them around, think about where the waste goes after you dump it, write to companies complaining about chemicals and packaging and processes. don't buy offending products. simplify your life.go out, grow some vegetables and plants, connect directly with the earth. And teach your kids to connect directly with the earth too. Its our life support system. If we lose sight of that and let it all go to shit in the name of corporate short term profit then we're doomed

have a look at the videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/storyofstuffproject#p/u/6/k...jrdEY

by Luddophobe - none Tue Apr 19, 2011 23:13

Truth is we're surrounded by electromagnetic (em) radiation of all types. Carry a mobile phone on your person? Phone transmits to mast exactly the same type of radiation as mast transmits to phone. But you're a hundred times (maybe a thousand times) closer to the phone than the mast. And as radiation density follows the inverse square law, you are getting 10,000 to a million times the dose from your own phone than you are from the mast down the road. (for the pedants, yes, it's somewhat less in practice because the mast transmits at a higher power - but nowhere near a million times as much)

Use wifi at home? Uh, uh, more radiation. Cordless phones? Yup, them too. Microwave ovens? Holy shit - do you know how much radiation those things leak??? Maplins will sell you a yoke for measuring it, its off the scale for most ovens, especially older ones. Your electronic devices probably deliver more em radiation to your next door neighbour than the mast 200 metres down the road does.

Watch tv? Oh no, more electromagnetic radiation. Use a pc or a laptop or does indy accept messages by carrier pigeon? Look you get the picture - we swim in a sea of em radiation. Much of it is in the microwave bands used by mobile phone networks. These masts make a tiny overall contribution to the amount of microwave radiation all around us.

I will take seriously the person who complains about em radiation from masts if the same person removes all the more obvious sources of radiation from their own personal space. But the person sitting in front of the TV while typing a complaint about the mast into a wifi enabled laptop, with a mobile phone in his pocket and the microwave reheating dinner in the next room is an idiot.

@opus - no need to bring fukashima/Chernobyl etc into a discussion about masts. Different type of radiation entirely.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Apr 18, 2011 18:13

I might head out meself for a sunbath. Chernobyl tanned me up nice. And I can read in the dark without having to get up to turn on a light.

So, no human error or over-optimistic dismissals of concern (that the island which gives us the word tsunami because of an active plate-junction just off-shore might just not be a location, location, location for pushing the experimental technology).
These sloppy arguments are exactly what gets rigourous science an undeserved bad name. Just as the practitioners get democracy a bad name when they deliver it from 30,000 feet wrapped in depleted uranium. Another harmless by-product?Tell Faluja.

Twas the water dun it m'lud, d'radiation is a maligned and slandered innocent. It shouldn't have parked its table under a war-zone. And the Pacific had no PERMIT to invade. Most irregular. Mandatory sentence for the ocean, then?

by Electronics Engineer. Mon Apr 18, 2011 17:53

Hi Opus.
The tragedy at Fucishima was caused by a 4 meter wall of water travelling at 600 MPH.
The technological defences collapsed and revealed weaknesses.
The water killed tens of thousands.

The radiation hasn't killed anybody yet.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Apr 18, 2011 17:39

...your next comment will be dispatched from Fukushima....?

I believe the superstitious are not investing there just at the minute, for the usual unscientific reason, that while they might trust science, they are not convinced by the industry's professional polishers of dented images. Realist like yourself should pick up a property for less than the price of a penguin.

Live, I trust.

by Electronics Engineer. Mon Apr 18, 2011 17:09

The most technologically irradiated people live in office blocks in New York and London and Berlin and Paris and Tokyo.
They happen to live longer lives than the rest of us.

That black and white 1960s TV spewed out so much radiation that we should all be dead by now.

(The more you are surrounded by dangerous technology the longer you live it seems.)

by tim from tang Mon Apr 18, 2011 15:34

from the article "In doing so they reek havoc." Note that something reeks if it smells bad, whearas havoc is wrought, as wrought iron is wrought by smiths, and as words are wrought by word-smiths. One therefore "wreaks havoc"
Hope this helps