Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Cell Phone Towers

  1. #1

    Default Cell Phone Towers

    There seems to be a fair amount of controversy on where cell phone towers should be placed. Is this warranted. Are cell phone towers harmful or is it a tin foil hat theory.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    There seems to be a fair amount of controversy on where cell phone towers should be placed. Is this warranted. Are cell phone towers harmful or is it a tin foil hat theory.
    I don't understand, why not just make them look decorative like they have with some, then no one can cry about them looking like eye sores like some of them do.

  3. #3

    Default

    Well, they have been hiding them in church steeples but people still do not want them in residential neighborhoods. It seems people want their cell phones but they don't want the towers near them. Don't know if the fear is real or imagined.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  4. #4
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    For aesthetics, they just need to be creative with towers. Although the radio transmission rules are different in Canada and likely present some challenges to hiding towers, in the US and some other countries they have them hidden within tall palm and pine trees, flagpoles, and tall vertical signs (like the ones gas stations have).

    Though I have to admit I'd be a bit of a NIMBY if one was proposed right next to my house. Simply because I don't want to be blasted with radiation from one 24 hrs a day while at home.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halocore View Post
    For aesthetics, they just need to be creative with towers. Although the radio transmission rules are different in Canada and likely present some challenges to hiding towers, in the US and some other countries they have them hidden within tall palm and pine trees, flagpoles, and tall vertical signs (like the ones gas stations have).

    Though I have to admit I'd be a bit of a NIMBY if one was proposed right next to my house. Simply because I don't want to be blasted with radiation from one 24 hrs a day while at home.
    We are already being blasted by radiation, its called the sun.

  6. #6
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ^LOL if people only know how much natural radiation there is....

    Anyway...they already DO make towers pretty imaginitive. When I worked at a US Wireless carrier, we engineered towers to look like all kinds of native mature trees, hid them in steeples...you name it...

    ...the problem is...the cost...our engineering bills of material were outrageously complex...

    ...there is a tower a mere 200 yards from my place now...and the interference is minimal...if you don't count me glowing in the dark...but the benefit is that I do not need a night light! ...j/k...
    Onward and upward

  7. #7
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,972

    Default

    Cell phones and Wi-Fi use Radio waves. Shorter are microwaves (capable of rotating molecules...like in your microwave at home!), then comes infrared (heat) capable of vibrating molecules, and then comes visible light. Anything shorter than visible light is potentially harmful.

    Do you get harmed by light? No.
    Are you harmed by your microwave (no not the electric shorting)? No.
    Radio waves? The longest, lowest energy EMR waves? Hardly.

    This is nonsense.

    There are cell towers everywhere. As long as they are aesthetically dressed up, I'm all good.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  8. #8

    Default

    We need to make kids take more physics classes in school, or something.

    Not that this is a horrible question to ask, but we live in a technologically-advanced society, and everyday people are becoming afraid of basic harmless things like electromagnetism just because they don't understand it.

  9. #9

    Default

    For those interested

    From these references, the concentration of energy is greater with a hand held phone that the energy at ground level around a tower.

    In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified mobile phone radiation on the IARC scale into Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic. That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted.[2] After that, WHO precised that "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.[3] Some national radiation advisory authorities[4] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.
    Because base stations operate at less than 100 watts, the radiation at ground level is much weaker than a cell phone due to the power relationship appropriate for that design of antenna. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (see Safety standards and licensing below). Some countries however (such as South Africa for example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations.

    experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres. This recommendation was modified in 2003 to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report. The Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale currently says that there is no demonstrated short term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long term effects, and that it's easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_..._base_stations

    This other article states that towers combined signals are way more than 100 watts (as noted above)

    How much energy/electricity does a cell phone tower typically use in a month?

    Read more: How much energy/electricity does a cell phone tower typically use in a month? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#ixzz2JWssPY9b
    The answer is not simple.

    Firstly, "cell tower" does not equal "cell site". There may be several carriers' sites operating from the same tower, each with its own powerful radio and signal amplification equipment.

    Secondly, the electricity load varies throughout the day, depending on the call volume and data rates handled by each site. Downtown sites see their highest usage during office hours, and especially at lunchtime; freeway "corridor" sites peak during rush hour. Rural sites covering large areas may handle relatively few calls for much of the time. The "resting" load of a site (when there are no calls in progress) can be as low as 20 W.

    Finally, the number of radios and amplifiers in a site determines its range (its "coverage") and the maximum volume of calls it can handle (its "capacity"). Some sites, especially in busy urban areas, are enormous, housing as many as 12-24 radios per sector for GSM and 1-3 per sector for W-CDMA, for a total of 39-81 radios, plus associated amplifiers and HVAC units for cooling. These sites may need a 400 A AC feed (or more) and draw a whopping 30-75 kW at peak use.

    More typically, a cell site runs at an average of about 0.5-3.5 kW, so total electricity usage in a month would be between 350 kWh and 2500 kWh, or from about half-a-house to three-times-a-house.

    Read more: How much energy/electricity does a cell phone tower typically use in a month? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#ixzz2JWsRnCGf


    Radio frequency in the microwave and radio spectrum is used in a number of practical devices for professional and home use, such as:
    DECT and other cordless phones operating at a wide range of frequencies
    Remote control devices for opening gates, etc.
    Portable two-way radio communication devices, such as walkie-talkies
    Wireless security (alarm) systems
    Wireless security video cameras
    Radio links between buildings for data communication
    Baby monitors
    Smart meters for electric energy
    In addition, electrical and electronic devices of all kinds emit EM fields around their working circuits, generated by oscillating currents. Humans are in daily contact with computers, video display monitors, TV screens, microwave ovens, fluorescent lamps, electric motors of several kinds (such as washing machines, kitchen appliances [like electric can openers, blenders, and mixers], water pumps, etc.) and many others. A study of bedroom exposure in 2009 showed the highest ELF-EF from bedside lights and the highest ELF-MF from transformer devices, while the highest RF-ELF came from DECT cordless phones and outside cellphone base stations; all exposures were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels.[12]
    The highest typical daily exposure, according to a study of 2009, came from cellphone base stations, cellphones and DECT cordless phones, with the highest exposure locations in trains, airports and buses.[13] The typical background power of electromagnetic fields in the home can vary from zero to 5 milliwatts per meter squared.[citation needed] Long-time effects of these electromagnetic fields on human and animal health are still unknown.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireles...ces_and_health
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 30-01-2013 at 10:54 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #10
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    We need to make kids take more physics classes in school, or something.

    Not that this is a horrible question to ask, but we live in a technologically-advanced society, and everyday people are becoming afraid of basic harmless things like electromagnetism just because they don't understand it.
    I think it's fair for people to be concerned. I for one am fully aware of the EM spectrum and how a cell signal works. (They use microwaves by the way, not radio as someone said.) I am also aware that generally there are no proven concerns with cell phone signals, and that basically we are all being exposed to huge amounts of natural and artificial radiation across the spectrum all the time. High power microwaves are proven to be quite harmful to humans though, especially to the tissues in the eyes. And although the microwaves off of a phone or tower are nowhere near those levels, officially it is still classified as Group 2B radiation on the IARC scale (possibly carcinogenic).

    So yes, in all likelihood there would be no concern living next to a tower. But that safety hasn't been proven for long term exposure yet. I think that's fair enough for someone to be concerned about tower placement.
    Last edited by halocore; 31-01-2013 at 02:03 AM.

  11. #11

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    At this point there is no evidence of harm from cell towers nor a plausible theory as to how they could cause harm. In fact if they did cause harm it would be the first known instance of non-ionizing radiation causing harm. Add to that the phone itself gives a larger dose than a tower and there is no reason to restrict placement on health concerns.

    Aesthetics is another all together but I expect over time people's desire for decent cell signal will begin to override that.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  13. #13
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,972

    Default

    It should be the least of your worries. Or near the bottom.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  14. #14
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,972

    Default

    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  15. #15
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Please provide a link and citiation for your picture.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    At this point there is no evidence of harm from cell towers nor a plausible theory as to how they could cause harm. In fact if they did cause harm it would be the first known instance of non-ionizing radiation causing harm. Add to that the phone itself gives a larger dose than a tower and there is no reason to restrict placement on health concerns.
    Sorry Paul, have you ever had a sunburn?

    In terms of potential biological effects, the non-ionizing portion of the spectrum can be subdivided into:
    The optical radiation portion, where electron excitation can occur (visible light, infrared light)
    The portion where the wavelength is smaller than the body. Heating via induced currents can occur. In addition there are claims of other adverse biological effects. Such effects are not well understood and even largely denied. (MW and higher-frequency RF).
    The portion where the wavelength is much larger than the body, and heating via induced currents seldom occurs (lower-frequency RF, power frequencies, static fields).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Fair enough, the term harm is too broad, although I would note that sunburn is caused by ultraviolet, and while ionizing ultraviolet is blocked by the atmosphere, what does come through is high energy and exhibits properties not found in other non-ionizing radiations.

    Below UV the effects of non-ionizing radiation are heating and the dangers of that are directly related to the amount of power and distance from the source. For example it is known that talking on a cell phone can cause localized warming in the tissue near the phone.

    The massive difference is this: ionizing radiation causes direct damage to DNA, non-ionizing does not. Many of the claims surrounding alleged harmful effects of cell phone towers talk about causing cancer but that has never been observed as a direct effect of non-ionizing radiation with the sole exception being the non-ionizing form of UV. However because UV exists on the boundary, even it's non-ionizing form carries enough energy to break chemical bonds in cells. Everything below it does not.

    Finally, in between microwaves and ultraviolet is visible light. If we're truly concerned that microwaves can do more than cause thermal effects at high powers then we would have to wonder why visible light does not.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  18. #18

    Default

    The jury is still out.

    For years industry thought that DDT was harmless to humans.
    The tobacco industry consistently deigned that smoking was dangerous and knew for decades.
    The drug industry profits enormously while knowing that many of their products are more dangerous than they acknowledge
    Let's not even mention the NRA
    The cell phone industry may have their secrets too.

    I posted sources that offer cautionary guidance until the health effects, (if any) are known.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    The jury is alway out with science. What counts is the preponderance of evidence combined with known predictive theories. Currently the preponderance of evidence is that there are no seriously harmful effects. Furthermore, our understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works provides no mechanism for such effects. The rational route from here is to not restrict development on health grounds but to continue research.

    In your examples it was a matter of connecting known things to known effects. Prior to Silent Spring there were a number of known things for which the cause was unknown until it was demonstrated to be DDT. The same with smoking. Lung cancer was known and eventually a casual link was demonstrated. Yes it was a battle after that to get industry to admit the problems but there was research to demonstrate the problem.

    What we don't have with cell phones is an unexplained effect that correlates well with their increased use, nor any research that demonstrates a possible effect. I think we'd be better off off focussing on areas where we know there are problems like industrial pollution, pesticide use, etc. than with purely speculative areas with no evidence.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The jury is alway out with science. What counts is the preponderance of evidence combined with known predictive theories. Currently the preponderance of evidence is that there are no seriously harmful effects. Furthermore, our understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works provides no mechanism for such effects. The rational route from here is to not restrict development on health grounds but to continue research.

    In your examples it was a matter of connecting known things to known effects. Prior to Silent Spring there were a number of known things for which the cause was unknown until it was demonstrated to be DDT. The same with smoking. Lung cancer was known and eventually a casual link was demonstrated. Yes it was a battle after that to get industry to admit the problems but there was research to demonstrate the problem.

    What we don't have with cell phones is an unexplained effect that correlates well with their increased use, nor any research that demonstrates a possible effect. I think we'd be better off off focussing on areas where we know there are problems like industrial pollution, pesticide use, etc. than with purely speculative areas with no evidence.
    Your comment that "understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works provides no mechanism for such effects." is incorrect as my links above to non-ionizing radiation show that there are effects from other devices and sources.

    There was more than a casual link to the health effects of smoking with many significant studies and papers on the subject in the 50's and 60's but the industry was in full denial even though their own researchers knew the risk and at the same time governments stood by and made cigarettes a lucrative tax source and still do so today even after taking the tobacco companies to court.

    I do not know what effects cell phones and cell phone towers have, there are many studies on the health effects especially as more phones concentrate the effects.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #21

    Default

    Can these towers not be put on tall buildings then there would be no need for the 'tower' part. The building would be the 'tower' and just the transmitters can be installed on the roof.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The jury is alway out with science. What counts is the preponderance of evidence combined with known predictive theories. Currently the preponderance of evidence is that there are no seriously harmful effects. Furthermore, our understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works provides no mechanism for such effects. The rational route from here is to not restrict development on health grounds but to continue research.

    In your examples it was a matter of connecting known things to known effects. Prior to Silent Spring there were a number of known things for which the cause was unknown until it was demonstrated to be DDT. The same with smoking. Lung cancer was known and eventually a casual link was demonstrated. Yes it was a battle after that to get industry to admit the problems but there was research to demonstrate the problem.

    What we don't have with cell phones is an unexplained effect that correlates well with their increased use, nor any research that demonstrates a possible effect. I think we'd be better off off focussing on areas where we know there are problems like industrial pollution, pesticide use, etc. than with purely speculative areas with no evidence.
    Your comment that "understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works provides no mechanism for such effects." is incorrect as my links above to non-ionizing radiation show that there are effects from other devices and sources.

    There was more than a casual link to the health effects of smoking with many significant studies and papers on the subject in the 50's and 60's but the industry was in full denial even though their own researchers knew the risk and at the same time governments stood by and made cigarettes a lucrative tax source and still do so today even after taking the tobacco companies to court.

    I do not know what effects cell phones and cell phone towers have, there are many studies on the health effects especially as more phones concentrate the effects.
    The effects shown by non-ionizing radiation are thermal (they cause some heat) and apply only at high powers. The wikipedia link you provided says as much. There is no known way for the low powers of electromagnetic radiation we use in our houses and our phones to cause cellular damage. This is especially true of cell towers since the distance from the transmitter is so large.

    As for long term harm, that remains to be seen and we should continue research into possible mechanisms for that as well as watching for correlations. The confound is that the manner in which we use cell phones is changing. While there have been measured effects, in the form of localized heating, when using cell phones directly against your head for long periods, people are talking less on their phones in favour of texting and social media.

    As a reference point a cell phone operates at about 1 Watt and towers around 100 Watts (based on your link). A microwave oven operates at 1000 Watts. While the oven is shielded they still tend to emit as much as a cell phone or a cordless phone.

    Finally, I would ask at what point does the cost of something outweigh the benefits. Cellular networks have enormous economic and social benefits. At this point we can not demonstrate a heath cost. In Canada over 2000 people a year die in car accidents* and 20 years ago that was over 3500. In the U.S. the number is over 30000. We willingly accept this because of the benefit. To willingly limit something as beneficial as cellular networks on speculation not backed up by research is ridiculous.

    *I guess traffic accidents are one known harm of cell phones.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Can these towers not be put on tall buildings then there would be no need for the 'tower' part. The building would be the 'tower' and just the transmitters can be installed on the roof.
    This already done extensively. This is the building across from my office with 11 transmitters visible:


    Cell sites across the street. by Paul Turnbull, on Flickr

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  24. #24

    Default

    http://twistedsifter.com/2012/08/exa...wer-disguises/


    Cell Tower as art. Actually these look like mall signs, they could put towers in them.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    As a reference point a cell phone operates at about 1 Watt and towers around 100 Watts (based on your link). A microwave oven operates at 1000 Watts. While the oven is shielded they still tend to emit as much as a cell phone or a cordless phone.
    You plucked one reference and ignored the other. By your own example of the building with 11 transmitters. If they produce 100 watts each, thats 1100 watts, about the same as that microwave oven. But remember the oven door is closed and shielded. When is the last time you stood in the kitchen with the microwave on and the door open? Don't worry, its non-ionizing...

    It may be on the top of the building but so are the people on the top floor. And there are more than 11 on that building, you are counting just two sides.

    If you read my other reference, most towers and buildings have much higher total power input and output.

    Finally, the number of radios and amplifiers in a site determines its range (its "coverage") and the maximum volume of calls it can handle (its "capacity"). Some sites, especially in busy urban areas, are enormous, housing as many as 12-24 radios per sector for GSM and 1-3 per sector for W-CDMA, for a total of 39-81 radios, plus associated amplifiers and HVAC units for cooling. These sites may need a 400 A AC feed (or more) and draw a whopping 30-75 kW at peak use.

    More typically, a cell site runs at an average of about 0.5-3.5 kW, so total electricity usage in a month would be between 350 kWh and 2500 kWh, or from about half-a-house to three-times-a-house.

    Read more: How much energy/electricity does a cell phone tower typically use in a month? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#ixzz2JWsRnCGf
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #26

    Default

    Sorry for necroing this thread, but this is relevant.

    A first part of an extensive study by US National Toxicology Program (NTP) on cell phone related cancer is out.

    Commentary from Wall Street Journal:
    Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

    ...The multiyear, peer-reviewed study, by the National Toxicology Program, found “low incidences” of two types of tumors in male rats that were exposed to the type of radio frequencies that are commonly emitted by cellphones. The tumors were gliomas, which are in the glial cells of the brain, and schwannomas of the heart.

    “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to [radio-frequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health,” according to a report of partial findings from the study, which was released late Thursday....

    ...The U.S. government’s official position is that the weight of scientific evidence hasn’t indicated health risks. In 2011, the World Health Organization said cellphone radiation was a group 2B possible carcinogen. Illustrating the ambiguity of the designation is the fact that certain pickled vegetables and coffee are also considered possibly carcinogenic....

    The two types of tumors the study identified also have been discovered in some epidemiological studies. Those studies, which have found instances of gliomas and acoustic neuromas, were key factors in the WHO’s decision to classify cellphone radiation as a possible carcinogen. The NTP report noted that its findings “appear to support” the classification....

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    I'll reserve judgment until I hear some responses from people who can read and communicate the paper more clearly than the article. It's sorely lacking in details about the study itself.

    Some preliminary thoughts though: I've seen reference that the study exposed rats to 6W/kg, whole body for 9 hours/day for two years beginning in vitro. Cell phones give less than 2W/kg during a call, at the point the phone touches the body. Despite that the observed increase in cancers was still within the margin of error for the historical rate.

    My other thought is that if this is true then they still need to identify a mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation could increase a cancer rate.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  28. #28

  29. #29

    Default

    I did link to the study on top of my post introducing NTP.

    The study itself is peer reviewed, so experts have already had a chance to provide feedback. It has been several years in the planning so that it can address the complex issue. Of course for a main stream outlet WSJ had to simplify the study. And the finding is not alarming risk but supports the rating of WHO as a potential carcinogen.

    Another interesting part of the study for me was that only male rats developed cancer cells. Hmmmm...

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Sorry, hadn't noticed your link

    Peer review for publication is good but the ultimate peer review comes after publication. Even if the result can be replicated they have the problem that they still have no hypothesis or theory as to what is causing the correlation.

    I do think the current classification as a potential carcinogen is good but I don't this result is enough to up the classification as the authors contend. The effect they observed is very small, required large doses, and still needs to be replicated.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  31. #31

    Default

    Probably the wrong thread for this but here's a bit on the smartphones themselves.

    Credible? I have no idea. I know that people in the military that work around microwaves have detectable damage to their eyes (per an engineer that built weather equipment and a ex-military doc noticed similar damage to his eyes and asked he what he did for a living. He told me that wouldn't use his cell phone if he didn't need to. Talked about the power to punch out a signal through buildings to the nearest tower (through your head if necessary).


    Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright...


    Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...fety-tips.aspx

    http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20...eye_damage.asp
    Last edited by KC; 27-05-2016 at 06:51 PM.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Science Based Medicine has a good article regarding Dr. Devra Davis's work:



    And then there are the 13 pages it takes to list the articles debunking Mercola:


    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Looking at the studies you are far more likely to become sterile by your phone's battery catching on fire in your pocket than from the radiation. I'm guessing somewhere around 10-100 cellphones catch fire in North America a year. So the rate is pretty low regardless.

    An also more higher risk of permanent sterility, because they'll take themselves out of the gene pool, is the many people who text or talk and drive, this morning a guy almost sideswiped me doing that.
    Last edited by sundance; 31-05-2016 at 08:43 AM.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with red flags: Researchers strangely release partial results without formal review, cause alarm.

    The study, which was not properly peer reviewed—despite what some outlets have reported—is chock full of red flags: small sample sizes, partially reported results, control oddities, statistical stretches, and a slim conclusion. In short, “there is nothing in this report that can be regarded to be statistically significant," Donald Berry, a biostatistics professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, told Ars.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •