“I have done a bit of research which is just as valid as that of Bioinitiative (no peer review and likely to be shot down by the majority of scientists);
In the last 25 or so years that we have had mobile phones, many have been sited near schools. In this time both GCSE and A level results have been improving and are now a at record high ¿
Mobile phone transmitters sited at schools make children more intelligent QED”

“Thanks for your thoughts Moe. I have at least read what you have to say but I genuinely don't see much in your arguments.

We have cited proper scientific studies, produced by credentialled scientists and submitted to peer reviewed journals, which find clear evidence of cause-effect relationships between phone mast emissions and heath effects. These effects decrease with distance from the mast or with reduced exposure.

The pictures of the illness clusters are what I uploaded to Flickr to show you. My 'handle' on that site is proudoftwerton. So what? The pictures show that clusters of illnesses undeniably fall within the main fields of the masts, wherever that research has been undertaken in Britain. How can we not be concerned about that?

So on these grounds we think that a mast shouldn't be placed in a densely populated area with lots of children and babies and other vulnerable residents. It is a risk that shouldn't be taken.

I hope that you are right and this technology doesn't harm anyone's health, but it is not looking that way to me. I suspect that JE is closer to the truth when he calls these masts a "ticking time bomb". It took 20 years for the full effects of working with asbestos to be grasped.

As for explanations why this type of radiation causes ill health, why not talk to an expert like Alisdair Phillips about it and see what he says. Scientists are working with a range of theories surrounding the shape and frequency of the emissions. Frankly I don't care what the cause is.

You know, it is quite possible to argue that the mast shouldn't be sited there from sources on your side of the fence.

The government commissioned Stewart Report says that it cannot be ruled out that exposure to emissions well below ICNIRP guidlines can affect health. Therefore it recommends that no masts should be situated in such a way that a school is exposed to the beam of greatest intensity.

This mast won't do that, but there are children living all around whose homes will fall under the beam of greatest intensity. So what's the difference?”

“@ JE

"Yes Moe it¿s odd how you seem to be hell bent on painting industry and government as totally innocent. Odd how you completely ignored the example of a government and industry making multi billions out of selling the carcinogen tobacco."

Who painted anyone as innocent? You are implying that, because of thalidomide/tobacco etc, everything government and industry does is geared towards killing people for profit. I'm merely trying to point out how silly that is.

I should probably be gratified that you believe me to be an 'industry insider' but my qualifications in this debate are limited to an understanding of GCSE-level physics.

Happy for you to forgo technology. Your choice. But I hope for your sake you are posting to this website remotely with a pen and paper - God forbid you should be using a computer that could be radiating its pulsed, microwave-frequency clock signal at levels limited only by EU law based on advice set by organisations like the ICNIRP and HPA.”

“Sigh. It's a shame that neither of you have made any attempt to contradict any of my attempted scientific explanations as to why your own attempts at scientific arguments are utter nonsense.

Your response is to post as many links as you can find to studies that appear to support your preconceived opinions. Some of them claim correlations that could be down to anything; one of them appears to be just a picture posted by someone called 'proudoftwerton'. Most of them just conclude that 'radiation can be dangerous'.

No-one is claiming that radiation isn't dangerous. As I have said, there are very strict rules that limit exposure to certain levels. Like everything, it depends on intensity and exposure. Water, vitamin C, sunlight, and pretty much any other 'wholesome', 'natural' substance can kill in sufficient quantities.

I keep an open mind. It is possible that there is a correlation. However, given the absolutely huge sample size (almost the entire developed world) versus the lack of evidence of mass deaths, the risk - if it exists at all - must be tiny: orders of magnitude below the risk of breaking your neck while putting your trousers on in the morning. This is fact. My *opinion* is that there are far better things to worry about; for example the established evidence that 10 people are killed in traffic accidents in the UK every single day.

Your claim that I am only arguing against you to "mock the beliefs of people who believe in creation" actually shocked me. I would never claim to understand how your mind works Joe, but that correlation didn't even occur to me.

My pet hate is the gross misrepresentation of reality that you people always resort to. When science cannot come up with a mechanism for something that someone has already decided is true - e.g. phone masts cause cancer - they simply re-invent the science to match. Pretending that 'man-made' radiation is somehow worse than 'natural' radiation', regardless of intensity, is one appallingly prevalent example. When that argument becomes tenuous, you seize on 'modulation' as the only the thing that distinguishes the two: but again, you cannot explain how man-made modulated signals are any worse than natural modulated signals.

You prey on people's irrational tendency to see everything man-made as evil. E100 = bad; turmeric = good.

As long as you people insist on misrepresenting science merely to prove a point, someone will have to keep correcting you. Science cannot simply be re-invented to fit your preconceptions - this is what distinguishes it from religion. If I used a mocking tone to convey this point then I apologise.”

“Moe, you wrote:

"Show me the evidence that RF can cause molecular damage."

Philips et al (1998) reported both increased and decreased DNA repair in cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation at 0.0024-0.24 W/kg.

Decreased DNA repair might harm DNA by leaving damage uncorrected.

And, as Wect has pointed out, increased DNA repair is a sign that damaged has been incurred by the radiofrequency radition. That is, the cell is working harder to repair the damage.

Other scientists tried to replicate the study but failed. Then again, on close inspection they were using different methods. However, a similar finding was found in the European Reflex Study. Mobile phone radiation affected rates of DNA repair.

So the RF may not directly damage DNA, but there is evidence that it does it indirectly by interfering with cellular processes that repair DNA.”

“In my post below, the links to the pictures are in the wrong order.

The first takes you to the picture of the clusters of 12 and 13 cancers within the field of a phone mast.

http://tiny.cc/j9er3

The second takes you to the pairs of neighbours who developed cancers within the strongest field.

http://tiny.cc/dzpj1”

“Let us begin again with some of the reasons why we don't want yet another phone mast installed in a densely populated part of Twerton, where lots of babies, children and other people live.

Some scientific studies find evidence of a relationship between phone masts and ill-health. For example:

Augner et al (2009) GSM base stations: short-term effects on well-being.

http://tiny.cc/0yyep

Abdel-Rassoul et al (2007) Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations.

http://tiny.cc/2hyag

Bortkiewicz et al (2004) Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review.

http://tiny.cc/f9wl2

Nikolova et al (2005) Electromagnetic fields affect transcript levels of apoptosis-related genes in embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitor cells.

http://tiny.cc/wgp7k

People called on households in certain neighbourhoods, to find out what patterns of illness there were in the area. The patterns were then compared with the emissions of the local phone mast. The clusters of illnesses fell where the emissions were strongest.

This picture shows how clusters of 12 and 13 cancers fell within the 120 degree beams of a phone mast:

http://tiny.cc/dzpj1

This pictures show patterns in which pairs of next door neighbours developed cancers together, again evidencing that living in the field of greatest intensity around a mast induces cancer:

http://tiny.cc/j9er3


Still Moe (below) argues that there is no problem with putting the mast in Twerton. But if you want to know her motive (a really weird one) scroll down to the bottom of this page to see her first post. It is so that she can mock the beliefs of people who believe in creation.

In fact Moe's claims and assumptions are easily corrected. In brief:

*The emissions from phone masts cannot be compared to a light bulb. The shape and frequencies of the signals given off differ.

*The emissions from phone masts cannot be compared with the sun. The masts introduce a different kind of radiation.

*The emissions from phone masts cannot be compared with a mobile phone, as you can chose whether to use a mobile phone or not. And the mast gives a constant exposure, whereas the phone does not.

*It cannot be said that phone masts only serve the area where they are installed. For example Southdown in Bath has no phone masts. The signals that it receives come from masts in other areas.

*An article on Wikipedia can be written by any unqualified member of the public. Therefore it cannot in itself discredit a report produced by credentialled scientists with years of experience in the field for which they write.

*You do not have to find the reason WHY these masts cause ill-health to have evidence that they do. It was accepted that smoking was bad for health, before scientists knew the reason why.”

“Yes Moe it¿s odd how you seem to be hell bent on painting industry and government as totally innocent. Odd how you completely ignored the example of a government and industry making multi billions out of selling the carcinogen tobacco. Is that a conspiracy theory? Incidently the Macmillan government of the early 1960¿s were made fully aware of the dangers of smoking tobacco. It has taken us another 50 years to ban smoking in public places. Odd how you haven¿t come back on my comments about ICNIRP. Why don¿t you mention the WHO. Let¿s have a discussion about how ¿independent¿ they are (not).
You and your ilk (incidentally I still believe you are a telecom mole) try to denigrate anybody who dares try and inform the public of the harmful effects of this pulsing electro magnetic radiation. You try to blacken the name of Powerwatch, a not for profit organisation, who provide excellent guidance and advice on the harmful effects of microwave radiation. Powerwatch is run by Alasdair Philllips, a member of SAGE (the UK Department of Health Stakeholder Group on ELF EMFs) and a member of the UK Health Protection Agency's EMF Discussion Group. Powerwatch is used as a forum for a small group of knowledgeable engineers and scientists who are concerned about the consequences of irradiated 'blue world' we are creating. Yet you dare criticise an organisation which is simply trying to move official UK policies towards a more precautionary approach to human EMF exposure issues. I recommend the Powerwatch website to anybody who wishes to know the truth.
You try and con us that phone mast emissions are safe. Yet even your telecom funded research proves you are wrong. Two years ago a phone operator covered up the damaging results of their own research. The Ecolog Institute, a research organisation which examines the health effects of mobile phones, was commissioned to investigate the possible health risks of mobile phone masts. The 2003 Ecolog report confirmed:
'Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system.'
Is this a tabloid scare story? Are the following few of the many thousands of peer reviewed research papers ¿conspiracy theories¿?
1. P Wolf R, Wolf D, (April 2004) Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) April 2004 [
2. P Eger H et al, (November 2004) The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17,4 2004
3. P Augner C et al, (September 2008) GSM base stations: Short-term effects on well-being, Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]
4. P Preece AW et al, (June 2007) Health response of two communities to military antennae in Cyprus, Occup Environ Med. 2007 Jun;64(6):402-8
5. P Abdel-Rassoul G et al, (March 2007) Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology. 2007 Mar;28(2):434-40 [
6. P Yurekli A et al, (2006) GSM base station electromagnetic radiation and oxidative stress in rats, Electromagn Biol Med 25(3):177-88
7. P Bortkiewicz A et al, (2004) Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review, Med Pr. 2004;55(4):345-51
8. P Nikolova T et al, (October 2005) Electromagnetic fields affect transcript levels of apoptosis-related genes in embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitor cells, FASEB J. 2005 Oct;19(12):1686-8
9. P Santini R et al, (September 2003) Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/ Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors, Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep;51(7):412-5
10. P Nava”

“JE - well done, you have brought up Thalidomide on your second post as evidence that governments and industry are only interested in making profits out of killing people. Classic stuff. And no, I don't work for the cellphone industry. I do work in communications, but my salary is not tied to the number of people I kill, so your conspiracy theory doesn't apply to me.

Could you explain to me what you mean by 'vibrational' content? A continuous wave could be said to 'vibrate' at the carrier frequency, so what on earth are you talking about? Perhaps it is the 'low frequency modulation' as you call it. This is the actual baseband signal - the speech in a telephone call for example. This is, by definition, much less energetic (and thus dangerous) than the carrier.

For a human cell to suffer the effects of this baseband signal, it would need to demodulate it. So the cell would have to act as an effective antenna *and* a demodulator somehow. If human cells were such effective antennas, how come every cell in your body does not vibrate and radiate your speech when you talk, damaging all the adjacent cells?

I'll tell you why. An antenna has to be similar in dimensions to the wavelength it is tuned to receive, so a human cell would be around a million times too small. On top of this - protein receptors are many, many orders of magnitude in size below the cell itself, so I cannot understand how could they possibly detect these 'huge' signals, let alone interpret them as a threat. You are claiming that signals below 10kHz - wavelengths above 30km - have an effect on a protein molecule. In layman's terms, that's like saying continental drift could knock an ant off its feet.

But regardless of any possible mechanism; as I tried to point out 'modulated' signals are nothing new. The sun is very variable; the earth's orbit 'modulates' cosmic radiation; passing clouds 'modulate' solar radiation. In fact solar radiation is modulated to its extremes on a regular 24-hour cycle. Our physiology relies on this.

You can perpetuate as many tabloid scare stories as you like, but until someone shows me evidence that people in the developed world are dying in droves because of their gadgets I will continue to treat your scare stories with utter contempt.”

“Joe, I googled 'Bortkiewicz (2004)' and the first two links that came up were to the Powerwatch site. For those that don't know, Powerwatch publish scare stories, hype the dangers of 'electrosensitivity' and sell ludicrously overpriced 'protection' equipment to the vulnerable. They sell standard stuff like copper tape and conductive paint at 10 or 20 times the price of normal industry suppliers.

I find this sort of thing utterly reprehensible. It only remains legal because the media perpetuate the scare stories and a few conspiracy theorists pick up on it.

"The fact that transmitters serve other areas in addition to the area where they are installed is easily demonstrated. If they did not, then Vodafone would have to have a mast in each ward in Bath, which they do not."

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that microwaves respect political boundaries? Don't be ridiculous. It's quite simple - cellphones work in a cell. The cell boundaries are formed by masts. A cellphone communicates with its nearest mast. These laws also apply in Twerton, therefore, the Twerton mast is for Twerton.

As for this magical 'new' kind of radiation - have you ever heard of microwave background radiation? This is the afterglow of the big bang. It has been around (in the microwave band) since before the earth existed, let alone complex life. Since you don't believe in the big bang, or the evidence in support of it, you should know that the sun - being very hot and fairly indiscriminate - emits all over the spectrum, including microwaves. The sun has also been about for quite a while.

Finally - DNA damage is normally attributed to ionising radiation, which is right at the other end of the spectrum to RF. Microwaves are far too weak to cause damage at the molecular level (see previous arguments - if microwaves could do this, then visible light could do it 100,000 times as effectively). The best microwaves can manage is a slight heating effect. Show me the evidence that RF can cause molecular damage.”