“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.”