This is a good podcast episode covering why 5g is not dangerous or a risk: https://pca.st/episode/c1795f1e-10a1-419c-91b2-606f8830dcc6
I've no problem with the 5G rollout.
However I can understand people being concerned and not believing what the scientists are saying.
I remember when smoking was healthy, and huge amounts of research was done by scientists funded by tobacco companies to prove it...
Anyhow, has anyone noticed that corona virus only appeared after the suppression of piracy in the Persian Gulf? Lack of pirates, that's an obvious cause, aaarh... 🙂
over the years ive had the pleasure/not of working with idiots who believe
frozen food is bad and gives you cancer as all the goodness is frozen out of it,
meat is bad,vegetarians,and only some animals eat it,
tuna is full of poison from the sea,
cycling is unsafe,
microwave ovens fry your brain,and give your food cancer cells,
low cost supermarkets buy the waste food from more expensive supermarkets,re package it and sell on at a lower cost.
mobile phones fry your brain,
computer monitors damage your eye sight and give out invisible rays that alter your thought processes,(its called advertising).
As for mobile phone masts, 2 destryed on merseyside yesterday, 1 in Birmingham and 4 in un known locations according to Vodaphone, the same masts that beam facebook and instagram to these idiots homes.
As long as they do it on a Saturday night or Sunday when I'm on call fill ya boots.
18yrs working on mobile
networks, all providers but now on 02/Voda
Well this thread gave me a good opportunity to reach my kids the difference between correlation and causation by those maps.
And that there are a lot of stupid people out there.
It's only going to get worse. Confine people in their homes for nearly 24 hours each day, provide a diet of internet nonsense and your going to get all kinds of weirdness.
I cant find it but there was a thread pooped up on my twitter feed yesterday.
Summary, French telecoms company build a new phone tower in a small town, lots
of complaints to the Mayor calls a town meeting with a representative from the
telecoms co. A lot of residents of complaining that they are suffering from
head aches caused by the radio waves coming from the tower.
Telecom rep, "err we haven't turned it on yet."
(my bold)
Keep meaning to flag this up - seems we can't boldly go anywhere any more
Yes. And I have a science background.
You and the other loonies (and I do mean this offensively) are part of the reason conspiracy theories exist.
Just accept that some people know more than you, and that they’re not seeking to personally control the population through weaponised 5G bats.
Finally, phone companies rely on 24 month contracts. It’s not brilliant for them if they kill off their users prematurely.
Anyone with half a brain and background in science would know that strawmen are not credible arguments. I posted a link to a Lancet report (I can only assume you've heard of one?) and stated that there is absolutely no evidence between Covid19 and EMR. If you, with your "science background" can't engage with peer-reviewed evidence then how can you expect it of the average person.
Sorry mate I'm not saying there is a link between Covid19 and 5g - I don't see reading my post that I could have been more explicit than that - I am saying that EMR is a genuine concern for scientistis and there is widespread consensus amongst scientists about the risks of EMR - given that we are now exposed to it constantly from 'the cradle to the grave'.
If you'd read the link you'd see that what the 'testing' is based on is research that is 20 years old, you'd also find out that this research from done by an industry-friend non-govermental agency and furthermore, that the risk associated with EMR is limited to thermal effects only i.e. heating of tissues - but it ignores studies which look at the impact of radiation on DNA and cells, etc (it's in the report which I quoted/linked in the original post).
tuna is full of poison from the sea,
To be fair, that was actually true - there were villages in Japan suffering mercury poisoning from fresh tuna that they were catching and eating, it caused terrible problems back in the 70’s, IIRC. And it’s still an issue - bioaccumulation in large fish of naturally occurring mercury as well as human pollutants is an actual issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
I posted a link to a Lancet report (I can only assume you’ve heard of one?) and stated that there is absolutely no evidence between Covid19 and EMR.
Errr, haven’t you just shot down your own argument?
CountZero, please quote me where I said otherwise?
This whole story illustrates the sad fact that whilst there have always been total morons around, Social Media now means other morons listen to them.
Anyone with half a brain and background in science would know...
Ok, I hate to do this but; I have a PhD in the study of electromagnetic radiation on and around the human body. This covered frequencies from 900 MHz to 60 GHz.
There is no risk from this at the frequencies and powers used in the telecoms industry whether that be 2, 2.5, 3, 4 or 5G. In fact the higher in frequency you go the less effect on the body it has.
And before you say, I do not and have not worked, nor been funded by, the telecoms industry in any way so have nothing to hide from the public.
Can we stop this bollocks about 5G being dangerous now please.
There, you have now been told by someone who is definitely in the know.
Dr Jon BEng(Hons) MSc(Kent) MSc(Cran) PhD CEng MIET
EDIT: Oh, and EM radiation is NON-IONISING radiation so the shite about Corona Ions is just that. They are related to the ionisation of surrounding media from very high power conductors such as power lines.
Hi Jon,
Thanks for repsonding. Maybe you could help me with some info regarding this. You say you have a PHD, but as a layman, I just have to trust peer-reviewed journals, apologies for my skeptisim. If you could post something to support your statement, I'd appreciate that.
This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation.
The Lancet
Are you claiming those 244 scientists are wrong? You're dismissing a lot of EM specialists, peer-reviewed jounrals as bollocks. I'm not qualified scientist in physics or biology, but I understand how science works nevertheless; assertive claims need substantial evidence. Can you post your research which supports your assertions?
In terms of on RM radition being non-ionising, here are is some infromation which might be of interest to you -
It has been widely claimed that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being non-ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been proven wrong experimentally[links posted below]
The Lancet
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468009000066
http://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468009000169
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/em.22343
It's true, some scientists are saying that EMR is fine, but a lot are saying it is not. So there is widespread disagrement, and for me (as a non-scientist) that's enough to warrant caution with rolling out this technology which, correct me if I'm wrong, is 10x as powerful as 4g and will require masts every 200 meters.
Jon, just to add another point, are you basing your claim that 5g is safe on current thermal standards by any chance?
Cheers,
FM
We didn’t have Covid19 before ebikes came along. I think it’s something in their motors that triggers it.
Finally some sense.
I just have to trust peer-reviewed journals
As a layman, which "peer-reviewed journals" do you read? Or is it just reading articles, blogs, etc. that mention "peer-reviewed research" ?
As a scientist, and someone with a postgrad in satellite and mobile communications, the first thing that signals "boll*cks" to me in an article is the mention of the term "peer-reviewed". The 2nd thing that signals "boll*cks" is name dropping specific universities, such as Yale.
If you write a paper on your research, you don't use such language or terms. You do however reference specific papers and their authors, and the specific conference proceedings, journals, etc. that they were published in.
If it doesn't have that kind of detail, it goes straight in the pile of stuff that belongs in a Bad Science book just like Gillian whatshername that gave herself a doctorate from some made up institution.
Where are the actual papers showing that some scientists disagree? Are they real papers? or just someone writing an article stating that as unsubstantiated fact. Especially since science is all about disproving theories. There ought to be lots of genuine science by real academics disproving the science that finds EMR etc. safe.
Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes the accepted truth.
that’s enough to warrant caution with rolling out this technology which, correct me if I’m wrong, is 10x as powerful as 4g
1 minute on ITU website tells me "5G networks will transmit similar power levels compared to previous mobile technologies"
difficult to find though cos if you search 5G power levels or wahtever you'll get a million bullshine sites by self proclaimed experts before you find any actual real information.
It’s true, some scientists are saying that EMR is fine, but a lot are saying it is not.
I think you have your numbers wrong there. Most scientists say it is fine, a few say it is not. The article from the Lancet you posted to is from the ORSAA who appear to be a very opaque group who's aim is to prove this harm, hardly an unbiased source, Lancet or otherwise.
I would also take a look at the editors letters that followed to respond to this
For a start EMF stand for Electro-Magnetic Force which is related to motive force and has absolutely nothing to do with Electro-Magnetic Radiation so I do not feel inclined to believe anything 244 scientist say on the subject if they cannot even get that right.
Secondly, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of engineers and scientists involved in the study of EM radiation, antenna and radio design etc. with a significant number involved in the study of EM effect on the body so the fact that 244 take issue is a very small minority not "a lot of EM specialists"
The Lancet, believe it or not, is actually a pretty crap journal when it come to publishing anything that is not 100% medical science especially when it comes to matters of Engineering and Physics such as this. If you can get full access have a look at the IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation journal and IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. If you can't get access then the Abstracts for all papers are available on either societies websites. I'll have a look and post links to some of the more pertinent studies when I get a chance. in the mean time have a search and see the actual science.
It’s true, some scientists are saying that EMR is fine, but a lot are saying it is not.
It is the other way around. The vast majority have said there is a minuscule or virtually no risk (no such thing as zero risk) and a very small minority are being very vocal about it.
correct me if I’m wrong, is 10x as powerful as 4g and will require masts every 200 meters.
You are wrong. The power is not 10X higher than 4G. Here is the Ofcom licence for Telefonica UK to operate their 5G networks. Note, there are different maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) levels for both Advanced Antenna System (AAS) and non-AAS stations. Neither of these is anywhere close to 10X the power of 4G.
You are partly correct that there will be more 5G basestations but I suspect not for the reasons you may be thinking of and not until approx. 2024. The reason for more basestations is to do with network capacity. There is a certain amount of bandwidth (and therefore users) available for each cell. Increasing the number of cells increases the total bandwidth and therefore the number of users using high datarate services. It has nothing to do with EM Radiation. In fact, if anything it will likely reduce the powers transmitted so the signal does not propagate as far (standard pathloss calculation to work that out) to reduce the intercell interference and maximise frequency reuse.
I am basing the fact that at the 5G frequencies there is very little penetration of the signal into the body. Above ~1GHz the body becomes mostly reflective, ie. most the radiation is reflected by the skin. What little does penetrate will only make it through the top layers of tissue and will be massively attenuated by the fatty tissue therefore not making it anywhere near any vital organs. Bone is almost entirely reflective at these frequencies therefore the brain is safe.
There is a very small heating effect from directed energy from high gain antennas (and by high gain I mean pencil beam not the high gains used in telecoms networks). After propagation loss the heating from 5G basestations will be all but nonexistent as the power will be really low by the time it gets anywhere near the user. Most the heating from using phones is due to holding them to the head and the heat transfer from the device itself not from any radiated field. the current "standards" (they are not standards but guidance) published by the likes of the IEEE and ICNIRP are perfectly valid and if anything the public exposure levels are conservative. Both sets of guidance cover most the RF spectrum as they are not just for use with telecoms equipment so the 5G frequencies have been studied and measured a long time ago as previous equipment has operated in those bands for decades.
Hi Andy,
I provided links - I'm a trained academic. I'm not using blogs!
So far, I've quoted links soley from academic journals (Nature, The Lancet or various journals featured on ScienceDirect) - feel free to read over my posts and make any necessary corrections. If journals are not trusthworthy, then I'm not sure what is.
You're right about name dropping studies, but here it was referenced and linked to an actual Yale study (from the Lancet - "Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals")
"and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour.16 These findings deserve urgent attention."
16: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00312?viewType=Print&viewClass=Print
Like I say, I'm not a physicist, but I have access to journals because of my job and I have a lot of spare time at the moment. The 5g conspiracy caught my eye because it seemed so absurd and ridiculous, but having spent a few days reading aroud it, I now see that 5g and so-called electrosmog is a serious public health matter and a wide body of science is arguing that prolonged exposure is being linked to a growing list of chronic health issues, ranging from low-level stress to DNA damage and cancer. I thought that was worth mentioning on a thread about 5g and have been called met with derision, even insults. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but maybe this isn't the right forum for any sort of informed debate, in fact, those places seem to be harder to find these days. Maybe it's all that electromagnetic radition around 😀
Anyway, thanks for responding!
Cheers,
FM
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00312?viewType=Print&viewClass=Print
I don't read many papers. But that's a weird read. Would a phone create measurable level at this frequency in the foetus? In humans their is a lot of conducting stuff round a baby.
I think the article smells when it says that phone use approaches 24 hours a day. Surely it's not transmitting 24 hours a day
It will be interesting to see if any body can reproduce it. The Swedish tumour on the side of your head you hold your head to thing vanished as we got more data.
This one says no affect. I didn't look far articles with a.particular view
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584361/
In mice, I don't know. Would there be foetal deformations; Maybe (although I think unlikely) if constantly exposed for extended periods (Days, weeks, months) of constant radiation at the maximum power a phone transmits during an active call at the 4.5cm distance. At longer distances I very much doubt much would be measurable inside a mouse let alone have an effect.
In humans, no chance. 900MHz-1800MHz barely penetrates past the skin and virtually nothing makes it past the fatty tissues. Nothing measurable would make it to a human foetus at those frequencies.
I now see that 5g and so-called electrosmog is a serious public health matter and a wide body of science is arguing that prolonged exposure is being linked to a growing list of chronic health issues, ranging from low-level stress to DNA damage and cancer. I thought that was worth mentioning on a thread about 5g and have been called met with derision, even insults. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but maybe this isn’t the right forum for any sort of informed debate, in fact, those places seem to be harder to find these days.
Wow! Make some unsubstantiated claims based on stuff wot you red on the internet, get corrected by people who actually have real experience in those areas, then write it off as uninformed debate!
Clearly you’re not prepared to accept real informed debate because you’ve already made your mind up and won’t accept anything that contradicts what you’ve already decided.
It seems this isn’t the forum you’d like to think it is, anyone propagating poor science gets put in their place fairly quickly, because this place has a lot of people on it who are very well informed indeed.
CountZero, firstly don't patronise me by using that form of language - it's not needed here nor it is welcome. Secondly, being corrected is how you learn. I substianiated all my claims the best I could and at no point have I claimed to be an expert. Sometimes, online forums can be amazing places becasue you find yourself in discussons with people with different an informed point of view, that's why we are here surly? So my request to you would be to either add something worth while or go away.
I thought CountZeros contribution added something very worthwhile.
I wish I could post that gif of the lady being shown 60 bazillion papers demonstrating no link between MMR and autism and the 1 paper that did/does and her grabbing and holding the paper aloft saying "I knew I was right!".
Hi Jon,
Thanks again for posting.
For a start EMF stand for Electro-Magnetic Force which is related to motive force and has absolutely nothing to do with Electro-Magnetic Radiation so I do not feel inclined to believe anything 244 scientist say on the subject if they cannot even get that right.
Apologies, that's my mistake. It is to do with EMR, not EMF.
The Lancet, believe it or not, is actually a pretty crap journal when it come to publishing anything that is not 100% medical science especially when it comes to matters of Engineering and Physics such as this. If you can get full access have a look at the IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation journal and IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation.
Thanks, I have access through Athens. I'll take a look tomorrow - can I find studies there about the biological impacts as I have to admit the physics of radiation are lost on me. I'd suppose that something like this requires cross-disciplinary studies, because presumably you'd need both biologists and physiscs when looking not how EMR behaves, but also how it affects biological organisms? You're clearly very qualfiied to talk about electric magnetic radition but are you a specialist in biology too? I might trust a physist to tell me how my phone works, but I'd want probably consult a biologist if I wanted to know if it affected my DNA.
You are wrong. The power is not 10X higher than 4G. Here is the Ofcom licence for Telefonica UK to operate their 5G networks. Note, there are different maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) levels for both Advanced Antenna System (AAS) and non-AAS stations. Neither of these is anywhere close to 10X the power of 4G.
Thanks for the correction.
I am basing the fact that at the 5G frequencies there is very little penetration of the signal into the body. Above ~1GHz the body becomes mostly reflective, ie. most the radiation is reflected by the skin. What little does penetrate will only make it through the top layers of tissue and will be massively attenuated by the fatty tissue therefore not making it anywhere near any vital organs. Bone is almost entirely reflective at these frequencies therefore the brain is safe.
Jon, so you're saying that the radiation associated with wireless devices only has an impact on tissue - thermally - and it does not penetrate the body and damage the DNA? If these types of signals can penetrate brick walls, do you mind explaining to me the reason why they will not penetrate biological matter?
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my reading it seemed to be a central criticism of the ICNIRP is that they are ony measuring potential damage based on thermal effects, ingoring completley the athermal effects of electomagnetic pollution organisms at a molecular level.
Many thanks,
FM
I now see that 5g and so-called electrosmog is a serious public health matter
If you really believed that, surely you would be putting all your efforts into lobbying the relevant authorities, and wouldn't be wasting any time arguing about it on a cycling forum?
I admit when I'm wrong. I'm not arguing. I'm glad I posted here as I got to speak with someone who knows a lot about the subject and I've got more questions than I arrived with, so that's a good result.
Apologies, that’s my mistake. It is to do with EMR, not EMF.
It's not your mistake, it is the name of the supposed expert group of EM specialists. Here is their website. Note it reads more like that of an evangelical preacher rather than a properly formulated science hypotheses. The first thing on the site is a load of crap about breaching human rights FFS!
It is no more credible than this lot.
If you have access to Athens then great. Have a look at those transactions. As I said if I get a chance I'll look out some relevant papers for you to read if I get a chance (warning - They are likely to be highly mathematical). Also have a look at some of the medical engineering journals from those two societies. Without meaning to sound too dismissive, the Lancet and Nature et al are more the National Geographic equivalent of the journal world. They are for general public interest and are more akin to the IET monthly magazines (which are also peer reviewed) rather than full on scientific journals.
You are correct in that I am not a biologist but I did work with some and read many papers in the field regarding EM effects on the body. Incidentally, I have heard of Martin Blank (Head nutjob from the group above) and he was a fairly well respected scientist back in the day. He then lost the plot and started all this crap about EM smog etc. His original work was really quite good and he is right that EM radiation can affect the body but it is around disrupting the electron flows in neural networks (ie. disrupting the siganls that control the things you do/think/decide). However, from his own research and that of many others this only occurs at extremely low frequencies (non man made signals) in the range from 60Hz to ~250Hz (wavelengths of 5000Km and 1200Km respectively). These frequencies are generated naturally from things like neutron stars, the sun etc. and are certainly nothing to do with telecoms.
Jon, so you’re saying that the radiation associated with wireless devices only has an impact on tissue – thermally – and it does not penetrate the body and damage the DNA? If these types of signals can penetrate brick walls, do you mind explaining to me the reason why they will not penetrate biological matter?
Yes, at those frequencies the only impact is thermal. There is no scientific proof of anything to do with DNA (or any other form of) damage. People have been operating radio equipment in these frequency bands for many decades. EM radiation in these bands is nothing new and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is an effect. There might be a rise in cancer levels since mobile phones became popular but that does not mean they are the cause. There was also a rapid rise in car use and ownership (and an associated increase in airbourne pollutants) during the same period and we do know definitively that the pollutants can cause cancer so you are probably best looking there for biological effects.
On the penetration thing, RF waves can propagate through walls because they have a different permativitty and permeability than the skin (skin, muscle, fatty tissues, bone, brain tissue are also all different but in the same ballpark hence fat being more lossy than skin for example). As does metal, carbon fibre etc which RF waves will not pass through at all.
but from my reading it seemed to be a central criticism of the ICNIRP is that they are ony measuring potential damage based on thermal effects
ICNIRP only relate to thermal effects as these are the only relevant effects at the frequencies for which the guidelines are intended as has been proven by many scientists and engineers.
ingoring completley the athermal effects of electomagnetic pollution organisms at a molecular level.
I'm confused, are you suggesting that electro-magnetic pollution is actually organisms which are affecting humans on a molecular level?
This, I'm afraid, is the consequence of social meejia giving a voice to cretins.
Jon, so you’re saying that the radiation associated with wireless devices only has an impact on tissue – thermally – and it does not penetrate the body and damage the DNA? If these types of signals can penetrate brick walls, do you mind explaining to me the reason why they will not penetrate biological matter?
Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, but from my reading it seemed to be a central criticism of the ICNIRP is that they are ony measuring potential damage based on thermal effects, ingoring completley the athermal effects of electomagnetic pollution organisms at a molecular level.
I'll try add make a couple of points here
I teach physics. I have a physics degree but I'm not an expert. I have a close, life long, friend who who is was an expert on mobile phone technology. Full disclosure we both own gravel bikes.
Firstly why did signals go through walks not people?
The simplest answer is that in general it's easier for waves to go through insulators than conductors. Compared to walls people are quite good conductors of electricity. At the simplest level waves make the charged particles move and this absorbs their energy.
Now the thermal effects thing. I phoned my mate about this during the last worry about phone radiation. The now debunked they cause brain tumours thing. I think I said "why only look at thermal effects". But answer was something like what else is there to check for.
Now that my make you worry more. There has to be a mechanism for now these waves affect cells for some one to investigate this. I've never seen a mechanism or any suggestion of one. Say we were looking at ship safety. It's like some one saying you only looked at mechanical factors like strength act stability. Didn't you test if the ship could be sunk could be sunk by cosmic rays, the Earth's magnetic or avalanches in Alpes etc. The answer would be how would those things sink a ship? But if some one some here said but safety is important shouldn't you check any way, would you expect them to?
Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look for correlations between problems of radiation exposure and health problems in case there are affects that we don't understand.
I thought I'd Google autism rate against mobile phone use by country. As that might be a way of getting an unknown mechanism. What came up was this. Which is whatI was going to end on any way
I don't know how wave from phone affects a cell. But boy do phones affect behavior
I can't read the full article
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30077193/
It's much easier to blame scientist for their invisible rays than it is to take a collective look at how we treat children
@jonm81
Thanks for that last post. I know how difficult it can be to explain things in terms that are understandable to everyone. You did a great job there.
Hi Jon,
Sorry, I missed out a prepositon - meant to say effects of electromagnet polllution on organisms at a molecular level. .
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond. It's honestly hard for me to follow the technical language you use, since I have a very limited knowledge of physics, but what you're saying checks out with my reading this morning.
It will be interesting to see how this issue develops over time although I'm not optimisitc that people will be convinced. It's sad to see but public trust seems to be at an all time low. Although in some ways, I can understand why.
With regards to the athermal effects on DNA, here is a link.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.006
Here is another study which describe various case studies involving the effect of athermal radition (I think?) on wildlife.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468009000066#bib4
"In the United Kingdom a decline of several species of urban birds, especially sparrows, has recently happened [26]. The sparrow population in England has decreased in the last 30 years from 24 million to less than 14. The more abrupt decline, with 75% descent has taken place from 1994 to 2002. In 2002, the house sparrow was added to the Red List of U.K. endangered species [27]. This coincides with the rollout of mobile telephony and the possible relationship of both circumstances should be investigated."
It's quite an interesting read.
Anyway, I really need to get back to my day job! Cheers for the links =)
FM
Amir Khan’s joined the conspiracy club…
To be fair he has spent most of his life getting smacked around the head...
So, now you've evidence of why 5G isn't harmful to humans, here you are again trotting off into Sparrow population decline. There's some pretty well established studies into why it's happening, as it's been observed all across Europe.
You could look at the re-emergence of Sparrowhawk populations (clues in the name about what these predators like to eat). You could look at garden loss, habitat loss (pavement trees in particular), insect decline, changes in urban pollution, domestic cat predation...But no, let's instead wonder on how one particular species of bird is being effected by EMR.
Care to think on why the Corvid species aren't being effected? As they are (along with woodpeckers and wood pigeons) increasing in populations?
This coincides with the rollout of mobile telephony and the possible relationship of both circumstances should be investigated
except Cellnet and Racal Vodafone were broadcasting best part of a decade before.
and TV decades before that
and mobile telphony eventually took over former spectrum from TV transmissions?
correlation != causation
I cba to read such a study, when I have real science and engineering to do. But if it is scientific, I assume they must have captured sparrows and irradiated them at different levels and frequencies, and compared their behaviour to a control group of birds under lab conditions.
And repeated the same test with other species (of birds and other creatures), and also correlations with other 20th century progress?
although I’m not optimisitc that people will be convinced
sadly, they never will be. It only takes one person to exhibit some kind of doubt, and that doubt will always be there regardless of how many academic studies are done to disprove such doubt. And when it's an attention seeker / fake scientist, that doubt can spread virally.
Always odd how its always the latest things these people go for, think the last one was smart meters which I think are between 15million to 20 million installed in the UK, havent seen any health issues linked to these yet!
*except for installer errors causing explosions or fires!
Scanning social media and seeing stuff like this really makes me think when did the lunatics take over the asylum!
What an utterly depressing thread.
Thanks for trying Jon.
No worries Fatmountain, I thought you might have missed a word but just wanted to check. If you did think it was organism causing this then I would have been out of this conversation at that point!
It will be interesting to see how this issue develops over time although I’m not optimisitc that people will be convinced.
This has developed over time. Over decades and for lower frequencies over a century. It is clear that people will not be convinced as people are predisposed to question and in the case of thing they cannot understand make up an explanation for what they are experiencing. This is the case with every type of conspiracy theory. The not understanding comment was not aimed at you by the way; christ, there are many things I have no understanding of and constantly try to explain away to alleviate my concerns/fears (often wrongly) too.
Unfortunately the first link you posted doesn't work for me.
I'll try and unpick the second on a bit and explain things as best I can. From the second link:
Abstract
Electromagnetic fields (EMF), in both ELF (extremely low frequency) and radio frequency (RF) ranges, activate the cellular stress response, a protective mechanism that induces the expression of stress response genes, e.g., HSP70, and increased levels of stress proteins, e.g., hsp70. The 20 different stress protein families are evolutionarily conserved and act as ‘chaperones’ in the cell when they ‘help’ repair and refold damaged proteins and transport them across cell membranes. Induction of the stress response involves activation of DNA, and despite the large difference in energy between ELF and RF, the same cellular pathways respond in both frequency ranges. Specific DNA sequences on the promoter of the HSP70 stress gene are responsive to EMF, and studies with model biochemical systems suggest that EMF could interact directly with electrons in DNA. While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands. It is clear that in order to protect living cells, EMF safety limits must be changed from the current thermal standard, based on energy, to one based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes.
Oh, where to begin?!? This was a paper written by Blank after he entered his "lost the plot" phase so should be read as such.
There is no difference between ELF and RF ranges. RF is simply Radio Frequency and covers all ranges from ELF up to and including mm wave stuff.
I don't know a lot (read sod all) about stress responses in proteins but what is clear is that Blank does not mention anywhere the mechanism for how EM radiation exposure may "activate" the stress response. Neither does he mention how he tested his hypotheses nor how he dew his conclusions. Therefore this is entirely unfounded from the perspective of this paper.
There is no difference in energy between EFL and RF. The difference in energy in an EM wave (or field) is a function of frequency, Tx power, antenna gain, pathloss amongst many other thing that need to be considered in a propagation link budget.
He states that "suggest that EMF could interact directly with electrons in DNA.". These studies are not directly referenced. They "suggest" that some "could" have an effect but he provides no evidence to back up this assertion.
HE suggests that EM radiated fields can "break DNA". All I can assume (because he doesn't actually say so) is that this is through the mechanism of disrupting the electrons within the DNA. If this were the case and the field were high enough to do this then there would definitely be a significant heating effect in the region of the damage. Bear in mind that electron vibration by very high concentrated EM radiated field is what causes heating in microwave ovens then if you are vibrating the electrons in DNA enough to cause them to vibrate (and as actually asserted to break out of the electron field!) then you would most certainly need a very high concentrated EM field and you would know about it as that part of you would be suffering significant radiation burns.
Note, there have been some non lethal weapons developed which do exactly this. They cause the electrons in the tissue to vibrated and thus heat up a small amount. This causes you pain and to feel on fire. They are very unpleasant to experience. However, during significant amounts of testing there was no long term physiological damage or effect from being exposed.
Lastly he states that "to one based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes." from the above explanation it should be clear that there is not a biological response (and neither has he presented any evidence of one) before the threshold for thermal changes.
Finally from your quote there is no evidence presented to suggest mobile telephony has anything to do with songbird decline in the UK. It only states that the two things happened at approximately the same time (and even then only measured between 1994 and 2002; what has happened post 2002 to songbird numbers?). The only pertinent sentence in that quote is:
This coincides with the rollout of mobile telephony and the possible relationship of both circumstances should be investigated.
They are correct, it clearly does coincide and it would be really interesting to see the "possible" relationship of both circumstance. So basically they have formed a link then clearly state that they have not investigated any link beyond that both things happened at approximately the same time.
And the last bit is the crux of the problem. Two things happened at approximately the same time therefore they are related. What other things happened at the same time? In the case above there might have been an increase in the cat birth rate in 1993 (after all 8 years is about the lifespan of a cat).
Correlation and causation are two very different things.
EDIT. If possible Fatmountain would it be possible to say what your day job is in academia?
I am saying that EMR is a genuine concern for scientistis and there is widespread consensus amongst scientists about the risks of EMR – given that we are now exposed to it constantly from ‘the cradle to the grave’.
The thing with this is, the word "radiation" sounds scary and the fact that you assert that we are "now" exposed to it rather suggests to me that you don't know what EMR is. Radio waves are a form of EMR. So is the IR beam on your TV remote, UV blacklights, X-rays, and sunlight. I don't recall anyone catching autism when switching over to Channel 4.
Some of these can be harmful, or harmful given sufficient exposure, but just going "radiation bad" is both a massive oversimplification and a great logic leap, the Earth has been "exposed to it constantly from ‘the cradle to the grave’" since before dinosaurs existed.
It’s honestly hard for me to follow the technical language you use, since I have a very limited knowledge of physics
I'm honestly not saying this to be mean, but if by your own admission you have a "very limited knowledge of physics" might it not be an idea to trust in what people who do have a very good understanding are telling you, rather than coming up with ever more desperate 'evidence' which reinforces your own beliefs?
You're asking for explanations of things you don't understand - and that's laudable, learning things is good - but it's not always possible for people to condense decades of their own learning and knowledge into a paragraph which is readily accessible by a layman. Eg, if someone wishes to understand PhD-level maths they should first learn GCSE maths - how do you explain calculus to someone who doesn't know BODMAS?
It's human nature for people to want simple answers to complicated questions, but it's OK to not understand things which may be beyond one's understanding. Rejecting that concept is how religions start.
Oh, and,
The Lancet is a fairly reliable source of medical journals. Other disciplines, not so much. The assumption that an article must be nice and accurate just because it's in The Lancet is flawed.
You're the type of person that is in denial that the earth is flat.
