Are the risks of Mobile (Cell) phones and Mobile Towers (Cells) real?

Hello to all. Thanks for the great response to my last thread.

(Is google/norton/itunes a virus or monitoring structure, amongst others)

I am not sure that this has been covered before. Below I have put a link to a news article about a new study into the percieved or real dangers of Mobile/Cell phone use. A link is below commenting about the latest study.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/10/08/nmobiles108.xml

The reason I have started this thread is that I used to work in a business park, in a building which had two mobile phone cell masts within about 40-50 metres away. The antennas were also at the height that my office was situated and the office had a lot of windows which were in line of sight of the mast.

I would be interested in any thought regarding the safety of prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation both from usage of the phones and being in relatively close proximity to cell towers.

I am also interested in opinions on whether governments and mobile/cell phone companies are supressing the risks of towers and phones, as I read an article a while back where the UK Information commissioner wanted to supress the location of mobile/cell phone masts. A related post is below.

business.guardian.co.uk...

Also if anyone else has found some other articles in regards to this topic I would be grateful if they posted them on this thread.

So far there is no convincing evidence that cell phones and their networks’ towers are harmful to people. Like most other RF devices, the radiation they produce is non-ionizing.

There is plenty of ongoing research, so if cell phones do pose a risk to our health, we will find out one of these days.

As for a government wanting to suppress information about the location of cell phone towers… well, with today’s constant threat of terrorist attacks, it makes good sense. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if terrorists brought down a sizeable chunk of a cell phone network as part of an attack.

Dont trust the governments or phone manifacturers for your information. Its pretty obvious that the governments are being lobbied, and the phone manufacturers want to sell phones.

Anywhere where there is money, it kills truth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but ...

The jury is still out (or hasn't even sat down yet). The testing methods would probably an area worth looking into.

As to suppressing tower locations, that's more likely to prevent lawsuits from N.I.M.B.Y. movements. I think the "constant threat" of terrorism, is largely a manufactured one. Humanity can and will function without mobile phones, if it has to.

The main reason I posted this thread is that during my time in employment in the office that was situate between two mobile phone/cell masts. I experienced several symptoms.

These included headaches, loss of mental clarity and eye strain. Now the eye strain may have been caused by working on a pc with a CRT monitor under flourescent lights and possibly the headaches. But the lack of mental clarity, i.e. not being able to concentrate on a task or finding it hard to think clearly, is a worry.

I would also go home for lunch as I worked close to my residence. By the end of my lunch break, which was spent surfing on a LCD monitor, under natural light and not in vicinity of mobile/cell phone masts, my cognitive skills returned to normal.

Any ideas?

Originally posted by NRen2k5
So far there is no convincing evidence that cell phones and their networks’ towers are harmful to people. Like most other RF devices, the radiation they produce is non-ionizing.

Thats a big assumtion. To say that there is no evidence it assuming that all hardware is working 100% within its legal limits, is checked and the scientific data setting those limits is valid.

Its also the same attitude that surrounded smoking in the 1930's.

Over exposure to anything, even sunlight can result in problems, so why should RF be any different?

There are so many forms of RF energy these days, it can't all be good for the human body.

You just have to scale things up a little. Example, go to your local airport and try to touch the radar head thats spinning away. You will be dead before you get the chance.

So why should long term exposure to other lower powered devices be any different?


This being said, id be more concerned about other forms of RF other than mobile masts. For example tetra. This system is an interesting one, which does have some concerns, and is already widespread in the UK, and with other emergency services switching to it will be even more so soon.

details - www.tetrawatch.net...

oh, and also there is research that states there are negative effects,
its just you haven't seen it!

oem.bmj.com...

[edit on 9-10-2007 by 2ciewan]

reply to post by 2ciewan


Thanks for the links I will look at them as I do feel there is something that is not being said about the dangers of mobile phone usage. Especially the latest govenment and industry bodies test results which ran parallel with declaring it safe a few years back and the issuance in the UK of 3G (3rd generation mobile phone licences.

I speculate that the government and the mobile/cell phone companies had profit motives and not the well being of the general public in mind. In relation to the issuance of the technology.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by djaybeetoo]

Ya, we are killing honey bees, the signals are no good for them. Perhaps if we found a wireless signal with a different technology or frequency, it would not harm them. They are forgetting where their nest are, and waves themselves damage the bee. I think it was Einstein that said, if bee's died, it would be 4 years before humanity did so as well. Think about that next time you cellular!!

[edit on 9-10-2007 by 1337cshacker]

I don't have a cell phone. Haven't wanted one. Don't see the need for one personally. I'm not that busy or important that I need one. The fact that they're damaging and all doesn't influence my decision to not have one. Honestly cells have always seemed like a bad idea, from the crappy reception, to easy access to being listened in on, to the horrible drivers with one side of their face occupied by one. Just another tinker toy to busy yourself with.

There have to be alternative ways to have the cell phone signal...

Sure, there's no doubt they do have some damage on certain aspects of the world. At any given moment there's a dense wall of waves passing through you. So much that cell phone waves probably won't bother you the way that other dangerous waves can. They are minimal comparative to the other wave dangers and degrees of radiation, unless a cell phone is stuck on someone's ear way too often, or you live by/or work by a tower.

The range of cell phones and towers specifically (0.8 - 1.7 GHz)


"Cell phones, satellites, cell phone towers and radio towers all emit radiation on the exact same frequency as a microwave oven. This electrical pollution is in your home, your car, your workplace, your shopping mall - anywhere that these devices are present, they are emitting radiation.
"
www.radiationtalk.com...

[edit on 10-10-2007 by dreamingawake]

Originally posted by 2ciewan

Originally posted by NRen2k5
So far there is no convincing evidence that cell phones and their networks’ towers are harmful to people. Like most other RF devices, the radiation they produce is non-ionizing.

Thats a big assumtion. To say that there is no evidence it assuming that all hardware is working 100% within its legal limits, is checked and the scientific data setting those limits is valid.

No. To say that there is no evidence means that there is no evidence.

Its also the same attitude that surrounded smoking in the 1930's.

Your point being?

Over exposure to anything, even sunlight can result in problems, so why should RF be any different?

It isn’t. Which is why RF devices are made to use only as much power as they need to. One good reason for the FCC’s existence.

There are so many forms of RF energy these days, it can't all be good for the human body.

Right. It can’t. Which is why consumer devices don’t use RF of the type or enough intensity to do harm.

You just have to scale things up a little. Example, go to your local airport and try to touch the radar head thats spinning away. You will be dead before you get the chance.

A cell phone is not a radar tower.

So why should long term exposure to other lower powered devices be any different?

Because it is.

Drinking too much water can kill you. But that doesn’t mean that water has a cumulative detrimental effect small amounts.

This being said, id be more concerned about other forms of RF other than mobile masts. For example tetra. This system is an interesting one, which does have some concerns, and is already widespread in the UK, and with other emergency services switching to it will be even more so soon.

details - www.tetrawatch.net...

I don’t know enough about Tetra to comment, but at least we share the opinion that there are worse things to worry about than cell phones cooking our brains.

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by 2ciewan

Originally posted by NRen2k5

No. To say that there is no evidence means that there is no evidence.

No, i have just provided you with some. If you choose to ignore it thats another issue. Its not mainstream as there is not enough research, and to much money at stake.

Your point being?

My point being that financial gain & ignorance on a subject is not an excuse for sweeping it under the carpet. Much in the same way that smoking was socially acceptable, mobile phones are to this day. I would not be surprised in 10 years if phones also carried health warnings. Just because everyone has one, does not make them a good idea. There is not enough research, and they have been arround for a short space of time to accuratley determine their impact.

It isn’t. Which is why RF devices are made to use only as much power as they need to. One good reason for the FCC’s existence.

The FCC are a regulatory body, same as OFCOM, formerly the radio authority in the UK. They set the limits, but they cannot physically ensure that every piece of equipment meets those limits, through design or operation and in some cases modification. This could be damaged or malfunctioning equipment, or mis-use. Their primary reason for existance is to regulate the band-plan and ensure that radio users do not interfere with other users.

Much the same way that OFCOM regulate tv broadcasts, but you only ever hear of them AFTER someone is fined for a breach of regulations, not before.

We also have enviromental health to ensure that rock concerts don't damage peoples hearing. Thats what the law states, and the guidelines say. But they can't be at every gig.... and ive been to some loud concerts and events, that were in no way legal. Point being, just because the rules are there, doesn't mean real life happens that way.

Right. It can’t. Which is why consumer devices don’t use RF of the type or enough intensity to do harm.

Not true. If this equipment is used as recommended then true, however the devices are still capable of harm. The long-term studies on their prolonged effects have not been done.

Do a little research. Ill give you a clue, look into the effects of 2.4ghz waves on water, and then work out how much of the human body is made up of it.

A cell phone is not a radar tower.

You missed my point. RF can kill, so lower power RF could do damage over extended periods of time. We don't know, but its likely to cause harm.

Because it is.

Sorry, but im not taking your word for it.

Drinking too much water can kill you. But that doesn’t mean that water has a cumulative detrimental effect small amounts.

wrong analogy, try this one - Drinking small amounts of oil might not kill you overnight, but probably will in the long run.

I don’t know enough about Tetra to comment, but at least we share the opinion that there are worse things to worry about than cell phones cooking our brains.

Tetra is a little nasty from what i have seen, and once again is being driven by financial gain.

I would also like to note, that i am actually a hardware/software developer for bluetooth devices, so i know a little bit about RF and its implications. We work to guidelines, but not everyone does and you would be surprised what is out there.

Sorry, Wrong Thread

[edit on 10-10-2007 by djaybeetoo]

Originally posted by 2ciewan

Originally posted by NRen2k5

No. To say that there is no evidence means that there is no evidence.

No, i have just provided you with some.

It’s interesting, but unfortunately having no experience in the medical field, I don’t understand the terminology.

Could you shed some light for me?

Versus their control group, how much of an increase in occurrences of brain tumours did this study find in cell phone users?

Its not mainstream as there is not enough research, and to much money at stake.

No, it’s not mainstream as there is not enough research.

Your point being?

My point being that financial gain & ignorance on a subject is not an excuse for sweeping it under the carpet. Much in the same way that smoking was socially acceptable, mobile phones are to this day. I would not be surprised in 10 years if phones also carried health warnings. Just because everyone has one, does not make them a good idea. There is not enough research, and they have been arround for a short space of time to accuratley determine their impact.

You’re right.

It isn’t. Which is why RF devices are made to use only as much power as they need to. One good reason for the FCC’s existence.

The FCC are a regulatory body, same as OFCOM, formerly the radio authority in the UK. They set the limits, but they cannot physically ensure that every piece of equipment meets those limits, through design or operation and in some cases modification. This could be damaged or malfunctioning equipment, or mis-use.

Modification, damage, malfunction and mis-use are not the norm.

Their primary reason for existance is to regulate the band-plan and ensure that radio users do not interfere with other users.

True.

Much the same way that OFCOM regulate tv broadcasts, but you only ever hear of them AFTER someone is fined for a breach of regulations, not before.

Really? If we heard about every little violation of every regulation by corporations, there would be no time or space for the news media to cover anything else. Which is why unless it’s really big news, the news media will only give it air time if they have very good leads. Fines, criminal charges, scandals, etc.

We also have enviromental health to ensure that rock concerts don't damage peoples hearing. Thats what the law states, and the guidelines say. But they can't be at every gig.... and ive been to some loud concerts and events, that were in no way legal. Point being, just because the rules are there, doesn't mean real life happens that way.

True. But concerts are on the road and the equipment they use is very variable. You can just turn up the volume and presto, you’re endangering people’s hearing.

Cell phone designs are much more specific and static.

Right. It can’t. Which is why consumer devices don’t use RF of the type or enough intensity to do harm.

Not true. If this equipment is used as recommended then true, however the devices are still capable of harm.

Like anything else. But how easily harmful are they? And how harmful? Only more research will answer these questions.

The long-term studies on their prolonged effects have not been done.

Do a little research. Ill give you a clue, look into the effects of 2.4ghz waves on water, and then work out how much of the human body is made up of it.

Sounds like you’ve done the research. So can you tell me the intensity of the waves in a typical microwave, and of those from a typical cell phone?

A cell phone is not a radar tower.

You missed my point. RF can kill, so lower power RF could do damage over extended periods of time. We don't know, but its likely to cause harm.

And like I said, anything can kill you. Even drinking too much water can kill you. The devil’s in the dosage. So as to whether cell phones cause harm, we just don’t know.

Drinking too much water can kill you. But that doesn’t mean that water has a cumulative detrimental effect small amounts.

wrong analogy, try this one - Drinking small amounts of oil might not kill you overnight, but probably will in the long run.

No, my analogy is perfectly sound. Just because something is harmful in large amounts doesn’t necessarily mean it’s harmful in small amounts. Understand now?

I am actually a hardware/software developer for bluetooth devices, so i know a little bit about RF and its implications. We work to guidelines, but not everyone does and you would be surprised what is out there.

Surprise me then.

I know none of you have flagged this topic, my only questions are.

If you work near to a Cell/Mobile phone tower in an office environment?

I ask this as I was recently, between two 8 hours a day and felt several negative cellular effects.

I will tell you what I observed. This is based on 6 years first hand research.

If you are in a situation where you are within 300 metres of the sources of pollution. i.e mobile/cell phone towers, YOU ARE AT RISK. In my own experience .

Just google cell phone risks of ULF / MW EMF risks etc or work for eight hours a day for six months bathed between two cell phone masts. I felt that my intelligence was drained as I could not string a sentance together, literally. My speech patterns after three months became stuttered, my confidence was eroded.

As I worked in walking distance from the site, about 600 metres. I used to go home for lunch. Whilst at lunch, my cognative abilities are regenerated. I went back to work in the afternoon and I felt a lowering in my logical functions.

From personal experience, I can say that 3G-4G mobile phones and their towers are a hazzard to public health. The fact that the government in the UK have tried to supress the locations of Cell Towers.

After quiting my employment in this location for other reasons, I can say that the environment that I was subjected to for six months had a negative effect as I am in a different environment now. Without the the persistant brainfog, obeying authority, head aches and indecision about what to do next.

And try to stop the cells in you cerebral bellum from trying to boil themselves ande make you less intelligent than you are before you entered the field of electro-magnetic, ultra low frequency and and microwave frequency pollution.

I can say this as a fact as I have had CANCER and survived, and I also have lost three friends to it in the last three years in my local area, In the proximity of about 200 yards of the aforementioned Cell towers.

Make your own conclusions.

Comments are welcome

The fact that the corrupt government of the UK made billions from the sale of 3G mobile phone licences in the last two to three years and the CANCER rates shooting up in the areas where there are I can only speak from first hand experince. IU can see in my local community that there has been an expotential rise in cancer rates in the lat seven years. My own example included, (i.e having and survivig cancer).