Mobile-mast danger is all in your head

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:51:52 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>However, I'm not aware that
>they properly evaluated the effects of any possible delayed reaction.

Don't you think your lack of awareness is probably because you
haven't read the study?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

---

› See More: Mobile-mast danger is all in your head

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> RF has always been a problem in concentration and the higher the
> frequency, the more invasive the nature of it. I worked as an engineer
> in the government radio service some years ago and occasionally came
> into contact with radar equipment. This radio emission was capable of
> burning straight through flesh if you put any part of your body in the
> path of the radiated signal. I know this was close proximity but it
> does make you think twice about being close to a higher frequency RF
> radiation source.

Power levels involved in radar vs power level involved in GSM? A typical
GSM site puts out, what, 20kW? What does a radar put out?
--
Regards
Jon

"Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> > If it was done using genuine double blind techniques,
> > it would be irrelevant who conducted the study.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> Call me cynical if you like (dodgy dosier, mad cow
> disease, MMR vaccine, etc.) but I believe in the old
> adage which says "He who pays the piper calls the tune"!

So how, *if* genuine double blind techniques were used, could the results
be fixed in any one party's favour..?

If the researchers *and* the subjects both *genuinely* did not know when
the signals were on or not, how can the results not be accurate..?


Ivor

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > RF has always been a problem in concentration and the
> > higher the frequency, the more invasive the nature of
> > it. I worked as an engineer in the government radio
> > service some years ago and occasionally came into
> > contact with radar equipment. This radio emission was
> > capable of burning straight through flesh if you put
> > any part of your body in the path of the radiated
> > signal. I know this was close proximity but it does
> > make you think twice about being close to a higher
> > frequency RF radiation source.
>
> Power levels involved in radar vs power level involved in
> GSM? A typical GSM site puts out, what, 20kW? What does a
> radar put out?

Bloody hell, what mobile masts do they have round your way..?! 20kW..?!
20W would be pushing it..!

Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So how, *if* genuine double blind techniques were used, could the
> results be fixed in any one party's favour..?
>

Ever heard of "lies, damned lies and statistics"? With any such phenomenon
there's very unlikely to be a direct cause and effect - so the results are
based on 'statistical' evidence which relies on the balance of
'probabilities'. Different people can take the same raw data and draw
different conclusions - particularly if they are pre-disposed towards a
particular notion. I don't *know* whether the results of this study are
accurate or not. All I am saying is that it can be dangerous to take such
things at face value when there are vested interests involved.

> If the researchers *and* the subjects both *genuinely* did not know
> when the signals were on or not, how can the results not be
> accurate..?

This assumes that symptoms will only occur when the radiation is actually
present, and takes no account of any possible delayed action.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:03:48 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> So how, *if* genuine double blind techniques were used, could the
>> results be fixed in any one party's favour..?
>>
>Ever heard of "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

Indeed - commonly used by mast campaigners and such like to promote
entirely spurious claims of "clusters" of whatever scare they are
pushing this week.

>With any such phenomenon
>there's very unlikely to be a direct cause and effect

Why?

>so the results are based on 'statistical' evidence which relies on the balance of
>'probabilities'.

Which is why it is important the data and methodology is published,
as it has been.

>Different people can take the same raw data and draw
>different conclusions

That's why its peer reviewed.

>I don't *know* whether the results of this study are
>accurate or not. All I am saying is that it can be dangerous to take such
>things at face value when there are vested interests involved.

There are always vested interests, but none more so when pressure
groups who have made their minds up and will not be shifted by
evidence are involved. The MMR scare is a classic. For some time it
has been clear that the tests which that dreadful man Wakefield used
to propagate his tenuous hypothesis showed no evidence that the virus
the hypothesis depended upon was present - there was a laboratory
error in Dublin. Yet you still have pressure groups touting his
failed theories (and incidentally suppressing for years by legal
action the fact the tests he relied upon were invalid).

>> If the researchers *and* the subjects both *genuinely* did not know
>> when the signals were on or not, how can the results not be
>> accurate..?

>This assumes that symptoms will only occur when the radiation is actually
>present, and takes no account of any possible delayed action.

You really should read the study. Al the people with self proclaimed
sensitivity reported immediate adverse reactions during the open part
of the test when told the transmitter on. When they didn't know if
it was on or off they didn't have any reaction when it was on.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Peter Parry <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:03:48 +0100, "Roger Mills"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> With any such phenomenon
>> there's very unlikely to be a direct cause and effect
>
> Why?
>

Because human beings often react differently to the same input. For example,
some people seem to be able to smoke 40 fags a day (ugh!) for years, and
live to a ripe old age - whereas others die much younger of smoking-related
illnesses. So you cannot categorically say that smoking causes lung cancer -
but you *can* say that there's a much higher probability that smokers will
get it compared with non-smokers. Likewise, RF radiation is likely to affect
different people differently.

>
>> I don't *know* whether the results of this study are
>> accurate or not. All I am saying is that it can be dangerous to take
>> such
>> things at face value when there are vested interests involved.
>
> There are always vested interests, but none more so when pressure
> groups who have made their minds up and will not be shifted by
> evidence are involved.

Or none more so than those - such as yourself - whose livelihoods may be
threatened if the findings were different!

I personally am not associated with any pressure group - nor with the
industry. I am a mobile phone user - just - turning it on for about 10
minutes per month, on average! But I do fear for the current generation of
youngsters, none on whom seems to be able to survive without a phone stuck
to their ear the whole time. And I believe that it is a wise precaution to
site masts as far as possible away from places where young kids congregate.
Whatever the evidence from short term experiments, heaven only knows what
the long term effects are likely to be.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:19:34 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Peter Parry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:03:48 +0100, "Roger Mills"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> With any such phenomenon
>>> there's very unlikely to be a direct cause and effect
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>Because human beings often react differently to the same input. For example,
>some people seem to be able to smoke 40 fags a day (ugh!) for years, and
>live to a ripe old age - whereas others die much younger of smoking-related
>illnesses. So you cannot categorically say that smoking causes lung cancer -

Actually you can. What you can't say is that it will cause lung
cancer in a single individual. There is an established causative
link between smoking and lung cancer first shown by epidemiological
studies. Similar studies have shown no link between RF emissions and
anything.

>but you *can* say that there's a much higher probability that smokers will
>get it compared with non-smokers. Likewise, RF radiation is likely to affect
>different people differently.

There is no reason to believe so and no plausible biological
mechanism how it might.


>> There are always vested interests, but none more so when pressure
>> groups who have made their minds up and will not be shifted by
>> evidence are involved.
>
>Or none more so than those - such as yourself - whose livelihoods may be
>threatened if the findings were different!

You rather miss the point that I could make more money by supporting
these various scares - what better reason to buy an aerial than to
move the RF emissions away from your head (you also lower the power
the phone needs to communicate). So it would be in my commercial
interest to encourage these silly scares.

>But I do fear for the current generation of
>youngsters, none on whom seems to be able to survive without a phone stuck
>to their ear the whole time.

Usually talking to their mate about 50ft away.

>Whatever the evidence from short term experiments, heaven only knows what
>the long term effects are likely to be.

We have some pretty good data on RF exposure (including 1-30GHz pulse
transmission) going back to the early 1950's. How long are you
expecting to wait for these "long term" effects?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Jon wrote:

> Power levels involved in radar vs power level involved in GSM? A typical
> GSM site puts out, what, 20kW?

Er, no. Nothing like that. Typical output is in the order of 50 watts.
Yes, watts; not kilowatts.

There's no point in having a high power output if the base is going to
exchange signals with phones that are putting out about a quarter of a
watt or less.

> What does a radar put out?

I don't know, but I'd guess a few KW.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:16:02 +0100, Iain <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> What does a radar put out?
>
>I don't know, but I'd guess a few KW.

Radars are rather odd in that the peak power and average power are
often a long way apart. One particular radar has an average power of
25W but a peak effective radiated power of 50kW. Several quite
common radars manage many Megawatts, for example the Marconi S259
airfield radar has a peak effective radiated power of about 2,000kW
at a PRF of 290pps at 1.3GHz. However with a pulse width of 5uS and
a PRF of 230pps the average power is modest.

If you subscribe the the "it's the wave form which causes the problem
rather than the thermal effects" school then the effect of these
fairly widely used radars should be devastating over a wide area. It
isn't.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > Power levels involved in radar vs power level involved in GSM? A typical
> > GSM site puts out, what, 20kW?
>
> Er, no. Nothing like that. Typical output is in the order of 50 watts.
> Yes, watts; not kilowatts.

Right - not sure where I got 20 kW from, I've had that figure in my head
for ages.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> If you subscribe the the "it's the wave form which causes the problem
> rather than the thermal effects" school then the effect of these
> fairly widely used radars should be devastating over a wide area. It
> isn't.

It's devastating to radio 5 reception in my car. For a few seconds!
--
Regards
Jon