the mast noose tightens

[email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
> >> "We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people who
> >> have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew McGowan,
> >> Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education Union.

> > And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in a
> > building have died", what a suprise.

> Did you mis or forget the rest of the report?

No, I read it all. It failed to mention of course how many people had
worked in this building for any given time period. I'll warrant it was
in the thousands range.

> Your problem.

Indeed. Reminded me of a story my local paper ran a few years ago about
how 3 people on the same road (overshadowed by a comms tower with 3
networks BTS and a TV transmitter and some other stuff on it) had died
of cancer within a few weeks of each other. What the article failed to
mention was the particular road had around 400 houses on it, and was
therefore home to between 400-2000 people.
--
Regards
Jon

---

› See More: the mast noose tightens

[email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
> > Clearly you must be pretty clueless to believe what you wrote.
>
> Are you saying that the report is not true?

What was reported may well be true, I.e. that people had suffered from
tumours. However the conclusions drawn by the reporter have no basis in
fact.

> What a dummy!

For posting such crap that dubious accolade must go to you sir/madam.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in
> > a building have died", what a suprise.

> It may well be statistically significant if it can be established that
> the frequency of occurrence is not the same as in the general
> population.

Indeed. But did the reporter attempt any such analysis? No.
--
Regards
Jon

On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:14:29 +0100, gort wrote:

>
>> What has "IONIZING radiation" got to do with yer actual ornery rf? Don't
>> you know the difference between the two? Why should rf and ionizing
>> radiation have any similar modes? That is what you are implying isn't
>> it?
>
> So whats your angle Lenny?

I don't have an angle.

> apart from the [email protected]s

That's just a cachy from line a bit like yours "gort <[email protected]>"

both of them fake/non-functioning, there only to facilitate nntp transport
requirements.

> and you
> posted the qouted article?

Yes, I posted the "qouted" article.

> Do you have an original thought

Would you be able tell?

> or are you just
> here to slag off people

eh?
In the first instance I am generally civil and courteous.
But it appears that you are either too ignorant or too uncouth
to sse that I will sometimes give as good as I get, no more and why
shouldn't I?

> who have?

What? I don't see any evidence of anything except hostility

>
> Dave

On Sun, 14 May 2006 15:31:48 +0100, Jon wrote:

> [email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
>> > Clearly you must be pretty clueless to believe what you wrote.
>>
>> Are you saying that the report is not true?
>
> What was reported may well be true, I.e. that people had suffered from
> tumours. However the conclusions drawn by the reporter have no basis in
> fact.
>
>> What a dummy!
>
> For posting such crap that dubious accolade must go to you sir/madam.

Why are you so jumpy?
Nothing has been proved. Yet!

The noose tightens tho'.

Lenny wrote:
> The noose tightens:
>
> The top floors of a Melbourne office building were closed down yesterday
> and 100 people evacuated after a seventh worker in as many years was
> diagnosed with a brain tumour.

If it said seven in seven weeks, then there would be reason to think
this was statistically unusual, but even this would not be actual cause
proven. But years?

Someone said this would be a cause for concern if this was above
average. It wouldn't. Average does not imply homogeneity, and there
will be below and above average variations of any observed quantity
anywhere, hours of sunshine in March, rainfall in August, subscribers
to magazines from East Anglia, or lottery entries in Wales

Radio waves have been with us for about 100 years now, and many are
thousands of times stronger than mobile phone signals. If there were
causal effect for such problems, then occurrences would be much more
widespread, not just in one or two areas.

Does that building structure have any toxic content? Do people sunbathe
on the roof? Do people in Australia suffer more skin cancers than the
UK? Why?

On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:02:08 -0700, andy wrote:

>
> Lenny wrote:
>> The noose tightens:
<snip>
> Radio waves have been with us for about 100 years now, and many are
> thousands of times stronger than mobile phone signals.

Well yes and no. You have to consider power levels, integrate overtime,
frequency may be important, modulation may be significant etc.

We are in the middle of a cancer and disease epidemic. I'm not
saying it is the fault of RF but that we are in the middle of an epidemic
of diseases is undeniable.

> If there were
> causal effect for such problems, then occurrences would be much more
> widespread, not just in one or two areas
>
> Does that building structure have any toxic content?

To be investigated.

> Do people sunbathe on
> the roof?

UV or RF or both?

> Do people in Australia suffer more skin cancers than the UK?
> Why?

UV

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:14:24 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Wrong!
>>> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>>> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I place voodoo and fear of cell phone masts in a similar category.
>
> Why? More majik or do you have a reason to think that all rf is safe.
>

RF will have bulk effects just like if you put your hand in a fire*.

>> It has been known for many years that astronauts and civil aircrew (whose
>> spend a good deal of their lives six or seven miles up and are therefore
>> exposed to much more IONISING radiation do suffer slightly more risk of
>> cancer than the general population.
>
> What has "IONIZING radiation" got to do with yer actual ornery rf?
> Don't you know the difference between the two?
> Why should rf and ionizing radiation have any similar modes? That is
> what you are implying isn't it?

What ionising radiation (Ultra Violet; X-Rays) has in common with RF is that
it is electro-magnetic waves.

What is different is that whilst non ionising radiation (light, Infra Red,
all radio waves) does not cause disruption of living tissue, ionising
radiation (UV; X-Rays) has sufficient quantum energy to cause ionisation and
thereby chemical changes in living things. Examples include sunburn and
melanoma.




* "... but even we would not microwave a cat live on national TV // so here
is one we prepared earlier..." Hale & Pace ~1990
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1399083.stm

On Sun, 14 May 2006 16:24:39 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:


> RF will have bulk effects just like if you put your hand in a fire*.

More precisely physical heating effects, molecular dipoles are agitated
by the succesive + and - cycles.

But yes, I never heard it called bulk tho'.

>
>>> It has been known for many years that astronauts and civil aircrew
>>> (whose spend a good deal of their lives six or seven miles up and are
>>> therefore exposed to much more IONISING radiation do suffer slightly
>>> more risk of cancer than the general population.
>>
>> What has "IONIZING radiation" got to do with yer actual ornery rf? Don't
>> you know the difference between the two? Why should rf and ionizing
>> radiation have any similar modes? That is what you are implying isn't
>> it?
>
> What ionising radiation (Ultra Violet; X-Rays) has in common with RF is
> that it is electro-magnetic waves.

True!
Orders of magnitude more energetic than rf tho' old son (speaking of
photons).

> What is different is that whilst non ionising radiation (light, Infra
> Red, all radio waves) does not cause disruption of living tissue,

No no no, if rf does damage it will be via a subtle mechanism and several
have been postulated and are indeed being worked on.

> ionising radiation (UV; X-Rays) has sufficient quantum energy to cause
> ionisation and thereby chemical changes in living things. Examples
> include sunburn and melanoma.

Correct. Damage to critical cell structures!

> * "... but even we would not microwave a cat live on national TV // so
> here is one we prepared earlier..." Hale & Pace ~1990 and
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1399083.stm

It's not about simple heating effects.

[email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
> Why are you so jumpy?

Jumpy? I'm not the one scaremongering. I'm quite comfortable with my not
being worried about RF from mobile phone BTS' thank you.

> The noose tightens tho'.

As long as "newspapers" continue to print such nonsense and as long as
there is a plentiful supply of ill-informed to people to perpetuate the
belief of course it will.
--
Regards
Jon

On Sun, 14 May 2006 16:17:40 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

>We are in the middle of a cancer and disease epidemic. I'm not
>saying it is the fault of RF but that we are in the middle of an epidemic
>of diseases is undeniable.

Sorry, but even that is deniable. Although there are many concerns
about cancers from environmental factors, these are to do with
chemicals, not RF.

We are not in an epidemic of cancer. There is an increase in cancers,
but that is because people are living longer, and it is predominantly
a disease of the elderly. You have to die of something, and people are
living till the big C catches up with them.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:24:54 +0100, hairydog wrote:

> On Sun, 14 May 2006 16:17:40 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>We are in the middle of a cancer and disease epidemic. I'm not saying it
>>is the fault of RF but that we are in the middle of an epidemic of
>>diseases is undeniable.
>
> Sorry, but even that is deniable. Although there are many concerns about
> cancers from environmental factors, these are to do with chemicals, not
> RF.

I was speaking generally. Anyhow mobi's are responsible for the upsurge
in acoustic neuroma among mobi users.
And another thing, it's now thought that cancers may be caused by a
combination of factors especially when considering low level radiological
risk - you mentioned chemicals.

> We are not in an epidemic of cancer. There is an increase in cancers,

No, we certainly are in an "epidemic" of skin cancers. Just google
and you will see.

> but that is because people are living longer,

Old people accumulate a larger toxicological burden/record merely
because they have been exposed for longer. It's not a disease you get
only when you are old because you are old. Young people can and do become
diseased. Polluting the environment is not an option because eventually
it will kill the young too.

> and it is predominantly a
> disease of the elderly.

It was. Not anymore. And before the industrial revolution they died of
other causes, nothing to do with chemicals, radioactivity or RF.

>You have to die of something,

But not prematurely.

> and people are
> living till the big C catches up with them.

You are completely wrong. The trend is DOWN. Much younger people are now
coming down with cancer. Babies are much more commonly born with tumours.
Where have you been?

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:12:52 +0100, Usef <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was speaking generally. Anyhow mobi's are responsible for the upsurge
>in acoustic neuroma among mobi users.

Another lie from you. The report that showed an increase in these
neuromas (which are NOT cancer) on the side of the head that the
sufferers had reported using a mobile phone was exactly matched by a
drop in the neuromas on the other side of the head.

Although it is almost possible that using a mobile causes neuromas to
decrease on one side of the head, the researchers actually concluded
that people were reporting using a phone on the side of the head that
suffered a neuroma.

Yes, I'll accept that there is an epidemic of skin cancers, which is
down to two factors:

1. Depletion of the ozone layer letting the carcinogenic rays from the
sun through

2. Pillocks who fly to sunny places and lie in the sun with little or
no protection.

Sunlight is known to cause skin cancer. RF is known not to cause skin
cancer.

The rest of your "statistics" about cancer are also complete bollocks.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

Oh playing at silly buggers, I see.

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:26:08 +0100, Dave C wrote:

[snip]

> > People who know absolutely nothing about radio
> > propagation posting stupid reports.
>
> Wrong!
> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am
> unqualified? Do you employ voodoo or majik of some sort?
> Typical.

We decided that you are unqualified simply because you are posting total
bollocks.

Simple really..!

Ivor