Wireless is extremely dangerous



I don't know. The research on this is not very good. In the meantime I can keep my cell near the fish tank and create giant mutant yellow tangs that even bengal cats are afraid of.
 
I myself don't find it one bit funny what has happened to so many people as described in the article. There are reports and studies listed from several countries that point to a cause-and-effect relationship.

We shouldn't hold our breath waiting to see on the MSM that these high-freq transmitters are dangerous to the general public health, since we know where they get there marching orders from.
 
well, yeah, I guess it could be dangerous, but why live life with your tail between your legs? Enjoy life, unless it becomes a proven fact, I wouldn't sweat it.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need to wait for a non-responsive group of corrupt gov't agencies to tell an equally corrupt ABC, CNN, and Faux News to go ahead and report that it's "proven fact"...which they won't do until and unless forced to.
 
ok, but i do take pause at putting the phone between my legs...while sitting and driving for example, sheesh what were you thinking?

one thing is certain, electro magnetic radiation has an effect on the organism at the cellular level. what is put forth as unknown is the scope and effect of this activity. perhaps this research should be pushed for, we do not see impetus for this at any government/corporate level so it appears this is equivalent to a cover up.

at one time i worked for a corporation that installed large high voltage industrial transformers in their facility, known sources of measurable emr emmisions, these were housed in seriously insulated room compartments.

this was voluntary on the corporations' behalf, and was a result of concern for employees rather than compliance with any law or code. this outfit, started by a bicycle racer and racing federation official, was quite a progressive unit. for example, input was encouraged from all levels, meetings were held with attendence from various groups, cost of living raises were in effect, hours were flexible, no one was fired from political back stabbing, one had a true sense of security and loyalty. the workplace was in a modern setting with picture windows that looked out to gardens with streams, waterfalls and bridges, you may say a dream job in many aspects...

fast forward to another outfit, no real concern for safety measures unless you include token cosmetic efforts to comply with legal requirements in a superficial rather than applied way. for instance, employees were using chemicals without ventilation, were working with high voltage in enclosed isolated areas without safeguards, were poking about high voltage without training, working in sweltering 90 degree heat in the summer and 40 degree cold in the winter (yes, this was indoors) you get the idea. firing for reasons political was commonplace, if not expected.

there was in use high voltage transformers in the workplace the size of large desks. these were not shielded at all, and were in close proximity to workers, to the extent of being used to stage materials and even as a work surface, all the while these things were humming and vibrating away...

also notable is how public schools are granting permission for cell towers to be built radiating away next to our kids in exchange for the needed funds they are so desperate for in these times of bush-imposed monetary cutting of public education.

one conclusion is we can go to extremes either way, one being to take take the "what, me worry?" approach and not question our own safety and the safety of others, not push for research, not demand accountability, not be concerned of falling ill, trusting blindly in those to whom we find ourselves subservient, and so on.

at least our irradiated tail would not then be between our legs.


Cycler6n said:
well, yeah, I guess it could be dangerous, but why live life with your tail between your legs? Enjoy life, unless it becomes a proven fact, I wouldn't sweat it.
 
Wurm said:
...and wireless providers and the FCC are lying their asses off about it.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7025
There is little doubt that electromagnetic radiation can cause harm to living tissue, but people can also overreact. Bicycling is a dangerous sport in which people sometimes get killed, but we do it anyway. Why? I would guess many people would say that the risks are acceptable.
But more to the point, Electromagnetic radiation (emr for short) is energy that radiates out from some source. The important things are the frequency of the radiation and the intensity. The microwave towers in the articles, I might guess, are operating around the same frequencies as a microwave oven, and I bet no one would want to be exposed to that. But your microwave oven only has to heat a small amount of food in a space a little bigger than a cubic foot and is well shielded so none of the microwave energy escapes. The microwave emr from these towers is much more intense and can cause far more damage over a larger area. I think it would be fair to say that these towers should never be located where people live and work because of the risks. But the intensity of the radiation drops off rapidly with distance (by something called the inverse square law-you double your distance from a source, and the intensity drops by a factor of 4 [or 2-squared.]) I was part of a emr study several years ago as an employee of a power company where we wore emr monitors for several days and tracked our work locations. When it was over, each employee in the study was provided with the emr logs and locations. From the graphs, you could see how the emr exposure went up rapidly when you got near a powerline, but dropped just as rapidly as you moved away, reaching a "background level" that is pretty constant everywhere in an urban area (my group didn't go outside of the city, so I have no personal experience with data in rural areas). So the question is: is there an acceptable distance away where these microwave towers can be considered "safe" (that is, the risks are acceptable)?

But, emr is also the light from the sun, the signals coming to your am/fm radio, the light from your bicycle's headlamp, the electricity in your homes wiring, and the light coming off your computer screen as you read this. Different frequencies, different intensities, different risk levels, but all are forms of emr.
I'm not likely to give up sunlight, headlights, radios and computers; I feel those have acceptable risks. But I sure wouldn't want a high powered microwave tower anywhere near where I live or work!:eek:
 
dan66 said:
So the question is: is there an acceptable distance away where these microwave towers can be considered "safe" (that is, the risks are acceptable)?


Right...what level of exposure is safe? Maybe you overlooked this section in the article I linked?:

...RF/microwaves from cell phones and cell tower transmitters also cause micronuclei damage in blood cells. This was reported a decade ago by Drs. Henry Lai and Narendrah Singh, biomedical researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Singh is famous for refining comet assay techniques used to identify DNA damage. Lai and Singh demonstrated in numerous animal studies that mobile phone radiation quickly causes DNA single and double strand breaks at levels well below the current federal "safe" exposure standards.2

The telecommunications industry knows this thanks to its own six-year, wireless technology research (WTR) study program mandated by Congress and completed in 1999. Gathering a team of over 200 doctors, scientists and experts in the field, WTR research showed that human blood exposed to cell phone radiation had a 300-percent increase in genetic damage in the form of micronuclei.3 Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the WTR studies, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is "potentially the biggest health insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos.

In 2000, European communications giant T-Mobile commissioned the German ECOLOG Institute to review all available scientific evidence in regard to health risks for wireless telecommunications. ECOLOG found over 220 peer-reviewed, published papers documenting the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of the high frequency radiation employed by wireless technology.4 Many corroborating studies have been published since.

By 2004, 12 research groups from seven European countries cooperating in the REFLEX study project confirmed that microwaves from wireless communications devices cause significant single and double strand DNA breaks in both human and animal cells under laboratory conditions.5 In 2005, a Chinese medical study confirmed statistically significant DNA damage from pulsed microwaves at cell phone levels.6 That same year, University of Chicago researchers described how pulsed communications microwaves alter gene expression in human cells at non-thermal exposure levels.7

Because gamma waves and RF/microwave radiation are identically carcinogenic and genotoxic to the cellular roots of life, the safe dose of either kind of radiation is zero. No study has proven that any level of exposure from cell-damaging radiation is safe for humans. Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level, no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms.

Officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health closely reviewed the damning results of WTR studies, which also revealed microwave damage to the blood brain barrier. But these officials have chosen to downplay, obfuscate and even deny the irrepressible science of the day....
 
Wurm said:
Right...what level of exposure is safe? Maybe you overlooked this section in the article I linked?:
Actually I didn't overlook it. I just thought my post was long enough already. A few thoughts:
I don't think you are ever going get studies published or widely distributed in the US today if they even seem to imply that industry should be responsible ( i.e. be concerned about public health and safety over profit-that would be 'regulation'). Hence federal standards for anything are always going to favor making money before the public good.
That said, what is "safe"? The article states that 'no studies will ever prove any level of exposure is safe'. I'm always wary when I hear the word "prove" because it is often a sign of a weak argument. Proof doesn't work that way in science: you can "prove" something in mathematics; in most other field, the best you can hope for is a statistically implied connection between cause and effect, but you can never 'prove' that something doesn't exist just because it didn't occur in your study.
So as to not get bogged down in semantics, take sunlight. All energy coming from the sun is emr. energy in the infrared we feel as heat. No problem-we're 93 million miles from the source, so as long as our atmosphere is intact, we don't fry. We see by visible light, and as long as you don't look into the sun and burn your retinas, you're not harmed by this emr. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun can cause cancer, but doesn't always do so. We are constantly bombarded by naturally occuring microwave radiation from space, but this rarely ever causes problems. If any exposure to emr, and specifically microwave energy, were to always cause problems, we would have been extinct a long time ago. So what is the varible?
A friend of mine who is a physicist explains it this way: the energy must actually interact with some portion of the DNA strand. Lots of high energy radiation passes through us without ever interacting with the DNA, or randomly hits on sections that don't manifest and debilitating probems.
Me talking now-not my friend. in a nutshell, emr can also randomly interact with critical portions of DNA and result in mutations, (cancers) but you odds of noticeable damage increase as the energy output is increased (or similarly, you get closer to the source).

So to your question: what level of exposure is safe? We're sure not going to get a straight answer from the government, nor can we expect any meaningful safety standards anytime soon. And, sorry to say, I don't know either.

I have another friend who is a nurse at a local hospital. I try to follow her advice: Only have an x-ray when there is no other option; the more x-rays you have, the higher your odds are of having problems from the x-ray itself (x-ray also bening emr).

The doctor in the article you quoted may make a flawed argument, but the conclusion is right on: stay away from the stuff: transmitter towers-hopefully far away, but high powered, and cell phones themselves-very low powered, but...extremely close to you. In fact it couldn't be closer unless you swallowed it.
My feelings: treat cell phones like x-rays. Put on the sunscreen and leave the cell phone in your panniers unless you absolutely need to use it.
 
dan66 said:
Hence federal standards for anything are always going to favor making money before the public good.

It has not always been thus, nor will it always be so in the future as long as someone is around to demand accountability.
 
Absolutely anything in the VHF range and up is more prone to cause living tissue to heat up.
The more wattage applied the more likely living cells will vibrate and heat,same principle as in a microwave.
Even wave lenghts in the HF range can cause damage if the power is sufficient.
It all comes down the distance,shielding,frequency,strength of signal and time exposed.
Having had to study and pass tests on this subject ,I have some knowledge but cannot say for sure what the imminent dangers are in a given situation.
I will not panic as yet but am willing to keep an open mind.
Unless of course dementia sets in from exposure to 800 mhz rf.
Cell phones are the spawn of hell anyway.
Yes,I own one.
 
Wurm said:
It has not always been thus, nor will it always be so in the future as long as someone is around to demand accountability.
Right on, my friend!