CELL TOWERS AND CELL PHONES

[menotti1]

Recent Issues: May 18, 2006May 10, 2006May 03, 2006April 19, 2006 (Click here to get RF Report via email!) Date posted: 2006-05-18 Cell Tower RF Blamed for Brain TumorsNew evidence has surfaced in Australia stirring up debate about whether cell phone usage causes health damage. Recently published reports indicate there may be a link between extended cell phone use (2,000 hours or more) and brain tumors. Last week, online publication, The Age, reported that the staff at Australia's RMIT University had a higher than normal rate of brain tumors -- five discovered in the last month and two others in 1999 and 2001. Of the seven tumors, five were benign and two malignant. The academics' union believes the cause of the tumors may be a nearby communications tower on the roof of a former theater site. The National Tertiary Education Union State Secretary, Matthew McGowan said, "This would be appear to be more than coincidence... " RMIT University closed the top two floors of one of its buildings in response to concerns about RF exposure. A spokeswoman for Telstra, which has two of the towers at the Trivoli site, pointed to the large amount of medical research showing no "substantiated evidence of a link between mobile phone technology and adverse health effects." State health officials said it would have the matter investigated, according to the report.

 

[wtrw]

The study you quote didn't say if the cellphones operated at 700 MHZ, 800MHz, 1.9 GHZ, 2.3 GHZ or some hybrid. And power levels not discussed.

 

[SML]

I'm really puzzled by the Cell phone article. On the one hand, it says that someone has published a study that says that there "may" be a link between increased cancer for cell phone users who log more than 2000 hours. But the "published reports" are not provided so one cannot check the "published reports" for themselves. And then it goes on to say that the upper floors of a campus building were closed because the "The academics' union believes the cause of the tumors may be a nearby communications tower on the roof of a former theater site". OK, on what scientific study does the "academic Union" base it's findings?Those two situations are apples and oranges. So which one should I be worried about?If the people who are so paranoid about RFR would simply say that they are afraid of stuff they can't see, or that they equate RF energy with radioactivity from plutonium, then we might get somewhere. BUt so far, despite many legitimate scientific studies, there is no definitive link between brain tumors and RF energy. Or high tension power lines. Or neon lights. Or moonbeams.There are still people who are sure that the earth is flat, that the moon was never visited, and that the face on mars was drawn by martians. Faith-based thinking is like that. Here in America, you can pretty much publish anything you want, true or untrue. Just because it is published does not make it a fact.I have been working in high-level RF fields for 40 years. I know others in my profession who have been in those fields for longer than I have. Heck, the postmaster at Mt. Wilson just retired after living and working in high RF energy fields for 30+ years. He is in his 70's, and is fine. I'm fine, and my engineering friends are doing fine. No tumors. Is that a definitive study? Nope, it's not. Let's see the published studies so we can read them ourselves, and see what kind of studies they are and what they say. Otherwise, it is just blowing smoke. And a waste of our time.

 

[AKLes]

I'm really puzzled by the Cell phone article. On the one hand, it says that someone has published a study that says that there "may" be a link between increased cancer for cell phone users who log more than 2000 hours. -----I have been working in high-level RF fields for 40 years. I know others in my profession who have been in those fields for longer than I have. Heck, the postmaster at Mt. Wilson just retired after living and working in high RF energy fields for 30+ years. He is in his 70's, and is fine. I'm fine, and my engineering friends are doing fine. No tumors. Is that a definitive study? Nope, it's not.

I dunno about cell phones though I maintained an analog cell site for several years and still seem OK. Well, except for my eyes giving me trouble...or is that just the web page jumping up and down?OTOH, I personally knew two long-time TV transmitter technicians (40-years plus each) who died of an odd form of leukemia and have heard anecdotal stuff about others.I guess on cell phones, since they're gonna be allowed on airplanes (as well as in theaters, restaurants and other places where they pi$$ people off), we can hope that they DO cause brain cancer and do it quickly so those damn fools perish rapidly.As to "published reports"; I vaguely remember reading one that claimed eating French Fries causes reduced bain function but the same does not seem to occur among the people of England who eat the same things bit call them "chips".Of course it's self-evident that buying (presumably to consume) French Wine results in extreme stupidity. It's demonstrated by the price those poor victims are willing to pay when they could have Ripple or T-Bird for 1/10th the cost and "get there quicker".

 

[SML]

That report of the top two floors of the building being closed due to fears about high RFR levels? They had the floors and roof measured. The result? The highest level of RF energy was found to be about 2/10 of 1% of the public limit for RFR exposure. In other words, the fears of high RFR exposure are unfounded paranoia.I'm sure somebody will figure out a way to get upset about it.The report results are found here:http://mams.rmit.edu.au/ypwsbsrq3q3p1.pdf