Mobile phones & microwave masts 'don't cause harm'

[Cruise4]

Comment: You could have got the impression from TV News that this issue had been resolved... however on closer examination its another media lie.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=58678&in_page_i d=34

Mobile phone masts 'don't cause harm'
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Mobile phone masts do not trigger flu-like symptoms in people who claim to be sensitive to their signals, a new study has shown.

Radio waves emitted by the masts appear to be harmless both to vulnerable and normal healthy individuals, at least over short periods of time, scientists found.

One of the largest investigations of its kind found that sensitive volunteers appear to feel genuinely unwell when they know they are being exposed to radio waves.

But carefully designed experiments showed that, when they didn't know if the transmitter was on or off, their symptoms were no worse when they were being exposed to radio waves - suggesting that their symptoms are more likely to have another origin, possibly a psychological one.

Professor Elaine Fox, from the University of Essex, who led the study, said: "We do know there is a very large literature showing that the placebo effect, the power of belief, is very powerful. There's nothing magical about that. There are real clinical, biological effects.

"I'm pretty confident that it's not the electromagnetic field causing these symptoms."

People with electromagnetic hypersensitivity complain of cold and flu-like symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phones, transmission masts, and computers.

The physical effects range from a "fuzziness" in the head to nausea and sensations of burning skin. In the worst cases, people have been forced to change job or move house, or to shield their homes with metal foil.

However, numerous studies have failed to show that sensitive individuals can detect the presence of radio waves when the source is hidden.

The few studies that have indicated real health effects caused by electromagnetic fields are said to have suffered design flaws, or could not be replicated.

In the new study, conducted at a special laboratory at the University of Essex in Colchester, scientists simulated exposure to signals from standard digital and "third generation" (3G) mobile phone masts at a range of 30 to 60 metres.

They first established that a group of "sensitive" volunteers reported feeling less well than "normal" participants when they knew they were in the path of the signals.

Twelve of the original 56 felt so bad that they dropped out of the study at that stage.

The remaining 44 then underwent similar tests in double blind conditions, where neither experimenter nor participant knew when the transmitter was on or off.

Their responses were compared with those of 114 non-sensitive volunteers used as controls.

Two of the sensitive individuals, and five of the control participants, correctly judged when the mast was on or off in all six 50-minute tests - exactly the proportion expected by chance.

Compared with the comparison group, sensitive volunteers reported more symptoms throughout the tests, but it made no difference whether or not the signals were being beamed at them.

Their skin was also "sweatier", as shown by a measure called skin conductance, indicating a heightened response to stress.

Prof Fox said: "It is clear that sensitive individuals are suffering real symptoms and often have a poor quality of life. It is now important to determine what other factors could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and treatment strategies can be developed."

She said the negative health effects associated with mobile phones or radio masts may reflect a general techno-phobia that has afflicted certain individuals throughout the modern age.

"When TV first came in, and TV masts went up, a lot of people complained, and certainly there were a lot of complaints about microwave ovens," she said.

People naturally attributed the symptoms they felt to the source of their anxiety, Prof Fox added.

"They might have a headache, and they notice on the train that someone has a mobile phone, so they immediately make the attribution, that it must be the mobile phone causing the problem," she told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London.

"There's nothing strange about that, it's what we all do, but it becomes quite dangerous when it's to do with health symptoms."

The new findings are published in the on-line journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Prof Fox's team is now conducting a similar study of the effects of TETRA, the new radio system designed for the emergency services.


Also:
The fundamental issue that worries most people (apart from use of our taxes and doubts about the way the Home Office contract was awarded) is that the system uses pulsed microwave radiation, at a pulse frequency of 17.6Hz, which is very close to a key frequency of electrical activity in the human brain at 16Hz (our beta brain waves are around 13Hz to 20Hz). The defence from anyone with a vested interest in TETRA/Airwave (the brand name) is usually that either there is no pulse (remember in history at school Nelson and ‘I see no ships!’?), or that the intensity of the radiation is too low to matter.

What the article fails to inform people is the fact that (From mastsanity.org):


Quote:
"Their conclusion was made possible by eliminating 12 of the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers who had become too ill to continue the study. Even a child can see that by eliminating 12 of the original 56 electrosensitive volunteers - over 20% of the group - that the study integrity has been completely breached."

Also, it fails to mention (from the bbc article):


Quote:
The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and government.

"Funded by industry" meaning mobile phone companies and basically the Mobile Operators Association.

And of course all those lovely taxes that the government rakes in from the estimated £1 Billion a month the industry pulls in.

[Long Tooth]

The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and government.

"Funded by industry" meaning mobile phone companies and basically the Mobile Operators Association.

When i heard this blatant propaganda, i instantly said, ''i bet it was the mobile phone companies'' that funded the study.

Its akin to mass murderers doing a study and funding organistations created by themselves to come up 'results' that they are innocent.

12 of the group became so ill? from the pulsed microwaves by any chance?

Still, i expect the money in luring maggie thatcher onto some form of directorship with the Talk Talk scum was money well spent?

[Cruise4]

They tried this with the overhead powerlines... and sure enough over time the evidence started to come in that Leukemia etc. clusters were real. the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending.

[telecasterisation]

There can be no doubt that we all have differing views about all aspects of existence, the why, the who, the how, but one thing I am certain of is that humans love to shift the blame onto others.

Where I live there was a petition and meeting about a proposed phone mast. During the meeting two mobiles phones went off and they both belonged to the 'anti-proposal' camp. Outside in the break, many were then on their mobiles discussing and ranting with other family members.

The point here is that we are quite happy to use facilities that might encroach on others - the network they were using meant going through infrastructure that sat on someone else's doorstep. If we were genuinely serious about the damage we did to ourselves by mobile phone use - we'd all sling them in the bin. How many members here own a mobile phone?

As for 'the crimes these people are stacking up is never ending', is quite vague, when we are all to blame to a greater or lesser degree, be it from the pair of trainers we bought that were made by exploited child labour, to having a home wireless network for our computers - no-one is completely innocent.

[Long Tooth]

[karlos]

[Cruise4]

How many members here own a mobile phone?

I did... mine is on the side with the battery out. I refuse to use them now.
We are mostly water. Microwaved water on plants kills them. I don't use microwaves either. I also gather the NWO wish to irradiate every bit of food. I wonder why. These scum are attacking us on every level. Tests have shown that microwaves can control people. Nor do I use a wireless network. We must start taking individual responsibility. This is partly where things went wrong.

I also disagree about everyone is to blame on this sort of issue... people expect to be able to trust in the integrity of so called experts, who are assumed to have made sure technology is safe. The media backs up this view. The reality is its biased research funded by the very bodies who stand to gain. The fact that the full damaging impact of this stuff hasn't been widely seen yet is irrelevant... you will.

I believe much of whats introduced that subsequently turns out to be suspect is no accident.

GM is very very dangerous. They do not understand this tech. Change one gene and it changes many others. The very fact that they don't, nor could not, guarantee cross pollination is vandalism of nature. They should be sued for every single case of cross pollination that occurs. Of course what the so called law will allow is the perverted opposite.

Personally I believe these scum have many interleaving techniques and sciences that damage us and they actually are intending to attempt to overide our free will and control the remaining population as slaves. Can I prove it? No. Can I show much of this stuff is dangerous? Yes. Half the time its common sense. Look whats in vaccinations for example. But my view is this is very very deliberate!

By 'these people' I mean the illuminati, NWO, Globalist, Corporate types and their helpers. It has to be vague because we haven't got all the information needed to be sure who is involved in this insane conspiracy thats going on. Do I want the average man in the street? No. Do I want Monsanto and its board? Yes... etc. etc. etc.

[Cruise4]

Double post

[Long Tooth]

[karlos]

A good Chianti will do
I dont have a garage and i dont smoke. Can i still try the experiment?

So as you are a rabid smoker, do you not agree that smoking is bad for you and you should try and give it up. If the government were to ban all the cheap tobacco that comes from France, Belgium and Andorra many less people would smoke.
Not to mention the pollution caused with so many vehicles driving over to europe and back loaded up with cheap cigarettes.
Only 1 in a 1000 booze cruisers are stopped and searched. Many also return with drugs, and guns and illegals.

What government in the world allows its people to drive sometimes a thousand mile trip to smuggle contraband? I cannot understand it.

does anyone understand why the government allows it despite the pollution and loss of tax revenue?

[Cruise4]

They can't allow Customs and Excise to get too closely involved with Border issues. They might stumble upon the Governments People Smuggling or Drugs racket.

[Long Tooth]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Is the flight being more poluting true or a myth?
Of course I'm not to silly they burn alot more fuel for sure but they also carry alot more passengers and luggage! Probably a train would be best but then you have to remember you need alot of land for rails and same goes for cars really!! I'm sure a few runways must be better than concrete and steel jungles,but maybe ditch the Jet engine perhaps, Balloons and Airships are probably in reality the most friendly, probably even moreso than cycling, just remember to watch the weather!

[karlos]

No airplanes are the most polluting DD.
It cannot be correct that flying to Scotland is cheaper than the train. Aiviation fuel is subsidised because it has no tax added to it.
Ridiculous.
Im all in favour of airships, in the early 1900s to 1930s airships were the aviation.
Very low fuel and very safe too.
Ignore the propaganda about the zeppelin. It was filled with hydrogen which burns, helium is inert which does not burn.
Why cant they at least use airships for freight and start using canals again?
It is the power of the oil lobby that keeps air travel cheap.

I also like to point out, what is the point of a £19 Ryanair flight, most of the time it is alot more expensive anyway, but if your cab fare to the airport costs more thsn the flight something has to be wrong.
People wont be in favour of cheap flights when they learn that cheap flights mean higher taxes elsewhere.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would agree, organic tobacco smoked in a pipe is safe compared to cigarettes which include gunpowder, arsenic, petrol distilates,
It would make a great business ORGANIC fags
But to say that a person who smokes 80 and does not get cancer is due to his food comsumption.
EG: Turks are heavy smokers, but have low cancer rates so something in their diet protects them
Black Tea
British people who drink lots of cups of strong tea are possibly less well protected because our favourite tea is White tea as opposed to the big leaf and heavily steeped black tea.

Question, it must be possible to grow your own tobacco in the garden?
Cant be illegal?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The goverment wants the booze cruising, how else are they going to export all of British controlled heroin exports from Afghanistan.
Any sensible government would ban smuggling, but ofcourse everything the government does is upside down.

[Dogsmilk]

[Cruise4]

Its the 'Smoking Kills' message on the outside of the packet that does you in. The Power of suggestion!

[telecasterisation]

Dogsmilk said;

[karlos]

[Dogsmilk]

[Dogsmilk]

[blackcat]

I watched a one hour programme the other night called "My Brilliant Brain" (or something like that) and a young man had a powerful magnet held to the side of his head for 15 minutes then was given tasks to perform which he had already done earlier under "normal" conditions. The difference was remarkable. Basically much of his left side had been "disabled" so he became temporarily autistic for a while. The effect wore off after a few hours but if magnetism can do that then I am never going to hold a mobile 'phone to the side of my head repeatedly, exposing myself to whatever radiation it uses!

[Long Tooth]

[karlos]

[telecasterisation]

Long Tooth wrote;

[Cruise4]

If we had no tobacco then we'd all have to smoke solid weed joints!

[TonyGosling]

I have been made permanently worse; I had to pull out of the remaining tests. Although double blind I knew that the mast was on. How? I bled internally for two weeks. That is what happens to me when I get too close to a mast for too long. Bleeding internally, can this be psychosomatic I ask myself? Perhaps my gut has decided to join in on this misinformation? Maybe my gut is in league with my brain in deluding me?"
http://www.mastsanity.org

Cancer clusters at phone masts
SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone masts, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact on health.
Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer, brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts.
One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, while another quarter have suffered significant health problems.
http://www.mastaction.co.uk

[Long Tooth]

[marky 54]

not the smoking debate again,

this is simple, smokers will defend their right to smoke the same as drivers will defend their right to drive, both have an effect on health and both are personal choice in most cases(i walk/bike it and always have) and also not everyone can avoid breathing the fumes in, in either case in.

http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=12789&ref=arc hive

smoking is bad but don't just lay all the blame at the feet of smokers for illness or polluting ones fresh air.

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/childleukaemialay.pdf

"Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas found in car fumes"
http://www.eastcambsandfenland-pct.nhs.uk/default.asp?id=28

i wonder what all that smog i saw hanging over the city was? those stupid smokers!

"The smell of a new car 'is like glue-sniffing'"
http://www.ristacoat.cn/en/MediaReport.html

i accept smoking is very bad, but also will admit driving and other activitys are not helping much either, if some want to think its playing a card then fine. but its no differant to me being against people eating dog's in china whilst out hunting foxes and dropping of at mcdonalds at launch time. they are all the same in principle.

smoking pollutes the air, so do drivers. smokers fumes effect health, so do car fumes when they accumilate in large citys, smoking causes cancer and so does lots and lots of other things.

we can keep laying all the blame at the smokers door if it excuses the things non smokers like to do, but clean air and cancer rates dropping will not happen as a result even if smoking was outlawed all together.

only god knows what mix of chemicals i breathe on the way into town.

smog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

grime
http://cooperator.com/articles/1269/1/Squeaky-Clean/Page1.html

i kind of see those who just complain about smokers without thinking about their own actions as hypocrits, because when you think about it car fumes are just the same as smoking but on a larger scale.

the smell, the sticking to your skin and cloths, the chemicals being inhaled, the lack of thought for others by many who use the car for every trip including the ones down the road to the shop or school.(driving should be a last resort or long distance or transporting large items, but you will find with the vast majority its just because they cannot be bothered to walk). when those people strat thinking about there actions, then i will feel guilty for being a smoker and not untill.

[marky 54]

i do all i can to ensure others do not breathe my smoke and only smoke outside and at home at the back door and have always done so even before the ban was even thought of, but while ever smokers are the scapegoats i cannot see others doing what they can to change or lessen the effects of their habit(ie stop being lazy and walk more often or get a bike for short trips when alone etc), hence i will not be made to feel guilty just for being a smoker.

if clean air and health is the issue then we are all a part of making this better and the issue involves us all, targetting groups and pointing fingers is just a way out of the same responsibilitys but with other habits.

pollution(smoking or otherwise) causes cancer and poor air quality, cigerettes just contain more cancer causing chemicals(60 i think), that dos'nt mean smoking is the route of all cancer.

even smokers can and have died from cancer that is unrelated to smoking, my mother smokes and had treatment for a cancer that was unrelated to her smoking, this is how i know.

[telecasterisation]

Long Tooth wrote: