Danger Radiation!
I guess some fifteen years ago, I used to receive Microwave & RF Engineering Magazine. Not that I’m an engineer, but at that time I had an interest in microwave communications. Most of it was way over my head, but I was amazed to read an article about the then-new cellular phones.
The article addressed an engineering problem, that there is inevitably an object blocking the path between the handheld cell phone antenna and the station antenna – and therefore a need to boost the microwave signal to transmit unhindered to the station antenna.
That obstructing object is better known as the human head.
The article concluded with a side-note. That the medical effects of the boosted radiation through the human head, could only be evaluated in twenty years time.
The authors of the report, the largest survey ever conducted on this subject, were rather coy about stating that this showed there is proof of a causative relationship between the cell phone usage and the health risks.
So, we haven’t yet hit the cell phone equivalent of the 1964 US Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking – which was a bombshell conclusively reporting the causative linkage between smoking and lung cancer. That report concluded that cigarette smoking was responsible for a 70 percent increase in the mortality rate of smokers over non-smokers. The report estimated that average smokers had a nine- to ten-fold risk of developing lung cancer compared to non-smokers: heavy smokers had at least a twenty-fold risk.
With the new UN funded report on cell phone radiation hazards, we’re a small step away from such a bombshell about cell phone usage.
A grass-roots campaign has begun, informing the public of the risks, and channeling this concern for the safety of residents, into momentum and action for change. In this case, getting the antennas removed from the shopping mall.
For those who are only willing to assist with this campaign when there is clear scientific proof of the causative linkage between these antennas, and serious illnesses in local families (chas veshalom) – you may have to wait twenty years. By which time, it will be too late.
------
For more information about the issue of the Ramat Bet Shemesh cell phone antenna station, please contact removeantennas@gmail.com and/or join their blog at www.removeantennas.blogspot.com
Thanks David-
ReplyDeleteThere will be a demonstration tomorrow at 1:30 at the Bet Shemesh court house where a judge will be ruling whether the cellcom antennas will be forbidden to work. It is very important to have a good showing there to influence her decision.
write to removeantennas@gmail.com for information and rides.
Cell phones dangerous?? Really? This should not shock people in the slightest. Large multi national corporations have a long history of claiming their products are safe. These MNCs have huge law firms with top talent and very well paid lawyers to defend them, drag out cases and appeal on every legal ground. After many years these corps usually change their ways after being hit with enormous jury verdicts but of course profited enormously over the years. Think:
ReplyDeleteasbestos
breast implants
Tobacco
Vioxx
Many more examples.
As has been repeated many times in many forums, the testing that has indicated danger has been almost exclusively from cell phone usage, not from antennas, and even that has been of mixed results.
ReplyDeleteActually, the most dangerous thing for kids in Ramat Bet Shemesh, statistically and by any other measure is bad driving, including speeding, U-turns in the middle of busy traffic, parking and pulling out from the wrong side of the street, talking on cell phones while driving, etc. Also, parents allowing little kids outside without appropriate supervision.
But that would take looking at our own habits and changing them. Much easier to blame others and tilt at windmills.
Anonymous-
ReplyDeleteI cant believe I am wasting my time writing this but- you are utterly inaccurate that the danger is from one side of a two way process. Many studies are done on residents and schools in close proximity to towers with devastating results.
And you are correct about the other issues you mentioned. I have been trying to gather support for a law to stop for school buses. How abou helping out? How about trying to fix something and not putting others down. Much easier to blame others...
Shoshana,
ReplyDeletePlease post links to the many studies you claim prove devastating results. Here are some that, at most, recommend precautions, but stop far short of claiming known danger:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phones.asp?sitearea=PED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Health_hazards_of_base_stations
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/cell-phone-radiofrequency-radiation-studies.pdf&pli=1
http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp
I'm not putting others down, just pointing out that the efforts should be focused on where there is proven danger. I've seen several posts a day on the antenna issue for a while now, but very few on the traffic dangers, except for immediately following an accident.
On that point, there are existing traffic laws that aren't enforced, like speeding, parking on the wrong side stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, etc. New legislation isn't the answer, enforcement of existing laws, and education of drivers and pedestrians are the answers, and that's where my efforts are focused.
With all due respect- we have posted and posted many links- I am too busy to repost for nothing. I have no interest in arguing with you. Especially, when you choose to hide your identity.
ReplyDeleteThey should not be here. Period. Any safek is too much and unfair to us who live within meters of the- at least- 12-15 antennas put up for a few men to make obscene profits off of our backs.
I wish you the best of luck on enforcing existing laws.
I am not the Anonymous poster at 14:34 and 15:54, but I support the fact that cellular antennas are not proven in any way to have negative effect on human health.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, a greater number of antennas in residential areas enables each to operate at lower power, as well as enabling the mobile phones themselves to operate at lower power, which actually reduces the likely health risk -- long-term exposure to mobile phone usage.
Anonymous - we all have our top-priority items.
ReplyDeleteFor some, it is the radiation from the antennas; for others, it is making our roads safer; for some it is the daf yomi; and others it is feeding the poor; some have to prioritise earning enough to pay their bills for the month; others work all hours to change the government of the day...
Your concern for the safety of our kids on our hazardous roads is shared by all of us.
I am personally terrified every time I drive down Refaim and Soreq - with kids coming out from every corner, nook and cranny...and oblivious drivers hurtling down the tiny roads like they're highways.
Your concern about the roads is universal.
This doesn't detract an iota from the campaign to reduce microwave radiation emissions in our residential neighborhood.
Last time I am posting on this:
ReplyDeleteMore antennas = less radiation to the PHONE and more radiation in our homes in close proximity to the antennas- Our neighbors on higher floors already have headaches and nausea- their children too.
DO you let your child keep an active cell phone 24/7 strapped to their head? We eat, sleep, learn, play and pray here.
They don't turn off- they aren't by our choice as talking on a phone is. There is raditation in my yard, parking lot and the parks where my kids play. I am lucky that my home is blocked by the rest of my building otherwise it would be in here to as it is in my neighbors' homes.
Do all the protesters who do not want antennas on the Dolev mall refrain from using cell phones??
ReplyDeleteThe recently published research study shows increased risk of tumors from cordless phones as well. Will the protesters stop using cordless phones too??
If the protesters do in fact continue to use cell phones where do they want their antennas to be?
Are the levels in the homes and parks nearby above the legal limit? If so, there is legal action. If not, why blame companies that are complying with the law?
ReplyDeleteYou can advocate to change the law, and the onus will be on you to prove that the current limits are dangerous, not an easy task based on the studies I've seen.
Just to clarify - I did not state that there is conclusive causative proof that cell phone radiation from antennas is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI said that this proof, if at all, would be years, even decades downstream.
"For those who are only willing to assist with this campaign when there is clear scientific proof of the causative linkage between these antennas, and serious illnesses in local families (chas veshalom) – you may have to wait twenty years. By which time, it will be too late."
You want to take that risk, gezundeheit. You don't - get out and protest!
I have a hard time with anyone who posts the most extreme sides of any issue. There's no difference between a single-minded no-holes-barred focus on tzniyus and a single-minded no-holes-barred focus on green.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that people who are evangelists against a single issue usually miss the critical nuances and side-effects of what they say.
Yes, obviously radiation is bad in both directions. But the effects of radiation is reduced as the square of the distance from the transmitter. So a cellphone broadcasting milimeters from a head is thousands of times worse (or more) than an antenna that's tens of meters from anyone.
On the other hand, the antenna is broadcasting a hundred channels all the time, not a single channel sometimes.
Which is worse is not clear. There certainly is math to support more antennas resulting in reduced signal strength from phones, since all phones in the past 5-6 years transmit more strongly when they have a weak signal to an antenna.
Saying that all antennas are bad because of studies of people living on the top floor of buildings that have them misses the nuance about distance. Instead of getting rid of antennas, maybe petition that they should be higher, or on places that don't have people 24/7 on the top floor.
Most of all, come on people, let's be civil enough to admit that there are many sides to complicated issues, and that people who want to discuss tradeoffs are not evil.
Where is the UN study? I can't find it on-line anywhere.
ReplyDeletethanks for informing us
ReplyDeleteThanks for share this post I also share with you something hope you like my post. Along with the development of increasingly sophisticated technology, the use of CellPhone increased rapidly. In modern society, mobile phones have become a necessity. Though the use of the phone itself turned out to cause enough radiation is harmful to health. Since the phone is a transmitter that converts sound into a continuous sinusoidal wave is then transmitted out through the antenna and fluctuates over the air waves. Wave RF (radio frequency) electromagnetic radiation is the cause. Thanks
ReplyDeleteRadiation ear tube