Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 7th December 2017, 20:25   #226
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 13,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
I have no great time to delve into this thread, and have no desire to be dragged into it lest fugl follow me here and start driving really slowly in the ultrafast lane here too I have skimmed the thread occasionally and a couple of things immediately come to mind. The scientific method in its entirety should be considered to give a valid framework. Descrepancies are immediately obvious.

@Joost, re:- your above comment - could it be that the authors are just rather clumsily expressing that metabolic variability in test subjects outweigh the magnitude of effects seen. I am sure there are ways to group subjects of similar metabolic range though with the introduction of a dedicated variable to give repeatability.

@Purple Heron, Diana, it seems that some of the likely causative factors have not been given due consideration before conclusions are being drawn, and several descrepancies in some of the data provided reinforce this (something about increase anomalies in clutch size, or breeding success with increasing proximity to cell towers, or similar! :). As others have said, but perhaps not been heard, or not covered fully enough - I would look to the environment (independent of cell towers etc) as a significant causative factor - something which doesn't seem to have been given due consideration from what I have seen

Unless that place is Robinson Crusoe (ie. alone in the world), then habitat degradation in terms of reduced vegetation/ structural complexity, diversity, maturation, ground cover changes, soil degradation and loss, reduced or destroyed hydrological functioning, moisture adapted vegetation loss (and wetlands etc) no matter how small on the micro scale, as well as GMO's and cumulative pesticide/ herbicide loads, etc and effect on the web of life, and loss of environment resilience/resistance to change, are likely to be major causative factors. They should be assigned their own variables and considered in any study/ modelling. Please note that study, research, and empirical evidence in this arena is rather comparitively thin on the ground, especially when considered holistically, so pioneering boots will likely be required.

Good luck ! :)
This is intended as parody, right?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Thursday 7th December 2017 at 21:23.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 7th December 2017, 20:29   #227
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,800
Your control zone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...dio_Quiet_Zone
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th December 2017, 21:14   #228
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 13,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono View Post
Bound to have lots of birds (and babies) then.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 8th December 2017, 08:20   #229
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Mono, fugi -- I have been trying to find out about the National Quiet Zone in the US for just that reason--I wondered if it would be a good control zone. I have been able to contact one or two people who have been there, and while they were not looking for birds ( a pity, from my point of view) they did tell me that military RF radiation (there are a couple of major military bases) tends to skew the picture--it is not an RF free area. So I'm not sure if the NQZ is actually a good control in this case, from the little I have been able to find out. I read recently that South Africa is setting up a huge space listening area where they are removing the cell towers (though people will be able to use satellite phones). Maybe they will see an increase in bird/insect numbers there in time? Depends what other factors are at play, too--it's an agricultural area primarily, so pesticides and GMOs will have some role. I know that nothing is that clear-cur, but my original interest in the NQZ stemmed from the observation--which still holds--that places which have less or no cell tower reception have more birds. And Broomhall observed that when cell towers were shut down, birds and insects returned temporarily. I understand the scientist's need to define and understand the mechanisms of harm, but it would be interesting if some place could be persuaded to turn off the cell towers for a set period and observe the results. Even better if this could be done in several or half a dozen places. I also wonder if there are mechanisms of harm that we have not considered or comprehended yet.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th December 2017, 09:21   #230
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Joost I think this might be the sort of thing you are looking for? "The Cellular Stress Response: EMF-DNA Interaction" by Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University. Lots of references at the end, also.
http://bioinitiative.org/report/wp-c...e_Cellular.pdf
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 10th December 2017, 09:47   #231
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
Why do some birds nest on cell towers?

Yesterday I was sent the following link to a presentation made to the Ministry of Communications in India: https://www.jumpjet.info/Emergency-P..._Solutions.pdf

It's a basic primer on the hazards of EMF/RF radiation. For those of you who read it, a lakh = 100.000 and a crore = 10 million.

Two things interested me especially. On page 17, Radiation Pattern of Cell Tower Antenna, the illustration appears to indicate that there is no radiation directly on top of a cell tower. This may be the reason why some birds choose to nest there: it is a safe zone since the radiation is directed outward.

I also found interesting, on page 35, Effects on Birds and Animals, the question "Have you ever seen any bird near cell towers?" In India, the answer is obviously "No". Here in Greece, no. In Lithuania, Jos says "Yes". I don't know about other places. It's apparent from the presentation that radiation standards differ somewhat country-to-country.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Cell_Tower_Radiation_Hazards_and_Solutions.pdf (3.53 MB, 7 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th December 2017, 06:08   #232
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,066
Thanks for the slide set. It's gonna take me a while to process.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 11th December 2017, 10:42   #233
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Ed. Someone just sent me the slide show as a PDF. It is attached here.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th December 2017, 19:24   #234
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,066
Thanks, Diana.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th December 2017, 11:03   #235
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
Can birds hear electromagnetic pulses?

A few days ago I wondered if birds are being affected by electromagnetic radiation in ways we haven't yet understood or studied. I hadn't heard of the microwave auditory effect until yesterday, so I looked it up, and there appears to be some evidence that birds can actually hear pulsed microwave radiation. So, apparently, can some people--a phenomenon observed in WWII around radar installations.

Some basic info about the microwave auditory effect is at https://infogalactic.com/info/Microwave_auditory_effect

Someone even took out a patent for a device that produces pulsed microwave radiation to repel birds from various types of installations:
https://www.google.com/patents/US5774088

There doesn't seem to be much scientific literature on this subject, though emf-portal has a few articles, among them this one by Lin and Wang: "Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanisms and thresholds" at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664

I have no idea how one would go about determining whether birds can hear the electromagnetic radiation from cell towers, but if they can--and it seems possible that they do, with certain frequencies perhaps being more disruptive--this may explain why birds avoid cell towers.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th December 2017, 13:16   #236
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
Effects on birds and wildlife from electromagnetic radiation

I'm attaching a PDF with the slides of a very interesting and detailed talk by Professor Denis Henshaw of Bristol University. The other two PDFs are referred to in his talk. The study of fruit-flies by Margaritis et al. clearly shows that exposure to EMF leads to sterility in these insects (and by extension, to other insect species as well). The robin study is well worth reading for those of you who have not seen it before.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th December 2017, 13:52   #237
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I have no idea how one would go about determining whether birds can hear the electromagnetic radiation from cell towers, but if they can--and it seems possible that they do, with certain frequencies perhaps being more disruptive--this may explain why birds avoid cell towers.
That's interesting. Do you happen to live by the sea?

In that case, have you noticed how sea birds, notably seagulls, avoid getting close to trawlers?
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 04:40   #238
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
That's interesting. Do you happen to live by the sea?

In that case, have you noticed how sea birds, notably seagulls, avoid getting close to trawlers?
Are you saying that you've seen them avoid getting close to trawlers?

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 08:42   #239
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Are you saying that you've seen them avoid getting close to trawlers?
No, but assuming that Purple Heron's assumptions are true seabirds should be scared as hell by trawlers. In short: reductio ab absurdum.

The reason? Simple. Trawlers nowadays use huge amounts of electronics. From the typical radars (usual power levels: fourty five thousand watts at 10 GHz) which are really hefty microwave sources, to plenty of radio transmitters on all bands between HF and UHF. Of course they also use satellite communications.

Modern fleets evem employ remotely controlled buoys that provide information about currents, water temperatures, etc.

If it was true that a silly cell tower (less than 50 W transmission power) can scare birds away imagine what a microwave transmitter with a thousand times the power and transmitting pulses can do.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 09:44   #240
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Borjam I have seen gulls circle fishing boats, but I don't think we have the sorts of trawlers you describe here, so I can't say. However, you are making an assumption here that I don't think is valid. You seem to think that the power (wattage) of a transmitting device is a more important factor than the frequency itself. I don't think that is the case at all. The frequency is the important factor; this is what causes cells to resonate. As for trawlers, they will not be using the same frequencies as mobile communications. Also it may be that not all birds react in the same way to the same frequencies. Other than gulls, have you ever seen any other seabird near a trawler?
By the way, since you are in Spain, do you tend to see birds on or near cell towers?

Last edited by Purple Heron : Thursday 14th December 2017 at 10:17.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 09:59   #241
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
Studies showing DNA damage from EMR

For those of you who are interested, here's a link to an article on DNA damage from EMR/RF radiation: http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-comet-assay

This has links to many of the original studies.

I have also posted two PDFs. Yakymenko et al. deals with oxidative effects and Pall deals with the effects on the Ca2+ channels. Together they give a picture of how DNA damage occurs.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf PallNeuropsychiatric2015(1).pdf (418.2 KB, 2 views)
File Type: pdf Yakymenko et al 2015(2).pdf (323.0 KB, 2 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 10:16   #242
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
Bird Populations Falling in Gateshead, UK, Due to 5G

I just had a most disturbing email from Gateshead, UK, saying that insect populations have been plummeting since 5G was installed in the area. Bird populations are also falling--perhaps because of lack of food and perhaps directly because of the 5G frequencies.

Tyne and Wear, where Gateshead is located (near Newcastle, NE England) is a test bed for 5G, which appears to have been installed this past summer. See the attached file about this.

Does anyone live in this area? Has anyone noticed this? As far as I know this is the only place where 5G is being tested on a broad scale, other trials having been confined to football stadiums and indoor venues.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Pres-2c.pdf (1.05 MB, 3 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 10:35   #243
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam I have seen gulls circle fishing boats, but I don't think we have the sorts of trawlers you describe here, so I can't say.
Every fishing trawler will carry at least one radar. Depending on ship size it's even mandatory to carry more than one radar. One of the radar bands (3 GHz) is pretty close to one of the "mobile" LTE and WiFi bands (2.4 - 2.6 GHz).

So. Which are the bad bands? You mentioned "microwave radiation". Well, 10 GHz radiation is much more energetic than 1 or 2 GHz radiation.

Power is important because of two factors:

First: Heating effects will be exacerbated by power. That's simple to understand, isn't it?

Second: High powers can lead to certain non linear effects with surprising results. For example, we can't hear ultrasounds, but it's possible to build a device using high power ultrasound beams that can make a voice transmission to be heard by a certain person.

I have seen it working, a friend built one of those devices and it's actually pretty simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound

NOTE: I am not mixing up stuff, just pointing out that non linear effects can be significant.


Quote:
, you are making an assumption here that I don't think is valid. You assume that power (watts) and frequency band are the same thing--they're not. Or at least, you seem to think that the power (wattage) of a transmitting device is a more important factor than the frequency itself. I don't think that is the case at all. The frequency is the important factor; this is what causes cells to resonate.
Again, this is simple physics. A 10 GHz photon carries much more energy than a 1 GHz photon. That means, it has a much higher potential to disrupt a chemical reaction.

I still wish to know what's wrong with mobile phone frequencies (and not TV frequencies that have sit on the same bands for decades). Why that frequency cherry picking? I only see a religious/magical thinking motivation.

Quote:
As for trawlers, they will not be using the same frequencies as mobile communications. Also it may be that not all birds react in the same way to the same frequencies. Other than gulls, have you ever seen any other seabird near a trawler?
Seagulls and gannets are not unusual sights around ships. Many migrating birds also use ships to rest. Even a tired migrating warbler took a rest on the head of a friend of mine at sea, go figure.

Quote:
By the way, since you are in Spain, do you tend to see birds on or near cell towers?
Of course. This is an example, storks.

http://www.deia.com/2016/02/03/bizka...riar-polluelos

Sorry, it's in Spanish. There have been problems with storks placing nests on the biggest cell phone towers and the operators have been installing special structures to prevent the placing of nests.

Maybe Spanish storks are clueless about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation?
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 10:53   #244
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
So, it's only 5G.

We are not destroying habitats. We don't are not using pesticides. Of course there are no invasive species like Vespa velutina decimating some insect populations.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 12:40   #245
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Borjam I don't think any of the frequencies used--radar, radio, wireless communications, you name it--are very good for the natural world. And yes, we are doing all kinds of stupid things to the planet that affect nature and it is not always easy to say how much damage is being caused by one particular problem alone because most of the time it is impossible to isolate a single factor.

Having said that, there seems to be something about the particular frequencies used in wireless communications that causes measurable damage to cell structure and DNA, interferes with migration etc. that is independent of what you term non-linear effects--i.e., the damage seems to occur even when the power is very low. There is evidence that the closer one gets to cell towers themselves, the more damage is caused--you can see that in some of the bird studies, and I'm attaching a very recent study showing genetic damage to people living close to cell towers. Another problem associated with wireless communications particularly is that the radiation is continuous and, the more cell towers are erected, inescapable. So there is a significant difference between encountering a frequency (at whatever strength) intermittently, and being exposed to a signal (even at low power) continuously, which is the case with wireless communications. In the former case the body has a chance to repair damage done to the organism at the cellular level, and in the latter case the body cannot repair damage. In other words, the damage is cumulative.

So--getting back to trawlers--occasional exposure to whatever frequencies the trawlers are using won't necessarily repel or damage birds providing that they are not continuously exposed.

With regard to storks and other birds nesting on cell towers, this has been remarked on before. A couple of days ago I posted a slide show with an illustration showing that the one place a bird is not exposed to cell tower radiation is directly on top of it. What about other birds--do you see them perching on other parts of cell towers, on nearby trees or structures? I don't. Anywhere near a cell tower is singularly bird-free.

Last point--with regard to 5G. Many scientists expect that it will do a great deal of damage to the natural world, and what I heard from Gateshead seems to confirm it. I'm asking if anyone living near there has noticed anything because all I know is what I posted. I'm not singling out 5G particularly, since from my own observations the switch to 4G made a big difference to bird populations here in Greece, and Broomhall noticed progressive declines in bird populations after the area around Mt. Nardi acquired cell towers--2G to 3G to 4G. So the main issue is that continuous and unavoidable exposure to even low-intensity RF radiation causes damage to insects, birds, wildlife and humans. Is 5G worse than 4G, 4G worse than 3G, etc? It would seem so, but it's hard to tell because each generation of the technology has resulted in more and more base stations emitting radiation continuously.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf cell tower antioxidant enzyme Gulati 2017.pdf (285.4 KB, 3 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th December 2017, 14:51   #246
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
So--getting back to trawlers--occasional exposure to whatever frequencies the trawlers are using won't necessarily repel or damage birds providing that they are not continuously exposed.
Didn't you say that they were supposed to hear some odd noises that would scare them? If you are relatively close to a ship at sea you are exposed.

Quote:
With regard to storks and other birds nesting on cell towers, this has been remarked on before. A couple of days ago I posted a slide show with an illustration showing that the one place a bird is not exposed to cell tower radiation is directly on top of it. What about other birds--do you see them perching on other parts of cell towers, on nearby trees or structures? I don't. Anywhere near a cell tower is singularly bird-free.
Sorry to point it out but you are showing a complete lack of understanding of some fundamental aspects of physics.

Staying outside of the main lobe of an antenna doesn't mean that you are radiation free. It just means that radiation is weaker. Maybe significantly weaker.

I haven't seen any serious studies about lack of birds around cell towers. I saw some time ago an interesting article about animals avoiding high voltage power lines. Turns out they can sometimes emit UV light and some vertebrates (birds and some mammals) can see some UV frequencies, which would scare them.

Quote:
Last point--with regard to 5G. Many scientists expect that it will do a great deal of damage to the natural world, and what I heard from Gateshead seems to confirm it.
This is a completely upside down argument. Newer "wireless technologies" use to be more civilized than the older ones. With better information coding and more robust transmission schemes you can even lower power, which means, well, less radiated power together with longer battery life.

GSM phones were terrible because they radiated interference all over the spectrum. Actually I never understood how could GSM possibly be approved. The other downside is, of course, it wasted a lot of energy.

Speaking of "tower avoidance", this article is interesting.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...obi.12262/full
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 15th December 2017, 09:10   #247
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Borjam Interesting article you posted above. Although it's about sight, not hearing, it reinforces the point that other creatures do not perceive/experience the world in the same way that humans do. I suspect we don't know the half of it when it comes to how animals, birds, insects etc. see or hear or feel, but tend to extrapolate from how we do.

I think the argument we are having is a smaller version of the debate that is going on in the scientific community about whether wireless technologies are safe. The inventors of mobile technology systems, and the committees that approve their use, are physicists, and the ones doing the research showing that wireless systems cause harm are biologists. The physicists are saying what you do--that the frequencies are being used at non-thermal levels, at low power, and therefore cannot cause harm. The biologists doing the studies are finding that these frequencies do cause harm even at very low levels. Wireless safety standards today are based on physics and ignore biology. They did not think it was possible for RF radiation to case DNA damage, but it does--it damages DNA even more than ionizing radiation. Look at some of the materials I've posted in the last few days on that subject. Biologists, not physicists, are the ones who study the effects of continual long-term exposure to RF radiation.

So there you have it. Biologists are finding harm where physicists say harm cannot occur. And most likely birds and other creatures can sense things we are incapable of perceiving. If the biologists are right--and I personally think they are--we are going to pay an enormous price for this; I think we have been seeing these effects in nature for some time now and that these effects are accelerating. And yes, it is difficult to say "RF radiation is the main cause for the decline of bird/insect species" when there are other problems--pollution, pesticides, etc. But we could try the experiment Broomhall suggests: choose several or half a dozen places where we turn the cell towers off and see what happens. If, after a year, insect and resident bird life flourished in those areas, what would that tell you (assuming other factors remained more or less constant)?

I haven't seen any studies concerning bird life around cell towers, either. I would be interested. Other than occasional raptors flying over them, I don't see birds near any cell tower. They seem to avoid areas where radiation is stronger. Do you? You haven't said.

With regard to 5G, I know that the radiation is supposed to be weaker--and this is compensated for by the very large number of small cells that have, individually, less transmission power. It's not the physics that is at issue here--it is the biological effects of the frequencies used, and the effects of continued, long-term exposure. Physics cannot predict long-term biological consequences.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th December 2017, 12:11   #248
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam Interesting article you posted above. Although it's about sight, not hearing, it reinforces the point that other creatures do not perceive/experience the world in the same way that humans do. I suspect we don't know the half of it when it comes to how animals, birds, insects etc. see or hear or feel, but tend to extrapolate from how we do.
Actually we do have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the sensory organs of many species. Ask a biophysicist about it :)

Quote:
I think the argument we are having is a smaller version of the debate that is going on in the scientific community about whether wireless technologies are safe.
I don't see much debate. The "debate" is similar to the purported relationship between vaccines and autism or wether the Moon landings were faked by Stanley Kubrick. As long as someone claims it there seems to be some kind of debate.

Also, if you hope to keep a minimal kind of "rigor", for God's sake, stop mentioning "wireless technologies" (which, I insist, have been with us in lots more of forms than you are aware of since radio was invented) and *do* mention particular examples with frequency ranges, power levels, etc.

Quote:
Wireless safety standards today are based on physics and ignore biology. They did not think it was possible for RF radiation to case DNA damage, but it does--it damages DNA even more than ionizing radiation. Look at some of the materials I've posted in the last few days on that subject. Biologists, not physicists, are the ones who study the effects of continual long-term exposure to RF radiation.
This is utter nonsense. I imagine you are aware that we are made of actual atoms, not "ether". So the rules of physics apply to us. So now you claim, out of nowhere, not only that non ionizing radiation can damage DNA, but that it's more dangerous than ionizing radiation!

Quote:
And yes, it is difficult to say "RF radiation is the main cause for the decline of bird/insect species" when there are other problems--pollution, pesticides, etc. But we could try the experiment Broomhall suggests: choose several or half a dozen places where we turn the cell towers off and see what happens. If, after a year, insect and resident bird life flourished in those areas, what would that tell you (assuming other factors remained more or less constant)?
Factors that don't remain constant. There is a climate change in progress, there is habitat destruction all over the place, etc.

Quote:
I haven't seen any studies concerning bird life around cell towers, either. I would be interested. Other than occasional raptors flying over them, I don't see birds near any cell tower. They seem to avoid areas where radiation is stronger. Do you? You haven't said.
Have you heard of Diego Garcia, the atoll in the Indian Ocean? It has an important military base there. The amount of RF energy there can be orders of magnitude above anything you can imagine.

Turns out, it's a RAMSAR site, wildlife is monitored and there seems to be quite a healthy wildlife population there (including birds!).

I have never observed any oddity with bird behavior around antennas. And, trust me, being a radio ham since I was a teenager I am a real antenna detector. I mean, I am used to notice antennas (and their types) since I was 13. If we both visit a city at the same time I will count 100 antennas for each one you notice.

Know what? Birds are usually a nuisance with *any* kind of antenna. Starlings can be a real pest even. And in central to southern Spain, which has large populations of many bird species, both cell towers and high voltage electrical grid towers are usally fitted with "anti-stork" protections.

Many mountains around here are full of different kinds of antennas. Mobile phone masts, microwave links, radio and television broadcasts, you name it. Everything. Is there any impact on bird populations? Doesn't seem so. I can show you places with lots of antennas and healthy populations of griffon vultures, rooks, etc.

In my street, even being a somewhat urban area, there are several cell towers. I have several WiFi networks both on 2.4 and 5 GHz. We have *lots* of sparrows and despite not being a garden rich area I see great tits and wagtails here.

Quote:
With regard to 5G, I know that the radiation is supposed to be weaker--and this is compensated for by the very large number of small cells that have, individually, less transmission power. It's not the physics that is at issue here--it is the biological effects of the frequencies used, and the effects of continued, long-term exposure. Physics cannot predict long-term biological consequences.
Quantum Physics is difficult to understant. Actually, it's so difficult that if someone claims to understand it you can be sure he/she is wrong :)

One of the counterintuitive aspects is that one of the mininum energy to cause an effect, which applies to the possibility (or not) of non ionizing radiation to achieve any effect.

Let me put an example. Imagine that you are in Cornwall and, for some reason, you get angry with some people in Iceland. So there you go, to the westernmost point in Cornwall and, in anger, you begin to throw stones at Iceland.

Will you do any damage to Iceland? Absolutely not, it's impossible. No matter how many stones you throw, none of them will reach Iceland. Exactly the same effect is observed at the quantum level. There is a minimum energy you need to achieve a certain effect. If you don't cross that threshold there will be no effect, no matter how hard you try.

Last edited by Borjam : Friday 15th December 2017 at 12:18.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 15th December 2017, 12:32   #249
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
I forgot: Birds can be such a nuisance to antenna installations, there is a healthy business selling bird repellents.

http://www.whirlybirdrepeller.com/ke...cation-towers/

This one is particularly amusing: (before someone jumps on my throat, I find it amusing only in the "cell towers scare birds away" context, obviously).

https://www.justanswer.com/law/7ph0k...ont-house.html

Quoted:



I want to sue the cell tower that's right in front of my house I mean less than 50 yards to front door! Plus there's a plague of vultures that lives on the tower I mean hundreds of filthy birds shitting shedding there disease infested feathers all over my yard and on top of that to try to get of all the birds they placed a connon yes a cannon to go off every night from 6:30pm to 10:00pm it's so loud and I suffer from PTSD so this whole situation is really bad and I can't find a lawer to help and I'm willing to pay a fee and the filing fee but its a small town I am thinking of filing it mysel. I was on the news with this story I have a petition and even doctors have signed it I know I will win. What do you think?

Last edited by Borjam : Friday 15th December 2017 at 13:02.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 15th December 2017, 13:14   #250
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 119
@ Borjam Can you explain to me why birds definitely avoid cell towers where I live? And in India, where there are many reports of cell towers driving birds away? Or on Mt. Nardi, where Broomhall found the same effect?

And yes, there is very definitely a debate going on, whether you are aware of it or not. Scientists from all over the world are finding biological effects at non-thermal levels. Even the most recent SCENIHR (EU) report on wireless communications technologies--a body which is hardly impartial given that the EU is actively pushing the Digital Agenda 2020--could not entirely ignore study findings of DNA breaks. Then the EU more or less buried the results of the public consultation--you can eventually find some of the comments, but not all by any means, and those comments have been "moved"--they aren't on the link provided on SCENIHR. If you're interested I can provide some links but the SCENIHR report alone is 288 pages.

I get the impression that you haven't read any (or many) of the studies, though I have provided PDFs or links to a great many on this thread. One, much earlier, was on the physics of pulsed EMR (in a reply to Henning). Warnke is a good introduction. Many of the studies seem to be done at 900 and 1800 MHz. Much debate centers on what radiation levels can be considered safe in terms of microwatts per square centimeter, with present recommendations considered much too high to be biologically safe. It's too much to summarize in a single paragraph.

Warnke points out that total RF exposure from multiple sources (not just cell towers and mass wireless communications) is having negative effects. Negative effects started appearing with radio. The proliferation of cell towers has, however, added a whole new dimension.

Got to run. As for climate change--another debated subject--that's for another time.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please help with a survey about birds and cell phone towers Purple Heron Conservation 15 Saturday 29th July 2017 19:43
SE U.S.A. Osprey nest in cell tower lashinala Birds Of Prey 20 Friday 13th May 2011 04:13
Amateur's question about birds and cooling tower scarlettudor Birds & Birding 1 Tuesday 1st June 2010 18:07
Erratic weather 'harms wildlife' (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 0 Saturday 27th December 2008 10:05
TV Tower Wires Kill 400 Birds in One Night birdeast Birds & Birding 32 Saturday 29th October 2005 08:10

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24220705 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:31.