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 Tuesday 10th October 2017, 13:24   #51
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning. So you see nothing wrong in setting the fox to guard the hen house?
If you're interested in just who the fox is in this tale, you could simply read up on math.

If you don't know what a smoking gun looks like, it's not likely you're going to make a great detective.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 10th October 2017, 14:36   #52
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,494
The list of birds that you do encounter every day has me wondering, if the rise of 4G towers isn't the cause of the bird decline, but rather a symptom of increased human activity in the area.

These are all species that do well in heavily disturbed human-modified environments. if 4G was adversely affecting bird reproduction, and not human disturbance, I would hypothesize that these species should be affected also. After all, that is a phylogenetically diverse group of birds and if cell phone signals somehow adversely impact bird biology, I don't see why these species would be resistant versus others. Rather I would expect a pattern where all bird numbers were in decline.
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 12:44   #53
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
@ Mysticete Interesting point, but I can say definitely that there is no increase of human activity in the affected areas--rather the reverse. These days there is less farming generally, less olive farming, no hunting, no building at all, many buildings that used to be inhabited now abandoned, no new roads, no new lights--in many ways the island is becoming abandoned as the youngsters leave--in fact whole families are leaving on account of lack of work. The population was much larger years ago. Even the tourism boom affects us very little in this area, although it's the island capital. There are no new hotels for some time now (and anyway they are all in town or on its fringes) so they're not taking up land that was wild. Yet despite a decrease of human activity, many species that were very common (chaffinches, sardinian warblers, swallows. chiffchaffs, partridges to name just a few) are gone. I mean gone--I haven't seen a chiffchaff for over a year, nor a swallow, nor a chaffinch. And I am actively looking for them. Even gull numbers are falling.

So I really do think that cell towers are affecting reproduction. I really can't find any other cause that explains what we are experiencing here Why aren't they all declining? Two possibilities here: 1) they are all declining but some species are declining a lot more rapidly than others and I am noticing the ones that are left and 2) not all species react the same way. There is some evidence for the latter: see the article on great tits at the end of the paper I wrote (posted above) which shows that clutch size and egg volume in great tits nesting under power lines. These reasons are not mutually contradictory: some birds may merely be declining less rapidly due to an innate resistance.
Purple Heron is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 12:45   #54
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
Alfonso Balmori articles

@ Hauksen I don't know where you got the Balmori article with the figure you showed me to prove that he (and I) didn't know anything about standard deviations. It's not in his original article. I attach a PDF which contains (among a number of other things) a photocopy of his article as it appeared in the journal and the figure you mention is not in it.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Articles by Alfonso Balmori.pdf (5.68 MB, 23 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Wednesday 11th October 2017 at 12:50.
Purple Heron is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 13:07   #55
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
So I really do think that cell towers are affecting reproduction. I really can't find any other cause that explains what we are experiencing here.
So what is special about Samos cell towers or Samos birds? Why is it not replicated at other sites with equal or greater 4G coverage?
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 13:21   #56
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 685
If land is abandoned and continues to be abandoned does the changing habitat have any impact on the species present, or not present?
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 13:35   #57
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,141
I'll try one more time.

First of all you have reversed the 'scientific process', in that you experienced something (but didn't amass any before/after statistically-significant (this last bit is important!) empirical population and breeding data), made a personal run-through of possible causes, latched on to one and then went to get any evidence to support that conjecture. As we have all said unfortunately one down side of the Internet is that it is possible to find seemingly reputable sources that 'support' just about anything.

The failure to follow due process in such cases is why it seems many in the general populace have 'had enough of experts'....... think about that for a moment.... how sad is that.

Anyway back to your concern. To garner support for your issue (whatever it turns out to be) you will need to do the following (as a minimum)

1. Get stat-sig data on bird populations over time (at least the last 10 years I'd say) from wherever you can get it, ideally broken down by species or broad group, and breeding success if available
2. Get similar data for surrounding areas (nearby islands/mainland)
3. List ALL changes that have taken place in that time, and ALL possible causes of any changes observed
4. (dispassionately) Analyse the data, and have at least two other people do it as well (without any discussion before or during)
5. Gather, share and discuss.

Some things that might arise ...
1. The birds you are missing are actually still there, just you're not looking in the places they're at.
2. The birds you are missing have gone, but just moved to another place nearby - islands or the mainland (birds do this, for reasons we often have not discovered - I have a local example if you want)
3. The birds are missing and have not gone anywhere nearby, but they have done this before, and then returned several years later, again for reasons we have not yet discovered
4. The birds are missing, have not gone anywhere nearby, and this has never happened before - so an event seems to have occurred - list causes (disease, 4G towers, changes in activity, hunting, changes in food supply etc), and THEN start to try to link one to the other.
5. For each potential cause find a similar location with the change and see if similar changes in bird population/breeding have occurred, if it hasn't then that isn't your cause.
6. Repeat until exhausted or a link can be established......

Ask yourself have you followed this process even remotely?

That's why you're not getting any traction from people drilled into this sort of process.

As I said before I'm not saying you're wrong.

Mick

Last edited by MTem : Wednesday 11th October 2017 at 13:37.
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 11th October 2017, 14:26   #58
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Hauksen I don't know where you got the Balmori article with the figure you showed me to prove that he (and I) didn't know anything about standard deviations. It's not in his original article. I attach a PDF which contains (among a number of other things) a photocopy of his article as it appeared in the journal and the figure you mention is not in it.
You can simply calculate the standard deviations from the data given on page 53 of your PDF to check the graph.

According to my calculations, the graph is a fair representation of the data in your version of the article.

Regards,

Henning

Last edited by Hauksen : Wednesday 11th October 2017 at 19:51.
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 09:54   #59
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
@ Jos I don't know. I think it's all of Greece, at least the parts I've been to. On Samos, military wireless may be a factor. If so, they are probably using something equivalent to 5G. I told you before, I don't think it's just Greece. See the quote from "Finding Birds in Turkey" in my paper. Are towers in some countries emitting more radiation than others? Possible but I can't confirm. However, if it turns out that towers here are emitting more radiation, hence the problems, doesn't it show that the radiation is in fact dangerous?

@ Gordon. Offhand, I would have thought this was better for birds--fewer pesticides for one. Some species might increase--those that do poorly around human activity. What I wouldn't expect is for virtually all the birds to vanish, as is happening here.

@ Mick. Appreciate the advice, though I may not be able to get the kind of information that would be required to do a proper scientific study. Which is why I have been contacting HOS, Greek ministry of environment, ornithologists here to see if I can get them interested at looking into this. Which is really what I set out to do--raise a concern and see if I can get people who are properly qualified to do what I can't.

As for the internet, I recognize its limitations. I did read a lot of stuff both pro and con. I also wrote to and called a number of the scientists whose work I found and discussed things with them. Some of the articles I cite were sent to me by them. I did try writing to a birding group on Lesvos to ask if they are experiencing similar problems, but no reply.

Your list of causes...I see your point. I think I can exclude the first. As for the others--I've lived on this island on and off for 55 years. In my experience there hasn't been anything like this--on this scale--before. Talking to locals, I'm hearing much the same--no one has ever seen disappearances on this scale. I recognize that's anecdotal, but it's indicative.

Given the limitations of what I am able to do personally in terms of proper science, what else can I do to raise this issue with people who are able to study it scientifically? Any advice gratefully received.

Went for a six mile walk up the mountain with the cell towers yesterday. One sparrowhawk in the distance, heard one great tit, saw 2 crows. Three or four years ago I would have seen several flocks of partridges, cuckoos, wood pigeons, chaffinches, sardinian warblers, chiffchaffs, robins, blackbirds, tits, jays, ravens, eleanora's falcons, kestrels, short-toed eagles, buzzards, stonechats and more--not necessarily all at once, but many of them on one walk and all were common here. Can they all have gone somewhere else? Hard to believe.
Purple Heron is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 11:45   #60
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
If you take the time to look into this subject, I think you will find that you are wrong about mobile phone frequencies. It does make sense, and they do cause harm to living organisms.
No, I'm not.

When mobile phones begun to get widespread adoption, the analog systems worked on a frequency band around 900 MHz. Guess what? Look at the list of UHF TV broadcast transmission channels and, voila, there are channels in the 850 - 950 MHz range.

I hope you won't suggest that 951 MHz is not dangerous but 973.3675476 MHz is!

Quote:
The Indian study and the appeal were sent to me by Dr Alfonso Balmori, one of the signatories to the appeal. He is a scientist, and has been working on this subject for a long time; he has written a number of excellent studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation from wireless on birds and wildlife. Since you are also in Spain, maybe you should look him up and talk to him about this. The Manville study was sent to me by Dr. Andres of USF&W--he is also a scientist and I think it's fair to assume he understands the subject.
I found an article "Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation" which is an entirely different matter to the usual "hey, it makes DNA mutate" lore.

However, there are lots of misconceptions regarding this subject. Now that everyone carries at least one cell phone, radio seems to be much more ubiquitous, it's much more noticeable.

Last month we went to the roof at the university (no, not claiming auctoritas, I am an amateur radio operator and I was helping a friend there) in order to install a reception antenna for some student experiments. The preamplifier was unusable. Do you know what kind of "electromagnetic smog" was affecting it?

Good old FM broadcast, despite the fact that the nearest transmitter was more or less 10 Km away from us. For the technically inclined, a spectrum analyzer received signal levels in the order of -20 dBm, which is crazy.

So, I can accept that radio transmissions can somewhat affect migratory birds (after all they seem to use the planet's magnetic field) but I find it hard to believe that high frequencies almost in the microwave range (mobile phones can work from 800 MHz to 2.6 GHz) can do anything significant.

There are two general ways in which an unwanted signal can disrupt reception. It can be a problem because of a frequency overlap (for example, a microwave motion detector operating on the 2.4 GHz band making several WiFi channels unusable due to simple masking) or it can be overload if the interfering signal is strong enough. However, receiving high frequencies is very tricky. Our nervous system has a very low bandwidth. We have specialized receptors for really high frequency electromagnetic radiation (light) actually: in our retinas.


Transmission powers are very low. Mobile phone base stations have maximum transmission powers of about 50 W. Moreover, their directional antennae direct energy to the ground in a low angle.

And migratory birds tend to fly high, which makes the effect much less likely. However, FM and other broadcasts transmit with powers in the low KW range (that is, 1000's of watts) and so even at a heigth of 5000 - 10000 m signals will be strong.

Quote:
You are right in one regard: radio, television and radar also send out electromagnetic signals, and of these, radar is the most damaging. There have been studies showing, for instance, that radar signals damage trees in a number of ways, and inhibit growth of seedlings.
Radars: Radars are usually very powerful. Radar power is generaly measured in KW, and powers around 40 KW are not unusual even for civil applications such as merchant shipping. So I could believe that some thermal effects can be a problem for nearby organisms. However, has it really been measured?

Quote:
The problem with modern wireless communications is the signals are ubiquitous--there are so many cell towers that it is becoming very difficult to find places that don't have signal. These days, just about every hill has a cell tower or repeater (in many cases, more than one). Birds can't go somewhere else to escape these signals; they live with them, migrate with them, breed with them. It is hardly surprising that these signals are affecting migration, behavior, reproduction and health. The only surprising thing is that these well-documented effects are being ignored even by birding organizations whose mission is to protect birds and their habitats. Electromagnetic radiation from cell towers causes habitat destruction just as much as pesticides, draining wetlands and cutting down forests.
"Electromagnetic smog" has probably decreased with the death of analog television. Unless I am very wrong, transmission powers have gone down.

And, curiously, it's always the evil mobile phone. Like radio transmissions didn't exist before the 1990's.

Quote:
If you want to find more studies about the effects of electromagnetic radiation, look st the site www.emf-portal . It has a huge database of studies and you can draw your own conclusions. Like you, I did not believe that cell towers and wireless devices could cause so much harm. I changed my mind when I realized that birds were disappearing after local cell towers were upgraded to 4G. Before you object, I was able to exclude other causes for the birds' disappearance such as pesticides, development, hunting etc.
I find this even harder to believe (4G connection to bird population decrease) because of one reason. The old "2G" GSM techniques were real rubbish, radiating interference all over the place. Modern digital transmissions (WiFi, 3G, 4G) employ high density codes with much less spurious transmissions. Which brings a question: assuming that birds can really be more disrupted by 4G transmissions, do they have some kind of tuned circuit sensitive to the 800 MHz - 2600 MHz frequency band? How can it be worse with 4G than with 3G? I find it hard to believe that.

Remember that correlation doesn't mean causation. We have an ongoing process of habitat destruction and insect populations are declining due to several factors which I think are fairly well known.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 11:59   #61
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Hauksen I don't know where you got the Balmori article with the figure you showed me to prove that he (and I) didn't know anything about standard deviations. It's not in his original article. I attach a PDF which contains (among a number of other things) a photocopy of his article as it appeared in the journal and the figure you mention is not in it.
The first study ("Mobile Phone Mast Effects on Common Frog Tadpoles..." , I'm afraid, is flawed.

The author cites information about the transmission frequencies of the
Spanish cell operators (Vodafone and Amena-Orange), only to say that
"However, as we shall see later, in reality there exist more frequencies than this,
which do not correspond with the frequencies contained in the database
official".

Which is nonsense (apart from the fact that he's writing some kind of Spanglish). Of course there exist more frequencies than those, the electromagnetic spectrum is really vast.

But the key flaw is: He wants to measure the effect of cell phone towers. Good. He isn't measuring the
effect of cell phone towers, and he admits it without knowing, because there is a very strong signal in
the VHF portion of the spectrum used by, guess what? FM broadcasts!

Also, I don't know which "decibels" are those on table 1. Decibels must be related to something. Could
be dBm, db... but not "dB".

This guy doesn't seem to understand that the signals registered on his spectrum analyzer are not just
the transmissions from the cell towers, but some can be originated at quite a distance. And those
distant signals are not a recent invention.

So, how come?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 13:28   #62
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
This guy doesn't seem to understand that the signals registered on his spectrum analyzer are not just
the transmissions from the cell towers, but some can be originated at quite a distance. And those
distant signals are not a recent invention.

So, how come?
For the White Storks study, Balmori used a DIY detector from the Italian magazine Nuova Elettronica, which has been discontinued and is available online. Here is the issue describing the detector in great detail:

http://www.robertobizzarri.net/downl...lettronica.pdf

Unfortunately, I don't read Italian, but the article actually addresses electrosmog and also shows some illustrations of the emission characteristics of cellphone antennas.

Balmori did, for practical reasons, not actually measure exposure of the nesting sites, but some conventiently accessible location in the vicinity, which of course is questionable. He also did not measure exposure dosage, as required by the WHO, but momentary values ... which of course fluctuate with cellphone grid load.

"Keeping in mind the inaccessibility of the nests, the measurements were made in their vacinity [sic] under similar conditions, recording the reproducible values obtained when directing the antenna of the device toward the cellsite antenna in line of sight."

It's worth noting that this implies that were irreproducible values which were not recorded, and which remain unexplained by the study.

I don't think Balmori mentions calibrating his detector, and he states the V/m values without specifying the error margin. (Which doesn't matter since he groups the nests not by exposure, but by distance to the nearest antenna - a value which he then fails to list.)

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 13:32   #63
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
@ Borjam I'm sure you're right about a lot of this. Many people complained about radio signals as far back as the 1930s, and I have talked to older people who tell me they saw declines in bird populations after earlier radio and TV antennas went up. So partly, I think, it's all cumulative. Personally, I have seen a huge reduction in bird numbers where I live since 4G came in, but I can't explain why it should be that much worse--it just seems to be the case. Since the invention of optic fibre, it seems to me we could use that instead of wireless signals of any kind for radio, TV, internet and do without the mobile technology, a lot of which is unessential.

With regard to the Balmori tadpole study, you don't seem to reject his conclusion that RF radiation killed the tadpoles--you're just disputing which kind. If we know that man-made radiation is having a profoundly negative effect on nature, don't we have to decide whether we want our toys at the expense of nature, or whether we can't live without the birds, insects, amphibians and all the creatures RF radiation of any sort affects?
Purple Heron is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 15:15   #64
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam I'm sure you're right about a lot of this. Many people complained about radio signals as far back as the 1930s, and I have talked to older people who tell me they saw declines in bird populations after earlier radio and TV antennas went up. So partly, I think, it's all cumulative.
Your a priori conclusion is that it must be radio transmissions. The growth of urban areas and the decline of insect populations or the decreasing availability of nesting material is not related of course.

Quote:
Personally, I have seen a huge reduction in bird numbers where I live since 4G came in, but I can't explain why it should be that much worse--it just seems to be the case. Since the invention of optic fibre, it seems to me we could use that instead of wireless signals of any kind for radio, TV, internet and do without the mobile technology, a lot of which is unessential.
Even though


Quote:
With regard to the Balmori tadpole study, you don't seem to reject his conclusion that RF radiation killed the tadpoles--you're just disputing which kind. If we know that man-made radiation is having a profoundly negative effect on nature, don't we have to decide whether we want our toys at the expense of nature, or whether we can't live without the birds, insects, amphibians and all the creatures RF radiation of any sort affects?
I'm not accepting anything. Someone who doesn't understand the matter at all pretends to make a meaningful experiment. He can't even write "dB" properly.

What about habitat destruction? Do you expect insect densities to skyrocket so that you can keep a constant population of predators and insects in a fraction of the habitat surface?

You can also correlate the decrease of bird populations in Spain to the horrible fad of "reggaeton" music. Maybe the FM broadcasts of this hideous "music" exhibit some strange pattern that damages cells by some kind of resonance?

Meanwhile, follow the money. Right, there is a telecommunications industry that wants to protect a business (I work for an ISP, our business is based mostly on fibre networks) but we are not a cell phone operator.

Meanwhile, look at so many foundations, associations, offering advice on "electrosmog" only to feature special shielded underwear, drapes, paints, etc, at quite hefty prices.

It's like the homeopathetic clowns claiming that big pharma are duping us with their high prices, all that while at the same time selling their "remedies" at many times the price of a latest generation antibiotic.

There's also a tendency to mix up everything when speaking about non ionzing electromagnetic radiation. A friend told me that during his military duty he had to service a huge radar a couple of times and he was required to wear an apron made in a special fabric containing lead.

I had to explain him that the apron was required because some vacuum tubes have the nasty habit of generating X-ray, which indeed is ionizing and dangerous. But he didn't stop him from saying that "well, radar must be nasty
because I had to wear that apron".
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 15:21   #65
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
Unfortunately, I don't read Italian, but the article actually addresses electrosmog and also shows some illustrations of the emission characteristics of cellphone antennas.

(...)

I don't think Balmori mentions calibrating his detector, and he states the V/m values without specifying the error margin. (Which doesn't matter since he groups the nests not by exposure, but by distance to the nearest antenna - a value which he then fails to list.)
Indeed. I didn't point out all of the flaws, just the most egregious one (in my opinion).

I have nothing against a diy detector as long as you have calibrated it in some way, which it seems he didn't.

My -20 dBm figure for the FM broadcasts is, for example, based on an uncalibrated spectrum analyzer (RF Explorer) with a cheap antenna which wasn't even tuned to that band (tuned to 144-146 MHz actually). That said, even with a +-10 dBm error margin (which is huge) the recorder value was still enormous.

If you want to measure the effect of cell phone towers it's not that hard. Use an isolated, anechoic chamber with a modeled cell phone tower. It can be a RF generator and an antenna or, if you think 4G is worse, a SDR, small amplifier, antenna and of course the control system for it.

But, on a roof? Come on! :)
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 15:50   #66
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
I have nothing against a diy detector as long as you have calibrated it in some way, which it seems he didn't.
I fully agree. Nuova Elettronica seems to be quite a competent magazine, as far as my first impression without even understanding the language can serve as indication :-)

Here's a nice educational DIY toy ... unfortunately, the documentation seems to be all in German:

http://www.elektronik-labor.de/Lernp...ektrosmog.html

Field strength indication is just by matter of two LEDs, no idea if it even could be calibrated. Still, I'm sure it can provide some useful hands-on experience with electronics.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 19:14   #67
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
I fully agree. Nuova Elettronica seems to be quite a competent magazine, as far as my first impression without even understanding the language can serve as indication :-)
That magazine was published in Spain in the 80's and I remember they had some substantial projects such a Meteosat receiver. Nowadays it's very easy but at that time it was quite complex.

That said, calibrating DIY stuff for high frequencies (UHF and up) is really complicated. This is a dummy load I built from a kit the other day. Very easy to
get adequate performance at 100 MHz (VHF) but with the increased frequency it gets challenging.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 20.46.05.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	66.3 KB
ID:	642803  Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 20.48.05.png
Views:	8
Size:	68.3 KB
ID:	642804  
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 20:00   #68
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,337
Borjam and Hauksen,
Thank you for your lucid explanations of the elementary aspects of non-ionising radiation and energy density - it saved me digging out my old notes (which also covered ionising radiation from radioactive sources employed in non-destructive testing).
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 10:08   #69
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
With regard to the Balmori tadpole study, you don't seem to reject his conclusion that RF radiation killed the tadpoles--you're just disputing which kind.
Anything could have killed the tadpoles ... Balmori ran this experiments exactly once, with one tank of tadpoles.

He could have easily made a single mistake contaminating the water with bacteriae that spread to all tadpoles in his tank.

From the WHO document above, here is a statement of the requirements for studies:

"Quality of reporting:

In general, publications should include a clear statement of objectives and hypotheses, a description of the exposure methods, experimental design and statistical analysis, and a detailed description of the biological systems and the experimental procedures."

Instead of a "detailed description", Balmori delivers virtually no details at all. He fails to mention even the most basic factors affecting tadpole survival, such as type of food or water temperature.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 10:23   #70
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
That said, calibrating DIY stuff for high frequencies (UHF and up) is really complicated. This is a dummy load I built from a kit the other day. Very easy to
get adequate performance at 100 MHz (VHF) but with the increased frequency it gets challenging.
I wasn't aware of Smith charts before, but hey, they are neat! :-) Not that I have much of a clue what I'm looking at there ... [1] is the optimum, [2] and [3] are local minima within the adjacent higher/lower range of frequencies?

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 10:37   #71
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
@ Borjam, Hauksen I understand your objections to the Balmori articles. And yes, there is a huge amount of rubbish--quite a big industry--in all these so-called "shielding" devices which are undoubtedly taking advantage of the gullible. Also that these handheld meters can only measure a reading of one moment, which does not equal total exposure (even when properly calibrated). I conclude from that that environmental exposure over time is hard to measure accurately,so these devices are of limited use. Can I ask, what about some of the other studies finding harm to birds from RF fields/EMR? And what if birds are in fact affected at very low exposures, that would be insignificant to human beings? I mean at non-thermal levels--I am not confusing the two.

Obviously there are huge problems of habitat destruction as human populations grow and take up ever more space, with, as you say, unavailability of food, nesting materials and so on. But on Samos, and quite a lot of the birding sites in northern Greece, especially where there are large areas of forest or scrub, that does not apply. Compared to parts of Northern Europe, Greece has a lot of wild spaces with very little human activity. There are enormous problems with wetland conservation (the battle to preserve the Evros is being lost slowly, I think, partly due to encroachment from farming and partly all the pesticides, with spraying for mosquitoes way up since they started getting cases of West Nile virus). I'm not disputing any of the very real problems that affect birds, or minimising their importance. But I remain puzzled at what else could be affecting birds here when nesting materials are abundant, and there is little (almost none in some areas) human activity. Except, of course, RF signals, both civilian and military.
Purple Heron is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 11:43   #72
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Can I ask, what about some of the other studies finding harm to birds from RF fields/EMR? And what if birds are in fact affected at very low exposures, that would be insignificant to human beings? I mean at non-thermal levels--I am not confusing the two.
All of the "conclusions" that RF affects animals (incuding humans) are based on a false assumption: that RF "pollution" is a new phenomenon that begun in the 90's or so.

That couldn't be a more stupid assumption, radio is not new. Awareness about radio for the common citizen got somewhat higher when common citizens got to carry a pocket radio transmitter. Before mobile phones became popular, common citizens owned receivers, but very rarely transmitters.

So, for many people, it's like radio transmission was suddenly invented in the 90s-

Quote:
Obviously there are huge problems of habitat destruction as human populations grow and take up ever more space, with, as you say, unavailability of food, nesting materials and so on. But on Samos, and quite a lot of the birding sites in northern Greece, especially where there are large areas of forest or scrub, that does not apply. Compared to parts of Northern Europe, Greece has a lot of wild spaces with very little human activity.
Spain is largest and there are enormous areas with very little human population. The decrease in populations and biodiversity is a really complex issue with multiple factors. And remember that, for example, the decrease in migratory birds in Samos can be originated far away.

Quote:
There are enormous problems with wetland conservation (the battle to preserve the Evros is being lost slowly, I think, partly due to encroachment from farming and partly all the pesticides, with spraying for mosquitoes way up since they started getting cases of West Nile virus). I'm not disputing any of the very real problems that affect birds, or minimising their importance. But I remain puzzled at what else could be affecting birds here when nesting materials are abundant, and there is little (almost none in some areas) human activity. Except, of course, RF signals, both civilian and military.
As you say, there are enough real effects that can successfully explain what you are seeing. Just imagine the impact of a decrease in insect population during the breeding season of sparrows.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 11:47   #73
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
Hi,
I wasn't aware of Smith charts before, but hey, they are neat! :-) Not that I have much of a clue what I'm looking at there ... [1] is the optimum, [2] and [3] are local minima within the adjacent higher/lower range of frequencies?

The Smith chart can tell you how close your impedance match is and, crucially, wether the mismatch is inductive or capacitive so that you can build a matching network.

In this case I chose the three markers more or less randomly. I was curious about performance at around 100 MHz, 10 and 50.

The circuit is a low power dummy load used to align transceivers without transmitting anything (so that nobody hears your curses )
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 13th October 2017, 19:01   #74
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 236
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Can I ask, what about some of the other studies finding harm to birds from RF fields/EMR?
Here the emf-portal.org search results for keyword "birds" and the frequency range "Mobile communications":

https://www.emf-portal.org/en/articl...D=1&timeSpan=0

From the search results ... a link to a meta study surveying 113 studies on the topic:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...334?via%3Dihub

Most interesting bit from the abstract:

"However, a lack of standardisation and a limited number of observations limit the possibility of generalising results from an organism to an ecosystem level. We propose in future studies to conduct more repetitions of observations and explicitly use the available standards for reporting RF-EMF relevant physical parameters in both laboratory and field studies."

In less carefully minced words ... meaningless results, poor statistical basis, not up to the established professional standards.

Also from the search result ... this study was cited by Manville's "Memo":

https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/14674

Note that in the abstact, the authors already state:

"Nevertheless, the data should be considered as preliminary results because sampling locations were each visited only once, such that counts of the number of house sparrow males and measurements of electric field strength are subjected to some variation and estimation error."

Manville claims in his memo that "this memo very briefly summarizes some of the major studies" ... and goes on to cite Balmori's White Stork study as well as the Everaert/Bauwens House Sparrow study.

If, looking back on decades of research, Manville considers these two studies to be among the major highlights that are best suited to support his case, the conclusion seems hard to avoid that his case must be depressingly weak.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 14th October 2017, 13:46   #75
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 118
I know you are all very skeptical that cell tower radiation affects birds. However, I have just learned of a recent study that associates a drop in insect numbers on the islands of the eastern Aegean with cell tower radiation. I intend to talk to the author and will post the study or a link when I get a copy. Falling insect populations obviously affect birds, but this tends to confirm my view that it is also affecting bird populations here.
Purple Heron is online now  
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}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.21569204 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:08.