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.

Cell tower radiation harms birds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 19th July 2018, 17:44   #901
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
While I don't often agree with PH...I'm going to have to go with..."um, no."

I am neither fiscally as well-off as my parents were in the 70s relative to the cost of living, nor do I feel as confident in my government or the environment. Nor is my health coverage as good for the money, nor is my retirement as secure.

Crime may or may not be actually down, but even if it is, it's still common enough where I don't feel safe; even if it's "safer" it's not "safer enough" to feel all Golden Age about it. At least not where I can afford to live.

People drive like morons and there are more of them. Only reason accident statistics are down is because the cars are safer and less people walk or ride bikes anywhere. Try being a regular pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcyclist in anything remotely (sub)urban if you don't believe me; it was alot safer 30+ years ago.

And frankly, what Trump might do at home or abroad really scares me way more than the Cold War ever did, no matter how much I kick the idea around in my head.

But...I do often envy people who think life is all hunky-dory.
Wow, what a spectacularly blinkered view! You personally, a middle-class American with a decent (I assume) job, may be worse off than your parents but 100s of millions worldwide are better off, largely as a result of modern technology (or at least with modern technology as a necessary/facilitating condition).

I don’t think anyone here thinks “life is all hunky-dory” but just that it’s better for most people than it used to be. Many of us also believe that amelioration of side effects/continuing problems is best realized by collective action by scientifically literate electorates, and that it’s to work along these lines that the energies of men of good will should be devoted. If you in your despair wish to opt out and cultivate your own garden that, of course, is both your right and none of my business. But it doesn’t have my respect.

Sci-fi, dystopian or or otherwise, the thinnest of thin gruel or so I’ve increasingly found it since late adolescence. I know nothing of Japanese comic books
__________________
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 19th July 2018 at 18:00.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 19th July 2018, 18:41   #902
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,395
Meh, I had a hugely long reply fugl, but I realized we've gone into threadjacking.

I also find myself beating my head against a familiar brick wall that just happens to have you standing in front of it being acerbic. I should know better.

I'll chalk this one between you and I up to "agree to disagree."

Though one thought: where is this educated electorate you speak of in the USA? Neither of the primary parties seem to have many of those any more. They exist, but not in large enough quantities to make a difference!
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 19th July 2018, 19:06   #903
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
. . .where is this educated electorate you speak of in the USA?
Mostly aspirational at this point but still something worth striving for.

Agree, we’ve run this into ground I think so time to turn to other things.

Re thread-jacking: threads evolve, you know, particularly long ones on contentious subjects.
__________________
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 : Friday 20th July 2018 at 06:58.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th July 2018, 09:14   #904
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 302
@ Kevin Good reply to Mono--most of the things I would have said myself except I would add that the environment is also in much poorer shape than ever before, with huge declines in species across the board, infrastructure projects gobbling farmland and forest, huge losses of tropical rain forest for such things as oil palm plantations, etc. Re Trump, the only thing I can say is that Hillary scared me a lot more than he does. Re sci-fi, it sounds as if you have seen a lot more than I have, and I have not had the pleasure of reading Japanese manga novels though I have heard they are excellent and really like Japanese literature generally. I think sci-fi as a genre is somewhat like dreams in literature: they always express the dreamer's hopes or fears. The reason dystopian future stories are "in" again is that they tap into subconscious fears we all have that technology is taking us the wrong way. Meddling or mutant monkeys, we are fiddling with a delicate, exquisitely balanced and finely-made mechanism called nature, and like children who take apart an intricate watch, we may not be able to put the pieces back together again.

@ all The results of the peer review of the NTP study have made the news: it found clear evidence that EMR causes cancer. Heart schwannomas and not brain tumors were the focus of the discussion. What I found most interesting in the Newsweek article, posted below, is that John Bucher, senior scientist of the NTP study, "now believes there is a mechanism by which cellphone radiation could cause cancer". If so it would be a non-thermal mechanism, which blows ICNIRP out of the water. This is what independent scientists have been saying for over twenty years.

Dr. Olle Johansson, now retired from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, is on record saying that he believes that cancer is NOT the most important effect of EMR, DNA damage and sterility are. However, we tend to use cancer as the only yardstick of harmful effects. If EMR is reclassified as Group 2A or 1, will they finally turn off the cell towers? The emphasis seems to be on the cell phones themselves, and whether they can make them safe (which I doubt). Yet the Group 2B classification refers to ALL forms of EMR, whatever the source, which includes the infrastructure. If that classification is uprated, that should also include the infrastructure.

The difference between the NTP study and the Ramazzini study is the the amount of EMR they blasted the rodents with. The NTP study used quite high doses of EMR (unrealistically high, maximum exposure levels) while the Ramazzini study used more real-life levels similar to what we all get from cell tower radiation. Yet the results of the studies were quite similar. It makes one wonder what effect one would get from a similarly-designed study using even lower levels of radiation: I suspect there is no safe level for whole-body, lifelong exposure to the frequencies used for wireless technologies. And we still want to go ahead with 5G?

Anyway, here are the links--all three articles are interesting, with the Guardian piece being the best if you only have time to read one.
https://www.newsweek.com/2018/07/27/...s-1024633.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...venient-truths
https://www.thriveglobal.com/stories...ults-and-teens
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th July 2018, 13:14   #905
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 302
An interesting twist to the climate change debate--cows (meat and dairy industries) are causing more greenhouse gases than the oil industry. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...gest-polluters

Also interesting, a study showing long-term exposure to microwave radiation (radar, mobile communications systems) promotes cancer growth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ncbi_mmode=std

And a very interesting piece which didn't make the mainstream but should have: the NIH (National Institutes of Health) says that 5 minutes on a cell phone can cause significant memory impairment: https://www.activistpost.com/2018/07...mpairment.html
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 20th July 2018, 13:36   #906
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
An interesting twist to the climate change debate--cows (meat and dairy industries) are causing more greenhouse gases than the oil industry. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...gest-polluters
This isn't much of a surprise, it's made mainstream news in one form or another multiple times over the years. It also makes the rounds in vegetarian circles, of course. I've even seen studies using quite sophisticated grids to measure the "output" of bovines. They are impressive gasbags.

However, that isn't going to stop me from being an omnivore or enjoying red meat.

If anything, it just circles back to overpopulation...
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th July 2018, 15:06   #907
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
. . . Re Trump, the only thing I can say is that Hillary scared me a lot more than he does. . .
Really? Why?
__________________
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 online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th July 2018, 15:29   #908
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Re Trump, the only thing I can say is that Hillary scared me a lot more than he does.
Hindsight aside, they both bothered me so much that I didn't vote for either...just couldn't. Both just horrible people, each in their own terrible way.

But even I will admit Hillary bothered me marginally less than Trump during the election. And now that we've had Trump around for a while, I admit Hillary's horrible would likely have been alot more tolerable than Trump's.

So like fugl, I have to ask...why did you find Hillary more scary?
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 20th July 2018, 19:32   #909
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Hindsight aside, they both bothered me so much that I didn't vote for either...just couldn't. Both just horrible people, each in their own terrible way.

But even I will admit Hillary bothered me marginally less than Trump during the election. And now that we've had Trump around for a while, I admit Hillary's horrible would likely have been alot more tolerable than Trump's.

So like fugl, I have to ask...why did you find Hillary more scary?
And I'd like to ask you why Hillary is a "horrible person," albeit in her own "terrible way." I'm not going to argue, just want to know.

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 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 21st July 2018, 12:56   #910
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 302
@ fugl, Kevin The simple answer? Clinton = corruption + war-mongering. Bernie Sanders should have had the nomination. What, by the way, has Trump done that is so horrible? He's sorted Kim Jong-Il, and will likely make peace with Putin. We do want peace, don't we? Or is choosing a president a matter of choosing which flag to fly over the battlefields? If you are talking about his environmental policies, I don't see where what he is doing is any different from his predecessors--he's just more blatant. The Paris climate agreement has no teeth and we all know it. Manufacturing goods at home instead of transporting them all over the world is probably more pro-environment than carbon-trading (another scam).

You two might like these pieces, which I just found subsequent to writing the above: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...s-ground-putin
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ile-propaganda

Last edited by Purple Heron : Saturday 21st July 2018 at 13:15.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 21st July 2018, 21:07   #911
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,243
Sure, and the US military is not pleased that he didn't ask Congress to increase the 2018 military budget as much as he promised during his campaign, only a measly 3.2%. Or, did he really mean decrease rather than increase? And I naively thought he insisted/demanded that the Europeans increase their military spending, oops decrease their spending? Do you think he'll veto a budget that goes over the 3.2% he asked for? Really? I'm starting to visualize him already as a closet peacenik.

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

Last edited by elkcub : Yesterday at 01:21.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 08:43   #912
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 302
@Ed I don't know what Trump's up to, but the Europeans are furious that he's making them cough up for NATO. Since the Greeks are already spending what they committed to, I don't see why everyone else shouldn't be, if they want NATO. A European defense force would be a joke. All I can say is, I hope he is a closet peacenik. I am living with the refugees from American-backed wars, and they were emphatically NOT humanitarian interventions but about who gets to control oil, pipelines and energy infrastructure. Most Syrians, for instance, would vote for Assad if there were elections--but that doesn't suit the current narrative. Until Trump's election, previous administrations (including the Clintons) have been owned by the Saudis, with the resulting Middle Eastern turmoil that is the mess we have now. I cannot convey the pity and sorrow I have felt over the unnecessary destruction of Syria and Iraq--all those centuries of culture crushed under bombs and bulldozers. I remember the 2,000 year old market at Aleppo, Palmyra under winter sun, and grieve that these places no longer exist. I would very much like to see peace return to these countries, though I don't know if that will happen anytime soon. With mainstream media coverage so very biased against Trump, it is hard to get at the truth of anything; we can only wait and see how things turn out. However the current narrative is fraying around the edges, and I think he is much brighter than the media portray him.

@ all A good article about EMR as a pollutant. It discusses a subject that I have not explicitly mentioned before, which is the ability of EMR to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. I have read elsewhere that Wi-Fi begins to penetrate the blood brain barrier in as little as ten minutes (this article says two hours for mobile phone radiation). The implications for those who live with Wi-Fi or are forced to work in a Wi-Fi environment are horrendous; yet these days there are virtually no places where one can go out that do not have Wi-Fi. We spent yesterday morning at a cafe in a mountain village--big shady plane tree, very bucolic, but Wi-Fi in all three cafes in the square. There were sparrows and martins in the back streets of the village, but not a single bird in the square, nor have there been any birds there for at least the past couple of years.

Here's the link: http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kin...lution-crisis/
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:45   #913
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,644
Arrow

Diana,

This article seems to make the same conflations that others you have linked to do - namely that thermal effects are the reason for cell phone radiation being classified "as a 2B ‘possible’ human carcinogen" (of particular relevance to children with their smaller volumes) , and yet it is thrown in to a "cocktail" of possible or potential effects as proof of those disparate issues or mechanisms. I note that the author - "Annelie Fitzgerald PhD (LMH, 1990) teaches English Literature and Language at the University of Toulouse (Jean-Jaurès)".

This was the same issue that the Australian ABC TV science reporting show "Catalyst - Wi-Fried" episode was panned for.

I wonder if going to sleep with a hot water bottle and the heating caused to the body from that is also deleterious to health?


Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 14:02   #914
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 302
@ Chosun Juan If you take the ICNIRP view that the only possible mechanism for harm is tissue heating, effects on health/cellular structures is only possible if temperatures are raised (easier with children since they are smaller and even ICNIRP admits that all things wireless emit radiation).

However, the 2B classification has nothing to do with ICNIRP--the committee looked at cancer data and concluded that EMR in all forms was a possible carcinogen. They did not attribute this to any mechanism, thermal or non-thermal. All they were really saying is that there seemed to be a sufficient link to justify the 2B classification.

Non-thermal mechanism of harm have been proposed and elucidated, and as Buchner commented with regard to the NTP study for which he was lead scientist, there must be a non-thermal mechanism. If there weren't, the rats wouldn't have got cancer--their tissues were not allowed to overheat. The Ramazzini study, which got similar results, used a much lower dose of radiation. So accept for the sake of argument that at least one non-thermal mechanism of harm from EMR does in fact exist.

A non-thermal mechanism of harm does not necessarily cause cancer. Not everyone is genetically predisposed to get cancer. But that same mechanism may cause or precipitate or worsen other conditions that one is genetically predisposed to get: thyroid problems, Alzherimer's, or any of a host of other conditions/diseases. If the organism is stressed, the damage to it may be expressed in a variety of ways depending on one's genetic make-up as well aas other eternal factors. We do ourselves a great disservice by insisting that the only standard by which we measure whether something is dangerous to health is whether it causes cancer.

We do know that penetrating the blood-brain barrier, which EMR can do, leads to disease. I'm not a doctor and I honestly don't know which mechanism causes EMR to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, but it does penetrate it. Generally speaking, EMR causes oxidative stress, which produces free radicals, which in turn leads to disease (From Warnke: "Shifting the redox balance towards oxidation may now result in cell damage. Oxidation may, for instance, damage unsaturated fatty acids, proteins and DNA, but particularly also the membrane--with serious consequences for heredity, energy creation and immune response. Expposure to electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields disrupts the redox balance through oxidant/nitrosative stress.")

None of this has anything to do with ICNIRP, which continues to this day to recognize only a thermal mechanism of harm. But ICNIRP is behind the times, and is fighting a rearguard action for credibility. I wonder if Buchner's statement (and the results of the NTP peer review) will make ICNIRP revise its assessment of non-ionizing radiation and admit there is at least one non-thermal mechanism of harm.

I hope this clarifies the issue.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:33   #915
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,243
On post #865 I asked for input from anyone who had sufficient background to evaluate the 2009 article by Bank and Goodman, wherein they concluded:

Quote:
... EMF research has shown that the thermal standard used
by agencies to measure safety is at best incomplete, and
in reality not protective of potentially harmful non-thermal
fields. Non-thermal ELF mechanisms are as effective as thermal
RF mechanisms in stimulating the stress response and
other protective mechanisms. The current safety standard
based on thermal response is fundamentally flawed, and not
protective.

Finally, since both ELF and RF activate the same biology,
simultaneous exposure to both is probably additive and total
EMF exposure is important. Safety standards must consider
total EMF exposure and not separate standards for ELF and
RF ranges.
It turns out that the paper was only the first of several included in a 2009 special edition of the journal Pathophysiology, which is attached below.

As long as these articles remain unrefuted, I'd have to agree with Diana —although the odds for caution being applied to non-thermal radiation are only slightly better than Trump turning out to be a closet peacenik.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Pathophysiology, EMF Radiation Studies.pdf (2.81 MB, 0 views)
__________________
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 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

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 18:43
SE U.S.A. Osprey nest in cell tower lashinala Birds Of Prey 20 Friday 13th May 2011 03:13
Amateur's question about birds and cooling tower scarlettudor Birds & Birding 1 Tuesday 1st June 2010 17:07
Erratic weather 'harms wildlife' (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 0 Saturday 27th December 2008 09:05
TV Tower Wires Kill 400 Birds in One Night birdeast Birds & Birding 32 Saturday 29th October 2005 07:10

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.16368604 seconds with 27 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02.