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 Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:07   #651
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Don't forget your binoculars....never forget your binoculars!
Now that we can all agree on!
__________________
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 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:22   #652
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Don't forget your binoculars....never forget your binoculars!
dashit all, left them on top of the fridge when getting the extra tinfoil roll! i was going to head for the hills but i think i need to google for nearby caves ...
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:37   #653
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Because the benefits are tremendous. The world has already changed and tons of new technologies require something that's better than the halfway house of 4G. The aim with 5G is to create a standard, global infrastructure that is finally fit for purpose, hence the idea to make it satellite based.
Note that the deployment of 5G will offer some interesting advantages.

First: in densely populated areas it's not possible at all to provide a decent service with satellites. Satellites are a good last resort for those cases when it's not possible/practical to deploy wired connections (either copper or fiber).

Second: In densely populated areas it will use a mix of different frequencies with different properties. The most interesting advance is the usage of very high frequencies around the 60 GHz band (a wavelength of just 5 mm).

(There is an excellent discussion on the advantages and tradeoffs of terrestrial and satellite links on "How the World Was One: Beyond the Global Village" by Arthur C Clarke. It contains a very good historical account on the matter and it is a great reading)

Milimetre bands have a lot of advantages:

- First: It can be based on very small cells (you could call them microcells or even femtocells), so you can reuse the same frequency in two parallel streets. That means you need a much lower transmission power.

- Second: The very small wavelength allows for ridiculously small antennas. That means that it's possible to apply advanced antenna techniques such as beamforming. Bemaforming allows radiation to be largely beamed to the intended target so that "innocent bystanders" get really very little of it.

Right now I am testing a 60 GHz microwave link and I didn't even need to aim the antennas properly. The system adjusts the antenna dinamically. It doesn't even need to move it phisically.

- Third: With such a small wavelength even your clothes will attenuate the signal a bit. The 60 GHz signal won't reach inside your home either. Your brain? Forget it, what's the thickness of the skin + skull?

As for the satellite coverage it will be useful mostly in sparsely populated areas. It will certainly avoid the environmental impact and the costs of digging trenches and laying cables.

Anyway, I am not sure wether people scared by this are aware of how many satellites are orbiting Earth and transmitting? Not only TV broadcast satellites but also different types of telecommunication (marine, military, etc) and even radar surveying for many different purposes (military intelligence, land survey, research, environmental monitoring..).

Last edited by Borjam : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 15:39.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:42   #654
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Going through my data from northern Greece, I realised that I had seen almost no coots, moorhens or grebes--only great crested grebes in Lake Kerkini but nowhere else. There should have been lots of coots, moorhens, black-necked grebes and little grebes, but they were not there.
Coot are easy to miss at the Evros delta: https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S42305892
Or at Prespa for that matter: https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S43552155

Meanwhile there's good news from 4G island Samos! http://archipelago.gr/en/monitoring-...mos-july-2017/
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 15:49.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 10:29   #655
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
@ Jos. I was not referring to the genocide but to the "medical" experiments done at the camps without the consent of the subjects.

@ Joost You say that the advantages of 5G are "tremendous" and therefore the burden of proof that EMR causes harm lies with those who claim there is a significant effect. So apparently you are willing to risk the potential for large-scale damage to nature (and people) because of these so-called advantages (which I must say I don't see). On what basis? You have found fault with a few observational studies and found a review article that also criticizes a number of the nature studies. Its author, unlike you, does not seem entirely willing to throw the baby out with the bath water--he calls for more and better work. So did the Eklipse conference, which did NOT conclude that there is no evidence of "any effect at all" on biological systems (if it had, why would the CEO of Buglife end the conference with a call for the precautionary principle?). Then you say that Hardell is biased and imply he is the only person who is seeing an increase in cancer rates. You claim to have an open mind, but much of your refutation of the case I am trying to present ( a case for the precautionary principle and a moratorium on 5G) lies with sniping at the authors of some of the studies and the journals which publish their work. Yet there is much work you have not reviewed, including the studies on DNA damage that is supposedly your area of expertise. Even the SCENIHR committee, reviewing work that had been published up to 2014, found some evidence of DNA damage from EMR (DNA spindle disturbances; mitotic spindle disruption). SCENIHR also finds that EMR "may affect brain activities in wake and sleep". Needless to say that new work has been published since then, though the SCENIHR committee has not issued any more opinions. The 2015 opinion is technically invalid now, since it becomes outdated after one year.

Then you leaven the mix by saying I'm comparing Musk to Mengele, which I am not. I don't necessarily approve of what he's doing or his plans for 5G from satellites, but he can't do anything without government approval, so my issue is with governments giving approval for, and promoting, potentially unsafe technologies. So I am comparing governments to Mengele. Actually there is one thing Musk says which I very much agree with. In a recent interview with the BBC, he says that he supports much more regulation of AI technology, which really worries him (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43367191).

Actually, according to the rules governing invocation of the precautionary principle, it is not necessary to firmly establish concrete proof of harm. The precautionary principle (hereafter pp) "is a strategy to cope with potential risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete...Where human activities may lead to harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain..." (see http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu) The original intention of the pp was to protect the environment. And scientifically plausible mechanisms of action for damage from EMR have certainly been proposed, with some of the effects more firmly established (e.g. effects on migration) than others. The case for the pp does not rest on firm proof of harm. By the time you get that, it may be too late. The pp was established to avoid getting to the point of irreversible harm.

It is ironic that, since the pp was initially established to protect the environment, none of the standards-setting bodies like ICNIRP and SCENIHR have actually tried to determine to what extent EMR affects the environment. The focus of ICNIRP and SCENIHR standards has been human health only. The EU claims that SCENIHR constitutes its application of the pp, but SCENIHR has not issued a new opinion since 2015, and that opinion is technically invalid. So the EU is not, in fact, applying the pp.

I am also saying that the Nuremberg Code, which most of the world adopted in the wake of WWII, says that it is illegal to conduct a medical or biological experiment without the informed consent of the subject(s) and that he/they may terminate said experiment if for any reason they believe it is harming them. I am saying that large-scale rollout of wireless communications frequencies (soon to be worldwide with satellite coverage everywhere) is a biological experiment that may have serious biological consequences, that this experiment is being forced on everyone on this planet without serious debate (people are not informed of the potential consequences) and without their consent (no one was ever asked if they wanted this). This experiment is, under the Nuremberg Code, illegal. And the precautionary principle is also called for when human life or health is threatened, or when something (in this case, EMR) is "imposed without adequate consideration of the rights of those affected."

And this is a massive biological experiment, about to get even more massive. One example is Wi-Fi in schools. There is a good deal of research that suggests that prolonged exposure leads to sterility, so what do we do? We take children and expose them to a technology that may make them sterile. Wi-Fi has only been around since what--2003 or 2004? And then only a few people had it. So a few years later it's in all the schools, being tested on a generation of children that haven't grown up yet. It is quite possible, as Barrie Trower suggests, that a great many of these children will grow up infertile or have DNA defects which they will pass on to their own children, should they be able to have any. And infertility is already an issue, with many couples regularly seeking infertility treatment. To make matters even worse, Wi-Fi is everywhere: public buildings, public open spaces, in homes, in shops. So it's unavoidable. People have to send their children to school. They have transact business and go to the bank and do any of the myriad ordinary things that expose them to Wi-Fi and cell tower radiation, even if they don't own a mobile device. So we're not even going to wait to see how Wi-Fi and cell tower radiation affects the children growing up today, are we, before going on to 5G and 5G from space? And you don't see the potential for disaster? You don't see any reason to apply the precautionary principle?

Have you seen "Global warning to humanity" signed by over 15,000 scientists? (https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1113111127.htm) It doesn't mention EMR, but it does say that we are consuming too many resources. The main point of 5G is to get everyone to consume even more resources. We need to scale back, and consuming more energy and more resources is not the way forward, whatever the supposed benefits of all this "connectivity".

I attach a chapter from a book by Arthur Firstenberg called "No Place to Hide" describing what happened to people and birds when the first communications satellites went up in 1998. Pigeons have apparently learned to cope since then, but there were only a few satellites in 1998 compared to the 20,000+ planned for 5G, and these are completely untested frequencies.

There are a lot of things I am not sure about, but I am sure of one thing: it would be a really, really bad idea to get it wrong with 5G and EMR generally. No putative benefits of 5G are worth it if we destroy the environment, because in doing so we will also destroy ourselves. So we need the precautionary principle and a moratorium on 5G.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Satellites-Begin-Worldwide-Service.pdf (883.5 KB, 12 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 10:52   #656
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
i think all agree with your last para PH!

the problem is still credible studies proving things from broad statements like 'wifi causes sterility'.
give me one source that someone like Joost on here sees as valid (he doesn't seem biased to me) on that alone and i will tell ALL i know to switch off and bang on doors of parliament!
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 18:01   #657
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I was not referring to the genocide but to the "medical" experiments done at the camps without the consent of the subjects.
So, to be clear, you are equating the experiments of Josef Mengele on Jews at Auschwitz with the promotion of cell phone technology today? Truly, you need to get some perspective, I think you have been in the sun too long or something!
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 18:37   #658
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jos Stratford View Post
So, to be clear, you are equating the experiments of Josef Mengele on Jews at Auschwitz with the promotion of cell phone technology today? Truly, you need to get some perspective, I think you have been in the sun too long or something!
but that is just what PH is telling us, that her belief is that cellphone EMR effects are indeed that insidious. no-one knew, apart from insiders and victims, what was taking place in Nazi Deutschland..

thus she proposes publicity, more study, moratorium and precautionary principle. and if the results in future are correct on her side to any significant harm to nature, human or ecology, the vindication would not be of any reward and the concern is that great for PH.

i have no problems accepting that in principle

we are not seeing studies that reflect the concern that conform to rigorous objective standards. the rhetoric then becomes more emotional as does the symbolism put forward. all natural and not to be denigrated or condescended to. PH has failed to convince most but her own standards of debate have mostly been of a high order. that is ethical.

i believe in part PH has at least informed some of us to keep an eye open. the risk with the more emotional bleedthrough is that it puts off some and polarise the positions.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 19:52   #659
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
but that is just what PH is telling us, that her belief is that cellphone EMR effects are indeed that insidious. no-one knew, apart from insiders and victims, what was taking place in Nazi Deutschland..

thus she proposes publicity, more study, moratorium and precautionary principle. and if the results in future are correct on her side to any significant harm to nature, human or ecology, the vindication would not be of any reward and the concern is that great for PH.

i have no problems accepting that in principle.
No Jape, there is a lot wrong with this comparison. The primary issue is this: Mengele and his government backers acted in the full knowledge that what they were doing amounted to torture, mutilation and murder. There is zero scientific debate that if you, say, give someone a lethal injection or repeatedly beat them into a pulp, they suffer and die. So along comes Ms Kordas who argues that governments and big business worldwide are doing the exact same thing: they knowingly subject us to a technology is demonstrably harmful/lethal on a massive scale, something they privately (but not publicly) acknowledge, and will thereby consciously sacrifice the entire planet for their own short-term gain.

Now take a millisecond to think about that last statement.

For this to be a valid comparison one needs to assume three things:
A) the technology has been conclusively shown to be lethal - i.e. there is scientific consensus (as per shooting someone through the head with a gun kills a human being)
B) all governments and mobile technology business leaders are fully aware and (at least privately) acknowledging of A (as per a Nazi officer knowing that drowning one of a pair of twins will kill one and make the other suffer for life)
C) being fully aware of A and B, and appreciating this won't wash well with the general public, said governments and CEO's then plead ignorance, cover up evidence and/or actively counter those scientists and activists acting against their interests.

Still think it's a valid comparison?

I would contend that with regards to EMF radiation being harmful there has been no convincing evidence as yet (despite quite a few serious attempts), hence the scientific consensus remains that it is harmless. So the whole parallel already falls down on point A, namely almost everybody currently operates on the principle that EMF technology is safe (with some nods to known, mostly thermal effects). It is categorically not the same as testing the dose response of Zyklon B on a group of live people. I mean, how hard is it to see the difference?
Now, for someone like Ms Kordas, who has convinced herself of the opposite, this may look different: surely if she can see how harmful it is then everyone else must see it too - hence, if they are promoting the technology despite this 'knowledge', then they are liable for causing tremendous damage. And thus the accusatory comparison with the most inhumane aspects of the Nazi regime follows. I'd love to see this being put as a liability claim to the European Court of Human Rights (oh damn, can they be trusted?? Brexiteers tread lightly!) - the image of a snowflake in Hell springs to mind.

And you know what the awkward thing is, criterion A can't even be squared with the rationale behind wanting to invoke the 'precautionary principle'. Because that, by definition, assumes we don't yet know the effects of EMF radiation on biological systems.

A "high standard of debate" indeed.

Joost

P.S. Gory examples were included on purpose to demonstrate just how deeply wrong this comparison is. Thinking about the sick things that were done (and still happen) almost make me wish that Musk's 5G satellites do turn this into a lifeless ball of rock
Luckily there is, on balance, more good than bad in this world.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 14th March 2018 at 23:07.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 20:11   #660
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
but that is just what PH is telling us, that her belief is that cellphone EMR effects are indeed that insidious.
There is no comparison between the deliberate acts of that era which used persons on mass as guinea pigs (in the full knowledge that harm and death would result) and the promotion of cell phones today, no comparison. And for PurpleHeron to attempt to do so is pathetic, end of as far as I am concerned.

She has failed to convince with the papers she has linked to, shown as weak by persons with a better scientific background than I. Her field observations lack any systematic methodology and are full of holes, as well as contradicted by other persons' observations. The observations she has personally reported have not been shown to be replicated on a widespread basis in other areas with equal or greater level of cell tower coverage. She additionally labels any company or organisation that doesn't toe her line as somehow corrupt to the moneys surrounding these technologies (New York Times, WHO, Google, etc). And the response by our OP has been to disregard comments which were genuinely meant as constructive criticism at the outset, but has instead steadily become more extreme in her views, blaming half the world's woes on this technology, including school shootings in the US, etc. So now, scraping the barrel, she ropes in the atrocities of the Nazi era to try to suggest those developing cell phone technology are somewhere in the same league. Total fruitcake territory I think.

That she started this thread I believe was a very good thing, asking if there is a potential issue with something has to be welcomed...but throughout she has started with the absolute belief that mobile phone technologies are bad for everything and this has seriously clouded the approach taken.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Wednesday 14th March 2018 at 20:31.
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 20:55   #661
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
well, ummm, aahh.
yes i agree she went too far.
yes as i said it polarises issues beyond redemption. that is what i see here mainly and could argue more but that would be idealism that would antagonise my own judgement.
a page or so back i hoped it was reaching an uneasy balance, gone too far now.
i have almost entirely lost hope with this so-called civilisation and perhaps that is what we agree on from various rationalisations.
i am autistic but by f i try and make sense of it all still after 67 years. i used to try to see the world as 50/50 with a lean toward 51% good because of hope and even my own efforts. then i lost faith. i still hope, just a tiny bit. but even that is nearly gone when i see so many intelligent, empathic people at cross purposes. as i have here. it is not even the right or wrong of either side that concerns me.
we are all wrong. thats the wickedness of it. the argument or discussion is almost irrelevant by now so many pages later except it, itself, is the fault.
division and discord is all that has won here. shame.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 21:05   #662
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You say that the advantages of 5G are "tremendous" and therefore the burden of proof that EMR causes harm lies with those who claim there is a significant effect.

So apparently you are willing to risk the potential for large-scale damage to nature (and people) because of these so-called advantages
No, you're twisting my words. The burden of proof for any causal relationship lies with those aiming to demonstrate that there is an effect. I think it was Ed who pointed out earlier in this thread that it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate a 'no-effect-scenario'. However it is possible, through careful observation, testing and validation, to demonstrate with a great degree of certainty whether an effect does occur.
This has nothing to do with my evaluation of the benefits of 5G, unless you mean to imply that I'm putting said benefits first? A bit like the governments in our parallel discussion perhaps?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You have found fault with a few observational studies and found a review article that also criticizes a number of the nature studies. Its author, unlike you, does not seem entirely willing to throw the baby out with the bath water--he calls for more and better work. So did the Eklipse conference, which did NOT conclude that there is no evidence of "any effect at all" on biological systems (if it had, why would the CEO of Buglife end the conference with a call for the precautionary principle?).
Again, you're misquoting me. What I said was: as yet, no conclusive evidence of there being any effect at all on biological systems. This is entirely in line with the conclusions of, for example the Verschaeve review, and the summary document of the Eklipse conference (I'll comment on the human stuff in a moment). Remember those nice little box diagrams the Ekipse team made for you? Something needs to be in the top right box of one of those to be classified as 'conclusive evidence' - and you'll note that that box is conspicuously empty. That is the real conclusion of the meeting, irrespective of how you want to interpret it. Or the director of Buglife for that matter, they are the charity that called for the topic to be evaluated, hence they will have their own views on the outcome of the meeting. The summary prepared by the scientific team was decidedly neutral, to the point of legal-speak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Then you say that Hardell is biased and imply he is the only person who is seeing an increase in cancer rates. You claim to have an open mind, but much of your refutation of the case I am trying to present ( a case for the precautionary principle and a moratorium on 5G) lies with sniping at the authors of some of the studies and the journals which publish their work.
Ehm, it was you who decided to post some personal attack (by Hardell on the WHO) cloaked as a 'scientific review' - how did you think I was going to react to something like that? And the claim of bias does not stem from me: if you'd done your homework and looked up Hardell's group you would have come across statements like these:
"We did not explore potential confounding factors in the studies by Hardell et al that reported positive results not found by other study groups" (Myung et al. 2009)
Or:
“Whenever one group of researchers keeps finding a result that no other group seems able to replicate or that otherwise disagrees with what everyone else is finding, that’s a huge red flag for me. Remove those studies, and even the wisp of a hint of a shadow of the association between cell phone use and cancer found in this study disappears. I’d have a lot more confidence in this seeming association in “high quality” studies if the association didn’t depend upon a single researcher and if this researcher was not also known for being an expert witness in lawsuits against mobile phone companies. It would appear the Hardell himself has a conflict of interest." (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cri...ess-phone-use/)
There's even a review paper that presents findings of overall effects from various groups in two parallel figures: with and without the Hardell & co studie (Ahlbom et al 2009).
But hey, I never criticised one of Hardells studies, just that piece of garbage you chose to present as evidence for WHO's untrustworthiness (let's not forget that).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Yet there is much work you have not reviewed, including the studies on DNA damage that is supposedly your area of expertise.
If you're going to question my expertise (again), at least do it properly lol. I'm a lipid biochemist (with added baggage), not someone who studies DNA damage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Even the SCENIHR committee, reviewing work that had been published up to 2014, found some evidence of DNA damage from EMR (DNA spindle disturbances; mitotic spindle disruption). SCENIHR also finds that EMR "may affect brain activities in wake and sleep". Needless to say that new work has been published since then, though the SCENIHR committee has not issued any more opinions. The 2015 opinion is technically invalid now, since it becomes outdated after one year.
Actually, this open-access review by Miyakoshi from 2013 shows that those results are inconclusive as well (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/sta...number=6492114). In summary:
1) RF energy does not cleave intracellular DNA directly.
2) Most genotoxicity studies have shown negative effects, except for exposure to RF fields with an extremely high SAR that results in a
thermal effect.
3) Changes in gene expression associated with HSP production are an interesting cellular response to RF exposure. However, the results of studies of this effect are inconsistent [...].
4) At present, microarray analysis has not provided definite evidence of an effect of RF exposure on cellular functions, including apoptosis, the immune system, and ROS production."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Actually, according to the rules governing invocation of the precautionary principle, it is not necessary to firmly establish concrete proof of harm. The precautionary principle (hereafter pp) "is a strategy to cope with potential risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete...Where human activities may lead to harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain... [...] And scientifically plausible mechanisms of action for damage from EMR have certainly been proposed, with some of the effects more firmly established (e.g. effects on migration) than others.
I have not seen any plausible mechanism thus far, just correlations and speculation. As someone working in the molecular biology field, it's one of the things that bugs me about this whole discussion. And as discussed, none of the proposed effects are firmly established. Hence, I see no good reason for wanting to invoke this principle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Have you seen "Global warning to humanity" signed by over 15,000 scientists? (https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1113111127.htm) It doesn't mention EMR, but it does say that we are consuming too many resources. The main point of 5G is to get everyone to consume even more resources. We need to scale back, and consuming more energy and more resources is not the way forward, whatever the supposed benefits of all this "connectivity".
What you're ignoring is the fact that improved connectivity and communication will actually help us optimise global resources and cooperate in creating a better world. And from my point of view at virtually no cost.

Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 14th March 2018 at 23:12.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 21:08   #663
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
i have almost entirely lost hope with this so-called civilisation

i used to try to see the world as 50/50 with a lean toward 51% good because of hope and even my own efforts. then i lost faith. i still hope, just a tiny bit.
I spend great portions of my life travelling, amounting to months per year - in almost all countries I can say I think the good far outweighs the bad. Be it Iran or the US, be it Europe or Africa, be it almost everywhere else, the vast majority of people are fundamentally good nice people who are far more likely to want to help than hurt, even here on Birdforum :) Even if we look at things purely environmental, there is so much happening that is good that I think we sometimes forget to look at it.

Sure there is much bad out there, but don't lose hope, it still is a nice world.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Wednesday 14th March 2018 at 21:11.
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th March 2018, 21:24   #664
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
a page or so back i hoped it was reaching an uneasy balance, gone too far now.

division and discord is all that has won here. shame.
You're making me feel guilty now Jape! I'll be honest with you and admit that I hate division and discord, it makes me feel very uncomfortable. But in a scientific discussion I can rationalise it, because we're all working towards a common goal (i.e. finding out the truth of the matter, or just making better/shinier stuff). I regret that lines are being crossed repeatedly (Nazi death camps, high-school massacres, child sterilisation), and I'll hold up my hand and admit that's why I react strongly sometimes. Oh and when someone questions my credentials. Or makes me read crap 'science', it's a pet hate of mine. Ultimately it really distracts from the core discussion, which, and I'll say it again is interesting.

On a personal note, autism is very common among academics (esp. in natural sciences), including several close colleagues of mine. But what really surprised and fascinated me a while back during a scientific lecture is that the underlying biochemistry is almost completely unknown....sorry, a total digression! Hope you don't mind :)
What I wanted to say though is [echoing Jos]: I also do believe there is more good than bad in this world and that, with a bit of effort, we can all get along just fine. I'm sure if PH and I talked about birds, mezze, or the beauty of the Aegean Sea we'd find plenty of common ground

Goodnight,
Joost

P.S. http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/ :)
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 14th March 2018 at 23:17.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 06:29   #665
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
good people, thank you
you wont find biochemical basis for autism except in effect
way off topic except in motivation for thread
and will get the usual response of 'lunacy'.
it is a psychic alienation. start looking at paedophile victims, start young. look at nature lovers and even visionaries. in time, if things hold long enough, the newer maths of physics of time and space will reveal maps of empathy, sensitivity and connection. revealed at the waveform of consciousness, autistic spectrum is a grab-bag term for alienated souls that resist sociopathic urges. psychologists have no chance. hunt the soul.
well i had to say something.

Last edited by jape : Thursday 15th March 2018 at 06:38.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 07:12   #666
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
If you're going to question my expertise (again), at least do it properly lol. I'm a lipid biochemist (with added baggage), not someone who studies DNA damage.




Actually, this open-access review by Miyakoshi from 2013 shows that those results are inconclusive as well (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/sta...number=6492114). In summary:
1) RF energy does not cleave intracellular DNA directly.
2) Most genotoxicity studies have shown negative effects, except for exposure to RF fields with an extremely high SAR that results in a
thermal effect.
3) Changes in gene expression associated with HSP production are an interesting cellular response to RF exposure. However, the results of studies of this effect are inconsistent [...].
4) At present, microarray analysis has not provided definite evidence of an effect of RF exposure on cellular functions, including apoptosis, the immune system, and ROS production."
Although I'm nothing resembling a biologist or a chemist I am going to fire a preemptive shot here. :)

Among some supporters of the DNA damage by radio transmissions there is a fashionable and even sexy argument: that DNA chains can act as fractal antennas.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna

It doesn't make sense at all, of course. Although it's a highly technical issue I think an intuitive explanation is good enough. It's a bit long but it's always good to have some background in order to judge the merits of the DNA as fractal antenna claims.

In order to understand what is a fractal antenna and what makes it special you need an intuitive understanding on how an antenna works. In extremely simple terms, an antenna needs to resonate on the intended transmission frequency. And that means that the antenna must have a length comparable to the wavelength.

It can be half the wavelength, even a quarter. And even smaller, but, well, there is a practical limit. If the antenna is too small it won't work. That's the reason why medium wave broadcast stations need huge antennas (the tower you see is the antenna actually!).

A simple antenna will mostly resonate on just one frequency, which can be good for many applications. But our modern wireless equipment must work on several frequency bands. A fractal antenna has an interesting property, which is resonance on many different frequencies. With this technique a mobile telephone can work on different bands using just one antenna. Without this techniques it might require three or four antennas!

So, can DNA act as a fractal antenna? Not at all, for several reasons.

First: Fractal antennas can be quite smaller than the wavelength for which they are intended. But there are limits. For example, the antenna I use to transmit on the HF bands (in my case, 7 to 21 MHz or 40 to 15 metres) is a loop with a diameter of 1 metre. Can it work if I make it smaller, say, 1 cm? Not at all. If someone achieved that it would be an instant Nobel prize, or maybe two in a row!

Second: It's not only length. One can say that a DNA chain can be very long. How long are the DNA chains in our chromosomes or mitochondria? Yet the whole "antenna" would take an area that is really too small to act as an antenna. Note that in the example above there is a 40:1 relationship between the maximum wavelength I can use with that antenna and the antenna diameter.

But, what if the antenna is infinitesimal compared to the wavelength? Even at 60 GHz, the dreaded new 5G frequencies, the wavelength is 5 mm. What's then size of a chromosome or a mitochondrion? We are speaking of microns. Does a 1000:1 wavelength to antenna dimensions work?

There is one case actually, the ferrite loops inside medium wave radios. But in order to make that work you need a really powerful transmitter (medium wave transmitters transmission power is the hundreds of kilowatts range) and a purposefully built antenna using special materials (ferrite) in order to make it work marginally.

A DNA molecule? I don't think so. I'm afraid the authors don't understand the physical limitations. And, to make it worse, they talk about ELF (wavelengths from 100,000 to 10,000 Km!)
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 07:35   #667
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
yeah but what happens to the gluons when you warm up the soup?
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 07:57   #668
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Borjam, can I pick your brain and ask a question with regards to the fractal antenna idea: does the shape of the antenna itself make a difference? A single strand of human DNA, if stretched out, is about 2 meters long - however the amazing multi-coiled structure packs that into 6 microns(!). I know nothing about the physics, but what would the theoretical effect of the structure itself be on signal transmission? Ignore for a moment that the wavelength doesn't actually fit, maybe assume the packed coil itself is 2 m long (giant DNA). Would that work at all or would it simply scramble the signal beyond recognition? Just curious...

You might also be interested in this technology which we use more and more in our research: Coherent anti-Stokes Raman Spectroscopy (CARS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohere...n_spectroscopy). It's great for molecular imaging without actually damaging the cells or molecules themselves (it just makes them vibrate a little). How do the energies etc. used in this technique compare to, say, a mobile phone tower?
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Thursday 15th March 2018 at 08:08.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 08:03   #669
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
good people, thank you
you wont find biochemical basis for autism except in effect
way off topic except in motivation for thread
and will get the usual response of 'lunacy'.
Jape my apologies, I made a careless statement out of my own "it's all chemistry! view of the world" - it's the weird scientist in me. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place and truly hope I didn't cause offense!

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 08:13   #670
jape
Forum Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0116085105.htm

i tell ya, its the soup vibrating!

J, i never find offence in thee, appreciate your tolerance and understanding. you are correct, it is all chemistry where chemistry is the soup

Last edited by jape : Thursday 15th March 2018 at 08:17.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 08:21   #671
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
@PH: I worry more about stuff like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43405684
No argument about the cause-and-effect, no real argument about the death toll (40,000 people a year in the UK alone, can you imagine what the figure is in China, India....), tough WHO and EU guidelines, yet our government stalls and stalls. In my view this is a clear example of putting your own population at risk for short-term benefit. And one that's worthy of a march on Westminster.

@ thanks Jape!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 11:11   #672
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
yeah but what happens to the gluons when you warm up the soup?
I can say that the gluons, quarks and electrons in one of my favourite recipes ("txipirones en tu tinta") taste wonderfully when served at the right temperature!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Borjam, can I pick your brain and ask a question with regards to the fractal antenna idea: does the shape of the antenna itself make a difference? A single strand of human DNA, if stretched out, is about 2 meters long - however the amazing multi-coiled structure packs that into 6 microns(!). I know nothing about the physics, but what would the theoretical effect of the structure itself be on signal transmission? Ignore for a moment that the wavelength doesn't actually fit, maybe assume the packed coil itself is 2 m long (giant DNA). Would that work at all or would it simply scramble the signal beyond recognition? Just curious...
Of course the shape can make a big difference. Antenna design still has a lot of a black art. The explanation can be a bit complicated, I will try and do my best. As usual, in an intuitive way.

Let's assume a DNA chain is conductive, like a wire.

If only pure Mathematics were relevant you wouldn't have a limit on the actual length of an infinitesimally small fractal antenna. It would be just a matter of "making the turns and twists very small", right?

The problem is, Physical laws are evil and the real world is full of constraints. If you coil everything very close, a new phenomenon appears: parasite capacitance, which (again, simplifying!) will pretty much make that enormously long molecule you coiled carefully like a pretty short one. Those capacitances will (again and again, simplifying!) be comparable to a short circuit.

I mentioned the "area it would take", speaking of coiled DNA chains inside mitochondria or cell nuclea in a very, very vague way on purpose. But I wanted to point out that not only the electrical lenght of the antenna matters, but also its actual size!

In antenna design, like other aspects of Physics, there is no free lunch. So no, a one micron "DNA antenna" won't be a fractal antenna.

Moreover, an antenna must be conductive. Is DNA conductive? I have done a quick search (honestly, I have no idea) and although I haven't read the original paper seems it's not.

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/research...df/outlook.pdf

Doing a search shows papers describing possible methods to make it conductive as a useful component for nanotechnology. But that isn't happening in living things. Is it?

To illustrate the antenna dimension problem I have found the design for a HF (3 to 30 MHz, 100 to 10 m wavelength) fractal antenna.

http://www.m0wwa.co.uk/page/M0WWA_fractal_antenna.html

For a wavelength of around 10 m, the two antennas have a size of almost 200x200 mm.

Quote:
You might also be interested in this technology which we use more and more in our research: Coherent anti-Stokes Raman Spectroscopy (CARS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohere...n_spectroscopy). It's great for molecular imaging without actually damaging the cells or molecules themselves (it just makes them vibrate a little). How do the energies etc. used in this technique compare to, say, a mobile phone tower?
I hadn't heard of it. Interesting :)

I see it's based on very short pulses (80 ps or even shorter) of red and/or infrared laser light so the actual amount of energy hitting the target will be really small. Being non ionizing radiation the only possible effect would be thermal, right? I am not sure about how to calculate the actual energy transfer, though.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 12:15   #673
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Thanks Borjam, very interesting! And no as far as I'm aware DNA in its natural state is non-conductive: that Physical Review Letters demonstrates very clearly that it's the water coating the macro-molecule that's doing the electron transporting. The suggestion that this mechanisms is used to deflect oxidative damage to less essential parts of the DNA strand is very intriguing - I'll have to look into that!
So I can't receive Radio 4 by holding my hand close to my ear? Shame.......
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 12:21   #674
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
I see it's based on very short pulses (80 ps or even shorter) of red and/or infrared laser light so the actual amount of energy hitting the target will be really small. Being non ionizing radiation the only possible effect would be thermal, right? I am not sure about how to calculate the actual energy transfer, though.
I have no idea, my maths & physics is rubbish! I'm just aware it's really good for picking up stable isotopes incorporated into biomolecules, which we use to trace lipid metabolic fluxes in vivo, for example in cell cultures.
It also makes microplastics 'glow in the dark', so people have used it to quantify microplastic ingestion in deep-sea zooplankton. It's completely harmless to the cells/organisms - but the main challenge is mounting specimens in the instrument!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th March 2018, 13:00   #675
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Thanks Borjam, very interesting! And no as far as I'm aware DNA in its natural state is non-conductive: that Physical Review Letters demonstrates very clearly that it's the water coating the macro-molecule that's doing the electron transporting. The suggestion that this mechanisms is used to deflect oxidative damage to less essential parts of the DNA strand is very intriguing - I'll have to look into that!
So I can't receive Radio 4 by holding my hand close to my ear? Shame.......
That might hold the secret to telepathy!

You medidate "loudly" and your DNA chains unite to build a large and powerful fractal antenna :P
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 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 0.20548701 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46.