Catalyst about Mobile Telephones

[VK3AUU]

Those cynics out there who think there is no problem should watch this lecture by Dr Davis. She has been researching this field for a long time.
http://www.eng.unimelb.edu.au/engage/ev ... p1w84.dpuf

Take particular notice of the Chinese lady with the Iphone in her bra, the memory test on the unborn rats and the sperm count of the young men with Iphones in their pants pocket.

You might also note that the Russians and the French, to name just a couple, have limited EMR at those frequencies to 0.1 watts per square metre, compared to ARPANSA limit of 10 watts/M^2

Happy viewing,
David
VK3AUU

[VK3BQ]

and the call for a redaction of the story,

have a look at media watch from Monday night

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 411611.htm

[VK3AUU]

Did you actually listen to the whole of Dr Davis's lecture.
David
VK3AUU

[VK3OE]

Hi David,

Mobile phones are similar to cars, we put up with the downside, EMR injuries and car injuries.
They are such a core part of our "modern" society that the problems are tolerated.

[VK3AUU]

You should also read the feedback on the Media watch web page.
David
VK3AUU

[VK3HZ]

Biggest load of rubbish I've seen in a long time. So called experts contradicting themselves and giving wildly ridiculous and fear-mongering explanations for some things.
The credibility of Catalyst has gone down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

The whole premise seemed to be "They can't prove it's safe, therefore it's unsafe". You could say the same about just about anything - drinking a glass of water.

Show me any credible evidence that RF causes any damage except where heating is involved - at high levels. The lowering of "safety" standards seems solely the result of mass hysteria, not any scientific basis!

[VK3AUU]

Some more references to support the Argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25738972
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26556835
https://au.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lo ... ype=926458

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... rce=sniply
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24064953
https://www.emfscientist.org/

http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Compilation- ... n-2016.pdf
This one is very informative.


http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/EMF,%20scien ... health.pdf
Talks about scientific proof.

http://www.today.com/video/pediatrician ... 9871555807

Answers to Catalyst criticism.
http://ehtrust.org/wifried-scientific-r ... -concerns/

David
VK3AUU

[VK4TU]

I'm curious about those worried that mobile phones cause cancer. What piece of evidence would convince you that they were harmless? Scientific studies have been used to 'prove' both sides of the argument, so what would clinch it beyond a doubt? It's easy to find evidence to back up our beliefs, working out what would falsify them is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Joe VK4TU

[VK4TU]

And to those curious what would change my mind. I think that a large study showing that tumour incidence has increased since mobiles have become common but not in, say, the Amish community. Something that is large (so random variations are smoothed out), with a control group (to show that it's not some other factor - although with the Amish there are many other factors), and a statistically significant variation.
I really want to know the truth, I like RF and I don't want my hobby killing me, but I'm not yet convinced.
73,
Joe VK4TU

[VK3AUU]

We had all this damage control from the tobacco industry when they were vociferously casting doubt on the evidence. The telecommunication industry is the largest industry in the world, twice as large as "Big Pharma" and they are starting to run scared as the evidence is stacking up against them.

David
VK3AUU

[VK4BG]

Whatever happened to common sense ?

Who in the right mind would place a mobile phone inside their bra, or within inches of the " old fella " ?

I think the biggest problem with mobile phones is an almost complete lack of understanding of exactly what it is, and how it works ! Sure, most on here are aware that it is a radio transmitter...it emits RF...but ask any slack jawed youth in a shopping mall how it works and get ready to be amused.

I don't believe I am creating any great risk to myself, by operating my AR gear...if I did, I would not use it. I also have a mobile phone that I don't use much, and I rarely carry it on my person...but when I do, it is usually in my top right hand shirt pocket...but not for long periods....common sense ( just in case there MAY be some very slight chance that there is a minuscule bit of truth in this incessant need to prove something we all have and use is bad for us ).

I don't believe that mobile phones cause me any harm..but I employ a bit of common sense and don't have it glued to the side of my head like 90% of the population around here....mostly female, who apparently cannot be out of communication for longer than 30 seconds and need to watch Facebook live.

Assuming there COULD be some slight increase in your chance of getting cancer, apply common sense to mobile phone use. I note also, that some propeller head has now come out and said that using talcum powder can cause ovarian cancer ( This is not a problem for me ), and good old Johnson's Baby Powder is a killer...what next...water ?

73
Glenn

[VK3ZAZ]

Biggest load of rubbish I've seen in a long time. So called experts contradicting themselves and giving wildly ridiculous and fear-mongering explanations for some things.
The credibility of Catalyst has gone down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

The whole premise seemed to be "They can't prove it's safe, therefore it's unsafe". You could say the same about just about anything - drinking a glass of water.

Show me any credible evidence that RF causes any damage except where heating is involved - at high levels. The lowering of "safety" standards seems solely the result of mass hysteria, not any scientific basis!

You remind me of Bolte in Herald SUn he is SO RIGHT about climate change and everyone else is SOOO WRONG.

Read the ARPANSA reports on every site and digest what they are saying.
Yes the ARPANSA guy on the report was a total idiot, with him representing the industry we don't need any enemies but like asssholes everyone has an opinion including YOU!
Doesn't make them right or wrong and what the piece said was 'Why risk your children"
They care less about adults..with thick heads.

Maybe we make these signs and post them for fun and scare tactics.



They tell me the emr practices by some hams were two levels BUCKLEYS and NONE.

[VK4BZ]

Personally, I think everyone needs to take a cold shower and chill out. Yes, there will always be concerns with RF - we know that as radio amateurs - and so, the message to take away is to be careful. In other words, keeping phone use to a necessary minimum and realising that putting it in your pocket, in the vicinity of your future family's most valuable asset, is not a good idea. But since we are surrounded by man-made EMF, it's now a part of life and stopping mobiles and WiFi networks is not going to make a huge difference. If you aren't using it - turn it off - it saves power and the planet in any case.

WRT the responses on Media Watch's website - have a read and then work out how many are from the good old US of A. You see...it's a conspiracy by the Illuminati to sterilise most of the world's population...because that's what the aliens want!

COLD SHOWER TIME!

[VK2ZRH]

I've had a professional interest in the issue of perceived risk from non-ionising RF radiation for some 25 years.

I have read numerous scientific papers and reports, going back 70 years. I have critically analysed study after study.

I saw the Catalyst program. I have seen numbers of other programs "covering" the same ground.

Nowhere. Nowhere has anyone, or any scientific team, established a "chain of causality". Not even close.

Even the few studies that are rigorous about the statistics and test for the null hypothesis (The hypothesis that chance alone is responsible for the results is called the null hypothesis. The model of the result of the random process is called the distribution under the null hypothesis) are then equivocal about any causal link.

I have not found or learned of any studies that seek additional data that might conceivably be included to account for the medical conditions reported (ie. that non-ionising radiation is not a sufficient condition of itself).

Suppression by vested interests, akin to Big Pharma and Big Tobacco (and Big Oil and Big Coal), is a sideshow issue.

Back in the 1990s, a Professor John Moulder, Professor of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA, compiled a website citing studies, reports, articles, standards, legislation, uncle Tom Cobley and all. It was a blinding revelation in sorting out fact from faction, from fiction and manufactured fiction. A few years back, it disappeared from the web. I thought Big Telco / Big Govt / Big Academia had got him. I wuz wrong. He's back. See here: http://www.mcw.edu/display/router.aspx?DocID=196547#21

See Moulder's CV here: http://www.mcw.edu/radiationoncology/fa ... oulder.htm

This is not a case of "my expert's more expert than your expert" (ie. a micturating contest ).

I might have to email ABC's Media Watch.

Posted in the interests of grounding the debate.

[ZL3RC]

..............................

[VK4BG]

After reading Steve's post ( VK3ZAZ ) maybe I'm wrong..RF obviously does affect your brain

[VK3ALB]

occupational exposure versus day to day exposure to the general public - dose, dose, dose

non-ionising radiation versus ionising radiation - dose, dose, dose

tissue heating versus tissue changes - dose, dose, dose

and what Roger said.

[VK3AUU]

I am heartened by the number of intelligent replies and disappointed by those who dismiss the subject out of hand without any attempt at reasoned analysis. As has been pointed out, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, and while it might not be scientific, it does give grounds to be cautious.
Is there anyone out there who can give me some specific numbers for the power radiated by mobile phones, Wifi routers and laptops. I would like to put these numbers into the VK3UM EMR program and see what the results look like. I suspect that Wifi will not b a problem, even at the levels currently applying in France and Russia, but I would like to check. Incidentally, I ran the these prognostications past Doug a few days before he died and his reply indicated that he had personally done a lot of measurements and he was very concerned about Amateurs use of hand held 2 way radios.
Please keep the comments coming, but no more wild accusations. 10 years down the track, we might wish that we had been more careful, particularly with our little kids use of all this stuff.

David
VK3AUU

[VK4TU]

WiFi,
It varies max 4W EIRP but most mobile devices (laptops, phones) are in the 100-200mW range. http://nuke.freenet-antennas.com.au/mod ... cle&sid=33
Mobile phones 250mW according to Wikipedia. ISTR base stations being 40W into high gain co-linears back in the '90s but don't quote me on that. We did have big EMR signs up next to the bases but that was based on thermal effect and the exclusion zone was 1m vertical and something like 10 horizontal. Remember that the EMR limits are based on the smallest level likely to cause any problems + a safety factor.
Comparing this to smoking is bad science. Smoking kills thousands a year, if we were seeing evidence of brain tumours at that rate then I agree we should worry. Based on current evidence, if there is a risk it's very small.
73,
Joe VK4TU

[VK3ES]

I agree with David VK3HZ that this was very poor journalism.
They talk about RF exposure now being listed as a class 2B carcinogen. What about carpentry and joinery, coffee and talcum powder? Yes, they too are class 2B carcinogens and there was no mention of the imminent threat to humanity they pose.
They also made no real distinction between the relative exposure levels from a phone held to your ear and a WiFi transmitter in the room. We're talking many orders of magnitude difference, but they were treated as being equivalent hazards.
If there is any credible evidence of a causal link between low level RF exposure and cancer, I have no doubt that regulatory bodies around the world will act quickly to prevent harm. That's their job.
Having said all that, my advice when anyone asks me is to keep your phone away from your body if possible, just as a common sense precaution.

73 Andy
VK3ES