Ainslie mobile phone base station proposal

MCB said :

From my perspective, the risks far outweigh the benefits. I understand many others will have a different view, particularly those that are mobile junkies and don’t live near a tower, so face no downside risk.

MCB, please give a valid scientific argument why we should ignore the inverse square law. A mobile tower you say is 500m away vs a mobile phone a couple of mm next to your brain. Why do “mobile junkies” face no downside risk in your view?

Do you use a mobile phone?

MCB said :

But yes I do live near the proposed development – that is why the possible risk of it being a health hazard matters to me.

That’s no excuse for trying to spread false rumours with no basis in fact.

MCB doesn’t seem to realise theres already towers operating there, meaning the health risk (if it is one) that exists tomorrow, exists today and existed yesterday. Indeed has probably existed the last twenty years depending on when the first AMPS towers went in (and those suckers were analogue so had huge power outputs).

I’m interested in talking about mobile phone base stations, not about myself. In soccer terms, play the ball, not the man. But yes I do live near the proposed development – that is why the possible risk of it being a health hazard matters to me. I have to weigh up the possible risks to me, my family and neighbours against the certain benefit that many mobile users in the area would receive from improved phone services. From my perspective, the risks far outweigh the benefits. I understand many others will have a different view, particularly those that are mobile junkies and don’t live near a tower, so face no downside risk. I’m fine with that – this is a democracy and everyone is entitled to their own view, as I am to mine.

So, MCB, is this the first base station that you’ve worked to oppose? If so, why not all the others that are located within 500m of populous areas (which would be the majority of them)? Do you live within 500m of this Ainslie tower?

Do you own a mobile phone? What steps do you take to avoid radiation from it?

You point out that there are no long term studies from 3G stations – do you believe the radiation to be effectually different that from a 2G station on the same frequency?

Do you oppose all new technology and infrastructure developements locally or otherwise which maybe have an adverse health impact, but causation has not been proven? If so, which ones? If not, why just this one?

I don’t seem to be able to access the second page of this thread while I’m logged in, so I can’t quote anybody properly, but I’ll give it a try.

I spent 20+ years living next to the 500kW transmitter at Belconnen Naval Station. The transmitter was so powerful it used to make the lights on Ginninderra drive go crazy occasionally. You’d think that it would have caused a massive cancer cluster, but it hasn’t.

I have also worked in the industry, and know quite a few technicians and engineers who have worked on everything from ELF to radar and microwave. This is a group of people who are exposed on a daily basis to levels of EMR far higher than a mobile tower would produce. Again, there’s no massive cluster of unexplained cancers striking down RF technicians worldwide.

MCB, I had a read through some of the information you linked to and it appears that the studies that you refer to don’t actually provide a concrete link between cancer and mobile towers, only a correlation. And as someone else rightly pointed out, correlation does not equal causation.

That said, the link cannot be completely ignored, but lets not cross the line from caution into paranoia.

Jazz
While you’re at it, you might want to refresh your memory on the RiotACT commenting guidelines. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with my views but a number of the comments above are neither thoughtful, positive nor civil. I expected more of the RiotACT.

Jazz said :

something is going a bit whacky on this post and there are comments awaiting moderation that I can’t get to

Jazz, did you notice that logged in users can see the ‘to be’ moderated queue at http://the-riotact.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php

Is that intentional?

Aeek said :

Masquara said :

I know we are recommended to not have our mobile phones in our bedrooms, but who doesn’t?

I’ve tried countless alarm clocks and clock radios, none quite worked but now my mobile, best alarm ever – so it HAS to be in my bedroom.

as this seems lost in a moderation black hole

something is going a bit whacky on this post and there are comments awaiting moderation that I can’t get to

Masquara said :

I know we are recommended to not have our mobile phones in our bedrooms, but who doesn’t?

I’ve tried countless alarm clocks and clock radios, none quite worked but now my mobile, best alarm ever – so it HAS to be in my bedroom.

as this seems lost in a moderation black hole

Mordd said :

Who do I contact to order my tin-foil hat? 😛

i think you’ll find you’ll need a lead-foil hat; but i can sell you a nice tin one for a crisp hundred…

MCB said :

Glad my post has stimulated debate – I stand by my comments. For those seeking peer reviewed research, I am happy to refer you to the following:

a. A 2002 study by the French National Institute of Applied Sciences (Santini et al. 2002) which found significant neurological effects among people who lived within 300 metres of a mobile phone base station, including dizziness, headaches, memory loss, depression, irritability, chronic fatigue, sleep disruption, lowered libido and skin problems. The study concluded that people should not live within 300 metres of a mobile phone tower.

b. A 2003 study by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO 2003) that found significant impacts on wellbeing from 3G mast emissions well below accepted safety levels (1/25,000th of ICN/IRP guidelines), including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness.

c. A 2004 Spanish study (Gerd et al 2004) that found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM base stations, including depression, fatigue, sleeping disorder, lack of concentration and cardiovascular problems.

d. A 2004 Israeli study (Wolf and Wolf 2004) published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, which found a fourfold incidence of cancer generally within people living within 350 metres of a long established phone mast compared with the general population, and a tenfold increase amongst women compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast (particularly breast cancer).

e. A 2004 German study (Eger et al 2004) published in the journal of the German Society for Environmental Medicine, which found that the risk of developing malignant cancers trebled for residents living within 400 metres of a mobile phone base station compared to residents living further away.

f. A 2007 Egyptian study (Abdel-Rassoul et al 2004) published in the journal Neurotoxicology, which found significantly higher prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints in those living near mobile phone base stations, including headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depression and sleep disturbance.

g. A 2009 Austrian Institute of Environmental Health study (Kundi and Hutter 2009) published in the journal Pathophysiology, which found there was a very strong increase of incidence of cancer within a 350 to 400 metre radius of mobile phone base stations.

h. A 2011 Brazilian study (Dode et al. 2011) published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, which found an apparent increase in accumulated incidence rates of cancer deaths of residents living within 500 metres of a mobile phone base station.

The WHO’s position on EMF is no longer so clear cut. the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2011) found that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

ARPANSA itself admits that it’s standard does not cover non-thermal effects that some scientists believe pose a public health hazard. ARPANSA’s fact sheet “Mobile Telephones and Health Effects” (ARPANSA 2012) states that while there is no clear evidence in the existing scientific literature that the use of mobile telephones poses a long-term public health hazard, the possibility of a small risk cannot be ruled out. According to ARPANSA, in addition to the risk of cancer from thermal effects, some research has indicated that non-thermal effects resulting from low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may also occur. The existence of these effects and their implications has not been sufficiently established to allow for their inclusion in the ARPANSA standard.

According to a report “How Exposure to Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans” (Hyland 2002) by leading physicist Dr Gerard Hyland from the University of Warwick, UK and the International Institute of Biophysics, Germany (twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine), “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate … Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.” His report highlights the way in which this radiation affects brain function – specifically, its electrical activity (EEG), its electrochemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier – and degrades the immune system.

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety’s 2008 Venice Resolution, signed by 46 of the world’s leading electromagnetic scientists, states: “we remain concerned about the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health. … we are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. We, who are at the forefront of this research, encourage an ethical approach in setting of exposure standards which protect the health of all, including those who are more vulnerable. We recognize the need for research to reveal the critical exposure parameters of effect and risk from exposure to electromagnetic fields. The non-ionizing radiation protection standards recommended by international standards organizations, and supported by the World Health Organization, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A world wide application of the Precautionary Principle is required. In addition, new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people. We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.”

References

Abdel-Rassoul G., Abou El-Fateha O., Abou Salema M., Michaela A., Farahata F., El-Batanounya M. and Salema E. (2004) “Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations”, Neurotoxicology, Volume 28, No 2, 434-40.

ARPANSA (2012) “Mobile Telephones and Health Effects”, ARPANSA Fact Sheet 13, ARPANSA, Yallambie, available at http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/factsheets/013is_mobiletelephones.pdf , downloaded 28 January 2014.

Balmori A. (2009) “Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts – Effects on wildlife”, Pathophysiology, Volume 16, No 2-3:191-9.

Dode A., Leao M., Tejo F., Gomes A., Dode D., Dode M., Moreira C., Condessa V., Albinatti C. and Caiaffa W. (2011) “Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil” Science of the Total Environment. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21741680. Downloaded 27 January 2014.

Eger H., Hagen K.U., Lucas B., Vogel P. and Voit H. (2004) “The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer”, Journal of the German Society for Environmental Medicine, Volume 17, No 4.

Gerd O., Navarro A.E., Portoles M., Maestu C. and Gomez P.C. (2004) The Microwave Syndrome – Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Paper presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004

Hyland (2002), How Exposure to Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans, available at http://www.notowersnearschools.com/docs/hyland.pdf , downloaded 27 January 2014.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (2011), “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans”, IARC Press Release No 208, available at http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf, downloaded 28 January 2014.

Kundi M. and Hutter H-P. (2009) “Mobile phone base stations — Effects on wellbeing and health”, Pathophysiology, 16: 123-135.

Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (2003) “Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints”, Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Health, Welfare and Sport.

Santini R., Santini P., Le Ruz P., Danze,J. and Seigne M. (2002) “Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations”, Pathologie Biologie, 50: 369-73.

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (2008), Venice Resolution, available at http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm , downloaded 27 January 2014.

Wolf R. and Wolf D. (2004) “Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station”, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, Volume 1, No 2.

I spent 30+ years living next to the 500kW transmitter at the Belconnen Naval Station. It was so powerful that it used to play havoc with the traffic lights on Ginninderra Drive. I haven’t got cancer yet.

I also have worked in the industry, and know people who have worked on everything from ELF transmitters to microwave and satellite systems. None of them are dying of cancer either.

I appreciate that this is mainly anecdotal evidence, but it is from the group that would be far more likely to develop RF radiation caused cancers than the general population, and it just doesn’t happen.

While I can’t say that I read all of the material you posted exhaustively, what I did notice is that the studies you quote contain a lot of vaguely worded statements about possible effects, but few concrete conclusions. As Qbngeek quite rightly points out, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Who do I contact to order my tin-foil hat? 😛

MCB said :

Glad my post has stimulated debate – I stand by my comments. For those seeking peer reviewed research, I am happy to refer you to the following:

etc

So looking through most of that my response to most of the studies you have listed is an oldie but a goodie. Correlation does not imply Causation.

The main theme I keep seeing in the studies is ‘found significant neurological effects’, ‘found significant impacts’, ‘significant ill-health effects’. I don’t have time to check all those studies but the ones I did check are a bit sketchy regarding what the effects are significant in comparison to.

The other thing I noticed in some of those studies is that none of them are conclusive evidence. Based on you position on this then your overall position should be if something could possibly maybe be bad for us then we should stop it at once.

Gee, you are going to have a boring (but short) life and finding something to eat will be a struggle. However I expect dehydration will get you first because tap water could be bad because of the additives or particulate from the pipes and rain water will contain dirt and possibly chemicals from the air and rivers/creeks are far from pure, Bottled water may have leached chemicals from the plastic or glass and spring water comes from the ground about as far pure as you can get.

Good Luck.

MCB said :

Glad my post has stimulated debate – I stand by my comments. For those seeking peer reviewed research, I am happy to refer you to the following:

I would agree with you except that I have a mobile phone right next to my brain several times a day – surely that’s the greater risk – I know we are recommended to not have our mobile phones in our bedrooms, but who doesn’t?

Glad my post has stimulated debate – I stand by my comments. For those seeking peer reviewed research, I am happy to refer you to the following:

a. A 2002 study by the French National Institute of Applied Sciences (Santini et al. 2002) which found significant neurological effects among people who lived within 300 metres of a mobile phone base station, including dizziness, headaches, memory loss, depression, irritability, chronic fatigue, sleep disruption, lowered libido and skin problems. The study concluded that people should not live within 300 metres of a mobile phone tower.

b. A 2003 study by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO 2003) that found significant impacts on wellbeing from 3G mast emissions well below accepted safety levels (1/25,000th of ICN/IRP guidelines), including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness.

c. A 2004 Spanish study (Gerd et al 2004) that found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM base stations, including depression, fatigue, sleeping disorder, lack of concentration and cardiovascular problems.

d. A 2004 Israeli study (Wolf and Wolf 2004) published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, which found a fourfold incidence of cancer generally within people living within 350 metres of a long established phone mast compared with the general population, and a tenfold increase amongst women compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast (particularly breast cancer).

e. A 2004 German study (Eger et al 2004) published in the journal of the German Society for Environmental Medicine, which found that the risk of developing malignant cancers trebled for residents living within 400 metres of a mobile phone base station compared to residents living further away.

f. A 2007 Egyptian study (Abdel-Rassoul et al 2004) published in the journal Neurotoxicology, which found significantly higher prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints in those living near mobile phone base stations, including headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depression and sleep disturbance.

g. A 2009 Austrian Institute of Environmental Health study (Kundi and Hutter 2009) published in the journal Pathophysiology, which found there was a very strong increase of incidence of cancer within a 350 to 400 metre radius of mobile phone base stations.

h. A 2011 Brazilian study (Dode et al. 2011) published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, which found an apparent increase in accumulated incidence rates of cancer deaths of residents living within 500 metres of a mobile phone base station.

The WHO’s position on EMF is no longer so clear cut. the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2011) found that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

ARPANSA itself admits that it’s standard does not cover non-thermal effects that some scientists believe pose a public health hazard. ARPANSA’s fact sheet “Mobile Telephones and Health Effects” (ARPANSA 2012) states that while there is no clear evidence in the existing scientific literature that the use of mobile telephones poses a long-term public health hazard, the possibility of a small risk cannot be ruled out. According to ARPANSA, in addition to the risk of cancer from thermal effects, some research has indicated that non-thermal effects resulting from low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may also occur. The existence of these effects and their implications has not been sufficiently established to allow for their inclusion in the ARPANSA standard.

According to a report “How Exposure to Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans” (Hyland 2002) by leading physicist Dr Gerard Hyland from the University of Warwick, UK and the International Institute of Biophysics, Germany (twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine), “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate … Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.” His report highlights the way in which this radiation affects brain function – specifically, its electrical activity (EEG), its electrochemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier – and degrades the immune system.

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety’s 2008 Venice Resolution, signed by 46 of the world’s leading electromagnetic scientists, states: “we remain concerned about the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health. … we are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological. We, who are at the forefront of this research, encourage an ethical approach in setting of exposure standards which protect the health of all, including those who are more vulnerable. We recognize the need for research to reveal the critical exposure parameters of effect and risk from exposure to electromagnetic fields. The non-ionizing radiation protection standards recommended by international standards organizations, and supported by the World Health Organization, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A world wide application of the Precautionary Principle is required. In addition, new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people. We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.”

References

Abdel-Rassoul G., Abou El-Fateha O., Abou Salema M., Michaela A., Farahata F., El-Batanounya M. and Salema E. (2004) “Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations”, Neurotoxicology, Volume 28, No 2, 434-40.

ARPANSA (2012) “Mobile Telephones and Health Effects”, ARPANSA Fact Sheet 13, ARPANSA, Yallambie, available at http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/factsheets/013is_mobiletelephones.pdf , downloaded 28 January 2014.

Balmori A. (2009) “Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts – Effects on wildlife”, Pathophysiology, Volume 16, No 2-3:191-9.

Dode A., Leao M., Tejo F., Gomes A., Dode D., Dode M., Moreira C., Condessa V., Albinatti C. and Caiaffa W. (2011) “Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil” Science of the Total Environment. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21741680. Downloaded 27 January 2014.

Eger H., Hagen K.U., Lucas B., Vogel P. and Voit H. (2004) “The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer”, Journal of the German Society for Environmental Medicine, Volume 17, No 4.

Gerd O., Navarro A.E., Portoles M., Maestu C. and Gomez P.C. (2004) The Microwave Syndrome – Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Paper presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004

Hyland (2002), How Exposure to Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans, available at http://www.notowersnearschools.com/docs/hyland.pdf , downloaded 27 January 2014.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (2011), “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans”, IARC Press Release No 208, available at http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf, downloaded 28 January 2014.

Kundi M. and Hutter H-P. (2009) “Mobile phone base stations — Effects on wellbeing and health”, Pathophysiology, 16: 123-135.

Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (2003) “Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints”, Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Health, Welfare and Sport.

Santini R., Santini P., Le Ruz P., Danze,J. and Seigne M. (2002) “Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations”, Pathologie Biologie, 50: 369-73.

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (2008), Venice Resolution, available at http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm , downloaded 27 January 2014.

Wolf R. and Wolf D. (2004) “Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station”, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, Volume 1, No 2.

I like how MCB subtley words the opening paragraph so it sounds like there’s a basestation being built where there isn’t already one, rather than just upgrading an existing one.

I’m confused as to how adding a third carrier to the site results in a 7-fold increase in RF, but as someone who lives within 500m of a “bush base station”, and an Optus user, I say: Go ahead, it’s about time. They’d better put Optus 4G in there.

OP -Im intrigued by your philosophy. How do I sign up for your newsletter?

Inappropriate said :

Spectra said :

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

Yeah yeah, and x-rays are EMR too. I was referring to non-ionizing radiation 😛

I figured. But what’s the point of life if not to post pointless pedantry to the internet? 🙂

roccon said :

more towers means phones radiating at lower power, with the base station likewise not “yelling as loud” either as it communicates with the device as it is now closer.

example: Scullin… new tower went in at Scullin and my phone went from trying to melt the coffee table to being as cool as a cucumber. A win for all 🙂

You’re half right there, it does mean phones can use less transmission power, which reduces emissions. However the tower always has to cover the same area so doesn’t do anything for tower output. Same with WiFi base stations in the home, the transmission power is set, each devices then decides how much to use to meet that signal.

Have you looked at the mobile base station on the roundabout at Goyder St and Jerrabomberra Av Narrabundah? Closer than 90 metres to apartment complexes and a school. But we accept it because we are not NIMBYs.

If you’re happy not to use a mobile phone or wifi, keep on complaining. Your neighbours may disagree with you.

…and possibly have negative health impacts on the large population of Eastern Grey Kangaroos living in close proximity to the proposed location.

Get help, Mike. You are clearly suffering from anxiety, paranoia and delusions. The sooner you admit *you* have the problem, the sooner you can avoid the frustration and anger involved with fighting against reality.

more towers means phones radiating at lower power, with the base station likewise not “yelling as loud” either as it communicates with the device as it is now closer.

example: Scullin… new tower went in at Scullin and my phone went from trying to melt the coffee table to being as cool as a cucumber. A win for all 🙂

troll-sniffer said :

You’re exposed to more radiation from the wiring in your own home than what you could ever be exposed to from this or any other of Canberra’s many phone and radio towers.

Not to mention Halogen and CFL globes both emit a certain level of UVR (not a dangerous amount at normal usage distances and many halogens should have filters). And the old cathode ray televisions and computer monitors emitted at least a small amount of x-rays.

Oh dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie me!

You’re exposed to more radiation from the wiring in your own home than what you could ever be exposed to from this or any other of Canberra’s many phone and radio towers.

Or have you adopted an electricity-free lifestyle already? Thought not.

pierce said :

Just for the record, tin foil hats have been shown to have shown to actually amplify any EM or other waves floating about. Apparently you’re better off with a lead-foil hat – if that was a thing.

haha, very good point. Reminds me of tests over the years of various covers and attachments for mobile phones that were sold on the claim they protected users from exposure to the phone’s EM emissions. Of course those tests found those accessories either didn’t do anything at all, or worse disrupted the phone’s signal causing it to transmit at a higher power output, raising the SAR.

Spectra said :

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

Yeah yeah, and x-rays are EMR too. I was referring to non-ionizing radiation 😛

p996911turbo said :

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.

Well said, Turbo. I look forward to seeing MCB’s anti-vaccination rants.

Just for the record, tin foil hats have been shown to have shown to actually amplify any EM or other waves floating about. Apparently you’re better off with a lead-foil hat – if that was a thing.

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

This is a brilliant read.
(Insert golf clap here)

In a previous life I used to have to read letters to Ministers about mobile phone towers. There were two categories of letters – those like the OP, who lived in fear of the modern equivalent of evil spirits, and those who claimed that the Minister was murdering people who could not get in touch in emergencies because of inadequate or congested coverage.

Both of these hysterical and to-be-pitied categories are still with us, according to friends who still work in that area.

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

This needs to be filed between the Wind Farm disease study and the emails you get from your mum about what microwaves do to water.

Just let these people know that every second billions of radiated particles are passing through their bodies.

Won’t somebody think of the children!

And the Elderly!

And the Kangaroos!

Seriously though, you’re talking about levels that are just over 4% of the maximum safe exposure level as determined by the WHO. Consider that we live in an environment where we are literally being bathed in EM radiation on a daily basis, from all sorts of sources, at levels that are probably quite a bit higher than the 4% you’d get from a mobile tower. On a day to day basis, mobile phone towers are a single drop into a big ocean of RF.

You should probably also do some research into the different types of radiation. I don’t think EM radiation works the way you think it does…

Is this Johnboys last great troll?

There are mobile base stations everywhere. Buildings, shops, schools, sporting facilities – just about everywhere. There is one about 25m from the houses at the bottom of my street.

Is there an Inner north NIMBY Wanker of the week award?

You forgot to add that a mobile phone tower will attract to many aliens. They love that shit!

So we’re happy when we can get super fast 4G speeds, and complain when we don’t get 100% perfect cell coverage, yet we bitch and moan when a new tower is built.

If you don’t want the electromagnetic radiation hand us your mobile phone and all other electronic devices and see how you go…

Re: the OPs tin foil post, they obviously have no idea just how many base stations are around the place, not to mention femtocells and WLAN base stations and other wireless transmission equipment.

For some years now, there’s been a TV translator mounted on an ACTEW water tank in Tuggeranong, it’s rated power output is 150w in the 550-600mhz range and it’s close to houses. To my knowledge, no one complained because TV doesn’t illicit the same rebuke as does mobile phones, despite the fact a 3G cell site has just a fraction of the output, about 3w for 2100mhz stations.

But let’s look at some other examples, because in Canberra, we’re fortunate that the other TV translators tend to be in green reserves, not a luxury they have interstate.

The ABC has a 650w and 2.6kw transmitter on top of The Elan building in Kings Cross, other channels have their own with similar outputs.

The Eagles Nest Restaurant at Thredbo has a 20w ABC transmitter on it.

They may not know the name, but I’m sure a lot of people on here know of Hampden Road in Artarmon, in the middle of the suburbs. Couldn’t miss those transmitters from the Pacific Highway surely. Less than 200m from houses, with 4 x 200kw, 1 x 850kw, 4 x 50kw transmitters on top.

If someone has figures on a massively higher cancer rate for people in Artarmon, please feel free to post them. I’d be interested.

It’s not reception people, the networks are using very robust 800-900 mhz frequencies. It’s capacity, that’s why you have trouble connecting in central Canberra. They’ve oversold their networks so that the base stations are being saturated with users.

It’s absolutely terrible in Sydney’s CBD on a week day, it ended up being faster to turn off 3G and rely on EDGE instead. And while 4G offers some improvement, just wait till it becomes the norm and becomes saturated.

p996911turbo said :

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.

+1

Some of the most disgraceful nimbyism and garbage science I’ve ever seen.

I look forward to OP leaving Canberra for a remote underground bunker to escape all the scary electromagnetic radiation that we’re all constantly being bombarded with from insidious new inventions like the sun.

I bet he uses a mobile phone.

Finally. The reception around this area is horrible, but slowly getting better. Pretty bad considering its 10 minutes to the CBD.
Go grab your tin foil hat and run along now.

If I read this right, it’s currently a Vodafone tower which Telstra also occupy. This DA is for Optus to upgrade the pole and also add their antennas. So effectively moving from 2 carriers to 3.

While I’m sure we all love to live free of EMR, it’s an existing site which I presume those nearby are already aware of.

Just put your tin foil hat on and you’ll be right. I’m sure you’ll have some spare from the many roll you’ve already used to wrap every single item in your house. Could put some antennae on the hats too.

NIMBY

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.