Cell towers: New scientific study reveals extent of electropollution damage to human brain function
Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 1 month ago to Science
The study, authored by Professor Enrique A Navarro, concluded that the severity of such symptoms directly correlated to cell tower exposure levels. In other words, the closer a person lives to a cell tower, the greater the severity of their symptoms. This was true regardless of race, income level and other demographics.
Cell towers, of course, broadcast and receive electromagnetic switching signals. Human biology -- and the brain in particular -- relies on electro-biochemical pathways for healthy function. Many scientists have long suspected that chronic exposure to low levels of EMF pollution (electropollution) may interfere with healthy functioning of the brain and body. This latest research adds yet more support to that alarming idea.
It's not your imagination: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has long been dismissed as non-existent by some doctors and industry-funded scientists. After all, if EMF pollution from cell towers really does harm public health, then the implications are truly massive, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
But electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a genuine phenomenon. People are not "inventing" side effects or symptoms. As Navarro writes in the study:
The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been recently introduced in discussions attributing symptoms to exposure to EMFs. A review of this topic in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 m from [cell phone towers].
Importantly, all these symptoms were recorded in people living near cell phone towers whose broadcast signal strength meets current safety guidelines. As the study author points out, this most likely means current government guidelines on cell phone towers are inadequate to protect the public. Revising such guidelines could have drastic implications for the nationwide telecommunications infrastructure.
By the way, people who live fewer than 500 meters from cell phone towers appear to be especially at risk of electromagnetic interference with brain function. Because electropollution strength is determined by the inverse square of the distance, a person who moves twice as close to a cell tower experiences four times the radiation.
Cell towers, of course, broadcast and receive electromagnetic switching signals. Human biology -- and the brain in particular -- relies on electro-biochemical pathways for healthy function. Many scientists have long suspected that chronic exposure to low levels of EMF pollution (electropollution) may interfere with healthy functioning of the brain and body. This latest research adds yet more support to that alarming idea.
It's not your imagination: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has long been dismissed as non-existent by some doctors and industry-funded scientists. After all, if EMF pollution from cell towers really does harm public health, then the implications are truly massive, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
But electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a genuine phenomenon. People are not "inventing" side effects or symptoms. As Navarro writes in the study:
The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been recently introduced in discussions attributing symptoms to exposure to EMFs. A review of this topic in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 m from [cell phone towers].
Importantly, all these symptoms were recorded in people living near cell phone towers whose broadcast signal strength meets current safety guidelines. As the study author points out, this most likely means current government guidelines on cell phone towers are inadequate to protect the public. Revising such guidelines could have drastic implications for the nationwide telecommunications infrastructure.
By the way, people who live fewer than 500 meters from cell phone towers appear to be especially at risk of electromagnetic interference with brain function. Because electropollution strength is determined by the inverse square of the distance, a person who moves twice as close to a cell tower experiences four times the radiation.
SOURCE URL: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836.full
When "scientists" square off against each other how can a layman know who to believe?
Usually I rely on scientific consensus. It's not fool proof but it is a great place to start.
That shtick about stodgy institutions that won't listen to "outsiders", or believe ideas that are too "radical", is garbage.
Science will believe ANYTHING posited by ANYONE so long as they can PROVE it!
Remember Einstein - the PATENT CLERK who disputed NEWTON, the greatest scientist EVER, claiming that space bends, time slows down and yardsticks shrink?
The hillbilly hunter who comes home with bigfoot strapped to the hood WILL BE believed - after the DNA comes back.
And no idea is too radical. Science will believe damn near anything. Invisible animals kill people. Diseases are cured by the power of the mind. Even that things can move from one side of a wall to the other without passing through or going around. (Germs, the placebo effect and tunneling electrons.)
But science does NOT believe in EMF hypersensitivity. Why? Because it hasn't been PROVEN.
And a heavy burden of proof it would require too, for it flies in the face of some very plain counter evidence.
Consider this:
How does a person with EMF hypersensitivity react to an electron gun shooting them square in the face from inches away? Do they recoil and shield their eyes? (CRT computer screens)
Does they feel woozy when an electric car idles next to them at a red light? (Do you have ANY idea how strong the EMF field is around an electric motor powerful enough to propel a ton of man and machine down the freeway at 60mph?)
Do "hyper-sensitives" fall to the floor in seizure when walking down the hospital corridor, unknowingly 12 feet away from an MRI, a magnet so strong it can rip metal from flesh?
And as for the radiated electromagnetic spectrum - from gamma to radio - it's effects on human beings have been studied extensively for a hundred years.
This isn't new science.
But I'm a proper skeptic.
Just because a thing hasn't been proven YET doesn't mean it might not be true.
When it all comes down, when the research is in, maybe the evidence will change the scientific consensus.
Then SCIENCE will do what PSEUDO-SCIENCE could never do - ADMIT IT WAS WRONG! Adjust and expand to embrace this new PROVEN concept, boldly proclaim a new FACT, an addition to "that which is known"
But until that time - I'll retain my skepticism. And frankly, grade you down a point for not retaining yours.
Read the one comment and end.
There are many studies, there is no evidence of harm.
Fortunately, there's not evidence that RF energy causes any biological effects, unless there's enough to heat the issue.
I think if the news media published a story that wearing a cell phone tied to your head made you (a) taller. (b) more beautiful, (c) irresistable, or (d) a good dancer, a majority of people would show up for work with cell phones attached, and there would be a big demand for "attractive silk cellphone scarves."
All the athermal arguments are based on anomaly hunting: They look for any thing out of the ordinary that they can associate with RF. Even studies that show a possible therapeutic benefit to RF, with results always down in the noise, they take that as evidence RF has *some* athermal effects. They're not starting with a model and getting evidence. They just look for anything to attribute to athermal microwave effects.
http://www.element14.com/community/commu...