New Report

13 posts by 5 authors in: Forums > CWTS - Enterprise Wi-Fi Fundamentals
Last Post: June 6, 2011:
  • One of the main issues here is ?Which independent group is going to pay for these studies ??. If you dig deeply into most of the previous studies, you will find that just about every single one of them was sponsored by the major mobile operators. Most of them did not state that fact in the sponsor documentation. Often it was hidden behind the names of other groups.

    The fact of the matter is that mobile phones are here to stay. Period. Even if there were studies done to show that there is some form of a link between mobile phones and cancer, the reality is that it probably wouldn?t make much difference. The vast majority of us would just carry on using them.

    The main point I was making was that people who use them ?all day long, jammed against their heads? may want to rethink that.

    There is this myth that all satellite communications signals need thousands of Watts of power. In the vast majority of cases, a few Watts is often all that is needed for adequate communications. The leakage power via the reflector panels that I spoke about previously was well below the levels of most mobile phones.

    I have worked with RF my entire life. From Wi-FI to HF to Tropospheric Scatter to UHF to VHF to just about everything in between. While anecdotal ( and I am well aware of how proper studies need to be carried out involving control groups etc ), what happened to the riggers I spoke about was way beyond co-incidence. Even the cancer specialist in London who treated all of them said that it was statistically impossible for a group like that to have developed those particular cancers without an external stimulus.
    Anecdotal?yes?.but there is a thing called a gut feeling that cannot be defined scientifically or with any studies. Same sort of thing with contractors and builders years ago re asbestos. I remember hearing some of the blokes who were putting the stuff into the ceilings of some buildings when I was a kid saying ?I think there?s something not right about this stuff???Billie and Scott are not smokers, but their lungs are all messed up?. Anecdotal stories continued for many, many years, until finally the ?truth? about asbestos was revealed.

    There will probably be a zillion more studies done in the future. ?Link between Mobile Phones and Cancer proven !!!? ?Link between Mobile Phones and Cancer disproven !!? etc etc.

    What this all boils down to is this: Despite all the fancy ads ?Droid !!...? ?Can you hear me ?? , happy families all relaxing in the living room while smiling kids call their buddies on their new 4G/LTE/ 1000 Gigabits per microsecond/facial recognition/will do your homework for you/will make you happier than you?ve ever been phones????you still have an active radio transmitter blasting energy through your brains and eyes ( if anyone doesn?t believe that ?..use a power meter of the appropriate type on the other side of your head, with shielding around the head to counteract diffraction etc , and prepare to be surprised??) ?

    To anyone who does or will in the future have a phone ?glued to the side of their head, all day long?, I say ?God bless you, sir or madam, that?s your Constitutional right?.

    I just know that I won?t be doing it.

    Anyways, this whole ?argument ? will probably still be going on long after I?ve shuffled off these mortal coils.


  • Dave1234 - You do understand that I was agreeing with you, don 't you? No matter...

    All I was trying to get across is that the scientific community would never accept 'gut feelings' as evidence in a study and thus, they would never pass peer review and never get published in reputable journals. As right as we all know our guts are, as long as there is no hard scientific data then the naysayers will always be able to use that as their 'evidence' that there is no connection. Yes, I know, using an absence of evidenc as evidence seems a little strange but people do it all the time.

    An example of how they would counter your argument is by agreeing that it is statistically improbable that such a small cluster of individuals could have experienced those particular illnesses without an external influence. How could anybody argue against that? What they would say is that there is no evidence that RF / satellite signals was the actual external influence (again, the same old correlation does not equal causality argument). Possibly all riggers used the same type of electrical equipment to do their jobs and it is that device that is to blame. (I have no clue what riggers do or what type of equipment they use, this is just a made up example). While we know in our hearts/minds that they're full of it, they would convince enough people, whose best interest it was to be convinced, to take their side with that argument.

    Will these studies ever exist? I'm sure one day they will but only after a very long time or until it becomes financially beneficial for them to exist ( unlikely ). Until then, I tend to agree with you that people shouldn't be strapping these thing to their heads like some kind of appendage.

    It'll be interesting/entertaining to watch this debate rage on for a very long time to come.

  • Yes, I did realise that.

    It wouldn't matter how many anecdotal "tales" were told, unless proper tests with control groups were done, many people wouldn't believe a word of it.

    However, there are some areas where something in the back of your mind troubles you.

    When tanning booths were "in fashion" in the late 80s and 90s, there were mumblings from several scientists about the possible dangers. Same thing happened......a number of tests were carried out ( all sponsored by the manufacturers )....."everything is need to worry".

    Of course now, we are all aware of the risks.

    I just put that posting up to say to folks "We don't know enough about this stuff, and mobile phones are not toys. Slick advertising has increased their use dramatically. They are active radio transmitters which most people use, by placing them against their heads. I use one, but only use it for voice calls when I have to."

    I usually don't put much credence in anecdotal tales. However, I knew all of those guys well, from Hong Kong to Jamaica, to Bahrain to The Falklands, etc, etc. I also knew a lot of "old radio hands"...engineers who worked on high power radio systems, some of which had leakage at very low power levels. Same thing.

    The main functions performed by the riggers in this case, involved "hanging off the back" of the main reflector of a 110 foot diameter antenna. They did adjustments to the individual panels of the antenna and removed rust. All the tools were manual, with no other devices involved that emitted energy. They came from a wide range of social backgrounds, ate a variety of foods, some were couch potatoes and others were ex Special Forces. They came from a variety of different origins. Myself and some other radio engineers all worked at the same stations, but not doing rigging work. I am unaware of any of us ( hundreds ) who have had any cancers thus far. Again, only anecdotal, but all of us who have worked at those locations are convinced that long term exposure to RF signals at a variety of fequencies, at levels lower than those from mobile phones caused problems for those guys.

Page 2 of 2