19 responses so far ↓

• 1
  1fixitman // Apr 26, 2008 at 7:14 am

  Just another dis-information story. How much do they pay these reporters to manipulate the truth? Just gift it and move on lol. One tower buster will cripple the ELF from this cell tower in a few hours. How long and how much money does it take to build one?

• 2
  Mitchell // Apr 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  You have no idea how much I wish I got paid to do stuff like this.

• 3
  A True Skeptic // Apr 26, 2008 at 6:41 pm

  Mitchell,
  Please update your POV to follow the guieline of the above definition of _skeptic_. Your research is considerably lacking to be able to offer such publication.

  Ever seen any videos of DDT, aka Agent Orange, and how the ‘harmless to humans’ dust was more than liberally showered over villagers to help them with any pest problems and the like… Im sure you’re aware of the outcomes of that…

  Let me ask you if you’d lump Depleted Uranium use amongst the ‘unproven’ and psychosomatic associations befalling the Iraq population since 1992…

  Cell Phone Towers, Microwave radiation, Aerosol Operations and Depleted Uranium are easily put together as very major medical and environmental problems that _any_ serious research .. meaning more than 15 minutes. In less than a decade the majority of the population of the entire planet will view these as assaults in the same manner that DDT is seen as today. For those that refuse to let apathy wipe the memories away that is…

  Good Day and Good Luck.

• 4
  Mitchell // Apr 26, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  Hi ‘A True Skeptic’.

  Unfortunately, you can’t lump depleted uranium, DDT, and microwave radiation together, because they are not the same things. Aerosol Operations, to my knowledge, is merely a baseless conspiracy theory (and as such is, again, in its own category). Some people have been kind enough to send me the names of some people who have engaged in researching the harms of microwave radiation, and I am preparing a follow-up article. Check back soon for the next installment. As always, we welcome the comments of you and any other critics.

• 5
  ThePug // Apr 26, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  A True Skeptic,

  You suggest in your response that “serious” research on the dangers of microwave radiation from cell towers has been conducted, and that if one were to look at the results of such research, their viewpoint might change. But yet you seem to have omitted any links to said research. Care to explain your rationale?

  You also seem to believe that DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) and Agent Orange (a (roughly) 1:1 mixture of two phenoxy herbicides in ester form, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)) are the same thing when they are not. By not focusing on the issue at hand, and instead diverging to unrelated topics, you are not strengthening your argument, you are weakening it.

  Good day.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

• 6
  Teshi // Apr 26, 2008 at 11:51 pm

  “Ever seen any videos of DDT, aka Agent Orange, and how the ‘harmless to humans’ dust…”

  Without commenting on the remainder of your post, DDT and Agent Orange were both intended and designed to destroy biological organisms. This is not the case with cell tower radiation.

• 7
  Paul // Apr 27, 2008 at 12:22 am

  fixitman, your post is not only nonsensical, but blatantly paranoid.

  I would *love* to be paid for hosting this site. Instead, money out of my pocket is being used to fund lintbox, not to post misinformation or some conspiratorial doublespeak, but because skepticism is my passion. Mitchell, as well as every other editor for Lintbox shares this passion. I can’t convince you that I’m not in the pocket of “big science” for whatever the hell that might mean, but I ask that you take a step back and consider the absurdity of your accusation.

  And A True Skeptic: I discussed this before with Mitchell, and my feeling is that the controversy surrounding the tower is founded in a fear for safety and good health… concerns which I can see justified, however misguided they may be. You cannot lump all forms of radiation into the same category. A high school physics class will teach you that light, for example… from your lamp, from a lit candle, and especially from the sun, is radiation. These forms of radiation are not, within sensible exposure, inherently dangerous. Some forms of radiation can be stopped by a thin piece of paper, while others can pass through lead. Some forms of radiation are ionizing, while others aren’t. The microwaves emitted from RF transmitters such as Cell Phone Towers are this kind of radiation, low-powered, non-ionizing radiation with wavelengths far too fat to affect the structure of human DNA, nor even a single living cell.

  In possibly the best example I can provide on the variety of radiation is in radiation therapy, where IONIZING radiation is used to attack cancer cells, accomplishing the very opposite of what fears over RF transmissions claim. Radiation may appear to be a complicated subject, but there are many, many accessible documents pertaining to research on the subject which conclude that these transmissions are harmless to human beings.

  In the meantime, I can find no more reliable a source on the subject than the CDC itself. The following is the CDC’s provided information on the supposed dangers of RF radiation:
  http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/factsheets/cellphone_facts.pdf

  I realize this is a very brief and possibly unconvincing pamphlet, but I also should provide you with this:

  http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/80107_33.html#Biological%20Effects%20of%20Energy

  You’ll see from the study that there ARE potential health effects from exposure to RF energy of or greater than 10 milliwatts per cubic centimetre. You’ll also find, however, the statement that “There is no convincing evidence to indicate that RF energy can cause cancer in humans.”

  So about that 10 milliwatts statistic… According to the FCC ( http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html ) the typical level of RF energy transmitted from Cell towers is 580 microwatts per cubic centimetre, or 0.58 milliwatts/cm^2… WELL below that required to produce any harmful thermal effect to humans.

  As I’ve said before, concern over one’s own health and the health of one’s family is understandable, however, the statistics clearly demonstrate that these towers, through implemented safety guidelines, do NOT adversely affect our bodies.

  -Paul

• 8
  martial law transmitters // Apr 28, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  I really wish some people and would wake up and stop calling the towers cell towers, there not for cell phones , there for tracking and making the population and environment sick. How many new high powered towers keep getting erected near schools, work offices, gas stations, hillsides, churches, etc..?

  Would you want to live with one a few feet from your apartment? Seen the fat cables linked to them from the generators? In light of genocidal governement policies, political events and history. Its not a stretch of imagination to understand how theese towers in cunjuction with chemtrails used to cause major harm to the populace. The number of orgonite activist worldwide and growing shows this to be a problem, that is fixable and being corrected, not to be overlooked by rigorous institionalized programming.
  :~)

• 9
  martial law transmitters // Apr 28, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  We know that studies and test can be skewed to benefit the parties seeking to deploy said technology.

• 10
  Paul // Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 am

  The guys and I were discussing how to respectfully respond to your comment, martial law, but to no avail. I can’t even bring myself to justify your arguments by acknowledging them. If this is a joke, then good show, you’ve gotten a laugh from all of us. If your paranoid rant was an honest expression of your perception of reality, then please, seek help.

  -Paul

• 11
  martial law transmitters // Apr 29, 2008 at 1:51 am

  disinfo board, move along.

• 12
  martial law transmitters // Apr 29, 2008 at 2:15 am

  Other topics of interest: false flag terror, emperialism, tyranny, weather modification tech (haarp , elf, gwen) mind control, 911 truth, illuminati, secret societies, symbolism, weather wars, water flouridation, vaccination dangers, compartmentalized information, problem -reaction- solution and that about covers it.

• 13
  Mitchell // Apr 29, 2008 at 5:26 am

  Thanks for your interest in our site. I’m sure we’ll get around to addressing some, if not most, of those topics in upcoming posts.

• 14
  jim // May 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Mitchell:

  I am a member of PACT (Precautionary Approach to Cell Towers) of Richmond Hill. A member of our group noticed your recent post pertaining to our web site, http://www.PACTCanada.ca. I commend you on your cogent points and well reasoned arguments, and I hope I do not sound facetious in saying so.

  That said, I put it to you that you have merely advocated a viewpoint based on a very selective reading of the evidence. I put it to you that true “skepticism” should be a double-edged sword pointing in either direction, untainted by bias. I trust that we can both agree on that general philosophical point.

  What bothered me about your post was the fact that you seemed so confident that there is a scientific consensus on the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. Were you not aware that there exists, in fact, a large body of scientific evidence - indeed, from published, peer-reviewed journals - that attest to biological effects from non-ionizing radiation? - the kind of effects for which you have assured your readers cannot happen, due to wavelengths that are just too “fat” to affect human cells and DNA?

  Just last year, a distinguished - and dare I say, very well-credentialed - group of scientists from all over the world convened to survey the state of scientific literature on non-ionizing radiation. They looked at studies from exposures to cell phones and cell tower masts. Their report, if you care to critique it, may be found at http://www.bioinitiative.org. Incidentally, the EU Environmental Agency contributed a chapter to it. I am presuming that your post was written without knowledge of this latest, and fairly credible, survey by distinguished members of the scientific community. So, I suggest that - in the interest of intellectual honesty over that of polished rhetoric - you direct your readers to the above-noted link and let them decide the issue of non-ionizing radiation for themselves rather than simply take your word for it.

  On the issue of taking you at your word, I note that you assured your readers that there were “no such studies” pertaining to the comment on our web site about residents living within 400 metres of a cell tower suffering increases of “3-5 times” in the rate of cancer over a “5-7 year period”. You assured your readers that we just “threw out” those figures - an example of one of our scare tactics, I presume. Well, in the interests of true skepticism and intellectual honesty, I direct you to the study from which those figures were thrown: Increased Incidence of Cancer Near A Cell-Phone Transmitter Station, published in The International
  Journal of Cancer Prevention, Volume 1, Number 2, April 2004. Oh, and I’ll even throw in a link to the actual scientific study for the benefit of your readers: http://www.scienceruhr.de/vv/31/medien/netanya-e.pdf

  In your post, you quoted us on the reported symptoms of exposure to cell towers - among them, fatigue, nausea, depression, and cognitive dysfunction - and further assured your readers that “there are no such recorded symptoms from exposure to cell towers in any controlled set of experiments.” Well, that might be technically true in that there are not - to my knowledge - any laboratory studies done by docs in smocks who have placed lab rats next to scaled down cell towers (leaving aside the difficulties of getting a rat to report depression). That said, there are epidemiological studies from which we derived our information. All you had to do was ask - or better yet, take a closer look at our web site.

  In your post, you gave the impression to your readers that we failed to link to any studies - though I suspect you might disingenuously point out that you meant that particular comment in relation to the above-mentioned cancer rate info. You failed, however, to correct that impression by pointing your readers to the fact that our site includes a section in which we present some of those scientific studies from which we derived our opinions. On that point, I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I deem it to be a lie of omission meant to strengthen the crux of your argument.

  And let us examine the conduct of that argument, shall we? As a person whose bio reveals an interest in the art of logic and debate, you have me wondering why you threw out the red herring of believers in “orgone generators?” Did you really seek to imply that only nuts and “pseudo-scientific” quacks would raise any concerns about cell tower dangers? In your post, you claimed to have dug deep enough to find the orgone nutcases. Perhaps had you dug deeper, you might have discovered the work of the esteemed scientists behind the BioInitiative Report and the Salzburg Conference (www.salzburg.gv.at/themen/gs/gesundheit/umweltmedizin/elektrosmog/celltower_e.htm ).

  Had your readers known that there is no true scientific consensus in regard to the dangers of non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and cell towers, I put it to you that their skepticism might have been fully engaged - though in opposition to your arguments. From whence, then, the fact that all the esteemed gatekeeping organizations - the FCC, the WHO, Health Canada, and most significantly, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - have adopted safety standards to assure us that non-ionizing radiation is safe just up to the threshold where we start to get cooked thermally (i.e. microwaved)?

  Well, had you been just a bit more diligent in your preliminary Google search of the subject for which you have recently pronounced your conclusive “science-based” judgment, you might have noticed that a certain Dr. Michael Repacholi keeps popping up as an influential figure in the international setting of these standards almost a decade prior. Ensconced in his politically authoritative pedestal at the World Health Organization and also at the ICNIRP, Dr. Repacholi spread the gospel that the low EMF from cell towers and cell phones couldn’t hurt ya unless it cooked ya. The scientists assembled to the panels of the day seconded that motion.

  Back then, Dr, Repacholi and his colleagues didn’t have the benefit of all those many counter-vailing studies we have today. Moreover, they couldn’t even do the necessary studies even if they wanted to, since at that time (we’re talking almost a decade ago), cell phones hadn’t been around all that long or so widely disseminated to say anything of epidemiological certainty about the consequences of frequent, long-term exposures to non-ionizing radiation. So how were Dr. Repacholi et al. able to state, at that time, with such certainty, that their recommended exposure thresholds were sufficient to ensure our collective safety? Perhaps that is a question for the Heavenly Beings who secured them the treasured slots at the aforementioned gate-keeping agencies, wherein all Scientific Truth and Fact is duly consecrated (until officially amended by a succeeding Appointed Panel).

  As we have learned, based on those authoritative pronouncements, the telecom companies have since rolled out thousands upon thousands of cell tower masts around the world. Incidentally, Dr. Repacholi has been noted elsewhere as having financial links to the telecommunications industry. But that kind of “guilt by association” wouldn’t be rhetorically fair, would it? Perhaps it would be on the level of linking concerned residents with the purveyors of “orgone technology”. As an aside, one of the ironies here is that Dr. Repacholi was the co-author of one of the first published studies, back in 1997, to detect biological effects from non-ionizing cell phone radiation. He has since gone on to more fruitful - and, dare I say, more remunerative - conclusions.

  Perhaps a more reasoned - and evidence-based - argument might have noted that an esteemed - and dare I say, extensively peer-reviewed - scientist has raised the distinct possibility that this presumed scientific consensus of “no health effects” from non-ionizing radiation is, in fact, a manufactured consensus. But don’t just take my word for it. For your benefit, and for your skeptical readers, I provide a link (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/health/sfl-oresearch02oct02,0,6824146,full.story ), along with the relevant excerpt below:

  “Henry Lai, who heads the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, said of the 271 studies done in recent years, about 60 percent have shown a biological effect in cells or animals exposed to radio frequency radiation.

  Lai, who has published 33 peer-reviewed articles on electromagnetic research since 1980, said when he analyzed study results from around the world according to who paid for them, he found a large discrepancy. Nearly three-quarters of the non-industry-funded studies — 128 of 181 — found a biological effect, while 30 percent — 27 out of 90 — of the industry-funded studies did, Lai said.

  Lai said he has no explanation for the discrepancy.”

  Lai may not have had an explanation for the presumed discrepancy, Mitchell, but I trust that you do. You are, after all, skilled in the art of debate. As for my own skepticism, in the light of all this relevant information you seemed to have so egregiously omitted from your post, I have to ask myself whether you were employing your presumed “skepticism” in pursuit of truth or in mere advocacy of a point of view?

  And so I leave you with my own very general point of view on this subject:

  There are, indeed, a large number of studies out there that detect no biological and/or health effects in people exposed to cell phones and cell towers. However, when one digs a bit deeper into the actual design of such studies, one notices that the conclusions tend to be based on data where short-term or infrequent exposures are mixed into the data pot. Of particular note is the famous “massive” Danish study covering the period between 1982-1995 (i.e. a period during which frequent cell phone usage was relatively infrequent) among an initial cohort of roughly 700,000 analog cell phone “users” (i.e. anyone who used an analog cell phone, no matter how infrequently), in which the researchers concluded that they could not find any statistically significant health effects. Dig a bit deeper, however, and you’ll notice that the researchers excluded from their statistical sampling about 200,000 subscribers who used a cell phone for business purposes - specifically, those who, during the relevant time frame, would likely be among the most frequent users. Most egregiously, all cell phone subscribers after 1995 were included as “non-users” in the reference population sampling. Now, I might not be so conversant in the science of p-values, but isn’t that kind of like concluding that there isn’t any lung cancer association with nicotine on the basis of a majority sampling of holiday smokers, while seeding your presumed reference population of “non-smokers” with, say, chain-smokers who took up the habit, um, after 1995?

  Now, dig a bit deeper into a lot of these “no harm” studies - and yes, even dig beyond the muck of the telecom funding - and you’ll notice that they often end with these little, almost innocuous, qualifiers: Though we found no significant evidence of harm among our general sampling, we did detect an increase in our small sampling of frequent,long-term users. Or… Though we found no immediate or short-term evidence of harm, more research needs to be done on the long-term effects of frequent cell phone exposure.

  Talk about bait and switch, huh? Such studies - boosted by the requisite media echo chamber - sell us on their conclusions that no harm is found, but then provide the caveat that their studies haven’t really looked at what we all really want to know: the long-term consequences of frequent exposure. In the meantime, I’m confident we’ll continue to see more of these rigidly construed studies, where they’re kind of looking, but not really looking, for what they claim they’re looking for.

  But of course, in practice, if you want to conduct an extensive experiment to critique the conduct of such expensively constructed studies, good luck scoring up the requisite funding. On the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of financial resources available to those researchers looking to conduct an experiment to critique the conduct of any and all studies that do detect health effects. But that kind of comment is rather too conspiratorial, isn’t it? Surely, I can’t be suggesting that, in practice, the scientific process here has been gamed by interested parties in the telecom industry? Surely, a truly skeptical person cannot believe that telecom companies are able to spend billions of dollars and actually succeed in skewing impressions, and hence, the scientific terms of debate? No, it is only us credulous types who would fall for that little canard.

  Well, then count me as one of those credulous dupes (though I have not, as yet, joined up with the orgonite faction).

  On a closing note, in the interest of fairness and intellectual honesty, all I ask is that you post this response for the benefit of your readers so that they don’t have to take your word for it. Certainly, I wouldn’t want them to take my word for it. Let us all continue to dig deeper into the present state of the science in a common search for the truth.

  Unfortunately, as of this writing, more research needs to be done…

• 15
  Mitchell // May 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  A basic response to these points here.

  “I put it to you that true “skepticism” should be a double-edged sword pointing in either direction, untainted by bias.”

  “Unfortunately, as of this writing, more research needs to be done…”

  Both of these things are very true, but the problem with your stance seems to be twofold. The first is the way in which the current literature is interpreted. Some studies conclude that there is a possible danger from cell phones/towers and some studies have concluded that there is no significant danger. I agree with your group name insofar as a precautionary approach should be taken to cell towers (if not everything) — I’m just not sure if your group lives up to it’s name. Trying to shut down cell towers and protest new cell towers doesn’t seem very precautionary, but more reactionary.

  The second problem is that there are a few fringe studies positing radically different results than anyone else in the field. These studies are often small, and most of the time poorly designed. Sometimes, such is the case with The Bioinitiative Report, they are not even studies, but a questionable meta-analysis. It is questionable what value, if any, these types of studies bring to the debate aside from causing unjustified fear.

  I, like most reasonable people, do not want to get cancer, nor would I wish it on anybody else. That being said, I just don’t believe there is enough evidence to begin condemning cell phones and cell towers. If this was a matter of personal consumption, this wouldn’t really be an issue — unfortunately, the radiation necessary to carry cellular signals is not something that can be restricted to certain individuals. Because of this, some type of reasonable standard has to be met where we can start calling something dangerous.

• 16
  Kevin // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Hello all,

  With all due respect, you can’t show a thirsty horse where to drink, even though you’ve found what you believe to be a fresh running spring. Especially when the thirsty horse refuses to drink for what ever reasons.

  Those who believe what they want will continue to do so, which is everyone involved here.

  To be honest with everyone, the list of so many different man made things that have and continue to promote harm to life and the planet can not be denied. It is the continued insanity of “letting it all happen” that continues to prove it all.

  If some of us feel that we are doing something good to help prevent harm, why spit on us?

  Protesting and orgone energy is not to be gossip about unless you know all the truths concerning it. Well, @ least you are getting the ratings for it all right?

  Take care,
  Kevin.

• 17
  Mitchell Gerskup // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  We understand that a lot of people join these causes because they believe they are helping prevent harm to others. However, the reality of the situation is that they aren’t preventing harm, because no harm exists. One of the goals of this blog is to try to draw attention to situations where irrationality and fear win out over science and reason. While a majority of these protesters have their hearts in the right place, their effort is being wasted because of a lack of information (or a surplus of misinformation). Saving the world is a noble cause, but you have to know where to direct your efforts.

  Any mocking comments are not meant to be directed at the average person confused as to the issues, but rather at the ring leaders who are fueling this nonsense.

• 18
  Haya // Aug 5, 2008 at 1:32 am

  Mitchell-
  You sounded “intelligent”; until you called the “BioInitiative Report” simply a “meta-analysis” and not a study.

  I just had to do a double take when I read your statement. I don’t know what to say, except that maybe you think your readers are naive?

  The scientists who wrote the BioInitiative Report analyzed over 2,000 peer reviewed and published research studies. The research studies are referenced at the end of each chapter.

  Where is the relevance in your statement??? Is it more relevant that the BioInitiative Report is a Meta-analysis, or that it is a Meta-analysis of OVER 2,000 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES?

  what kind of misleading logic is this?

  The European Environmental Association, which is the equivalent of our EPA has reviewed the BioInitiative Report and issued a new precautionary warning on cellular technology.

  My suspicion is that you quickly glanced through the on-line report, not for the purpose of seeking information; but merely to justify your “stance”.

  That lowers your credibility level right there.

  For anyone who really does want to consider the facts:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0

• 19
  Mitchell Gerskup // Aug 5, 2008 at 7:43 am

  Hi Haya,

  Perhaps you misunderstand what ‘meta-analysis’ means. Meta-analyses are studies of previously conducted research studies, as opposed to the scientists involved collecting original research data. It has nothing to do with the size or scope of the study. Whether they studied 20 or 20,000 previous studies, it is still a meta-analysis. In order for the BioInitiative report to be a study, the scientists involved would have had to conduct the studies themselves, as opposed to relying on other studies.

  I’m sure the EPA, in an attempt to be diligent about such things, has reviewed many reports on the subject of cellphone and cell tower radiation. However, this does not change the facts that findings are still largely inconclusive. The results of the BioInitiative Report are suspiciously radical, even when compared with those studies that have turned up negative health effects from the use of cell phones.

You must log in to post a comment.