Resonance – Beings of Frequency (Documentary)

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 


One has to wonder if you'd get the same results holding a warm object to your ear. I don't see what they used for a control in the abstract.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



I'm not afraid of casual cell phone use at all, but I wouldn't mash my phone against my ear for hours a day based on the data I've seen, which is usually in violation of the owner's manual instructions anyway.


What about people who live near the masts where cancer clusters appear? Average people don't have a choice in the matter do they? There is no protection from a tower 1000 yards from your house.

I was a salesperson for AT&T back in the mid-90's before cell phone use was as widespread as it is today. What we were doing was creating a need using fear to sell these bulky first generation phones.

"What if you're stranded on the highway, what if your kid gets out of school early and can't reach you because you're not at home, etc" Something that used to be a luxury item is now a necessity for millions of people. As usual, screw the consequences as long as a few dollars can be funneled into the pockets of the telecoms.

Someone needs to be alert to the dangers of this technology, and if your all want to downplay the danger that's fine. Let others do the worrying for you.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
The documentary isn't unscientific


This seems to be an awfully convoluted way of saying "the documentary is scientific". But it's not. It contains little in way of facts, and quite a lot of conjecture, pretty much all of it. It misrepresents certain experiments, which were controversial to begin with, and makes statements that aren't scientific at all, such as DNA is using electromagnetic radiation to guide protein assembly or other such things. The language used is far from scientific as well. I had to cringe a few times as I watched the video. Too bad you don't see any of that.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
What about people who live near the masts where cancer clusters appear? Average people don't have a choice in the matter do they? There is no protection from a tower 1000 yards from your house.
There are several reasons I didn't mention the base stations. The math says the highest exposure comes from the cell phone:

Mobile phone radiation and health

Because base stations operate at less than 100 watts, the radiation at ground level is much weaker than a cell phone due to the power relationship appropriate for that design of antenna.
Here are some "back of the envelope" (meaning "rough") numbers. Most cell phones are less than 2 watts and most towers are less than 100 watts, but let's pick worst case and use those numbers. My cell phone has a stubby little antenna, which is probably a worse design for concentrating exposure than say an iPhone which spreads it out a bit since the antenna surrounds the phone. So using my worst case, and holding the phone 1cm from my head which is about the minimum distance recommended by some owners manuals,

The surface area of a 1cm radius sphere is 4*Pi*(1 cm)² = 12.5637cm²
So, the watts per square centimeter is 2 watts / 12.5637 cm² = 0.159 W/cm², maximum for the cell phone.

Now let's do a tower. Starting with the same sphere calculation, the surface area of a 1000 meter radius sphere is 4*Pi*(1000 m)² = 12.5637 *1000*1000= 12,563,700 m², and after multiplying by 10,000 cm²/m², the surface area of a sphere is 125,637,000,000 cm².

Now I know that you might say the base antenna radiation isn't spherical, so let's compensate for a typical 120 degree array which means at ground level, it should be at least 360/120 or 3 times as concentrated, but allowing for 3D I think it's conservative (worst case) to call it 10 times more concentrated than the spherical signal, so we'll take the spherical value and multiply by 10 to compensate for the directional antenna.

So the worst case from the 100 watt base station at 1000 meters is perhaps:

10 * 100W / 125,637,000,000 cm² = 0.00000000796 W/cm²

I used your 1000 meters, so if you are willing to worry about 0.00000000796 W/cm² instead of 0.159 W/cm², feel free to do so, but hopefully you can understand why I feel such worry is based in ignorance.

Lets use a European standard which says to put base stations no closer than 100 meters in some cases.
4*Pi*(100 m)² = 12.5637 *100*100= 125,637 m² * 10,000 cm²/m² = 1,256,370,000 cm²

So it ends up being 100 times stronger since it's 10 times closer,

10 * 100W / 1,256,370,000 cm² = 0.000000796 W/cm² = 0.796 µW/cm² to use more readable units.

It's not even one millionth of one watt per square centimeter.

Compare this to the cell phone at 0.159,000 µW/cm²:

159,000 / 0.796 = 200,000 !

So, the cell phone watts per square centimeter in this math is 200,000 times greater compared to the base station antenna (your mileage may vary since these were worst case figures and not actual figures). However, I think it supports the Wikipedia claim that "Because base stations operate at less than 100 watts, the radiation at ground level is much weaker than a cell phone". My back-of-the-envelope math shown here says that's true. And since it is just back of the envelope if anyone has better figures feel free to share them, but I think it's good enough to explain why I'm 200,000-20,000,000 times more concerned about the cell phone radiation than I am about the base station radiation.

Oh and if someone is getting cancer at 1000 meters from a cell tower, while I won't rule the tower out as a possibility, I'd be looking for another source first, with these calculations as my rationale since exposure to radiation from a cell phone is probably millions of times more intense. Now there is one factor I didn't include in the calculation, which is hours per day of exposure. But if you use the cell phone 30 minutes a day and the tower operates 24 hours a day, that's still only a factor of 48, and still doesn't compare to the factor of 200,000-20,000,000 for a distance of 100 m-1000 m from the bast station tower.


Someone needs to be alert to the dangers of this technology, and if your all want to downplay the danger that's fine. Let others do the worrying for you.
Does the math explain why I'm not worried about the towers, compared to the cell phones? I admitted there may be at least some risk of heavy cell phone use and outlined some ways to mitigate this risk. There are numerous studies that don't correlate this risk so I thought I was being a bit cautious, rather than downplaying the risk.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for doing some math, here. I have to say that I DO worry about my cell phone exposure. I don't carry my phone on a clip or in the pocket unless I absolutely have to. It's either on the desk in my office, or in the tray in my car.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

From the research I've reviewed, correlation has been suggested for heavy users of cell phones in some studies. For people who aren't heavy users, there's not much correlation that I've seen.

The math can be viewed two ways. While it shows that typical exposure to base towers is insignificant, it also shows that relatively speaking, the cell phone emissions are significant. So it's certainly plausible additional long term studies might confirm the correlation of illness with heavy cell phone use.

Whether reliable correlations of illness can be established with people who aren't heavy cell phone users (the other 90% of us), I believe remains to be seen. But as I said before, there's no harm applying some caution, as you apparently are doing.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But as I said before, there's no harm applying some caution, as you apparently are doing.


Yeah, I'm slightly paranoid, I guess -- I took a class in dosimetry and radiation protection when I was in college, so I guess a few notions stuck. Even if the exposure is low as the levels are concerned, there are some pretty vulnerable organs close to the cell phone when you carry it on your waist. The caution that I practice does not means that I am a "Resonant Being of Frequency" LOL.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thank you for writing such a detailed, text heavy response to my question. Since you are downplaying the danger of cell phone use but still concerned enough to take precautions I will too!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yeah, I'm slightly paranoid, I guess -- I took a class in dosimetry and radiation protection when I was in college, so I guess a few notions stuck.
Since I've spent a lot of time on airplanes that's one source of extra radiation that concerned me. I took a job handling radioactive materials, which apparently some people would never consider doing, but I don't think I ever got nearly as much extra radiation from my job as I did from flying. Of course I had lots of training for handling radioactive material, and I had to wear one of those dosimeter badges to measure how much I was getting nuked, but I was never that paranoid about low radiation levels since I know they occur naturally, and anything natural is good, right? (said with tongue in cheek thinking about naturally occurring supernovae and GRBs, OK maybe not everything natural is good, not even stepping on a natural stonefish
).

If it makes you feel any better, Galen Winsor lived to be 82, when the stuff he did was so outrageous some people reading the thread don't even believe he actually did it, but in fact he probably did most of what he said, as far as I can tell. Kind of a goofball, but he did make a point. And the 5 guys who stood directly underneath the atomic bomb when it exploded in 1957 lived very long healthy lives with no ill effects. Different kind of radiation since it's ionizing, which seems to me the more damaging type. I'm pretty sure ionizing radiation is tearing things up, but with low-intensity non-ionizing radiation, I'm not so sure exactly what it's having on tissue unless it's in the frequency range such as microwave, where we understand how dielectric heating takes place, and like any other type of heating excess amounts can cause burns. But aside from that, our lack of understanding of the effect of non-ionizing EM radiation on tissue does seem to make exercising a little caution a rational thing to do.


The caution that I practice does not means that I am a "Resonant Being of Frequency" LOL.
Too bad. If you were a "Resonant Being of Frequency", you would know that the commercial AC power in the US operates at so close to the Schumann resonance of 59.9 Hz that being exposed to a natural resonant frequency like this would surely make you feel good, if the woo in the video is to be believed. I must not be one either, since the last time I accidentally contacted an AC power the nearly 59.9 Hz natural frequency didn't make me feel good at all.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yeah, I'm slightly paranoid, I guess -- I took a class in dosimetry and radiation protection when I was in college, so I guess a few notions stuck.
Since I've spent a lot of time on airplanes that's one source of extra radiation that concerned me. I took a job handling radioactive materials, which apparently some people would never consider doing


Done that
And taped the interlock switch shut to move faster



Of course I had lots of training for handling radioactive material, and I had to wear one of those dosimeter badges to measure how much I was getting nuked


Of course. The thing is, the hands can handle a lot of exposure, compared to other body parts. So if you manage to keep the material further away from your abdomen and family jewels, it's OK.


I know they occur naturally, and anything natural is good, right?


As one of my friends rightly said, coc aine is natural, and it's NOT all right.



I'm pretty sure ionizing radiation is tearing things up


Aahh, it doesn't necessarily do it right away. The excitation travels along molecules until it hits the weak spot. Then and there, it breaks. That's why they have pills for radiation, and alcohol helps a little, too - it absorbs some of that energy before it has a chance to do damage. Again, the effect can be delayed. Partially explains what puzzles you about non-ionizing radiation - it can cause excitation which can be relatively long-lived, and then with some probability affect processes at molecular level, without wreaking havoc right away.


Too bad. If you were a "Resonant Being of Frequency", you would know that the commercial AC power in the US operates at so close to the Schumann resonance of 59.9 Hz that being exposed to a natural resonant frequency like this would surely make you feel good


I don't know, Arb. I was doing wiring in my house (which since then was certified by a proper inspection agency and it passed with flying colors), but at some point I just screwed up and touched the live copper bus (you know, the 250A type). I can tell you right away that the feeling I got was pretty far from euphoric. So indeed, obviously I don't belong to the Resonant Being group, and despite being exposed to the beneficial frequency of 59.9Hz, I didn't feel good at all. I invite all Resonant Beings of Frequency to repeat my experiment by grabbing a live wire, and report their experience here on ATS.


I must not be one either, since the last time I accidentally contacted an AC power the nearly 59.9 Hz natural frequency didn't make me feel good at all.


Oh, I wrote the above before I read this bit. So Arb, we are so screwed. While all these Resonant folks are speaking to Gods on a secret frequency, poor humans like you and I simply get electric shocks. Not fair!
edit on 7-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
For microwatts, here are the ranges reported in the latest study.

This had thorough geospatial mapping.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21741680
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969711005754

Sci Total Environ. 2011 Sep 1;409(19):3649-65. Epub 2011 Jul 13.

Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil.

Adilza C. Dode a,b,e,⁎, Mônica M.D. Leão c, Francisco de A.F. Tejo d, Antônio C.R. Gomes e, Daiana C. Dode e, f,
Michael C. Dode e, Cristina W. Moreira b, Vânia A. Condessa b, Cláudia Albinatti b, Waleska T. Caiaffa g

a Minas Methodist University Center Izabela Hendrix, Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

b Municipal Government of Belo Horizonte, Municipal Health Department, Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

c UFMG—Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Environmental and Sanitary Engineering Department, Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

d UFCG—Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Center of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Academic Unit of Electrical Engineering, Paraíba State, Brazil

e MRE Engenharia (Electromagnetic Radiations Measurement—Engineering), Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

f Faculty of Medical Sciences, Medicine-Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

g UFMG—Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-Belo Horizonte, Urban Health Observatory, Belo Horizonte City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

Abstract

Pollution caused by the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of radio frequencies (RF) generated by the telecommunication system is one of the greatest environmental problems of the twentieth century. The purpose of this research was to verify the existence of a spatial correlation between base station (BS) clusters and cases of deaths by neoplasia in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil, from 1996 to 2006 and to measure the human exposure levels to EMF where there is a major concentration of cellular telephone transmitter antennas. A descriptive spatial analysis of the BSs and the cases of death by neoplasia identified in the municipality was performed through an ecological-epidemiological approach, using georeferencing. The database employed in the survey was composed of three data banks: 1. death by neoplasia documented by the Health Municipal Department; 2. BSs documented in ANATEL ("Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações": 'Telecommunications National Agency'); and 3. census and demographic city population data obtained from official archives provided by IBGE ("Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística": 'Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics'). The results show that approximately 856 BSs were installed through December 2006. Most (39.60%) of the BSs were located in the "Centro-Sul" ('Central-Southern') region of the municipality. Between 1996 and 2006, 7191 deaths by neoplasia occurred and within an area of 500 m from the BS, the mortality rate was 34.76 per 10,000 inhabitants. Outside of this area, a decrease in the number of deaths by neoplasia occurred. The greatest accumulated incidence was 5.83 per 1000 in the Central-Southern region and the lowest incidence was 2.05 per 1000 in the Barreiro region. During the environmental monitoring, the largest accumulated electric field measured was 12.4 V/m and the smallest was 0.4 V/m. The largest density power was 40.78 μW/cm(2), and the smallest was 0.04 μW/cm(2).

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PMID: 21741680 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


From fulltext of 12MB pdf

www.lambtonshores.ca...

(...)

3.6. Environmental monitoring of the electromagnetic field

The EMF results provided essential information for the assessment of
risks to the health of the exposed persons in the community. A total of
400 points were measured in the Central-Southern region in 2008,
where a major concentration of cellular telephony antennas was found.
The mean intensity of the measured electric field was 7.32 V/m, varying
from 0.4 to 12.4 V/m. It was common to find a stronger electric field at
locations above the ground. The BS frequency bands ranged from
approximately 800 MHz to 1800MHz. In 2003, the power density
varied from 0.898 μW/cm2 to 3.066 μW/cm2.

(...)

According to the ICNIRP guidelines, the human levels to the public
at large (ICNIRP, 1998), for the frequency (f) band ranged from 400 to
2000 MHz, the electric field intensity E (V.m–1) equals 1.375 f ½ V/m,
which equals 1.375 √f V/m.
These values are according to the reference level patterns for the public
at large when compared with the current Brazilian federal law which
establishes the following limits: for a 900 MHz field intensity an electric
field of 41.25 V/m and a power density of 451.34 μW/cm2, for a 1800MHz
field intensity an electric field of 58.33 V/m and a power density of
902.49 μW/cm2. These human exposure limits are exclusively based on
thermal effects.

In 2003, the largest electric field found during environmental
monitoring of the BSs was 3.4 V/m and the greatest power
density was 3.06 μW/cm2. In 2008, the largest electric field found
during environmental monitoring of the BSs was 12.4 V/m, and
the greatest power density was 40.78 μW/cm2 near the cellular
antennas in the 890 to 1800 MHz frequency band. These values
were much larger than those reported in the Netanya study
(approximately 0.53 μW/cm2). The smallest values found in the
measurements were a field intensity of 0.4 V/m and a power
density of 0.04 μW/cm2.

(...)

The measured values of the EMF, determined in 2008 and 2003,
were substantially below the values allowed by the Brazilian federal
law nr. 11934, May 5, 2009. Nevertheless, the values encountered in
this study surpassed the limits of human exposure adopted by many
other countries and cities in the world, including Italy (10 μW/cm2);
China (6.6 μW/cm2); Switzerland (4.2 μW/cm2); Paris, France (1 μW/
cm2); Salzburg, Austria (0.1 μW/cm2); and Porto Alegre, Brazil
(4.2 μW/cm2).

(...)



 


 


 

edit on 9-12-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This, in a nutshell, is the most important message of the documentary:




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
For microwatts, here are the ranges reported in the latest study.

This had thorough geospatial mapping.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21741680
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969711005754

Thanks, it's nice to see some real data confirming my rough calculations. I estimated 0.8 µW/cm² per tower and they had 500-800 towers and never found over 40 µW/cm², and in less dense areas they never found over about 0.53 µW/cm², which is about what I'd expect.

It does show a correlation, but as we know, correlation does not equal causation. For example there are some interesting things in the report, most notably how many people live in a 100 meter radius:


For example, for the 100-meter radius, the 3569 deaths were divided by the 821,890 estimated exposed subjects living inside that radius.
Can you imagine 821,890 people living in a 100 meter radius?

Also, I noted that apparently lung cancer or some related neoplasia was the largest cause of death they looked at in their study. As I said before, I would be looking for other causes of these deaths besides the base towers, starting with air pollution, and I wouldn't even rule out things like second hand smoke with so many people packed in such tight quarters.

Also the 40 µW/cm² from the 500-800 base towers still pales in comparison to the up to 159,000 µW/cm² or so from the mobile phone held close to the head, and many people press the phone against their head so they might get more than this. So another source I'd look at as more likely than the base towers is the use of the cell phones themselves, especially if the neoplasia is in the head, like a brain tumor. The study said cell phones are used extensively there, and I wouldn't rule out a correlation between population density and cell phone use, and I would certainly expect to find a correlation between population density and pollution, especially air pollution, and a correlation between air pollution and lung cancer.

821,890 people living in a 100 meter radius, wow.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
This, in a nutshell, is the most important message of the documentary:

I don't know that to be true and there is a foundation for the limits they established. However, their guidelines do seem a bit too generous to me, and many parts of the world have adopted their own, more strict guidelines.


The measured values of the EMF, determined in 2008 and 2003, were substantially below the values allowed by the Brazilian federal law nr. 11934, May 5, 2009. Nevertheless, the values encountered in this study surpassed the limits of human exposure adopted by many other countries and cities in the world, including Italy (10 μW/cm2); China (6.6 μW/cm2); Switzerland (4.2 μW/cm2); Paris, France (1 μW/cm2); Salzburg, Austria (0.1 μW/cm2); and Porto Alegre, Brazil (4.2 μW/cm2).
The guidelines of Porto Alegre, Brazil would require the 40 µW/cm² be reduced to less than 4.2, which they already meet in the central southern region for example:


A total of 400 points were measured in the Central-Southern region in 2008,where a major concentration of cellular telephony antennas was found.... the power density varied from 0.898 μW/cm2 to 3.066 μW/cm2
The Brazilian federal law is apparently over 100 times more generous than the Porto Alegre, Brazil limit.


..the current Brazilian federal law which establishes the following limits: for a 900 MHz field intensity an electric field of 41.25 V/mand a power density of 451.34 μW/cm2, for a 1800MHz field intensity an electric field of 58.33 V/m and a power density of 902.49 μW/cm2. These human exposure limits are exclusively based on thermal effects.
That seems generous, and it may not be a bad idea to adopt the Porto Alegre, Brazil limit across more of Brazil.
edit on 9-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not exceedingly far from the place I live (but thankfully far enough), there used to be a company manufacturing aviation fuel and various other chemicals for the needs of the local aviation industry. If you guessed that these guys effed up the environment real bad, you are right. Damn toxic stuff. Still in the ground. And sure there is a cell tower at about same place, they are everywhere nowadays.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

To the credit of the authors of the study, while they point out the correlation, they don't really claim any causation, though they obviously try to infer it, and readers of the study may also try to infer it. I also found the language of the study troubling that they were trying to "verify" the correlation rather than to evaluate if there is one, and they show raw death numbers in their graphic when death rates would be a more logical statistic to compare than raw deaths. I suspect what they really found was a correlation between population density, and death rate, and pollution may be a factor in that...either the very toxic type you mention or, perhaps even more mundane sources like vehicle exhaust could be a possible contributing cause, since those toxins tend to me more concentrated in more densely populated areas.

I can't think of a good reason why lung cancer would be the highest incidence in the study if EM radiation was the cause, but if air pollution is the cause, that would make sense.
edit on 10-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It is likely that the number of cases of lung cancer can be reduced by increasing electromagnetic radiation in populated areas. Given this increase comes from the use of electrical motors instead of combustion engines to power vehicles.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

I think that's probably true. There is also pollution associated with electric motors where the power to recharge the batteries is generated by burning coal, but generally that pollution is created away from densely populated areas, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a decrease in lung cancer in densely populated areas if a lot of polluting fossil fuel vehicles switched to electric.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dodger13
 


Thank you for posting this documentary.


I emailed the link to my two sons, and my older one just emailed back that he watched it, read the "Health and Safety Information" section in the manual of his cell phone, and concluded that it's time to stop putting off getting a hands-free device for his cell phone or to use it on speakerphone - keep it away from the head.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join