Students protest school's cell tower after fourth child is diagnosed with cancer

[FF222]

Look at all the cancer clusters

[citation needed]

 

[Darth Shiv]

Real measurements of exposure

Note he is across the road from the tower and the RMS exposure is around 600 microwatts per m2. Peak he was getting up to about 1300 I saw from the first location.

Here are some recommended published limits from various organisations. High freq, low freq.
https://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-field-radiation-meters/safe-exposure-limits

They do state that the high freq limits apply for towers.

 

[FF222]

Random video from random guy at a random location with a random device with no calibration, no verification, not even laymen's proof that whatever was measured, even if it was correct, was originating from where he says it is originating, AND with not even a hint at how this all relates to or causes cancer. Is this supposed to be a "proof" for cell towers causing cancer? Because it's definitely not proof for anything even remotely connected to that.

 

[Jeanine Deal]

"Look at all" the what? Where are the studies? The data? "Look those people have cancer" isn't a study and isn't data, it's a panic.

There's a saying that goes, "The proof is in the pudding."

This isn't panic, Bp968.

This is pudding.

And if you're looking for science, data, and studies, I suggest you research the work of Martin Pall, Anthony Miller, Paul Heroux, Devra Davis, Sharon Golberg, Martin Blank, Sam Milham, David Carpenter, Joel Moskowitz, Beatrice Golomb, Ronald Melnick, Lennart Hardell, Magda Havas, Dariusz Leszczynski, Dominique Belpomme, Annie J Sasco, Olle Johansson, Andrew Goldsworthy, Martha R. Herbert, Henry Lai, B. Blake Levitt, Trevor G. Marshall, Andrew Marino, William J. Rea, Camilla Rees, and Cindy Russell, to name just a few for you to begin with.

 

[FF222]

There's a saying that goes

There's a saying that if in 2019 you can't provide a link to a peer-reviewed study saying exactly what you say, but instead have to fall back to for ex. listing a lot of unverifiable names, that pretty much proves you're just pulling things out of your ss and have no actual point.

 

[p51d007]

You can't sue the ground. Duh!

Exactly...they want to go after the cell company fat cats

 

[Lew Zealand]

There's a saying that goes, "The proof is in the pudding."

This isn't panic, Bp968.

This is pudding.

And if you're looking for science, data, and studies, I suggest you research the work of Martin Pall, Anthony Miller, Paul Heroux, Devra Davis, Sharon Golberg, Martin Blank, Sam Milham, David Carpenter, Joel Moskowitz, Beatrice Golomb, Ronald Melnick, Lennart Hardell, Magda Havas, Dariusz Leszczynski, Dominique Belpomme, Annie J Sasco, Olle Johansson, Andrew Goldsworthy, Martha R. Herbert, Henry Lai, B. Blake Levitt, Trevor G. Marshall, Andrew Marino, William J. Rea, Camilla Rees, and Cindy Russell, to name just a few for you to begin with.

Really? You made a new user at a website you will never return to in order to assert science-free claims (read: opinions) and then spew a list of random names?

Do you actually think anyone is going to look up any of those names, which could easily been made up by you? You need to post actual links to any actual science that those people have published. The previous poster here did at least do that, even through the science was still not published and had the disclaimer that the tests did not match what people receive in the real world.

Nice try but you need to do better.

 

[captaincranky]

The human species is likely to breed toward the weaker, rather than the stronger. This is simply by virtue of the fact, we no longer cull the weak, the lame, the sickly, the mutated, and the very old from our herds.

When genetic defects are allowed to continue on an intergenerational basis, they're more apt to get worse, than they are to get better. The weak beget more weak, and so forth..

Lab rats are bred to be hypersensitive to adverse stimuli. They're not as hardy as you basic sewer rat. And so it goes with humans.

We hold to this bizarre notion that each individual is equal in potential, and it's a cultural failing when that doesn't take place. I call BS. When you breed fat, ugly, and stupid, against fat, ugly, and stupid, you don't get Victoria's secret super models with PHDs in their offspring.

If you ask the state of California, every man made process or compound causes cancer. Does it? Or does that come from electing officials from "Hollywierd"?

Maybe there's something upstream causing these cancers.

Look at the fact that brain tumors are now the number one form of cancer in US teens and adolescents and connect the dots that they are the first generation to grow-up using cell phones and other wireless devices. We might not have time for viable long-term studies on this topic. We're dealing with radiation here. And so far, the radiation is winning. Just saying.

Maybe they should put down their phones once in a while. Waddya think?

FWIW, this is hardly the first generation that has dealt with radiation. During the 50's & 60's, the US conducted something on the order of 170 above ground nuclear tests.. None of that could be an issue though,now could it? The broken reactors at. Chernobyl, and Fukashima Daiichi will be spewing radiation for the next 50,000 years. But they give tours through Chernobyl these days.

Read up on these (Material Safety Data Sheets) workers come into hazardous chemicals in many industries on a daily basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_data_sheet

A few common ones are all the ketones and alcohols, urethanes and their hardeners, polyisocyanates, Lye, a wide range of acids. And lest I forget, a very long list of banned pesticides. IE "DDT", the one which almost wiped out our national symbol.

But then again, none of those would be an issue, since you can't get the little sh!ts off their cell phones.-

And BTW, did you know that the front glass of CRT monitors was leaded since they produced X-ray radiation?

Which is why us old fogey's mommas told us, "don't sit so close to the TV".

 

[captaincranky]

"She turned me into a newt!"
-"A newt!?"
"I got better..."

A mythical gentleman named "Tam Lin" knows exactly how you feel. He goes though quite a few changes starting at 4:25 :

Here's a slightly higher octane derivative :

Take warning here, growing your hair long, smoking pot, and sitting too close to your loudspeakers, will damage your brain to the point where you really enjoy this music, and you can't abide gangsta rap, or even hip hop.

 

[Alex Blasscyk]

The rent should be around $36,000.00 to $50,000.00 per year. 3% annual increases, 60 month termination fee (I.e. after the Sprint/ T-Mobile merger, one of the tenants could go away but you’ll still receive 5 years worth of rent) a large up-front signing bonus and be sure your lease ALWAYS states any changes in the lease area requires landlord consent. This is all common in the tower industry.

Whoever approved this deal didn’t speak with an industry expert.

Alex Blasscyk - Main Stream Telecom

 

[stewi0001]

A mythical gentleman named "Tam Lin" knows exactly how you feel. He goes though quite a few changes starting at 4:25 :

Here's a slightly higher octane derivative :

Take warning here, growing your hair long, smoking pot, and sitting too close to your loudspeakers, will damage your brain to the point where you really enjoy this music, and you can't abide gangsta rap, or even hip hop.

Fair enough but I will stick to my reference

 

[Alex Blasscyk]

Your microwave gives more radiation than a Cell Tower. Alex Blasscyk

 

[Solfan]

The American Cancer Society itself identifies mobile signals as a possible carcinogen risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer does too. So that's good enough for me to not want a TOWER in a SCHOOL.

Two massively significant cancer related institutions. If they have doubt then you should. They ARE experts in the area. This isn't some Jenny McCarthy hysteria campaign. This is an area with clear scientific validity of concern.

There are warnings in cell manufacturer manuals about the risk of the radiation from phones. It's in the MANUAL. Some cities require public notices because people don't read the actual fine print. The fine print from the MOBILE manufacturers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/berkeley-california-cellphone-radiation-health-risks
They aren't just making up scare notices. They are just pointing out the warnings that phones ALREADY carry.

So anyone who thinks this is a run of the mill fake hysteria campaign, you clearly haven't actually looked at what the experts AND manfacturers say about their damn products.

There's a saying that goes, "The proof is in the pudding."

This isn't panic, Bp968.

This is pudding.

And if you're looking for science, data, and studies, I suggest you research the work of Martin Pall, Anthony Miller, Paul Heroux, Devra Davis, Sharon Golberg, Martin Blank, Sam Milham, David Carpenter, Joel Moskowitz, Beatrice Golomb, Ronald Melnick, Lennart Hardell, Magda Havas, Dariusz Leszczynski, Dominique Belpomme, Annie J Sasco, Olle Johansson, Andrew Goldsworthy, Martha R. Herbert, Henry Lai, B. Blake Levitt, Trevor G. Marshall, Andrew Marino, William J. Rea, Camilla Rees, and Cindy Russell, to name just a few for you to begin with.

I've done some research and found a few interesting graphs, like these:
(SEER) https://4al52k24l8r51wpym5i46ltd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/chdr.jpg
and (Nordic countries) http://www.emfandhealth.com/image/obj1128geo773pg9p17.png