POLL: How far were you living from a mobile phone base station mast when your ME/CFS first appeared?

[wdb]

To do this, I created 70 random postcodes that represent 70 random street addresses in the UK, and then I entered these 70 random addresses into a UK base station map, and noted the distance to the nearest base station for each of these addresses. This then gave me a good random sample of 70 home-to-base station distances, and these 70 addresses form my control group.

Nice work, it may be better if you could pick random actual people though rather than random postcodes as presumably postcodes vary greatly how densely populated they are so sparsely populated postcodes would be over-represented by randomly picking postcodes.

Using this new equation, which is based on my control group, I can now calculate that the results of this poll currently show that you have 1.75 times the risk of developing ME/CFS if you live within 300 meters of a base station, compared to the risk for those living in the 300 meter to 500 meter zone.

So addressing one methodological issue has dropped the effect from 4x to 1.75x , with the remaining issues there seems ample scope for the effect to drop to nothing.

 

[barbc56]

This is what the American Cancer Society says about cell phone bases. It reinforces what @HowToEscape? wrote.

The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna.

Public exposure to radio waves from cell phone tower antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.

At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower.

When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited.

The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits.

I guess I don't understand the point of this thread. Science has pretty much answered this question using rigorous studies. These cell bases do not cause cancer. They do not cause illness. Unless you are exposed to hugh amounts of them, you don't need to worry. You can put your cellphone in your bra. It won't cause breast cancer. Men can put their cell phones in their jockstrap and will not get cancer. However, tbh I not sure there have been studies about this latter issue. There might be a problem with getting subjects.

I'm too tired to cite these studies and I'm now going to ignore this thread. I'll leave that to others that have more patience.

It's fair game to challange questions. But to get any answers, the method is not a poll. In fact you can't really come to any definitively conclusions using the format of a poll/forum. Science studies take years and years and then there's replication, peer review, publication, etc. etc.. After a point it gets tedious, at least for me.

@Hip I really admire your curiosity and your willingness to go into depth for your research. I really do. But I don't understand the way you respond to people who are trying to make points. It's not personal criticism. It's science! Science Read my signature.

Maybe it's okay to not understand this thread It's not my place to judge

So carry on to the cows come home.

Edit. That should be carry on 'till the cows come home.








​

 

[Undisclosed]

This is how science works.

No, it's the way pseudoscience works but I am an idiot who can't understand that standing six feet away from a toaster puts you at risk for ME or something like that because apparently I don't understand the simple methodology of how it is possible to say that standing near toasters might put you at risk for ME (or something like that) or at risk for eating toast. Does eating toast cause ME? Will a piece of toast cook if you put it close to a cell phone tower. I am so confused.

Time for a new poll, I think.

 

[erin]

I am not sure about how scientific this poll is. I've read the methodology but I don't really understand it. And I'm not going to pretend that I will.

However, I also don't understand the assurance that mast towers and mobile phone technology in general doesn't cause disease. How can you be so sure? How can you trust the official scientific research that is only sponsored by the mobile phone industry itself? (Which is ridiculous).

Has any of you watch the docu send by ahmo?

 

[Hip]

Nice work, it may be better if you could pick random actual people though rather than random postcodes as presumably postcodes vary greatly how densely populated they are so sparsely populated postcodes would be over-represented by randomly picking postcodes.

Using random people would have been better than random postcodes, but the postcode method was easy to do; it took me less than 3 hours.

But I did attempt to address the concern you mention, that sparsely populated postcodes would be over-represented: fortunately the random postcode generator allowed you to specify the particular postcode area for your random postcode (eg, generate a random postcode in the London NW postcode area, or the Birmingham B area).

So given that around 80% of people in the UK live in cities, and 20% in rural areas, I chose city and rural postcode areas to match those percentages.

So addressing one methodological issue has dropped the effect from 4x to 1.75x , with the remaining issues there seems ample scope for the effect to drop to nothing.

Those were my thoughts also. The current 1.75x apparent effect is probably small enough to be explained purely by methodological error. So I would say that this poll shows no evidence of any increased risk of triggering ME/CFS from base stations.


However, I do think this poll is telling us something useful: in the thread detailing the up to 8-fold increase in ME/CFS incidence that apparently occurred in several countries during the 1980s (when cell phone networks were introduced), someone suggested that cellular base station might have been responsible for the increase. Which is a reasonable suggestion.

Now if base station radiation had been responsible for such a large 8-fold increase in ME/CFS, I feel that this poll (now with its control group), would have likely picked up such a large influence.

Thus the fact that the poll has not detected any such large influence does in my view does tell us something: it tells us that the 8-fold increase in incidence observed in the 1980s was most likely not down to the introduction of mobile phone base stations that occurred in that decade.

I guess I don't understand the point of this thread. Science has pretty much answered this question using rigorous studies. These cell bases do not cause cancer. They do not cause illness.

But science has not answered this question, as there have been no studies on the link between base stations and chronic disease (apart from the cancer studies).

Are you aware of the possible link between FM radio station transmission towers and melanoma skin cancer, by the way? There were a couple of papers on this from Sweden, but then I heard nothing more.

@Hip I really admire your curiosity and your willingness to go into depth for your research. I really do. But I don't understand the way you respond to people who are trying to make points. It's not personal criticism. This is how science works.

I also do admire the input from more skeptically-oriented members of this forum, and have learnt a lot from that input. I tend to have more the "what if" type of mind, and if I come across an interesting hypothesis, no matter how unusual it may be, I tend to get interested in it, and will want to investigate further, and then I may go off in a flight of fancy of investigation. If you told me there were pixies living at the bottom of your garden, I'd want to investigate it!

In terms of criticism, I usually I respond well to polite criticism that addresses the issues. Like most people, I get a little irritated with criticism that is abruptly rude and/or shallow. By shallow I mean lazy criticism that has not really looked into the subject. So if someone says: "it's crap, I bet it won't work", that for example is both rude and lazy criticism.

 

[barbc56]

No, it's the way pseudoscience works but I am an idiot who can't understand that standing six feet away from a toaster puts you at risk for ME or something like that because apparently I don't understand the simple methodology of how it is possible to say that standing near toasters might put you at risk for ME (or something like that) or at risk for eating toast. Does eating toast cause ME? Will a piece of toast cook if you put it close to a cell phone tower. I am so confused. .

I'd say no about the whole toast/toaster hypothesis. However, if it's hot enough you can fry an egg on the sidewalk. Don't know if you can also make burned toast.

 

[Undisclosed]

I'd say no about the whole toast thing. However, if it's hot enough you can fry an egg on the sidewalk. Don't know if you can also make toast.

So what are you saying, that frying eggs on a sidewalk will cause ME. I am pretty sure it won't -- haven't looked it up so that means I am rude and lazy. Why are you even talking about toast?

 

[barbc56]

So what are you saying, that frying eggs on a sidewalk will cause ME. I am pretty sure it won't -- haven't looked it up so that means I am rude and lazy. Why are you even talking about toast?

I don't know. I just went off on a bit of a tangent. I do that about every sixth post.

Back to the topic...

 

[sb4]

There is more EMF exposure from radios, TV's, electrical wiring, lighting, and electrical appliances in our homes than cell from phone towers. EMF's are everywhere and have been everywhere long before cell phone towers existed. Was there a huge increase in ME/CFS as people installed electricity in there homes -- doesn't seem so.

Dr Kruse would say that's when modern diseases first started croping up in 1889. I would agree, I definitely think nnEMF plays a large role.

I do agree with the rest of your post for this to be more meaning full info about exposure to other emfs is required.

 

[Undisclosed]

I don't know. I just went off on a bit of a tangent. I do that about every sixth post.

Back to the topic...

Indeed.

 

[Hip]

I am pretty sure it won't -- haven't looked it up so that means I am rude and lazy.

I think you sometimes put a lot of effort into your criticism Kina, so I would definitely not say lazy. It's often thoughtful and methodical. Even in this case, I thought your criticism was good and pertinent in many aspects.

Even when you said:

The poll will uncover nothing but people with ME/CFS live at different distances from cell phone towers which they obviously do. You can't make any determination re: the risk of developing of ME/CFS is associated with cell phone towers

that was also on the face of it a good initial criticism, a criticism which normally would have been correct (you were not to know that I had a certain mathematical "trick" in mind that would get around this criticism).

 

[sb4]

@Hip I think you would be very interested in dr robert o'beckers books, particularly "the body electric". For all the people in this thread who are dismissing the idea as disproven, he shows how currupt and bais the medical institutions where to him and his colleagues.

Also @Hip what do you think of this as an explanation for the effects https://forum.jackkruse.com/index.p...srupt-life-below-the-thermal-threshold.18345/
I am still learning so don't understand the logic fully.

 

[BruceInOz]

A few thoughts @Hip .

1. If you compared the 300-500 anulus with the 150-300 anulus rather than the 0-300 disk you should eliminate the problems mentioned related to the power not being simply proportional to radius squared when very close to the transmitter

2. If I've understood correctly (and that's not a given considering my current state) your "control group" sounds more like a means of correcting for population density. Calling it a control group is misleading.

3. Having only collected 4 votes or so in each of the two annuli means you really can't say anything and putting any number to it is meaningless.

Keep thinking!

ETA: Of course above I meant proportional to inverse radius squared.

 

[Hip]

Thanks for your thoughts, @BruceInOz.

2. If I've understood correctly (and that's not a given considering my current state) your "control group" sounds more like a means of correcting for population density. Calling it a control group is misleading.

It's kind of both really. What I am doing now is really very simple: out of the 70 random addresses in my control group, in terms of the distance that each address is situated from its nearest base station, these addresses divide up as follows:

Number of control group addresses at 500m or further from nearest base station = 26
Number of control group addresses 300m to <500m from nearest base station = 20
Number of control group addresses 150m to <300m from nearest base station = 13
Number of control group addresses 0m to <150m from nearest base station = 11

If you don't like the term "control group", you could call it a "random address sample" if you prefer.

So from the control group (random address sample) now we can calculate expected ratio of how many addresses you'd find in the <300m circle, and how many addresses you'd find in the 300m to <500m annulus zone around a typical average base station:

Ratio = (Number of 0m to <300m addresses) / (Number of 300m to <500m addresses) = (11 + 13) / 20 = 1.2

So 1.2 is our standard expected ratio, based on the control group addresses. Thus if base station radiation poses no risk for triggering ME/CFS, we would expect the incidence of ME/CFS determined by this poll to fall into roughly the same ratio. However, if the ratio calculated from the poll results turns out to be higher, this indicates base station radiation is a risk for ME/CFS.

The risk equation to calculate (based on the poll results) the increased risk of triggering ME/CFS for those living within 300 meters of a base station, compared to the risk for those living in the 300 meter to <500 meter zone, is the following equation:

Increased risk = (ME incidence in 0m to <300m zone) / (1.2 X (ME incidence in 300m to <500m zone))


At this moment, with the latest updated results of this poll, the figures stand at:

Current poll results:
ME incidence in the 300m to <500m zone = 3
ME incidence in the 150m to <300m zone = 4
ME incidence in the 0m to <150m zone = 4

So using the above equation, the increased risk is currently calculated at:

Increased risk = (4 + 4) / (1.2 X 3) = 2.22

1. If you compared the 300-500 anulus with the 150-300 anulus rather than the 0-300 disk you should eliminate the problems mentioned related to the power not being simply proportional to radius squared when very close to the transmitter

Good idea, and no sooner suggested than done:

So first we have to set up a new risk equation, to calculate the increased risk of triggering ME/CFS for those living in the 150m to <300m zone of a base station, compared to the risk for those living in the 300m to <500m zone. We do this in the same way as above, which gives the risk equation of:

Increased risk = (ME incidence in 150m to <300m zone) / (0.65 X (ME incidence in 300m to <500m zone))

So if we enter our current poll results into this equation, it gives:

Increased risk = (4) / (0.65 X 3) = 2.05

So this figure of 2.05 is similar to the figure of 2.22 we calculated above.

3. Having only collected 4 votes or so in each of the two annuli means you really can't say anything and putting any number to it is meaningless.

I am hoping more votes will come in. Sometimes polls on this forum can get over 100 responses.

 

[BruceInOz]

I am hoping more votes will come in. Sometimes polls on this forum can get over 100 responses.

Your problem is that, of the 32 total votes so far, only 7 are between 150-500m.

Since statistical error is square root of count and using square root of sum of squares of relative error for propagating errors in division, your value of 2.2 has an error of 76% or 2.2 +/- 1.7

Yes, you need more data!

 

[alex3619]

At very high levels RF energy is dangerous because it can heat the body's tissues very fast.

It takes a lot to do this. It rarely happens. Instead we know that such things can interfere with voltage gated ion channels that are essential to cell function, and nerves are very vulnerable. So the brain is very vulnerable. The EM strength needed to do that is probably much much lower than needed to heat tissue.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

So what are you saying, that frying eggs on a sidewalk will cause ME. I am pretty sure it won't -- haven't looked it up so that means I am rude and lazy. Why are you even talking about toast?

I think it was thought that the carbon in burnt toast and burnt food could give you an increased risk of cancer, so I'm not sure what the risk would be if you combined that with electromagnetic irradiation? ....it might indeed need another poll?perhaps throw in a variable of getting ellotrocuted by inserting a knife in the slot?

 

[Hip]

@sb4
I used to have a passing interest in electric, magnetic and electromagnetic influences on biology, but like most of my reading interests, I had to drop them after developing ME/CFS, because brain fog limits me. So I am a bit rusty on bioelectromagnetics.

In the case of the research by Örgan Hallberg and Olle Johansson in Sweden that I mentioned earlier, which observed a link between FM 87-108 MHz radio waves and skin cancer, the hypothesis was that these radio waves do not cause cancer (skin cancer is assumed to be induced by DNA damage from UV radiation), but rather that these radio waves may cause disturbance of cell repair and cellular apoptosis mechanisms, and so may prevent a cancerous cell from either repairing itself or undergoing the normal apoptosis self-destruction.

The disturbance is posited to be caused by resonance effects on cellular machinery or organelles that only occur a specific radio wave frequencies. However, I am not sure if there is any actual evidence for such resonance effects caused by low level electromagnetic radiation.

Hallberg and Johansson's observation was that when FM radio broadcasting was first introduced in the 1950s (AM radio was already in existence in the 1950s, but FM broadcasting was new) there was a huge surge in the cases of melanoma, and they observed that surge happened on a county by county basis, corresponding to when FM radio transmissions where introduced to a given county area of a country.



Other non-thermal influences of electromagnetic radiation include the effects on antioxidant status and oxidative stress: this study on rats found that GSM base station electromagnetic radiation at a power level of 3.67 W/m2 caused an increase in malondialdehyde (which is a marker of oxidative stress) and a decrease in glutathione levels.

However, it should be pointed out that at a distance of 100 meters from a multi-operator mobile phone base station, the power levels is around 0.12 W/m2, which equivalent to 120 mW/m2 (ref: here). But if you are using mobile phone, during that time you will get much higher exposures.

 

[Hip]

The following table details various non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation at different power density levels reported by different studies:

Source: Table of Effects By Power Density and SAR

Note that: 1 μW/m2 = 1,000 mW/m2 = 1,000,000 W/m2

 

[HowToEscape?]

The following table details various non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation at different power density levels reported by different studies:

View attachment 19580

Source: Table of Effects By Power Density and SAR

Note that: 1 μW/m2 = 1,000 mW/m2 = 1,000,000 W/m2

You may want to take a closer look at that site, and then compare their curated collection to studies which were undertaken without any desired conclusion in mind. To put it in the mildest terms, that site is science less than Honey Crunch Granola Bars are healthy food. To put it in forthright terms might not be appropriate for a forum where most of us have brain fog and not much to be cheerful about, it would involve references to reptiles that walk upright and such.

Considering that we have brain fog, no single reliable source of information, frequently no formal training that included lab time (rather hard to do when one is too sick to stand, much less think) and that many of us have few venues to hang out other than around the internet (aka The International Bovine Manure Trebuchet Operator and Catcher's Association), we can wander down the rabbit hole a bit too easily. There's no shortage of characters with a desire to lead a crowd into theirs.