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

[Hip]

My house was sandwiched between 3 masts, all 3 approx 600 meters away with my house almost in the centre of the triangle.

Three masts at that 600 meter distance won't substantially increase the electromagnetic radiation power level in your home. What does substantially increase the power level is close proximity to the base station. The following example shows how power level increases disproportionally with increased proximity to the base station:

500 meter distance > power level = 10
100 meter distance > power level = 250
50 meter distance > power level = 1000

This disproportional increase is due to the inverse-square law of electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Undisclosed]

Do you guys who are criticizing my methodology actually know what my methodology is? I worked out a system that I think will be valid for determining the risk factor that living close to a mobile phone base station might pose to the development of ME/CFS. I have not actually explained this methodology in my above posts. But I am happy to provide details.

If I get sufficient respondents, I think the results of my poll will most likely show that that mobile phone base station proximity is not a risk factor for ME/CFS.

Those are valid questions, and yes, they all emit electromagnetic radiation.

However, unless you can develop a methodology that can correlate the degree of electromagnetic radiation exposure from these devices to ME/CFS prevalence, then there is no way to gauge whether they might be a risk factor for ME/CFS. I cannot think of any methodology that would work for cordless phones, WiFI, etc.

Are you kidding. You can't determine anything from a poll on a forum. Seriously, a poll on Phoenix Rising isn't close to any kind of valid methodology. Why not just look at the science, strength of EMF's, how they affect the body, what other things in the environment emit stronger EMF's and then come to the most obvious conclusion. A poll is unscientific in so many ways. You speak as if you are carrying out some kind of scientific research. I would suggest it's not even pseudoscience. Tell you what, take the results of your research, write a paper, send it to get peer reviewed and get back to us.

 

[Undisclosed]

Three masts at that 600 meter distance won't substantially increase the electromagnetic radiation power level in your home. What does substantially increase the power level is close proximity to the base station. The following example shows how power level increases disproportionally with increased proximity to the base station:

500 meter distance > power level = 10
100 meter distance > power level = 250
50 meter distance > power level = 1000

This disproportional increase is due to the inverse-square law of electromagnetic radiation.

Yes but where is your methodology that relates all of this to ME/CFS? All you are doing is having members say how far they live from cell phone towers. So basically all you can say from the results of your poll is that X number live X meters away, Y number live Y meters away ... . That's it. Here you are giving numbers re: EMF power level. You can't connect the two together without a hell of lot more research.

I can poll the number of people with ME/CFS who live close to bus stops, the closer you live to a bus stop, the more noxious fumes you are going to inhale that is produced by the buses. I can not say from that anything related to bus fumes causing ME.

 

[Hip]

So basically all you can say from the results of your poll is that X number live X meters away, Y number live Y meters away ... . That's it.

No, there is more to it that that. If you ponder on it a bit, you might figure out the methodology I plan to use. I will give you a clue: think about areas of circles, think about populations who live within those circles, and think about the concept of disease prevalence.

See if you can guess my methodology.

 

[Undisclosed]

No, there is more to it that that. If you ponder on it a bit, you might figure out the methodology I plan to use. I will give you a clue: think about areas of circles, think about populations who live within those circles, and think about the concept of disease prevalence.

You can go on and on about proximity's but how does it correlate with ME/CFS patients. You are making a huge leap. What you need a clue about is how to properly do scientific research. Are you not getting that your poll won't show anything other than the number of members who live X distance away from cell towers and nothing else.

You could do the same poll on Autism forums, MS forums, cardiac disease forums and get the same results.

 

[user9876]

You can go on and on about proximity's but how does it correlate with ME/CFS patients. You are making a huge leap. What you need a clue about is how to properly do scientific research. Are you not getting that your poll won't show anything other than the number of members who live X distance away from cell towers and nothing else.

You could do the same poll on Autism forums, MS forums, cardiac disease forums and get the same results.

A lot of people live near mobile masks and don't develop illness so a poll won't say much anyway. Also not all base stations are obvious so the distance data may not make any sense anyway.

Kina is right about which ever forums you run this on you would get the same result. So choosing the right forum you may find that mobile phone masks 'encourage' people to create scrapbooks or do other crafts. That of course doesn't even consider those living near masks are more likely to say yes.

 

[Barry53]

Going back to before the mobile era is not really going to serve the purpose of this poll, which is to determine whether proximity to a mobile phone base station mast increases the risk of developing ME/CFS.

Do we know if the incidence rate of ME/CFS increased when mobile phone masts started springing up?

 

[Hip]

Are you kidding. You can't determine anything from a poll on a forum. Seriously, a poll on Phoenix Rising isn't close to any kind of valid methodology. Why not just look at the science, strength of EMF's, how they affect the body, what other things in the environment emit stronger EMF's and then come to the most obvious conclusion. A poll is unscientific in so many ways. You speak as if you are carrying out some kind of scientific research. I would suggest it's not even pseudoscience. Tell you what, take the results of your research, write a paper, send it to get peer reviewed and get back to us.

I find the gist of this comment both hard to comprehend, as well as exaggerated.

Of course this is just an informal forum poll. Nobody is suggesting such polls are in any way comparable to a peer reviewed paper submitted to Nature or PLOS. So why would you hold such a poll to the same standards as peer reviewed science? I can't see what you are getting at with this "write a paper, send it to get peer reviewed".

Nevertheless, in spite of how basic they are, some polls on this forum do provide useful information. I have seen several polls whose statistics tend to match the statistics that studies have found, or the statistics that ME/CFS doctors have found. Polls are a rough and ready approach, but in my view are not the totally valueless exercises you say they are.


As for other devices like cordless phones, mobile phones, WiFi, etc emitting higher levels of EM radiation: it is true that some do effectively bathe you in higher power levels that mobile base stations, mostly because of their closer proximity to you (eg, when you use a mobile or cordless phone, you tend to hold it next to your head).

But it is a simplistic view to think that power level is everything. It is not just power level that counts: it is also the exposure profile (eg, 20 minutes of occasional high power EM radiation exposure may have different biological effects to constant 24 hour exposure to the same radiation at lower power).

Then the specific carrier wave frequency of the EM radiation is important (eg, 800 MHz fields may have different biological effects to 1800 MHz).

As well as the carrier wave frequency, there is also the pulsing frequency, which is different in different devices.

In some cases, the pulsing frequency falls within the range of natural brain wave frequencies (brain wave frequencies run from around 0.1 to 100 Hz), and it is well known that external electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic waves can affect natural brain waves.

For example, the UK police cellular radio network (called TETRA) uses a 17.5 Hz pulsing frequency, and that falls within the brain wave range. GSM mobile networks pulse at 217 Hz. DECT cordless phones pulse at 100 Hz. These pulsing frequencies could affect the brain, or have other biological effects.

Thus the issue is more complex than the simple idea of power levels being the most important factor.

 

[Hip]

You can go on and on about proximity's but how does it correlate with ME/CFS patients.

Let me then explain my methodology to you:

Let's assume as our null hypothesis that proximity to mobile phone base stations does not play role in the triggering of ME/CFS, and is not a risk factor for ME/CFS.

Now, consider all the people living within a 300 meter radius circle drawn around a mobile phone base station (in the image below, this is the white circle, with the base station in the center at point O).

Next, imagine all the people living in an annulus (a ring) starting at the 300 meter radius circle boundary, and extending out to a 500 meter radius circle boundary (the blue annulus in the image).

Imagine this base station is located in some urban or suburban area, which on average will tend to have a more or less uniform population density within each particular 500 meter radius circle surrounding each base station.

White circle and blue annulus surrounding
a base station at point O​

If you calculate the meters-squared area contained within our white circle, and the area contained within our blue annulus, you find that they are 283,000 m2 and 502,000 m2 respectively. So the ratio of these two areas, the white circle area / blue annulus area ratio, works out as 0.56.

Now, if we have uniform population density within our 500 meter boundary, this implies that the human population living in the white circle will be 0.56 times the population in the blue annulus.

And assuming uniform ME/CFS incidence within the population, you would also expect on average the ME/CFS incidence in the white circle to be 0.56 times the incidence in the blue annulus (assuming the null hypothesis that mobile phone base stations do not play role in triggering ME/CFS).

With me so far?

So in this poll, if we find that the number of patients whose ME/CFS was triggered in the white circle region is approximately equal to 0.56 times the number of patients whose ME/CFS was triggered in the blue annulus region, then this would support the null hypothesis, that proximity to base stations does not play role in triggering ME/CFS.

However, if instead in our poll we find that there are an inordinate number of patients whose ME/CFS was triggered in the white circle, higher than the 0.56 figure would predict, this would suggest that the base station radiation (which is at higher in power the white circle compared to the blue annulus) is a risk factor in the triggering of ME/CFS.

So that is the methodology in a nutshell.



What does this mean in terms of the figures in the poll? Well, for the null hypothesis to be true, you would have to have both side of the following equation being equal:

(Number of people at less than 500 meters) X 0.56 = (Number of people at less than 300 meters) + (Number of people at less than 150 meters).

If on the other hand the right side of that equation turns out to be larger than the left side, it would suggest that mobile phone base station radiation is a risk factor for ME/CFS.

​

 

[barbc56]

Nevertheless, in spite of how basic they are, some polls on this forum do provide useful information. I have seen several polls whose statistics tend to match the statistics that studies have found, or the statistics that ME/CFS doctors have found. Polls are a rough and ready approach, but in my view are not the totally valueless exercises you say they are

That's probably true but you could also say the opposite. Many polls don't necessarily match up statistically. How do you tell the difference?

Polls can be helpful for informational purposes but that is a far cry from scientific evidence. I think most here would take any results for what they are. A snapshot but not necessarily the whole picture. Maybe that's your intention?

There're other options that might make a hypothesis clearer. A statement followed by why you think something is true as well as citing sources if needed to make that point. This depends on whether you are giving your opinion or facts. Facts need to be backed up by evidence. This strengthens the credibility of what someone is stating.

Thus the issue is more complex than the simple idea of power levels being the most important factor.

Absolutely! That's why this issue needs to be addressed by something other than a poll.

Please understand this is not a personal criticism but a discussion on the issue of methodology.


Edit. I have no idea why the color of the above text changes. Nor can I fix it. Suggestions to fix this are welcome.

 

[rosie26]

I love how the community spends half the time drawing attention to awful flawed research methodology of the CBT/GET crowd and the other half of the time conducting our own research with even worse methodology.

Many years ago I watched an interview with Michael J Fox who had not long been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease. I remember him telling the interviewer that he questioned 'everything' that could have caused him to get sick. He said he even questioned toothpaste as possibly being the culprit. I remember relating to it at the time because I had briefly even questioned and suspiciously looked at the toothpaste as my mind cast over all the ways I could have gotten so ill.

But that was how it was in those earlier years of illness and trying to understand what had caused me to be so severely ill. Everything was questioned, even toothpaste!

 

[rosie26]

Thanks for the links you put up @Hip It was really interesting to see where all the towers were in my area. I had thought that perhaps a cell tower had been put up closer to where I live in the last couple of years as I can now talk on my cell phone at home without it cutting out and I see there is a new tower very close to me now, within 500 meters. Before this I had no towers within 500 meters of me.

 

[Hip]

Polls can be helpful for informational purposes but that is a far cry from scientific evidence. I think most here would take any results for what they are. A snapshot but not necessarily the whole picture. Maybe that's your intention?

It goes without saying that forum polls are just a rough and ready snapshot, which cannot be compared to a scientific study, but nevertheless can often provide some useful information.

Please understand this is not a personal criticism but a discussion on the issue of methodology.

I would be very happy if people discussed the methodology I am using in this poll, but so far nobody has actually done this. There has just been some generic criticism that is too vague to be of use.

Edit. I have no idea why the color of the above text changes. Nor can I fix it. Suggestions to fix this are welcome.

It's because you have somehow created a weblink behind you text: not only is your text a different color, but if you click on the text, it goes to the webpage in that link. To get rid of it, select the text in question, and then click on the unlink button (8th button from the left, which looks like an 8 on its side).

 

[Hip]

Also not all base stations are obvious so the distance data may not make any sense anyway.

That's why I provided the online maps detailing the locations of the base stations. Did you not see these?

Do we know if the incidence rate of ME/CFS increased when mobile phone masts started springing up?

There was an apparent huge 5-fold to 8-fold increase in ME/CFS during the 1980s, which was around the time when cellular networks were first nationally introduced. See this thread.

 

[Forbin]

FWIW...

About a decade after I came down with ME, my health improved to the point where I could hold down a desk job.

I worked on the second floor of a two story building in a large metropolitan area of 2 million people. On the roof directly above my office, about 15 feet directly above my head, there was a cluster of cell phone towers, as well as several large microwave beam repeaters (receivers/transmitters). We were assured it was safe.

I worked in that office for four years and my ME symptoms did not get any worse. Although I guess it doesn't prove that proximity to EMF radiation can't trigger ME, the fact that it did not worsen my condition, or trigger a relapse, kind of makes me doubt it.

***

[ I'm by no means sanguine about EMF radiation. Shortly after moving into that office, the image on my computer monitor started to flicker and vibrate, making it impossible to work (especially with my visual motion sensitivity). I suspected the cell phone towers, so I moved my monitor and computer all around the 2000 sq ft business on a wheeled cart (using a long extension cord) mapping "hot spots." There were several very distinct ones.

We had an inspector from the city and an electrician come out, and, in the end, it was discovered that a recently installed, magnetically-operated fire door had been wired "out of phase." As a result, the building's own electrical wiring was creating the EMF hot spots. They fixed it and the "hot spots" went away.

Small EM fields are pretty common. Put a compass next to a light switch and there's a pretty good chance it will deflect.]

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

@Hip
I haven't learnt to multi quote yet and fingers too numb so just tagged you instead. The issue with the methodology surely is the extremely tiny number of respondents you are likely to get and whether you can really glean very much from such a small sample when there are so many other variables at play. As such any conclusions you draw from the "data" are always going to be questionable especially without trying to establish a reference point. So why bother doing it? I'm not saying this for an argument just saying that it doesn't seem to have a valid outcome before you even start?

 

[Valentijn]

My house was sandwiched between 3 masts, all 3 approx 600 meters away with my house almost in the centre of the triangle.

That's where the aliens land

 

[antherder]

That's where the aliens land

How come nobody ever told me this before?

I've got a towel, and a notebook full of my own pretty appalling poetry...so all I need to do now is find me a triangle...?

 

[barbc56]

It's because you have somehow created a weblink behind you text: not only is your text a different color, but if you click on the text, it goes to the webpage in that link. To get rid of it, select the text in question, and then click on the unlink button (8th button from the left, which looks like an 8 on its side

It worked. Thanks!

 

[Hip]

The issue with the methodology surely is the extremely tiny number of respondents you are likely to get and whether you can really glean very much from such a small sample when there are so many other variables at play.

That is certainly an issue: if too few people respond to this poll, you wouldn't get enough statistical significance.

Actually, I made a bit of a mistake when I set up this poll, which only worsens this statistical significance issue: I should have included another circular boundary at 800 meters from the base station, and possibly even another at 1,200 meters.

That would have allowed me to make use of more of the votes in this poll. At the moment, as the poll setup stands, anyone living further away than the 500 meter boundary I cannot make use of, in terms of processing their vote data. From the poll results so far you can see that around 66% live at 500 meters or further, so this is the bulk of the votes, and they are unfortunately votes I cannot make use of.

But if I had included one or two more annuli at 800 meters and 1,200 meters, I could have made use of more of these votes, and that would have helped increased statistical significance.



I am seriously thinking of asking for this thread to be deleted, so that I can set up a better version, with more annuli. If I could get say 50 to 100 votes, and if I had one or two more annuli, that would certainly reach statistical significance, so the result would carry some weight, insofar as any forum poll can carry weight.



At the moment, the poll results show that you have 3 times the risk of developing ME/CFS if you live within 300 meters of a base station, compared to those who live in the 300 to 500 meter zone around the base station.

However, with so few votes so far, there is not enough statistical significance, so this result could just be from random chance.