- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Smart phones don't really seem to be dangerous...
Author Message
Anonymous
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 02:54
Reply 


I have seen many posts on here about how dangerous smart phones are. I am going to have a very unpopular opinion here with this post. So when I got my electrosmog meter I expected its readings to be high next to the smart phone. But they werent. The only times the readings were HIGH was when the phone was making a call, or actively browsing the web the levels were high. When the phone was on but not being used the readings were NO different then when the phone was off. When I was using the phones apps that dont require internet, the readings werent high either. So whats with all this "smart phones are so dangerous" stuff? Seems to me they are no more dangerous then a normal cell phone.

Same when I tested the cordless phone at work. Normal levels till you made a call. Then REALLY high levels from the base but the phone itself didnt give off really high levels at all...except for a second at the beginning og the call. So whats going on ?

bookaddict~
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 02:58
Reply 


That wasnt supposed to be anonymous. I lost my password though. Its BookAddict

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 12:11
Reply 


If you're desperate to carry on having a smartphone, nobody will stop you. But they are not the same as a simple cell phone. How many people switch them off completely? They use them, then just bung them back in their pocket or put them down on the table. The emissions continue. If they were like a cell phone, I'd only be aware of them when they were being used.

EG.

ES
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 16:33
Reply 


Bookworm - You imply that both smart phones and mobile phones are harmless. Not true.
What exactly were the measured[?] levels that you considered as HIGH and as LOW? What do you call NORMAL levels? What meter exactly were you using and what was its range??

Care must be also taken that the meter that you use to measure or detect the radiation will measure the frequency that is being emitted. Some only measure or detect up to 2.5 GHz. The Electrosmog Detector that was previously sold by EMFields will not measure in the 5 GHz region for example.
I am personally using Gigahertz-solutions HFE35C and HFW35 equipment, or the EMFields Acoustimeter if i need something that i can put into my pocket.

I used to use a mobile phone, infrequently, years ago. But no longer can do so since i became electrosensitive. I cannot tolerate wifi, DECT, mobile phone mast, TETRA or phone emissions, either 2G, 3G old style phones or 'smart phones'.

I have measured over 6 Volts per metre at arms length from that mobile phone, and also 6 Volts per metre when a fellow patient used her mobile phone the other side of the ward.The exposure is not small. And it is simply not true to state that there are no harmful effects of the microwave frequency radiation and the low frequency modulations.

I understand that George Carlo's team took iPhones apart and discovered that the phones could still receive and transmit when nominally switched off.
That is, the signals from other phones leapfrog from one phone to another on the way to the nearest base station. The only way to stop this is to put the phone into Aircraft Mode.

Smart phones, like older mobile phones, give me a terrible headache. I feel it just before the phone rings and when turning off a phone - that is when there is an up-link or a down-link transmission between the phone and the phone mast. It feels like I am being hit on the head by a piece of wood.

Visiting the doctors surgery, and elsewhere, I am not infrequently surrounded by ignorant people who ignore signs to 'Switch of your mobile phones' and spend 20 minutes using their iPhones. It is sheer hell.

As for cordless DECT phones, i have measured 4 - 6 Volts per metre at couple of meters away from them even when not making or receiving a phone call. They transmit 24/7.

George Carlo lead the largest USA mobile industry epidemiological study.
He was sacked when he and his team found that mobile phone use was linked to cancers. He has since become a whistle blower.
Read all about it in his book 'Cell Phones'.
Watch his videos on the Internet.

ES

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 17:25
Reply 


Thanks for such a well-articulated response, ES. I didn't know where to start, as there is so much wrong with the original statement!

EG.

charles
Member
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 19:11
Reply 


I use a special detector with a ball antenna for measuring stuff.

I once measured an iPhone. The recorded modulations are on my website among the sounds library.
It is noisy when he starts, but when changed into 3G mode, it is like an airplane is starting.

However, my granddaughter has a Blackberry, but no sound came off.
Only when she loaden an internet page, there was some noise, but as soon as the page was loaded, no sounds.
While the page was loading, I measured a 7.000 W/m.
In comparison, that is not much, while a normal mobile can easily reach some 20.000 W/m and higher.

So, the *poison* of a Blackberry is significantly less than an iPhone.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 19:41
Reply 


My own experience would tend to confirm that a Blackberry is less harmful than an iPhone or smilar Smartphone. I managed to persuade my Dad to go back to using an old Blackberry to lessen his own exposure.

EG.

ES
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 20:14
Reply 


7,000 W/m [1.6 V/m] to 20,000 W/m [ 2.75 V/m].

c.f. Recommended levels Bioinitiative Report [0.6 V/m].
c.f. levels [0.06 V/m; 10W/m] at which the Bamberg Appeal doctors found that their patients experienced health problems.

It is still too much exposure. I have health problems with 10 W/m never mind several thousands of microwatts per square metre!

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 19 Dec 2011 21:43
Reply 


ericgeneric,

Please don't mock others on this forum like:
"...as there is so much wrong with the original statement!"

State your disagreements in a polite manner. Not everyone is as informed about this topic as you.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 00:19
Reply 


That isn't mocking. It's a fact. I find the original subject line very offensive, as it happens. The whole post is basically calling us liars.

EG.

bookaddict~
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 07:23
Reply 


This isnt about me wanting a smartphone, this is about me reading several posts on this site and therefore expecting that that the smartphone would give off high RF levels when that is not what happened at all. It surprised me.The meters lowest measurement possible is 0.0018mw/m2.

So when my smart phone was not being used (which is not the same as being off, by the way) it did not register as being any higher then the lowest measurement (which is the 0.0018mw/m2). When the phone was off the backround RF measurements were just as high...

The only time the levels went up considerably was when the phone was being used as I stated in my previous post. When a call was being made, when GPS was being used (this was the highest) and when a webpage was first loaded (for a couple seconds). My phone is an android. My friend has an LG from a couple years ago (pre-smart phone era) and its RF levels during calls and web browsing were no higher...

You can find it offensive all you want. But its a valid opinion. More then an opinion even, because it was based on measurements. I obviously wouldn't have made the post if the readings were high. I just don't get it, I mean there are things around me that gave off high levels of RF(microwave oven, wirless router) but my smart phone was not one of them.

If not all smart phones give off high RF readings then it isn't really correct to say they all do. I never tested an Iphone or Blackberry, just my android and my friends LG.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 12:32 - Edited by: ericgeneric
Reply 


I don't judge anything based on readings, I'm not proficient enough and my EHS is so extreme that I can feel the strength of any emissions. That's all I can go on.

There was no need to start a new thread with such a contentious subject line (you knew it would be unpopular) - people here suffer chronically, REALLY chronically, with the effects of phone/smartphone use. Your confusion/surprise at what you found could have been expressed without claiming there is no danger. It might be an opinion, but as ES has kindly and patiently pointed out, and as many of us already discussed in the other topic you began, there are major differences between smartphones and cell phones and the dangers of both are perfectly real.


EG.

charles
Member
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 14:05
Reply 


I see the probemacy from a different viewpoint.

Since some 13 years I look into this matter.
Not many people do have the measuring equipment I do have.
And its amount is rising.
I expect a new antenna for measuring from 1Hz up to 30MHz.

There are two sorts of people.
The *normal* ones, who will be affected by HF radiation levels of over 100.000W/m.
Persons with a damaged immune system can become electrosensitive by amounts of 200-2.000W/m.

But what nobody has investigated is the fact, that already electrosensitive persons may react to amounts of just over 0 = zero W/m!!
It is not the high frequencies, but the low frequencies and the mid frequencies that are attacking them.
The number of W/m is not important anymore for electrosensitives.
Elektrosmog signals, hardly measurable, may have an enormous impact.
So, the contact signals of a phone with its base station mast may be enough for rigorous complaints.
In my opinion, it is the *longitudinal waves*, which accompany all elektrosmog signals, which do have such a biological impact.
They also carry much farther than the normal transversal waves.
Dr. Warnke once stated: *As long as we disregard the longitudinal waves, we will never solve the problem of elektrosmog.*

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 16:36
Reply 


The number of W/m is not important anymore for electrosensitives.
Elektrosmog signals, hardly measurable, may have an enormous impact.
So, the contact signals of a phone with its base station mast may be enough for rigorous complaints.


Charles, this would explain a lot. Certainly the symptoms experienced by myself and my family after years of chronic expsoure to EMRs from a mast. Thanks for posting.

EG.

ES
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 21:29
Reply 


"Not many people do have the measuring equipment I do have.
And its amount is rising.
I expect a new antenna for measuring from 1Hz up to 30MHz."

Charles,
I assume that you are using an expensive spectrum analyser?

Certainly, i personally find that higher exposures produce worse symptoms and hypertension [SBP/DBP of 230/110].

Yes, it would indeed be useful to know exactly what LF frequencies added to the HF signals in my environment, or combination of frequencies, cause the problems. I am reminded of the health problems reported by GErman doctors that wre caused by the addition of 8.34 Hz to the GSM EDGE at a T-Mobile transmitter in Oberammergau. Only when this 8.34 Hz frequency was removed did patients symptoms improve.

The difficulty still exists though that we cannot screen against the LF frequencies with HF screening materials... and where does one find an affordable meter not costing thousands of pounds and antenna that will measure in the region 1 Hz to 30 MHz?

Charles, when you get your new antenna and do your experiments, I would be very interested to hear what frequencies you find. And how the levels of the LF and middle components might increase as the HF levels increase.
And the digital TV/radio what is added to that, I wonder?

ES

Bookaddict~
# Posted: 20 Dec 2011 23:02
Reply 


Of course I knew it would be unpopular, popularity is not something that concerns me. The only reason I did post it was so that in the future if someone is just reading posts on smart phones they could see this post along with all of the others. There are already several stating the dangers of smart phones. But in my opinion, as someone who is not overly electrosensitive they really dont seem that dangerous when they are not being used. Im not saying that you do not get symptoms from them, I was saying that when I tested the my particular smart phone, the levels were no higher then the backround levels.

After buying the electrosmog meter and renting one, along with renting an trifiled EMF meter and going around our 3 properties with them I just found several things to be much more dangerous. Like Microwave ovens, close proximity to cell towers, wirless routers, and the smart meter. And the cell phone when it is being used (ie. during a call or web browsing). And corldess phone bases when they were in use. I never did test my laptop because I disabled the wireless function and did it so well that I cannot seem to turn it back on.

The worst, in my opinion, was the smart meter. They didnt tell me that they put it in. I was testing where my dad sleeps, as I tested everyones sleeping area because that seems to be an area of importance. And both the RF and EMF were quite high. Right next to where his head rests. I was confused as to what would cause it. The Trifield emf meter was showing readings over 16, the RF meter was showing dangerous amounts. Looked all around his room to find the cause. Went outside. Saw the new smart meter. No one even asked our permission or let us know they were putting it there. Called the utilities company. They are switching the whole town, and yes it is mandatory. Lets just say his bed is not in the other side of the room, where the readings were significantly lower!

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 21 Dec 2011 00:40
Reply 


The only reason I did post it was so that in the future if someone is just reading posts on smart phones they could see this post along with all of the others.

Which would be fine if the theory and measuring behind the statements were accurate and fully understood, but as ES points out, that isn't quite the case and so it is just misleading. People will see "smartphones not dangerous" and dismiss any possible concerns or links they might have been making to problems in their own lives. Few people would go on to read the rest of these posts where a fully picture emerges. It's irresponsible, and tactless to do so on a site that is supposed to be helping those caught up in the onslaught of wireless technology.

You admit it was done for effect, to somehow balance out whatever negative pictures are being painted of smartphones and their technology. Well I could go and start dozens of topics here with contentious, eye-catching headlines just to right the wrongs that I perceive are being done by authorities, companies and the media. Sometimes that's what is needed, but the arguments within the controversial viewpoint need to be more than "I'm confused about this".

There is absolutely no problem with being confused about what exactly these phones are giving off, and when, and why. Likewise, attempting to run disagnostic tests and then asking people with the knowledge (which is not me, by the way, I don't know the first thing about scientific formulae) for advice. You even had an exisiting thread which gave the perfect opportunity to do so. I'm sure it would have been welcomed. The discussion would then have gone much the same way as it has on this topic, only without the contentious and offensive headline.

Imagine going onto a religious/sexual/nutritional forum and winding people up with "god doesn't seem to exist", "homesexuality doesn't seem to exist", "GM foods seem alright", etc. That's how it feels.

Smartphones are not safe. The technology they use is lethal. Some models may be slightly less dangerous than others, and some methods of using them might slightly dimish the danger for a while, but none of them are safe.

Smart Meters are a whole nightmare of their own! The SEE wrote back to us with a shockingly inept defence of what they are planning to do in the UK. No mention of choice, of opt-out, or even any reference to the pulsed microwave signals they transmit at all hours. They are pretending it's all old-school electricity! Either they are in denial, or plain stupid. Surely they must be aware of the technology they are forcing (against current laws, it should be said) upon the whole population?


EG.

phonix11
# Posted: 22 Dec 2011 11:20
Reply 


i don't think so smart phones are really dangerous for the people.If people are using the smart phones in limit then i think no question arises in any cell phone or mobile phones.Precaution is always be good but it's not like every disease are just bcs of using smart phones.Today in current market, reputed standard companies are producing and provided different qualitative mobile phones products with enhance advance features. So like Nokia Phones series, Apple I phones series 4G, 5GLg and Motorola series phones, Blackberry Phones, Sony Ericsson Xperia Ray phones, Samsung Phones series like galaxy, android, waves, Samsung Wave 2 S8530 etc.They are useful as in form of technology side with great features which one is easily used by common people and communicate in each and every sector easily with daily updates.They are safe in use as well made by with high secure specially from health point of view.

Anonymous
# Posted: 22 Dec 2011 16:53
Reply 


I am reporting this mobile industry advertising [again] to webmaster.
It is an abuse of this forum.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 22 Dec 2011 19:30
Reply 


Phonix11 - your advertising is as blatant as the ignorant misinformation in your posts.

Go away.

EG.

BookAddict~
# Posted: 23 Dec 2011 08:23
Reply 


Perhaps in Canada there are different limits or something because when I was using the meter by the cell towers they didnt seem as high as various levels I have heard of on the internet, mostly from the USA and Europe. I havent actually seen any other Canadians use a RF meter, not even on youtube although my youtube search wasn't in depth. Anyway even about a block away from the cell tower the readings were as low as the meter goes (0.0018mw/m2). From everything I read/watched online the levels should have been much higher. Which makes me wonder if in Canada there are maybe more towers, but that they give off less RF.

ME
# Posted: 23 Dec 2011 13:40
Reply 


Yes, I would expect the levels should have been much higher.

Readings depend on where you are with respect to the main beams and also what might be in the way.
Your reading was 0.0018 mW/m2 , so 1.8 microwatts per square metre.

Are you sure that the antennae were transmitting and were not turned off?
Try again in different locations.

I am not aware of Canada having very low limits for phone mast exposures.
ME

charles
Member
# Posted: 23 Dec 2011 18:16
Reply 


The transmitters for mobile phone masts do have their electronics in a cabinet. And they do use what the germans call *Vorschaltgeraete*.
These electronic parts differ in quality, but they make *dirty power* as well as *dirty air*.

I measured a very nice peak of 100kHz in the sidelobe of an UMTS or 3G mobile phone transmitter on a church tower.
On other plces I found 30kHz frequencies in a 3G beam.

I measure frequencies of 3MHZ up to 30MHz on electricity cables, and also on frequencies of 5kHz up to 20MHz on groundings.

I do kinow electrosensitives where visitors have to deposit their mobiles in a metal container, because otherwise these persons do have an allergic reaction over their complete body, within 15 minutes.

Please listen to my collection of recorded modulations of elektrosmog sources at:
http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina109.html

For real electrosensitives, the levels are not important.
Everything above zero is dangerous for them!
That is often not understood.

So, the little now and then chirp of a mobile in order to stay in contact with the nearby mast, can be desastrous for an electrosensitive person.

I cannot point out enough, that very weak signals can have a greater impact on electrosensitives than heavy ones.
I am always talking about electrosensitives, not about *normal* persons.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 24 Dec 2011 02:02
Reply 


I really appreciate your contributions to this thread.

Of course the longer this blanket EMR continues, and the more exposure everyday people will come under through their addiction to smartphones, Smart TV, sleeping in homes with Smart Meters etc, the greater the numbers of electrosensitives will become. It's inevitable. If my family, with no history of neurological illness, can become ES after a couple of years of 24/7 mast exposure from 100ft, then anyone can if the levels are high enough and prolonged enough.

ES-UK mentions a report that estimates a possible 50% of Britain could be ES within 5 years.

EG.

BookAddict~
# Posted: 24 Dec 2011 06:31
Reply 


Im certain my meter is working because when around a microwave that is on, a phone base when in use, a cell phone when you make a call, it shows very high levels. But I have tried using the meter in many places now because I am a curious person.

So far its not what I expected. In my house the only wireless thing is a thermometer. And a baby monitor. My house has low RF levels. The acreage next to many cell masts has a relatively low level. My sister in laws house which has 2 cordless phones, a satellite dish and a wireless router/laptop has a level of .06-0.18mw/m. My father in laws house, in the middle of nowhere with a cordless phone has a level of 1.8mw/m. My work which has a cordless and is close to a cell mast is 0.0018mw/m2.

I was expecting something simple, something like if your close to a mast levels would be high. But that is so not the case. Some households nowhere near a mast had very high levels. Some places next to a mast had a low level. That is what makes me wonder if Canada has different standards.

Im pretty sure the mast I was talking about earlier was on, according the the website it has been running since August. And levels right by the mast do go up a bit but not very high.

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on forum script miniBB™ © 2001-2022