Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - cell tower industry point of view
Dear Santosh Helekar, Saw your long emails, most of these are cut-paste and I have seen similar arguments presented by cell tower industry lobby. You have given examples of coffee and pickles (all these are being given by cell operators) but let me ask, how many times, people eat pickles in a day, may be, a few times. How many cups of coffee, people drink, may be, a few cups. Class 2B classification implies that limited use is acceptable, overuse is not. Similarly, limited use of cell phone is fine and limited cell tower radiation is fine. It is quite obvious from your emails that most of your material is being taken from the sites, which supports cell tower industry. I do not want to communicate further with you, who supports cell tower industry and not humanity. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Santosh Helekar wrote: Dear Prof. Girish Kumar, First, let me say that my object here is simply to present accurate and reliable information provided by genuine scientific experts and expert committees in the EMF and radiation biology/medicine fields. I do not particularly care whether it convinces you to abandon your position or not. Similarly, I would let other people decide who is right and who is wrong in this matter. My position based on reading the arguments on BOTH sides, and at least 20 original research papers with BOTH POSITIVE and NEGATIVE findings is the following: 1. There is NO unequivocal scientific support for any plausible mechanism by which extremely low power cell phone radiation can cause any kind of biological effect on human, other animal or plant tissues. There is no evidence that at this low power microwaves raise the temperature of a biological tissue even slightly. Even if tissue heating were taking place, it in and of itself is not harmful to the body. Otherwise, daily physical activity would have been harmful to health. 2. Almost all properly conducted randomized human clinical trials have produced negative results. I have gone through all of these papers. In my next email I will list them for you. These findings are the only ones that count because if there is no real effect in humans then all the other test tube, cell culture and animal studies are purely academic with no significance to public health. I am not sure how the Bio-Initiative Report can list 3800 references, if it does. When I did an independent search in a reputed scientific literature database I came up only with 1939 such reports. Of these only 1635 reports are concerned with an effect or lack of effect. Of these only 749 are concerned with cell phone and WiFi frequencies. Of these only 175 have to do with human beings. Of these only 77 are epidemiological case control or cohort studies. Of these 38 showed no effect, and 22 showed an effect. The remaining 17 are ongoing. Your claim that I have cherry picked with respect to BIR 2012 does not hold water because I was trying to see what scientific experts and peers in the field were saying about that report. I forwarded you all substantive reviews that I could find without cherry picking. If I have overlooked anything please let me know. The fact that BIR 2012 has cherry picked with a bias to only one side is clear from the fact that it claims that these low power low frequencies are harmful to health, and makes ridiculous recommendations based on this biased conclusion. If we follow their recommendations, we would have to give up electricity, radio, TV, radar, cordless phones, WiFi, internet, satellites, computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc. and live inside a copper wire cage to protect against cosmic radio waves and microwave background radiation. In short, we would have to revert to the 17th century. Please note that the burden of proof rests on those who propose that there is an effect i.e. a positive result. You cannot prove a negative. In science, even if one properly conducted observation or experiment yields a negative result then that is enough to falsify a hypothesis. That is why when scientific and public health organizations state that the evidence for harmful effects of cell phone radiation is INCONCLUSIVE, they mean evidence for the positive effect, not the negative result. We could be doing experiments with negative results till the cows come home. It would be ridiculous to claim that, that there is a negative result, is inconclusive, on that basis. In the case of cell phone radiation there are hundreds of studies with negative results. How do you explain them? There is not a single positive result that has been
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards
Dear Gerard, Thanks for your kind words. Please call me Santosh. I would be happy to write an article in a Goan newspaper on this subject. I have written OpEds in Herald before. Regarding the angry response by Prof. Girish Kumar to your email, let me just assure you that my reasoning is my own. It has been shaped by my understanding of basic physics, biology and medicine, by my reading of original research articles and review papers in the specific EMF and radiation biology/medicine fields, and my own thinking. I have no ties with the cell phone industry, nor have I been funded by cell phone companies. The least we can do as rational people is to not believe in massive world-wide conspiracy theories involving the governments, industrial establishments and the mainstream scientific community. By the way, I mentioned to your son Ashley, when he wrote to me earlier, that it is very rare to find a teacher and educator like you among Goans who cares deeply about educating the public about science. Cheers, Santosh On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:52 PM, Gerard Delaney delaney.ger...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Dr. Santosh, I have been following your mails carefully and have been very impressed with your scientific reasoning which is backed up by published research work on this topic. So far, as I see it, there is a great debate raging between only you and Prof. G.Kumar and hardly any body else is reading about it. It would be greatly beneficial for the public at large if you could write an article for the newspapers which allays their fears about the 'dangerous' radiations. A few days ago, I was so happy to read in the newspapers that the Dept. of Telecommunications was intending to have a series of programs in the various towns precisely to do this. Coming from a person of your stature and standing, the article would carry a lot of weight and offset the negative influence which has been caused in the past by articles which appear now and then frightening the public unnecessarily about the low density radiations emitted from the mobile towers. I can give you the email addresses of the editors of local newspapers if you are willing to do this. G.Delaney
[Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
In my previous post on this above subject, http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2014-March/238685.html any person with mediocre intelligence would have understood that I have not asked that the website cited be read. It was put there for those who need to confirm my statement that Sunlight is ultra violet radiation and cell phone radiation is radio frequency radiation, The former being ionizing and the latter non-ionizing radiation.So, there is no need to confuse tomatoes with potatoes, just because one has toes! Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
For what you have mentioned , somebody should understand what is ionization and non-ionization in the first place. Stephen On 17 March 2014 09:23, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão drferdina...@hotmail.com wrote: In my previous post on this above subject, http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2014-March/238685.html any person with mediocre intelligence would have understood that I have not asked that the website cited be read. It was put there for those who need to confirm my statement that Sunlight is ultra violet radiation and cell phone radiation is radio frequency radiation, The former being ionizing and the latter non-ionizing radiation. So, there is no need to confuse tomatoes with potatoes, just because one has toes! Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Dear All, Wishing you all a very happy HOLI. I thought HOLI is to be played by colors (ofcourse in some parts of India, they play with mud, sticks, gaalis, etc.) and here we are playing with scientific facts or fictions, accussing each other or trying to put others opinion down, and so on. Are we really knowledgable scientists or street fighters? Yesterday, I enjoyed holi dinner at our building with nearly 100 people and today morning, I played holi with 100's of faculty members and their families. Today afternoon, I thought I will do some work at the office but I saw more than 10 emails on this topic. I have attached 3 files. In the first file, please see Pages 3 to 5: Book-mobile-phones-myths-and-reality-GK-press-release.docx It gives comparison of sun heating with microwave heating and also of non0ionizing vs ionizing. I have reproduced the relevant portions below: Comparison of Sun radiation versus cell tower radiation They compare sun radiation with cell tower radiation and say sun radiation density is 1000 W/m2, which is thousands of times larger than cell tower radiation density of 0.1 W/m2. Hence cell tower radiation is not harmful. They have also written that if you place a container of water outdoors, it will not boil no matter how long it is exposed to sunlight. It is agreed that if one places a container of water outdoors, it will not boil no matter how long it is exposed to sunlight. However, if the same container of water is kept inside a microwave oven, it will boil in a few minutes. Thus, even though sun intensity of 1000W/m2 cannot boil the water, yet 500W of microwave power can boil the water in a few minutes. Even 1/10th of this power will boil the water in less than an hour, and even 1/100th of this power (i.e. 5W) will boil the water in less than a day. There is a different mechanism of heating. In case of microwave oven operating at a frequency of 2450 MHz, water molecules vibrate at a speed of 2.45 billion times per second, which creates friction and leads to heating. In many countries, frequency of 915MHz is also used for industrial microwave heating. Sun exposure is not continuous whereas microwave radiation due to cell tower radiation is 24x7. People do not stand in the sun for hours and clothes act as protective shielding from sun. People who do sun bathing for long hours have reported sun tanning, skin burning and even skin cancer. Sun radiation causes heating from outside to inside. The skin of human body acts as an insulator from sun and as the temperature increases, skin will either feel the burning sensation or starts sweating. In addition, air breeze takes away the heat. Whereas, microwave radiation from cell phone and cell tower penetrates the skin and at a frequency of 900 MHz, water (including blood, fluid, etc.) molecule vibrate at a speed of 900 million times per second, which creates friction, damages DNA and also leads to heating. This heating is from inside to outside and the heat is trapped inside the human body with no escape through the skin. Also, affect of microwave radiation is cumulative in nature and the harmful effects are noticed after a few months to a few years depending upon the intensity of the radiation. Human body consists of 70% liquid and brain contains 90% liquid. When cell phone and cell tower radiation of GSM900 impinges on human body, the water (including blood, fluids, etc.) inside the body vibrate at a speed of 900 million times per second, which creates friction. This friction damages the DNA and if damage to DNA is greater than DNA repair, it initiates mutation and cancer. Comparison of Ionizing radiation versus Non-Ionizing radiation of cell phone/tower The authors, cell operators and their associates have been repeatedly saying/writing/speaking at various forums that Ionizing radiation (UV Rays, X-Rays, Nuclear) can break the bond due to its higher frequency and hence higher energy, whereas cell phone/tower radiation has much lesser frequency and hence lower energy, which cannot break the bond and hence cannot damage DNA or cause cancer. It is agreed that ionizing radiation (UV Rays, X-Rays, Nuclear) has higher frequency and hence higher energy, which can break the bond and cause significant damage to the human body, including cancer. However, the claim is not correct that one cannot get any mutation (or damage) in the DNA (biological reaction) due to cell phone frequencies, which is non-ionizing radiation. Even though microwave frequency is less, which implies less energy due to the equation Energy E = hxf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency. However, all the world's phenomenon cannot be explained by a single equation of physics. Energy is also defined as E = power x time, which is easily understood and experienced by people. For example, standing for longer time in the sun, one will feel more heated, so time is important. Also, standing in the sun
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Dear Prof. Girish Kumar, I read your report and the list of references. I have many problems with them. But rather than list all of these problems I will just point out the three most fundamental ones. If one cannot satisfactorily address the latter to start with then it is pointless to even consider this any further, because they essentially kill the entire case that you have presented in your advocacy report. The first of these problems is related to what Gerard has already said but goes much deeper, and actually uses your own argument regarding power densities against your claims. You have calculated that the power density of cell phone tower radiation one meter from the tower is 79.6 Watts per square meter. Assuming that the tower is 15 meters tall, from your calculation the power density of this radiation on the ground should be 9.54 Watts per square meter. You claim that these power densities are too high to be safe for humans, other animals and trees. You say that this is the case because at these power densities these electromagnetic waves heat up the water molecules in the tissues like a microwave oven, and in turn, cause all the various short term and long term effects such as brain damage, infertility, depression, cancer, heart problems, breathing problems, death, and so on. Here is your exact quote on this mechanism: QUOTE When a human body is exposed to the electromagnetic radiation, it absorbs radiation, because human body consists of 70% liquid. It is similar to that of cooking in the microwave oven where the water in the food content is heated first. UNQUOTE As you know, sunlight is also an electromagnetic radiation – in fact, with photons of much higher energy than cell phone tower radiation, as the physicist Gerard has already pointed out. It turns out that the power density of sunlight on the ground on an average during day time is 1120 Watts per square meter. This amount is 117 times more than the power density of cell phone tower radiation on the ground at the foot of the tower. Indeed, it is 14 times more than the tower radiation that one would be exposed to if one climbs up the tower, and perches within 1 meter from the antenna. And please note that sunlight of a given amount, especially in the infrared range which penetrates deeper into tissues, is absorbed by matter and causes heating of its molecules to a much greater extent than cell phone radiation of the same amount. Here is a diagram which illustrates this fact: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod4.html#c1 About 54% of the sunlight is infrared light with power density on the ground of 605 Watts per square meter, 63 times greater that the power density of cell phone tower radiation at its base. Now, I am sure you will agree with me that sunlight can heat water molecules by exactly the same mechanism that cell phone tower radiation does. Indeed, as I have pointed out above infrared light does this much better than the latter radiation. If you keep a glass of water exposed to sunlight you will find that it will take about 10 minutes for the temperature of the water to rise by about 2 degrees Celsius. According to the above power density values (and even ignoring the fact that infrared light is much better at heating), to do this with cell phone tower radiation alone, for a glass of water that is kept at the base of a cell phone tower only at night for 8 hours when it is completely dark, it will take 147 nights or 1176 hours in darkness. Therefore, if heating of water molecules in any part of the body, or for that matter, heating of any other kind of molecules, is responsible for all the bad effects of cell phone tower radiation, then sunlight should produce them more than 7000 times faster. As a matter of fact, the situation is even worse. As you may know, it is well-established that ultraviolet light causes cancer of the skin (and metastatic cancer of deeper tissues because of that) and many other deleterious effects by a well understood physical and biological mechanism. About 3% of the sunlight that hits the ground is ultraviolet light. This amounts to a power density of 33 Watts per square meter. This is 3.5 times more than the power density of cell phone tower radiation at the foot of the tower. In other words, we are being bombarded by particles of a known carcinogen on every square meter of most of the earth’s surface at a dose that is more than 3 times greater than cell phone tower radiation. This gets me to my second problem with your report. All the claims regarding bad effects of cell phone radiation that you make are from some selected studies in cell cultures, whole animals and people. I checked some of these study papers randomly to see if they were done in complete darkness, and with ultraviolet shields. Not a single one of them states that this was the case, and it is obvious that all of them would have to be done either in sunlight
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - money references
Folks, Follow the money, always follow the money. The money to be followed in this case, are the amounts chasing high rise buildings in Toronto. Local telecommunications companies pay a lot to mount their transmission towers on strategic high rises. Then they pay an annual rent to the condo or building owners. Condo owners actively seek such arrangements as it means that they have another source of income to meet maintenance expenses for the buildings. Granted, telecommunications technology in Canada may not be comparable to that in India. The bottom line is that these towers have been sitting on top of expensive buildings for the past 30 years. The microwaves they have transmitted are those from the early days to today's state of the art technology. If these transmissions were causing any kind of ill health to the residents, the residents would have long ago documented the problem and sued the deep pocket telecommunication companies. Mervyn BTW, there is a large tower on GOA's property in Toronto. - Original Message - From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com I read your report and the list of references. I have many problems with them. But rather than list all of these problems I will just point out the three most fundamental ones. If one cannot satisfactorily address the latter to start with then it is pointless to even consider this any further, because they essentially kill the entire case that you have presented in your advocacy report. The first of these problems is related to what Gerard has already said but goes much deeper, and actually uses your own argument regarding power densities against your claims. You have calculated that the power density of cell phone tower radiation one meter from the tower is 79.6 Watts per square meter. Assuming that the tower is 15 meters tall, from your calculation the power density of this radiation on the ground should be 9.54 Watts per square meter. You claim that these power densities are too high to be safe for humans, other animals and trees. You say that this is the case because at these power densities these electromagnetic waves heat up the water molecules in the tissues like a microwave oven, and in turn, cause all the various short term and long term effects such as brain damage, infertility, depression, cancer, heart problems, breathing problems, death, and so on.
[Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Santosh Helekar chimbelcho at yahoo.com on Sun Mar 16 09:05:35 PDT 2014 wrote: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2014-March/238678.html COMMENT: In the Medical College, ie. Goa Medical College where Santosh claims to have passed from; We as students were specifically taught to converse with layman in layman's terms. And not to use bombastic or rhetorical language. If Sanosh cannot be genuine enough to let laymen understand what he's talking about, I feel he should not send such posts that layman will not understand to a public media, Unless; ofcourse, he feels he is denied of his right to defend his stand! And by the way, cell phone radiation is radio frequency radiation, as in microwave and known as non-ionizing radiation; Whereas Sunlight(Ultra violet radiation) and X-rays are known as ionising radiation which mostly that causes harm. Guess this explanation is more in layman terms! http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references - correction
Santosh Helekar chimbelcho at yahoo.com on Sun Mar 16 09:05:35 PDT 2014 wrote: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2014-March/238678.html On 16 March 2014 14:36, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão drferdina...@hotmail.com wrote: I feel he SHOULD NOT send such posts that layman will not understand to a public media, COMMENT: I wish to disagree with Dr. Falcão on the above point as stated. For, while it is true that 'experts' would do well if they would speak in simple terms, there should be NO prohibition in their NOT doing so. One element remains crucial in this matter wrt the Salgaocars: It is finally up to the people of Saligao to decide whether they want this tower in their backyard or not. Whether they are reasonable or unreasonable in their fears is irrelevant. It might help the 'experts' to understand the point Dr. Falcão is surely driving at i.e. If you want to convince others, speak in clear and comprehensible terms. It is possible that not many Salgaocars really trust the 'experts' and their views - for one reason or another.
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
The webpage that Falcao has provided a link to below uses lot more jargon and technical sounding terms unintelligible to lay people than I have used in my response to Prof. Girish Kumar. Here is an example: QUOTE A quantum physics model is necessary to fully understand and appreciate how and why EMF and RF fields are harmful to humans. In quantum physics and quantum field theory, matter can behave as a particle or as a wave with wave-like properties. Matter and electromagnetic fields encompass quantum fields that fluctuate in space and time. These interactions can have long-range effects which cannot be shielded, are non-linear and by their quantum nature have uncertainty. Living systems, including the human body, interact with the magnetic vector potential component of an electromagnetic field such as the field near a toroidal coil. The magnetic vector potential is the coupling pathway between biological systems and electromagnetic fields. Once a patient's specific threshold of intensity has been exceeded, it is the frequency which triggers the patient's reactions. UNQUOTE In fact, I can bet that the above pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo would not make any sense even to an expert quantum physicist, let alone a layman. Gerard should be able to tell you this, as well as Prof. Girish Kumar. In case you are wondering why there is such pseudoscientific nonsense on a webpage provided by a legitimate seeming organization, it is because this organization, namely American Academy of Environmental Medicine is a questionable organization that promotes fictitious diseases and fake treatments. This organization has been listed under questionable organizations by Quackwatch. Please see: http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html QUOTE The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which promotes clinical ecology and the bogus concept of multiple chemical sensitivity. UNQUOTE That is why it has not been recognized by American Board of Medical Specialties, and exposed as bogus by physicians and medical scientists interested in enforcing science-based medicine in society. Please see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/environmental-medicine/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pseudomedical-pseudoprofessional-organization-ppo/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/fake-diseases-false-compassion/ Cheers, Santosh On Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:42 PM, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão drferdina...@hotmail.com wrote: Santosh Helekar chimbelcho at yahoo.com on Sun Mar 16 09:05:35 PDT 2014 wrote: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2014-March/238678.html COMMENT: In the Medical College, ie. Goa Medical College where Santosh claims to have passed from; We as students were specifically taught to converse with layman in layman's terms. And not to use bombastic or rhetorical language. If Sanosh cannot be genuine enough to let laymen understand what he's talking about, I feel he should not send such posts that layman will not understand to a public media, Unless; ofcourse, he feels he is denied of his right to defend his stand! And by the way, cell phone radiation is radio frequency radiation, as in microwave and known as non-ionizing radiation; Whereas Sunlight(Ultra violet radiation) and X-rays are known as ionising radiation which mostly that causes harm. Guess this explanation is more in layman terms! http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Dear Santosh, Thanks for your following email. Good to know that you are a neuroscientist and also noted that all others are well educated people. I have attached my report on cell tower radiation, which was submitted to Secretary, DOT in Dec. 2010, it contained nearly 200 scientific and technical papers. I have also attached Bio-Initiative Report conclusions and RF color chart, which gives details of various health hazards. You can download complete Bio-Initiative Report 2012 (1479 pages long) from http://www.bioinitiative.org/ The report gives references of 3800 scientific and technical papers with a summary spread over several chapters. Regarding my daughter's company NESA Radiation Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it is known to cell operators and DOT officials since its inception in Nov. 2011. Please see my report of Dec. 2010 and also in all my presentations, I always emphasize that better radiation norms should be adopted and transmitted power should be reduced. If transmitted power is reduced then who needs shielding solutions? With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Santosh Helekar wrote: Dear Prof. Kumar, Can you please refer me to any peer-reviewed research paper(s) in a reputed scientific journal that substantiate(s) your claims about effects of low power microwave radiation, and the physical and biological mechanisms involved. As a neuroscientist, I have scoured through the medical and biological literature and consulted with a world-renowned neuroscientist who served on a U.S. National Institutes of Health committee to examine this question in the 1990s. Neither he, nor the committee, nor I have found anything that unequivocally supports your claims. Cheers, Santosh On Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:50 AM, Prof. Girish Kumar gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in wrote: Dear Gerard Delaney, I do not know who are you and why you wrote the followings, which were forwarded to me by Stephen Dias. Atleast you should try to find out the truth and then make statements. You do not realize that how many people, birds, animals, plants, trees, etc. are getting affected by high cell tower radiation. There are ample examples in the history that whenever anyone or group of people raise voice against strong industry lobby, whose business may get affected due to proper awareness, they decline, for example, cigarette industry. Cell operators and their associates came out with a book mobile phones.. myths and reality. Please see my comments on the book in the attached file. Please see Pages 3 to 5 about sun (light) versus microwave radiation. Also, see my disclosure on Page 9. This was released to the press in the last week of Jan. 2014. If you have any questions, please send an email. With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Stephen Dias wrote: Dear Prof Girish, In case you wish to reply these funny uneducated guys , their e-mail is as follows: delaney.ger...@gmail.com and (2) is chimbel...@yahoo.com Please send me a copy if you want to explain them about radiation power and principles etc Leave apart the business what he claims that your daughter is doing, that is not my interest. Stephen Dias date: 13.3.2014 Message: 7 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@lists.goanet.org Subject: Re: [Goanet] Misinformation of the radiation from mobile towers Message-ID: 1394575737.50845.yahoomail...@web122102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Thanks Gerard for sharing this information. It is important to counter these bogus scares that crop up from time to time by educating people about basic scientific concepts. Underlying these scares there invariably is some commercial scam or MLM-type fraud being perpetrated.? Cheers, Santosh On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:56 PM, Gerard Delaney delaney.ger...@gmail.com wrote: Last year, a small group of Saliganvkars created awareness in the Lourdes Convent school hall about the alleged dangers of the radiation from Mobile
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Dear Prof Girish Kumar, Let me thank you for your detailed explanation provided to our knowledgeable personalities who is one of them is world renowned neuroscientist and other one is Msc -IIT Powai . Hope they understand exact work done by you.In fact we should refrain going deeper in the scientific studies on internet or e-mails. These discussions are not in good taste and we should avoid as far as possible. Anyway the matter needs to be closed and perhaps one day we all can get together and have scientific discussion in a good forum at public platform. Hope all our misunderstandings are clear once for all. Stephen Dias On 14 March 2014 10:29, Prof. Girish Kumar gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in wrote: Dear Santosh, Thanks for your following email. Good to know that you are a neuroscientist and also noted that all others are well educated people. I have attached my report on cell tower radiation, which was submitted to Secretary, DOT in Dec. 2010, it contained nearly 200 scientific and technical papers. I have also attached Bio-Initiative Report conclusions and RF color chart, which gives details of various health hazards. You can download complete Bio-Initiative Report 2012 (1479 pages long) from http://www.bioinitiative.org/ The report gives references of 3800 scientific and technical papers with a summary spread over several chapters. Regarding my daughter's company NESA Radiation Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it is known to cell operators and DOT officials since its inception in Nov. 2011. Please see my report of Dec. 2010 and also in all my presentations, I always emphasize that better radiation norms should be adopted and transmitted power should be reduced. If transmitted power is reduced then who needs shielding solutions? With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Santosh Helekar wrote: Dear Prof. Kumar, Can you please refer me to any peer-reviewed research paper(s) in a reputed scientific journal that substantiate(s) your claims about effects of low power microwave radiation, and the physical and biological mechanisms involved. As a neuroscientist, I have scoured through the medical and biological literature and consulted with a world-renowned neuroscientist who served on a U.S. National Institutes of Health committee to examine this question in the 1990s. Neither he, nor the committee, nor I have found anything that unequivocally supports your claims. Cheers, Santosh On Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:50 AM, Prof. Girish Kumar gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in wrote: Dear Gerard Delaney, I do not know who are you and why you wrote the followings, which were forwarded to me by Stephen Dias. Atleast you should try to find out the truth and then make statements. You do not realize that how many people, birds, animals, plants, trees, etc. are getting affected by high cell tower radiation. There are ample examples in the history that whenever anyone or group of people raise voice against strong industry lobby, whose business may get affected due to proper awareness, they decline, for example, cigarette industry. Cell operators and their associates came out with a book mobile phones.. myths and reality. Please see my comments on the book in the attached file. Please see Pages 3 to 5 about sun (light) versus microwave radiation. Also, see my disclosure on Page 9. This was released to the press in the last week of Jan. 2014. If you have any questions, please send an email. With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Stephen Dias wrote: Dear Prof Girish, In case you wish to reply these funny uneducated guys , their e-mail is as follows: delaney.ger...@gmail.com and (2) is chimbel...@yahoo.com Please send me a copy if you want to explain them about radiation power and principles etc Leave apart the business what he claims that your daughter is doing, that is not my interest. Stephen Dias date: 13.3.2014 Message: 7 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Dear Prof. Girish Kumar, Thanks for sending me your advocacy reports. Assuming you have not yet done so, I encourage you to submit them for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. So the real experts in the vast range of highly technical fields covered by these reports can critically evaluate them, and offer their comments, as they do for any original scientific research paper. But as for me, I will read your reports, and get back to you with my comments and questions, if necessary. As you know, unlike politics, activism and law, in science people weigh the entire body of research on any subject, and especially, the quality of all of that research on all sides. Scientists evaluate both positive and negative findings, and draw definitive conclusions only when the evidence unequivocally points in one clear direction. Therefore, if research papers are cherry picked only to support a preconceived opinion on one side then that task is of no scientific value. That is why I asked you to refer me to peer-reviewed research paper(s) that unequivocally supported your claims regarding biological effects and the exact physical and biological mechanism by which these effects occur. I have not seen any research paper of this type in the literature. For this reason, and because of the fact that all epidemiological studies have shown no significant health effects of cell phone or cell phone tower radiations alone, no public health organization or regulatory agency in the world has made any definitive statement supporting your claims. But I am happy to evaluate any information that you can provide, and I will try to offer my comments on your reports. Cheers, Santosh On Friday, March 14, 2014 12:00 AM, Prof. Girish Kumar gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in wrote: Dear Santosh, Thanks for your following email. Good to know that you are a neuroscientist and also noted that all others are well educated people. I have attached my report on cell tower radiation, which was submitted to Secretary, DOT in Dec. 2010, it contained nearly 200 scientific and technical papers. I have also attached Bio-Initiative Report conclusions and RF color chart, which gives details of various health hazards. You can download complete Bio-Initiative Report 2012 (1479 pages long) from http://www.bioinitiative.org/ The report gives references of 3800 scientific and technical papers with a summary spread over several chapters. Regarding my daughter's company NESA Radiation Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it is known to cell operators and DOT officials since its inception in Nov. 2011. Please see my report of Dec. 2010 and also in all my presentations, I always emphasize that better radiation norms should be adopted and transmitted power should be reduced. If transmitted power is reduced then who needs shielding solutions? With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Santosh Helekar wrote: Dear Prof. Kumar, Can you please refer me to any peer-reviewed research paper(s) in a reputed scientific journal that substantiate(s) your claims about effects of low power microwave radiation, and the physical and biological mechanisms involved. As a neuroscientist, I have scoured through the medical and biological literature and consulted with a world-renowned neuroscientist who served on a U.S. National Institutes of Health committee to examine this question in the 1990s. Neither he, nor the committee, nor I have found anything that unequivocally supports your claims. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - coverage in Goa
Dear Prof. Kumar, Can you please refer me to any peer-reviewed research paper(s) in a reputed scientific journal that substantiate(s) your claims about effects of low power microwave radiation, and the physical and biological mechanisms involved. As a neuroscientist, I have scoured through the medical and biological literature and consulted with a world-renowned neuroscientist who served on a U.S. National Institutes of Health committee to examine this question in the 1990s. Neither he, nor the committee, nor I have found anything that unequivocally supports your claims. Cheers, Santosh On Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:50 AM, Prof. Girish Kumar gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in wrote: Dear Gerard Delaney, I do not know who are you and why you wrote the followings, which were forwarded to me by Stephen Dias. Atleast you should try to find out the truth and then make statements. You do not realize that how many people, birds, animals, plants, trees, etc. are getting affected by high cell tower radiation. There are ample examples in the history that whenever anyone or group of people raise voice against strong industry lobby, whose business may get affected due to proper awareness, they decline, for example, cigarette industry. Cell operators and their associates came out with a book mobile phones.. myths and reality. Please see my comments on the book in the attached file. Please see Pages 3 to 5 about sun (light) versus microwave radiation. Also, see my disclosure on Page 9. This was released to the press in the last week of Jan. 2014. If you have any questions, please send an email. With regards. ** Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 email- gku...@ee.iitb.ac.in, prof.gku...@gmail.com Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/ ** On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Stephen Dias wrote: Dear Prof Girish, In case you wish to reply these funny uneducated guys , their e-mail is as follows: delaney.ger...@gmail.com and (2) is chimbel...@yahoo.com Please send me a copy if you want to explain them about radiation power and principles etc Leave apart the business what he claims that your daughter is doing, that is not my interest. Stephen Dias date: 13.3.2014 Message: 7 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@lists.goanet.org Subject: Re: [Goanet] Misinformation of the radiation from mobile towers Message-ID: 1394575737.50845.yahoomail...@web122102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Thanks Gerard for sharing this information. It is important to counter these bogus scares that crop up from time to time by educating people about basic scientific concepts. Underlying these scares there invariably is some commercial scam or MLM-type fraud being perpetrated.? Cheers, Santosh On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:56 PM, Gerard Delaney delaney.ger...@gmail.com wrote: Last year, a small group of Saliganvkars created awareness in the Lourdes Convent school hall about the alleged dangers of the radiation from Mobile towers by showing a PP presentation of the so called expert Prof. Girish Kumar. The same presentation was used again for a much bigger group of villagers in Gladstone Ribeiro Sa's house and as a result the construction of the mobile tower by Dmello Telepower Pvt Ltd in Saligao was forced to stop. When 6 of the leaders had met in my (Gerard Delaney's) house after the Lourdes convent program, I had clearly explained to them how this Prof. Girish Kumar was using his position to create fear in the minds of the public about the radiation and thereby helping his daughter's business of selling meters to measure radiation and shields for it. I had even explained that the average frequency of light is one million times greater than that of microwave radiation. Hence according to the well established laws of Physics, light has energy greater than that of microwave radiation by one million. Thus it is ridiculous to be afraid of microwave radiation and not of visible light radiation which is one million times stronger! *However, what transcribed during the meeting, was never released to the general public by the leaders of the agitation.* Now a special panel of 13 members set up by the DoT in keeping with the Allahabad High Court's orders, has exposed the misdeeds of the Professor? and affirmed that there is no danger to the health from the radiations emitted by mobile towers. Read about this at:
Re: [Goanet] cell tower radiation hazards - coverage in Goa
Dear Mr Stephan Dias I was quite surprised by your comment funny uneducated guys referring to Mr Gerard Delaney and Mr Santosh Herlekar. I do not know you personally. What I do know, is that neither do you know the above two gentlemen personally, nor did you take the trouble of finding out about them before you made such a comment on a public forum. From the mails subsequently sent by Mr Santosh, I gather that he is a neuroscientist. A simple Google search on him verified that he is a PHD in the same in a leading Texas college. You will not find much information about my father Gerard Delaney on the net as he tends to maintain a low profile. Allow me to bring you up to speed on the same. My father is a former Gold medalist in Physics from IIT Powai. He joined NIO briefly for a year before settling for a more fulfilling job in teaching Physics in Goa. Just last year he retired from a 35 year active service, 16 of them spent as the Principal of Shri Shantadurga HSS in Bicholim, Goa. He has also to his credit co-authored a book on physics which incidentally is being used as one of the textbooks being taught to all HSS science students. He is still an active board member on the association of physics teachers. His list of achievements are much more, but I think you will agree with me that he is not as a funny uneducated guy as you thought. *An apology from you for these comments made in bad taste will be appreciated.* kind regards Ashley --- Group TenPlus Keep Goa E-waste free!! contact us now to know what YOU can do!www.facebook.com/ewastegoawww.grouptenplus.com Abreovaddo, Saligao, Bardez, Goa. Ph: 9823118321 / 9373521448 (office) On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Stephen Dias wrote: Dear Prof Girish, In case you wish to reply these funny uneducated guys , their e-mail is as follows: delaney.ger...@gmail.com and (2) is chimbel...@yahoo.com Please send me a copy if you want to explain them about radiation power and principles etc Leave apart the business what he claims that your daughter is doing, that is not my interest. Stephen Dias date: 13.3.2014
