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 during noon and evening
for the same time, one will feel more heated during noon because sun
intensity is more (in other words, power is more). In both the above
cases, only E = hxf will give same value, and hence cannot explain the
phenomenon, so one has to use E = power x time. It is unfortunate that
only first equation is used to explain and emphasize the view-points by
totally ignoring the second equation. Is it lack of knowledge or they
trying to confuse people by making statements, which are favorable to
telecom industry.
I have also attached conclusions of Bio-Initiative report and RF chart.
Also, large number of references are given in Bio-Initiative Report 2012
(www.bioinitiative.org). On Page 47 of this 1479 pages report, it is
mentioned, "In twenty-four technical chapters, the contributing authors
discuss the content and implications of about 1800 new studies. Overall,
these new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5);
genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress
proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7);
chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells
(Sections 6 and 15)"
I liked the idea of Mr. Stephen Dias that all these technical discussions
cannot be sorted out on internet, why not organize a one day workshop
and invite concerned citizens, policy makers, media, etc. and discuss
all these issues.
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- [email protected], [email protected]
Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/
**********************************************************************
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, Santosh Helekar wrote:
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 or
artificial light.
So how can we be sure that a cancer was caused by 0.0003 Watts per square meter
of cell phone tower radiation, and not by some small daily fluctuations of 1120
Watts per square meter of sunlight or of a 60 Watts light bulb? Why can they
not be caused by the 33 Watts per square meter ultraviolet component or 605
Watts per square meter infrared component of sunlight? Indeed, if it is really
true that more people who lived on the top floor of a building got cancer
compared to those on the ground floor then it is much more likely that this
happened because the former were exposed to more sunlight on the top floor than
on the ground floor, depending on how many trees there were around the building
and how much shade they provided to people on the bottom floors. Of course,
this assumes that slightly heating the water in the tissues is a plausible
mechanism for causing cancer in the first place.
This leads us to the third problem. If the heating of body tissues was the
cause of cancer and all the other serious problems that you have listed then
daily physical exercise would have been carcinogenic, and would have killed
people from all those serious effects that are attributed to cell phones and
towers by you. This is so because even normal daily physical activities can
generate up to 21 Watts per kilogram of heat in a 70 kilogram human body, or a
power density of 800 Watts per square meter of body tissue. This is 84 times
more than the power density of cell phone tower radiation at the base of the
tower. I am sure you understand how serious a blow this, in and of itself, is
to the main argument presented in your report.
While I am not confident that there is any way to explain away or disregard all
of these fatal flaws, I would love to find out if you can do it.
Cheers,
Santosh
On Friday, March 14, 2014 7:46 AM, Santosh Helekar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
<[email protected]> 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- [email protected], [email protected]
Blog - http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/
**********************************************************************
