Hi Saligaokars
When this message was sent on goanet, Electrical engineer Prof Girish
Kumar replied to my dad and the mail (see trail below) however Dr
Santosh Helekar (google search throws up this)
*Santosh A. Helekar, M.D., Ph.D.*
*Director, Songbird Neurophysiology Laboratory*
*Member, Speech and Language Center*
/Department of Neurology
Methodist Neurological Institute/
refuted and exposed the errors behind the reasoning of Proff Girish
Kumar, as well as showed the list of references to be erroneous. the
complete trail is below.
I hope this dispels the unfounded fear from people once and for all.
kind regards
Ashley
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: cell tower radiation hazards - technical references
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
To: Prof. Girish Kumar <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Stephen Dias
<[email protected]>
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 protected],[email protected]
Blog -http://profgirishkumar.blogspot.in/
**********************************************************************
--
Important: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and probably
doesn't contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or
subject to legal or Ashley related privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, (although you may find that hard to believe), you are notified that
any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Ashley.
If you have received this communication in error please notify The Man Ashley
immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
--
--
Saligao-Net is at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe email [email protected]
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Saligao-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
