Relay antennas: no confirmed risk

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
recyclinage
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1596
Registration: 06/08/07, 19:21
Location: artist land

Relay antennas: no confirmed risk




by recyclinage » 18/12/09, 12:08

This is the opinion expressed Thursday by the Academies of Science, Technology and Medicine.

Representatives of the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Technologies, the Academy of Medicine, Thursday, at a joint press conference, exceptional, said that "reduce the exposure to radio waves from antennae n 'is not scientifically justified'. The group of experts from the three academies on this subject unreservedly approves the conclusions of the scientific report of the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Security (Afsset), published on October 15, 2009, which concluded in particular that no health risk linked to relay antennas had been identified.

For several years, a controversy has swelled over the risks of these antennas which are used to transmit electromagnetic waves from mobile phones. This controversy reached its peak in mid-2008 with the judicial conviction of Bouygues Telecom forcing it to withdraw a relay antenna located near homes in Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, in the Rhône, on the grounds of "the anguish felt ”by neighboring families.

Divergences of appreciation

After this affair, an in-depth scientific expertise was launched under the leadership of Afsset, expertise made public on October 15, 2009. It was rather reassuring, believing that the electromagnetic fields of relay antennas "are neither genotoxic nor cogenotoxic, nor mutagenic, have no carcinogenic or co-carcinogenic effect, have no deleterious effect on the immune system, do not cause an increase in experimental cancers… ”. These conclusions were based on the analysis by more than a dozen experts of 97 studies, 86 of which showed no effects. Eleven other studies showed a biological effect. But according to the academicians, they were not reproduced and the effects were only observed with "exposure levels 5 to 000 times higher than those created by almost all of the relay antennas" .

Thursday, experts from the three academies regretted that Martin Guespereau, director of Afsset, did not insist during the public presentation of this report in October 2009 on reassuring aspects, but on the contrary on the eleven studies reporting " biological effects. The three academies point to the contradictions between the Afsset press release, which begins as follows: "The Afsset report highlights the existence of radio frequency effects on cellular functions reported by a dozen experimental studies considered by Afsset as incontestable ", and the report's conclusions:" No convincing evidence of a particular biological effect of radio frequencies is provided. To date, it emerges from this analysis that, in non-thermal conditions, radio frequencies above 400 MHz do not modify the major cellular functions ”.

“Our responsibility as scientists is to give the state of science. Then, the public authorities can possibly take measures which take into account the concerns of the population. But these measures must be carefully weighed because they increase concern and we then start in a terrible vicious circle, explained Professor Jean-François Bach, vice-president of the Academy of Sciences. What worried us in the presentation of the Afsset report was that we tried to get scientists to endorse political decisions. ” The representatives of the three academies believe that it is technically possible to reduce the exposure to relay antennas by multiplying them, but at the risk of increasing without justification the transmission power of the laptops of the approximately 85% of French people who use them. "Measures to reduce exposure can now only be a decision of political management, they emphasize, An unthinking reduction in exposure to relay antennas could lead to an opposite effect for the vast majority of French people, without health benefits for others. "

Afsset director responds

"The final recommendations that bridge the gap between research and decision have been approved by the experts," said Martin Guespereau, director of Afsset. “I am reproached for wanting to worry by first talking about the 11 studies showing biological effects before the 86 others which show nothing. Even if these are weak signals, they should not be hidden from the population, ”he considers. “The three Academies believe that nothing should be done. It's an opinion. ” He rejects accusations that the agency's recommendation to reduce the power of certain relay antennas is not included in the report. “I am very surprised by this attack. It's unworthy, ”he explains. He recalls that: “the twelve experts worked for a year to write the report. A summary note has been validated by a committee of specialized experts ”. Afsset did not reason in terms of average but considered that the power of the highest antennas should be reduced.


http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences-technol ... irmee-.php
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 18/12/09, 12:41

I am hesitating between Image, Image et Image

How much corruption was needed to get from it to this and especially in such a short time?

the conclusions of the scientific report of the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Security (Afsset), made public on October 15, 2009, which concluded in particular that no health risk linked to relay antennas had been identified evidence.


This is intellectual bad faith!
This October 15 report said just the opposite!

15th October, 2009

Radiofrequencies: update of expertise relating to radiofrequencies, Afsset recommends reducing exposures.

Faced with the uncertainties Afsset considers that action should be taken and makes the following recommendations: develop research, to remove the uncertainties that remain and keep watch for new signals that would emerge; reduce public exposure.

The Afsset report highlights the existence of effects of radio frequencies on cellular functions, reported by a dozen experimental studies considered by Afsset to be indisputable. However, no mechanism of action between radio frequencies and cells for non-thermal exposure levels has been identified to date. Likewise, the level of epidemiological evidence concerning the excesses of certain tumors remains very limited. Conversely, a large number of studies do not report any particular effect. All in all, the level of evidence is not sufficient to accept as damaging effects on health as definitively established. For Afsset they constitute undeniable signals. Faced with these uncertainties, Afsset considers that action should be taken and makes the following recommendations ...


https://www.econologie.com/forums/antennes-r ... t8576.html
0 x
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 18/12/09, 13:06

I am not very convinced either: my stepfather who had worked in a nuclear power plant in the sixties took 60 years to contract the leukemia which prevailed.

I would be curious to have exposure tests done on embryos (fertilized chicken eggs) to amplify the results a little.
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 18/12/09, 16:52

Christophe wrote:How much corruption was needed to get from it to this and especially in such a short time?


Corruption I do not know, but I put my hand to cut that this info is to be related with this one: http://www.liberation.fr/economie/01016 ... va-changer
And in particular:
The new operator will have to build its network by installing new antennas: 12.000 ....
0 x
User avatar
Former Oceano
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1571
Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
Location: Lorraine - France
x 1




by Former Oceano » 18/12/09, 23:51

And for those living near ports and airports?

Weather radar up to 250MW peak.
Naval radars in MW too ...

In short, next to that, cell phones are cat pee.

Let's see on Marseille:
Red tip. All the inhabitants are under the radar of the merchant marine school ...
Verduron, l'Estaque, La Castellane and others ... All under the lights of a beautiful radar visible from the coastal highway for the autonomous port.
I do not count all those who can exist.
Then there are the radars of ships docked.

Finally, boaters. How many have a radar with the radome at low height and which sprinkles copious the area where we take a sunbath. Good power is in KW but it is even more than GSM ...

In short it is like for irradiations. There is no lower limit threshold. It all depends on the sensitivity of tissues, people, exposure times, the ability of cells to repair their DNA ...
0 x
[MODO Mode = ON]
Zieuter but do not think less ...
Peugeot Ion (VE), KIA Optime PHEV, VAE, no electric motorcycle yet...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 19/12/09, 00:55

250MW are you sure? Beast question: what is the use of a weather radar?

Electric power consumed or irradiated?
It's been huge! How much is a pleasure craft radar?
A few hundred watts, right?

elephant wrote:I would be curious to have exposure tests done on embryos (fertilized chicken eggs) to amplify the results a little.


Make in this report "forbidden to broadcast" (by the CSA or I do not know what other organization): https://www.econologie.com/forums/video-tele ... t1592.html

ps: well seen Christine ... it proves that we are indeed a world of LARGE DIRTY who does not hesitate to lie or truncate scientific facts ... It just makes me puke and in this context we understand very well the contempt with regard to water doping ... for example ... :|
0 x
User avatar
yannko
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 286
Registration: 24/11/08, 22:44
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
x 2




by yannko » 19/12/09, 09:02

Christophe wrote:250MW are you sure? Beast question: what is the use of a weather radar?



It seems to me that it is to detect the storm cells and the meteorological evolution (formation of clouds, etc ...).

What about EM emissions by taking the train, the metro, etc ...? Does someone have some news ? At the lab, when the premises were not magnetically shielded, when the metro passed, it distorted all measurements, while the line is still far :| .
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 19/12/09, 10:22

yannko wrote:What about EM emissions by taking the train, the metro, etc ...? Does someone have some news ?


Ah there we go into low frequency electromagnetic fields, yes there is a lot of file here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/pollution- ... t8925.html

Still, one day I should take our magnetic field detector in the train !

The problem is still different from GSM waves which are microwaves ...

The harmfulness is obviously greater with higher frequencies (more tissue penetration, more energy ...) this is what some big dumbass can not understand and they compare everything and anything ...

There are standards it's not for nothing ...

yannko wrote:At the lab, when the premises were not magnetically shielded, when the metro passed, it distorted all measurements, while the line is still far :| .


Logic and it also disturbs the TV of certain inhabitants near the stations or metro line ...
0 x
Obelix
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 535
Registration: 10/11/04, 09:22
Location: Toulon




by Obelix » 19/12/09, 10:42

Hello,

Well, you shouldn't confuse everything!
Pulse sources like radars of all kinds
Continuous sources like microwave ovens, bluetooh, wi-fi, CPL, etc ...

Radars are the worst! if their power is high 250 MW is a small radar, the repetition frequency is low.
The pulse does not even last 1 microsecond and repeats at best 100 times per second. In addition the antennas are so sharp that one leaves very quickly from the shooting area at maximum power.
10 ° and the power decreases by half, 45 ° power divided by 10000 (10 ^ 4)
And the organism has time to react between two implusions.
They are actually the least dangerous

Fixed power fixed links.
This is where the bottom hurts the most, the powers are low in the order of 0.1 W for connections, 2 W max for telephones as soon as they are switched on, 0.1 W for home automation, 0.05 W for the central atmospheric measurement unit, 0.05 W for various remote controls, and a good W for the microwave oven if it is not too old.
But this is permanent and it's not great! The body is not attacked enough to trigger a defense and then it gets used to it and forgets ... The summation of these various attacks sometimes gives surprising things.

In addition, our clothing habits reinforce the effects. Walking barefoot at home is a very good habit to take to get all the loads to the ground.

Obelix
0 x
In medio stat virtus !!
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 19/12/09, 10:55

Obelix wrote:The summation of these various attacks sometimes gives surprising things.


Pfff not even true: the journalists hey ben zon said that there was no risk !! : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 231 guests