Parents Blame Elementary School's Cell Tower after 4th Student Diagnosed with Cancer

i say they should blame the parents and grandparents, etc. The issue is poor quality DNA. Stronger DNA would be able to withstand mutations. I have just as much proof and evidence of this finding so I say it is the real cause.
 
Laowai said:
I didn't hear or see any doctor in the video nor was there a direct quote from a doctor in the article. I saw an 'electromagnetic specialist' and a couple of parents in the video. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

A medical doctor would have no special knowledge of cancer inducing radiation. Do you even know what a doctor is?
 
Master_shake_ said:
California goes way overboard when it comes to sticking a prop 65 label on everything and this is what they end up with?

Boggles the mind.
Click to expand...
Just follow the money. Someone, somewhere is making a killing off of those stupid stickers. Wouldn't surprise me if the sticker contained more carcinogens in it than the objects they plaster them on.

Same thing with the "oldstyle" plastic bag ban... bet those paper and "reusable and recyclable" plastic bag makers are loving this legislation.
 
RF warning sings do exist if RF was harmless their would not be warning you of exposure at one of my former places of work they had them around many of the RF labs
 
Cyraxx said:
There could be radioactive shit that was improperly disposed of buried right below the school for all they know, but they are naturally going to go with whatever they can see with their eyes.
Click to expand...
Waaaait that's a simple geiger counter job that someone's gotta have tried already.
 
I'd be concerned, too. But, I wouldn't go blaming every little thing and want to get rid of it. I'd want to get people in to check things out, measure radiation levels, do soil samples, etc.. Not just blame the most visible thing out there that has a bad rap with soccer moms that made some stuff up.
 
I have a hunch that this maybe due to something else environmental. That Cell tower is right next to a couple of buildings that I'm sure has people going in and out, and children walking past a cell tower gets cancer? Yea no. Maybe somebody should look into other hazards like contamination or eating McDonalds food. Do the parents smoke? Do they smoke indoors? Does the family have a history of cancer? Lots of other factors to consider when it comes to cancer.
 
Last edited:
Either way if the radio waves don't do it, then the mere use if the devises that emit and receive them surely will, i foresee this age in history being named the phone plague.
 
BasicCandor said:
A medical doctor would have no special knowledge of cancer inducing radiation. Do you even know what a doctor is?
Click to expand...
What? Dude, you clearly didn't even bother to read the article. Before you act like a jerk next time (I bet it happens often), try to at least have a clue what the fuck it is you're talking about.
“We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” said Monica Ferrulli.
Click to expand...
 
Wiffle said:
At one point they were looking into putting catalytic converters into a cows ass to contain the methane.
Click to expand...
This gave me a good chuckle, thanks! :p
Which, not because I think it's inaccurate, I don't doubt for a moment people would consider doing something like that... heh It was just the wording that got me, well and the mental image of a cow with exhaust pipe coming out its ass. haha


maxius said:
RF warning sings do exist if RF was harmless their would not be warning you of exposure at one of my former places of work they had them around many of the RF labs
Click to expand...
You do realize that your Microwave functions by way of RF right? There warning labels is because the combination of high frequency (2.4GHz in a microwave's case; same as your WiFi) and high wattage output, excite (cause to vibrate) the water molecules to such a high speed that they heat up. That's what cooks your food. It's also why the lab had warnings all over. Not because you're going to start on fire, just because there IS an inherent risk.

The development of said Microwave came by way of a Radar engineer working in the lab where they'd walk around all willy-nilly in front of the magnetrons, when one day he happened to have a bar of chocolate in his shirt pocket and noticed it had started to melt after walking in front of it. :p I'm sure they also developed safety standards after that too, such as "Don't walk in front of a radar array"... lol

But it also doesn't mean that after a certain distance you're still at risk. We've all been bombarded by that very same radar most of our lives (not via the Microwave, those as shielded), since weather is tracked by radar, as are the planes at the airport. My dad worked at metropolitan airports for 30 years straight and all that radar didn't give him any cancer (nor did the countless other forms of carcinogens a ramp worker would be exposed to).
 
Last edited:
BasicCandor said:
A medical doctor would have no special knowledge of cancer inducing radiation. Do you even know what a doctor is?
Click to expand...

He's right. A physician does not necessarily have any special knowledge about cancer inducing radiation. Certain types of physicians might and there lots of other doctors that have forgotten more than a physician would ever know about cancer causing radiation but just because it says MD or DO after there name does not mean they know anything about why things are. It's like a mechanic...I trust them to fix my car but not to design it. Different skills sets and different knowledge bases.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
He's right. A physician does not necessarily have any special knowledge about cancer inducing radiation. Certain types of physicians might and there lots of other doctors that have forgotten more than a physician would ever know about cancer causing radiation but just because it says MD or DO after there name does not mean they know anything about why things are. It's like a mechanic...I trust them to fix my car but not to design it. Different skills sets and different knowledge bases.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. Which is one of the reasons I questioned what doctor would say what the parents stated.
“We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” said Monica Ferrulli.
Click to expand...
Laowai said:
I'm also curious as to what doctor said definitively that the cancer was 100% caused by the environment. That's a pretty bold statement and I'd like to hear how that statement is justified. Until such time, I find the statement to be highly suspect.
Click to expand...
 
They dont test people before they are allowed to have kids. That's why we have measles outbreaks etc.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Four kids....in three years.....out of how many kids?

Oh...and this gem "He says it’s not just a cell tower, it also transmits wireless frequencies" from their expert.
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Cell towers used to just distribute cells exclusively! Now they transmit wireless frequencies as well! Didn't get the memo on that I take it?
 
The cell towers obviously transmitted cancer cells into those kids.
 
I really don't care if California has bad phone reception, I just hope the people in Washington aren't stupid enough to go with it too. I'm pretty sure when the idiots over in Seattle notice their cell phones having trouble connecting they will decide against it.
 
Seriously, what kind of civilised and educated country would ever put a high powered RF transmitter of any kind, inside the grounds of a kids school?

But then again, after looking at some of the comments here, some people should have them in their bedrooms.
 
I used to live in both Manteca and Ripon. It's patently ridiculous that they think it's a cell tower and not the non-stop application of pesticides to the MANY almond groves and other farming in that area. It's the entire reason why I left the area. When I moved from there in 1994 they were still crop dusting using toxic pesticides. I believe they hand spray now, IDK really on that, but the fact is that entire community and surrounding area is ALL farming centric and there are also a good many PG&E facilities in and around that area. We already know about the their history with toxic chemicals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination
 
I wonder if this "specialist" got the attention of these desperate (aka scared chickens) parents by building up a straw man against the boogieman tower and is now profiting off of them?

Theres no pre-requisite to calling yourself a specialist and you can damn near call your self a specialist in anything you want.
 
maxius said:
RF warning sings do exist if RF was harmless their would not be warning you of exposure at one of my former places of work they had them around many of the RF labs
Click to expand...

see "Inverse square law" and "what do microwaves do to the human body at high field strength?" Microwave radiation is "Radio frequency radiation". it will burn you if you are exposed to it long enough. it won't make you grow a third testicle, or give you cancer, as it's not ionizing radiation.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Seriously, what kind of civilised and educated country would ever put a high powered RF transmitter of any kind, inside the grounds of a kids school?

But then again, after looking at some of the comments here, some people should have them in their bedrooms.
Click to expand...

better turn off your wifi, I think it's cooking your brain.
 
motomonkey said:
see "Inverse square law" and "what do microwaves do to the human body at high field strength?" Microwave radiation is "Radio frequency radiation". it will burn you if you are exposed to it long enough. it won't make you grow a third testicle, or give you cancer, as it's not ionizing radiation.
Click to expand...

And, we're talking about very low levels of it, as you say - the inverse square law is real.

Base stations and devices broadcast at much lower levels than they previously did before hippies decided cell towers are the boogeyman. Studies done by the IEEE have done surveys and in aggregate people are typically exposed to 1-2% of the actual max transmit power levels.

As people commonly and correctly point out - the sun is much MUCH more hazardous than these tiny levels of RF radiation.
 
Well if wifi is so harmless how does it go right though concrete and walls? If this is happening with thousands of people texting or talking at one time that is at a higher rate than Radio Waves no duh.
 
dont worry your braincells dont communicate wirelessly between each other, just ignore those worthless tests on braincells showing otherwise.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Seriously, what kind of civilised and educated country would ever put a high powered RF transmitter of any kind, inside the grounds of a kids school?

But then again, after looking at some of the comments here, some people should have them in their bedrooms.
Click to expand...
Liberal morons built wind turbines next to people's homes here even with mountains of studies that conclude how harmful they are to mental and physical health.

Logic be damned.

The road to hell and all.
 
Master_shake_ said:
Liberal morons built wind turbines next to people's homes here even with mountains of studies that conclude how harmful they are to mental and physical health.

Logic be damned.

The road to hell and all.
Click to expand...
It’s not a political discussion, though I agree with you. I personally don’t agree with the idea of any kind or hazardous equipment or chemicals being used in, or next to the grounds of a kids school, but apparently that makes me a weak minded commie in this forum.

Americans think it’s fine to eat chlorinated chicken, and bread full of ‘harmless’ pesterside because it’s patriotic, good for you, or something. But I would be weak minded if I thought the idea of eating bleach and weed killer is probably not a good idea. But then again, this is the nation that bought the game of Tidepods to the world. Tasty!
 
Stimpy88 said:
Oh, I thought there was a difference between a 200mW WiFi router, and a 50kW cell transmitter. Gosh I’m so ignorant, and wish I was you, then I could swing through the trees without a care in the world.
Click to expand...

Distance matters. The cellphone next to your head, or in your pocket gives you a much bigger dose than cell towers do.
 
Snowdog said:
Distance matters. The cellphone next to your head, or in your pocket gives you a much bigger dose than cell towers do.
Click to expand...

To follow up with that - having fewer towers means the device right next to your happy bits has to effectively scream to get its signal to the more-distant tower. It's actually worse to have fewer towers, if you're worried about RF energy absorption.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Oh, I thought there was a difference between a 200mW WiFi router, and a 50kW cell transmitter. Gosh I’m so ignorant, and wish I was you, then I could swing through the trees without a care in the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you are ignorant. Let’s get you educated so you won’t be ignorant anymore!

Radio frequency energy from a cell tower doesn’t cause cancer. So effectively, there is no difference between the 200mw router and the cell tower.

You’re welcome.
 
PhaseNoise said:
To follow up with that - having fewer towers means the device right next to your happy bits has to effectively scream to get its signal to the more-distant tower. It's actually worse to have fewer towers, if you're worried about RF energy absorption.
Click to expand...
For anyone who doesn't believe this, you can do a very simple experiment to find out yourself... :D
Charge your phone to 100% and put it in a location with the best signal you can get (at least 80%). Leave it there overnight (lets say 8hrs) and check the battery level in the morning.
Now the next night, charge it to 100% before bed and place the phone in a location with the worst service you can find. A basement far from windows next to the wall, or maybe a drawer in the kitchen with a ton of metal utensils, but somewhere that is 1 bar (and having dropped back to 3G is even better). Now check its battery level in the morning....
 
motomonkey said:
Exactly, you are ignorant. Let’s get you educated so you won’t be ignorant anymore!

Radio frequency energy from a cell tower doesn’t cause cancer. So effectively, there is no difference between the 200mw router and the cell tower.

You’re welcome.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
 
The thing is, you need proof. I say this time and time again. If you want to prove that it's that tower, they need to come up with at least supporting evidence. I would more likely suspect a tainted water supply or something environmental is causing it. is causing an issue then a wifi tower.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

We can only proceed based upon studies and statistics done thus far. However, there are groups which do study these things, and here are some examples.

American Cancer Society:
Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.


First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.​

The FCC:
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said this about cell phone towers near homes or schools:


“Radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS [personal communications service] transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.”
​
This is not to say there is never the possibility of any issue. But all the evidence and scientific theory indicates cell towers are not a statistically significant contributor to health issues.

If there is better information available, please share it with these agencies.
 
Joust said:
Disclosure: didn't RTFA. However...

I can say, if kids at my kid's school started developing cancer at unusual rates, I'd have him out of there as soon as I found out about it. These parents are lashing out at something - probably anything- that is presented to them as dangerous to their kids. My bet is, it's less an agenda than genuine concern.
Click to expand...
My concern (at least as much as it can be, since I live on the other side of the country) is that all this energy is being directed at something that isn't helpful. They're getting news coverage, and probably having town/county/school board meetings about a stupid cell tower, meanwhile the kids in the school are still being exposed to whatever is really causing the cancer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top