• 27 MAR 07
    • 0

    #687: Insider comments re: ABC Toowong

    NOTE: The sender requested that his name not by published as he is close to some of the people involved directly with ABC Toowong:

    I saw your combined “independent perspective” in toowong.pdf

    I am also convinced that there may be an LF (or IF) factor involved in the acceleration of breast carcinogenesis.

    There must be other television sites similar to the Toowong ABC situation. Is there some way we can encourage their Union into “rumbling” about these? I reckon, if we could get a full-on epidemiological study of all the sites around Australia, then the connection might be proven beyond any statistical doubt. And this would overcome the potential that the problem site could be demolished prematurely.

    There is a uniqueness in Toowong though: Am I right in assuming the ladies worked on the floor directly above the editing studio? If so, then the magnetic “near” fields could have come upwards through the floor. If ferrous materials were also interposed, (reinforcing mesh, aggregates in concrete floors) the magnetic fields could have been conducted further towards the ladies, and also even concentrated at their locations due to the magnetic properties of the equipment they were using (ferrites, steel filing cabinets, tables/chair steel framing, steel frame in keyboard, steel wire in bras, remote microphone transmitter). Also, the studio was probably never switched off, as stability of the electronics is better that way.

    The centrally-timed synchronising pulses fed to all equipment in an editing studio mean that all frame scan and line scan harmonics are in step. So the amplitudes of their emanating fields are also in step and therefore vectorially additive. eg. if ten monitors are simultaneously in use, the amplitudes of the stray fields at a distant location are also ten times as strong as for one monitor. So the power irradiating a person is therefore increased a hundredfold.

    It was also fashionable for a while to have banks of cheap TV monitors as part of the news programming set, and news readers were exposed excessively at a relatively short range to these. There were no field-reducing coils or shielding used in these! The “auto-cue” machines, from which news readers are able to read the text of the news, were often thrown together by technicians especially for the application, without any professional thought being given to the external magnetic fields emerging from the unshielded scanning coils.

    During news editing in the earlier TV days, film was converted to video by flying-spot scanners. There was no special magnetic shielding in these, and voltages and scanning powers used were much higher than for ordinary CRT’s.News staff were exposed during these editing functions.

    Regarding power absorption, the standards assume {ExH} for a radiating signal. But it really depends on {H.H} for induction in the near field region (less than several wavelengths). As the wavelengths are many times the distances involved, it is pointless measuring the electric field components using whip antennae as was obviously done during the “cover-up” stage in 2005. All power was transferred to the ladies by magnetic coupling for RF in the range 50Hz to several MHz. eg. At 150kHz, the attenuation length for these magnetic fields in human tissue is about a metre. So this is the frequency range where magnetic fields transfer the greatest energy to the human body

    There is also an in-vivo calcium-transport problem at extremely weak magnetic field strengths, if certain harmonic relationships also exist in the radiated frequencies, due to non-linearity in the ionic conductivity of cellular interfaces. So far, this has only been considered in radar applications. Since one way to beneficially treat breast tumours is by the intensive short-term application of RF, then we would expect accidental environmental intensities to have some longer-term effects as well, maybe detrimentally. (Taking the analogous established example that long-term exposure to weak ionising radiation causes cancers whereas short-term intensive radiation treatment can be palliative in reducing tumour sizes.)

    The handling of the problem so far has been statistically and medically sound but scientifically bull-shit! This is what you expect to happen when statisticians and medical therapists are in charge and scientists are down-graded to labourer status.

    We need an organised effort to bring to light the hopeless inadequacy of the electromagnetic surveys that were obviously rushed through.

    Leave a reply →

Photostream