Target 1038

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:34:00 +1200

We send underage actors into the TAB in this week's hidden camera trial. In 'Shame On You' we investigate the potential risks of cell phone towers. And we find out which brand of fresh pasta is right for your family in our 'Product Check'

comments: 9

Toa Greening 29 Nov 09:32

I have 17 years in Information Engineering industry and

had a Cell Phone Tower installed opposite my home early

this year. Within weeks we developed buzzing in the ears

which after extensive research was linked directly to

the microwave radiation from the tower. At 40-50 meters

the lamppost Cell Phone Tower has a maximum ground level

output equivalent to 1-2 meters away from 4-5 Microwave

ovens running at full. In our lounge the levels I measured were the equivalent of standing 1-2 meters from a Microwave oven at full (which is not recommended for long periods of time).

The buzzing in the ears is a well documented effect called RF Hearing or the Microwave Auditory effect. I purchased a peered reviewed meta-study by Motorola which reviewed 65 studies on the subject over the past 4 decades. The Microwave radiation in my lounge were at the levels for the Microwave Auditory effect to be experienced.

Unfortunately by the time the link was made we had ended up developing tinnitus which is a continuous buzzing in the ears. I have now come across 6 other residents who have Cell Phone Tower linked tinnitus and am awaiting response from the Ministry of Health on what the intend to do about this.

It is unfortunate that anyone who supports reducing emf radiation is deemed a scare-mongerer. I have been in contact with other enginneers, researchers and health experts and there is a massive amount of information that is being ignored. Such as where very low levels of pulsed emf are being used in Medicine to stimulate bone growth. For over 2 decades the US FDA has approved these devices. No one can say what effect that years of sitting next to a Microwave oven on full will have of us. Many experts try to advise that living beside a Cell Phone Tower is safe becasue we have been exposed to radio/tv signals for much longer. What they fail to explain is that proximity of the Cell Phone Tower means you are absorbing 1 million times more radiation.

Steve 11 Nov 15:27

I watched the bit of cell sites waiting for you to give the comparative figures for the EM radiation at normal distance from a tower, when holding a phone, and when EG having a x-ray or flying in a plane, and then compare to the very low NZ govt maximum levels, but it didn't come. All I heard was some talk that did not properly distinguish between nuclear radiation, radio waves, and microwave ovens.
Surely you could have avoided a bit of scaremongering here by showing the figures?

Tin Man 31 Oct 18:41

I totaly agree with Sad Tutor. Target didn't/couldn't grasp the technology and the physical principles about harmfull radiation. They also failed to acknowledge that radio waves coming out of the cell towers are the same coming out of our mobile phones and we hold/store them in the most delicate places of our body (ie beside our head and ...), so logically wouldn't a mobile phone be more harmfull to us than a cell tower. Also aren't cell towers an effect of our demand for greater coverage from our mobile phones. Therefore if we want Telecom,Vodafone,2degrees to stop putting up Cell towers then shoudn't we stop using our mobile phones. Finaly as mentioned what about other particular sources of radation around the home, such as Wifi, Microwaves, TV's, CRT monitors and the SUN? For a programm which is aimed a educating the public about being a smart consumer, I believe Target's coverage of cell towers did the opposite.

Heather 28 Oct 23:15

It's all very well to complain about radiation from cell phone sites. What about radiation from electric light bulbs, sunlight, radios used for entertainment and news provision, tv sets, computer screens and any other electric appliance that gives off light or sound? Are these people never going to go outside during the day, stop watching tv, never use a computer, be in bed by sunset so they don't need artificial light? How many of these groaners actually use cell phones themselves? Radiation is a fact of life, like it or not. It's only intense radiation such as is used in microwaves or provided by direct sunlight that can be damaging. Another question these people should be asked is what will they do if they break an arm or leg? Refuse an x-ray because of radiation exposure? I think it's amazing that all these complainers watch your programme seeing that requires radiation exposure from a tv set.

Lou 28 Oct 20:24

How come TV3 doesn't stop and start at peak usage times and TVNZ on demand does????????

Alan 28 Oct 14:05

Why did TV3 NOT ask for an explanation as to why Switzerland can successfully operate their cell towers on levels of radiation far lower than radiation allowed in NZ? Remember the disasters of tobacco smoking and Thalidomide both human disasters deemed "Safe" by ill-advised governments.

Sad Tutor 27 Oct 20:20

I watched your show on cellphone towers with interest, as I am a tutor (and Radio Tech with 30 years experience) who trains Radio Technicians in safe work practices on these sites. I was saddened that your show showed so little depth, and failed to explain the difference between Ionising Radiation (x-rays, Nuclear & solar energy) and Non-Ionising radiation, (Radio waves). Given that there is now 60 years of research on the effects of radio waves on the human body, and that the WHO has set safe levels, New Zealand has set lower levels than the WHO, and cellphone companies set them even lower. The fear factor of these will only grow, due to ignorance of the real facts, and thus the real dangers, none of which were addressed. It is also sad that you refereed to Workplace levels, not non worker levels, which are yet another 1/5th of the worker levels, nor did you explain who EME fields decay over distance. As a person trying to bring balance to this industry, and keep workers safe in the field, and having access to equipment to measure levels of radiation, my advise to those so concerned, is stay away from the sun, it will do you much more harm. - Check our melanoma rates. I appreciate that your show only accessed a few sources in limited time, but sadly no real expert (New Zealand has several, as we are an active contributor to the WHO research) who could have provided balance, was approached, or given a chance to set the record straight. Dr Black at Auckland University would have been a prime choice as an internationally recognised expert. I am afraid, your show possibly did more harm than good, to those of us trying to train people in facts, and not the scare mongering of what can only be described as the "Tin Hat Brigade" Oh for the good old days on Balanced Media reporting.

Sophie Cotterill 27 Oct 20:20

Hello, I'm Sophie. I'm 11 years old. I may be a bit young but who cares, your show is ranked #1 on my list. I typed this message to enter my family for the product check family. We live in Lower Hutt, Wellington, and it would be a great deal for me if my family was the product check family.

chelsea and family 27 Oct 20:14

we would love to be your taste testing family
there are 4 of us and we all love food

Target 1038

Post a comment