Vodacom: No proof towers are harmful

2011-08-13 10:00

Johannesburg - There is no scientific evidence to indicate cellphone towers negatively affect human health, Vodacom said in an SABC radio news broadcast on Saturday.

"The World Health Organisation ... say categorically, with 20 years of study, there is nothing yet that convinces experts that there are any adverse health effects from electromagnetic frequency as used in cellphones...," said spokesperson Richard Boorman.

He was responding to protesters in Constantia, Cape Town, who claim the building of a signal tower in the area could compromise residents' health.

  • Ozymandios - 2011-08-13 10:33

    Ja sure and Vodacom is going to say they are bad for you and cause cancer to you over a period of 20-25years!!! Not lilel;y but that was the same with the cigarette companies in the 1940-50's. let the jury remain out on this one until we all start looking pale and grey and have lumps growing on our lungs and growths in our skulls and then let's see how big and smart they are.

      Joe_Public - 2011-08-13 11:10

      Exactly! There companies will deny it all the way. Basically if they admit that it does, it would be the end of their business as we know it. And can anyone see the money sucking Vodacom doing anything that might knock their money sucking? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Consider this scenario. A South African (GSM) cell phone emits 2W of power when in use (possibly 3G included), a Microwave oven emits 700W of power. Pales in comparison really. But then consider that a microwave cooks food in a few minutes and then that food is eaten (we don't see it again). But we're still around with our cellphones getting exposed to hours worth of radiation every day (with colleagues cell phones around us). So perhaps it doesn't 'cook' us, but what if that 2W of power doesn't kill cells but can do enough damage to a few cells to mutate them into cancers. Then consider also, what if inside an aeroplane (whose body happens to be metal) 100 people have their cell phones blasting 3G or in call signals during flight? Would that not effectively be a mild microwave running at around 200W?

      Wes - 2011-08-13 12:46

      What a load of crap. If what you saying is correct, then there should be a large increase in brain tumors and other cancers. Especially since the use of cellphones is ubiquitous. You seem to be just another conspiracy theorist wack a loon.

      roboman1 - 2011-08-14 11:19

      @Wes, how do you know there is not an increase. I have a direct family member who is an experienced and senior oncologist in SA, and he categorically states he would not live near a cell phone tower, he treats to many tumours to take the risk

      MyPal_Al - 2011-08-15 02:06

      @Ozymandios, Joe Public and Roboman1, I have a very simple solution for you three. Please immediately could you all got to your kitchen's, lounges and bedroom's etc. and gather all your frequency wave electronic equipment and immediately dump it all in the dustbin and you would have done your part. Now run a long go get you Cell phones, Microwaves, Radio's TV's, Wireless Modems and PC's using an form of wireless device (Mouse, Keyboard, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc..) and go burn them cause the all busy killing you. If you do not do this immediately you are a Hypocrite.

      bengine - 2011-08-16 15:21

      @MyPal_Al - the hypocrite argument is so lame - you sound like an intelligent guy and yet you are spouting that nonesense. Do you let your kids play on the railway track? No? Why not? That's right cos a train could come along and kill them. Do you ride the train? Yes you do? You hypocrite - how can you support such a dangerous thing as a train. You have the choice to use phones, microwaves etc and you can choose to use them intelligently. There is evidence to suggest that moderate use of these devices is fine. However, a cell mast does not give the people in its path a choice. So drop the tired hypocrite argument - its getting like the "you racist" remark that is used to discredit comments.

  • Ben Kelly - 2011-08-13 10:36

    But people were telling us that TV and radios were going to kill us as well and we all know how accurate those predictions turned out to be.

      Badballie - 2011-08-15 13:48

      Yes, yes Ben we know, you really should have that big red pump on the side of your head seem to, maybe take the people agreeing with you as well, although I think they need a brain to get brain cancer

      just_maria - 2011-10-10 12:38

      The key point is whether or not cellphone towers are appropriately sited or not. As with radio and TV antennae, if they are erected too close to the general population you have have a problem. Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Italy ordered Vatican Radio to compensate the small town of Cesano following allegations that "the broadcaster's high-powered, inappropriately sited, AM/FM transmitters put children at a higher risk of cancer". According to a 300 page report by Italy's most prestigious cancer research hospital, “There has been an important, coherent and meaningful correlation between exposure to Vatican Radio’s structures and the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma in children.” The report also stated that there was increased risk of cancer for people who had resided at least 10 years within a 9km radius of the radio’s giant antenna towers near Cesano.

  • Storm Bru - 2011-08-13 10:41

    Is there proof that it does not harm us??? Just because there is no proof that it does harm us does not mean it does not exist. Of course big money talks so where would WHO come out and say so if it results in chaos as the big cell companies lose money!

      Wes - 2011-08-13 14:51

      You can't prove a negative. Stop using your cellphone if it bothers you so much that people make money.

      roboman1 - 2011-08-14 11:20

      seems like it has already affected Wes's brain if I read his comments!

  • Jason V - 2011-08-13 10:51

    I still think people cause much more damage to themselves from their lifestyles than what any cellphone tower will do...It's like if the media or a small group picks something to go on about..then a big issue is made about it. It's like saying tomatoes are poisenous for you..but only if you eat 500 a day... chops...

      roboman1 - 2011-08-14 11:22

      What we do to oursleves through bad lifestyle choices, are still our own free choice, whereas a cell tower erected next to your house is not your free choice. I would not live next to a cell tower, and I agree with the cigarette analogy, science can easily be bought by big money

      just_maria - 2011-10-10 13:05

      Cellphone tower is emitting radiation 24/7 - not a good idea to be living next to that, esp for small children / sick / elderly. Even our very outdated 1998 ICNIRP guidelines suggest that's not a good idea. "Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or ore forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population."

  • Jay - 2011-08-13 11:03

    This is like Shell saying fracking doesn't damage the environment... I'll accept these kind of claims from independent, objective scientific institutions thanks! They might not have evidence yet that it has a negative effect on people's health, but they also can not yet say that it is harmless. So until then people have the right to question and oppose it.

      MxT - 2011-08-13 13:09

      Yes and you are using the same moronic arguments because it doesn't suit your propaganda inspired agenda to do the little bit of research to find out what the genuine (peer reviewed) scientific articles are saying. With your line of (illogical) reasoning, you should give up your cell phone and car. Or else you can continue living life as an (ignorant) hypocrite.

      just_maria - 2011-10-10 13:24

      MxT - the hypocrite ad hominem attack worked in this type of debate for a long time, but it's time to move on. There are ample, "genuine (peer reviewed) scientific articles" out there demonstrating harm for those prepared to do a bit more than a "little" research. Dr Henry Lai from Washington University has much to say about this- start there. And even Swisscom said the folowing in a patent document as far back as 2004: "Mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed. This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk." Seven years later compare the Swiss safety limits to our own!

  • Jakob - 2011-08-13 11:04

    ja news24, julle is net so retarded soos vodacom

  • aj - 2011-08-13 11:06

    TO THE CONTRARY.... Unscrupulous scientistd did write reports that it is not dangreous - paid by the manufacturers & operators. Honest scientists & technologists were targeted when they published true reports. Cellular Base Stations is a MAJOR risk if yoy stay or work close-by such stations - within 350m. Lots of truths info are available of INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS & STUDIES (Not Industry Funded)- see e.g.: published by THE ASSOCIATED BIOELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGISTS and also: I have made a study - the above only a few sources - far too many to list here.

      MxT - 2011-08-13 13:11

      You call those unbiased. Have you read them or are you just quoting activists. Are they peer reviewed? I think not.

      Duncan - 2011-08-13 15:43

      How is any of this rubbish 'honest' considering the sources? Show us your study! Does 'aj' stand for 'aj jammer'?

  • Snurtle - 2011-08-13 11:19

    Things that can currently kill you in this world include HIV, lung cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer, violent crime, terrorism, hypertension, obesity and Julius Malema! If you die from a freakin' cellphone then, frankly, your number was up. Stop complaining you bunch of pansies!

  • David - 2011-08-13 11:25

    This is absolute bull, i went up one of those towers with a friend who repairs them, and they have safety procedures that state, no more than two hours up there without a 15min break, all four of us on the tower experienced light headedness,i was told it is common, these guys are exposed to that every day.

      MxT - 2011-08-13 21:19

      @David Don't suppose you as a layman you know of the square law rule. The signal strength drops by the square of the distance. Simply put if you go from 1m away from the antenna to 2m, the signal drops by a factor of 4. Even at the bottom of the mast, the signal is a very small fraction of that at the top. Your whole argument means nothing.

  • Prof. Bokdrol - 2011-08-13 11:26

    Really poor article, mense - there is just like 7 zillion variables in da equation so there is no way on this earth you can pinpoint why people in Constantia are suddenly not feeling well. Bad batch of caviar, maybe? Dom Perignon gone off a bit? And for vark steaks stop calling the bliksemse things "signal towers"...they is called "radio base stations" asseblief...

  • Brieuse - 2011-08-13 11:37

    After all the studies,no evidence has been found. To claim there is harm is a pitchfork mentality.

  • j.malemmer - 2011-08-13 11:43

    Is there proof that it is not harmfull?

  • barry.mcbride - 2011-08-13 12:16

    yes, your tower is probably safe unless it falls over!

  • Jean-Piérre - 2011-08-13 12:26

    lair lair PANTS on fire

      Cheeky - 2011-08-13 13:26

      Don't you mean pants on fair?? lol

  • BobM - 2011-08-13 12:32

    How many of thoes against cell towers are users of cell phones??? One wonders?

      Mirrie - 2011-08-14 15:23

      When it comes to having a cell phone one has a choice. You can choose to own one or not to own one. You can also choose how much you are going to use it. When it comes to Cell Masts you do not have a choice. You have this harmful radiation blasting at you 24/7.

      Badballie - 2011-08-15 13:55

      Whats your point? possibly that if we know something is bad for us and we use it, it exempts the manufacturer from selling a dangerous product. Or if the law says there cannot be more than one part of a cheap inexpensive poison ingredient in every 100 parts of a foodstuff its OK for the manufacturer to ensure that there is 1 part in 100 of the toxic substance in everything they package because it increases their profit margin and reduces costs. Since when has the manufacturer ever given a damn about anything other than shareholder contentment.

  • popaye - 2011-08-13 12:35

    There is no comparison between the frequencey emitted by a microwave oven and a cell phone. If there was, AM radio would have killed a lot of people years ago when there were higher towers emitting many KILOWATTS of power. And you don't clamp a microwave oven to your ear. In fact, a good microwave oven won't switch on umless the door is closed properly so that it for an RF shield. Microwave ovens use a cavity magnetron to produce the high frequency, cell phones don't.

  • JusMan - 2011-08-13 13:47

    Just like the move "Thank you for smoking"

  • cyclops - 2011-08-13 13:59

    Then pray please Vodacom tell me why you have a transmitter shutdown safety policy when your very own technicians work in the proximity of the antenna when working on the towers, why do all your towers have a mandatory radiation warning posted on the container - hypocrites...

      MxT - 2011-08-13 23:13

      Refer to square law explanation in a posting above. A little knowledge is very confusing to the layman.

  • Mike_L - 2011-08-13 14:00

    Many European countries follow what is called the 'Precautionary Principle', the essence of which is: "If there's doubt, err on the side of caution". The Precautionary Principle stipulates a minimum height for cellphone masts, not situated within 300m of schools, hospitals, etc. Not so in South Africa, where it's a case of "anything goes".... masts on school sportsfields, in shopping centre parking lots, etc. The latest are the small antennas at street level... fixed to lampposts everywhere. For a megacorporation wanting to do just as it pleases, few countries would be better than South Africa.

  • Cellphone - 2011-08-13 15:16

    As one of the residents involved in organising the protest here are some facts. 1. We are not against cell phones or cell technology - we all use them and recognise their benefit. 2. We are campaigning for the safe and responsible implementation of the technology nationwide. 2. There is no conclusive proof that cell radiation is harmful, however the WHO have said "Where data are scarce, the absence of evidence of harm should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that no harm exists. Further research should focus on long-term effects and should include children and adolescents." 3. To date NO proof has been put forward that modulated microwave signals DO NOT not cause harm at the cellular level - especially in children - but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that it does. 6. Masts under 15m in height no longer need EIA - that means no public participation and you don't even get informed of new installations. 7. Our regulation is based on legislation formulated in 2002 based on findings in 1998. 8. When cell phones came out it was believed the handsets were totally safe - in May the WHO updated WiFi and Cell radiation to a class 2B carcinogen in the same category as lead, asbestos and DDT More at Our hope is that we are wrong Our fear is that we are right Onus of proof should lie with govt and the cell companies not with the public Please don't take our word for it - do the research in the interests of our children. EMRSA

      MxT - 2011-08-14 10:18

      And that web site contains of course unbiased scientific studies bereft of emotion - NOT. Come on Mr Cellphone get real. You need to get honest. You need to use the latest research. Cherry picking shows your agenda, not the facts. Do you use a cell phone. If so, due the square law formula indicated above, your exposure to radiation is far greater than at the bottom of a cell tower. Incidentally, the WHO made that statement due to public pressure, not due to ANY credible research indicating such danger. They also issued a number of caveats to the statement which I guess you somehow missed. AND WENDY ROBINSON WHO HAS THE SAME POLITICAL AGENDA - I WILL OPPOSE YOU ALL THE WAY -- DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE SUCKS BECAUSE OF THEIR DISHONESTY.

      Family man - 2011-08-14 10:53

      Accept that there is no proof that cell phones are safe. RIGHT Accept that there is no proof that cell masts are safe. RIGHT You can choose whether you use a cell phone. RIGHT You can choose how often you want to use your cell phone. RIGHT You can choose not to have a cell mast next to you 24/7. WRONG The WHO says that more research is necessary, especially in the long term and on children and adolescents (Dec 2010). Until it is proven that cell masts are safe, people are being used like lab rats in this experiment, especially our children that are most vulnerable - WE ARE WITHOUT CHOICE. The SA constitution says we have the RIGHT to a safe environment. STOP this madness and ESTABLISH that NO HARM can be done BEFORE ERECTING the masts.

      james - 2011-08-14 11:01

      @MxT: surely you mean the inverse square law? Also, that refers to the power decay of the EMR, but cell masts >>> hand sets. Further, as I understand it, the residents are concerned about the thermal radiation.

      Cellphone - 2011-08-14 13:17

      @MxT - please point out our "hidden agenda". Yes I do use a phone - this is not about erradicating cell tech as stated in point 1 above it is about the safe implementation of the tech. And yest the inverse square distance tells us something about the physical properties of the radiation - this relates to the thermal properties of the radiation. @James - we are NOT focusing on the thermal properties but the non-thermal properties of non-iodizing microwave radiation - the effect modulated microwave signals have on living organisms at the cellular and DNA level. Because the dificulties inherent in studying the effect of this type of radiation on living organisms it is difficult to prove or disprove harm. Growing evidence and knowlege is begining to paint a picture that potential harm does exists - and that evidence of this will only be available in the medium to long term - yet we are being asked to be guinea pigs in an experiment where the principle of "err on the side of harm" (not caustion) is being applied. Until recently we were assured that handsets were totally safe - we know now they are not. Age limits are being imposed in other countries for ownership and use of phones. Russia 18+, France 14+ in addition more and more countries are introducing policy of no masts near schools or homes. France is spending 174M Euro on removing WiFi from schools - ask your self - why are these countries doing this. EMRSA

      MxT - 2011-08-14 18:44

      @james. Yes inverse square law is correct, I was keeping it simple. Thermal effect is caused by radio frequency radiation, much like a microwave. The WHO has been unable to find any substantial or directly attributable heating effect with handsets, certainly not towers. There is no direct thermal effect from a tower, that would be like heater which is implausible. As has been said before, it is almost impossible to prove a negative, if only because people won't believe. Emotions tend to hold sway. @Mr Cellphone. The problem I have with you sir is the typical "not on my doorstep" syndrome. You are more then happy to have others host the masts, but not near you despite the LACK OF EVIDENCE to prove danger. I agree that handsets "could" case problems due to their proximity to the brain, but you as a self confessed user don't have a problem with that. And as far as the selective reporting on WI FI, then I guess you will be against any other RF source including your garage remote, your PC, the aircraft flying overhead (gee don't fly on it, you don't realise how much RF energy there is there) in other words back to the dark ages. Illogical, nonsensical BS.

      james - 2011-08-15 09:46

      I stand corrected about the thermal radiation. @MxT: You're very good at nay saying. What are your peer-reviewed, latest, unbiased scientific studies, bereft of emotion, proving that there is conclusively no harm whatsoever in living close to a cell mast? Also, it seems you're keen for people to keep emotion out of the argument, which I agree with. However, I find your emotive statements "get real", "nonsensical BS" contradictory in that light.

      MxT - 2011-08-15 10:30

      @James To quote my previous statement. "As has been said before, it is almost impossible to prove a negative, if only because people won't believe. Emotions tend to hold sway. " There is much peer reviewed research to say that there is no detectable or quantifiable harm. That I am afraid is what we have to deal with. The WHO is saying "it's possible", but that is about it. Cell phone manufacturers are understandably playing it safe in issuing warnings - their legal depts would like to avoid class action law suits in the future. We are in any case discussing towers. So James in the light of the admitted difficulty in proving a negative, would you be so kind as to show us all the unbiased, peer reviewed research from establishments of high esteem (i.e. not that website quoted so far) that have led you to campaign so ferociously against towers. I am sure a man of your standing would not deal in hearsay. And as you are nit picking, the bs I was referring to was not Mr Cellphone himself, but the story he quoted about French schools removing WiFi. I have not been able to verify it, but who am I to doubt it. I certainly can find it bizarre though.

      james - 2011-08-15 11:09

      @MxT: Working backwards: 1. I didn't say you were suggesting that Mr. Cellphone was BS. I meant that your use of emotive language is contradictory to your stance for emotion-free debate. 2. "Ferocious campaigning" - another example of emotive speak. I'm not campaigning, I've merely taken issue with your consistent patronising of people with legitimate concerns. 3. The WHO says its possible - is that not enough to allow for concern? It's difficult for both sides to present extremely strong evidence either way. However your skepticism (and churlish tone: "And that web site contains of course unbiased scientific studies bereft of emotion - NOT") for any research posted here, places the burden of proof against such arguments with you.

      Cellphone - 2011-08-15 11:09

      @MXT - please indicate where we have adopted a "not on my doorstep" response. We have made it quite clear we are campaigning for a responsible and safe implementation of the technology everywhere. That means changes to legislation to bring SA in line with first world countries that are exercising caution on this matter. Your comment re the dark ages is confusing as we have clearly stated we are not for trying to erradicate the technology - refer point 1 and 2 above. Use of a handset implies choice as stated on numerous occasions. Cell masts give no choice to the people who live near them - especially children. It took 50 years for a link between lung cancer and smoking to be established and it was not until 1998 that a definite link was found. Our history is fraught with human error with respect to human safety (tobacco, lead, ddt, asbestos, thalidomide, power lines etc) - in all these cases people have died and in many cases children. In the case of mast radiation, as with cellphones, there is growing evidence of harm and we are not prepared to take the chance - esp with our children. If a link is found in the future - for many it will be too late. The damage is irreversible. There is enough evidence that says we need to exercise extreme caution in this matter and as our choice has been taken away from us we are compelled to raise our concerns. Why do you support an err on the side of harm approach - it makes no sense?

      MxT - 2011-08-15 14:26

      James old chap, let me give you a bit of the emotion so preoccupying your wasteful waking hours. Arguing, discussing or engaging with you is a thorough waste of time. You simply have nothing to add. Nuff said - you can can now have a good go at me, I won't reply. No more assuaging your childish desire to provoke a response with the uttering of trivial emotion. Mr Cellphone. You are also going round in circles. If you want positioning of cell towers to meet your definition of "responsible and safe" you will indeed have no cell phone towers. I spend a lot of time in your "first world countries", and believe me even with all the regs, the positioning and building of masts is every bit as contentious. The only difference being the local authorities are much more prone to follow scientific standards, than those derived from emotion. In our local context, activists like yourself do not want them in schools (yes I agree), you don't want them near homes, you don't want them near roads. You don't want them on top of buildings. You don't want them near trees (because of the birds). Sorry but everywhere the cell companies propose, activists object to. Basically you guys are being hypocritical because you are still in favour of cell phones, you use them all the time, but you don't want any masts. Finally if we hold back progress on the assumption that something MIGHT be found to be carcinogenic in the future then we really will grind society to a halt. I've had enough. Bye

  • rimmoah - 2011-08-13 15:27

    most people would rather not have a tower outside their front window just to be safe rather than sorry.regardless of what the experts say

      MxT - 2011-08-14 18:48

      Exactly - "not on my doorstep" syndrome. But you want the towers on somebody else's doorstep and moan to ICASA and the networks when you don't have coverage. You are a bunch of hypocrites. If you really feel so strongly about the masts then dump the cellphones.

  • kingkong - 2011-08-13 20:59

    so they want the convieniance of the cell phone but not the ugly towers so what about the towers on the cape flats even on church towers should we protest that also

      Cellphone - 2011-08-14 13:06

      Please refer to point 2 of the post above - "nationwide" We are campaigning for the safe use of cell phone technology every where - any community who feels that their rights to a safe environment have been compromised are welcome to join us and we will support them. Safe implementation means acceptance of low or non-existent signal if it is in the intersts of health and safety of the community. Personally I live in an area of little or no cell reception - I operate an IT business and have found ways around the lack of signal to the extent that it is not an issue. I trust this answers your concerns EMRSA

      MxT - 2011-08-14 18:55

      This keeps getting better Mr Cellphone. Perhaps you could elaborate (with references) on "safe implementation". Because Sir believe me the networks would far rather avoid this emotional war every time they put up a tower (to satisfy public demand). A bit of money spent here would be far preferable. They have tried low output (but more frequent) towers and this still wasn't good enough. If you as a IT guru have the answer, please enlighten us all and lets get this behind us.

      bengine - 2011-08-15 11:29

      @MxT - why don't you go and read the stuff on their site - the references are there. What are you going to do if / when harm is discovered regarding cell radiation? Apologize? Deny? Make excuses. The whole point dude is so that noone has to apologize or say oops! If I remember correctly cell phones used to be safe - now they are not and there are all sorts of warnings about using them - were you one of those people who used to say there is nothing wrong with cell phones cos there is no peer review study that says they are harmful? How about you personally sign a document guarenteeing the safety of anyone living near a mast - that you will cover all costs now or in the future that result from cell mast radiation - are you prepared to do that? It seems your attitude is - we must have cell masts, someone must live near them (as long as it is not you), these people must accept the risks on your behalf because you have to have your 100% reception and any of the ill effects claimed by thousands of people - are just in their heads. Whether cell radiation is harmful or not has already been decided - you are not going to change the outcome by arguing about it - so until we know for sure how about we just be a bit more careful with technology we don't know a hellava lot about.

  • HCrouse - 2011-08-13 23:58

    Jirre, looks like most comments here are from MTN and Voda execs. Fact 1 you pompous blowhards: World Health Organisation has classified cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic. Long term studies come up with more and more evidence. At some point it reaches tipping point and becomes statistically probable. In the meantime - go ahead and buy your teen that cellphone that they're stuck to for hours at a time. There's no evidence that it's bad so it must be good, right? Morons.

  • HCrouse - 2011-08-14 00:01

    Oh. I see Cellphone gave a much more modulated account of the facts just above. Use that rather. Morons.

      MxT - 2011-08-14 20:39

      Yup, typical response. Substitute substance with abuse and throw it at those you disagree with. Hey, it works for Malema, so why not you. Just for the record, I have previously worked with microwaves and radio frequency applications. I am completely out of that industry now and have nothing to do with ANY cell phone company (except to line their substantial coffers each month). In fact I despise them, but not for the reasons you feel I should. You would further your cause far more eloquently if you were to politely propose reasonable arguments. Fortunately Mr Cellphone has excelled here, and for that I thank him.

  • Mirrie - 2011-08-14 14:40

    Ofcourse Vodacom is going to discredit the Constantia Protesters what else can they do, they are protecting a multi billion rand industry! Why don't they use some of their money in doing research so that they can make this industry safe instead of trying to cover up all the time. In May this year the World Health Organisation has reclassified radio frequency radiation as class 2B carcinogen, placing it now in the same category as lead, DDT and asbestos. When it comes to cell phones, the new blackberry booklet has safety warnings inside but this is not good enough it should come on the packaging. To learn more about the dangers go to

  • letsee - 2011-08-14 16:20

    Would Vodacom tell the truth? I think Vodacom would be like the cigarette manufacturers that denied any harm from smoking for as long as they could. So, Vodaphone/Vodacom you are not the right guys to make such statements.

      bengine - 2011-08-15 11:37

      The cell companies did - go check out a guy called George Carlo - employed by cell industry to investigate cell phones. Except he found out what they didn't want him to so he got fired or resigned - depending on version. Also check out what Peter Trower has to say about this stuff and what the Russians did with it during the cold war. And then you read that the Russians have this strict policy about cell phone use and masts - scared the crap out of me

  • Badballie - 2011-08-15 13:46

    Just another reason I will not be renewing my contract with Vodacom this year, its bad enough I have to listen to a government that lies to me I won't pay a private company to do the same. Sorry boys internationally there is evidence that a cell phone can cause brain cancer, you telling me that a tower carrying thousands of signals as opposed to the one active on a cell phone will not cause any harm???? Trevor get that contract ready, at least you guys have the balls to say "don't let your kids use cell phones to much as there is a risk

  • Sloane Em - 2011-08-16 14:24

    News24 should check their facts.  On  May 31, 2011, the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued its decision to classify radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B  - possibly carcinogenic to humans! This mirrors the 2001 IARC finding that extremely low frequency ( ELF-EMF) pertaining to power frequency (power line and appliance) non-ionising radiation. The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: -occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; -environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and -personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones. Furthermore the Seletun Statement of February 3rd 2011 also confirms concerns. The arguments being offered by Cell Companies are outdated given recent scientific studies that are already being questioned by international scientists and governments, who understand that the long-term effects have not been properly evaluated. Health is priceless and South African’s health rights should be carefully considered in these situations and protected! We should all be taking a more precautionary approach and the media should be publishing well researched comments and not press releases.

  • pages:
  • 1