Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ENVIRONMENTAL NGO GREENPEACE has urged governments to ratify a UN treaty for ocean protection that would allow a marine preservation area to be created around the famous Galapagos archipelago.
“We must protect this area [where] industrial fishing fleets continue to plunder the oceans,” Ruth Ramos of the Greenpeace Protect the Oceans campaign said in a statement.
It could become the first-ever marine protected area created under the so-called High Seas Treaty adopted by United Nations member states last June to protect marine ecosystems that are vital to humanity but under threat from pollution, Greenpeace said.
The treaty was adopted after more than 15 years of discussions to extend environmental protections to international waters which make up more than 60 percent of the world’s oceans.
It can go into effect 120 days after being ratified by 60 countries — a goal activists hope to reach by 2025.
So far, it has been signed by several dozen states but ratified by only two: Palau and Chile.
“This historic treaty, once ratified, will enable us to protect a vast area of international waters near the Galapagos Islands, safeguarding a vital migratory superhighway for marine life such as sharks and turtles,” said Ramos, who was taking part in a scientific expedition to the area.
The Galapagos islands, some 1,000 kilometres off the mainland of Ecuador, have flora and fauna found nowhere else in the world.
Observing its wonders led British scientist Charles Darwin to develop his ground-breaking theory of evolution by natural selection in the 19th century.
Ramos said the governments of Ecuador, Panama, Colombia and Costa Rica have taken “admirable steps” to protect the oceans in their national waters.”
Under the treaty, “they now have a historic opportunity to demonstrate global leadership by protecting this key area of the high seas and further safeguarding the beauty and biodiversity of the Galapagos region for future generations.”
A high seas marine protected area in the region “would remove the threat of industrial fishing fleets,” said Greenpeace.
“It would also protect a key area of ocean that many threatened migratory species from Galapagos and adjacent marine regions must cross in order to reach key coastal habitats for pupping, nesting and feeding.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nothing like a bit of vague Bro science to justify blocking a piece of infastructure.
Stay at home mums can sometimes be devoid of things to do
The kids would have great phone signal during class… Think of the advantages like….!
“The research that is coming out now is that masts near schools are just a no, no,”
One imagines that the researchers in question also have thoughts on cleansing auras, homeopathy, and Elvis’s current occupation.
Moron.
://www.webmd.com/children/news/20140819/children-cell-phones
That link is about handsets and other personal devices. Not phone masts.
Ah, personal abuse.
That’s the argument won then!
You’re the only one talking about “brain cancer”! Lol!
eejit.
These parents haven’t a clue, the power drop off within a meter of the transmitter is enormous. It’s akin to complaining that you could feel the heat from a cooker ring in the house next door.
I’m sure none of these people own or use a mobile phone… Or even better, most the children in this school have no doubt been given one by them.
Cellular phones have been around for 50 years. No health risks.
Most primary school children don’t have mobile phones. Some 6th class kids might, but not all.
Plenty of evidence shows that young children are at higher risks from microwave radiation than adults are so it’s a bit stupid to say that because the parents might have mobile phones that the children should be forced to spend their school days in an area of high exposure.
Statistics show that in 2009 half of Irish 9 year olds (that’s 3rd class) own a cell phone and that was 7 years ago.
Good thing Mobiles don’t use microwaves then.
@Ro Brett, Microwaves are between 300MHz and 300GHz. Mobile phones operate at 900-1800MHz,so technically they are microwaves, not that it’s a particularly important point.
@Drew, The link between children’s mobile phone use and ADHD has been clear for a while now and the vast majority of parents who permit their children to own a mobile phone (only 30% of primary school children have mobile phones) do so only so that their children are contactable.
Just some quotes from that study Coles linked. “the association was limited to children exposed to relatively high lead” “The results SUGGEST that SIMULTANEOUS exposure to lead and RF from mobile phone use was associated with increased ADHD symptom risk, although possible reverse causality could not be ruled out” Tbh if your child is being exposed to “relatively high” levels of lead ADHD is the least of your worries. Also the conclusion of that study effectively admits that the results were inconclusive and the study had nothing whatsoever to do with masts. Hardly the “clear” link you suggested Coles. You are adapting an inconclusive scientific study to fit your preconceived narrative. In other words you’re full of s***
So are kids in danger while listening to Adam radio too?
are kids in danger while listening to FM radio aswell?
@Liam, It is a very clear link. Look for yourself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605379/figure/pone-0059742-g002/
“Changes in ADHD SYMPTOMS according to the change in mobile phone use for voice calls and playing game over 2 years.” That is the title of this image you linked. Where does it mention radio waves? Where does it say radio waves cause or exacerbate ADHD? This new link you have sent is about a change in symptoms of someone with ADHD when mobile phone use is taken into account (phone calls and games specifically). It has nothing to do with masts. It has nothing to do with radio waves. It is a single image you linked me so I have no idea of the further scope of the study. It looks like if anything the first graph in that image disproves your point as the trend for continuous use is the same as the trend for a continuous non user as a matter of fact the continuous non users seem to start from a worse position (to be clear I am not actually saying it does disprove your point it was not the goal of this study to examine radio waves I just thought it was funny that if you were to take any conclusion about ADHD and radio waves from this study it would have to be the opposite of your point). If your hypothesis was right surely a non user would be less symptomatic than a continuous user. I will reiterate again this study has NOTHING to do with radio waves. You once again adapted the results of a scientific study to suit your preconceived narrative. I honestly don’t have the time to discredit every misleading thing you post but I’ll try my best
If people could please learn the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation that’d be great.
Oh dude, don’t pretend you aren’t deliberately using the term microwave because people associate it with microwave ovens, why not just say radio waves?
Something tells me we won’t hear from Coles again. He’s probably returned to some pseudoscience message board where he can post all the misleading links he wants and never be questioned. It’s hilarious how people like that ignore so many reputable sources but then take any old bull on the internet as gospel then selectively pick random studies to support that point.
Coles it is very clear from reading the paper that no definitive conclusions could be found…
“However, the causal time direction from RF exposure to the effects could not be validated in the present study because the ADHD symptoms were not newly developed during the 2 year study period, i.e., mobile phone use might not be an initiating factor for ADHD symptoms and the possibility of reverse causality still remained.”
Out in simple terms Lead + mobile phone = ADHD possibly OR Lead = ADHD + more mobile phone use. No clear link found, but in any case Lead was the predominant risk factor.
Fine work Liam!
It’s great to see pseudoscientific tosh debunked. Saves me the bother of doing the work, so hats off to you.
Bye bye Coles.
Banks and Priests used to be seen as very reputable not so long ago in this country. Don’t just accept things because someone has so called scientific evidence to back it up. Johnson and Johnson have just been sued for $72 million dollars for their so called talcum powder causing cancer, yet probably had scientific studies saying that it was safe when clearly it wasn’t, there is thousands of instances like this. Corporations don’t give a feck and will have many studies saying things are safe when they aren’t.
That’s true Coleman that why true scientific journals look for inherent biases. One should ensure that the studies you read (and I mean actually read cover to cover) come from reputable journals.
I for one can write this comment and have it published in numerous journals if i enclose a check. All perfectly legal but all perfectly non-scientific.
I suggest you take the tried and true method of ensuring your science comes from good scholarly sources. Which generally say phone masts may be dangerous but no one can say for sure, even though the weight of evidence says there is no risk to humans.
We’re just discussing information Colm. Keep your hair on.
If a serious medical study finds a clear link between Mobile Phone use and ADHD then that shouldn’t be shouted down. The fact that a ‘relatively high lead intake’ was also present is not grounds for rubbishing the findings of the study particularly because so many Irish people also have a ‘relatively high lead intake’.
That’s a fair point Nathan but what some people seem to forget is that 30 years ago tobacco was seen as safe with plenty of studies providing proof of this. There is also the fact that as you state we can’t be 100% on this but in 30 years time may studies then to state well actually….you know what….and people are giving these people grief over not wanting this near children on this basis. That should be wholeheartedly supported.
The point is it didn’t find a “clear link” the results were inconclusive. Which is exactly what I pointed out. Like I said above if you want to post misleading information and not have anyone call you on it then go to some pseudoscience message board and post away. What about your second link or are you going to ignore that now. It had nothing to do with your point and as I said if you really wanted to draw a conclusion about ADHD and radio waves from those graphs the conclusion would have to be that their is no correlation. No one is shouting you down they are pointing out that you are trying to mislead people. Think of it as us peer-reviewing your research. If significant scientific studies prove a Link between ADHD and mobile phone towers I will be the first to change my mind. Science is about following the evidence. There is no evidence of a link between ADHD and radio waves. The hypothesis has been tested many times and no solid link has ever been found. Usually that means the link doesn’t exist.
It’s not my research Liam, and the study did find a clear link.
“Conclusion – The results suggest that simultaneous exposure to lead and RF from mobile phone use was associated with increased ADHD symptom risk”.
The possibility of reverse causality is absurd.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555766
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605379/figure/pone-0059742-g002/
And there are other studies that have also shown the clear link between mobile phone use and ADHD, particularly a study of pregnant women and children who subsequently develop ADHD. Clearly you are new to this topic but it’s a shame you approach it with such a blinkered mind.
Sorry Colman but that is bull. The scientific consensus 30 years ago was that tobacco was hazardous. You are right in saying that tobacco companies sponsored dodgy research and claimed “the science isn’t conclusive yet” but that is exactly what we are fighting here, biased research. The tobacco companies made it seem like there was still a debate to be had when the wider scientific community knew there wasn’t. Same as this situation or global warming or vaccinations the consensus is clear but dodgy studies make it seem like there is still a debate. We can’t be 100% on anything, ever. So should we not give our kids a ham sandwich because one study says there might be a slight risk of cancer? That’s the exact position of anti-vaxxers. John Oliver did a great bit at the weekend about these crappy studies and the damage they can do https://youtu.be/0Rnq1NpHdmw Check it out it is excellent and it really shows the danger of these fringe studies. Sorry about the big walls of text for some reason my phone won’t allow me to break it up.
Coles those are links to the same studies as before. I’ve already explained that the information in that study is inconclusive not “clear” as you claim. By “peer-reviewing” your research I meant the evidence you collected not that you undertook the research in the document you posted. We are judging you on your ability to correctly interpret the information you are sourcing and posting. Even your quote in your comment is misleading you cut off the end of the conclusion. You claim I approach this subject with a blinkered mind I think it is clear to everyone who is the one who is blinkered. Also, I found the full text of the study you linked to the summary of.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059742
To quote from it
“the increased risk in children who spent more time playing games on a mobile phone suggested that such behavior might be as a consequence of ADHD, i.e., reverse causality, or might be one of the risk factors for ADHD-like symptoms rather than the effect of RF exposure to the brain.”
” further prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between RF exposure from mobile phone use and behavioral problems including ADHD symptoms in children.”
“mobile phone use might not be an initiating factor for ADHD symptoms and the possibility of reverse causality still remained.”
Even the authors of that study acknowledge it is inconclusive. They are respectful of the scientific methoud and understand that this small, inconclusive study is not enough to draw any conclusions (although with more evidenc it could form a part of a genera consensus or be referenced in/ inspire a more conclusive study. Furthermore the study was about mobile phone use not masts so is irrelevent here unless you are arguing that we should get rid of phones or ban sufferers of ADHD from having them.
Seriously, watch that John Oliver clip it is an entertaining explanation of my exact point and the inherent dangers of taking outlying research as gospel.
It is possible to find a study that say’s literally anything you wan’t it to. To find the truth you need consensus.
Now you’re selectively ignoring the important parts of the study!
How did you miss this bit?
“Voice-call use variables (number of outgoing calls per day, average time spent per voice call, and cumulative time spent for voice calls) showed increased risks for ADHD symptoms according to increasing mobile phone exposure. In particular, statistical significance was observed for ADHD symptom risk and dose-response trends for number of outgoing calls per day and average time spent per voice call.”
Serious question. How did you miss that?
I just skimmed the study, but I didn’t miss it. I’ve never said the study is completely useless what I’ve said is that the study is inconclusive and before we take its results as gospel we need a consensus to develop. I said of the study and its authors in my last comment
“They are respectful of the scientific method and understand that this small, inconclusive study is not enough to draw any conclusions although with more evidence it could form a part of a general consensus or be referenced in/ inspire a more conclusive study.”
I stand by that statement, this study is, in and of itself, not completely useless but to call it “clear evidence” is bull. It is a study of 2,500 Korean kids, it was self reported not independently measured, there was no continuous reporting it was an initial questionnaire and then a follow up 2 years later and there was no control group. Again even the authors say its results are inconclusive. Someone below linked to a study that had 35,000 participants over decades with apparently the opposite conclusion. We need a consensus to form and right now the consensus is that their is no correlation.
Now as for that quote if we go to the study and find that quote the sentence immediately preceding it say’s
“Ownership of a mobile phone, age at first ownership of a mobile phone, and text message mobile phone use was not associated with ADHD symptoms.”
And the sentance immediately folowing the quote say’s
“Mobile phone use for playing games or internet use was significantly associated with ADHD symptoms.”
What this entire section including your quote shows is the inconclusive nature of the results. If there was a definitive causality you would expect to see either all phone activities lead to an increase in ADHD symptoms or that only placing the phone against your head (near brain) would increase ADHD symptoms. The fact that text messages yielded no increase yet phone calls did indicates that the cause was proximity to the brain yet the Gaming/Internet data indicates that proximity to the brain was irrelevant (i’e inconclusive). The data-set is too small and the method wasn’t intensive enough to call this study conclusive anyway even if the results weren’t so contradictory. I’ll say it again I bet you the authors would agree with me. They might feel they are on to something but they would have to admit that their data is inconsistent and incomplete and that further study would be necessary.
How does building a mast next to a school have an impact on how much the children in the school use or own a phone?
Anyway, looks like mobile phone radiation has no impact on cancer rates. Go figure.
Liam has done an excellent job of picking apart the arguments. I don’t have much more to add as regards critical judgement of the paper.
I’m a consultant doctor who specialises in ADHD. So I’ve got a few thoughts to add…
This paper is not in a position to posit a causative effect. To do that would be a significantly more technical task of proving that specific radiation causes specific brain changes. That task has not been done. So despite what Colman is saying, there is currently no such relationship.
What this paper has essentially done is establish a relationship between mobile phone use and ADHD (albeit also throwing in lead as an additional factor, which cannot be ignored).
There are many reasons why there should be such a relationship, ranging from extremes of “chance association” to “definitely causes it”.
There’s no doubt that prevalence of ADHD has gone up in recent decades. Most likely this simply reflects a change in society and terminology. A certain number of kids probably always had ADHD, but now we recognise it as such. Likewise, mobile use has shot up. Because we started having them.
Reverse causation is likely: kids with ADHD generally do well with games/technology, because it offers a constantly changing stimulus to occupy their minds. That’s why they struggle to sit still in class, but can play videogames for hours. So that’s a massive confounder.
Getting to your point about being “100% sure it doesn’t harm kids”. That’s not how science works.
Apologies. I was addressing Coles, not Colman. Lots of similar names on this thread, mine included.
@Colm, when you said:
“There’s no doubt that prevalence of ADHD has gone up in recent decades. Most likely this simply reflects a change in society and terminology. A certain number of kids probably always had ADHD, but now we recognise it as such. ”
It’s not for me to point you towards data on your area of specialty, but perhaps you really should look at the US National Survey of Children’s Health and the US National Health Interview Survey. Both are completely standardized and have been for years and clearly show a 50% increase in ADHD over the last 10 years.
Claiming that the increase might be because of different terminology or better detection is nonsense.
Of course there are plenty of things that might cause ADHD, but non-ionizing radiowaves have clearly been shown to impact on brain function. I find it bizarre that someone who claims to be an expert on ADHD hasn’t had enough interest in the subject to read up on it, but then again you probably are content to focus on curing the symptoms, right? Commendable work, but really we should be asking hard questions about what is driving the increase in prevalence.
Of course kids with ADHD like video games. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the increased occurrence of ADHD symptoms in children who use mobile phones excessively for verbal communication (ie holding it to their head).
This is an interesting topic and really the cesspit of TheJournal comments page isn’t the appropriate place to discuss it.
I spent half my morning arguing with you Coles (not complaining it was kinda entertaining). I’ve just given up. You have no interest in learning anything. You make a stupid easily repudiated statement, I or someone else points out the flaws in your argument then without actually challenging the points made you persists with your misinformation (you are still falsely stating “non-ionizing radio waves have clearly been shown to impact on brain function”) . It’s like trying to explain the scientific method to a cat.
You aren’t just wilfully ignorant you are arrogant too. Colm has had probably well over a decade of education and who knows how many years of experience yet you still treat him with such condescension. You are arrogant enough to believe you are so much more enlightened than everybody else, even people with an education and experience on the topic at hand.
I thought this day and age people would have got over that myth of mobile phone mast! First off your phone transmits to the nearest mast, you hold it in your hand, that’s were the concerns started off originally. When your low or out of coverage your phones transmitter works at its highest capacity to maintain connection. If your in a low coverage area your battery will drain faster. The operation frequencies of mobile phones are “high” compared to radio & tv frequencies, and is bellow wifi and are non-iodizing, the power levels are only a few watts. They should go protest at the sun for shining it’s more dangerous
Given the fact that children don’t use mobile phones while in their classroom could you explain how that is in any way relevant to siting a mast beside their school.
Well then there’s no problem then! How about the houses beside the school and the people passing? Did you even read my comment or just pick the bits that suited your agenda? Get educated on the topic before commenting it just go make your tinfoil hat
Knickers too tight?
None of that impacts the power of the mast. Again, children don’t use mobile phones in class so it really doesn’t benefit them much that their batteries last longer. Good lad.
Are you feeling ok Coles? Do you know the technical aspect of antennas?? They transmit the signal horizontally not vertically, if you are underneath the mast it has very little affect, you need to be at least 300 meters away to get full ground coverage, foil insulation & materials reduces signal in buildings, but we’re talking about NON-IODIZING radiation here, 1990Mhz with a few hundred watts you fool!
Anti mast groups are on the same level of intelligence as anti vaxxers. They are scared by what they don’t understand but can’t admit their low intelligence like coles so they spread misinformation, nice and simple for others likewise folk to nod along in agreement
Greatest risk to human health from mobile communications is the numpties that can’t keep away from the phone while driving. Texting while driving is madness.
Ah now, there are always the cell phone cancer rays. https://xkcd.com/273/
Or of course that cancer causes cell phones. https://xkcd.com/925/
Ahhh, the pseudo science brigade is out in force again. “But I saw a you tube video on it so I know it’s true!”
Depending on who you believe, mobile ‘phones actually emit more radiation that transmitters do and some people carry them close to their body, which is NEVER a good idea. Whatever the facts about their dangers are, if any of these objecting parents use mobile ‘phones, then they’re probably guilty of a little bit of double standards and NIMBYism.
These same people will complain about bad mobile service……..#notinmybackyard
I hope all those kids are wearing copper bracelets or they’ll get rheumatism in later life.
I see their concerns . You’d think Vodafone would just put it in a different location to avoid bad press…
Why stop there? There are groups that want wifi removed from schools on similar pseudoscientific grounds.
Feelings overrules facts every time…
Only a few days ago a study of 35,000 mobile phone users over decades was published.
It showed that there is NO increase in brain cancer,or any other malady, associated with mobile phones.
Link:
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phones-dont-cause-brain-cancer-691449/
.
Ironically, the nearer you are to a mast the lower the transmissions from your phone.
(The phone’s transmitter doesn’t have to “shout” at a nearby mast ).
So if you want to feel “safe” get NEARER to a mast.
(Like UFOs…this nonsense about phone masts will never end I suppose.)
Pat to be honest, with the proliferation of mobile phone cameras, UFOs and ghost sightings have pretty much disappeared. If I say to you I saw an UFO you will say, why didn’t you take a photo of it with your phone? :P
If masts are a no no near school, so should the be elsewhere. If they are not safe, they are not safe. Won’t someone think of the children?
Shocking that parents would be so concerned about this meanwhile they allow their children to be educated and forced into a life of salaried servitude to our fiat monetary system of fractional reserve banking.
They’re just battery hens in the global conspiracy to feed the mortgage machine and the capitalist elite bankers.
Mobile phone masts should be the least of their worries.
Wally really got inside your head…Didn’t he?
The parents are neo liberal elites and want to destroy mobile reception so that the working man can never receive phone calls offering them work, clearly.
They could remove the masts near mount joy first
Sure there’s a mobile mast on every garda station in the country. They don’t have a choice in them being there
We need a percentage of our TDs elected from a national list. Cut out some of the parish pump politics. I haven’t quite figured out a fair way of getting your name on the list though.
My beloved elderly Pioneer stereo goes snap,crackle and pop when even before I hear the text or ring tone, and I listen to my stereo. If these waves can affect electronic hardware then perhaps our far more sensitive and delicate neuron systems may also be affected, try to think about it while we still can.
Good Christ. What absolute nonsense from the Stop Vodaphone mast committee. I’ve written before on why, but pro-tip: everything they said is pretty much garbage.
One very simple concept: the precautionary principle.
Can I prove that it is harmful? Nope.
Can they prove that spending long periods of time in the beam of greatest intensity of a mast is safe? Nope.
I was just like the rest of you. I couldn’t give a rat’s arse until I realised that my kids are the guinea pigs in an everyday life experiment to show who is o so right and who is o so wrong.
Do I own a mobile phone? You bet your arse I do! Like the rest of you, I am addicted to streaming Youtube videos of funny pandas on the go. I want 4G, 5G, 9G. 125G everywhere and at all times. I want G spots everywhere.
And I want to stream videos of kittens doing funny things. On the go.
Am I worried about a mast going up next to my kids’ school? Yes. As much as I am worried about not being able to stream an Epic Fails 2016 compilation while waiting for the bus.
Am I ridiculous for being worried? The most vocal among you seem to think so.
But at least I know for sure that ridicule doesn’t kill. I should know.
One has to despair that BS like this happens at a place of learning.
I wonder if they cover Unicorns in biology class as well?
A concern indeed, but minuscule in contrast to threat posed the RF radiation from the school WiFi, laptops, smart phones etc.
It will mean the guards will be pulled off their political policing water meter duty Dennis will not be amused.Free the wicklow 2 Sean and Eamon….
Id be more worried about how children are being taught to share and be nice to each other. It must be very confusing for them as they grow older…
have your say