Short answer: No, no they are not. Alarmist reporting and poorly-designed and poorly-analyzed epidemiological studies are to blame. Oh, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Even if the highly unlikely were true and one of the more credible (and I use that term lightly) theories were right, a mechanism for indirect harm linked to close proximity to cell phone towers et. al. (or electromagnetic fields for that matter) would still only result in very minute increases in disease occurrence.

Chaucer i'd like to try and answer your posts. The best i can.

#2 i don't know right now but I'll try to find an answer.

#3 Just because something heats up doesn't mean it expands just means there's more energy in the system that's all.

#4 The fact that the earth was covered in salt water isn't guess work, and the blue-green algae is still around today. Oxygen is one of its natural byproducts. More Oxygen is put into the atmosphere by these same algae today than all of the forests in the world combine. It also has a cousin usually referred to as the red tide. It kills all of the fish in the area because it consumes all of the oxygen and gets rid of it into the air and not back into the water.

#5 If mass is gained then gravity must all so increase. They are bound together by the law's of physics. F=mg (force=mass*gravity) That fact alone destroys this idea so completely. We know what the mass of the earth and the moon are and can build models to show there effects on each other. And every year the moon drifts 30cm away from us. That's not much but in 5 million years we will no longer have a moon. If this idea was correct the moon should be getting closer each year because of the expansion and the increase in gravity over time. So for this to be true no mass is gained but the moon should still be getting closer to us because of the expansion but its not. The Apollo missions put mirrors on the moon and ground based lasers get shot at them then the time to return is calculated and every year its drifts 30cm away from us. So wave good bye while you still can.

Another point i just thought of is the fact that the core of the earth is active and produces and electromagnetic field around the earth that blocks the suns radiation as best it can. if the core or the earth were increasing in size wouldn't that field also increase at a constant rate as apposed to the one we have now that fluctuates and has switched direction at least 3 times now. We can tell it has changed poles because of molten iron deposits from volcano's millions of years ago have there own magnetic fields backwards and some with very little fields at all.

Its an interesting idea but nothing more. It was fun to think about counter arguments to it.

I agree with Dr. Feynman. It is absolutely fascinating that all around all of the time are incredible amounts of interracting electromagnetic field information. And it is interesting to think of our eyes as instruments which are tuned to see a certain spectrum of this informatino, much as a radio is tuned to hear another spectrum.



Richard Feynman, 1985. QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton Univ. Press. ...its a good, quick read, and was forced upon me in my undergrad days.

Hey there, I'm the author of the video on YouTube. I read John W. Farley, Ph.D's "debunking" article, but I am not convinced. If the earth's electromagnetic field was so much stronger than those from power lines, then how come every flourescent light on the planet does not automatically light up like mind did under the power lines? This is where his science fails.. He does not consider the concentration of the field per cubic area of space at the point of exposure. Sure the earth's field could be hundreds of thousands or millions of times stronger as a whole than any one power line, BUT, that field is spread out over a volume of space so large, that it makes the concentration of the field delivered to the space inhabited at any moment by an individual's body about nill. Whereas when an individual is in close proximity to a power line, it is a potently concentrated field radiating directly from the lines, not some distant core thosands of miles deep. Therefore, the exposure at that moment to an individual is severely more potent than exposure to any planetary radiation field. It's about concentration delivered at exposure, NOT overal strength of the field where the distance from the central point of radiation of any said fields are not equal.. they can't be compared on terms of overall field strength in any meaningful manner in this context of exposure. Here's some science for John W. Farley, Ph.D... Inverse square law.. It states that exposure to any radiation is exponentially weaker (the inverted square) as you double distance from the source. Therefore since the earth's field is fairly well distributed to meaninglessness in the context of individual exposure, it can't be realistically even considered as a standard to judge a concentrated exposure of a nearby high voltage power line. I stand by my experiment as a more meaningful judgement of which field is stronger!