I had a meter which is totally reliable. My wife got symptoms and asked me to measure. The meter is directional so there was no doubt. The reading showed it was operating at full power (about 3,000 uW/sqm). Even if every tower in the area was at full strength the value could never be above about 4 uW/sqm because of the inverse square law. I only had severe symptoms afterwards. Now how can I be mistaken?
I'll leave the scientific answers to those more qualified.
However, I note that you have avoided answering my questions regarding your dismissal of the evidence brought to the court that the tower had been turned off. You have simply asserted that it was all lies, without providing any evidence to support this.
This does also rather re-emphasise the general point, that you simply cannot conceive that you might be mistaken. Do you consider yourself to be infallible?
Do you not realize that you jump to bad conclusions because of your bias?
Actually, no, I don't, because all I have done on this topic is to ask you questions, and basically all you have done is to ignore or dodge them.
What conclusions do you think I have reached, and what bias do you think I have that influenced them?
The judge said he accepted the metering companies evidence because they are a big corporate and as such they were the better witness.
Which is yet another unsupported claim on your part. I will, for the sake of form more than an actual expectation of a straight answer, ask you to highlight the specific part of the court transcripts where the judge said those words.
I will be laying a police complaint of statutory perjury because the "evidence" the company provided DOES show the tower had to be on for 36 hours during the month of January 2019. They distorted the graph so it was not immediately obvious but a careful analysis makes it clear. You know how the magician does the trick - he tells you what he wants you to see. The power company invoice will also show 36 hours of power instead of 1 hour of testing.
Well, good luck with that. Will the police be lucky enough to actually see the graph and the invoice? Somehow, I doubt that we will be, here on this forum.
The judge did not follow the law - which was that in such cases where people offer contradicting evidence on such a critical point he should have asked for verbal testimony or further evidence. But wait. This issue is not dead - far from it. You may even read about it in the media.
I will echo that call for you to cite the relevant parts of South African law, and add that it would be nice if you could highlight the same in the court records. I would like to see exactly what the judge ruled.
