"Dangerous" EMR - the new hysterical trend

[Guest Baked]

Anyone listen to the show on NPR this afternoon with the two loony broads complaining about radio waves ruining their lives?

 

In my opinion they did not present a lick of evidence for their case and failed to mention any of the hundreds of studies that were unable to document any deleterious health effects of radio waves in any part of the spectrum (unless you count microwaving small animals).

 

Seriously, If there is a problem with RF even at high power, don't you think it would show up in people who are around it all the time? like HAM or military radio operators. These are the real deal as far powered RF goes. not the the milliwatt power of cell phones or wi-fi.

 

The funny thing about that program... I heard it on the radio... and I feel fine.

 

That is all carry on.

 

[Guest Guest]

I challenge you to read this. Its not that long you should be able to get through it. Check out the sources listed and tell me what you think.

 

http://highstrangeness.tv/articles/cellphone.php

 

if you have more time read the extensive Bioinitiative Report done by an international group of PhD's and scientists, including some from SUNY.

http://bioinitiative.org/

 

This literature demonstrates and proves the danger of Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR).

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Anyone listen to the show on NPR this afternoon with the two loony broads complaining about radio waves ruining their lives?

 

In my opinion they did not present a lick of evidence for their case and failed to mention any of the hundreds of studies that were unable to document any deleterious health effects of radio waves in any part of the spectrum (unless you count microwaving small animals).

 

Seriously, If there is a problem with RF even at high power, don't you think it would show up in people who are around it all the time? like HAM or military radio operators. These are the real deal as far powered RF goes. not the the milliwatt power of cell phones or wi-fi.

 

The funny thing about that program... I heard it on the radio... and I feel fine.

 

That is all carry on.

 

I'm sure that you have some clear scientific evidence to back up your point.

 

[Guest baked]

I challenge you to read this. Its not that long you should be able to get through it. Check out the sources listed and tell me what you think.

 

http://highstrangeness.tv/articles/cellphone.php

 

if you have more time read the extensive Bioinitiative Report done by an international group of PhD's and scientists, including some from SUNY.

http://bioinitiative.org/

 

This literature demonstrates and proves the danger of Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR).

 

 

@

 

Thanks for your confidence in my abilities. The links in the first article you cited are dead ends. The studies cited at the end of the article are not accessible on the internet and therefor can not evaluated by me. And I seriously doubt you have taken the time to find the obscure journals and read them yourself.

 

And the "extensive" report By one Cindy Sage of Sage associates is a very subjective interpretation of available science.

 

Here is one telling quote from the report.

 

“In principle, the assessment of the evidence should combine with judgment based on other

societal values, for example, costs and benefits, acceptability of risks, cultural preferences, etc.

and result in sound and effective decision-making. Decisions on these matters are eventually

taken as a function of the views, values and interests of the stakeholders participating in the

process, whose opinions are then weighed depending on several factors. Scientific evidence

perhaps carries, or should carry, relatively heavy weight, but grants no exclusive status;

decisions will be evidence-based but will also be based on other factors.” (1)

 

I call BEAN SALAD.

 

Here are a couple more substantive links

http://www.badscience.net/?p=466

http://iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for your confidence in my abilities. The links in the first article you cited are dead ends. The studies cited at the end of the article are not accessible on the internet and therefor can not evaluated by me. And I seriously doubt you have taken the time to find the obscure journals and read them yourself.

 

And the "extensive" report By one Cindy Sage of Sage associates is a very subjective interpretation of available science.

 

Here is one telling quote from the report.

 

“In principle, the assessment of the evidence should combine with judgment based on other

societal values, for example, costs and benefits, acceptability of risks, cultural preferences, etc.

and result in sound and effective decision-making. Decisions on these matters are eventually

taken as a function of the views, values and interests of the stakeholders participating in the

process, whose opinions are then weighed depending on several factors. Scientific evidence

perhaps carries, or should carry, relatively heavy weight, but grants no exclusive status;

decisions will be evidence-based but will also be based on other factors.” (1)

 

I call BEAN SALAD.

 

Here are a couple more substantive links

http://www.badscience.net/?p=466

http://iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf

 

 

@

 

Here is the table of contents of the report:

 

BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Exposure Standard

for Electromagnetic Radiation

SECTION i. PREFACE

SECTION ii: TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC AND CONCLUSIONS

Ms. Sage

SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Ms. Sage

SECTION 3: THE EXISTING PUBLIC EXPOSURE STANDARDS

Ms. Sage

SECTION 4: EVIDENCE FOR INADEQUACY OF THE STANDARDS

Ms. Sage

SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN

EXPRESSION (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)

Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen

SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RFR AND ELF

DNA DAMAGE

Dr. Lai

SECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS)

Dr. Blank

SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION

Dr. Johansson

1

SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND

BEHAVIOR

Dr. Lai

SECTION 10: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC

NEUROMAS

Dr. Hardell, Dr.Mild and Dr. Kundi

SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA0

Dr. Kundi

SECTION 12: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE: MELATONIN

PRODUCTION; ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE; BREAST

CANCER

Dr. Davanipour and Dr. Sobel

SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION

(Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies)

Ms. Sage

SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING

SIGNAL

Dr. Blackman

SECTION 15 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS

Ms. Sage

SECTION 16: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Mr. Gee

SECTION 17: KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND

PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Dr. Carpenter and Ms. Sage

SECTION 18: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND AFFILIATIONS

SECTION 19: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SECTION 20: APPENDIX - Ambient ELF and RF levels

Average residential and occupational exposures

SECTION 21: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

 

 

Notice how there are many different authors for the different chapters? You make it sound as if it is the work of one person alone.

 

Maybe you were unable to locate the download link for the complete 610 page report, here it is http://bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

 

 

The first link you gave is dead.

 

The second one attempts to suggest that EHS or EMR sensitivity is merely psychosomatic and that there is no physiological danger to health in EMR. I call Bean Salad!!

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/m...ish-skin-custom

 

Read this article from a well known and respected UK newspaper printed in 1986.

 

In the first paragraph they mention the "known neurophysiological effects of electromagnetic waves, or low level radiation" to include headache, dizziness and concentration/memory difficulties.

 

[Guest Guest]

By far across the electomagnetic spectrum the most powerful transmitter is the sun. In terms of total exposure (intensity/time) solar radiation dwarfs all man made sources. The field density of a transmitted signal drops off exponentially as one moves further away from the radiator (antenna). What this all means is that is that a day at the beach does one more harm than spending a day next to a radio station or at the base of a cell tower. The worst exposure of all is in a high flying airliner! The second is a leaky door gasket on a microwave oven. If rf exposure is truly a concern don't fly and measure the leakage from the food nuker!

 

Do the research and the math yourself and help defeat yet another bit of junk science used to fill a slow news day or occupy a few minutes of dead air. There are many rf density calculators on line. Look a few up and plug in the numbers. Keep in mind that fear sells a lot of newspapers and air time.