Nov 29, 2011 at 12:58:52
“This is the tip of the iceberg re general manmade RF damage to biological beings. Further, there are many studies already showing such male reproductive damage (see from Agarwal in Cleveland e.g.). These results are being found all over the world, studies even initiated by fertility clinics where things ain't working like they used to, the usual attribution is to cell phone in pocket. The industry knows it is harming & even killing people, who mostly just go along. Here's just one study from a few years back www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647 , on knob-, pin-, banana- like sperm head deformities. Wake up everybody! This is the most serious health & enviro issue going -- ALL RF usage & dependencies needs to be urgently rethought & redone.”
Aug 9, 2012 at 22:58:43
“It is almost amazing that artificial visible spectrum is accepted as implicated in these deleterious health effects, but the radiofrequency is not. There is a great deal of research not connected to industry that indicates harm from such exposures, from cell towers to wifi, phone to wireless smart meters. What you don't see can hurt you. Melatonin suppression, among a host of bad effects which if ignored lead to things like cancer & dementia, is also linked to rf, why not mention that?”
Aug 16, 2011 at 22:15:28
“How does it make sense to mass deploy a device that depends on an injurious infrastructure, leading to the 9-1-1 calls made from the devices?? If everyone is so taken by the dubious personal & family security mania of the past decade, there are many other ways imaginable, including involving radiofrequency, to arrange for a sense of security, minus the constant onslaught of infrastructure surely proven to any independent observer to be gravely deleterious to public & environmental health -- sci. studies abound, but are shunted from mainstream view. or consideration.
Don't fall for that last recourse of defenders of the indefensible -- "what'll you do in an emergency?", as if that is how it ridiculously has to be.”
Aug 14, 2011 at 21:05:43
“Mike H., it's about complex biology in the first instance, not about the physics of the proverbial perfectly round chicken, or sack of saline ludicrously used to model humans to determine RF "safety".
What about all the studies showing DNA damage? These doubtless influenced IARC to move in the right direction, albeit far too mildly, as did examination of budding descriptions of plausible mechanisms of harm. Why do mainstream filterers of information, like Mr Otto here, not lay out this kind of thing before you?”
Aug 14, 2011 at 20:48:42
“Mike H., too bad it is the basics of complex biology that are pre-eminent here, not physics. There are many pathways of harm from artificial RF, well-studied and often found at exquisitely low power levels. How about Frey effect hearing, for instance? Industry-connected research cannot deny this even -- but they try to palm it off as non-adverse bioeffect. This RF-induced tinnitus is now rampant, tell sufferers about its "non-adversity"! No pain in the brain -- sonic warning instead.
DNA breaks? Lots of science that shows such. Otto & co just won't tell you about it. Why?”
Mike Haubrich on Aug 17, 2011 at 20:52:02
“Because we are getting millions of dollars from Verizon. Exposed!”
"The exposure of male mice to radiofrequency radiations from mobile phone (GSM) base stations at a workplace complex and residential quarters caused 39.78 and 46.03%, respectively, in sperm head abnormalities compared to 2.13% in control group. Statistical analysis of sperm head abnormality score showed that there was a significant (p < 0.05) difference in occurrence of sperm head abnormalities in test animals. The major abnormalities observed were knobbed hook, pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The occurrence of the sperm head abnormalities was also found to be dose dependent. The implications of the observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were discussed."
Aug 12, 2011 at 08:54:36
“You're not into the one scholar' studies & travails? Fine, just consult the link below at the 10:32 for hundreds more. You don't care about corruption? Not so fine -- you prefer the industry-connected pile of studies? You prefer having, say, a court case heard before a judge with connexions to the accused?
I don't think your post adds anything of worth to this discssion.”
CountLeo on Aug 12, 2011 at 09:13:25
“I prefer science. Correlation studies - however fancy and well written - cannot but their nature show cause and effect. You cannot rule out other factors. I can argue that the cold from a refrigerator is a special kind of cold that causes disease - we can see a rise in diseases of civilization with increased use of refers. You would rightly say huh? But I can write it up just as pretty as anyone. Remember - just because you say something that doesn't make it true.
I am very aware of the studies of both side of this argument - have a big fat file sitting right in front of me. I'm sticking with science.”
Aug 12, 2011 at 06:52:02
“[rest of split post]
The Scand. study you mention should hardly reassure, for many reasons, incl I believe exclusion of business users, having been too early for cancer to develop, etc. At IARC, Hardell's studies proved most significant, and the endangered heavy users in that retrospective were what is now average -- we're in very big trouble indeed.
Why not close with anecdotes: a few days ago, an extended family member told of attending two funerals of twenty-something acquaintances -- brain tumours; a few weeks before, another extended family member told of two 12-yr-olds with brain tumours in her school; a few weeks before that, we learned of a neighbour's brain tumour removed. From Australia, neurosurgeons Khurana & Teo are responsibly crying aloud about what they are seeing inside heads.
Yet when the focus is on cancer, tumours, it is stupidly too late, for having ignored a broad and telling symptomology, and 100s even 1000s of studies pointing to harm. And it is not all about the devices, most insidious and immoral of all would be the killing infrastructure.”
CountLeo on Aug 12, 2011 at 11:35:22
“Have you read the Scandinavian studies? They're available on-line for free. They are weill done and you are right - they exclude a subset of business users because they can't verify their usage - this is exactly how you do a cohort study. They are very rigorous and should give sane mined users some peace of mind.
Hardell's work is flawed by design: correlation studies do not - can not - indicate cause and effect. He could just as easily argue that the cold from refridgerators statistically correlate with the rise in diseases of civilization. He could use the same graphs and the same academic jargon and probably get a few people to follow him here on the Huff.”
Aug 12, 2011 at 06:49:27
“Put the head back together again, follow links below, eg re Panagopoulos - mention of one "mechanism", among likely various pathways of harm, and description of irregular gating of ion channels replete with equations, is at the heart of a textbook chapter authored by this scholar. Plausible & probable mechanisms make it into textbooks, influence IARC, and via mainstream media the general public is still hoodwinked into your "explosive" state. This scholar is one of many who suffer persecution for honest & capable findings -- right after testimony at those hearings, he lost his academic office, had transfer to a prestigious research institute blocked, had a new paper refused by irregular process at a journal where he has published oft-cited work. On the basis of his work, Greek courts have ruled against cell base station antennae -- beginning to get the picture? Three Euro. colleague witnesses at those same hearings also lost their offices for similar whistleblowing, in what seems to be a Euro-style method of academic persecution.
CountLeo on Aug 12, 2011 at 08:36:20
“Paragraphs my man! Paragraphs!
I don't need to read and pseudo- reports or silly business about how the one true researcher can't get his papers published because of the mean state corporate meanies.
Aug 11, 2011 at 23:13:12
“[the quote on ICNIRP etc]:.
29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and
adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:
– in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;
– and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health..”
Aug 11, 2011 at 23:11:11
“IARC's actual monograph can take a year to appear. Why not read on how the WHO has been previously malevolently influenced, as have so many regulatory bodies, in looking away from or otherwise excluding uncomfortable evidence -- see Don Maisch's book, The Procrustean Approach, of grim but apt title, http://international-emf-alliance.org/images/pdf/The_Procrustean_Approach.pdf . Notice the May 6 document of the Enviro. etc. committee of Council of Europe, about as august a political advisory body as there is, report adopted by its Parliamentary Assembly, containing for such a venue strong language about ICNIRP on which the WHO has depended, http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.pdf : [split post, quote to follow]”
Aug 11, 2011 at 22:32:17
“Good of you to intervene here. One convenient list of many studies is available at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp . cable1977, no need to line up 5 for your game, readers can browse as they wish. As interesting for public policy judgement, is the sorry history involved. Devra Davis has written for this website, and the best part of her recent book, Disconnect:
the truth about cell phone radiation, what the industry has done to hide it [...], are the quotes from researchers commenting on the corrupted state of science in this field. Andrew Marino's recent, Going Somewhere, is valuable for its inside view of the corruption. Why not start with Paul Brodeur's 1977 masterwork, The Zapping of America, which set off quite the public controversy (described in N. Steneck's so-so, The Microwave Debate, '85), from which perpetrators learned the need to sufficiently influence mainstream media. A useful recent review, pointedly mentioning the Moscow US Embassy incident (gone into in Steneck), is found at http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/A10-018 . It should be easy to see that something is very, very wrong with the assurances of Otto et al.”
cable1977 on Aug 11, 2011 at 23:16:41
“As I pointed out below, I would question your ability to ascertain good science from bad science.”
Aug 11, 2011 at 21:06:56
“We see exclusion from your sweep-of-the-hand commentary, of the U. of Athens studies offered. Regardless of my own opinion on the status of the studies criticized, there are several 1000 studies over decades -- more than for any other public health matter, what makes RF different if not all the interests & dependencies that skew judgement re safety? -- pointing to harm. Start with what industry & abettors have to admit, Frey effect hearing, now epidemic, at ever-decreasing power levels. No pain in the brain -- sonic warning instead. How does that fit into Otto's assurances? How about that in-surers backed away long ago, in expectation of catastrophic court judgements, that would dwarf eg asbestos? There has been much writing on co-optation of bioeffects research throughout the past century -- are you oblivious to it all, from lead to asbestos to you name it? A quote from, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health ('08, Michaels):
[internal memo from beryllium manufacturer:] "If beryllium is determined to be a carcinogen [...] Loss of invested savings for stockholders [is a real suffering that has] to be equated
against the hypothetical nature of an unproven health hazard [...]" That kind of attitude is only one angle on the descent into this mess of dangers from wireless mania. Have you read the account of science by PR, in whistleblower Robert C. Kane's, http://www.scribd.com/doc/21783803/Cellular-Telephone-Russian-Roulette ?”
Michael5MacKay on Aug 13, 2011 at 23:19:55
“Again with the Gish Gallop. Now you're talking about beryllium. If you can't tell us why the University of Athens studies are junk science, or should be believed, or why they haven't been replicated or formed the basis of further research, you're not worth reading.”
Aug 11, 2011 at 18:30:59
“Did cable1977 have a look at the Blackman? At his, the report's generally, & those two cell mast studies', bibliographies? Do studies stand alone? Does variegated evidence, from many investigations in many places, not make for a strong case? When two other studies, in line with other bioeffects research travesties, demonstrate a radical skewing of study results based on funding source, is that not even more interesting in the first instance, than actual study quality? When permissive regulators internationally rely on a ludicrous "weight of evidence", as in heavier number of studies from heavier industry-connected influence, how are even single studies from independents not possibly determinative for sound public health judgement? Would you know that on the deleterious bioeffects of manmade RF, there exists more by far than for any other public health matter? Is there not a sorry 20th century history from which perpetrators' advisors can draw and refine, from lead to asbestos to you name it? If you like tighter surroundings for a study, how's this summary of a decade of lab work, from just after minute 0925 at http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4478290&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3 , Panagopoulos'?”
cable1977 on Aug 11, 2011 at 23:38:53
“Why did you choose to ignore my criticisms and instead choose to engage in the rhetorical device known as the Gish Gallop?
"The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised. "
You are attempting to claim that the science that you are posting is "high caliber". If it is, then why are the studies so fraught with some of the most basic errors of science and statistics? The true goal of science is to try to disprove a hypothesis, not to prove it, and failing to do so provides evidence that your original hypothesis is indeed correct. That is what makes high caliber science.
So, if the studies you cite are indeed "high caliber", then explain why this is so despite the major flaws present. If you cannot do so, then it calls into question your ability to judge good science from bad science. If you can do that, then we can move onto your other points.
If you cannot address my points above, then there is no point in continuing this as you are only interested in the repetition of rhetoric, not any real understanding of science.”
Aug 11, 2011 at 09:34:21
“Doing readers a terrible disservice, Otto seems to assault rather
than defend science himself. Why compare manmade radiation with its
modulation patterns, to non-man-made? Why assume that the spectrum
range not atmospherically opaque, is for humans to exploit as
they do, rather than must be kept clear for full biological flourishin
g? Why rest content with simplistic linear relationships, when for
decades experimentally-shown phenomena like "windows", "peaks",
temporally cumulative exposures, biovariability, "resonance" etc,
make for a bogglingly complex field, thrust aside in the push for mass
cell telephony? See eg Blackman's section 14 of the Bioinitiative
Report, (via http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/report/index.htm
), for a glimpse of the complexity esp. re modulation, that this
defender of science totally ignores.
Why not mention IARC dissenters thinking enough evidence exists for
2A? One in France treating very many "electrosensitives", speaks of
the evidentiary trend to class 1 carcinogen? And why focus on
cancer, there are all kinds of other symptoms, by ignoring which
cancer is one result. What about cell infrastructure dangers? Two
fine recent studies -- unreported in the mainstream -- deal with such
broad symptomology, and the deathly cancerous result of ignoring
such: "Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation in Selbitz
Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship " &
How is science defended by ignoring science of high calibre?”
cable1977 on Aug 11, 2011 at 17:29:16
“The second paper, looking at death from neoplasia's in Brazil, is also equally fraught with problems. The authors fail to account for any other possibilities or control their data for any other issues.
When one looks at the data, one sees an increase in cancer deaths where the cellphone towers are most concentrated. However, correlation does not imply causation. The cellphone towers are concentrated in areas of increased population density. Those areas are also where there will be greater concentrations of known cancer causing agents, such as air pollution. Failure to control for other such factors makes it impossible to conclude that it is the cell phone towers that are causing the problem.
Again, if this is what you consider high calibre science, I'd hate to see what you consider bad science.”
cable1977 on Aug 11, 2011 at 17:19:28
“"How is science defended by ignoring science of high calibre?"
I would question your assertion that the science is high calibre. You posted links to two studies. If we examine the first one, on health symptoms in Selbitz, there is one major flaw that pops out upon initial examination. In order to observe any effect, they have to lump their groups together and then perform a t-test of the data, when they should have actually used an ANOVA as they collected data from different distances from the tower. If there is truly an effect, then the authors should have examined this over distance looking for a significant effect of a dose-response relationship. Unfortunately, they probably received too few responses for this to be valid assessment which would generate the statistical significance they hoped to achieve.
A second major problem was the very low response rate. They brings up the concern about selection bias.
If the individuals who responded were more likely to be concerned about cell phone radiation, they may also be more likely to report symptoms based on their concerns and their known distance from the cell phone tower rather than actually having medical conditions.
If you really think that this is science of high calibre, I think that disqualifies you from judging good science.”
Matthew Tyson on Aug 11, 2011 at 17:15:11
“Thanks for this response. It lays out a good response to the standard mind-set repeated in this article.
Another question I have is, if the radio waves we use for cell phones, wireless, et al, cannot penetrate the human body (as implied by the article) - then how do that travel through walls and homes? It seems pretty clear that these waves *do* penetrate these objects.
Its interest how resistant people are to accepting there may be issues with our wireless technologies. They simply do not want to see it. Why is that?”
Oct 13, 2010 at 13:03:26
“How does the author say "The good news is most of us don't have to give up our Smart phones if we use them wisely" and at the same time warn about exposure to ubiquitous phone infrastructure? Why this "disconnect" in reasoning & ethics? Same goes for Davis' non sequitur approach.”
Camilla Rees on Oct 15, 2010 at 18:32:09
“This is an important point. While there are steps we can take to minimize our exposure to electromagnetic fields of all kinds, described in Gittleman's new book, ZAPPED, it is true that protecting ourselves and our families individually does not address the bigger societal issue regarding ever-present exposure to cellular and other wireless infrastructure, including new utility technologies. For the average person, focusing on cleaning up one's home, office and school environment from electromagnetic fields will be all that they can do and these steps will reduce risks greatly. For those who want to take on the bigger societal issue, which means fostering change at the federal level to restore communities rights to limit wireless, and also change federal exposure guidelines based on the full body of science available, not simply the thermalists assumptions, it is time to step up and get involved, working within the democratic process. For starters I recommend people 1) sign the EMF Petition to Congress at ElectromagenticHealth.org. http://electromagnetichealth.org/, 2) watch the film on this topic FULL SIGNAL and 3) contact your member of Congress and say you care about the harm we are doing to our bodies and environment from unchecked proliferation of electromagnetic fields. We need to restore a responsive federal government and it wont happen unless enough people take a stand.
"Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution"”