Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 02:09   #151
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
Hi Ed,

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
As I see it, you actually do accept the statistical results but have a variety of alternate explanations for why they came about. That's fine, but in the end it's up to you, the critic, to provide additional evidence to show their viability.
I don't think it works that way, or bad documentation would guarantee scientific irrefutability.

Most likely, poorly documented studies get ignored, not refuted.


Balmori published his study in 2005, and apparently no-one was impressed enough to try and support his results by conducting a similar study - at least, Manville didn't cite any confirming study in his 2016 memo, and I'd not expect him to miss such a valuable contribution to his case.

Even more telling, Balmori himself obviously didn't follow up on his study by monitoring the White Storks' breeding success in the subsequent years. If he had found a way to prove the harmful influence of cellphone towers, why didn't he pursue it? It's not like he lost interest in the topic, as he kept publishing on electrosmog topics.

Balmori seemingly is his first (paternal) surname according to Spanish custom, which would be the relevant one for reference purposes.

Regards,

Henning
Hi Henning,

The highlighted statements may be what you believe, but they don't resonate with me as valid generalizations. And the two paragraphs that follow really constitute throwing the kitchen sink at the guy. Apparently it's not enough that Manville found Balmori's 2005 & 2007 field studies important enough to discuss in 2016, pg. 3-4, so you condemn the fact that neither he nor others published replications. The Balmori and Hallberg (2007) field study found similar effects on House Sparrows (which I didn't read), but apparently that doesn't qualify. All in all, it's your negative conjectures fashioned from whole cloth.

Note the last paragraph to my earlier post about the U-statistic, where again we're nowhere near being on the same sheet of music. (HoHum, as they say.)

I appreciate the clarification about Spanish publication customs.

Cheers,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Sunday 5th November 2017 at 06:26.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 08:22   #152
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
Can anyone help?

Hi, everyone,

I have been sent a truly remarkable document which discusses in detail the fall in/disappearance of bird, insect, plant and animal species on Mt. Nardi, New South Wales, Australia as a result of of the installation and upgrading of wireless communications towers and antennae. The author has tracked what happened to a large number of species since the introduction of the cell towers 15 years ago, and it makes very interesting reading. I really would like you all to see it.

Unfortunately, I am having trouble attaching it. It opens for me in PDF format, but the file doesn't have the adobe acrobat symbol on it, and I can't get it to load. Can anybody help me with this? I can email it, and maybe one of you can find a way to convert the file so that it loads onto this site? I would really appreciate it.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 08:46   #153
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Gordon. Exactly how can people who cannot afford indoor toilets going to afford the expense of mobile communications? Telecoms companies do not provide the infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, nor do they subsidize the expense of the devices or the service.

@ Jos. What do you think is causing the decrease in European populations,then? Infertility is a major issue these days, or there wouldn't be so many infertility clinics/treatments. If you can categorically state that the drop in human population has zero to do with electromagnetic radiation, where is your proof? There are many studies showing that electromagnetic radiation causes sterility.

@ Henning The dose does not necessarily make the poison. Yes, there are many examples of substances that are beneficial in small doses but will kill you in large doses. But the potential to cause harm is always present when we classify something as a "poison". With respect to electromagnetic radiation, two points apply: 1) it can cause harm in very small doses and 2) currently it is being "administered" in very large doses.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 11:03   #154
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 229
Hi Ed,

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The highlighted statements may be what you believe, but they don't resonate with me as valid generalizations.
If you look at the articles on the problems of scientific publications I linked above, poor documentation and intransparent data are major points of criticism. It seems that the general scientific community does not trust poorly documented studies ...

With regard to refuting vs. ignoring, the metrics commonly used for measuring scientific impact are based on quotation frequency. Publish an article that gets ignored, and the metrics will rank your work as irrelevant even if no-one ever cares to refute you.

If that were incompatible with the way science works, such metrics would not be used. Not to say they don't deserve or receive criticism, but they are what they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Apparently it's not enough that Manville found Balmori's 2005 & 2007 field studies important enough to discuss in 2016, pg. 3-4, so you condemn the fact that neither he nor others published replications. The Balmori and Hallberg (2007) field study found similar effects on House Sparrows (which I didn't read), but apparently that doesn't qualify.
I wouldn't say "condemn" ... I'd say it's a sign Balmori's study was largely ignored.

With regard to the House Sparrow study, it doesn't measure breeding success, and the authors state "our study should be considered as preliminary for several reasons". For improving the strength of the White Stork study's statement ... no, I don't think it qualifies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Note the last paragraph to my earlier post about the U-statistic, where again we're nowhere near being on the same sheet of music. (HoHum, as they say.)
Hm, that paragraph wasn't there the last time I looked. If the Mann-Whitney U-test is applicable, as you say and as I'm ready to accept, that only means the obvious non-independence of the observed random events can't be subjected to criticism on a formal level, but only to criticism on a content level. Which you requested, which I delivered, which you acknowledged.

With regard to "vitiation", I don't follow the idea that every study has to be considered proven until it's disproved. Doubt is quite enough to disregard a study, and there are plenty of reasons to be doubtful of Balmori's results.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 11:39   #155
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Hi, everyone,

I have been sent a truly remarkable document which discusses in detail the fall in/disappearance of bird, insect, plant and animal species on Mt. Nardi, New South Wales, Australia as a result of of the installation and upgrading of wireless communications towers and antennae. The author has tracked what happened to a large number of species since the introduction of the cell towers 15 years ago, and it makes very interesting reading. I really would like you all to see it.

Unfortunately, I am having trouble attaching it. It opens for me in PDF format, but the file doesn't have the adobe acrobat symbol on it, and I can't get it to load. Can anybody help me with this? I can email it, and maybe one of you can find a way to convert the file so that it loads onto this site? I would really appreciate it.
I'm wary of the 'as a result of' phrase in such situations) except for the effects of excessive habitat loss from the construction of sites and access tracks) without some cited support....

Regarding your PDF problems, it is possible that if you download and install one of the free basic PDF-making software systems (such as PDF995), you may be able to save your intransigent on-screen PDF as the free variant (using Save As), which you can then post (if it isn't too large for Bird Forum). Alternatively you could just quote the address in a post.

In partial answer to this question you posed to Gordon:

"Gordon. Exactly how can people who cannot afford indoor toilets going to afford the expense of mobile communications? Telecoms companies do not provide the infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, nor do they subsidize the expense of the devices or the service".

You appear not to be aware that in India, much of China and in parts of Africa, hundreds of millions of rural people have cheap mobile phones as a result of government/telecoms firms/NGOs/private initiatives as part of policies largely aimed at connecting their populations, which can increase their feeling of belonging to their country.

So your question (in those countries at least) is moot.

For example, I have seen in Gujarat hundreds of obviously poor people using mobile phones because of such a scheme.
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 12:41   #156
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos. What do you think is causing the decrease in European populations,then? If you can categorically state that the drop in human population has zero to do with electromagnetic radiation, where is your proof? There are many studies showing that electromagnetic radiation causes sterility.

Okay, feel free to use Lithuania's population decline as further 'proof' of your hobby horse - the correlation is indeed very nice for your purposes: in the period coinciding with the erection of the first mobile phone towers in the country to its current status as Europe's number one country for mobile connectivity, the country's population has gone from 3.7 million to 2.9 million.

Catastrophic.

But to blow your infertility theory out of the water, total fertility rate (i.e. births per woman) has actually increased in Lithuania by about 30% in the last 15 or so years.

Spend 5 minutes on Google and you will discover the reasons for the population drop.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 12:55   #157
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Jos More births per woman does not imply that the population as a whole is not having fertility problems. It just means that the women (or rather couples) who are fertile are having more children. In all countries, there are a number of reasons for the population drop. Infertility is one of them, but not the only one. However, infertility is rising.

@ MJB. I'm trying to see what I can do to reformat the document. If you read it, we can debate it. It's in a strange format--allegedly Acrobat, but not. Re your point about poor countries getting subsidized mobile phones, you make my point for me--without subsidies these people could not afford wireless technology. You view this as kindness. I question that, in terms of the health and other effects shown in so many studies.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 12:55   #158
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Exactly how can people who cannot afford indoor toilets going to afford the expense of mobile communications? Telecoms companies do not provide the infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, nor do they subsidize the expense of the devices or the service.
Please do some research.

Still lots of houses in rural areas here without an inside toilet - actually the house I had until last year was in this category :)

Mobile phone costs in this country: typical basic plan includes free SIM card, then a monthly fee of about EURO 3 which usually gets you unlimited sms and at least 150 free minutes per month. Some plans even cheaper. No subsidies, just market forces. EVERYBODY can afford this.

Cost of installing the required septic tanks or connection to public sewage system (if even possible), plus internal plumbing/equipment: no idea of the cost, but certainly above many rural inhabitants' possibilities/wishes. May well be the case that some of these small dwelling do not even having a spare room suitable for the installation of an indoor toilet, so would require renovation cost on top of everything else.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Sunday 5th November 2017 at 13:03.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 5th November 2017, 13:01   #159
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos More births per woman does not imply that the population as a whole is not having fertility problems. It just means that the women (or rather couples) who are fertile are having more children. In all countries, there are a number of reasons for the population drop. Infertility is one of them, but not the only one. However, infertility is rising.
Fine, use Lithuania's population drop as further 'evidence' for your theory. Just gives one more reason for potential readers to dismiss your findings as garbage.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 6th November 2017, 10:22   #160
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Jos The cost of mobile communications in Lithuania are much, much cheaper than anywhere I have ever lived--and they're getting even more expensive. I read recently that in the US, people are starting to drop mobile devices because the costs are getting too high. So I don't see much evidence for market forces in these instances.

I'm not using Lithuania's population drop as "evidence for my theory". I'm merely pointing out that the research shows electromagnetic radiation affects fertility. The rise in fertility clinics, the numbers of couples who use them to have children, all over Europe, clearly show that fertility is getting to be a big problem. I'm not talking about couples who choose not to have children because of finances, careers or whatever. And the fact is that fertility has diminished as wireless communications have progressed. In Greece, I recently read an article bemoaning the fact that not all couples who get married can afford fertility treatment. The way it was phrased made it sound as if fertility treatment is as much a part of getting married as a wedding dress or a reception. It really struck me because it's hard to find other reasons why so many couples are having problems conceiving. You say I should do some research. I have, and what I have found concerns me. The reason I raised this topic in the first place is that I think there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about how wireless communications affect biological systems. I think that younger people ought to be far more concerned than I am. I grew up and spent most of my adult life without wireless communications. I don't use them now. I am much less likely to be affected than you are (I'm guessing you are a lot younger). I think for younger people, wireless has been around for a significant portion of their lives and they don't question it, can't imagine life without it. If you really are curious about the biological effects of wireless, look on the site https://www.emf-portal.com/en which has a huge database of studies on this topic. You can search by topic: fertility, pregnancy, migration, cancer, whatever and you will find studies that both do and do not find effects. If you choose the option of "review studies" you will get summaries which tell you how many studies found effects compared to how many found no effect. This isn't "my" theory. It is an issue I have raised, but I didn't invent it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th November 2017, 10:47   #161
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
Link to paper about Mt. Nardi

This link will take you to the extremely interesting report, "M. Nardi Wildlife Report to UNESCO. You can download the PDF from there.

https://app.box.com/s/as3oys5xe9m7c30ushv34bj93hkg4qym

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 6th November 2017 at 10:50.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th November 2017, 18:58   #162
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
This link will take you to the extremely interesting report, "M. Nardi Wildlife Report to UNESCO. You can download the PDF from there.

https://app.box.com/s/as3oys5xe9m7c30ushv34bj93hkg4qym
Sorry, the site doesn't link for me.

CORRECTION: it downloaded.

A digitally compressed version is attached in .pdf format.

Note: Written by Mark Broomhall, 2015. Eight of the twenty or so references listed are for Balmori's studies between 2003 and 2010.

And for those interested in Balmori's publications and citations.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NARDI WILDLIFE REPORT.pdf (2.55 MB, 20 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Tuesday 7th November 2017 at 06:36.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 7th November 2017, 13:50   #163
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 155
So.

A climate change is taking place, it seems. CO2 levels are raising. Sealife is being seriously affected by overfishing, maybe increased CO2 concentration in seawater, plastic pollution, etc.

Are the effects on birds and insects limited to areas with normal (*) "wireless technology"(*) signal levels?

(*) I don't say strong because there are a lot of regulations limiting transmission power just in case

(**) "Wireless technology": cherry picked series of, for whatever reason, "evil" technologies for no other reason that their sheer evilness.

Nevertheless, why is wildlife, especially insect population, declining everywhere?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 8th November 2017, 12:58   #164
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Borjam You ask if effects on birds and insects are limited to areas with "normal" wireless technology signal levels. What's "normal"? 2G? 3G? 4G? Each uses a different wavelength. Signal strength/transmission power is not the only issue because research finds harmful biological effects at very low intensities.

Second, have you considered how much more power the world is using because of all the wireless devices? There's the power of generating the signals--as more and more cell towers are built, the need for power increases. Then all the devices have to be charged--that's billions of devices. Then you have the energy used for mining and manufacturing the devices--rare earths and all the rest. Finally, there is a huge amount of energy being used to support cloud computing. If your emails and such are not being stored on your own computer but in the so-called cloud, that means huge air-conditioned warehouses full of hard drives that are never, ever turned off. I'm attaching a paper for you, called "The Power of Wireless Cloud". Have a look. More power = more CO2 levels.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ceet-white-paper-wireless-cloud.pdf (676.9 KB, 14 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 8th November 2017, 13:06   #165
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Borjam. The attached document might also interest you. It compares the energy used for wireless communications with those used for wired communications.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf energy-wired-wireless.pdf (265.5 KB, 7 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 19:59   #166
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 155
So, @Purple Heron,

Is it wireless communication or the Internet? Seems to be a moving target.

Are Internet-less mobile phones harmful? Are radars harmful?

It's pretty clear that we are consuming lots of resources. But I'm not sure about your intent, though.

Are you trying to persuade us to go back to the stone age at all costs, first blaming radio transmission and, when unsuccessful, resorting to the true and clear problem of resource exploitation?

There's something I am missing, I am sure.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th November 2017, 10:16   #167
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Borjam I am objecting to wireless communications, not the internet. So I would include all mobile phones, whether internet-capable or not, as well as any other devices that rely on wireless signals.

I have no problem with wired communications, and I don't think it would return us to the stone age to use optic fiber to achieve fast, secure transmission of information via wired landlines and internet connections. I am sure we could invent ways to make these accessible, a sort of halfway house between mobile communications and fixed landlines, if we tried. For example, perhaps it would be possible to create a personal phone/computer that people could plug in at public access points (cafes, certain public places, etc.) and use to make calls or go online. It's not an insoluble problem. I also think television delivered by cable would also be a better way to go. A lot of the antennae that sit up on hilltops with the cell towers are for digital television, and while they probably don't cause as much harm as the cell towers, it all adds up.

As for radar and radio signals, they are obviously wireless signals as well, and there are reports going back many years that these also affect wildlife, trees, birds and so on. However, the big difference with wireless devices as mass communication of the past 20 or so years, starting with 1G and proceeding on to the present 4G, is that we have more and more and more sources of wireless radiation as well as more frequencies of electromagnetic radiation being used. We didn't cover every hilltop with antennae for radio, or for radar. With 4G, the number of towers has multiplied exponentially. There are very few shadow areas (without reception) left. If you read the Mount Nardi report, you will notice that Broomhall really started to see a decline in species when the area went from analogue to digital. With 3G and then 4G, the decline in species became rapid and obvious. If you haven't read it, please do.

As for the internet, as I said, I don't have a problem with it, providing the connection is wired and not wireless. I do think that certain aspects of it are not good, especially for children. Today's news: Sean Parker, a co-founder of Facebook, said that they created a monster by knowingly "exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology" when they designed it, to draw people in and keep them hooked. He also said, "God knows what it's doing to our children's brains." I think a lot of social media has an addictive component, and keeps people from doing more useful things. If people spent less time online and more time outdoors, they might notice the natural world a bit more, and care a bit more what happened to it. The internet has the potential to be a tremendous force for good, and a very useful tool, but a lot of its useful potential, and a great deal of people's time, is wasted. It's too often used as a distraction, like sitting in front of the television all day. However, that's not my problem. My concern is wireless communications and the harm they are causing both to the natural world and to people.

If the above is unclear in any way, let me know and I will try to be more specific.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 12:37   #168
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
My concern is wireless communications and the harm they are causing both to the natural world and to people.
You missed out two words:

"My concern is wireless communications and the harm I believe they are causing both to the natural world and to people"
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th November 2017, 13:06   #169
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 229
Hi Borjam,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Are you trying to persuade us to go back to the stone age at all costs, first blaming radio transmission and, when unsuccessful, resorting to the true and clear problem of resource exploitation?
Confirmation bias at work ... anything that confirms your preconceived notion is welcome, even if it has nothing to do with the topic.

With regard to the actual figures ... it might sound alarming that global wireless communication is equivalent to the impact of 5 million additional cars on the road globally, but only until you consider that we have more than 1200 million cars on the road already.

If you worry about CO2, you should worry about cars, not wireless communication.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 13:08   #170
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 229
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
With respect to electromagnetic radiation, two points apply: 1) it can cause harm in very small doses and 2) currently it is being "administered" in very large doses.
And how do you define a "very large dose"?

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 12:46   #171
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 90
@ Jos Not "I believe" but "a great many studies demonstrate that". A few studies could be wrong. 25,000 peer-reviewed studies can't all be wrong Have you ever seen Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe? I'll attach it so you can have a look.

@ Henning. First, I would define "a very large dose" as one quintillion times (that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times) more than the earth's natural magnetic field, which was the case back in 2010--now it is much more but I don't have an exact figure for it.

Second, re your comment to Borjam, the fact that wireless communications use a lot more energy than wired communications is not my primary reason for wanting to get rid of wireless communications. It is a factor we should consider, though, if we are concerned about CO2 levels. After all, getting rid of 5 million cars (or the equivalent) would improve CO2 levels.

By the way, did you read the Mt. Nardi Wildlife Report? Comments?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Resolution1815.pdf (57.6 KB, 7 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 13:42   #172
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 229
Hi Diana,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
25,000 peer-reviewed studies can't all be wrong
And how exactly did you determine that?

Not all of the content of emf-portal.org is peer-reviewed, and the database doesn't actually include any information on whether any particular report is.

Additionally, emf-portal.org does not require studies to support the idea that electrosmog is bad to include them in the database, so it's quite a stretch to pretend that it has 25000 studies supporting your point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning. First, I would define "a very large dose" as one quintillion times (that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times) more than the earth's natural magnetic field, which was the case back in 2010--now it is much more but I don't have an exact figure for it.
And what exactly is the frequency of the earth's natural magnetic field?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Second, re your comment to Borjam, the fact that wireless communications use a lot more energy than wired communications is not my primary reason for wanting to get rid of wireless communications.
It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and no-one here ever doubted that wireless communication requires energy. All it did was to give you another reason to feel rightous about your rejection of mobile technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
By the way, did you read the Mt. Nardi Wildlife Report? Comments?
If you'd take the time to explain in a few sentences explaining what you have learned from it and why you think it's relevant to the topic, I might feel inclined to have a look at yet another random report.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th November 2017, 22:14   #173
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
...


If you'd take the time to explain in a few sentences explaining what you have learned from it and why you think it's relevant to the topic, I might feel inclined to have a look at yet another random report.

Regards,

Henning
I went through the report and found it to be quite relevant to the topic: "Cell tower radiation harms birds." This quote from pg. 34 summarizes the author's observations.
Quote:
I understand from my research that EMR levels near towers are millions of times greater than
the natural background levels that wildlife has evolved to utilize for navigation, homing, etc.
Every new network is more complex in signal structure than the previous. Given the number
of transmitters on-site, it is also relevant that virtually no research has been conducted upon
the biological effects of simultaneous exposure to multiple signals, much less dropping them
into a World Heritage gene bank without foresight.

My ‘urgency to act’ is not only for the reasons already demonstrated but also because
upcoming technologies likely represent an even more serious threat to biology. I would like
you to note that it would be simple to verify my findings, rather than undertaking years of
protracted studies. Turn off the 4G for a predetermined period and have the biologists note
species reappearance. I have indicated previously what happened when the towers were
turned off for two days and the resultant explosion of biology on the mountain.
In the face of this naturalist's expert observations a skeptical scientist would try to find testable alternate explanations. A skeptical non-scientist would simply leave out the word "testable." Which is it?

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 00:35   #174
Hauksen
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 229
Hi Ed,

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
This quote from pg. 34 summarizes the author's observations.
So what did the author actually do in terms of fieldwork?

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 01:02   #175
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,044
Henning,

Another rhetorical question? Please say what you mean.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please help with a survey about birds and cell phone towers Purple Heron Conservation 15 Saturday 29th July 2017 19:43
SE U.S.A. Osprey nest in cell tower lashinala Birds Of Prey 20 Friday 13th May 2011 04:13
Amateur's question about birds and cooling tower scarlettudor Birds & Birding 1 Tuesday 1st June 2010 18:07
Erratic weather 'harms wildlife' (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 0 Saturday 27th December 2008 10:05
TV Tower Wires Kill 400 Birds in One Night birdeast Birds & Birding 32 Saturday 29th October 2005 08:10

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.20348811 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:37.