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 Friday 9th February 2018, 06:59   #426
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
...
But let's stay on topic and pursue the lofty goal of furthering knowledge and insight. You asked several times that the detractors in this thread provide evidence that non-ionizing radiation is in essence harmless, and I've posted the raw data from the NTP study, which is the most extensive, thorough and targeted one I could find. Any thoughts on that?

The Mad Scientist
BTW, can you identify the specific posts where I said that?

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 : Friday 9th February 2018 at 08:07.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th February 2018, 08:41   #427
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
BTW, the NTP program falls under the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, not the U.S. State Department.
Ah, I'm not familiar enough with US political structure clearly. It looks rather Byzantine from the outside to be honest!

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
1. It's encouraging that the statistical analyses were supported by Social & Scientific Systems, Inc. (pg.3), however, there were so many individual comparisons made I'd be concerned about experiment-wise error. I'm not saying this is an issue, but if I were a reviewer I'd be asking about that.
Definitely, however (and correct me if I'm wrong) any correction for multiple testing would reduce the significance of observed differences. I.e. any effects that were found are more likely to be random 'noise' due to multiple testing.
I would also raise the issue of statistical power: it's a pretty big (and costly) animal study but, still the n numbers are modest. Validation in an independent cohort should be done as well if they want to be pharma-grade thorough about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
2. As a behavioral scientist, what stands out to me (although, not surprisingly so) is that no attention was paid to possible adverse behavioral effects of radiation. [...] In fact, my 1966 dissertation, entitled "Markov Analysis of Response Timing on a DRL Schedule," could easily have been a basis for evaluating complex behavior in a radiation controlled environment.
Plenty of scope for research into adverse behavioral effects of mobile phone use, radiation-induced or not

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Too bad the article is behind a paywall.
Happy to download it when I'm back at work on Monday if you like?
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 08:49   #428
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
BTW, can you identify the specific posts where I said that?

Ed
Posts #209 and #290 - you just made me scroll through 10 pages of this thread to get that!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 11:19   #429
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Jos, fugi I think you guys have the idee fixe. Of course the technology has some benefits. Too bad it isn't safe for us and the environment. I am arguing that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages. It isn't complicated.

Jos, you really get upset when I point out that studies showing a loss of biodiversity which do not take EMR into consideration as a potential cause should be reexamined taking EMR into account. Why? We've had mobile technology for approximately the same period as biodiversity has been severely declining. It is therefore quite possible that there is a connection which study authors have not considered. At the Eklipse web conference, Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife and the person who requested the topic, began by referring to the German study and saying that EMR might account for the results they obtained. So he can speculate that there is a connection but I can't? Oh, please! EMR does damage nature--this was the one clear message to come out of this meeting. And if you take that as a starting point, it may be necessary to reevaluate what we think we know about how EMR affects biodiversity. Speculation is called for and is not idle. A new, previously unconsidered factor is often useful in explaining phenomena which are not satisfactorily explained by existing knowledge. Our knowledge of how EMR affects the environment may be incomplete, but that does not mean EMR has no effect. The Eklipse conference established that it does have an effect--and it was a very conservative assessment.

I have never denied that some species are increasing. We have discussed this before. EMR is not the only environmental factor to consider, and not all species are equally affected by EMR. Conservation efforts with birds such as the white-tailed eagle are having a positive effect. Who knows, they might be much more positive in the absence of EMR.

Jos, one more thing. On the subject of people being able to afford wired connections, are you aware of the WiFi4EU program? 160 billion euros, EU money, is being given to local councils all over the EU to lay optic fiber for public wi-fi. They seem to have dug up most of Greece and laid thousands of miles of optic fiber along all the roads, including here on Samos. So, ironically, the infrastructure for good wired connections is already being put in place at EU (and our) expense. The future doesn't have to be wireless in order for people to have cheap, safe, healthy, environmentally friendly wired connections. A lot of the benefits you ascribe to wireless technology would be just as possible in a wired world (have I said anything about banning computers?). You do also realize that the only way to power the 5G future will be nuclear? How do you feel about nuclear energy?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 11:40   #430
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Nohatch I have some comments on the NTP study which I will get into later today or tomorrow, when I have time. But a couple of points to be getting on with:
1. The difference between EMR and other agents which might cause cancer is that this is the only agent I know of which one is compelled to be exposed to, whether one wishes to or not, and which one cannot avoid. This is also true for nature. As far as I can tell, birds, for instance, do try to avoid being near cell towers--but they cannot avoid all sources of EMR, and this situation is getting worse. But to say that other things are just as bad, while true, is logically flawed. Nobody makes me eat red meat. If I don't want to breathe traffic fumes, I can go live somewhere that doesn't have any. Etc. But where can I go where I won't be exposed to cell tower radiation and still live a relatively normal life? How do I do ordinary things like go to shops or the bank or have a coffee in a cafe if everywhere I go has wi-fi? I have no choice any more. This is compulsion.
2. One of the worst things about environmental EMR is that it affects sleep patterns. It also affects melatonin production. Disruption of the circadian rhythm and a lack of melatonin means that the body cannot repair itself after a brief period of exposure; the exposure is constant, and the body's ability to repair itself is compromised. So again, this is not like sunbathing or eating red meat. You have the option of recovering from those.

The point I am making here re compulsion is also made in the attached document to the State of Massachusetts. It's worth a read.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 12:33   #431
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Jos, you really get upset when I point out that studies showing a loss of biodiversity which do not take EMR into consideration as a potential cause should be reexamined taking EMR into account.
Not upset - just commenting on your total lack of balance and the clear bias that underscores your 'reporting' ...didn't you say something about the importance of balance and unbiased comment in relation to the NYT?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
So he can speculate that there is a connection but I can't? Oh, please!
You can speculate about whatever you want, that little green men from Mars are eating all the birds on Samos if you want. If you hope to persuade more than a few persons though, speculation without balance driven by a one-vision bias is unlikely to succeed I think, as sadly seems to be the case with this thread by and large.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I have never denied that some species are increasing.
You may not deny it, but you basically ignore it. Read your report at the outset of this whole discussion, read the pages and pages of this thread.
__________________
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 9th February 2018, 12:41   #432
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,459
Anyhow looking forward to a trip to Greece this coming season, primarily for butterflies - all the reports from 2016 and 2017 I have read suggest I am not going to be face the disastrous declines you report for Greece. Will let you know if I become distraught due to the inexplicable lack of birds and butterflies.
__________________
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 9th February 2018, 13:04   #433
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Jos You are always welcome to post counter-evidence. By and large, you don't, you just lambaste me for not posting studies that don't support my argument. I don't have to do that, since I don't work for the NYT. This is an OP and I have openly stated my bias in regard to the topic. All I have to do is support my basic premise that wireless harms nature, and I think I have done that. Actually, the Eklipse committee did that for me. If you want to wait to see how things pan out, that is of course your privilege. Since the signs are there that NGOs are getting ready to tackle EMR as a threat to wildlife, it would seem they are not quite as sanguine as you are; they are starting to get worried.

I will be interested in your impressions of the wildlife situation in Greece, but I have one question. How will you know how many birds, butterflies etc. there are compared to how many there used to be? How will you quantify your experiences objectively? You can't compare Greece and Lithuania for this purpose--different climate, etc. So unless you have been to these places before, how will you know what has changed?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 14:01   #434
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Nohatch I really don't understand why you think the second part of the NTP study invalidates the first. Did the malignant gliomas and schwannomas of the first part just disappear? The second part doesn't mention them.

With regard to the Maria Feychting comments on the NTP study, I have written to the author of the article to ask when and where she made them. When I know more I will tell you.

I have a number of concerns with the NTP study. First of all, I question the core assumption that the predominant form of wireless exposure comes from handsets. That is certainly not true for me, but I am exposed to radiation from multiple cell towers, public wi-fi, and from the many devices being used by others around me. This is true for everyone, whether they use a wireless device or not. So the basic premise, which could be stated as "you only have to worry about wireless radiation if you use a wireless device" is not true.

Nor is it true that I and everyone else are only exposed to the frequencies used in the study. These may be the predominant frequencies of the devices, but hardly the only frequencies people and wildlife are exposed to. From my point of view, we are studying oranges to come to a conclusion about apples. The devices are not the only issue. Nor, for that matter, is cancer the only issue. Thalidomide, for instance, did not cause cancer. It caused horrible birth defects. Yet you would not say that it is okay to give a pregnant woman thalidomide just because neither she nor her baby will get cancer from ingesting this drug.

A number of factors about this study seemed odd to me. They found consistent perinatal effects--lower dam and pup body weights that resolved eventually after the exposure ended, but they apparently did not think to test what happens to succeeding generations with whole-life exposure. The Magras and Xenos study I posted a few days ago shows that if succeeding generations continue to be exposed, in the end the mice all become sterile. The Magras and Xenos study is much closer to a real-life situation than the NTP study.

Why were there lower survival rates in the sham-exposed groups? They put this down to chronic progressive neuropathy--was there something wrong with the rats they were using? The results are distinctly odd and lack a satisfactory explanation.

The study finds some evidence of carcinogenicity, but clearly no one is too upset about this (though they would be with a drug). Why are they unconcerned with with increases in non-neoplastic lesions in the heart, brain and prostate (males) and heart, thyroid and adrenal gland (females)? Why is no one concerned about significantly increased incidence of adenoma or carcinoma (combined) in pancreatic islets in 1.5w/kg GSM male rats, or heptocellular adenoma in all exposed groups?

The study doesn't seem to have come up with any spectacular findings one way or another. To my mind, it raises a lot of questions. I don't see how it can be considered the gold standard for anything, and I will be interested to see the peer review comments when they come out.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 15:20   #435
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Posts #209 and #290 - you just made me scroll through 10 pages of this thread to get that!
Post #209 was written by Purple Heron, not me. If you meant Post #207, where I asked MTem to back up his claim that “In some cases more evident causes than your hypothesis are present,” then you simply misunderstood my request.

Post #290 was also written by Purple Heron, not me.

So the assertion is FALSE. I did not ask several times (or even once) that the "detractors" in this thread provide evidence that non-ionizing radiation is in essence harmless. It would be an unscientific thing for me to ask, since the null hypothesis can't be proven.

I'd appreciate a retraction.

Note: I reworded post #425 to better reflect what I wanted to say.

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 : Friday 9th February 2018 at 15:43.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th February 2018, 15:38   #436
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
...Definitely, however (and correct me if I'm wrong) any correction for multiple testing would reduce the significance of observed differences. I.e. any effects that were found are more likely to be random 'noise' due to multiple testing.
I would also raise the issue of statistical power: it's a pretty big (and costly) animal study but, still the n numbers are modest. Validation in an independent cohort should be done as well if they want to be pharma-grade thorough about it.

Quote:
I agree with both statements. To correct for experiment-wise error, the Alpha level for individual comparisons would have to be reduced to a much lower level, probably eliminating any statistical significance of their findings. This assumes that issue wasn't taken into account by their analysts.

Frankly, in my view the sample size was clearly inadequate for the experiment design.

No, I'm not that interested in the tobacco study. I was just providing a 'for instance.'

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 : Friday 9th February 2018 at 23:41.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th February 2018, 16:42   #437
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
How will you know how many birds, butterflies etc. there are compared to how many there used to be? How will you quantify your experiences objectively? You can't compare Greece and Lithuania for this purpose--different climate, etc. So unless you have been to these places before, how will you know what has changed?
I don't plan to quantify objectively - I am just going for the pleasure of seeing the species. Not expecting a bad time as trip reports from the 2016 and 2017 season report good abundances of species and individuals, very much as in earlier seasons.

I do actually understand Greece and Lithuania have a different climate - would be no point me travelling to Greece if I thought similar, had no plans to compare. For what it's worth, I travel pretty extensively for wildlife - usually 8-10 trips per year, each up to three weeks - so do get reasonably good exposure to experience across the globe. Travel in many areas globally with zero cell phone coverage, travel in many areas with good 4G coverage - return to many areas time and time again: does not say I am correct about anything, but does give me opportunity to see.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Friday 9th February 2018 at 17:25.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th February 2018, 17:00   #438
Richard Prior
Halfway up an Alp

 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MANIGOD
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jos Stratford View Post
I don't plan to quantify objectively - I am just going for the pleasure of seeing the species. Not expecting a bad time as trip reports from the 2016 and 2017 season report good abundances of species and individuals, very much as in earlier seasons.

I do actually understand Greece and Lithuania have a different climate - would be no point me travelling to Greece if I though similar, had no plans to compare. For what it's worth, I travel pretty extensively for wildlife - usually 8-10 trips per year, each up to three weeks - so do get reasonably good exposure to experience across the globe. Travel in many areas globally with zero cell phone coverage, travel in many areas with good 4G coverage - return to many areas time and time again: does not say I am correct about anything, but does give me opportunity to see.
I've a great idea Jos and Diana, why not meet up when Jos is in Greece,
you could give each other a call..........oh, hang on
__________________
"Thought I saw an eagle
But it might have been a vulture
I never could decide" Leonard Cohen
Richard Prior is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 17:09   #439
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Prior View Post
I've a great idea Jos and Diana, why not meet up when Jos is in Greece,
you could give each other a call..........oh, hang on
oh you mischief maker Richard
__________________
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 9th February 2018, 19:07   #440
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
So the assertion is FALSE. I did not ask several times (or even once) that the "detractors" in this thread provide evidence that non-ionizing radiation is in essence harmless. It would be an unscientific thing for me to ask, since the null hypothesis can't be proven.

I'd appreciate a retraction.

Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
So we live in the best of all possible worlds. Nice!

But, just for balance, can you or any nay-sayer here produce 21st Century papers that demonstrate scientifically that EMF is benign? Skeptics also have a responsibility to back up their positions with evidence. Simply pointing out limitations in someone else's research is not sufficient, because there is no such thing as a perfect study.

Ed
From post #201 - not sure how I got my numbers wrong this morning

Incidentally there is no need to SHOUT. I actually agree with the request for balance, and I merely used the 'reminder' to get the conversation back on topic. So I don't really understand how it caused offense?

@PurpleHeron: I'll try to respond later but first have to submit a paper on the molecular biochemistry underlying different forms of severe asthma. It's a nasty 'underappreciated' disease that kills 4-5 people every day in the UK alone, and is becoming a massive problem in industrialising nations in Asia. A very real problem...
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 9th February 2018 at 19:46.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th February 2018, 23:36   #441
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
From post #201 - not sure how I got my numbers wrong this morning

Incidentally there is no need to SHOUT. I actually agree with the request for balance, and I merely used the 'reminder' to get the conversation back on topic. So I don't really understand how it caused offense?
...
Yeah, what were you drinking?

Putting post #201 in context I was responding to Mono:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono

The WHO does not currently regard wireless communications as worthy of banning, but it does regard it as worthy of further study. Those studies are being done by people wiser and more skilled than the folk in this thread.

It serves no ones cause to scour the net for "papers" of dubious source and methodology and then cherry pick those. Nor does it help to invoke conspiracies and back room shenanigans. Let the systems invoke their tried and tested checks and balances and let human society continue its progress.
To which I responded:

Quote:
So we live in the best of all possible worlds. Nice!

But, just for balance, can you or any nay-sayer here produce 21st Century papers that demonstrate scientifically that EMF is benign? Skeptics also have a responsibility to back up their positions with evidence. Simply pointing out limitations in someone else's research is not sufficient, because there is no such thing as a perfect study.
In response to his, er, snobbery?, I sarcastically asked for nay-sayers to "demonstrate scientifically that EMF is benign," which, of course, they can not do because it would require proving the null hypothesis. Way too subtle I admit.

But then, apparently accepting what I said as a challenge, you came up with the NTP draft report, which actually casts a large shadow over the "wisdom and skill" meme. However (being sarcastic once again), no doubt the next NYT or Guardian science correspondent du jour will sensationalize the final report for the less wise and skilled among us, and all will be well, again.
That's a firm prediction!

So, don't be Mad, be like me,
Ed
The Happy Scientist

P.S. I always put my serious shouts in BOLDFACE!
__________________
__________________
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 : Saturday 10th February 2018 at 20:25.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 10th February 2018, 05:21   #442
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Hi Diana, #434
Quote:
The study doesn't seem to have come up with any spectacular findings one way or another. To my mind, it raises a lot of questions. I don't see how it can be considered the gold standard for anything, and I will be interested to see the peer review comments when they come out.
Very well put, but I'd be surprised if we actually see the peer review comments. More likely we'll get a final report that can be compared with the draft, and perhaps a press release.

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 offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 10th February 2018, 09:23   #443
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Ed With a bit of luck, we will get access to the peer review comments as the editor of Microwave News is monitoring the process. Here's a piece he wrote about the latest NTP results that attempts to account for the difference between the first round of results and the second. The last link (I think) is the one where he will update on peer review. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/what-changed
Did you go to the talk on Reinventing Wires? If you did, what were your impressions?

@ Jos Which parts of Greece will you be visiting on your trip?

@ Nohatch I asked the editor of Microwave News about Maria Feychting. He says he was told about her comments by someone who attended the November 21 seminar on EMF health risks at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Check the links in the paragraph under the two pictures in the article (post 414). She was definitely there, though the meeting was not, to his knowledge, videotaped or recorded. However, anyone who attended heard her remarks. He says that no one has challenged his article or suggested that he reported her remarks incorrectly. It was a public forum, and she did speak at it. You may find the article I just posted for Ed interesting.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 10th February 2018, 21:34   #444
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed With a bit of luck, we will get access to the peer review comments as the editor of Microwave News is monitoring the process. Here's a piece he wrote about the latest NTP results that attempts to account for the difference between the first round of results and the second. The last link (I think) is the one where he will update on peer review. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/what-changed
Did you go to the talk on Reinventing Wires? If you did, what were your impressions?
Diana,

Sorry to say I was not able to attend the meeting due to personal issues. Regarding the MWN article:

Quote:
“The PWGs were carried out on slides that were blinded as to exposure group or control,” John Bucher, the study director and the associate director of the NTP wrote in an e-mail when asked about the Feychting rumor by Microwave News. He also confirmed that agents “A” & “B” referred to the different RF modulations.

This same concern had already been raised and addressed during the internal NTP review prior to the release of the interim results last year. That report states that “A” and “B” refer to the two types of cell phone signals under study, GSM and CDMA (p.69).
My only comment here is that if the study were properly blinded, the A and B distinction would not have been revealed either. The argument that the flaw didn't bias the cancer results, nonetheless reduces overall credibility in the study. Based on what little I've seen, the study director, John Bucher, was not particularly skilled at experimental design; further suggesting that the initial design review was inadequate, if there even was one.

Whatever consensus findings are negotiated for inclusion in the final report will be built on a very weak foundation.

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 11th February 2018 at 06:05.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th February 2018, 10:43   #445
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
Reinventing wires--a really interesting paper

Since Ed didn't get to the talk, I had a look round and found the paper "Reinventing Wires" which I have attached below. It isn't as dauntingly long as it looks, and it is very interesting indeed. Though written from a US standpoint, virtually everything it says applies to Europe equally well, and probably to most other places.

If you think this paper doesn't apply to birds, think again. Although nature is not the focus of this paper, anything that uses vast amounts of energy, releases a huge number of unnatural frequencies into the atmosphere (eventually all of the non-ionizing spectrum will get used) and causes health effects in people is bound to affect all of nature. Indeed, we already know that nature is being affected, though there are knowledge gaps and we can ague about the degree to which nature is affected, or the mechanisms that are causing these effects. So it is high time to seriously consider whether we're going to keep going down the road we're on, come hell or high water, or whether we are going to admit that we are on the wrong road and go in a different direction.

From my perspective, the paper really got interesting from Chapter 3, with the Internet of Things. Wireless is not, by and large, about the public good (see page 68) or making information easily accessible to you, the end user. It's about advertising--the smartphone is designed primarily to provide screens to display advertising--and about selling you more stuff. Telecoms have deliberately steered the public down the wireless route because wired communications are regulated, whereas wireless communications are not. This gives companies a lot more ways to make money, but they do not have your best interests at heart. They don't care how much EMR you or your children or nature is exposed to. They don't care that you do not actually get the best, most integrated service the Internet could theoretically provide. And the IoT is about getting you to buy lot of useless gadgets to do a lot of things people don't actually need to do. The telecoms companies are creating the need where none actually exists.

Chapter 6, about energy use and efficiency of consumption, is also very interesting. Wireless runs on coal. Apparently, the average iPhone uses more energy than a mid-sized fridge once you include the wireless connection, data usage and battery charging. Greenpeace is worried about this, and wrote a paper about the footprint of coal consumption in wireless networks in 2010. What's your alternative to coal? Renewables can't cope with the energy needs, and do we really want giant windmills everywhere--what will that do to the birds? Do we want more nuclear reactors, and potentially more Fukishimas?

Chapter 7 says that wireless can't meet public needs--so why go ahead with them? Because the telecoms companies don't want to invest in wired networks that aren't as profitable.

The author goes on to talk about the public health and social effects of wireless, issues of security and privacy, and has an interesting conclusions section. I hope that some of you, at least, will read it. If you do, I wonder if you will still think that wireless is the way forward.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ReInventing-Wires-1-25-18.pdf (2.78 MB, 8 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th February 2018, 17:27   #446
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Nohatch I have some comments on the NTP study which I will get into later today or tomorrow, when I have time. But a couple of points to be getting on with:
1. The difference between EMR and other agents which might cause cancer is that this is the only agent I know of which one is compelled to be exposed to, whether one wishes to or not, and which one cannot avoid. This is also true for nature. As far as I can tell, birds, for instance, do try to avoid being near cell towers--but they cannot avoid all sources of EMR, and this situation is getting worse. But to say that other things are just as bad, while true, is logically flawed. Nobody makes me eat red meat. If I don't want to breathe traffic fumes, I can go live somewhere that doesn't have any. Etc. But where can I go where I won't be exposed to cell tower radiation and still live a relatively normal life? How do I do ordinary things like go to shops or the bank or have a coffee in a cafe if everywhere I go has wi-fi? I have no choice any more. This is compulsion.
2. One of the worst things about environmental EMR is that it affects sleep patterns. It also affects melatonin production. Disruption of the circadian rhythm and a lack of melatonin means that the body cannot repair itself after a brief period of exposure; the exposure is constant, and the body's ability to repair itself is compromised. So again, this is not like sunbathing or eating red meat. You have the option of recovering from those.

The point I am making here re compulsion is also made in the attached document to the State of Massachusetts. It's worth a read.
Is it safe to assume that there is a vast difference in the amount of EMF present in cell towers as opposed to a basic home wifi router? One would think that those towers are really sizzling out there.

I too think that EMFs pose a real danger to people and nature, and some of us are still fortunate enough to live in areas where cell towers aren't present, at least around our homes.
We do, however use satellite internet and home wifi. Can't imagine that simple home wifi is even remotely the same with the presence of EMF.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th February 2018, 22:22   #447
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Is it safe to assume that there is a vast difference in the amount of EMF present in cell towers as opposed to a basic home wifi router? One would think that those towers are really sizzling out there.
Cell towers are also low power devices. The power is higher, of course, like 30 or 40 W. For comparison a merchant ship radar can transmit 45 KW (yes, kilowatts) pulses. Even units onboard recreational ships have hefty powers. Do we have statistics of brain tumors affecting people who own a recreational ship?

Quote:
I too think that EMFs pose a real danger to people and nature, and some of us are still fortunate enough to live in areas where cell towers aren't present, at least around our homes.
Sorry, you believe. If you think, what are the reasons you evaluate to determine that it's dangerous?

And, in case you have a mobile phone, are you happy using it while others develop cancer?

Quote:
We do, however use satellite internet and home wifi. Can't imagine that simple home wifi is even remotely the same with the presence of EMF.
WiFi is very low power of course. Maximum 100 mW.

@Purple Heron, yesterday I remembered you. No worries, nothing bad. I was on a train in a rainy and cold day, going to try and watch some of our winged friends in Urdaibai. It was a good day despite the bad weather (or thanks to it I had real peace there, I had the hide for myself). I saw maybe a hundred dunlins and plovers, a bunch of grey plovers, two or three black kites, gooses, an electromagnetic white stork, wigeons, terns, a great northern diver and some others.

And I smiled when I saw one of the very few storks living here, in the northern coast of Spain. Guess where it was roosting? Yep, you guessed right. On one of the support bars of a mobile telephony sector antenna. It was even thouching it. Not that it matters, but the "touching" surely adds some drama to the description.

I know that you think that there's no radiation behind the sector panel. You are wrong. Antennas are not flashlights so there is always some radiation outside of the main beam. Nevertheless, this is incompatible with the notion of birds avoiding cell towers. It has had to fly through a fiercely intense electromagnetic radiation field before settling safely behind the antennas.

Oh, and for the record, the antenna had several sharp vertical poles on top of the tower. Guess what for? Yep. Storks, sorry to say it, are considered a very nasty pest for telecommunication and electrical grid operators. Their nests are antenna destroyers. Or maybe storks are the envoys of Mother Nature fighting our antennas?

Last edited by Borjam : Sunday 11th February 2018 at 22:27.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 12th February 2018, 10:34   #448
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
@ Borjam I like the idea of storks as envoys for mother nature. Perhaps they are. Certainly storks as always viewed as benign and positive symbols--by all cultures, as far as I know.

I am happy that Spain still has storks; they are not doing so well in Greece. Places in central Greece that used to have storks no longer get them, and in northern Greece the Evros region, which had so many, had very few last year. The Evros is of course a microwave soup--Greek and Turkish military radar/communications, now 4G/4G+ with many new antennas, and I have no idea what the radiation dose is, measured in microwatts per square centimeter. Theoretically Greece and Spain should be the same, but I don't think anyone monitors the tower outputs so it is possible that the cell towers are giving off more radiation than they are supposed to. In the US, they found that one in ten towers was way over the limit. The Greeks generally believe that more is better, so I wouldn't be surprised if many of the towers exceed recommended levels, and as for the military, who knows? I believe that the actual wavelength is the primary problem with mobile communications, but having more microwatts per square centimeter of radiation cannot possibly be a good thing. So this could play a role, but short of running around with some sort of radiation-measuring device it's not possible to know what exactly is happening. I do know that New South Wales has the lowest radiation limits in the world (along with Salzburg, Austria) yet according to Broomhall, species are decling there just as they are where I live. I have tried to find out if lowering the radiation standards to 1/10th of ICNIRP/SCENIHR, as they did in India in 2012, has had a positive effect on wildlife, but an Indian professor who attended the Eklipse conference tells me they haven't done any studies.

This is a bit of a conundrum for you, isn't it? On the one hand you love birds, and on the other hand you love radio. Which is more important, if you can't have both? I think we got away with radio (until the nineties) because there were relatively very few frequencies used, and there weren't antennas all over the place. With 5G, the demand for bandwidth is going to mean that we employ all or nearly all of the non-ionizing spectrum, and there will be antennas or femtocells everywhere. I cannot personally bear the thought of living on a barren planet just so people can stream movies on their smartphones. I especially love storks. When I was 8 or 9, I spent the whole summer in my grandfather's house watching a stork nest on a nearby roof--from eggs to mature birds that flew easily. I drew pictures of every stage of the process. Now the storks don't come any more. I would choose the storks any day.

@ Litebeam I don't think it's safe to assume that cell towers are worse than wi-fi routers. Borjam continually makes the point that the wattage of towers and devices is low, from which he concludes that the radiation is minimal. But as I said to him above, I think the frequency is the main problem, possibly exacerbated by the power. There are recommendations for "biologically safe" standards for humans (I think it's 1 microwatt per square centimeter) but that may not be biologically safe for other life forms--we are a lot bigger than most. Your wi-fi router gives off a lot more than that. There's an interesting article I posted earlier that you should read, by Martin Pall called "Wi-Fi as a very substantial threat to human health"--here's the link: https://www.scribd.com/document/3534...an-Health-2017

I don't think any of this stuff is safe, myself, and I am really very angry about the way people are being manipulated into accepting it. I just got sent this link to a Huffington Post article that shows how telecoms companies in the US have been charging customers for many years in order to bring fiber optics to every house, but not doing it. Instead they bring the fiber optics to the neighborhood and force you to use wireless to access the information that is carried along the fiber optic cables. Here's the link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce...b_5839394.html
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 10:55   #449
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 214
The attached PDF is an excellent assessment of why we are continually assured that radiation exposures to EMR are safe, even when they aren't. This paper is about the UK's health authority (the UK permits very high levels of exposure) but very similar criticisms have been leveled at the SCENIHR committee which determines safety levels for Europe. It's not very long, and it's worth a read.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 2016_Starkey_ICNIRP.pdf (520.6 KB, 7 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 11:46   #450
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I am happy that Spain still has storks; they are not doing so well in Greece. Places in central Greece that used to have storks no longer get them, and in northern Greece the Evros region, which had so many, had very few last year. The Evros is of course a microwave soup--Greek and Turkish military radar/communications, now 4G/4G+ with many new antennas, and I have no idea what the radiation dose is, measured in microwatts per square centimeter. Theoretically Greece and Spain should be the same, but I don't think anyone monitors the tower outputs so it is possible that the cell towers are giving off more radiation than they are supposed to.
Please also remember, as pointed out to you earlier, the White Stork population in Lithuania is doing exceedingly well in recent years, coinciding with period in which the country has become the leading 4G nation in Europe - did quote the figures earlier - a doubling to 40,000 pairs if I remember correctly, though have not checked the source this time. Similar increases in Poland and, I believe, the northern Baltic States.
__________________
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

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}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.39685702 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:27.