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 Monday 12th February 2018, 12:03   #451
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jos Stratford View Post
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.
Yep same in the Netherlands. Stork numbers were down to around 10 pairs in 1990 and are now at 1000+ pairs. This increase correlates perfectly with the nationwide introduction and continuous upgrades of wireless networks.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 12th February 2018 at 13:37.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 12:25   #452
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ 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.
So what actually happened was that a scientist criticised a methodological aspect of a large scientific study at a meeting of fellow scientists, and by extension questioned the (interim) outcomes of said study. You know what, that happens all the time and is part and parcel of the peer-review process and healthy scientific discussion. What is striking is that this 'internal' discussion is then presented in such a way by Microwave News as to cast suspicion on the impartiality and credibility of Prof. Feychting in a public forum. And lo and behold it's re-posted on a bunch of other dubious websites and forums. The same trick is repeated in that second article you posted for Ed: "There’s no shortage of suspects and suspicions. Here are a few making the rounds". Or in other words: "here are a few more rumours we'd like to bring into the public's mind". For Slesin to be branding the Karolinska Institute as a 'company-sponsored rumour mill' is pretty offensive; I have numerous hard-working colleagues there trying to solve the most difficult health challenges facing humanity. Blergh!

Next time you consider reading Microwave "Fake" News again, you may want to keep in mind the scathing assessment they were given by the American Physical Society... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_News)
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 12th February 2018 at 16:09.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 12:32   #453
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
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.
I'm curious how you intend to avoid exposure to, well, growing old :) This little Spotlight article in Trends in Molecular Medicine (part of Cell and IF 10.732) should give food for thought.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf PIIS1471491416300971.pdf (287.4 KB, 8 views)
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 12th February 2018 at 14:19.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 12:38   #454
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Whatever consensus findings are negotiated for inclusion in the final report will be built on a very weak foundation.

Ed
Care to apply that same level of scrutiny to the other stuff that's being posted here lol?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
So, don't be Mad, be like me
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 14:21   #455
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ 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 was kidding of course

Quote:
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.
So something else is very different. As far as I can tell my country has become more civilized since we joined the EU, because it brought environmental laws that would be unthinkable in a country such as Spain, which left the 19th century behind in the 80's.

Statistics about white stork populations in Spain:
http://www.iberianature.com/material/spainstorks.html

Doubled between 1994 and 2004. Notably in the Basque Coutry (where I live) it was really scarce. 8 in 1994, 36 in 2004.

I would say that telecommunications masts have been beneficial, they offer ideal roosting sites

Quote:
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.
As I said, these frequencies are not new. One of my firsts jobs in 1990 involved monitoring microwave links, used extensively for radio and TV repeater linking. I live in an area surrounded by mountains, so there are plenty of broadcast repeaters and microwave links here.

Know what's one of the bird hotspots here, where I live? The airport! Which is by definition a hot spot for radio transmissions as well, including a radar.

Quote:
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.
So are you admitting that it might be a different factor?

Now, seriously, nevertheless it doesn't matter. In the extremely improbable case that radiation elsewhere was making bird populations decline it would also affect New South Wales and Salzburg of course. I am not saying that it does, beware, don't misunderstand me!

Quote:
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 still don't get the conflict. In my experience the despisable football (I hate it with a passion) has been really damaging to bird populations. 20 years ago two thirds of a wetland close to my home were destroyed to build football fields. And that is real, measurable and obvious damage.

Quote:
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.
Same frequencies (TV), higher powers.

Quote:
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 have just installed a 60 GHz microwave link (wavelength: 5 mm) and my street is teeming with sparrows.

Quote:
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.
Sorry about the pun, but I guess that storks like Spanish cell towers. Maybe they are more comfortable than Greek ones?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 12th February 2018, 15:13   #456
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
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.
You know what is interesting, I had a look for this Dr Starkey of "Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London". Can't find anything about her, apart from her undersigning all sorts of anti-EMF documents.

"Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research" only exists as part of her signature. The associated address is actually a call centre which has been there since the 1970s (http://www.britishmonomarks.co.uk/). The email address is from a UK supermarket chain (Tesco).

In a bio from the ICEMS meeting (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety - an alarmist group with an official sounding name) it reads that she obtained a "PhD in Neurophysiology from London University" (presumably the University of London). Can't find anything on that; I'm tempted to email the UoL and ask for their records. It also states that she had a "career in neuroscience research" covering various topics. That's odd, as a search on PubMed only comes up with 10 papers, at least 1 of which is a different SJ Starkey. Some of the other ones refer to a Sarah J Starkey working for GSK, at least until 2001. No other links unfortunately. Also, no LinkedIn or Research Gate profile, ORCID ID, or anything else for that matter. Even my most Luddite scientist-colleagues have a bigger internet footprint.

So a strange reference from a low-IF journal, and even there it went through without being peer-reviewed (16 days between submission and acceptance).

Sorry PurpleHeron, really not my bag. I'd treat this with a very healthy dose of skepticism.

(and although I'm very tempted to email this 'Dr Starkey', I'm kind of allergic to tin foil )
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 12th February 2018 at 15:33.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th February 2018, 20:25   #457
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
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?
The RAF's Type 85 ground-based Air Defence Radars of the 1980s had 12 klystrons which were used together to frequency-hop against jamming radars. The maximum power available was 4.5 MW per klystron (up to 8 MW in some parts of the band). The radar horn would glow white in the dark, but full power was seldom selected, probably to keep the running costs down...

Subsequent ADRs didn't need to use this brute force approach because new technology offered far more refined digital-based and less energy-dependent solutions.
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 Tuesday 13th February 2018, 08:46   #458
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
The RAF's Type 85 ground-based Air Defence Radars of the 1980s had 12 klystrons which were used together to frequency-hop against jamming radars. The maximum power available was 4.5 MW per klystron (up to 8 MW in some parts of the band). The radar horn would glow white in the dark, but full power was seldom selected, probably to keep the running costs down...

Subsequent ADRs didn't need to use this brute force approach because new technology offered far more refined digital-based and less energy-dependent solutions.
MJB
Of course I wasn't remembering military applications. That reminds me a friend who was scared of radio transmitters because he did his military service in Canarias and part of his duties were to service a huge air defense radar there. He told me it was so bad he had to wear a leaded apron. Of course I explained him that it was probably due to X-ray radiation from the vaccum tubes :)

Speaking of what, I wonder. If non ionizing radiation was really bad for birds, they should drop dead when crossing the Gibraltar Strait which happens to be one of the most important migration routes in Europe. Do they? Not at all as far as I know!

At least in the heat of the Cold War I bet there was enough RF energy to cook birds in flight!
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 09:54   #459
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Jos. I am not arguing with you about stork numbers in northern Europe. However, most of Greece is now 4G+, and this has been true of regions like around the Evros since before last spring. It really is hard to account for the fact that we only saw storks in any number in the 3G areas in any other way. Most of the storks we saw were at Lake Kerkini, where it is not only 3G, but they have also reduced the power by 15%. As I said to Borjam, it may be the intensity of the electromagnetic waves, but if so, it goes to show that storks don't like them; they might be migrating further north to avoid them. Storks are fantastic long-distant migrants; other birds may not fare so well. I know that some species are increasing and that some species are extending their range. But storks are large birds, and I think that body mass plays a part in vulnerability to EMR. If you look at the IUCN report, Lithuania is not faring all that well in terms of the number of birds that are becoming vulnerable or endangered--roughly the same as Greece. I am not saying that EMR is the only factor in this, but it is a factor. Research into the mechanisms of how EMR affects biological systems suggests that, like AIDS, it renders the organism more susceptible to disease and death from other causes. It could, for instance, cause birds to become more vulnerable to bird flu.

Any way you look at it, we are losing birds and insects--especially insects--at an alarming rate. And I think we can agree that this is not a good thing. While there are undoubtedly multiple causes, to ignore the role that EMR plays in species decline and disappearance means that we will not be able to reverse a clearly bad situation. I know the mainstream media isn't covering this. I know that every story they run about disappearing birds and bugs and butterflies and whatever always cites climate change or pesticides or changes in land use or habitat degradation, and that all these things are also factors. But there are reasons why the mainstream media won't touch the issue of EMR, despite a large body of research showing it's dangerous, and despite good evidence that the standards-setting bodies like ICNIRP and SCENIHR have conflicts of interests and are not protecting public health and the environment.

The reason the mainstream media won't touch any anti-EMR story is that governments have fully committed themselves to a 5G future in the teeth of all the evidence that it is not good for human health, or the environment. Look at Trump and May, both of whom have declared 5G national priorities, and ask yourself why. Why, when a wired future would massively reduce energy consumption and be much cheaper? Why, when even an EU-sponsored committee of scientists has found that EMR does affect nature? Why, when the WHO/IARC has rated EMR a Group 2B carcinogen?

This is about money, and the intensive lobbying by an unregulated telecoms industry that makes trillions from wireless that it could not make from wired technologies. This is because governments have so committed themselves that they can't backtrack without causing a massive crash in the stock market, and because we've been going along this road so long that we haven't invested a penny in visualizing the future in any other way. From a government point of view, it is also about control--they will always know where you are and what you are doing. And, last but certainly not least, this is about the military-industrial complex. Read the DIA document I posted earlier. Read "Reinventing Wires". The military wants wireless technologies. Big business wants wireless technologies. They do not care if you get sick or the planet turns into a desert.

However, if you are waiting for the mainstream media to tell you any of this before you believe it, you will have a long wait. And when they do start running the "how come we never knew" stories it will be far too late.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 13:02   #460
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Borjam. If you read the attached paper by Magda Havas, you might understand why your friend is not so keen on radio transmitters.

@ Jos. I also recommend it for you, since it explains quite clearly how EMR affects living organisms, including birds. Non-ionizing radiation, including ELF (under 300 Hz) and RF, causes oxidative stress in all living organisms from plants to man. The damage is generated not by direct ionization of atoms or molecules but rather by interference with anti-oxidant repair mechanisms; non-ionizing radiation produces free radicals.

@ Nohatch. No doubt you will also ridicule Dr. Havas, since she is very much on the anti-EMR side of the debate. She correctly notes how polarized the debate is, and it's a good paper. I admit I do not know who Starkey is or anything about her. However, many people have written about the conflict of interest concerning members of ICNIRP, SCENIHR and other regulatory committees who tell us that EMR is safe, and it is undeniable that there IS a conflict of interest when someone who sits on such a regulatory body has also worked for telecoms companies such as Vodafone. I think the least we can expect from any such regulatory body is independence from industry, and if we cannot have that, their pronouncements as to safety are suspect. If, say, Maria Feychting worked for a telecoms company, she ought to be disqualified from sitting on a regulatory body anywhere, at ICNIRP or in the UK. The same goes for all such committee members. Would you have someone with ties to the tobacco industry telling you smoking is safe? Or someone from Monsanto telling you which pesticides are safe? And does it matter about the qualifications of the person who ferreted out the information that such so-called experts are biased/have ties to industry, provided that the information is correct? I don't see you saying that Feychting did not in fact work for a telecoms company. If she did, she does not qualify as an independent authority. And this is the crux of the issue.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Tuesday 13th February 2018 at 13:04.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 14:28   #461
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
This is about money, and the intensive lobbying by an unregulated telecoms industry that makes trillions from wireless that it could not make from wired technologies.
Excuse me? Cell phone networks are orders of magnitude more regulated than wired networks. Beginning with the finite radio spectrum available, which is usually auctioned.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 14:29   #462
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam. If you read the attached paper by Magda Havas, you might understand why your friend is not so keen on radio transmitters.
No, I'm afraid that's not the reason :) My friend wasn't scared of radio transmitters, he just was wrong about the reasons to use a leaded apron, which is different. He wasn't aware that some vacuum tubes can emit X-rays.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 14:44   #463
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam. If you read the attached paper by Magda Havas, you might understand why your friend is not so keen on radio transmitters.

@ Nohatch. No doubt you will also ridicule Dr. Havas, since she is very much on the anti-EMR side of the debate.
Well, there really is no need for me to do so. Others have done a perfectly good job already (incl. Yale neurologist Steven Novella):
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4273
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cfl...d-bad-science/
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...-from-schools/
http://evilcyber.com/the-rest/havas-wifi-research/
...and various others.

Look, I am not trying to be nasty and I fully appreciate that as a lay person it can be difficult to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. People like Havas blur this line the most, because she has the titles and the academic position (though heaven knows why Trent keep her on), but her methods are anything but scientific. Have you read her stuff on "Type 3 diabetes" and energy-saving light bulbs? That is not only utter nonsense (and yes I do work on the biochemical regulation of obesity and diabetes), but borderline dangerous, as it may lead people to ignore their doctor's advise based on purposefully crafted misinformation. If someone is severely overweight and at risk of developing diabetes would you suggest they switch off their wifi and throw away their light bulbs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
She correctly notes how polarized the debate is, and it's a good paper.
So let me ask you this: how do you judge it to be a good paper?
And in my opinion she misrepresents the situation by presenting it as highly polarised. The scientific consensus (which is based on weighing up all available evidence) is very much one-sided. But then, I've seen that same argument used many times before by 'fringe scientists' in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
However, many people have written about the conflict of interest concerning members of ICNIRP, SCENIHR and other regulatory committees who tell us that EMR is safe, and it is undeniable that there IS a conflict of interest when someone who sits on such a regulatory body has also worked for telecoms companies such as Vodafone. I think the least we can expect from any such regulatory body is independence from industry, and if we cannot have that, their pronouncements as to safety are suspect. If, say, Maria Feychting worked for a telecoms company, she ought to be disqualified from sitting on a regulatory body anywhere, at ICNIRP or in the UK. The same goes for all such committee members. Would you have someone with ties to the tobacco industry telling you smoking is safe? Or someone from Monsanto telling you which pesticides are safe?
I strongly agree with you on the point of impartiality. However, the reality can be a little bit more complicated. For example, I am currently doing measurements for a study which is funded by Novartis. Does that infringe on my ability to do my work impartially and stand by my results and interpretation of what they mean? In my personal experience it does not. I am not paid directly by the company (as the contract runs through the university), have not had to sign any dodgy legal documents etc. From what I can tell on the Microwave New website the situation with Feychting is pretty similar. For the author to suggest that the Karolinska Institute 'lives in fear' because the telecom industry funding tap may be switched off is a gross misrepresentation of the funding situation of a large research institute like that. As I'm sure the author is very well aware off, but if he presented the situation as it is then he hasn't got a nice juicy rumour now does he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
And does it matter about the qualifications of the person who ferreted out the information that such so-called experts are biased/have ties to industry, provided that the information is correct?
I don't recall questioning Slesin's qualifications. However, I think you've answered your own question by adding those final 6 words. So can I ask where your evidence is that Prof. Feychting "in fact work[s] for a telecoms company"? Or is the situation in reality much more nuanced but presented in a specific one-sided way to further the author's own purposes (as per the above)?

Anyway, I hate finishing off on a negative note and did want to say that I very much admire your good intentions behind this thread (and your tenacity/bloody-mindedness haha). You clearly have the best interests of people and nature at heart and the world could do with a lot more of that frankly. But please guard yourself against all the spin and the misinformation that circulates on the net these days (whether born of good/blind faith, ignorance or malice). We are all susceptible to some degree or other, and I know I fall foul of it sometimes. But that's exactly why the scientific method was developed in the first place, and I think it's still our only armour in a world of conflicting interests and opinions.
Here is a good place to start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

All the best,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 13th February 2018 at 15:10.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th February 2018, 18:34   #464
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos. I am not arguing with you about stork numbers in northern Europe. However, most of Greece is now 4G+, and this has been true of regions like around the Evros since before last spring. It really is hard to account for the fact that we only saw storks in any number in the 3G areas in any other way.
Well let's at least get the geographical regions correct - stork numbers are not increasing in northern Europe alone, it has been pointed out to you on this thread alone that storks are undergoing population increases in northern Europe (Baltic States), central Europe (Poland), western Europe (Holland) and southern Europe (Spain).

And big deal if most of Greece is 4G, all of Lithuania is 4G - yet still the stork population has doubled simultaneously with the roll-out of the various stages of mobile network.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
... it goes to show that storks don't like them; they might be migrating further north to avoid them. Storks are fantastic long-distant migrants; other birds may not fare so well.
This is almost funny - are you seriously trying to say the Greek storks, not liking the local cell phone towers, are now migrating further north to settle in countries with even greater 4G networks? I hope you are not trying to suggest the massive European increase in storks is a result of cell phone refugees from Greece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
If you look at the IUCN report, Lithuania is not faring all that well in terms of the number of birds that are becoming vulnerable or endangered--roughly the same as Greece. I am not saying that EMR is the only factor in this, but it is a factor.
Here we go again - trying to link a reported decline somewhere with your cause, even if the actual report you quote does not suggest it. You are categorically stating here that EMR is a factor in the decline in species in Lithuania - please explain which Lithuanian species you are thinking of in this case and how you can categorically say EMR is a factor in their decline.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th February 2018, 09:22   #465
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Nohatch Sorry, I think you are wrong in a lot of ways. I probably can't deal with every point, but I'll try. Let me start with one very basic point, which is that I noticed a correlation between lack of birds and cell towers before I ever started looking into EMR. This correlation continues to hold everywhere I go, and there has been a marked decline in bird numbers as more parts of Greece have been upgraded. Furthermore, I am not the only person to notice this correlation. A lot of people I have talked to have noticed it, and I have been told repeatedly how bird life started to diminish locally once the first cell tower went up, and how huge flights of migrating birds changed their route when the army built a radar/communications station in the mountains. Public wi-fi also has affected birds, and areas which have it have seen a gradual diminution in numbers until now there are no small birds in these areas. While I understand that correlation is not causation, the correlation is consistent and has been noted by others, not only in Greece but as far away as India and Australia. So please, at least do me the favor of realizing where this starts: with observation, followed by a search for information to see whether it was possible to confirm the hypothesis that cell tower radiation might be causing bird numbers to diminish. And I must say, what I have found does, to my mind, supply sufficient evidence that there is merit to my initial hypothesis.

You say there is no debate in the scientific community, or characterize anyone who is on the anti-wireless side of the debate as a "fringe" scientist. That is nonsense. I quoted Schopenhauer a little while ago, about truth passing through three stages--the first is violent ridicule, and that is the stage you are at. I seem to recall the Inquisition had a good go at Galileo, and they did eventually make him recant, but he wasn't wrong, they were. Yet the Inquisition represented the best, and accepted, scientific knowledge of the time. There seem to me to be an awful lot of "fringe" scientists, if that is the case. Are they all, in your view, simply unqualified, or mad? What of people like Olle Johannson, who worked for the Karolinska Institute? He trained there, as well, so I don't think you could say he was unqualified. Many of the people who are anti-wireless have superb qualifications and work for prestigious universities and facilities. Columbia. Yale. Stanford. Yet you say there is no debate? Oh, please! Magda Havas is not only properly qualified, she has made an immense contribution to cleaner air and the cleaning up of Canadian lakes as a result of her work on acid rain. When I say Magda Havas' paper is good, I say it because she clearly explains the mechanisms by which EMR causes cancer. I have read much of the original research to which she refers, but her explanation is simple and accessible. Nor, incidentally, do I think she is wrong about the diabetes/obesity issue. I know, for instance, that getting people to turn off the wi-fi at home has a positive effect on asthma. And I can see that children are getting very fat, and they spend much of every day in a wi-fi environment both at school and at home. It's not a subject I've done much reading on, but I know there are some studies showing links between EMR and obesity. So if turning off the wi-fi or changing the light bulbs helps a person to lose weight, thus reducing the chance of developing diabetes, where is the conflict? Or is "take this pill" the only medical advice worth having?

The information re Maria Feychting comes from "Anatomy of a Rumor" and I believe it to be correct. I did, after all, contact the author of the article and he fully answered my questions, particularly pointing out that there has been no comeback on this piece, which is in the public domain. If Feychting felt herself to be libeled, she could sue. But she has not, which is telling. Many of the people on these committees have ties with telecoms, and that disqualifies them as independent experts. Moreover, it is indefensible to fail to state such a conflict of interest in the first place.

Another point. The article you posted on aging and cancer does not in any way that I can tell contradict anything in Havas' paper. There is no reason why oxidative stress and suppression of antioxidants caused by EMR shouldn't act synergistically with the aging process--EMR is a stessor. Here's a quote from the paper you posted: "Consequently, one should expect different mutational processes to provide interacting, synergistic contributions to the age-dependent load and burden. The dynamics of aging, in turn, affect the age-dependent change in sensitivity of an organism to stressors." To avoid developing cancer, one tries to avoid stressors. One's sensitivity to a stressor like EMR would increase with age. Why, then, should one accept ubiquitous EMR?

I mentioned to Borjam the other day that my grandfather, a heavy smoker, lived to a healthy 100. Of course, he was born in 1867. He was in his 60's before radio saw commercial use, and lived much of his life without electricity. I don't know if he ever saw a television. So EMR as a stressor did not affect him--or hardly any. He did have electricity from after WWII. The thing is, most of his generation smoked, and quite a lot of them lived a long time. But there was no, or very little, EMR. There's an interesting piece on Havas' website called "Electrification caused the diseases of civilization" at http://www.magdahavas.com/electrific...-civilization/ . The article refers to a 2009 study comparing populations with and without electricity in the 1940's, and there were higher proportions of diseases including cancer among those who had electricity. EMR is a stressor. Have you ever gone for a couple of weeks totally without electricity? I do it frequently. I have to say, you feel really good and sleep brilliantly.

Final point. You claim that you are unaffected by bias no matter who funds your research. There is always a subconscious desire to please the funder, even if you don't want there to be. Without funds, research dies. If your research consistently displeases those who fund it, they will not keep funding you to do it. So much rides on this funding--keeping one's job, keeping the institution where one works going--it's the way things are, but it is insidious. No offense, and I am sure you are well-intentioned, but survival is always paramount. Perhaps in the interest of unbiased research the scientists should not know who is providing the funding.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Wednesday 14th February 2018 at 11:17.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th February 2018, 11:39   #466
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Borjam. Cell phone networks are NOT more regulated than wired networks. See "Reinventing wires". Having a license to use a particular wavelength/part of the spectrum does not mean that these companies are regulated in other ways to the same degree as wired communications. With regard to the Broomhall piece, he is the one who makes the connection between species decline/disappearance and cell towers. I mention that New South Wales has very strict radiation standards to emphasize the point that the frequency is the main issue when it comes to EMR. By the way, I wouldn't expect your sparrows to disappear all at once. Even in Gateshead, where the whole city is now 5G, it took some time to accomplish this. The same is true here on Samos. When they put public wi-fi in the main square, the birds diminished gradually, not all at once.

@ Jos You do keep banging the drum about Lithuania having such a great 4G network. I think Bulgaria also claims that honor--if it is one. And you get very upset whenever I suggest a possible cause for bird declines which are not previously suggested by a report's authors. Since EMR has not been to date (although this is now changing) on the radar of birding organizations and NGOs, you would hardy expect them to mention it. This does not mean it couldn't be a factor, only that they hadn't considered it at the time they wrote their report. If EMR is affecting birds in Greece, it will also be affecting birds in Lithuania, stork populations notwithstanding. Crows and great tits, for instance, do not seem to be as affected by EMR as other birds, so maybe this applies to storks also. If we end up with a world full of crows and very little else, will you still be insisting that EMR has no effect on birds because we still have crows?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th February 2018, 11:53   #467
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam. Cell phone networks are NOT more regulated than wired networks. See "Reinventing wires".
Given that I work for the (wired) telecommunications industry, could you please tell me which regulations make you think that the wired networks are more regulated than the wireless ones?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th February 2018, 12:26   #468
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos You do keep banging the drum about Lithuania having such a great 4G network. I think Bulgaria also claims that honor--if it is one.
Which you continuously ignore. You are now trying to claim storks are declining in Greece due to cell towers, so it needs to be reminded that storks across most of their range have seen significant population increase in the period corresponding to the arrival of 4G (and this being in countries that 4G that is better developed than in Greece).

And, for your information, it is not I that says Lithuania has one of the leading 4G network (I personally couldn't care less) - it is for example this site. Regardless whether it is number one in Europe or not, it is better developed than in Greece.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
And you get very upset whenever I suggest a possible cause for bird declines which are not previously suggested by a report's authors.
If you post totally unsubstantiated opinion, without a shred of balance, why are you surprised that people comment? And you did not post a 'possible' cause - you categorically said EMR is a factor in the decline of Lithuania's birds.

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question - you stated that Lithuania is not faring well in terms of the number of birds that are becoming vulnerable or endangered and, as mentioned, categorically added that EMR is a factor in this. Which species are you talking about? Did you actually read beyond the headline figure in the IUCN report to even see which species are declining? I guess probably not, even less that you have done any additional reading to see if reasons are understood for the declines or not.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Wednesday 14th February 2018 at 12:52.
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 14th February 2018, 13:52   #469
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 561
Tilting at windmills

Oh well, I tried. I'm afraid you are incredibly out of your depth in all of this. You show a complete lack of understanding of basic biochemistry, (bio)physics, physiology and ecology, are unable/unwilling to adhere to fundamental scientific principles, and have no idea how academia actually works (but you're happy to criticise it regardless).
You know what the real problem is though? You only choose to listen to people whose views support your own preconceived ideas. The fact that their theories have been disproved or their measurements discredited (easy enough to find out because it's all published) apparently means nothing to you. And I've learnt long ago that there's no point arguing with a fundamentalist.
So I won't bother looking at this thread again, and can't say I wish you all the best with your misguided crusade. Because from where pretty much everybody else is standing, there're just windmills...

Goodbye.

Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1311 (latest: Grey Phalarope @ Lymington-Keyhaven NR, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 10:40   #470
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Nohatch Actually, I am not out of my depth at all. You just don't have a counter-argument to the points I have raised, so you fall back on the "preconceived notion" argument, which does not stand up to scrutiny, and is merely juvenile. I expected better of you.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 13:34   #471
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Nohatch Actually, I am not out of my depth at all. You just don't have a counter-argument to the points I have raised, so you fall back on the "preconceived notion" argument, which does not stand up to scrutiny, and is merely juvenile. I expected better of you.
You, yourself have often said on this thread that you are not a scientist, or, are not in a position to fully understand a lot of the technical detail etc.

Is that not being out of your depth - particularly when those pointing out the flaws in your "arguments" are themselves scientists?
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 13:57   #472
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
EMR interacts with other variables to produce effects

I have raised, on other occasions, the suggestion that EMR acts in a way similar to AIDS, in that it promotes or intensifies damaging effects on life forms. The attached paper, "Modified Health Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Combined with Other Agents Reported in Biomedical Literature" looks at this issue as it relates to human health. You will have to extrapolate from that how EMR in combination with other factors such as chemical contaminants, pesticides etc. affect birds, insects, plants etc.

It's a longish paper, and it lists some of the beneficial uses of EMR as well as the deleterious ones. The main point the authors make is that non-ionizing EMR can both initiate health effects on its own, and also serve as a co-promoter or potentiator of biochemical agents, so that you get combined effects. In other words, EMR plus other agents will make the effects of these agents more pronounced than they would be without EMR.

One other interesting point, which I have also mentioned before, is that "combined effects occur in 'windows' for specific combinations of multiple variables...the effect will display under the proper combinations of variables and parameters within limited ranges of each." (page 31)

This is important when considering why in some places effects on nature are obvious and in others places they are not apparent or are less so. Multiple variables always exist.

EMR is a pollutant. To say, "I haven't noticed any effects" is not to say there are none, or that there won't be any. Balmori rightly notes that EMR is a slow-acting poison. To that add the possibility that one day, where you live and presently see no effects, one of those "windows" will open (EMR at a particular frequency, EMR plus a particular variable) and you will see effects. There is of course one constant variable with which EMR always interacts: time itself.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 371048_1_En_4_Chapter_OnlinePDF.pdf (662.2 KB, 4 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 14:27   #473
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 220
@ Gordon I do have two Master's and a double first, so I am in the main quite capable of understanding the materials I read and have posted. When I don't, or have questions, I ask for help from people who have the qualifications I lack. I have been pleasantly surprised over the past year how many of the scientists whose work I have drawn on are willing to talk to me, write back to me, and clarify issues that I wasn't clear on. I have learned a great deal, partly through doing this thread, because I realize that if I am going to take this position, I need to support it. The mistakes are mine alone.

I don't actually recall (though I may be wrong here) anyone pointing out the flaws in my main thesis that EMR is damaging birds and nature. People have said they are not seeing these effects themselves, which is fair enough, and people have attacked the qualifications of the scientists who have written some of the papers. But what I haven't seen is refutation of the papers themselves. Nohatch was going to read some of the studies that found DNA damage as a result of EMR. I expected him to tell me, if he found flaws in these studies, what they were. Am I to conclude that he found none but still doesn't want to believe that EMR harms birds and people? Telling me that I have "preconceived notions" is not a refutation of the scientific evidence I have provided, it is merely an emotional response and not one that I would expect from a scientist.

I do always suggest that people read the research for themselves--that's why I post it.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 17:04   #474
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Gordon I do have two Master's and a double first, .

You don't mention if any of those are in scientific disciplines - if I had to guess I would say not or you would have said so.
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th February 2018, 17:30   #475
hwinbermuda
Registered User
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I don't actually recall (though I may be wrong here) anyone pointing out the flaws in my main thesis that EMR is damaging birds and nature.
As you will recall, I have been looking on as an interested observer, but had not realised that you had written a thesis, please can you post it, or a link, so that I can see if it does indeed move me one way or another,
thank you
Harry
hwinbermuda is online now  
Reply With Quote
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 0.21278405 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:07.