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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 08:22   #176
Hauksen
Registered User

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Another rhetorical question? Please say what you mean.
You quoted his opinion. On what evidence did the author base it?

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 13:09   #177
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Henning Just want to clarify something for you. emf-portal, while a good resource, does not by any means contain all the studies about electromagnetic radiation, pro or con. Some of the studies I have posted along this thread have come from other sources, which are many, including researchgate and pubmed. So I am not basing the figure of 25,000 studies on the number of studies on that site. The number I cite was quoted from a talk by Dr. Olle Johansson and is available on YouTube along with other talks he has given. Sorry but I don't have the url for that particular one; I think but can't swear that it was given in in Barcelona.

As to why you should read the Mt. Nardi Wildlife report, I think Ed just gave you one. It is phenomenally on-topic. It's the kind of report I wish I'd been able to write about what I'm seeing in Greece. See what he says about the difference cell towers made to the wildlife in the areas he is talking about, and then we will have a basis for discussion.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th November 2017, 13:46   #178
Hauksen
Registered User

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning Just want to clarify something for you. emf-portal, while a good resource, does not by any means contain all the studies about electromagnetic radiation, pro or con.
Your point was that 25000 studies can't all be wrong. How exactly did you determine that?

And what exactly is the frequency of the earth's natural magnetic field?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
See what he says about the difference cell towers made to the wildlife in the areas he is talking about, and then we will have a basis for discussion.
So how did he measure radiation and impact on wildlife? From the quote, I can only tell that he's big on eloquence. Bring evidence, and then we might have a basis for discussion.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 12:50   #179
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Henning The earth's magnetic field is, I believe, calculated using the Schumann resonance. Very similar to the alpha waves of the brain.

Why can't 25,000 studies all be wrong? Theoretically they could, but this is extremely unlikely when the people who did the studies are highly qualified scientists working in established universities and institutions, and whose work is peer-reviewed before publication in recognized scientific journals.

As reagards your last question, you can't tell anything when you won't read the report in question. You can assess his evidence, and we can argue about it, after you have read it.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th November 2017, 14:05   #180
Hauksen
Registered User

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Henning The earth's magnetic field is, I believe, calculated using the Schumann resonance. Very similar to the alpha waves of the brain.
And what's that in terms of actual measurements? And how close is that to the mobile communications channels you're comparing it to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Why can't 25,000 studies all be wrong? Theoretically they could, but this is extremely unlikely when the people who did the studies are highly qualified scientists working in established universities and institutions, and whose work is peer-reviewed before publication in recognized scientific journals.
As before ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauksen View Post
If you want to argue with the superior wisdom of scientists, note that the studies have not made much of an impression on the greater scientific consensus, so that will really work against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
As reagards your last question, you can't tell anything when you won't read the report in question. You can assess his evidence, and we can argue about it, after you have read it.
It's your cause, not mine. If you want to convince me, it's up to you to bring convincing arguments. If it's too inconvenient for you to take the time to post a few sentences summarizing the hard facts from your 35+ page report ... never mind, I have better things to do, too.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th November 2017, 13:14   #181
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Henning I suspect you know what the Schumann resonance is, and that it is very, very weak compared to the levels of electromagnetic radiation that man is generating. I also suspect you have already read the Mt. Nardi Wildlife Report. I am not going to summarize it so that you can debate my choice of words; it speaks for itself. If you want to debate Broomhall's observations and findings, that's fine with me.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th November 2017, 14:11   #182
Hauksen
Registered User

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I am not going to summarize it so that you can debate my choice of words; it speaks for itself.
Well, in that case, I'm through with the topic. I appreciate that you're well-intentioned, so I wish you good luck with your efforts to help Greek birdlife, even if my personal impression is that more likely than not, you're up in arms against windmills.

Regards,

Henning
Hauksen is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 15th November 2017, 04:09   #183
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,049
Diana,

I'd like to compliment your outstanding field report entitled: "Birds and Trees of Northern Greece: Population Declines since the Advent of 4G Wireless; an Observational Study," By Diana Kordas (diana.kordas@yandex.com) September 10, 2017. *(attached) It's beautifully written and highly thought provoking — a solid contribution!

Living in the San Francisco Bay Area I'm keenly aware that the massive flocks of black-necked stilts, avocets, plovers and many other shore birds has significantly declined over the past 25 yrs., while the human population has exploded along with the revolution in wireless communications technology. It's really hard to avoid postulating a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, although the biological mechanisms may continue to be difficult to unravel.

Many thanks,
Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Birds and Trees of Northern Greece By Diana Kordas.pdf (314.2 KB, 11 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 15th November 2017 at 04:19.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Wednesday 15th November 2017, 07:32   #184
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Second, re your comment to Borjam, the fact that wireless communications use a lot more energy than wired communications is not my primary reason for wanting to get rid of wireless communications. It is a factor we should consider, though, if we are concerned about CO2 levels. After all, getting rid of 5 million cars (or the equivalent) would improve CO2 levels.
So, resource consumption and wireless vs wire communication.

At home I have a wireless network with about 20 devices and three wireless access points.

Without wireless communications I would need a full cabling installation, 20 devices at an average of 15 metres of copper wire, that would make 300 metres of cable. Cable made of copper and with 2700 metres of isolation stuff, which is a kind of plastic, not exactly environmental friendly.

Actually I have understated it because it would also require 20 wall sockets (again, so friendly with the environment) and 20 connection cords with their plugs (total: 40 plastic plugs).

Power consumption: an Ethernet switch can consume about 1 W per port, the figure can vary a lot depending on the degree of sophistication of course.

The wireless access points I use have a maximum power consumption of 7 W each. That's the maximum quoted by the manufacturer, which means it will happen in peak conditions, with many users connected (around 40 each) and passing a lot of traffic.

So.

Wireless access point for 40 users: 7 W

Ethernet switch with about 40 ports: Minimum 25 W, more sophisticated ones can go to 100 W.

Now, consider the environmental impact of manufacturing 300 metres of twisted pair cable, which is 2400 metres of copper wire together with its insulation jacket. Add to that insulation jacket 300 metres more of the thicker jacket covering the whole cable assembly (it's four pairs of thin wires).

What's the magic with wireless communications? Simple. Remember that wireless means portable device. A portable device runs on batteries, opposed to the typical "fixed" device connected to a wall plug which can be safely considered to have access to an infinite supply of energy.

A lot of research goes into making small portable devices more energy efficient. Think about your typical home meteorologic station with its small outdoors sensor, which indeed sends its readings wirelessly. How often do you replace a small battery? Once a year? Every two years?

Low power means lower Carbon impact. A laptop consumes much less than the typical desktop.

Last edited by Borjam : Wednesday 15th November 2017 at 08:03. Reason: Miscalculated insulation length
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 15th November 2017, 13:29   #185
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Ed. Thanks for that. I think a lot of the biological mechanisms that explain why electromagnetic fields cause harm are understood, and obviously more work is being done all the time. Assuming that many of the same biological mechanisms apply in birds (I don't think much work has been done on birds specifically as they are not good surrogates for humans, where most of the concern focuses) then declines in bird numbers can be explained through those mechanisms. One mechanism, for example, has to do with how EMFs affect voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) which in turn affect immunity to cancers (I think I've got that right). Also a great deal of work has been done on fertility, especially sperm quality and motility. I'll have a look and see what I can find over the next few days. As for birds, most of the work seems to focus on understanding the mechanisms of migration. While that is obviously important, there are huge holes in our understanding of how EMFs affect birds. It's very hard to do field studies that aren't intrusive, to find out things like how well birds are breeding, whether chicks survive and can breed in turn, etc.

@ Borjam You are not calculating the power for charging all the wireless devices, the environmental consequences of the materials used to make them, or of battery disposal (recycling takes energy, too). Then there is the problem that all these devices have built-in obsolescence; it's not long before you can't get a new battery for a device a few years old, or the one you have won't support new software or apps. It all adds up to using more and more resources, and more and more power. They want you to keep buying new stuff and throwing the old stuff away. My husband has been using his desktop for years; laptops don't last very long. With landlines, you could go on using the same telephone for decades. What good is energy efficiency in the design of a mobile device if you can't go on using it for a long time? And all of the above means higher carbon impact.

@ Henning Thanks for the good wishes. Tilting at windmills is a long and honorable tradition.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 15th November 2017, 13:50   #186
Borjam
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam You are not calculating the power for charging all the wireless devices,
If a mobile device uses less power than a desktop one, the energy you must store into its battery is obviously lower.

Quote:
the environmental consequences of the materials used to make them, or of battery disposal (recycling takes energy, too).
The materials are the same except for the Lithium used in the batteries.

Quote:
Then there is the problem that all these devices have built-in obsolescence; it's not long before you can't get a new battery for a device a few years old, or the one you have won't support new software or apps.
It's not built in obsolescence, but changing requirements. Try to look at a modern, HD video from YouTube with a very old computer. It won't cope.


Quote:
It all adds up to using more and more resources, and more and more power. They want you to keep buying new stuff and throwing the old stuff away. My husband has been using his desktop for years; laptops don't last very long.
Depending on the laptop. Mine was purchased in 2009 and it works perfectly.

Quote:
With landlines, you could go on using the same telephone for decades. What good is energy efficiency in the design of a mobile device if you can't go on using it for a long time? And all of the above means higher carbon impact.
If you only want to talk you can still use an old mobile phone.

Of course if you want to load web pages you are out of luck. Modern web pages load countless complex elements. But that's not the fault of computer manufacturers, but web server operators (especially newspapers) and advertising agencies.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 17th November 2017, 10:01   #187
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Borjam There is built-in obsolescence if you can't get batteries, chargers etc for older devices. Are the materials the same for desktop and laptop? Is it only the mobile phones that require rare earths in their manufacture? How much utility is there, really, in using a smartphone to load web pages? Nobody can do serious reading on a screen that small--it results in eye problems and limited comprehension of the materials read. Why is it so important to be able to access anything, anywhere, any time? Do you not perceive any problems--societal, familial, personal--with this? Modern technology in this regard is advancing, advancing, advancing. You have said before that without it we're back to the stone age. I don't think so. In spite of all the information available, in many ways people are less educated and worse-informed than they used to be, with smaller attention spans and lower retention of facts and information. Back in the stone age when I was a lot younger, when people didn't spend all their time engrossed in their mobile devices, people also had more time to notice and appreciate nature, and there was a lot more nature to appreciate.

Recently I was comparing two bird guides I have for Greece. One was written in 1996, the other, an updated version, in 2014. In 1996 the author found birds in a great many places where there are now none. One example: the large lagoons around Porto Lagos. In the 1996 version, the author goes on about all the birds he saw on these lagoons. I first went in 2005 or 2006, and saw very few birds in these lagoons. The past couple of trips north there have been none at all. In 1996, 2G was just getting started in Greece. By 2005, this area was 3G. By 2014, 4G was starting to be installed. Now it's everywhere. And there are correspondingly fewer birds.

How many of you reading this thread can remember what bird life was like 20 years ago, pre-wireless? If you can't, you don't have a standard for comparison.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th November 2017, 10:55   #188
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Ed The article "Wi-Fi s a very substantial threat to human health" is a good, simple summary of how electromagnetic frequencies affect the body and the mechanisms involved. Here's the link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3534...an-Health-2017

I would assume that these same mechanisms affect birds, and would influence avian behavior as well as immunity, reproduction, etc.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th November 2017, 20:20   #189
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed The article "Wi-Fi s a very substantial threat to human health" is a good, simple summary of how electromagnetic frequencies affect the body and the mechanisms involved. Here's the link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3534...an-Health-2017

I would assume that these same mechanisms affect birds, and would influence avian behavior as well as immunity, reproduction, etc.
Hi Diana,

Wow! That's quite a powerful article, and, unfortunately, just what one might expect with regard to Govt. oversight. It does, of course, leave one dumbfounded as to just what might be done about it — either for humans or avians. But, I have very little doubt that it is an important issue, which will have to be addressed in some way.

Many thanks,
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 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 18th November 2017, 12:48   #190
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Ed I m trying to do something about it in a couple of ways. I have filed an official complaint with the EU Birds Directive on the grounds that the EU is failing to protect birds from the harmful effects of EMR. They'll probably write me a long letter telling me that they take it very seriously but there is no evidence, blah, blah, blah. However as far as I know I am the only person to ever do this, so they will go through the motions. On the human front, I think a case can be made that these frequencies constitute a massive biological experiment. In this case it violates both the EU Treaty of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens and the Nuremberg Decision. If it can be proven to violate Nuremberg, everyone has the right, enshrined in law, to refuse to participate, to bring the experiment to an end. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's worth a try. This could be done in every country that formally recognizes the Nuremberg Decision.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 18th November 2017, 12:58   #191
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Study: More than 75% decrease in total flying insect biomass over 27 yrs across Germa

@ Everyone I mentioned this study earlier: here is a link. The point of this study on insects, and what makes it so important, is the conclusion of the authors that changes in land use, weather and habitat do not explain the overall decline.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1019100927.htm
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:48   #192
mjh73
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
This link will take you to the extremely interesting report, "M. Nardi Wildlife Report to UNESCO. You can download the PDF from there.

https://app.box.com/s/as3oys5xe9m7c30ushv34bj93hkg4qym
That is barely a report.

I think 'verbose flying of a kite' might describe it better?

Guessing it gave UNESCO a much needed laugh.

mjh
mjh73 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 05:16   #193
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjh73 View Post
That is barely a report.

I think 'verbose flying of a kite' might describe it better?

Guessing it gave UNESCO a much needed laugh.

mjh
What in your view would make this a substantial report, and what is your basis for saying it's a "verbose flying of a kite?" Finally, why did UNESCO very much need a laugh?

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 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 05:17   #194
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Everyone I mentioned this study earlier: here is a link. The point of this study on insects, and what makes it so important, is the conclusion of the authors that changes in land use, weather and habitat do not explain the overall decline.
As usual, you have skipped an element to make it sound better for your cause - the research was done on specifically on nature reserves, so the noted "changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics were not able to explain the overall decline" refers to these features at the localised nature reserves only, not these features on a wider scale - this would be obvious, as changes in these areas is limited due to their protection.

It was not part of their study to consider the reason nor to consider the wider area in which the nature reserves are located, but in an interview they added that they consider the widescale application of pesticides and agricultural intensification in the surroundings of the reserves to be a probably cause, hence their call for additional research to further investigate the full range of climactic and agricultural variables that could potentially impact insect biomass.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 10:23   #195
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@ Jos I haven't skipped anything "to make it sound better for my cause". The authors of the study don't say, or appear to consider, electromagnetic frequencies as a possible cause for insect disappearance. I think I already made this point. The authors themselves do say that their study is a "first step" in filling the gap in historical data. And it is interesting that the 27 years of their study span the introduction and intensification of wireless technologies. So what I am saying is that, given the mounting evidence that wireless technologies have a negative impact on all living things, RF radiation ought to be considered as a possible cause, or one contributory cause, to the loss of insect biomass.

I am not minimizing the impact of agricultural practices on insects. The herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) will likely be banned in the EU on the back of this study. And it is a herbicide, not a pesticide--it doesn't specifically target insects, though it is in very wide use. Will that make a difference? Will it stop the decline? If it doesn't, if insect numbers continue to decline drastically, will they look at wireless communications as a possible cause?

Actually, the EU-funded EKLIPSE project is already looking at the impact of RF radiation on invertebrates as well as other life forms because there is widespread concern about this technology. One of the authors of the Aegean insect study I posted is working on that project. When I asked him, he told me that there might be enough evidence to justify their asking for a moratorium on 5G based on their findings. There haven't been nearly enough in vivo experiments (outdoor, in natural surroundings) of RF radiation effects--not surprising, as they are very hard to do and so many variables to control for. He rates the study I posted as "middling" in that it is suggestive but needs to be repeated, which they plan to do.

Are we looking at cause and effect or chance correlations when people notice declines in birds, insects, plants, human fertility etc. since wireless was introduced? I think that there are a lot of correlations: insect biomass, bird numbers, human numbers, colony collapse disorder especially since 2006 or 2007 when 3G was introduced, etc. When you keep getting correlations, you have to wonder whether there is a causal link. A lot of people think there is one, and a lot of scientists are studying it. At the same time, so much money is riding on the so-called digital future that governments are promoting wireless, possibly to the detriment of the entire planet. I think we have a monumental conflict of interest going on here, and a population so addicted to this technology that they aren't capable of making rational decisions.

Here are some things to think about:

1. The EU's promotion of wireless technology via the EU Digital Agenda 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-...-2020-strategy

2. The deliberate designing of wireless products to make them addictive: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...alley-dystopia

3. Wireless communications may be causing colony collapse disorder, and bee populations are in serious decline. http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/in...ey-bees/340381
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:33   #196
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@mjh73 Exactly what is so funny about the Mt. Nardi Wildlife report? Do you think that species diminishing and disappearing is funny? If so, you are an odd sort of bird-watcher. Why do you find the report verbose? Personally, I would have liked to know more about his observations.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:30   #197
Jos Stratford
Back again...
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in East Europe
Posts: 15,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos I haven't skipped anything "to make it sound better for my cause".
You always do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post

Are we looking at cause and effect or chance correlations when people notice declines in birds, insects, plants, human fertility etc. since wireless was introduced? I think that there are a lot of correlations: insect biomass, bird numbers, human numbers, colony collapse disorder especially since 2006 or 2007 when 3G was introduced, etc. When you keep getting correlations, you have to wonder whether there is a causal link
You will find correlations in most of these in the period before 3G too, plus numerous species also increasing since 3G, human numbers increasing, etc. Others decreasing in one locality, yet not another where 3G/4G is more developed, etc. Cherry picking and selective interpretation can always produce the 'results' you want.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:41   #198
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
@Jos Aren't you doing a bit of cherry-picking yourself by ignoring reports saying there is a problem?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:05   #199
MTem
Registered User
 
MTem's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@Jos Aren't you doing a bit of cherry-picking yourself by ignoring reports saying there is a problem?
That some bird (and insect) populations are declining, in some locations at alarming rates is not being disputed here, I believe. What is being questioned is the attribution of cause.

Mick
MTem is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 16:09   #200
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,792
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.
Mono is offline  
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}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19709992 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:05.