View Single Post
Old Monday 27th May 2019, 10:06   #1641
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Chosun Wouldn't disagree about the deleterious effects of plastics--microplastics are a total abomination and I cannot work out how they were ever allowed to produce them in the first place. Just to be clear on this, I am not, and never have, argued that there aren't a great many other things harming nature besides EMR--nature is being assaulted on a great many fronts. But EMR, especially when it comes to the satellites and 5G, is an immediate problem that has to be dealt with NOW, because if we get this one wrong there is no going back. Which is why I am asking you to sign the 5G space appeal. If you ever believed in the precautionary principle this is the time to apply it. There may not be, in your eyes, 100% proof that EMR is dangerous, but the precautionary principle doesn't ask for 100% proof, and by the time you get it, it will be too late. I find it hard to understand why someone who obviously cares about nature won't side with the precautionary principle on this issue, especially when the risk is so enormous.

@ Borjam I am not saying that radar isn't dangerous--it most certainly is. I was talking to a man the other day, whose father was station commander at Bordsey (Bordsea?) in the UK in the early 1960's. That was a big radar station, fighter interception, and the man says his father told him that radar was known to cause depression and psychological problems--suicides among personnel working at radar installations were way above the norm, and this was well known at the time; personnel working at these stations had to have yearly psychiatric evaluations. I found this interesting especially in light of the fact that EMR, and especially Wi-Fi, which uses the same frequency as radar, is strongly linked with depression, and suicides among young peope especially are rising.

Then there is Vokrodt's work on radar and trees, which I presented earlier on in this thread. And the Hensiger-Wilke paper, which says that the combination of radar and mobile telephony EMR is an especially bad combination. So no, radar isn't safe at all. But it is not as ubiquitous as mobile telephony EMR, which Panagopoulos says is especially dangerous because of the irregular and totally unpredictable nature of the pulsations, which in turn means that species cannot adapt. If you look at the Martin Blank paper on heat shock proteins, I think this translates into each pulse generating heat shock proteins, leading to a variety of ill effects.

Radar is undoubtedly more powerful than mobile telephony EMR, and very damaging, but the many, many papers I have posted on this forum show that it is not necessary for mobile telephony EMR to be strong/powerful in order to create biological effects. So if you are continuing to rely on the argument that mobile telephony/wireless EMR is not a powerful enough signal to be damaging to living organisms, you are wrong.

@ Peter We live in very different environments, yet chaffinches, greenfinches, goldfinches and kestrels are all way down here as well. Care to hazard a guess as to what might be causing these species to decline in both places if you don't think that EMR is responsible? Because my guess is, EMR is the one thing we definitely have in common.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote