Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

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.

Does EMR harm living organisms?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.50 average.
Old Sunday 23rd September 2018, 16:50   #1301
Bird_Bill
Registered User
 
Bird_Bill's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: St.Louis
Posts: 1,781
By waging this war online, isn't it enticing people to suffer harm, if all these arguments hold true?.

The message could hurt people due the act of kindness and generosity.
And, cell phones being a large and inherent health risk.
People are being told over their cell phones, their cell phones are dangerous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Bill, you are confusing power levels with frequencies.
Thank you, but I am not confusing anything.
Not microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, and EMR
Not the relationship of frequency to energy, or power levels.

I will not engage in a contest of citations.
It is my opinion the energy levels of cellular carrier frequencies are too low to harm living matter,
within the proper application of those frequencies.

Enough so, that I am not embedding a safety disclaimer on my post
Bird_Bill is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th September 2018, 12:19   #1302
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
@ Jos Everything I have read about the French ban (and especially Wi-Fi) focuses on the radiation.

@ MJB I don't live in the US and don't know the senator's position on other things. It is a good briefing document and that is why I put it on this thread. In any case, it seems to me to be quite possible to think a man right on one issue while still disagreeing with him on others. I think his concern about EMR is well-founded and am glad to see that at least one member of the US government wants a public discussion of the issues involved. The FCC should not be the sole body to set safety standards affecting people's health and the environment when it isn't even in their remit to do so.

@ Bird Bill No one is obliged to use a cell phone to read this thread. If they choose to do so despite warnings that they are injuring themselves and the environment, what can I say?

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 24th September 2018 at 12:24.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th September 2018, 13:28   #1303
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird_Bill View Post
I work in an industry closely related to cell towers, and what powers them. EMR is on our minds too. Frankly, the emitted power levels are extremely low. I know individuals that have worked in close proximity to live transmitters for years, and suffered no ill effect.
Or look at fishermen. Remember the three Evil Parameters mentioned in this thread:

- Frequency, the higher the worse. That's what seems to make 5G worse.

- Pulses

- Power levels.

Now: A radar on a small trawler can easily put out pulsed 30 KW (thirty thousand watts) on the 10 GHz band if I am not wrong.

So, what makes a 5G microcell dangerous while that radar is not?

I've been birding in Colindres (Cantabria, Spain) last week and I noticed the distance between the fishermen's heads and the radar in those small trawlers. Less than 5 m.

And yes, there were less birds than I expected but seems migration times are a bit crazy this year. Certainly radars are usual business in those ports since the last century.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th September 2018, 13:28   #1304
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ MJB I don't live in the US and don't know the senator's position on other things. It is a good briefing document and that is why I put it on this thread. In any case, it seems to me to be quite possible to think a man right on one issue while still disagreeing with him on others. I think his concern about EMR is well-founded and am glad to see that at least one member of the US government wants a public discussion of the issues involved. The FCC should not be the sole body to set safety standards affecting people's health and the environment when it isn't even in their remit to do so.
My point was that if information comes from an unusual or a political source, you didn't check out the track record of the source before selecting it as supporting or rejecting your position. That's cherry-picking behaviour, and it diminishes your position.
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 Monday 24th September 2018, 16:38   #1305
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos Everything I have read about the French ban (and especially Wi-Fi) focuses on the radiation.
Perhaps because your reading is limited to what you want? If the Minister who himself introduced the ban explains the reasons, and does not include radiation among them, I am inclined to believe him over you.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th September 2018, 18:22   #1306
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,267
An historical perspective—

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...active/570916/
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Monday 24th September 2018 at 19:00.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 24th September 2018, 18:35   #1307
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
If you're citing Patrick Colbeck as an evidence-based stalwart, be aware that he, not alone, has sought to remove from Social Studies curricula in Michigan mention of the KKK and any reference to climate change (Chicago Metro June 2018) and that his campaigning stance consistently emphasises that it is his faith that allows him to be right in his statements. He's also slapdash in his verbose responses to media questions or criticism (again June 2018) and is a fervent supporter of Mr Trump's anti-science position.

In his favour, he's an accomplished engineer of some of the Space Station subsystems. I'll leave others to decide if there's a glaring contradiction in there somewhere.
MJB
Marginalize and discredit, the same behavior for which Progressives fault Trump....
As a Republican, why would Colbeck want the KKK removed from curriculum? That blight on history was a product of the democrats and their Jim Crow south.

I don't believe a word of your assertions on that. Absolute crap.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th September 2018, 22:05   #1308
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,267
A psychological perspective—

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17...h-effect-fears
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Wednesday 26th September 2018, 13:13   #1309
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
@ Borjam Radar is dangerous, and so are 5G microcells. I think what you are missing here is the point that we, the birds and everything else on the planet are now exposed to continuous pulsed EMR all the time, so that the body never has time to recover. In the case where an organism is subjected to a brief interval of exposure causing oxidative stress, the body is capable of recovery. So duration of exposure also matters. If a radar beam sweeps across you once at close range, it won't kill you. But if, like early radar operators, you are continually exposed, it will cook your internal organs and eventually kill you. Or take the Active Denial system that uses 5G frequencies. One short blast, if uncomfortable, may not have long-term effects (the army at any rate claims it does not). But put that 5G microcell outside a house, and the occupants are exposed all the time, with no time to recover from the exposure. In any case I would not want to be one of those fishermen with my head less than 5 meters from the radar. Has anyone looked into the long-term health of these people?

@ MJB And you don't think the push for 5G and the standards we currently adopt concerning EMR safety are politically-motivated? I find it almost impossible to distinguish between big business and politics nowadays. In any case, I don't think Colbeck's track record is a bad one, though you may not like him. I do know that he collected masses of testimony before he decided on his position on EMR and wrote that briefing document.

@ fugl That article from The Verge is ridiculous and ill-informed. Worse, it's plain silly.

@ All It appears that even one long-standing member of ICNIRP now believes that there is enough evidence that EMR is potentially carcinogenic, and he is calling for the WHO/IARC to upgrade it from a Group 2B to a Group 2A. Dr. James C. Lin, who served as ICNIRP Commissioner from 2004 to 2016, says that current exposure guidelines are inadequate to protect human health. He was one of the experts who peer-reviewed the NTP study, and he found the results sufficiently persuasive to make him change his mind concerning the carcinogenicity of EMR. For more information on this, go to https://www.saferemr.com
About halfway down the page you will see the heading "August 28, 2028 (Updated August 29)"
with "Clear evidence of cellphone RF radiation cancer risk" right below it. This summarizes the article by Dr. Lin and quotes several passages from his paper.

Dr. Lin's paper is timely and important because ICNIRP is due to meet again and all expectations are that they will maintain current safety (i.e., thermally-based) limits. That Dr. Lin, who was once one of the members who set those standards, no longer believes they are adequate is highly significant.

Need I add that any substance which is carcinogenic to humans is not going to do birds, insects and other life forms any good?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th September 2018, 20:57   #1310
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ fugl That article from The Verge is ridiculous and ill-informed. Worse, it’s plain silly.
Couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I would say that the closed-minded “someone” referred to in the penultimate paragraph describes you to an absolute T. As your previous posts to this interminable thread amply show, nothing will dissuade you from your fear and hatred of cell phones, nothing at all, never, ever. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Thursday 27th September 2018 at 03:01.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Thursday 27th September 2018, 07:34   #1311
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
@ fugl And nothing, it seems, will ever persuade you that EMR is damaging all life forms on this planet. If you dislike this thread so much, why do you keep reading it? You don't have to.
https://biggeekdad.com/2018/09/people-nowadays/
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th September 2018, 08:39   #1312
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 11,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I would say that the closed-minded “someone” referred to in the penultimate paragraph describes you to an absolute T. As your previous posts to this interminable thread amply show, nothing will dissuade you from your fear and hatred of cell phones, nothing at all, never, ever. . ..
Agree, time to put a tin hat on this one me thinks.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th September 2018, 09:16   #1313
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,966
Maybe everyone should just steer clear of the dismissives, insults, and the uninitiated employing pop-psychology, and just stick to the facts of the core subject.

The genuine desire to see the precautionary principle adhered to has been adequately expressed throughout the thread and that should be respected. Some elements of the fringe may indeed be subject to , and more susceptible to various misinformation, psychological projections, and confirmation bias - however these are tangential issues. The facts won't be subject to such 'opinion' and personal perspective.

Ultimately either there will be a statistically relevant repeatable effect and measurable outcome or data set according to the Scientific Method, or there won't be.




Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 27th September 2018, 09:35   #1314
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nottingham UK and St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 11,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Maybe everyone should just steer clear of the dismissives, insults, and the uninitiated employing pop-psychology, and just stick to the facts of the core subject.

The genuine desire to see the precautionary principle adhered to has been adequately expressed throughout the thread and that should be respected. Some elements of the fringe may indeed be subject to , and more susceptible to various misinformation, psychological projections, and confirmation bias - however these are tangential issues. The facts won't be subject to such 'opinion' and personal perspective.

Ultimately either there will be a statistically relevant repeatable effect and measurable outcome or data set according to the Scientific Method, or there won't be.




Chosun
Seem like good words to end on......please!
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th September 2018, 21:58   #1315
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ fugl And nothing, it seems, will ever persuade you that EMR is damaging all life forms on this planet. If you dislike this thread so much, why do you keep reading it? You don't have to.
https://biggeekdad.com/2018/09/people-nowadays/
Not just me, but your hundreds of posts have also failed to convince the many other contributors to the thread that “EMR is damaging all life forms on the planet” (with the sole exception of a certain AGW denier whose name I won’t mention). And why do I keep reading the thread if I dislike it so much? For the same reason that so many other contributors do, as a public-service opportunity to alert the unwary to the irrationality and tendentiousness of your arguments.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Friday 28th September 2018 at 02:07.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Saturday 29th September 2018, 13:03   #1316
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
@ Chosun I truly appreciate your comment, and I believe that the facts as demonstrated in the many studies posted here tend to confirm my basic premise that EMR is dangerous to living organisms (except microbes, which tend to multiply).

As I have said on many occasions, doubt should work in favour of applying the precautionary principle, rather than in favour of continuing an experiment which could prove fatal to us and the planet. We've got this technology, but before we installed it no one ever asked if it was safe, and no one ever tested it to see whether it could cause harm. We would have done that with a drug or medicine, but technology isn't a drug or medicine. So the job of proving it's unsafe has been taken on by independent scientists around the world whose studies are generally unfunded, and whose results are questioned and denigrated by a very powerful, very rich industry (with a few exceptions such as the recent NTP study). Science is slow, and studies generally look at one tiny aspect of a problem; it takes time to build a complete picture of what is doing harm, what the mechanism(s) of harm are, and what the effects will be. Studies are not entertaining reading, either, so the general public isn't, by and large, going to take the time to plough through them. The general public wants headlines; it wants its science condensed into a single, easy-to-read paragraph, with conclusions clearly stated.

No drug or medicine would ever have been approved if studies had shown the kinds of results scientists are getting with EMR. Nobody would approve a drug that caused oxidative stress, DNA damage, infertility, or cognitive dysfunction. It would never have reached the market. But wireless products have reached the market, and people are addicted to them, and so instead of at least saying, "We'll stop where we are until we know more about the effects of these things" we are going to go on with the next generation of the technology. This does not make sense to me, but then I haven't got a death wish, and I'm rather fond of this blue-green planet we call home.

I have been continually surprised on this forum at the virulence with which the suggestion that EMR might harm birds, or us, or other creatures has been rejected. But I thank you for reminding everyone that this is ultimately about the science and not about my personal beliefs.

@ All

I will be moving house, so I will probably not be posting regularly, if at all, in the next month--unless I hear of something exceptionally interesting. I would like to ask all of you who really are interested in the subject of whether EMR causes harm to living organisms to look back over the thread and take the time to read some of the posted studies for yourselves. And I would ask you to make your own judgements about them rather than relying on someone else's opinion of them: you are an educated audience, and quite capable of coming to your own conclusions. For further resources, a very good site that contains many studies is Physicians for Safe technology at https://mdsafetech.org

When I've moved and got my wired internet connection back, I'd like to propose a study that some of you might be interested in doing.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 29th September 2018, 14:47   #1317
Johann Sebastian Bach
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: hampshire, uk
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I would like to ask all of you ~ to look back over the thread and take the time to read some of the posted studies for yourselves. And I would ask you to make your own judgements about them rather than relying on someone else's opinion of them:
So that's your homework girls and boys.
There'll be a test next month, so make sure you study hard.



Peter
Johann Sebastian Bach is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 29th September 2018, 14:52   #1318
Richard Prior
Halfway up an Alp

 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MANIGOD
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johann Sebastian Bach View Post
So that's your homework girls and boys.
There'll be a test next month, so make sure you study hard.



Peter
Nooooo - Life's too short and there's birding to do
__________________
"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 Sunday 30th September 2018, 12:51   #1319
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
The following was too good to resist,even if not new, since so many of you are worried about climate change: a study reported in the Guardian says "'Tsunami of data" could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025" and even more by 2040. That's at https://www.theguardian.com/environm...P=share_btn_fb

If climate change denial is a sin in many of your books, how can you defend a technology that is so energy-hungry? I mean, do you actually believe man is causing climate change, or don't you?

@ JSBach, Richard Prior It's not an assignment, and sadly I don't expect most of you will bother to read anything. However, for those people who are genuinely interested in the science and have not, for one reason or another, had time to read some of the studies, this might be an opportunity to do so--before any new studies come out. There is of course birdwatching to do--but the point of this thread, and this forum, is to protect the birds we all enjoy watching.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 30th September 2018, 14:22   #1320
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,966
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Chosun I truly appreciate your comment, and I believe that the facts as demonstrated in the many studies posted here tend to confirm my basic premise that EMR is dangerous to living organisms (except microbes, which tend to multiply).

As I have said on many occasions, doubt should work in favour of applying the precautionary principle, rather than in favour of continuing an experiment which could prove fatal to us and the planet. We've got this technology, but before we installed it no one ever asked if it was safe, and no one ever tested it to see whether it could cause harm. We would have done that with a drug or medicine, but technology isn't a drug or medicine. So the job of proving it's unsafe has been taken on by independent scientists around the world whose studies are generally unfunded, and whose results are questioned and denigrated by a very powerful, very rich industry (with a few exceptions such as the recent NTP study). Science is slow, and studies generally look at one tiny aspect of a problem; it takes time to build a complete picture of what is doing harm, what the mechanism(s) of harm are, and what the effects will be. Studies are not entertaining reading, either, so the general public isn't, by and large, going to take the time to plough through them. The general public wants headlines; it wants its science condensed into a single, easy-to-read paragraph, with conclusions clearly stated.

No drug or medicine would ever have been approved if studies had shown the kinds of results scientists are getting with EMR. Nobody would approve a drug that caused oxidative stress, DNA damage, infertility, or cognitive dysfunction. It would never have reached the market. But wireless products have reached the market, and people are addicted to them, and so instead of at least saying, "We'll stop where we are until we know more about the effects of these things" we are going to go on with the next generation of the technology. This does not make sense to me, but then I haven't got a death wish, and I'm rather fond of this blue-green planet we call home.

I have been continually surprised on this forum at the virulence with which the suggestion that EMR might harm birds, or us, or other creatures has been rejected. But I thank you for reminding everyone that this is ultimately about the science and not about my personal beliefs.

@ All

I will be moving house, so I will probably not be posting regularly, if at all, in the next month--unless I hear of something exceptionally interesting. I would like to ask all of you who really are interested in the subject of whether EMR causes harm to living organisms to look back over the thread and take the time to read some of the posted studies for yourselves. And I would ask you to make your own judgements about them rather than relying on someone else's opinion of them: you are an educated audience, and quite capable of coming to your own conclusions. For further resources, a very good site that contains many studies is Physicians for Safe technology at https://mdsafetech.org

When I've moved and got my wired internet connection back, I'd like to propose a study that some of you might be interested in doing.
Diana, my intention was not to take sides - merely to point out that both sides were proferring arguments that weren't the complete story. Your out of hand dismissal of the article and ideas fugl put forward was in no way a credible defense - nor was that article and ideas in isolation (being just a mere subset of the psychological factors at play) a credible rejection of the calls for the precautionary principle to be observed.

The call to be open minded applies to all actors in this thread including yourself. By responding as you did
Quote:
@ fugl That article from The Verge is ridiculous and ill-informed. Worse, it's plain silly.
- you have to ask yourself what that has done to your credibility with fugl and others? Also , by shutting the door like that - what have you done to the opportunities to learn something.

I said that
Quote:
Ultimately either there will be a statistically relevant repeatable effect and measurable outcome or data set according to the Scientific Method, or there won't be.
However the final answer might not be as neat as that - there may well be a demonstrable effect, but one that might have negligible population effects - even over lifetimes and generations ..... and that is what fugl was getting at - perhaps the risk will never be entirely eliminated, but will be inconsequential anyway. We will have to be guided by the research and evidence - not peripheral arguments.

I would like you to consider a few existing protocols operating in different areas of society, and how parts of them may be analogous.

Virtually no-one these days boards an aeroplane and expects to come to harm on a trip. We expect that the engineering design, maintenance, operating systems and procedures will ensure our safety. This is not to say that the risk has been eliminated in it's entirety (or that people will not unfortunately die after this date) , but the risk is effectively negligible.

During my student and manufacturing management days - I visited the engineering facilities at QANTAS on training exchange. There I was instructed in the triple systems redundancies that were designed, inspected, and tested in in a multitude of components, such as various multi-layer state of the art circuit boards.

Also consider that pregnant women are advised not to fly during certain trimesters of their pregnancy due to the increased risk to the fetuses due to increased exposure to cosmic radiation, and yet this is not a factor for ordinary passengers or crew.

Also, consider the different governance and regulation systems around the world. The US FDA is widely criticised for allowing various foods or drugs into the population without complete proof of elimination of risk. Other countries have tighter, or laxer standards than this.

Look also at the debates around exposure to ionizing radiation for workers at the Chernobyl and Fukushima sites during accidents and clean up for example, and the actual experiences being borne out.

The point I was wanting to clearly express is that even if the threshold of harm is more of a grey area than a neat line, and even if it cannot be entirely proven in a neat conclusive fashion - that the calls to err on the side of the precautionary principle are valid and not necessarily tied to the irrational lunatic fringe.

I wouldn't like to see debate shut down until the science reveals more, but neither is a blind crusade for completely zero risk to be proven, helpful. We should also be mindful of vested interests in setting the threshold so that we don't end up with the situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse, and also owns the media reporting on the day's events.

Food for thought ......



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 30th September 2018, 18:29   #1321
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 313
Does EMR harm living organisms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
T
If climate change denial is a sin in many of your books, how can you defend a technology that is so energy-hungry? I mean, do you actually believe man is causing climate change, or don't you?

Mobile communications are not power hungry. If they were mobile phones would be the size of a pair of shoes, like those of the late 80’s.

All the marketing, publicity and manipulation of public opinion bullshit taking place around Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatnot certainly is. Crunching all that data needs an inordinate amount of power.

So, are social networks bad for our society? I think so. Just look at the lates political problems (Trump, Brexit, Catalonia) in which there is a lot of manipulation going on.

But, wireless? Nah!
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 12:48   #1322
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
@ Chosun I thought the article fugl posted was silly because most of its premises have been disproven by studies I or Ed has posted on this forum. I didn't thank you for taking sides, but for pointing out that it's about the science. The thing is, if it's about the science, one has to read the science to form an educated opinion, and most people including fugl don't bother. I am open to reasoned debate, but not to character assassination of the scientists who have done the work: my only concern here is whether they are independent of industry and whether their work is done properly. Most of the studies posted have not been refuted or even discussed. I at least have read the counter-studies posted, even if I disagreed with their conclusions. I can see when the other side has a point; the issue then is whether it affects the entirety of the anti-EMR argument. So far I have seen no convincing evidence that the industry's "only thermal effects matter" argument is correct, whereas I have seen, and posted, many studies and articles showing non-thermal effects and explaining the mechanisms for those effects.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 12:59   #1323
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
Will you support Dr. Martin Pall's criticisms of ICNIRP guidelines?

@Ed, all

Dr. Martin Pall has written a detailed criticism of ICNIRP's guidelines regarding EMR, attached. ICNIRP is in the process of deciding whether it needs to revise its guidance regarding exposure, and scientists from all over the world are making objections similar to Dr. Pall's. Earlier I posted the comments from Dr. Lin on the NTP study, in which he calls for revised guidelines also; this is significant because he was for a long time a member of ICNIRP himself.

Dr. Pall and a Finnish colleague, Dr. Rainer Nyborg, have made his commentary publicly available and are asking for anyone who supports his views to join your voice to his. You can do that at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3L8LYWK
There is little time for this as the closing date is October 8, day after tomorrow. If you feel that ICNIRP's guidelines do not sufficiently protect the public from EMR, especially as 5G will involve many more sources of EMR, I ask that you consider supporting Dr. Pall's letter.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Comments Draft Guidelines.pdf (414.7 KB, 5 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 13:18   #1324
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
The following was too good to resist,even if not new, since so many of you are worried about climate change: a study reported in the Guardian says "'Tsunami of data" could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025" and even more by 2040. That's at https://www.theguardian.com/environm...P=share_btn_fb

If climate change denial is a sin in many of your books, how can you defend a technology that is so energy-hungry? I mean, do you actually believe man is causing climate change, or don't you?
You are not accessing data centres?
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Saturday 6th October 2018 at 14:03.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th October 2018, 23:45   #1325
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@Ed, all

Dr. Martin Pall has written a detailed criticism of ICNIRP's guidelines regarding EMR, attached. ICNIRP is in the process of deciding whether it needs to revise its guidance regarding exposure, and scientists from all over the world are making objections similar to Dr. Pall's. Earlier I posted the comments from Dr. Lin on the NTP study, in which he calls for revised guidelines also; this is significant because he was for a long time a member of ICNIRP himself.

Dr. Pall and a Finnish colleague, Dr. Rainer Nyborg, have made his commentary publicly available and are asking for anyone who supports his views to join your voice to his. You can do that at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3L8LYWK
There is little time for this as the closing date is October 8, day after tomorrow. If you feel that ICNIRP's guidelines do not sufficiently protect the public from EMR, especially as 5G will involve many more sources of EMR, I ask that you consider supporting Dr. Pall's letter.
Welcome back, Diana. Yes, I've read through his criticisms and signed onto the survey. Like Pall, when reading through the 'guidelines,' I constantly find myself asking: "Where the heck is the evidence?" Assertions are made over and over with no citations. Then there are also statements about there being no evidence for this or that when I knew perfectly well that there were relevant studies done that are not included in the bibliography. I'm nowhere near being an expert in this area, but with Pall's knowledge base when he points out the same flaws I know I'm on the right track.

Thanks for posting.
Ed

PS. I've attached an article that Pall referenced that caught my attention simply because it was an old 1981 NASA report. I'm a bit nostalgic nowadays. Anyway, you might be interested in the section: "Some Speculation and Areas for Further Research" starting on pg. 95. The author was a professional electromagnetic and communications engineer and not a biochemist, incidentally, so his views and ways of organizing his thoughts might also ring a bell with others on this thread.
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 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
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 17:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 18:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 14:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 13:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.22472095 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:28.