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 10th June 2018, 18:10   #826
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Here is an important study recently reported. It's the largest one ever done on S-D rats, but even with large sample sizes, significant effects are few, if any. Once again, behavioral data weren't obtained or reported. An important opportunity lost.

My apology if someone has already posted this research.
Not trying to claim anything, and actually merit should go to Nohatch, who dissected it thoroughly, I reported it some time ago.

Funny, a well conceived experiment found nothing harmful. Nohatch pointed out an amusing statistical arficact if I remember well. One of the results would have shown electromagnetic radiation to be beneficial
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 10th June 2018, 23:08   #827
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Not trying to claim anything, and actually merit should go to Nohatch, who dissected it thoroughly, I reported it some time ago.

Funny, a well conceived experiment found nothing harmful. Nohatch pointed out an amusing statistical artifact if I remember well. One of the results would have shown electromagnetic radiation to be beneficial
Well, I've only been following this thread on and off and missed the earlier posting. Without looking up what you or Nohatch said earlier, my own impressions are not favorable. Basically, the conclusions and policy recommendations don't match the actual findings. I mean by that if one is going to use statistics scientifically, then you've got to get with the program and NOT talk about or try to make ANYTHING meaningful out of non-significant results. Otherwise, why do the statistics in the first place?

Just referring to the results summarized in the abstract (and in the paper):
Quote:
Results: A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m). Furthermore, an increase in the incidence of heart Schwann cells hyperplasia was observed in treated male and female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although this was not statistically significant. An increase in the incidence of malignant glial tumors was observed in treated female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although not statistically significant.
Back of the envelope calculations indicate that the probability of four numbered balls being drawn without replacement in the specific order 1, 2, 3, 4 is (1/4) x ( 1/3) x (1/2) = 1/24 =.042, — or a little over 4 percent of the time. Using the additive rule, the probability of one or more such occurrences given eight (8) treatment group opportunities is slightly over 20%. (Does the word "nonsense" come to mind?)

Sorry to disagree that it was a "well-conceived experiment" considering the many societal concerns about the technology and its future impact. As I've mentioned in other posts it was in the hands of, and limited to the narrow perspective of biomedical researchers oblivious to behavioral effects such as learning and memory (much less cognition). And yes, there is an enormous literature about such S-D behavior available for the taking, including very reliable laboratory methods.

Sorry, if I'm being redundant — but it's aggravating.

Ed

PS. ... and by the same token, that "...A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m)" can be attributed to experiment-wise error using similar reasoning.
__________________
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 : Monday 11th June 2018 at 07:10.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 11th June 2018, 00:54   #828
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed I don't know if you have seen Ronald Kostoff's extremely acerbic comments on the NTP study? I don' have the reference but he calls the study a huge waste of money because it focuses on 3G technology (which he likens to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted) and not 5G technology, which is what we really want to know the effects of. I imagine he would make similar comments about the Ramazzini study, and in my opinion he is quite right.
Ah, but although we might agree with Kostoff's opinion it's likely to be for a different reason. More studies designed and analyzed along the lines of the Ramazzini report would simply confuse the public more than it is already. The way to get greater scientific insight into the matter is to come to grips with the limitations of this study and address other questions related to human/animal behavior and performance. Don't get me wrong, I love these guys after having worked with them for over 20 yrs. in NASA-Ames' Life Sciences Directorate. But, as in this case, they get the lion's share of the funding and provide very limited perspective about the bandwidth of (potential) problems.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Monday 11th June 2018 at 07:23.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 11th June 2018, 11:34   #829
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Sorry to disagree that it was a "well-conceived experiment" considering the many societal concerns about the technology and its future impact. As I've mentioned in other posts it was in the hands of, and limited to the narrow perspective of biomedical researchers oblivious to behavioral effects such as learning and memory (much less cognition). And yes, there is an enormous literature about such S-D behavior available for the taking, including very reliable laboratory methods.
Perhaps the word should have been "well-executed" - it did appear thorough and sufficiently powered, and given its remit did what it said on the tin. I agree there were a lot of other things they could have looked at but that goes for any observational study really. Our asthma study was very broad in its scope and it's going to take years to evaluate all the different data sets (which incidentally includes a limited psychological evaluation).

What I found particularly striking is the discrepancy between the data (nothing to see here), the conclusions (but look we did highlight something! eh maybe...), the Q&A (hey we found something very significant which may have major implications), and finally the reporting on Microwave 'News' (all our fears confirmed in a major new study!!!). Perfectly correlated with the level of 'personal interest', no surprises there. Ultimately only the 'raw' data matters and that's not showing anything as Ed has already said (and Borjam and me pointed out around Easter time).

In addition, note that the same institute published a parallel paper with a similar setup and size which showed nothing either (posted that as well a while back - happy to dig out the reference again). This time the conclusions reflect the data though - and it was promptly ignored by sites like Microwave 'News'. Oh and in case someone wants to claim bias at the Ramazzini Institute, that's more likely to swing the other way because they have been known in the past to link cancer to all sorts of stuff (including sweeteners in drinks).
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 11:41   #830
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ all Annoyingly, my post yesterday didn't save. Try again. Please note that I did NOT post the Balmori file for the sake of the Balmori articles but because it contains a study by Magras and Xenos showing how mice became sterile after several generations of real-life exposure to an antenna park. It is the Magras and Xenos study I wanted people to look at.
I've read it. It's terrible. Not as bad as that Indian study, but pretty grim. I bet you $1000 that you could repeat that experiment and not reproduce the findings.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 13:56   #831
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
“It is of interest that the microtubules of eukaryotic cells, which have a typical length of 2 X 10-8cm and an estimated vibrational frequency of 109 to 1014 Hz lie quite close to the line specified by the scaling law and intermediate between the stellar and atomic scales” – Haramein et al, Scale Unification, 2008
https://resonance.is/confirmation-qu...-microtubules/

note: the figures 109 and 1014 Hz are 10 to 9th and 10 to 14th but i cant get superscript or whatever it is called
those lower frequencies i believe are in the radio frequency range we are concerned with? just checking on my reading comprehension, no comments from me yet on consciousness, telepathy and wifi ... ;-)

Last edited by jape : Monday 11th June 2018 at 14:06.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:10   #832
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 404
@ fugl Sorry I can't provide chapter and verse but the papers were full of it a few months ago, the same time as people were 'fessing up about how they made smartphones deliberately addictive. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, wouldn't let their kids near wireless technology till their late teens.

@ Borjam I think (still think) you and Nohatch are missing something in your arguments that only heating effects of microwaves cause harm. This is of course what ICNIRP is saying, and it is the rationale for allowing wireless technologies to proliferate. Nevertheless there are many studies showing harm and plausible mechanisms of harm have been proposed. How can that be if only thermal effects produce harm?

The answer may be (as you admit, Borjam, when you say "we do know our knowledge of physical laws is still incomplete") that we do not fully understand the physics of non-ionizing radiation. Even if we did think our knowledge were complete--every age thinks it has reached the peak of knowledge and discovered the immutable laws that govern the universe. (A sobering thought--every man that was ever born lived in "modern times".) We interpret the universe through the laws of physics that we have discovered so far and think our conclusions are sound because we have applied those laws as best we know them. However, when many people observe effects that are inconsistent with the laws of physics as we know them, it does not necessarily mean that their observations are wrong; it is at least as likely that our understanding of physical principles is incomplete, or that we are simply overlooking a salient point.

Here is an example of such a salient point that I think you both are missing when you say that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause biological effects: "RF may not have sufficient energy to break an ionic bond but free radicals do." That's from page 12 from the link "Research Needs", on the Guest Blog from Steve Weller, Australia: https://betweenrockandhardplace.word...ler-australia/

It is well worth reading this blog (it's short) and the two slide presentations that are linked to it. Page 12 of the first link, Risk Management Presentation, has a slide tabulating the number of studies that show various adverse effects of EMR. I ask you both: how is it possible that so many studies find adverse effects if we know everything there is to know about how non-ionizing radiation affects biological systems? And if you admit we don't know everything, how are we justified in proceeding with a technology we don't fully understand without taking the time to understand it better?

@ all I have raised, a couple of times, the issue of how we can square the problem of climate change (caused by our demands for energy, 80% of which are still supplied by fossil fuels) with the energy needs of 5G and the IoT. What justification can there possibly be for promoting 5G/the IoT when we know they will consume vast amounts of energy at a time when we should be using less?

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 11th June 2018 at 15:12.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:13   #833
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
“It is of interest that the microtubules of eukaryotic cells, which have a typical length of 2 X 10-8cm and an estimated vibrational frequency of 109 to 1014 Hz lie quite close to the line specified by the scaling law and intermediate between the stellar and atomic scales” – Haramein et al, Scale Unification, 2008
https://resonance.is/confirmation-qu...-microtubules/

note: the figures 109 and 1014 Hz are 10 to 9th and 10 to 14th but i cant get superscript or whatever it is called
those lower frequencies i believe are in the radio frequency range we are concerned with? just checking on my reading comprehension, no comments from me yet on consciousness, telepathy and wifi ... ;-)
Brain fried. Core dumped.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:19   #834
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Sorry to disagree that it was a "well-conceived experiment" considering the many societal concerns about the technology and its future impact. As I've mentioned in other posts it was in the hands of, and limited to the narrow perspective of biomedical researchers oblivious to behavioral effects such as learning and memory (much less cognition). And yes, there is an enormous literature about such S-D behavior available for the taking, including very reliable laboratory methods.
Well, doing abehavioral study in that way is not possible obviously (or seems impossible to me, not that I have anything resembling auctoritas). But, especially with vulnerable mice, some detectable physiological effect should have appeared, and it didn't.

What would be the origin of behavioral disturbances in the first place? Pardon the pun: spiritual?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:37   #835
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ fugl Sorry I can't provide chapter and verse but the papers were full of it a few months ago, the same time as people were 'fessing up about how they made smartphones deliberately addictive. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, wouldn't let their kids near wireless technology till their late teens.
NO.

Regarding the Internet and especially social networks they are using the same approach as they would use with, say, alcoholic beverages. I am pretty sure they do use wireless technologies at home and they don't live in Faraday bunkers. But that's not the same.

Quote:
@ Borjam I think (still think) you and Nohatch are missing something in your arguments that only heating effects of microwaves cause harm. This is of course what ICNIRP is saying, and it is the rationale for allowing wireless technologies to proliferate. Nevertheless there are many studies showing harm and plausible mechanisms of harm have been proposed. How can that be if only thermal effects produce harm?

The answer may be (as you admit, Borjam, when you say "we do know our knowledge of physical laws is still incomplete") that we do not fully understand the physics of non-ionizing radiation.
You cherry picked my arguments. I said, and it's obvious, that our knowledge is not absolute. Again my mention of Quantum Physics or Relativity is not an attempt to dress my post in mumbo-jumbo to intimidate anyone. It comes to something very simple: The two pillars of Physics don't agree.

That said, that imperfection (and this is a key notion about sciences that most people don't get) is not a blanket admission for whatever crazy idea you see around.

Can you turn iron into gold with just fire, some chemical compounds and a bunch of clever and powerful Incantations? No. Will it be eventually discovered? So unlikely you can consider it impossible.

Same can be said about homeopathy, etc.

Moreover, if you accept some pseudoscience claim and try to correct physical laws and theories to be compatible with it you can end up with a really Monty Pythonesque madness. If homeopathy really worked, for example, I could condense the complete Enciclopaedia Britannica in a bunch of bits, like "10101010101110" and a drop of some clever chemical fuel would be able to power a Moon landing.

Science evolves and theories get corrected. But the old Newtonian physics still work very well. Relativity increased the accuracy of its predictions and even made possible to study phenomenons for which Newton's laws didn't work.

Quote:
However, when many people observe effects that are inconsistent with the laws of physics as we know them, it does not necessarily mean that their observations are wrong; it is at least as likely that our understanding of physical principles is incomplete, or that we are simply overlooking a salient point.
That's what many phisicists do: Search for "New Physics". It's actually a dream to discover a new phenomenon or particle. It's not a holy writing. But, again, that doesn't mean that you have to accept every single claim because, well, maybe in the future it will be proven true.

Quote:
Here is an example of such a salient point that I think you both are missing when you say that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause biological effects: "RF may not have sufficient energy to break an ionic bond but free radicals do."
So, where do free radicals come from?

Quote:
@ all I have raised, a couple of times, the issue of how we can square the problem of climate change (caused by our demands for energy, 80% of which are still supplied by fossil fuels) with the energy needs of 5G and the IoT. What justification can there possibly be for promoting 5G/the IoT when we know they will consume vast amounts of energy at a time when we should be using less?
What's different with 5G and IoT? What about more efficient electrical networks that can help to save power? I use some IoT stuff at home and I save energy thanks to it. I know if an aquarium pump is getting clogged within the hour because its power consumption changes, so I can clean it. I can control heating remotely so that it's not subject to a fixed schedule. Again, savings.

So, what makes 5G more dangerous? I still don't get it. And why the TV broadcasts are not considered dangerous?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:51   #836
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 404
@ Borjam What's different with 5G and the IoT? The sheer number of electricity-using devices, for starters. Fibre optics and modern copper wires are cheap. long-lasting, safe, secure, environmentally friendly and capable of handling huge amounts of information--but the telecoms companies just won't make a lot of money out of wired technology. For every application that will save a bit of energy there are dozens that will use more.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 15:54   #837
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 404
@ Ed I think that's my point (and Kostoff's). We are not getting at what we need to know; we are going round in circles with less-than-brilliant studies of a technology that is already passe. We need good, well-designed studies, as well as the funding and the time to do them properly--and that's not happening.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 11th June 2018, 16:35   #838
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam What's different with 5G and the IoT? The sheer number of electricity-using devices, for starters. Fibre optics and modern copper wires are cheap. long-lasting, safe, secure, environmentally friendly and capable of handling huge amounts of information--but the telecoms companies just won't make a lot of money out of wired technology. For every application that will save a bit of energy there are dozens that will use more.
https://www.reuters.com/article/oran...-idUSL8N1QB0Z9

Wireless networks don't have the capacity to supply the volume of information that we demand. Land lines are mandatory. And huge investments are being made now in Europe to phase out the old copper based networks and adopt fibre to the home (FTTH) which has much more capacity, is more durable, is cheaper and especially cheaper to maintain.

The problem is: Users also want and even need wireless devices. Will wireless networks phase out land lines? No.

Read "How the World Became One" by Arthur C. Clarke. When telecommunication satellites were invented they looked like the perfect solution to get rid of undersea cables. Until optical fibre changed the game completely.

Turns out satellites and undersea cables have different strengths and weaknesses, and serve different use cases.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 02:11   #839
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Well, doing a behavioral study in that way is not possible obviously (or seems impossible to me, not that I have anything resembling auctoritas). But, especially with vulnerable mice, some detectable physiological effect should have appeared, and it didn't.

What would be the origin of behavioral disturbances in the first place? Pardon the pun: spiritual?
I'd be happy to elaborate on my position if you'd really like to discuss it. I was referring to the very large Ramazzini Institute study completed this March, involving many S-D rats over a protracted period of time.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 10:25   #840
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 404
@ Nohatch "I've read it. It's terrible." is hardly a scientific analysis. You are being intellectually dishonest in cherry-picking the studies you flag up as terrible, inadequate, etc. (thus giving the impression that there are no good studies showing EMR harms biological systems). Almost invariably you pick on the observational studies. I can't help but notice that you make a great deal of noise about the ones you want to tear apart and ignore everything else I have posted; I have posted a lot of studies. Your original self-assigned remit was to look at studies showing DNA damage, and you haven't. You have hardly "scienced the hell out of" EMR yet. Not by a long shot.

Reading the Luc Verschaeve paper (you know he was on the Eklipse committee?) I find some of the same criticisms you make (say, of Balmori's stork study) but hardly the same blanket condemnation. I would strongly agree that a lot more work needs to be done, and that protocols need to be established so that studies get clear results that everyone interprets the same way. But you do often miss the point, I feel. The point of Balmori's work, whether or not you like it, is that he is describing things that did not occur before the introduction of the cell tower. That in itself is noteworthy. If people did not notice that a new factor in the environment causes changes, there would be no investigations. Observation is always the starting-point for investigation. First you notice that something is happening. Then you ask why it is happening.

You seem to expect me (or the members of the Eklipse committee) to prove 100% that EMR is dangerous to living things before we enact the precautionary principle, or enact a moratorium on 5G. Earlier you sneeringly remarked that, on the Eklipse Forum's background document, the upper-right-hand corner boxes (for well-established effects of EMR) were largely empty. That is true, although for birds disruption of the migratory sense spills over into that box, which ought to concern you. However, in no category was the upper left-hand box "established but incomplete" box empty. "Established but incomplete" means we know that this happens as a result of EMR but we don't know everything about how and why it happens. But we DO know THAT it happens. So we know that EMR affects nature. However much you quibble about individual studies, that is established. Does more work need to be done? Definitely. Can it be done better? Almost certainly, if scientists get together to establish some ground rules.

So the question I have posed is not "Does EMR affect nature, especially birds?" The answer to that is yes, we know it does, even if we don't thoroughly understand the mechanisms, or the full scope of those effects. The central question is whether we are justified in proceeding with 5G technology in the face of the knowledge that EMR does indeed affect nature (all living organisms) before we perform due diligence by "sciencing the hell out of it". The principle "EMR affects nature" having been established, we KNOW that 5G poses a risk. And we know hardly anything about what effects 5G will have because there haven't been any studies to speak of. This is the equivalent of giving an untested medication to every living thing on the planet, so how is this okay? The merits or non-merits of individual studies aside, why should a technology that is established to have effects on biological systems be exempted from the same scrutiny we would give a medicine or an agricultural chemical that we proposed to use broadly? [Note: It is clear that we do not apply this scrutiny to pesticides, or neonicotinoids would not have been approved. Or, they knew damned well that neonicotinoids were dangerous but enough corrupt public officials were found that approval was granted. If the latter, who is to say that the same could not be happening with wireless technologies?]

Going back to your review of the Magras and Xenos study as "terrible" and the suggestion that I repeat it, let me give you some observations. We have had, for years, a pair of short-toed eagles which nest on the mountain where the main cell tower array sits. After the introduction of 4G, they produced one chick (the year after 4G came in) and have not produced a single chick since. I haven't seen a juvenile in three years, though the adult birds are still here. We had good-sized population of partridges, chukars, and wood pigeons in the same area; those populations have fallen severely in number along with chaffinches and other small birds. We had a small colony of Eleanora's falcons on a cliff face which is now directly in line with a new cell tower across the bay, and these days we very rarely see a single Eleanora's. So, without reproducing the experiment with the mice, I would submit that the way bird populations are falling near the cell towers is sufficient evidence that cell towers is affecting sterility.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 11:47   #841
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
PH, sorry to say this but you are losing it! nohatch is conservative but has looked at at least some of the papers and analysed them. he simply doesnt agree and has that right. your fear is turning to anger and can only gain negativity.

i have looked also and tried to add to my technical knowledge but haven't yet got to the point i can make more than generalisations. i have also tried to allow for intuitive causes of concern outside of evidence, and even you don't go far down that road.

we have page after page of argument but at times even consensus that 'something' causes environmental degradation, amongst even the conservatives about technology, allowing concern about more than just birds. and a fair bit of rancour.

of course you are frustrated but unless all your opposition is part of a massive conspiracy you are sliding into paranoia. has to be said. your arguments are getting more desperate and personal to the point where even i, autistic, isolated and deficient in social communication can see that.

it may be now this is not the forum for your energy. i dont know where your emotion is best applied. you are involved in eklipse and i am sure other enterprises.

people turn aside from emotion even if it is based on worthwhile cause. certainly scientists do, you know all that. nitpicking to find a logical fault that may or may not exist in amongst the rhetoric and debate is going nowhere except to negativity here. you haven't convinced anyone using the evidence you have and however brave or righteous or even correct you are or will prove to be, your tactics and strategies are failing.

you got a few actually reading and discussing. you failed to convince. NOT YOUR FAULT. let it go mate. joost and ed and others have certainly had their awareness raised by you and will SURELY act if they see either evidence or attempts to cover up. dont antagonise those at least that willing and aware.

sorry to say this, it is not patronising or condescending from me. i am glad that genuine, strong people like yourself are looking into this. fear evokes fight or flight, you are fighting but fighting the wrong people in the wrong way. ask again of people here, not to agree with your evidence but of how to address the concerns. then you will turn it around. you are not alone but you are isolating yourself, believe me i know ALL about that.

now read this again PH. and once more.

Last edited by jape : Tuesday 12th June 2018 at 11:50.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 12:13   #842
Johann Sebastian Bach
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: hampshire, uk
Posts: 1,306
@jape

What a wonderful rebuttal and analysis. Congratulations.

A long time ago on this thread, I'm sorry to say that I lost patience with PH because she clearly wasn't listening to those who didn't share her beliefs. Some very well-qualified and experienced scientists showed her that the moon wasn't made of green cheese after all - but she kept finding mice who said they'd been there (or at least knew someone who had). I regret that my frustration turned to rudeness - partly because several of the aforementioned scientists gave up trying to fight proof over conviction.

You are right to counsel PH to use her abundant energies elsewhere - even if only to halt the circuitous route of this discussion. As you say, she has raised questions in the minds of some but, the longer this goes on, the more damage she does to her cause.

I've taken the trouble to find a website she uses from info freely available on this thread. She is a very fine artist in my opinion.

I just hope that she hasn't been infected with the installation artists' view that "everything is art". That form of hegemony leads to professional painters becoming convinced that they're also professional scientists.

Peter
Johann Sebastian Bach is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 14:28   #843
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Closing statement

Dear PH, first off let me echo Peter's comment that I admire your work as an artist, my favourite being 'Companionabe Silence'. You have a gift for capturing the emotions behind everyday situations and expressing a whole backstory in a single shot.

I also like to think we'd get on just fine in real life with plenty of aligning interests...nature, books, history, and oh I don't know sea food? coffee? Greek wrestling? camper vans? (actually maybe not camper vans. Or wrestling). Bottom line is I regret the tone this 'debate' has taken at times - understandably borne out of passionately held points of view, but regrettable nonetheless. Despite appearances I actually strongly dislike conflict, particularly if it goes unresolved. Given the history of this thread I suspect we will never find much common ground on the topic...if we haven't been able to convince one another by now (or even succeed in shifting the other's position slightly) then perhaps we're better off agreeing to disagree.

I do share a lot of your worries about the natural environment and the massive impact we are having on it as a species. However, where anthropogenic EMR is concerned, I remain unconvinced by everything I've seen (and yes I have read pretty much everything you have posted on the topic, and done a bit of my own 'research' online). Have I at times relied on reviews done by others with more expertise (and time)? Absolutely, for the 'DNA damage' and 'oxidative stress' theories for example (the relevant review papers I posted a while back). I haven't got the time to thoroughly research the whole body of literature, just did my best as and when - if I appear to have done cherry picking, it is because I have mostly commented on the papers you put forward as specific evidence for the discussion. There are other scientists out there whose job it is to keep abreast of the developments in this field, and review it for the benefit of everybody else. To me it seems that people like Verschaeve have done a pretty good job in being both comprehensive and balanced - something I found lacking in much of the 'EMR=harmful' literature.
Yes I appreciate the scientific consensus is sometimes slow to shift, but shift it does if the weight of evidence is or becomes strong enough. Whether society, politics and business shift along with it is sadly another matter (e.g. smoking, obesity, anthropogenic climate change, neonicotinoids) - no argument from me there. But any scientist worth their salt is (and is only) going the be swayed by solid, reproducible data from well-designed, constrained, powered and executed experiments (with the 'solidity' judgement based on quantifiable methodological parameters).

So in conclusion I think I've said pretty much all I have to say on this topic, and judging by the reactions of others that goes for most of us. It's been interesting, if frustrating at times, but I feel this will not be resolved here.

I do wish you all the best on your beautiful island, hope you will continue producing great artwork, and should you ever visit the UK (well Hampshire) feel free to give me a call to go birding some day. And if there's one last thing I should say it's this: there are plenty of things for us to worry about, but let's worry about the things we know matter ok?

Take care,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 12th June 2018 at 14:35.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 15:53   #844
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I'd be happy to elaborate on my position if you'd really like to discuss it. I was referring to the very large Ramazzini Institute study completed this March, involving many S-D rats over a protracted period of time.
Yes, I think I am talking about the same study, which I said it was well conceived because the EMR was properly generated, controlled and measured and, moreover, it was realistic.

Now I am asking, would it be possible to do a behavioral study as part of that experiment? They already searched at least for some physiological effects.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th June 2018, 22:59   #845
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Yes, I think I am talking about the same study, which I said it was well conceived because the EMR was properly generated, controlled and measured and, moreover, it was realistic.

Now I am asking, would it be possible to do a behavioral study as part of that experiment? They already searched at least for some physiological effects.
Okay, the way I look at it the Ramazzini Institute study was done exclusively for the narrow purpose of determining the cancer risk associated with EMR. In the process, they used 2,448 S-D rats that were exposed to different radiation levels for 19 hrs/day to mimic permissible base station exposures. Scientifically, the results actually vindicated the current use of cell phones, at least with regard to cancer. It said nothing about possible neurobehavioral effects on learning, memory, or cognition, which is a major concern about the technology — independent of cancer.

The answer to your question is yes, it would have been quite possible to do several behavioral studies concurrently considering the Ramazzini experiment design. It should be noted first that the animals simply sat in their cages doing nothing but eating ad libitum and sleeping. However, so long as each of the radiation treatment groups was given the same behavioral tasks to perform there would be no experimental bias introduced to affect the cancer findings. The tasks would have given purpose to a huge amount of wasted time.

Okay, there are hundreds to choose from, but let me provide one example of a meaningful task protocol, one that I'm familiar with since it was the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation 52 yrs. ago. (I won't go into all the details.) The rat is first required to press a bar to obtain food pellets. Once trained, a time constraint is introduced requiring that the rat wait k seconds before pressing the bar again to obtain food. Otherwise, the clock resets and the rat has to wait another k seconds. All rats can learn this task and become proficient at obtaining their food. It's called a DRL (differential reinforcement of low rate) conditioning schedule and involves complex learning and memory.

The output from each animal is a time series of bar press and food payoff times that can be analyzed in various ways. My own innovation was to analyze the series as finite Markov processes, which allows the calculation of an information metric and to make transition matrix comparisons using standard Chi-square statistics.

Getting back to the case at hand, armed with such behavioral data, particularly given the large sample size, it would be a piece of cake to test for different response patterns under the various EMR conditions, and also to do post-mortem analyses of the behavioral concomitants of the few cancer cases that were obtained.

Again, this protocol is only one example of hundreds that could have been used, and with a study this large it wasn't necessary to use only one behavioral protocol either. All that matters is to treat each EMR group in the same way.

As with the original Ramazzini study, the chips should fall where they may. If no significant differences are found then that should be considered supporting evidence for the technology. If differences are found then it warrants caution and further investigation.

Ed

PS. Back in the day, we had to make our own laboratory control computers by hand and adapt devices like IBM punch card machines to record data. Today, this can all be automated with a single PC performing real-time control and data analysis — and, of course, transmitting it via the Internet to researchers around the globe.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Rat pressing bar.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	293.1 KB
ID:	665791  Click image for larger version

Name:	Rat wasting time.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	291.5 KB
ID:	665792  Click image for larger version

Name:	Back of patch panel full.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	375.4 KB
ID:	665793  Click image for larger version

Name:	IBM Card Punch for recording.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	277.7 KB
ID:	665794  
__________________
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 13th June 2018 at 02:28.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Wednesday 13th June 2018, 07:36   #846
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Okay, the way I look at it the Ramazzini Institute study was done exclusively for the narrow purpose of determining the cancer risk associated with EMR. In the process, they used 2,448 S-D rats that were exposed to different radiation levels for 19 hrs/day to mimic permissible base station exposures. Scientifically, the results actually vindicated the current use of cell phones, at least with regard to cancer. It said nothing about possible neurobehavioral effects on learning, memory, or cognition, which is a major concern about the technology — independent of cancer.
Thank you.

Indeed they were specifically looking for cancer. Which brings the issue, why cancer? Where did the cancer scare came from?

Anyway, from what I read in the study, the rats bred and fed normally, didn't they?

Quote:
The answer to your question is yes, it would have been quite possible to do several behavioral studies concurrently considering the Ramazzini experiment design. It should be noted first that the animals simply sat in their cages doing nothing but eating ad libitum and sleeping. However, so long as each of the radiation treatment groups was given the same behavioral tasks to perform there would be no experimental bias introduced to affect the cancer findings. The tasks would have given purpose to a huge amount of wasted time.

Okay, there are hundreds to choose from, but let me provide one example of a meaningful task protocol, one that I'm familiar with since it was the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation 52 yrs. ago. (I won't go into all the details.) The rat is first required to press a bar to obtain food pellets. Once trained, a time constraint is introduced requiring that the rat wait k seconds before pressing the bar again to obtain food. Otherwise, the clock resets and the rat has to wait another k seconds. All rats can learn this task and become proficient at obtaining their food. It's called a DRL (differential reinforcement of low rate) conditioning schedule and involves complex learning and memory.
I understand now, thank you very much. Now I see how adding such a behavioral study would have made the work much more useful indeed. I was imagining something orders of magnitude more complex, but now I understand that a seemingly simple (to the layman like me) approach such as that would help pinpoint many neurological anomalies, even minor, much more effectively than just the normal feeding and breeding behavior, right?

Quote:
PS. Back in the day, we had to make our own laboratory control computers by hand and adapt devices like IBM punch card machines to record data. Today, this can all be automated with a single PC performing real-time control and data analysis — and, of course, transmitting it via the Internet to researchers around the globe.
The heroic times... Now your phone has orders of magnitude more power than those old machines :)

Now, back to radiation and the cancer scare. When I was 14 years old or so and I begun to be interested on radio technology I was amazed when, visiting Madrid, I saw the surroundings of Torrespaña (Spain Tower) which is a huge radio/tv relay surrounded by residential buildings. Neighbors had small TV antennas pointing to the huge tower on their windows rather than installing them on the roof. They had direct line of sight to the antennas on the tower.

https://goo.gl/maps/vgqjaCDCwVo

The tower begun operating in 1982 and of course it's still active. According to Wikipedia currently it transmits FM broadcasts, DAB and digital terrestrial television on UHF channels 22 to 59. In the old days of analog television it also transmitted on the higher channels as well (60 - 69) which now are assigned to LTE/4G.

The transmission powers for television are in the tens of kilowatts and some of the former frequencies were used for television before 2005.

I've never heard of any public health investigation around the area. Spain has a working public healthcare system and any deleterous effect would have probably made some alarms sound.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 05:49   #847
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,341
Thanks for getting back to me. I think we're on the same track — and going in the same direction.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 14:31   #848
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 404
@ jape, Nohatch, JS Bach et al. I think we have all got a bit too antagonistic at times. I often feel harassed, pressed for time, and inadequate when it comes to defending my side of the argument; there are others who could do it better, but they are not here. So perhaps this debate has not solved anything. We have not changed each others' minds, certainly not yet, but I still think it is an issue worth raising, and I would very much like to see it debated in the public arena. It disturbs me greatly that this is not happening, and won't happen, and it says the wrong things about our society that there should be no debate about a technology that is taking over our lives and our societies. By 2020, 5G will be in. Everywhere. Whether we like it or not, whether it's dangerous or not. Period.

Perhaps this is an example of what jape calls "intuitive reasoning" but I see patterns emerging that I find deeply disturbing. Politically and economically, the world is in a very dangerous place right now. And I see 5G sitting in the middle of it, like a spider in its web. We don't have a free press anymore--the mainstream media outlets are all owned by the same few people. We don't have economies anymore; we have monetary policy, which again is run by a very few people. Economically and politically we are repeating patterns the like of which we saw before the first and second world wars. And on top of that we are about to create a sort of Big Brother world where everybody, and everything everybody does, can be tracked, monitored, and analyzed to death. When it's all online, they can cut you off at the press of a button. You won't exist. They can erase your bank account, your degrees, your history, your very identity. It will not be about "connectivity"; it will be about control. And it will be total. And nobody is seeing the whole picture.

If you have time I'd like you to look at an article by John Ward, a retired PR consultant turned blogger. He presents a very bleak view of what might happen if we have another economic crash (which many people feel is coming, and which could be very bad indeed). I want you to add 5G to to the picture that Ward presents. Imagine 5G as a weapon to be used by governments against their citizens--and the military using 5G weapons like Active Denial System on rioting populations. Who will 5G serve then? Certainly not you or me. Here's the link: https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/06...the-real-world

I'd also like you to take a look at an article about how the chemical industry gets toxic chemicals approved--stuff like neonicotinoids. That's at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...oxic-chemicals
The point I am making here is that I have been told, repeatedly, by scientists who work on EMR, that exactly the same thing is happening when it comes to wireless technologies. You may say you refuse to believe it, but before you do, remember that companies associated with wireless technologies are hugely rich and hugely powerful. They aren't just guiding the narrative; they are writing it, scripting it and selling it. It's the biggest PR con job in human history.

I don't know if I can begin to communicate the depth of my unease about all this. Yes, I do believe that EMR has harmful biological effects. But I also think there is a lot more wrong with wireless technologies than that, and that 5G is going to be really, really bad idea in other ways as well. So just think about that. Try to look past the PR about the bright connected future and think about the other implications. Then ask yourself if you're really so keen to jump on the 5G bandwagon.

I have to run. Thanks for the compliments on my art--always welcome. The one you like, Joost, is one one my own favorites--we might get along at that. However, I can't recommend Samos for a holiday. In addition to very few birds and dying trees we now also have TB in the community. I don't think it's very safe here.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Thursday 14th June 2018 at 14:33.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 17:26   #849
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,993
Wink

Diana, I really must stop you right there before you drive yourself completely and utterly mad. Please.

There is no "they" .... only you, me, and everybody else.

Politically and economically the world is probably in better shape than it was yesterday. Sure there are challenges, but also the will to tackle them.

You are putting together a conspiracy in your mind which does not exist. Conflating fears with loose, badly isolated facts, and some pretty dodgy opinions. What you think is reality, is in fact just the collective dreams of everyone else (granted just under half of them are likely nightmares). Make sure "your" world is one of peace and serenity.

Like Jape hinted at, far from all is known. I could tell you things that would absolutely blow your mind. Things that science will not discover for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. However telling you of spinning conscious balls of energy, beings and cities of light, the lady of the lake, excalibur, flying triangles, and things on the other side of the ledger would not help you much at this point - so I will just tell you that right at this very second, and the next one, you are safe and taken care of - remember that. Always.

I followed your links on power sources (did you look at mine? :), but an audible groan went off in my head when I read about climate change and nuclear power. Ugh. There is more than enough renewable energy in the world - but not the way we use it now.

It is true - we are living in a giant ponzi scheme, but it is also true that we exist in infinite abundance. The John Ward blog is some mighty pessimistic view - even Marc Faber is not that bearish, and he's far more qualified.

If you have degrees, no-one can ever take them from you, especially if you forked over the extra ($80 a pop here!) for the brass plaque mounted on fake mahogany wood ...... :)

As Ed has said to you - some research is comissioned merely for the purposes of rewriting guidelines, obfusicating issues, distorting policy, and lining pockets etc. Though, also as Joost has pointed out to you, the weight of scientific opinion may be slow to shift, but shift it will in the presence of overwhelming concrete evidence according to the scientific method. I want you to now go and read the "Desiderata".

Now, I want you to take 2 weeks for yourself - watch no television, read no papers, listen to no news, discuss nothing negative with anyone. Turn your computer and phone off. Go outside with the sun on your face, a gentle breeze on your cheeks, the earth between your toes, dip your hands in some flowing water, fill your mind with the best possible dreams you can imagine, your ears with the sounds of nature, your lungs with fresh air and just , b - r - e - a - t - h - e ......

When you return reenergised, rebalanced, and with new eyes, pop a scientist's proper hat on and just stick to the facts as contained in the literature. I'm sure you'll influence a lot more people that way, and more importantly be much happier and serene for it.

All the best, Chosun

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Friday 15th June 2018 at 03:35. Reason: Lynx :)
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th June 2018, 17:44   #850
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
thank you for saying what i did not have the gentleness to express so well in my post
diana is a wonder we need on this earth
jape 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
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 18:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 19:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 15:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 14:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.28800511 seconds with 40 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:31.