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 Monday 29th January 2018, 13:05   #376
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
And here is a very interesting idea posted by a citizen-scientist on his blog. Chitin is a natural polymer found in the wings and exoskeletons of insects and other invertebrates. It is also found in plants, fungi and algae. It has been shown that ionizing radiation damages chitin. What if non-ionizing radiation also damages chitin? The consequences would be literally devastating and may help to explain the loss of biodiversity that we are witnessing worldwide. Here are the links:
Ionizing radiation damages everything, even metals.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/doc...-doc2015-9.pdf

Actually that is one of the worst obstacles to the viability of nuclear fusion reactors.

But there is absolutely no reason to think that, maybe, non ionizing radiation will do less harm but it will still do. Again, go to the western end of Europe and throw a stone at New York. It's not that it will do little damage; it won't just arrive.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 29th January 2018, 17:33   #377
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Ionizing radiation damages everything, even metals.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/doc...-doc2015-9.pdf

Actually that is one of the worst obstacles to the viability of nuclear fusion reactors.

But there is absolutely no reason to think that, maybe, non ionizing radiation will do less harm but it will still do. Again, go to the western end of Europe and throw a stone at New York. It's not that it will do little damage; it won't just arrive.
Would you mind rationalizing the findings summarized in the attachment to post #358?

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 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 30th January 2018, 10:24   #378
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Would you mind rationalizing the findings summarized in the attachment to post #358?
They cite several articles by Balmori. One of his studies I read was done in an extremely clueless way. And I am being diplomatic here. Choose one of the cited studies at random and look for errors or misconceptions.

Anyway everyone misses one point. Radio frequency in cities is not new. Nobody remembers when broadcast radio transmitters were so strong, you could even listen to the radio on your land telephone in some locations?

And the confusion with ionizing radiation is silly. Ionizing radiation is not only electromagnetic, it can be nuclear.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 30th January 2018, 12:12   #379
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Borjam Which one of Balmori's studies are you referring to? Why do you think it was done "in an extremely clueless way?" What errors and misconceptions do you find in the cited studies that we might not spot? Unless you are specific, I have to say I don't know what you are talking about.

If Balmori is as clueless as you claim, then it is a mystery why he is continually cited and his studies referred to so often.

I think that you are missing one important point. I know that RF in cities is not new, and I can remember hearing the radio on the telephone lines sometimes. The fact that RF in cities is not new does not mean that it is harmless--it was harmful then (though this fact went largely unrecognized), and it is harmful now (and people are beginning to recognize this). There was a fairly recent case where the Vatican was sued (and lost) because a lot of people living near a concentration of Vatican radio antennas got leukemia, which was definitively linked to those radio towers. So just because radio has been around for a long time, that does not mean that it doesn't have negative biological effects.

No one is confusing ionizing radiation with non-ionizing radiation. No one disputes that ionizing radiation causes biological harm. The point is that non-ionizing radiation ALSO causes biological harm, and that it does this independently of generating thermal effects--it is not necessary to heat tissue to cause biological damage.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 30th January 2018, 13:38   #380
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam Which one of Balmori's studies are you referring to? Why do you think it was done "in an extremely clueless way?" What errors and misconceptions do you find in the cited studies that we might not spot? Unless you are specific, I have to say I don't know what you are talking about.

If Balmori is as clueless as you claim, then it is a mystery why he is continually cited and his studies referred to so often.
I mentioned it several weeks ago. A study performed with tadpoles on a roof.

Quote:
There was a fairly recent case where the Vatican was sued (and lost) because a lot of people living near a concentration of Vatican radio antennas got leukemia, which was definitively linked to those radio towers. So just because radio has been around for a long time, that does not mean that it doesn't have negative biological effects.
No it wasn't definitely linked. So far there is no scientific proof. There is a statistical link but causes are not clear.

Nevertheless, the transmission power of an international short wave broadcaster are in the hundreds of kilowatts.

In Spain there was a Radio Liberty transmitter in Playa de Pals, Mediterranean coast. There are houses nearby and I've never heard of any effects.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 30th January 2018, 19:57   #381
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
They cite several articles by Balmori. One of his studies I read was done in an extremely clueless way. And I am being diplomatic here. Choose one of the cited studies at random and look for errors or misconceptions.

Anyway everyone misses one point. Radio frequency in cities is not new. Nobody remembers when broadcast radio transmitters were so strong, you could even listen to the radio on your land telephone in some locations?

And the confusion with ionizing radiation is silly. Ionizing radiation is not only electromagnetic, it can be nuclear.
Borjam,

Let's get real. Of the eighty six referenced articles, exactly four, or 5%, were by Balmori — and those were all published in refereed journals.* What happened to the other 95%? It's pretty clear that you continue to dodge the essential point, which is that non-ionizing radiation also has negative effects on biological systems. Ionizing radiation is a different subject, and you are the one confusing matters with it.

At this time we may not be able to explain why non-ionizing radiation effects occur, and there may well be more than one bio-behavioral mechanism at play, but ignorance of the mechanism(s) simply does not refute the observable facts, or diminish their potential importance.

Ed

*The first Balmori reference is a summary of several of his earlier refereed journal articles.
__________________
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 : Tuesday 30th January 2018 at 20:36.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 06:35   #382
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
At this time we may not be able to explain why non-ionizing radiation effects occur, and there may well be more than one bio-behavioral mechanism at play, but ignorance of the mechanism(s) simply does not refute the observable facts, or diminish their potential importance.
There is no proof. Even the experts mentioned in the Vatican case say that there is a statistical correlation but no proof. And, what are we talking about? These are very different frequencies (HF between 3 and 30 MHz, wavelengths roughly between 10 and 100 metres) at very hefty powers in the hundreds of kilowatts. Mobile phones and WiFi work on frequencies roughly 1 GHz (a wavelength of 30 cm and smaller).

I am not confusing ionizing radiation with non ionizing radiation. I was mentioning some sources mentioned here that seemed to infer that "radiation" must do some effect because, well, it's radiation.

I was specifically mentioning this: "Ionizing radiation damages chitin. What if non ionizing radiation does as well?"
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....75#post3671675

Now, reasons I have not to believe (unless proven) that non ionizing radiation is dangerous beyond thermal effects. I can answer in a similar way if someone asks me to prove that homeopathy doesn't work.

First: Frequency cherry picking. Visible light is non ionizing, at a frequency orders of magnitude more energetic than radio transmissions. But it't the same, no ionizing radiation. Is it dangerous? It most certainly carries a lot of energy and indeed a large percentage of the life on Earth uses it to fuel its chemistry.

Second: Ionizing radiation is, well, ionizing, because its photons are so energetic that they can damage molecules well beyond the thermal effects associated with non ionizing radiation. Sunlight includes both ionizing and non ionizing radiation. The infrarred from sunlight (which is non ionizing) causes obvious thermal burns, but the ionizing radiation (ultraviolet) is the one that can cause much more dangerous problems.

Third: There are many well known factors at play that I think explain it pretty well. Habitat destruction, alien species, increasing usage of pesticides, even night lighting can alter the behavior of many species.

Fourth: Radio emissions around human populated areas are not new at all. To many people, "microwave" seems to be the new thing because it was only widely known to be used in ovens before cell phones became popular. But in fact microwave links have been around for many years. Is WiFi new? Yes. Are emissions on 2.4 GHz new? Not at all, it was a popular band for microwave alarm motion detectors together with 10 GHz which have been used especially in public places (schools, etc).

What about several frequency bands used by mobile phones? Those bands were used for other purposes before, notably television broadcasts. Does anyone mention the impact of those TV broadcasts apart from the obvious effects on the mental health of TV viewers? No. Suddenly, when a particular frequency is used by mobile phones or any other form of data transmission it becomes dangerous (back to frequency cherry picking again).

Borrow a spectrum analyzer, climb to your roof and check what are you receiving there. If you live in an urban area I bet it's radio broadcasts in the VHF band (so-called FM because it uses FM modulation). Is it dangerous?

Last edited by Borjam : Wednesday 31st January 2018 at 11:20.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 12:05   #383
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Borjam

Let's start by identifying certain areas that seem to be creating confusion. You say that radio emissions and certain frequencies (like those used for Wi-Fi) are not new, and you seem to be arguing that because they are not new, they are not dangerous. I think this is a misconception. Certainly more attention is being paid to all of these things as concern about wireless technologies grows, but the fact that there was little concern in earlier times does not mean that these frequencies did not cause the same biological effects that we are concerned about now, it only means we weren't looking for them. Secondly, you have take into account the enormous proliferation of antennas, cell towers and other wireless infrastructure. Effects will be far more noticeable if there are more sources of radiation. Thirdly, the information that non-ionizing radiation has harmful biological effects has been known for a long time--I posted a link to 2.300 studies done by the US Naval Medical Research Institute, all prior to 1971 (if I recall correctly) as well as links to Barrie Trower, who says these effects have been known to the UK military for many years. So what is really surprising is that governments allowed these frequencies to be used commercially in the full knowledge that they had harmful biological effects, and that they are supporting the rollout of wireless technologies that they know are dangerous to all life forms.

As for the Vatican case, you say it wasn't proved but there is a statistical link. Leukemia clusters often occur under high-voltage power lines, and this happens often enough that you've got to wonder why on earth we don't bury the cables instead of running them directly over or next to people's homes, and why we think it is okay to place cell towers and Wi-Fi masts or small cells directly next to people's homes. High-voltage power lines, transformer boxes, antenna parks (radio and TV) as well as cell towers all have correlations with various cancers, and I will post a couple of studies for you to look at. One talks about cancer incidence near cell towers, and the other is a study done on mice near an antenna park. The point of the latter study is that the differences in crown-rump length and birth weights are not normal, so you can easily see an effect on a mammal with which we share most of our genes. And then there is the issue of reproduction--the mice ended up with irreversible infertility.

Personally, I like Balmori's tadpole study. It is simple and elegant; also it is very easily repeated. I think he should have repeated it himself, but he didn't. Why don't you try it?

I don't really understand the accusation of cherry-picking. I present evidence which supports the case I am making, and I always read materials posted as counter-evidence--like the paper Ed posted awhile ago which mentioned some of the shortcomings of some of the studies, and how it is possible to get different results by changing one factor (eg, how you sacrifice the exposed mice). There is a strong case for developing more standardized protocols so that studies are easy to repeat and verify.

Finally, if nature NGOs were satisfied that the other factors you mention (habitat destruction, alien species, pesticides, lighting) fully accounted for the fall in populations/loss of biodiversity we are witnessing, then they would not be looking into the effects of microwave radiation, which they are. I will repost the 2018 Global Horizon Scan, where you will see not only that they chose microwave radiation/5G as one of fifteen topics most worth of consideration (out of nearly 150) but also that this decision was made by scientists from a lot of the major conservation groups (look on the right hand side of the page to see affiliations of the authors). The web conference on the effects of EMR on nature which I attended last week (and you could have attended too--I did post the information) was started by Buglife precisely because this subject is "on the radar" of conservation organizations. The CEO of Buglife thinks that it ought to be considered a form of pollution. As I have said, the conference began with the determination that EMR is indeed affecting all of nature (and this was a very conservative estimation of the effects). Clearly, other factors do play some role in falling biodiversity and species declines, and I am not trying to assign percentages here, only saying that EMR is also playing a role. I personally think we will eventually find that it plays a major role, but that is my opinion.

As to measuring the RF in my neighborhood, I don't want to know because it would probably scare me to death. Where I live is all 4G+, with public Wi-Fi in the public park and all the downtown areas (it is a small town) as well as the nearby refugee camp, the main communications array on top of the telecoms building is two blocks away, there are cell towers and booster masts on the mountains all around me, both civilian and military, and all well within a ten mile radius. Much of the infrastructure is new, and since 2014, when we went from 3G to 4G, bird and insect populations have fallen drastically. In town there is no dawn chorus any more, and we no longer hear any owls, which we used to hear every night just three years ago. On walks we see very few birds, and the number of species has seriously fallen also. As for insects which I haven't seen in a long time, the list is too long to write--from walking sticks to beetles to spiders to moths etc,etc. I think that the state of the wildlife around here tells me I shouldn't be living here either, and it is really frightening. The world is not supposed to be a silent place--it is supposed to have birdsong and the hum of insects. When those things die out, a place is unhealthy. Do not assume that because you haven't personally observed these effects that they cannot or will not happen where you live.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Magras & Xenos 1997.pdf (233.6 KB, 27 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Wednesday 31st January 2018 at 12:15.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 12:11   #384
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Borjam

I am posting the other two documents here since I could not attach them to the previous post.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Hensinger_Wilke_2016_umg_Engl.pdf (538.0 KB, 47 views)
File Type: pdf Sutherland2018.pdf (1.44 MB, 16 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 31st January 2018, 15:39   #385
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 348
So, Sutherland2018 says:

"Although some studies reported negative asso- ciations between electromagnetic field strength (radiofrequencies and microwaves: 1 MHz– 3 GHz range) and species, for example the density and abundance of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) [84,85], these studies have not yielded clear empirical evidence that the observed effects are due to RF-EMFs. The potential effects of RF-EMFs on most taxonomic groups, including migratory birds, bats, and bees, are largely unknown. The evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines for 5G technology is limited, raising the possibility of unintended biological consequences [86]."

Of course, seems that someone is trying to prove an effect rather than actually looking for effects in a more general way. Still, this summary says "no clear evidence"

I can't speak German, but the Hensinger_Wilke article comes from a "radiophobic" site. I know plenty of them, some even make money selling special clothing, meters, detectors, etc.

Now let me give you a funny data point. I have a marine reef aquarium. It happens to be directly on the main lobe of a HF transmission antenna (a tuned loop) with which I transmit around 30 - 40 W. Mainly on HF, 7 and 14 MHz bands.

The transmissions are strong enough to drive a pH meter nuts and to disturb some elements of a personal weather station.

Do you know what happens with the fishes, some of them with me since 2011 and, notably, one goby well beyond its usual life expectancy when I transmit?
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 1st February 2018, 12:23   #386
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Borjam

Yes, the language of the Sutherland Horizon Scan is cautious--what of it? Why do you suppose they chose EMR/5G as one of the topics if they were not concerned? I don't think you realize, although the NGOs clearly do, how unpopular this is going to make them if they start telling people--especially all the young activists that support them, that they can't have their wireless gadgets because they are harming the natural world. Believe me, this Horizon Scan is a big step forward. Behind the cautious language is an expression of real worry because we are losing biodiversity at an incredible and unprecedented rate.

You keep arguing that EMR does no damage because it has been around for a long time. Well, smoking has been around for a long time, too. Sir Walter Raleigh first brought it to Europe in the fifteenth century--and it took till the end of the twentieth century before anyone admitted it could cause health problems. That's five centuries, and there are still a lot of people who smoke and don't have cancer and won't get it. Does that mean that smoking is safe? You offer the fact that you haven't killed your fish as evidence that EMR is harmless. My grandfather, a heavy smoker, lived to 100 and never had a problem. Should he be made a poster boy for the tobacco industry to remove warnings from tobacco products and permit it in closed environments?

As for the Hensiger-Wilke study, does it matter which site I got it from? It is a peer-reviewed, published study done by qualified scientists. You do understand the scrutiny that goes into peer review before a study is accepted for publication, don't you? The editors of these scientific journals also have a reputation to maintain.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st February 2018, 12:47   #387
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
Super Blood Blue Moon

I don't know how many of you saw the moon rise last night but it was amazing. This once-in-150-years phenomenon was reported widely in the news, but how many people were looking? We stood by the side of the road with our binoculars, totally wowed by the spectacle as it rose over a nearby hill. I have never seen, and will never see again, a moon like that--unbelievably huge, apricot-hued, otherworldly.

So there we were, binoculars to our eyes, all these cars passing by and catching us in their headlights, and nobody stopped. Nobody asked us what we were looking at. Nobody looked to see what we were looking at. Nobody gave a damn about what transfixed two people who stared into the darkness of the early night watching a once-in-two-lifetimes blue moon. (In case you don't already know, a blue moon is the second full moon in a single calendar month.)

People don't, by and large, care about nature at all. Not even enough to go outside and look at a moon the likes of which they will never see again, not even when it's had a lot of publicity--they can't say they didn't know it was going to happen. If people can't be bothered to look up for an instant at a blood-red supermoon, they aren't going to look up into the sky for birds, or down in the grass for insects. Most people just don't notice the natural world; they don't care about anything if it's not on telly.

Maybe that's why people don't notice when birds go missing, when bats disappear, when there are fewer and fewer insects. It's why most of them won't notice when these things disappear altogether. When there is nothing to eat because there are no pollinators left they will notice, of course, but what they will notice is the empty produce section of the supermarket.

In addition to the spectacular rising moon, here's what we noticed last night: a lot of people in a tearing hurry, two little owls, the sound of chickens settling in for the night, a barking dog in the distance, and no bats at all. There should have been bats. There should have been tawny owls, too--Samos used to have loads of them. But it was an incredible moon.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd February 2018, 12:38   #388
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
Is "EMR Harms Nature" Fake News?

Europe is waging war on "fake news". The OECD says children need to be trained from an early age to spot "fake news". "Fake news" is big news nowadays. Have a look at this article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com.media/20...news-says-oecd

And here I thought critical thinking was part of the normal educational process. Guess not. But in this era of media manipulation, what constitutes "real" news and what "fake" news? Is "EMR harms nature" fake news? Because it is definitely not news you will read or hear or watch in the mainstream media, where there appears to be a total blackout on any coverage that even remotely suggests wireless technologies might have any link to loss of biodiversity anywhere on this planet. There's plenty about the subject, but it's all on blogs and alternative media. So, are you exercising critical thinking if you fail to believe 100% of what the mainstream media tells you, or only if you apply that critical facility to non-mainstream media?

A scan of UK newspapers is a fairly depressing exercise these days, and what I find most disturbing is the complete lack of any two-sided discussion about the 5G future that is going to be oh-so-wonderful, the way all wireless anything is oh-so-wonderful that the science sections of the papers (only the Guardian has an environment section any more, and they're going under) devote reams of print to extolling the virtues of new wireless devices. Not a word about the potential harmful effects on health or biodiversity, a nod perhaps to security concerns in the all-digital age (but they're setting up firewalls) and zero meaningful discussion.

Newspapers were always to a degree biased, politically at least, but since 9/11 a sea change has happened in the media. This was evident in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and the trend has continued ever since. There is no real debate about anything. There are only lines to be toed and policies to be enforced, with the interests of governments and media owners paramount and veracity a moveable feast. The current line is that the 5G future is going to be awesome, everybody's tongue is hanging out in anticipation, and if anyone suggests otherwise--well, that's fake news.
So up in Gateshead papers like the Northern Echo write glowing reports of how everybody is pleased with the 5G trials, and not a word about people who say it's killing off birds and insects, or causing health problems.

Straw poll--has anyone, in recent months or years, seen any article in the mainstream media that so much as hints that wireless technologies might harm nature? I haven't. And if no such news exists, why do you think that is? Possibility 1--"EMR harms nature" is in fact fake news, so there's no point in giving it the time of day (but why not devote the odd article to dispelling this persistent rumor?) Possibility 2--"EMR harms nature" is real news, but governments and big business (advertisers must be considered, too) don't want that uncomfortable fact getting in the way of their plans for a wireless future--people might not be so keen if they believed that their smart phones were killing off the bees, birds and butterflies. Stocks might fall.

I assume most of you grew up in the era before you had to be taught to spot fake news by your elementary school teacher, and that you possess the faculty of critical thinking. So you tell me. And if you are currently suspending judgement until you've considered both sides of the issue, that's good--it's what you're supposed to do. Contemplation is healthy. Disagreement is healthy. A total lack of discussion about important issues is the symptom of a sick society, where propaganda morphs into truth and there is no opposition.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Friday 2nd February 2018 at 12:41.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd February 2018, 13:23   #389
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,940
I would say there is too much discussion going on, the web is full of folk discussing, debating and arguing about things they haven't got a clue about. An interest in a subject can take one into discussions with all sorts of self appointed experts.

A recent case near me; a gentleman was having problems with debt, he looked for debt advice forums online and ended up in the clutches of the "Freemen of the Land", they assured him of their expertise and what he needed to do. Turns out they were spouting BS and his house got repossessed.

A friend of mine had genuine scientific curiosity about aircraft vapour trails, after an afternoon on the web she was convinced there was a global conspiracy to drug us all.

Fake news has been around since humankind, what is religion if not fake news.

All this thread boils down to is " There are concerns about the possible effects of RF signals, investigations have been conducted, nothing conclusive has yet come out of those investigations, investigations continue".

Invoking conspiracies, deifying "experts" and all the associated tinfoil hattery may go down well with the converts who have drunk the Kool-Aid but it ain't helpful in getting to the truth of any matter.
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd February 2018, 06:38   #390
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,901
Cellphones Are Still Safe for Humans, Researchers Say
https://nyti.ms/2FEia3y
__________________
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 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 3rd February 2018, 12:00   #391
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ Mono

You say:

'All this thread boils down to is " There are concerns about the possible effects of RF signals, investigations have been conducted, nothing conclusive has yet come out of those investigations, investigations continue".

Invoking conspiracies, deifying "experts" and all the associated tinfoil hattery may go down well with the converts who have drunk the Kool-Aid but it ain't helpful in getting to the truth of any matter.'



You may be right (if rather unkind) in summarizing what this threads boils down to, but I fail to see where it invokes conspiracies or deifies experts. Now do I see how a very real concern for a loss of biodiversity around me--a loss which is unexplainable in any other way--makes me a convert who has "drunk the Kool-Aid". Following your line of reasoning, scientists who say EMR is not safe for humans or wildlife don't qualify as experts, merely as conspiracy theorists, in which case no dissent is possible. So how do you get to the truth of the matter?

In my last post I merely said that, in the public interest, the mainstream media ought to present both sides of a contested issue so that a reader employing average critical thinking skills can make up his own mind which arguments he finds more persuasive. That is not happening-- on this front or any other. Instead, there is a worrying trend to label as "fake news" anything that does not fit the predominant current agenda. You don't want to go to war in Iraq? Then you are an unpatriotic idiot who doesn't see that Saddam Hussein is a monstrous dictator who holds and is ready to employ vast arsenals of WMD. Think we have too many immigrants? You're obviously a Nazi if you don't appreciate the benefits of the new multicultural society. Think EMR might be killing wildlife? Obviously you don't see the benefits of the new 5G world we're building and want to return man to the stone age.

I think more and more people are turning away from the mainstream media because they sense that objectivity has gone out the window. This is not to say that you can't find sites which simply reinforce your prejudices (of course you can) or that you should indiscriminately take advice offered online (of course you shouldn't). A critical thinker ought to be able to recognize when any source--mainstream or alternative--has an agenda, be able to identify that agenda, and filter any information obtained from that source accordingly.

Having said all that, do a search of the mainstream media and tell me if you find any stories on the subject "EMR harms nature".
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd February 2018, 12:24   #392
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ fugi Just what you would expect of the NYT, which definitely does have an agenda (see my comment to Mono, above). For years now the NYT has been promoting wireless technologies, with a special focus on Apple and all its products. The NYT has a very strong bias on a number of fronts, political and technological, which really undermines its claim to be "the newspaper of record".

In saying this I am not commenting on the study itself, which has just been released and I have only glanced at. I'm attaching two PDFs of the initial results. You can read them for yourself and decide what the NTP findings are and what they mean.

You will notice that the NYT rather buries the evidence of DNA damage down at the bottom of the article. I should note that many scientists working on EMR do not feel that cancer is the main issue when it comes to EMR effects. Sterility and DNA damage are much more serious issues, both for humans and animals/birds/insects. So lack of cancer findings in the NTP study (if that is what is says) does not mean using a cell phone is safe, it only means that, according to the results from this study, you probably won't get cancer from using a cell phone. Nor does this study mean that wireless technology is safe for wildlife. The Eklipse forum committee, whose very conservative assessment of EMR research into vertebrates, invertebrates and plants I posted a few days ago, found that EMR is having an effect on nature. However, the NYT is not overly concerned with birds and migration or crop yields in the presence of cell tower radiation. The NYT is also ignoring the results of the first part of the NTP study, posted on this thread, which found definite evidence of cancers like malignant gliomas and schwannomas.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf tr595peerdraft.pdf (8.41 MB, 15 views)
File Type: pdf tr596peerdraft.pdf (4.17 MB, 22 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Sunday 4th February 2018 at 06:25.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd February 2018, 12:43   #393
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
This is good: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ou-free-speech
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd February 2018, 15:22   #394
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
For years now the NYT has been promoting wireless technologies, with a special focus on Apple and all its products.
I’d be interested in your evidence for this remarkable assertion. . ..
__________________
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 : Saturday 3rd February 2018 at 20:39.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 4th February 2018, 06:36   #395
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ fugi Observation. We used to subscribe, then bought it several times a week until about 2014, when its editorial policies just stuck in my craw. Seymour Hersch, the well-known investigative journalist, once remarked, "The NYT never met a war it didn't like." As far as I can tell, it never met a wireless device it didn't like, either. And its coverage of Steve Jobs' death was way over the top. I think that was the point where we decided we'd had enough--and at the time we honestly had no idea that wireless technologies might be dangerous. We were just sick of paying money for what was clearly biased reporting and its sedulous adulation of Apple and all its products. And its endless promotion of "luxury". And its endless succession of editorial errors, corrected in small print in the following editions. A "newspaper of record" has a duty to remain unbiased and get its facts right. The NYT fails in that duty.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Sunday 4th February 2018 at 08:30.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 4th February 2018, 10:10   #396
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
EMR effects known for decades but take time to become evident

A while ago I posted a link to the Naval Medical Research Institute's 2300 studies done before 1972 showing various effects on human health. I am reposting them here as a PDF.

I am also posting a report on 878 Russian studies on the health effects of EMR, commissioned by the German government in 1996 and then buried. The interesting point about the Russian studies (in addition to the fact that Russian EMR safety levels are much lower than in most places) is that effects from EMR take time to develop, and most studies done on EMR effects are of limited duration. This point is also made in the attached PDF about risks of intercranial tumors--they take time to develop.

The subject that most interests me with respect to EMR is its effects on wildlife. These early studies all looked at human health effects, and they are bad enough--how on earth was wireless technology licensed in the first place, if governments were aware (as they must have been) of the dangers? The implications for wildlife are horrendous--if you translate such effects as disruption of the circadian rhythm, cognitive impairment, sensorimotor and motor function impairment to effects on nature, it is small wonder that species are disappearing.

It is very hard to write about this topic, or even to suggest that wireless technologies are not a good thing, without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Why would those in power permit a technology that could harm them, their children, their grandchildren and the world they live in? If it were a conspiracy, what would be the point of it? What could the conspirators possibly hope to achieve?

Actually I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it is a monumental cock-up. I think that when wireless technologies first got approved nobody in power was joining the dots with early research, and they were making assumptions about what was safe that was based on false premises (e.g., biological harm only occurs with heating of tissue).

That said, I think what we are seeing now is possibly an equally monumental cover-up by the powers that be. Vast amounts of money have been invested in wireless networks, and many plans for future growth depend on wireless, with governments everywhere publicly committing themselves to further expansion and 5G for their alleged economic benefits. The world has been on the verge on economic meltdown for the past ten years or so, economic recovery is not certain, and a public stance denouncing wireless technology would result in the mother of all stock market crashes (there may be a crash soon anyway). I know this view will not make me popular, but that's what I think. It will take a public health crisis or mass extinctions before this position is reevaluated, and by then the damage will be immense. It is a great shame, therefore, that rational debate on this issue (among others) is not taking place in public forums where it rightfully belongs.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 4th February 2018, 10:41   #397
hwinbermuda
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Dereham, Norfolk
Posts: 600
What other sites are you posting to, Purple Heron? If it is as important as you obviously feel, a birdwatchers forum may not be the ideal spot.
You know from prior comments that I am not antagonistic, nor fully supportive, but wondered if the wider subjects that have developed and moved on from the original post need airing on more active, subject specific sites.
The loss of bird population (your starting point on this thread) may be an indicator of more widespread harm, but your recent posts have veered substantially from this.
Its been interesting, intriguing, entertaining and educational, but it seems to have moved away from the original thrust.
hwinbermuda is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 4th February 2018, 12:09   #398
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 474
@ hwinbermuda This is the only forum I post on, except for odd comments on the Greek news. I'm not keen on social media and this is probably as far as I will go. I know that my posts veer away from birds at times, but I think that everything is connected. There isn't enough data on wildlife, especially observational studies, and many of the animal studies only use mice, rats, chickens etc. as surrogates for humans. I therefore present human data as a proxy for animal/bird data that we don't have, though such data are of limited use when dealing with subjects like migration and orientation.

I started this thread here because I think we all have something in common--love of birds, and probably love of nature in all its forms. I reckon if I can't convince you lot to consider seriously whether EMR is an environmental pollutant, or in some way damaging to birds/the natural world, then there is no hope whatsoever of convincing the general public that wireless is bad for them or nature. Nature is my chief interest, not human beings. Humans indulge in all sorts of risk-taking and destructive behaviours that no animal does, and I think it is immeasurably unfair that other creatures should suffer for our self-indulgence. Almost all the really "wow" moments in my life have been associated with nature in one way or another.

I'll probably end this thread soon, because there will come a point where I have nothing new to add. I had hoped to connect via this to people from other parts of the globe than Europe and the US, but that hasn't happened so it hasn't been possible to find out directly whether phenomena like those I am observing here in Greece are also happening in, say, India or Brazil. Actually there are a couple of YouTube videos saying that birds disappeared when cell towers were erected in Tamil Nadu, but this is not the same as being able to connect directly with birdwatchers in other countries.

There are plenty of sites that deal with the dangers of EMR to humans, and on most if not all of them the effects of EMR on nature are at best an afterthought. I think it should be our primary concern, and I am pleased to see that some of the nature NGOs are starting to look into it. If this post achieves the goal of getting the topic of EMR and nature into the public arena, it has done some good. In the west, at least, birdwatchers form a large interest group which could influence public policy in matters like this. I'd like to see that happen, but I don't feel I've been too successful on that score. Perhaps my multidimensional approach to the issue is to blame for this.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 4th February 2018, 22:55   #399
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ fugi Observation. We used to subscribe, then bought it several times a week until about 2014, when its editorial policies just stuck in my craw. Seymour Hersch, the well-known investigative journalist, once remarked, "The NYT never met a war it didn't like." As far as I can tell, it never met a wireless device it didn't like, either. And its coverage of Steve Jobs' death was way over the top. I think that was the point where we decided we'd had enough--and at the time we honestly had no idea that wireless technologies might be dangerous. We were just sick of paying money for what was clearly biased reporting and its sedulous adulation of Apple and all its products. And its endless promotion of "luxury". And its endless succession of editorial errors, corrected in small print in the following editions. A "newspaper of record" has a duty to remain unbiased and get its facts right. The NYT fails in that duty.
I get it, you really really detest cell phones and always have, long before suspecting they might be damaging to the environment. So for you, getting them banned for their alleged detrimental effects on the environment would be an unalloyed good, not a mixed blessing as it would be for practically everyone else. Have I got this right or have I misrepresented your views?

Lists of corrected errors are a good thing in a newspaper, by the way, not a bad. The fact that they’re so long in the NYT and other properly edited publications is a sign of punctiliousness not carelessness
__________________
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 5th February 2018 at 00:26.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 5th February 2018, 03:33   #400
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 16,233
From the numerous comments against persons using mobiles, unrelated to alleged detrimental effects, it would seem you're pretty spot on there Fugl.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

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 0.31507111 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:45.