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 Wednesday 8th August 2018, 15:41   #1026
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,962
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
@PH: I was thinking last night about how we seem to be going in circles with this discussion. So to break the deadlock I wanted to propose an idea, see if you're interested :)
Why don't we do our own little observational study? Select a significant number of sites from around the world with good long-term records of bird numbers, plus accurate info on 2G,3G,4G signal coverage. Shouldn't be too hard to find this information online, and then we can do a meta-analysis. Ed and I can easily cover the study design, data processing and statistical aspects; Borjam has the right knowledge on the physics and engineering side of things, and I'm sure we could rouse some support from the many lurkers in this thread for site selection, data collection, discussion of results etc.
Wouldn't that be fun and a much better use of our time than simply locking horns? Let me know what you think!

Cheers,
Joost
Joost, a nice idea, and I applaud the positivity and intent for actual action and scientific inquiry. However, I do not share your confidence that the "study design" for such a meta-analysis could be so easily covered that it gets rid of the glaring elephants in the room. Ed has previously expanded on the difficulty of fishing meaningful data from small signals among large amounts of greater magnitude signals and noise. I agree and this would be the major difficulty before even getting to the starting line. Even Diana agrees! (the irony is not lost :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
..... As for your idea for a meta-analysis of bird numbers in the vicinity of cell towers, I think there are problems with it. First and foremost, a study like that could not be called an "observational" study. Second, it would be very difficult to isolate confounding factors if all you had were bird numbers and cell tower data. Bearing in mind Kostoff's theory about synergistic action (another very good piece by Kostoff and Lai on the link I published in my last post) the presence or absence of other factors may bear greatly on results. Third, you do not have any way of knowing if the bird data you have is correct in the first place. At Lake Kerkini, for instance, they only keep track of 100 out of 340 species of birds, so you have no idea what is happening to the majority of the birds that are resident/breeders in the area ....
I think one of the major hurdles you would face is the global trend for environmental degradation due to wetland and riparian hydrology and vegetation destruction, and resultant erosion, and the lack of soil formation processes and deleterious climate effects that follow, urbanisation of former cleared woodlands, increased use of herbicides, pesticides, predation by ferals and/or invasion of weeds and other biological pests etc etc etc ....
As here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=345778
And here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=342128

I think at best if you can access quality EIS fauna and flora data for historically proposed cell tower sites, and follow up survey records over time, you may get some relevant data and answers, though how you filter the aforementioned sources of noise is fraught with potential for masses of 'garbage' in and out, and difficult to eliminate. Even detailed fauna and flora surveys are often inaccurate and the subject of much debate in terms of systematic process and individual development results. I don't think you will be able to get sufficient controls, and sufficient levels of controls over anything like a broad widely dispersed area.

Further, I think there are significant questions over the multispectral forcing and purity of signal once all the frequencies and power levels and interferences and phase shifts are blended into the present (and future including 5G) cocktail. Trying to sift response and effect (if any) out of that and attributing it to any particular source will be a large source of inaccuracy in the field.

Professional observational and scientific study is definitely required (both field and laboratory), and I hope this is the way things pan out.

Good luck! :)



Chosun
Chosun Juan is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 8th August 2018, 19:44   #1027
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Joost, a nice idea, and I applaud the positivity and intent for actual action and scientific inquiry. However, I do not share your confidence that the "study design" for such a meta-analysis could be so easily covered that it gets rid of the glaring elephants in the room. Ed has previously expanded on the difficulty of fishing meaningful data from small signals among large amounts of greater magnitude signals and noise. I agree and this would be the major difficulty before even getting to the starting line. Even Diana agrees! (the irony is not lost :)


I think one of the major hurdles you would face is the global trend for environmental degradation due to wetland and riparian hydrology and vegetation destruction, and resultant erosion, and the lack of soil formation processes and deleterious climate effects that follow, urbanisation of former cleared woodlands, increased use of herbicides, pesticides, predation by ferals and/or invasion of weeds and other biological pests etc etc etc ....
As here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=345778
And here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=342128

I think at best if you can access quality EIS fauna and flora data for historically proposed cell tower sites, and follow up survey records over time, you may get some relevant data and answers, though how you filter the aforementioned sources of noise is fraught with potential for masses of 'garbage' in and out, and difficult to eliminate. Even detailed fauna and flora surveys are often inaccurate and the subject of much debate in terms of systematic process and individual development results. I don't think you will be able to get sufficient controls, and sufficient levels of controls over anything like a broad widely dispersed area.

Further, I think there are significant questions over the multispectral forcing and purity of signal once all the frequencies and power levels and interferences and phase shifts are blended into the present (and future including 5G) cocktail. Trying to sift response and effect (if any) out of that and attributing it to any particular source will be a large source of inaccuracy in the field.

Professional observational and scientific study is definitely required (both field and laboratory), and I hope this is the way things pan out.

Good luck! :)
Lots of food for thought there, Joost, hope you’re taking it aboard. . .. Haha.
__________________
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 : Wednesday 8th August 2018 at 20:12.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Wednesday 8th August 2018, 19:56   #1028
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 725
@Kevin: thanks, I appreciate the level-headed response and your call for being reasonable is spot on.
With regards to Nature Scientific Reports, it was set up by Nature to compete with open access journals such as PLoS ONE. Not sure you're aware, but as a scientist you do all the work (generally on public funding) and write the paper; this is then reviewed by anonymous colleagues (unpaid) overseen by a scientific editor (generally another unpaid colleague) on behalf of the journal. Once accepted, the scientist then signs over the authorship rights to the publisher, and pays a processing & publishing fee (generally a few hundred to a few thousand $). At this point, the scientist no longer owns the right to their own work, plus it sits behind the publisher's paywall. A university library has to pay an annual subscription to get access to a journal, and remember there are thousands of journal titles to consider so this get costly very quickly. The same goes for any member of the general public who wants access to a single paper. If a scientist wants their paper to be exempt from the paywall then they can pay the publisher a so-called open access fee (again generally a thousand $ or more). Sound crazy? Personally I find it obscene, but that's the way the system works. And because the big publishing houses own all the established journals with a decent impact factor, as a scientist you have little choice but to support this gravy train. Why? Because your entire career is judged on your personal impact factor (look up H-index) - want to compete for that grant or get that elusive permanent position? Then getting a couple of high impact publications and a good H-index are your golden ticket.
Anyway I digress, some years back journals started to appear that offered open access publishing for a reasonable fee (sub-1K $ per article). Despite the lower impact they have proven very popular, so much so that the big names in scientific publishing have set up their own competing journals following the same model. So while Nature has an IF of 40.137 points, Nat Sci Rep's one is 10x lower at IF 4.122. That's still pretty decent by the way. A lot of the studies posted in this thread have been in sub-2 IF journals, which for medical or biochemistry-oriented journals signifies they're of questionable quality (both in editorial standards and review process).

@Borjam: Gordon's comment was aimed at PH for claiming I had edited a post. Though verifiably incorrect, I actually have no problem calling some of her sources pseudo-scientists, but hey ho.
Good comments on the Panagopoulos theory, which is an interesting idea but one I cannot see operate in real biological systems for reasons mentioned in the Pall discussion. Note also that the theory is not backed up by any real life observations.

@Chosun: thanks for the positive response to my idea. You are of course absolutely right that the proposed 'study design' would be problematic and insufficient. However, I want to point out it was never my intention for this to be an actual comprehensive study, but rather an attempt to bring together the arguing sides. Nothing like working together on a problem to appreciate one another's point of view and create mutual understanding. Sadly, the idea was thrown back into my face by PH, along with some 'helpful' advice on methodology. A real shame, but there has to be willingness on both sides.

@Fugl: thanks but I can think of more useful ways to spend my time Just started a new job working at Vodaph...ehr a US-based consortium looking at infectious diseases in developing nations. Exciting but busy times ahead!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 8th August 2018 at 21:53.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 8th August 2018, 20:37   #1029
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Nohatch Your own true colours are showing. For some reason which I cannot comprehend, it absolutely infuriates you that I have been posting studies and articles that assert that EMR harms living organisms.
Nah, for that I would have to actually care about the stuff you post. Bemused, baffled and sometimes exasperated? Yes. Absolutely infuriated? Not really.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Several times you have bemoaned the fact that you have been unable to make me go away.
Another fabrication, but go ahead and pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You really should be ashamed of your behavior. [...]
You are entitled to disagree with me. I second Voltaire when he said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is unfortunate that this does not seem to be a two-way street. [...]
And I'm afraid you did call these people "pseudoscientists" which is why I put that word into quotation marks in post 965. I should have taken a screen shot, but I really didn't think you would sink so low as to change the content of your previous post. As for the "last edited" notation, I am quite sure that someone who really knows his way around computers can get around that. This also applies to the discussion we had about your research being part-funded by Vodafone. At what point did you realize that you could not maintain the fiction of objectivity under those circumstances?
You're claiming to occupy the moral high ground whilst in the same breath repeating multiple accusations fabricated with the intention of discrediting me purely because I disagree with you. I don't think there is anyone who would feel I should be the one ashamed of my behaviour.
I repeat, these claims are verifiably false, paper-thin and malicious, and ought to be withdrawn. If you were attacking me on a purely personal level that would be bad enough, though ultimately water off a duck's back. However, I consider this a direct and public attack on my professional reputation. Given that I put mine on the line openly and in good faith, and with the intent of making a positive contribution to this thread, I find that despicable. In keeping with the BF guidelines (https://www.birdforum.net/faq.php?fa...faq_guidelines) I will therefore lodge a complaint about your unfounded personal accusations, as well as your unbecoming manner towards many other posters in this thread whose viewpoints don't agree with yours.
Finally, I will take particular pleasure in doing so wireless at an altitude of 30,000 ft over the Atlantic, on my way to a meeting to discuss how to prevent a condition that kills around 8 million people annually.
All the best in your life; I'd stick to painting and stay well away from the Internet. It's dangerous but not in the way you imagine.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 8th August 2018 at 21:53.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 01:52   #1030
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ all The contention that proponents of the "EMR harms living organisms" side have no grasp of physics is not, I think, generally true--though it is certainly not my specialty! I have posted the following paper a couple of times, but as far as I know, no one has read it; certainly no one has commented. However, I think it should be read, so I am posting it again: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

The authors (take a good look at who they are--do the names ring any bells?) contend that polarization, which is a feature of all man-made EMR and not of any natural EMR, is what makes the crucial difference in EMR's effects on biological systems. The abstract, at least, is very clear and easy to read. The equations are beyond me, but hopefully not beyond all of you.

Since this article was published by Nature and certainly had to pass peer review, I think it is a fair assumption that the authors understand physics. If polarized EMR behaves differently from natural EMR, why should there not be a non-thermal mechanism?
Hi Diana,

Jumping back over the crock pond to your earlier post, I'd like to say that I hadn't picked up on the 2015 Panagopoulos, et. al. article, so I'm very glad you posted the link again. For those interested, I've attached it below along with a 2013 article by the two lead authors, "Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Bioeffects," which was published in PLOS One. In each case, there was a 4-6 mos. period of time between submission and acceptance, which I assume was due to peer-review/rewriting.

At first blush, it seems that this physical difference in polarization might put some of the purported bioeffects into better perspective. Correct or not, it's always worth looking into a potential explanatory rationale that hadn't been considered previously.

Many thanks,
Ed

PS. We should also keep our eyes open for technical, peer-reviewed refutations, which may be present in the literature by now.

PPS. Tracking Panagopoulos back a little further I came across the third article "Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna," published in Int. J. Radiat. Biol. in 2010. It's similar to the last Balmori paper but done in a highly controlled laboratory environment on Drosophila (fly) reproduction. As seen in Table II, the distance effect is absolutely stunning. The probability that such results would obtain by chance is something like one in a billion.

So, now we see that Panagopoulos' theory papers were an effort to explain physically how these effects could occur. He's my kinda guy.

Taken together, unless this body of work can be refuted with as much scientific rigor, I'm ready to put my money on the "EMR Harms" side of the debate.

Proost,
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 : Thursday 9th August 2018 at 06:29.
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 9th August 2018, 06:40   #1031
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
At first blush, it seems that this physical difference in polarization might put some of the purported bioeffects into better perspective. Correct or not, it's always worth looking into a potential explanatory rationale that hadn't been considered previously.
Assuming that our cells have molecules with a particular orientation and polarization.

There is also the important matter of size. To give you a vaguely intuitive idea, I mentioned that antennas must have a length in a similar order of magnitude to the wavelength.

There is something called "small antennas", which at a length of maybe 1/40th of the wavelength and subject to very specific conditions like, for example, being extremely frequency selective can work.

For example I have one of those small antennas to transmit on the HF bands. It's an aluminum loop with a diameter of 1 metre and it can work at 7 MHz (40 m. wavelength). But it's so frequency specific, I need to retune it when I make even a small change to the transmission frequency like 2 KHz.

Now, imagine the length of a molecule compared to the wavelength of the microwaves we are considering, which are in the cm range. 900 MHz are 30 cm, 2.4 GHz are around 12 cm and so on. Someone will be tempted to point out that a DNA chain can be really long. But if it's coiled you need to consider the size of the whole "corpuscle". For example, a chromosome.

Also, that molecule is not in a dielectric medium. It could be roughly described as "sumbersed in seawater".

To summarize, too many assumptions there.

- That molecules or even parts of cells can act as antennas. Too small and floating in a conductive fluid.

- That all those molecules or cell parts have the same orientation so that receiving radiation in a particular polarization can make a difference

So, the possibility of discovering that radio transmissions cause such a "micro" effect seems to me really inifinitesimal.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 10:52   #1032
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Borjam The piece you posted about normative physics is interesting, but as Kevin points out, it can be used either way. So I'm not sure it gets us much farther, unless you saw something in it that I didn't.

Frankly, I don't know enough physics to fully understand the study (the words, fine; the formulae, no) but I tend to think that if there were a problem as obvious and basic as you say, someone would have spotted it before publication. You also say they begin the article "by considering what as a bare minimum is controversial as facts" such as DNA damage. Did you read the Cherry piece I posted? The evidence for DNA damage, even by 2001, was actually quite good, and a lot of work has been done since. In any case I am not sure your example of degrading a signal by sitting in front of an antenna is to the point. As I understand it, EMR passes through us quite easily, and it takes something very big and solid to block it, like a big tree trunk or a wall. As the EMR passes through us, we could easily absorb enough of the radiation to damage our cells without necessarily impairing the quality of the signal. This is especially true since many studies show that signal strength and cell damage are not necessarily related. And isn't this rather the point of the study in the first place?

@ Peter Always heartening to hear that something is increasing these days, whatever the cause. However, the general trends seem to be towards decreasing bird and insect populations--see the post about Chris Packham saying that England is turning into "a green and unpleasant land". From my own observations, also, not all species behave the same way in the presence of EMR. I don't know if this is to do with the species or the wavelength itself. Here, a great many birds have declined in number, and in town there are very few birds indeed--including collared doves, which were very much the Greek summer sound. However, while sparrows, swallows and house martins have all vanished, domestic pigeon and seagull populations have remained much the same; jays and crows are doing quite well. And in the countryside, great tits are still okay while a great many other small birds have all but vanished. At a guess--and this is only a guess--some species react more negatively to certain wavelengths than others; some may even react positively (see the study on great tits under power lines attached to "Birds and Trees of Northern Greece" which found increased clutch size and egg volume in tits nesting under power lines.) Also there may be other factors at play: Kostoff and others believe that EMR exacerbates other environmental pollutants, which may or may not be present in your area. In sum, I think we still have a great deal to learn about how EMR affects living organisms; hence the call for the Precautionary Principle and a moratorium on 5G.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 11:23   #1033
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
To summarize, too many assumptions there.

- That molecules or even parts of cells can act as antennas. Too small and floating in a conductive fluid.

- That all those molecules or cell parts have the same orientation so that receiving radiation in a particular polarization can make a difference

So, the possibility of discovering that radio transmissions cause such a "micro" effect seems to me really inifinitesimal.
But possible. Someone just needs to do appropriate research.

Difference is, I won't jump to conclusions without that research; nor will I assume it's correct until then.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 11:33   #1034
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Ed Thank you as always for finding some really interesting studies, and very much to the point. As usual you explain things better than I do! There's a roundup of recent studies (last two years) at https://www.saferemr.com/2018/08/cel...ies2years.html The majority of studies focus on reproductive harm, memory/cognition/brain functioning, and tumors/cancer, and the point is made that in recent years about 3 times as many studies find harm as do not find harm from EMR. I haven't had a chance to go though them thoroughly, so I am not sure whether this gets us much further forward as to how that harm comes about.

There are also three talks, at least one of which is quite long, from the meeting in Australia that kicked off the class action suit against 5G deployment. Dr Darius Lesczinski from ORSA is a major anti-EMR figure down under; worth a listen if you have time.

@ Chosun See above; also I just wanted to say that I totally agree that environmental degradation plays a major role in decline of species--I'm just contending that EMR constitutes yet another form of this, added to all the rest. When it comes to the sort of analysis Nohatch proposes, I don't see how you could factor that in without knowing the places you were analyzing.

@ Nohatch Thank you for your clarification of how the publishing for public access process works. I did not shoot down your proposal to get at you; I wish I thought a meta-analysis would yield reliable results, but I don't, for the reasons stated as well as the points Chosun makes.

I am sorry you feel as you do, but I do not feel that EMR research is "pseudoscience" and, in a world where so much is vanishing, we ought to look at all possible causes. I have never claimed to be an expert, but have tried to share what I have learned, observed and found interesting. And I would very genuinely like to see a lot more work done, given time to do it. As for returning to my art, sad to say that I have lost most of my models--people just don't interact with each other when everyone is glued to a smartphone, and every landscape is marred by clusters of cell towers everywhere I look.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 12:34   #1035
mjh73
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
In Australia, there is great concern about 5G rollout, and a class action suit is being launched under the auspices of a very prominent QC demanding that the Precautionary Principle be invoked with regard to 5G. More info here: https://www.emfacts.com/2018/07/a-cl...-in-australia/
also at https://www.emfacts.com/2018/08/more...n-australia-2/
All the big things in Australia start in St. John’s Primary School Hall, Mullumbimby
__________________
mjh

Owner Acanthiza Ornithology - Thornbill Tours
www.acanthiza.com.au
mjh73 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 13:30   #1036
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Kevin I probably do miss points when I am trying to answer the thread, particularly when there are a lot of replies. And sometimes I have no idea how to reply. I have read a lot of studies, and am convinced that EMR is damaging us and nature, but I am not an expert and often find myself incapable of defending certain points, even when I feel there is a defense to make. Ed is better at this than I am; I often read his posts and wonder how I missed this or that particular point. I am learning, too, and one reason this thread has gone on as it has is because of it--people's questions and objections make me realize I haven't explained clearly (or perhaps haven't understood the subject completely) and I keep finding new studies that I feel shed light on this or that aspect of the issue, or answer an objection I couldn't field at the time. Often I post studies I think are really interesting but get no response from anyone (like the physics piece I re-posted, and this time people did read it) so the response-lack of response runs both ways, I think. I know reading so many studies is a chore, and probably a lot of people don't have that kind of time, but I think the only way anyone is going to make up his mind about EMR, really, is by reading the original work. And of course it is like trying to make a mosaic out of many tiny bits of information, or like doing a jigsaw. I do my best, but I am very conscious that it is often inadequate. As I said, I'm learning too.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 13:53   #1037
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
But possible. Someone just needs to do appropriate research.
Well, when I say infinitesimal I actually mean I would be extraordinarily surprised if that was found out.

Quote:
Difference is, I won't jump to conclusions without that research; nor will I assume it's correct until then.
The problem with this (and many other pseudoscientific claims) is: whenever the claim is made, no matter how crazy, it [i]must[/b] be accepted at face value unless it is proven wrong. Seems that claims, no matter what their merits, have an inherent right to be proven true.

And many of those claims are not falsable, which means they can't be proven wrong. I can't prove that EMR is harmess, nor I can prove that football is not a carcinogenic. Also, you can't prove that I am unable to exchange telepathic messages with an acquaintance orbiting Vega (the star).

So far we have here: observational studies, theoretical hypotheses and no proof. If we consider that all of us in urban areas are literally bathed in EMR covering the spectrum from MF to SHF and there is no alarming increase of anything we could attribute to that, one can begin to think that no effect is showing.

Tobacco has been mentioned in this thread as an example of industry cover-up. Right. But the data is there.

Or I am so wrong?
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 13:59   #1038
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Kevin I probably do miss points when I am trying to answer the thread, particularly when there are a lot of replies. And sometimes I have no idea how to reply. I have read a lot of studies, and am convinced that EMR is damaging us and nature, but I am not an expert and often find myself incapable of defending certain points, even when I feel there is a defense to make. Ed is better at this than I am; I often read his posts and wonder how I missed this or that particular point. I am learning, too, and one reason this thread has gone on as it has is because of it--people's questions and objections make me realize I haven't explained clearly (or perhaps haven't understood the subject completely) and I keep finding new studies that I feel shed light on this or that aspect of the issue, or answer an objection I couldn't field at the time. Often I post studies I think are really interesting but get no response from anyone (like the physics piece I re-posted, and this time people did read it) so the response-lack of response runs both ways, I think. I know reading so many studies is a chore, and probably a lot of people don't have that kind of time, but I think the only way anyone is going to make up his mind about EMR, really, is by reading the original work. And of course it is like trying to make a mosaic out of many tiny bits of information, or like doing a jigsaw. I do my best, but I am very conscious that it is often inadequate. As I said, I'm learning too.
But you haven't learned to listen to the people who do read what you post, yet disagree. You've learned to make baseless, personal attacks against those same people. You have learned not to apologize when in error. You invent conspiracy theories to defend yourself and your arguments.

That isn't a good kind of learning...that's being just as close-minded as your opposition. If both sides are close-minded, guess what? Nothing gets done. Trust me, I live in the USA, I know how this works. Unless there are truly open minds, as well as "moderates" in a discussion, it's really all kinda pointless.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 14:15   #1039
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
And many of those claims are not falsable, which means they can't be proven wrong. I can't prove that EMR is harmess, nor I can prove that football is not a carcinogenic. Also, you can't prove that I am unable to exchange telepathic messages with an acquaintance orbiting Vega (the star).
I get that...it's a philosophical idea known as Russell's Teapot. I think I or another have even brought it up in this thread before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
So far we have here: observational studies, theoretical hypotheses and no proof. If we consider that all of us in urban areas are literally bathed in EMR covering the spectrum from MF to SHF and there is no alarming increase of anything we could attribute to that, one can begin to think that no effect is showing. ?
What I was getting at is the basis of many lines of science research starts with these kinds of hypothesis, which turn into studies, which turn into proving or disproving the hypothesis.

If some scientist (or government agency, or whatever) is really worried about it, then a study can be done. If it's beyond our ability, then we can only wait until the tech catches up or we can observe the effect in other ways and study all the tangential effects as a way to prove the one we can't directly.

Borjam, all I was doing was playing a semi Devi's Advocate role here, not disagreeing. Just trying to make the point to PH that if a good study (or better yet, more than one) proved something, some of us would be more worried. I think in the zeal to counter her arguments, and her equal zeal to defend, that the fact that if mainstream scientsists were really that worried then it would have been properly studied by now.

Let's be honest here: real scientists study very bizarre minutia for very personal reasons. We need a few of them to study this "better" and more cohesively...not because 5G is some imminent threat and we need to shut it all down now, but because it's still the right thing to do. But we need to stop trusting armchair scientists, or ones studying outside their fields, or ones with less than ideal educational backgrounds.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 14:40   #1040
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
I get that...it's a philosophical idea known as Russell's Teapot. I think I or another have even brought it up in this thread before.
Thanks, I had forgotten the name :) A classic of course!


Quote:
What I was getting at is the basis of many lines of science research starts with these kinds of hypothesis, which turn into studies, which turn into proving or disproving the hypothesis.
In this particular case it's a good idea to have a look at what has led people to be scared of microwaves.

It's not that some disease has surged without explanation. Out of thin air the "fact" that that radio waves are somewhat dangerous has become "common knowledge". Yet it hasn't been proven.

Quote:
If some scientist (or government agency, or whatever) is really worried about it, then a study can be done.
Maybe no scientists or government agencies are worried because, well, nothing has triggered those worries.

Quote:
If it's beyond our ability, then we can only wait until the tech catches up or we can observe the effect in other ways and study all the tangential effects as a way to prove the one we can't directly.
Faced with any claim you can always assess how credible it might be in the first place.

For example: imagine that I say that the poison produced by a newly discovered species of cone snail is extremely effective against certain tumors.

How credible would that be? Cone snails produce venoms targetted at vertebrates, which means, well, some of those chemical substances can be expected to have some effect on our own biochemistry. Right?

Now let's test a different claim. That a component of the venom of the same cone snail can trigger a sex change in mammals. After all other vertebrates like fishes can change sex. That one would seem to me a bit more unlikely, perhaps?

And a more unlikely claim. A small dose of that same venom can make a human develop telepathy. (Yep, I tend to pick on telepathy and homeopathy).

Now, you see that third claim published on the NY Times (or The Guardian) as a piece of news. Could you believe it in the first place?

Now go and ask a biologist to research that because, well, you heard about it somewhere.

It would be different if your recently married brother and his wife, after visiting that lovely atoll in the Indian Ocean, had recently developed telepathy. Now go call the biologist and show him/her the fact. They were stung by the pretty snail they collected in the reef and now they are real telepaths. Don't you think that the researcher would have a reason to "worry, ergo research"?

Quote:
Borjam, all I was doing was playing a semi Devi's Advocate role here, not disagreeing. Just trying to make the point to PH that if a good study (or better yet, more than one) proved something, some of us would be more worried. I think in the zeal to counter her arguments, and her equal zeal to defend, that the fact that if mainstream scientsists were really that worried then it would have been properly studied by now.
Actually there is a lot of public pressure, sometimes it seems like there is a huge pressure to actually find the effects. And that means there are work opportunities for scientists. There are research funds for that.

Quote:
Let's be honest here: real scientists study very bizarre minutia for very personal reasons.
So why haven't they done it? What some people is demanding is not to have those claims researched, but to be proven true, which is an entirely different matter.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 15:42   #1041
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,506
Borjam,

This is where we get into the grain of truth of PH's argument, that sometimes we overlook studying things because "we know with certainty it can't be" so we can't be bothered. I happen to think that sometimes it's worth it to run a study for the sole reason of having it to definitively disprove an argument (or get a surprising truth).

In fact, a good study will be so good that even if the study sets out to prove a hypothesis is so strong, yet proves to be false, something comes of it. I have a recollection of some biologist who was studying octopus for some "known effect" and ended, to his disappointment, proving himself wrong. Now he has something new to study: the "real" why behind the effect. That's good science where you suck it up and move on.

I agree this is a problem of which "negative studies" should be undertaken. Is it a matter of debunking? Or is it because of a tenuous possibility that should be scientifically eliminated. Very good question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.

Just letting you know, I get your last response...it had already happened in my head, more or less...just hadn't bothered to go on about it at length like you did.

Also trying to show that PH really is on the right track, but going about it all wrong. It's a fine line between reasonable hypothesis and conspiracy theory for some topics; EMR and synergistic effects are two such topics.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 9th August 2018, 20:08   #1042
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed Thank you as always for finding some really interesting studies, and very much to the point. As usual you explain things better than I do! There's a roundup of recent studies (last two years) at https://www.saferemr.com/2018/08/cel...ies2years.html The majority of studies focus on reproductive harm, memory/cognition/brain functioning, and tumors/cancer, and the point is made that in recent years about 3 times as many studies find harm as do not find harm from EMR. I haven't had a chance to go through them thoroughly, so I am not sure whether this gets us much further forward as to how that harm comes about.
...
Hi Diana,

The proposition that "EMR harms living organisms" can only be addressed scientifically by first demonstrating that EMR harms some living organism in some manner under some environmental condition. There may be many ways for EMR to harm living organisms, but it's only necessary to establish one for the general proposition to be true. That definitive study is what I've been looking for, and Panagopoulos' paper "Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation ..." did the trick.

Keep the faith.

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 9th August 2018, 20:33   #1043
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Assuming that our cells have molecules with a particular orientation and polarization.

There is also the important matter of size. To give you a vaguely intuitive idea, I mentioned that antennas must have a length in a similar order of magnitude to the wavelength.

There is something called "small antennas", which at a length of maybe 1/40th of the wavelength and subject to very specific conditions like, for example, being extremely frequency selective can work.

For example I have one of those small antennas to transmit on the HF bands. It's an aluminum loop with a diameter of 1 metre and it can work at 7 MHz (40 m. wavelength). But it's so frequency specific, I need to retune it when I make even a small change to the transmission frequency like 2 KHz.

Now, imagine the length of a molecule compared to the wavelength of the microwaves we are considering, which are in the cm range. 900 MHz are 30 cm, 2.4 GHz are around 12 cm and so on. Someone will be tempted to point out that a DNA chain can be really long. But if it's coiled you need to consider the size of the whole "corpuscle". For example, a chromosome.

Also, that molecule is not in a dielectric medium. It could be roughly described as "sumbersed in seawater".

To summarize, too many assumptions there.

- That molecules or even parts of cells can act as antennas. Too small and floating in a conductive fluid.

- That all those molecules or cell parts have the same orientation so that receiving radiation in a particular polarization can make a difference

So, the possibility of discovering that radio transmissions cause such a "micro" effect seems to me really inifinitesimal.
Skepticism noted. I'd encourage you to communicate with him to hear what he has to say.
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 : Thursday 9th August 2018 at 20:42.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 09:39   #1044
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 725
For comment and analysis: City sparrows' decline linked to car exhausts

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...o-car-exhausts

The actual paper is attached and is part of a larger and ongoing research program by the RSPB. EMF was included as a factor but found not to be a significant factor affecting trends in male House Sparrow density or fledgling abundance (Table 5). Note the much more thorough study approach compared to, say Balmori and Everaerts & Bouwens. Borjam, I'd appreciate an assessment of the quality of the EMF measurements.

Cheers,
Joost
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Peach2018_Article_DepletedSuburbanHouseSparrowPa.pdf (950.6 KB, 5 views)
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 10:41   #1045
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Borjam I asked a friend who has a Ph.D. in engineering, and knows quite a bit about physics, what he thought of your objections to the Panagolpoulos/Johansson/Carlos paper. He points out that all natural radiation (including solar radiation) is not polarized and does not pulse, therefore has no penetration (you can protect yourself against the sun with a hat), but that pulsating polarized radiation has good penetration depending on the frequency used. Pulsating polarized radiation upsets the electrical balance of living cells whose protons and neurons are also electrically charged. Natural radiation (not polarized, not pulsating) has no amplitude modulation such as man-made, polarized, pulsating radiation which supports data transmission and does have penetration. This is why solar radiation can only cause skin burns. The difference, he says, is colossal. He suggests you read Robert Becker's "The Body Electric" which he says gives ample proof of the damage that living cells sustain from pulsating radiation. He added that if man starts using the air as a massive cable to transmit energy, the damage to living cells will be catastrophic.

He asked me to ask you where we find natural polarized radiation, so that we can measure it, and measure its ability to penetrate. Concerning the laws of thermodynamics, he points out that these do not apply since pulsing, polarized radiation does not have to heat tissues to damage living cells.

I hope this clarifies the issues.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 10:58   #1046
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Borjam, I'd appreciate an assessment of the quality of the EMF measurements.
Well, a mixed bag in my opinion. They have made an effort certainly. But keep reading.

First, mischaracterized meter. Certainly it's not a spectrum analyzer (which shows a graph of the radio frequency spectrum) but a broadband receiver. If you want to measure the total level of RF energy at a place, that's fine.

I found the manual here
https://shieldtech.nl/wp-content/upl...g-englisch.pdf

And assuming it's complete (actually it's a bit of a mess) it can't do frequency selective measurements. I see that it can work as a really crude spectrum analyzer using the audio output (audio frequency peaks will be crudely correlated to activity in different frequencies of the RF spectrum) but the value displayed on the screen (and sent to a data logging PC) will *always* be a total value.

It might have internal programmable filters (the technology exists and it could fit inside a 1000 euro instrument) but I see no mention of them.

So, imagine that you are measuring at one location. With the crude audio spectrum approach you see two peaks: one within the band of interest, the other one outside. How do you know the contribution of each one? You don't know.

Hence this statement is at least very confusing.

Quote:
Measurements were based on the downlink frequencies of GSM 900/1800 MHz (925–960 MHz, 1805–1880 MHz) using a calibrated high-frequency spectrum analyser (ROM Elektronik RF survey meter, model HFR-4 s/n 262,808) with calibrated EMC directional antenna which was rotated around 360-degrees to ensure a maximum measure
That said, rotating the antenna is a good thing because it's unidirectional and it can help to avoid the phase cancellation problems I mentioned with the covert on the roof casual "measurement" system :)

I wouldn't classify the meter as professional at all, because the manual states that it doesn't need calibration and everything is, well, spotty. I am sure it works but it's on a similar cathegory to the Nuova Elettronica meter. Indeed it's surprisingly sold at the usual suspect outlets (RF shielding clothes, etc) catering to that non existant problem of "electro smog". Actually it's a problem for me (amateur radio operator) but that's a different story.

Can they make frequency specific measurements with that meter, as they claim? Yes, using band pass filters between the antenna and the receiver. None are mentioned. The mention of the antenna itself is confusing because they say "calibrated EMC antenna". I assume that it's the one provided by the manufacturer because otherwise they should add antenna calibration data to the meter and I haven't found a mention of a method to do that.

I assume that they have used the 900 MHz - 2600 MHz log periodic antenna mentioned in the manual. Still it's capable of receiving at lower and higher frequencies, it's not equivalent to a filter. And the receiver is said to work between 1 MHz and 6 GHz.


As for car exhaust pollution. Can it be explained by the shift from gasoline to diesel during the last 20 years? Gasoline produces more CO2 but untreated diesel (and we all know that manufacturers doctored their control systems to reduce emmissions when operating in a test bench) emits more noxious and known carcinogenic substances.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 11:01   #1047
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Kevin I do read what people post, but I don't always know how to refute points I feel are wrong. Hence my asking for assistance on Borjam's objections to the physics paper, above. I generally try to get back to things by posting papers that address issues which have been raised on this thread. I feel that one or two people use displacement techniques to get away from the information in some of the work I post, so that we waste days arguing about people's qualifications, say, rather than looking at what they actually said, which is the important part but never gets discussed--or we get stuck one one disputed point to the exclusion of all else. Since none of us are experts on this subject, perhaps looking at the totality of the work posted would move the discussion forward. The Cherry paper, for instance, goes into the aspect of DNA damage quite thoroughly. I posted it because it's very clear, and it's a pre-digested version, so to speak, of the DNA studies I don't think anyone read. But other than Ed, no one has had a word to say about it. What am I supposed to do about this?
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 11:14   #1048
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam I asked a friend who has a Ph.D. in engineering, and knows quite a bit about physics, what he thought of your objections to the Panagolpoulos/Johansson/Carlos paper. He points out that all natural radiation (including solar radiation) is not polarized and does not pulse, therefore has no penetration (you can protect yourself against the sun with a hat), but that pulsating polarized radiation has good penetration depending on the frequency used.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Does he claim that pulsed visible light can go through an obstacle?

Also, does he suggest that natural radio frequency emissions from a star, for example, the Sun, can't "penetrate" because of lack of polarization?

And there are natural sources of pulsed electromagnetic radiation of course. Pulsars and, more domestically, thunderstorms. Although thunderstorms are not periodic of course.

Quote:
Pulsating polarized radiation upsets the electrical balance of living cells whose protons and neurons are also electrically charged. Natural radiation (not polarized, not pulsating) has no amplitude modulation such as man-made, polarized, pulsating radiation which supports data transmission and does have penetration.
That still doesn't make sense. My sister's boyfriend, who is an engineer, told me once that it isn't right to use microwaves in ovens. "Why?" I asked. "Well, because it's radiation" I answered. And I had to explain him that most "classic" electrical ovens heat mostly using infrared radiation. He wasn't familiar with the black body radiation, turns out. I even suggested him not to sleep with my sister because she also emits infrared radiation, so he would be safer in his own separate bed indeed.

Man made radio transmissions are not only amplitude modulated. There is phase/frequency modulation and other much more exotic schemes. Unless he considers amplitude modulation turning on and off a transmitter daily for example.

Quote:
This is why solar radiation can only cause skin burns. The difference, he says, is colossal.
Only skin burns. No cancer due to DNA damage?

Quote:
He suggests you read Robert Becker's "The Body Electric" which he says gives ample proof of the damage that living cells sustain from pulsating radiation. He added that if man starts using the air as a massive cable to transmit energy, the damage to living cells will be catastrophic.
This one? Seriously?

https://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric.../dp/0688069711

Quote:
He asked me to ask you where we find natural polarized radiation, so that we can measure it, and measure its ability to penetrate. Concerning the laws of thermodynamics, he points out that these do not apply since pulsing, polarized radiation does not have to heat tissues to damage living cells.
Well, put on a pair of polarized sunglasses and look by yourself. Polarized sunglasses are useful because reflected sunlight can be polarized (it often is) and polarized sunglasses kill those annoying reflections.



Quote:
I hope this clarifies the issues.
I would dare to say that this post covers the subject with the (in)famous Veil of Isis™.
Borjam is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 12:31   #1049
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Well, a mixed bag in my opinion. They have made an effort certainly. But keep reading.
Cheers, that is frustrating as it doesn't provide a very good measure for comparison. It's a missed opportunity they didn't do that properly and it does diminish the reliability of the conclusions (at least with regards to EMF playing a role or not).

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 13:14   #1050
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 400
@ Borjam So, in sum, he says you've got it all wrong and you say he does. However, I daresay he knows more physics than you do. There is no pulsed visible light. Polarized sunglasses do not make light pulse. Nor are thunderstorms pulsed radiation in the sense that anthropogenic EMR is. I give you the skin cancer, which is thermally caused, but his point is that sunlight does not penetrate beyond the skin and then not if you wear a hat or clothing.

@ all The sparrow study linking sparrow declines with car exhausts is just hooey, even if it was conducted by the RSPB (who rate the Everaert-Bauwens study very highly, by the way). Obviously car exhausts will do sparrows (and us) no good, but the conclusion that EMR wasn't a major factor is determined by what exactly? That the amount of EMR in the environment wasn't as much as ICNIRP allows? Obviously the study authors are unaware of research showing that wavelength and not field strength is what does the damage with EMR. And, if EMR is wiping out insect populations, this will affect food as well.

Where I live, in most of the village squares which are surrounded by restaurants and cafes with the Wi-Fi on, sparrows have altogether vanished. This includes squares with huge plane trees and no traffic, given that some of these are not on roads, just cobbled alleys--you might get the occasional motorbike. These places had lots of sparrows until the arrival of Wi-Fi, yet now they have none at all. Interestingly, when you get away from the Wi-Fi in these villages, you start seeing sparrows again, largely because most of the houses don't have Wi-Fi either, the villages having more unlived-in houses than lived-in ones. Perhaps the RSPB should study sparrow declines outside of big urban centers, where there are fewer factors to confuse them.

There is a very interesting half-hour talk on youtube by Harvard School of Public Health researcher Susan Clark, which discusses some of the issues we have been talking about recently: pulsed modulation, melatonin suppression, the xenobiotic nature of pulsed modulated EMR frequencies, how organisms absorb more EMR if the frequency wave is close to the size of the object, etc. She is very clear, and I think her talk will clear up a lot of things people don't understand. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdOU_qcSBE

To go with that, there is an interesting study titled "Pineal melatonin level disruption in humans due to electromagnetic fields and ICNIRP limits at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23051584
I am also attaching a document by Dr. Olle Johansson which links to a recent study called "Bacteria, mobile phones and Wi-Fi" which is very interesting and scary when you consider the implications.

Finally, a very good resource for the effects of EMR on birds is Dr. Joris Everaert's own website: www.livingplanet.be/emrbirds.htm
Attached Files
File Type: docx Associate professor.docx (276.3 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Friday 10th August 2018 at 13:16.
Purple Heron 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 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 0.35111189 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56.