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

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Does EMR harm living organisms?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.50 average.
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 08:29   #626
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 412
@ Jos I have been all over Turkey by bus and car, also lived there for a year--all long before the cell phone was invented (last there 1990). Never encountered mad or aggressive dogs, though the enormous brindled sheepdogs of the nomads up above Lake Van were a bit scary till the shepherds called them off. Since I was traveling with my small poodle that last time, we met a lot of dogs.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 11:37   #627
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,926
Clearly we live in different worlds. Or maybe your poodle scared them off.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 12:05   #628
citrinella
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: E.Lothian
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
snip
Overall, I got the impression that the author, while he would not consider effects of EMR on wildlife to be proven, would not say that EMR does not affect wildlife. He advocates more and better research
snip
Surprise, surprise.

Just about every paper you see now advocates this. All it means is "we have FAILED to prove our point; really that does not mean we are INCOMPETENT; nor that our hypothesis is WRONG; just that we haven't had enough MONEY yet - keep on pouring it in and we will spend it all with no great progress and come back and demand MORE."

Mike.
citrinella is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 19:58   #629
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
Surprise, surprise.

Just about every paper you see now advocates this. All it means is "we have FAILED to prove our point; really that does not mean we are INCOMPETENT; nor that our hypothesis is WRONG; just that we haven't had enough MONEY yet - keep on pouring it in and we will spend it all with no great progress and come back and demand MORE."

Mike.
I think you are being extremely unfair (read "wrong") in your characterisation of the vast majority of research scientists. It is unlikely that any decent research will provide a "final" answer to any question. Rather, good research, by providing satisfactory answers and advancing the level of knowledge and understanding in the field in question, will lead to more questions which will in turn lead to a deeper understanding.
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 20:27   #630
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
Surprise, surprise.

Just about every paper you see now advocates this. All it means is "we have FAILED to prove our point; really that does not mean we are INCOMPETENT; nor that our hypothesis is WRONG; just that we haven't had enough MONEY yet - keep on pouring it in and we will spend it all with no great progress and come back and demand MORE."

Mike.
Mike, is this a criticism you want to level at research & scientists in general? I'm not quite sure how to interpret your post so would appreciate if you could clarify/be more specific.
And keep in mind we're discussing a review paper here, not a piece of original research. Pointing out where additional studies are needed to plug gaps in our knowledge, along with providing handy summaries for everyone else, is the raison d'etre for such documents.

Joost

Edit: cross-post with Gordon, with whom I agree wholeheartedly!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 20:35   #631
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
@Diana/PH many thanks for the considerate reply, I do have a few things I'd like to discuss based on what you said but please bear with me because I'm on the road with limited signal (I'm sure you'd approve )
Although I doubt we'll agree on everything when all is said and done, I'm positive we will be able to reach consensus on some aspects. I'll do my best to reply in the next few days.
In the meantime I have a small favour to ask, do you have any material from the Eklipse task force that hasn't been published online? I couldn't get much from their website other than it's a 'work in progress'. You may have posted such already but I'd appreciate if you could re-post for my benefit.

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 11th March 2018, 20:38   #632
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
It is unlikely that any decent research will provide a "final" answer to any question.
Unless it's a rodent study.....
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...g-2205734.html

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 10:27   #633
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 412
@ Jos Miniature poodles are very scary.

@ Citrinella/Mike It is easy to sneer at "more research is needed" but it's a cheap shot. The fact is that a lot of the money for research comes from those with an interest in promoting whatever is being researched (a drug, a technology) but the same safety standards are not applied to both. So if you think a technology that is being rolled out might have harmful effects, where are you going to get the funding to test your theories? So a lot of the research--especially the earlier research--on harmful effects tends to get done with limited funds and limited resources. Also, early research into a subject may not have refined ways of testing a subject, or may have not worked out how to deal with confounders.

Balmori's work, for instance, is quite early work with respect to effects of EMR on nature. And people can, and have, leveled all sorts of criticisms at his work. A case in point is the criticism in the paper regarding the meter Balmori used to measure the radiation levels. Apparently there are better and more accurate meters. We can't know whether he knew this, or if this one was the best he could get locally at the time, or whether this was the best one he could afford. The thing is, it's very easy to be wise after the fact and say he could have thought of this or that, he could have done this or that better.

The point of doing more work on a subject is that next time, you can do better because you have spotted the flaws in someone else's work and you think you can fix them. But good research needs money, and if industry isn't going to supply that money without strings attached, that money has to come from somewhere else. A great many of the people researching harmful effects of EMR have done so with very limited budgets and other constraints, and meanwhile there has been a lot of pressure from industry and government to promote wireless technologies. Hardly a level playing field.

The thing is, scientists aren't God, much as society reveres them. History is littered with scientific errors, and notions that seem obviously stupid to us today held sway for centuries before other scientists came along and said the early scientists had it all wrong. People spent centuries trying to transmute base matter into gold. Doctors believed in humours and bleeding the patient. Physicists believed in ether. Etc.

The twentieth century saw a great deal of scientific progress, and not all of it was good. Inventing vaccines was really good, as were antibiotics. Refrigeration--brilliant. And let's hear it for the washing machine. But have a look at a brief list of not-so-smart scientific work to put our achievements into perspective:
1. Splitting the atom. This gave us the atomic bomb as inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (who are still suffering from it), the eternal spectre of atomic warfare, Chernobyl, Fukishima (which may yet end up irradiating the world's oceans). Then there's all that nuclear waste and depleted-uranium weapons.
2. Cyclon B
3. chemical weapons including mustard gas, chlorine gas, napalm, agent orange, sarin, etc.
4. Scientific "proof" of the inferiority of non-Aryan races
5. germ warwafe
6. biological weapons
7. microwave weapons
8. lethal pesticides and herbicides

Science is capable of doing immense harm as well as good. Being able to do something does not mean we should do it. World leaders are not necessarily wise; they're the ones who start the wars and promote the technologies that are supposed to give one country the edge over another. So we definitely need the scientists who swim against the current, who question the wisdom of the scientific discoveries and technologies we have invented and want to deploy. And they need funding and above all, time to do their work properly.

Personally I think that all scientists should be required to swear an oath modeled on the Hippocratic oath that doctors make: "And above all, do no harm." Does it take an Einstein to recognize when "our technology surpasses our humanity"?

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 12th March 2018 at 10:32.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 11:08   #634
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 412
@ Nohatch The slides are at http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/emr_conference

For the sake of convenience, I'm attaching the background documents again, as well as the two summaries which I downloaded.

I should note that there has been much emailing back and forth between participants at the conference regarding why the report is not out yet. Calls for the precautionary principle were quite strong among the participants, and calls for a moratorium on 5G were made a number of times, but the Eklipse committee did not put this on the list of items to be voted on as priorities, to the dissatisfaction of many present. It should be clear if you watch the video of all the sessions including the breakout groups where the discussion took place, but this would take many, many hours--I certainly don't have the time to do this and I doubt you do either, though it would be worth looking at the finale for Matt Shardlow's concluding statement. 5G deployed from space was not raised at the conference; this might have made a difference.

You might want to take a look at me previous post/reply to Citrinella. I am sure we do have some common ground even though we may disagree on some things.

PS I think 42 is the number of times everyone should read the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series in order to realize how wise Douglas Adams really was.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 12th March 2018 at 11:10.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 11:23   #635
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
The twentieth century saw a great deal of scientific progress, and not all of it was good. Inventing vaccines was really good, as were antibiotics. Refrigeration--brilliant. And let's hear it for the washing machine.
Except they used to blast a great big hole in the ozone layer, and now they're contributing to global warming: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-its-changing/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
But have a look at a brief list of not-so-smart scientific work to put our achievements into perspective:
1. Splitting the atom.
Ahem......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
Science is capable of doing immense harm as well as good. Being able to do something does not mean we should do it. World leaders are not necessarily wise; they're the ones who start the wars and promote the technologies that are supposed to give one country the edge over another. So we definitely need the scientists who swim against the current, who question the wisdom of the scientific discoveries and technologies we have invented and want to deploy.
You're conflating two things here: science and activism. Science is in essence the search for objective truth through obtaining new information and deeper insight. As your examples demonstrate almost all knowledge can be used for good or evil. How our knowledge is used is ultimately up to society, which includes us, the companies we buy stuff off, and our elected representatives.
What you are doing here is attributing to those "scientists who swim against the current" the moral high ground, but science at its most fundamental level is non-moral. There is only correct/incorrect (to the best of our knowledge). I get a feeling with a lot of the EMF discussion that the antagonists and their supporters hold that they must be right because they are, or perceive themselves to be, on the moral high ground. But they are entirely separate issues and should not be mixed.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 11:26   #636
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Nohatch The slides are at http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/emr_conference

For the sake of convenience, I'm attaching the background documents again, as well as the two summaries which I downloaded.
Many thanks, I will have a look

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I should note that there has been much emailing back and forth between participants at the conference regarding why the report is not out yet.
Well science is a lot, but it sure ain't quick!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You might want to take a look at me previous post/reply to Citrinella. I am sure we do have some common ground even though we may disagree on some things.

PS I think 42 is the number of times everyone should read the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series in order to realize how wise Douglas Adams really was.
I thought theirs was a strange comment, hence my initial reply....and I agree with some of your own reply but not everything (see previous post)...that would be no fun

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

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 12th March 2018 at 12:14.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 19:53   #637
citrinella
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: E.Lothian
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
I think you are being extremely unfair (read "wrong") in your characterisation of the vast majority of research scientists. It is unlikely that any decent research will provide a "final" answer to any question. Rather, good research, by providing satisfactory answers and advancing the level of knowledge and understanding in the field in question, will lead to more questions which will in turn lead to a deeper understanding.
Hi Gordon,

You have a point - much research is good and advances understanding. Much of that good research is in medicine, but only particular types of medical research, many branches like many other areas of academia are disappointingly weak, and to that my interpretation of "needs more research" seems only too valid to me. As for your arguments regarding answers - sorry, but I think you are talking at cross purposes to yourself. If a satisfactory answer [i]has[i] been reached that presumably means "answer to the hypothesis tested - and looking for deeper understanding via "more questions" would then be looking at a new hypothesis to test, a new piece of work. In this case, and so many others, the hypothesis has not been satisfactorily tested and the demand is for more research. something has gone wrong - e.g. in experimental design.

Yes Joost, this was a review, but no piece of work is cost free and the researcher is calling for more research which would not be cost free. If a good systematic review of good studies cannot elicit an answer, that extra cost will be high and the chances of getting a definitive answer on a particular hypothesis small. If the answer is actually "no effect" then testing the question "is there an effect" could go on forever as each study could be interpreted as "we haven't been able to demonstrate one but as our strong prejudice is that there is one we need more MONEY to test it again and again and again till maybe we get an effect by chance when we will forget all the other studies and only tell you about that one and we hope nobody does a good systematic review including all the non-positive studies which would blow us all out of the water".

Really, if the effect is important it should be relatively easy to demonstrate. If that is the case, we definitely want to know ...

Mike.
citrinella is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 20:46   #638
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
You have a point - much research is good and advances understanding. Much of that good research is in medicine, but only particular types of medical research, many branches like many other areas of academia are disappointingly weak, and to that my interpretation of "needs more research" seems only too valid to me.
On what basis do you judge 'many branches of medicine and many other areas of academia' to be 'disappointingly weak'? That's a very strong statement and you're going to have to back it up with either extensive personal experience in academia, or present convincing evidence. I strongly contest it for obvious reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
If a satisfactory answer [i]has[i] been reached that presumably means "answer to the hypothesis tested - and looking for deeper understanding via "more questions" would then be looking at a new hypothesis to test, a new piece of work. In this case, and so many others, the hypothesis has not been satisfactorily tested and the demand is for more research. something has gone wrong - e.g. in experimental design.
Sure, and with sufficient evidence something becomes established as 'fact'. However, this is always in the knowledge that fresh evidence or insight can call each and every 'fact' into question again. It's an interesting mental process to go through and accept this. Fun to watch that comprehension dawn on our medical students, who up until that point have been trained with flow-charts and a pretty rigid view of biology (which of course they need, no point debating the nature of things when you have to save lives).
However, you are confusing the point: firmly establishing whether a hypothesis is correct/incorrect does not preclude in any way the raising of more questions. Quite the contrary in fact. If things were as simple as you present them here we'd know everything by now. Gordon's original comment was spot on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
Yes Joost, this was a review, but no piece of work is cost free and the researcher is calling for more research which would not be cost free. If a good systematic review of good studies cannot elicit an answer, that extra cost will be high and the chances of getting a definitive answer on a particular hypothesis small.
But that is exactly the point of the paper. The review in question established there is a lack of good observational studies, hence it calls for additional (and more) rigorous work to be done. Not because they're flogging a dead horse for dogmatic reasons or their own agenda.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
If the answer is actually "no effect" then testing the question "is there an effect" could go on forever as each study could be interpreted as "we haven't been able to demonstrate one but as our strong prejudice is that there is one we need more MONEY to test it again and again and again till maybe we get an effect by chance when we will forget all the other studies and only tell you about that one and we hope nobody does a good systematic review including all the non-positive studies which would blow us all out of the water".
This doesn't actually happen in the natural sciences or medicine, we haven't got the time or resources nor the inclination to waste our efforts doing something like that. Pressure groups and organisations (citizen, business, political) with a strong agenda do of course, because for them pushing the agenda Trumps everything else.
You also seem a bit hung up on the MONEY issue, care to elaborate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by citrinella View Post
Really, if the effect is important it should be relatively easy to demonstrate.
In the case of EMF causing significant and wide-scale damage I would think so yes, that's why I remain unconvinced it's that harmful.

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

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 07:07.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 12th March 2018, 22:01   #639
hwinbermuda
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
hwinbermuda's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Dereham, Norfolk
Posts: 383
Having looked at the Bird Forum for a while, I joined on 27 Oct 2017, and have gone back and read all of the posts on this subject, and almost all of the attachments.
I am stopping now.
There is opinion, hearsay and possible evidence, but a lot is from shaky sources to support the supposition that birds disappear due to mobile phones (I know I have grossly oversimplified it) and, other than Nohatch and a few others, little to support the scientific method; even though it may be the case that results could support the supposition.
I have been worn down, and will not follow nor post here further.
I wish you well, Joost, along with your reasoned responses, and to all the others that have maintained their dignified positions.
I also wish you well Diane, for your determined and usually well presented posts.
My conclusion is that this will end in an inconclusive stalemate, even if Joost is able to bring evidence to show the original supposition was wrong.
Following other posts today about greenfinches etc, could disease have caused the loss of sparrows in your area? Just a thought.
Thank you for the ride
Harry
hwinbermuda is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 08:35   #640
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 775
Good response Joost.

You have the patience of a saint. Not really a scientific complement I know but the thread has degenerated into conspiracy theory and new-age woo.
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 09:10   #641
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 412
@ Nohatch

You said,
"You're conflating two things here: science and activism. Science is in essence the search for objective truth through obtaining new information and deeper insight. As your examples demonstrate almost all knowledge can be used for good or evil. How our knowledge is used is ultimately up to society, which includes us, the companies we buy stuff off, and our elected representatives.
What you are doing here is attributing to those "scientists who swim against the current" the moral high ground, but science at its most fundamental level is non-moral. There is only correct/incorrect (to the best of our knowledge). I get a feeling with a lot of the EMF discussion that the antagonists and their supporters hold that they must be right because they are, or perceive themselves to be, on the moral high ground. But they are entirely separate issues and should not be mixed."

I do not think I am conflating science with activism, or attributing the moral high ground to those who swim against the current. Science in its pure form should be non-moral, but there IS a principle of morality nonetheless. This was established at Nuremberg, and it says that you do not use human subjects in experiments without their informed consent, and they have the right to terminate the experiment if they feel they are being harmed in any way.

With wireless technologies, people and the natural world are being used as the subjects of a massive experiment. These technologies--especially cell/smart phones--have been heavily promoted, by industry and by governments (let's leave aside for the moment the issue of how much governments are influenced by lobbying). These technologies have, to a large degree, been deliberately designed to be addictive. And they were never tested for health or for environmental consequences before being rolled out, despite early research by the military establishments of a number of governments which indicated that there were grounds for serious concern.

There are times, perhaps, when scientists may pointlessly swim against the current of accepted scientific opinion, but I don't think this is one of them. And this is not merely a theoretical debate. At this moment, there is practically nowhere anyone can go without being exposed to non-ionizing radiation from wireless technologies. With 5G from space, there will be literally nowhere. Where is the legal precedent for subjecting the entire planet to a massive range of frequencies that have never been tested for biological effects?

With the adoption of the Nuremberg code, society said that what happened in the German death camps could never happen again. But it is happening again, on a worldwide scale, on the excuse that science has not yet definitively proved that wireless technologies are harmful. So they are testing them on us. And you are okay with this?

I looked up 5G on emf-portal. You know how many studies there are? 22. Just 22. That's a great basis on which to proceed with 5G, either on land or from space.

I am not interested in the moral high ground. But I do want to be certain that this technology is not going to wipe out nature and kill me in the process. Science may be non-moral, but governments and private industry are often outright amoral, which is why society adopts laws such as the Nuremberg Code to constrain them. Your position is that the science isn't there yet. What you haven't said is why we can't wait for science to come up with definitive answers before we proceed with making this technology universal.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 09:20   #642
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Good response Joost.

You have the patience of a saint. Not really a scientific complement I know but the thread has degenerated into conspiracy theory and new-age woo.
i wouldn't say degenerated. it has opened the discussion. always difficult to reconcile overall concerns broader areas such as bird species extinction, harm from EMR, other causes against available focused study information. PH and Joost correctly debate scientific method and put forward postulates and information from both sides while essaying validation of methods, others express general concern at pace of change and procedural checks and balances and highlight wider possibilities of cause and effect.
the extremes of concern are themselves illuminating. of course the discussions get sidetracked, it is a broad and inclusive forum, but you never know what data will be submitted that may be of use.
reliance on interested parties for objective analysis is always suspect, thus we hear of WHO or UN studies that are intended as neutral. the discussion is relevant unttil we can conclude either way simply because the original premise is about not just harm to environment but to humans. it informs us to come to our own decisions.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 12:05   #643
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
....society said that what happened in the German death camps could never happen again. But it is happening again, on a worldwide scale, on the excuse that science has not yet definitively proved that wireless technologies are harmful.
You are equating the deliberate mass gassing of millions of persons by the Nazi regime with the modern-day use of wifi?!
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 12:13.
Jos Stratford is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 12:15   #644
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 412
Comment on NTP study--renewed call for EMR to be classified as Group 1 carcinogen

@ jape Thank you for your acumen in perceiving how this multi-strand, multi-faceted issue hangs together. It just isn't possible to make this only about birds, even if it sometimes seems a roundabout way of defending them. Birds, insects, trees, us--we're all part of the web of life and it's just not possible sometimes to hive off chunks and look at them in isolation.

@ everyone I attach comments on the NTP study by Lennart Hardell et al. His view is that the NTP study confirms the need for EMR to be reclassified by the WHO/IARC as a Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. The findings of the recent Italian study, which I posted a few days ago, also bolsters this view.

At the moment, the EU and governments in general seem to think that it is morally acceptable and legally defensible to foist a Group 2B carcinogen on entire populations as well as on nature. I have questioned that premise in the letter I sent to the EU.

If Hardell and others who share his views prevail on the issue of the carcinogenicity of EMR and it is reclassified as a Group 1, it will no longer be possible for any government to mandate exposure to wireless technologies. And this will be good for nature as well as for us.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Comment on NTP study.pdf (1.36 MB, 6 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 12:32   #645
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
There are times, perhaps, when scientists may pointlessly swim against the current of accepted scientific opinion, but I don't think this is one of them. And this is not merely a theoretical debate. At this moment, there is practically nowhere anyone can go without being exposed to non-ionizing radiation from wireless technologies. With 5G from space, there will be literally nowhere. Where is the legal precedent for subjecting the entire planet to a massive range of frequencies that have never been tested for biological effects?

With the adoption of the Nuremberg code, society said that what happened in the German death camps could never happen again. But it is happening again, on a worldwide scale, on the excuse that science has not yet definitively proved that wireless technologies are harmful. So they are testing them on us. And you are okay with this?
My point is that ‘the universe’ doesn’t care whether something is right or wrong, only if something is physically possible or not. Whether we should or shouldn’t do something does not in any way affect the possibility of being able to do so in the first place. It is the role of science to establish such (im)possibilities – impartially and dispassionately.
However, as human beings we also value morals and therefore we purposefully constrain ourselves. Personally, I think that’s a good thing (although on some level I can see how illogical it is) and I think almost everybody would agree that we should let our moral compass guide our steps…but after that basic principle it get complicated, because where do we draw the line(s)? Your nazi ‘science’ argument is (conveniently) extreme, but there are so many examples that are less clear-cut than that. Take the Notre Dame Reilly Centre annual top 10 of thought-provoking ethical dilemmas in science (http://reillytop10.com/). Where do we draw the line on each of those? Surely that’s up to us as a society to decide, and thankfully most of us on this forum live in a free society where we can influence what’s morally acceptable, and hold those pushing the boundaries (including scientists) to account.
But I digress….I do have the impression, based on many of your posts and the parallels you draw, that you attribute a moral high ground to those scientists (and activists) opposing 5G and the like. This stems from a foregone conclusion that it is a damaging technology – therefore those scientists ‘swimming against the current’ of current consensus (EMF is harmless) and attempting to demonstrate that it is so (which would in turn provide the evidence needed to call for action) surely have to be right. All I am urging you to do is to take a step back and examine the evidence objectively, not jump to extreme conclusions all the time, and question the methods (and motives) of those opposing EMF in the same way and to the same extent that you question those in favour of it.

On a personal note, I think your direct comparison between the actions of Mengele and those of Musk & co are well beyond the pale. But it does illustrate my point.

I’ll try and post on the Hardell commentary and Eklipse after lunch :p

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

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 13:27.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 14:10   #646
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
There are times, perhaps, when scientists may pointlessly swim against the current of accepted scientific opinion, but I don't think this is one of them. And this is not merely a theoretical debate.
Scientists are supposed to swim against the current of accepted scientific opinion. It's their job!

Quote:
With the adoption of the Nuremberg code, society said that what happened in the German death camps could never happen again. But it is happening again, on a worldwide scale, on the excuse that science has not yet definitively proved that wireless technologies are harmful. So they are testing them on us. And you are okay with this?
I was going to pass on this one, but I found an interesting quote that might make me change my opinion.

From the excellent "War in the West" by James Holland:

(speaking of propaganda and the affordable "volk" radio receivers)

"The net result was that by 1939 almost 70 per cent of the population owned radios. (...) Radio coverage in Germany was more dense than anywhere in the world."

Quote:
I looked up 5G on emf-portal. You know how many studies there are? 22. Just 22. That's a great basis on which to proceed with 5G, either on land or from space.
So, what's the threshold in order to require a study? One MHz? One GHz? One Hz?

I have yet to see a study proving that visible light is harmless, anyway. And it's certainly scarier than mere microwaves in the GHz range. Light is in the THz frequencies!

When mobile phones were beginning to become popular I remember that some people used to say that they were dangerous. That was back in the mid 90's. I remember that of course it was said "well, in the worst case we will know in 20 years". Is there any data suggesting an electromagnetic holocaust?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:33   #647
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
I’ll try and post on the Hardell commentary and Eklipse after lunch :p
.....except I just really don't have it in me today
But here's an interesting insight into the ongoing row between Hardell and the ICNIRP (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cri...ess-phone-use/).
For me personally, is the opinion of one researcher (who incidentally keeps on finding elevated risks where others do not) enough to question the integrity of an entire UN organisation? Not really...
The Hardell 'paper' itself in the International Journal of Oncology is just...weird. It's part review but highly biased (mentioning only studies that seemed to show an effect, including superseded ones, and ignoring ones that didn't), but then it turns into a smear against the ICNIRP, a highly personal perspective on an informal WHO meeting, and finally some measurements of RF levels at WHO HQ (which PH used to argue that WHO are hypocritical and can't be trusted). What does an article like that say about the journal it's published in?

I just loose the will to live....hand me my cellphone....

Have a good day.

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:53   #648
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I am not interested in the moral high ground. But I do want to be certain that this technology is not going to wipe out nature and kill me in the process. Science may be non-moral, but governments and private industry are often outright amoral, which is why society adopts laws such as the Nuremberg Code to constrain them. Your position is that the science isn't there yet. What you haven't said is why we can't wait for science to come up with definitive answers before we proceed with making this technology universal.
Because the benefits are tremendous. The world has already changed and tons of new technologies require something that's better than the halfway house of 4G. The aim with 5G is to create a standard, global infrastructure that is finally fit for purpose, hence the idea to make it satellite based.

If this frightens you then consider:
A) despite numerous attempts there is still no conclusive evidence of there being any effect at all on biological systems - Mike/Citrinella was spot on with that comment, and it's reflected in serious reviews including the Eklipse report you attended & posted.
B) even if there is an effect and it just hasn't been demonstrated yet, that implies that the magnitude is almost negligible. A bit like coffee.

So, to (finally) answer your repeated question: I see an interesting phenomenon that might have some biochemical impact but no epidemiological evidence for a widespread negative effect. Since the burden of evidence is with those claiming there is a significant effect, and they have thus far failed to conclusive demonstrate that there is, the only logical conclusion is to reject the hypothesis.

Unless someone comes up with very strong new evidence, I'm personally looking forward to a better connected world

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

Last edited by Nohatch : Tuesday 13th March 2018 at 16:02.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 15:54   #649
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
..... ignoring ones that didn't), but then it turns into a smear against the ICNIRP, a highly personal perspective on an informal WHO meeting, and finally some measurements of RF levels at WHO HQ (which PH used to argue that WHO are hypocritical and can't be trusted). What does an article like that say about the journal it's published in?

I just loose the will to live....hand me my cellphone....

Have a good day.

J
it tells me the guy got to close to too much EMR sources and it scrambled his brains?
so no serious scientists publishing on this, now we need to know if they are all paid off by Men in Black or if they know that diverted Oort cloud bodies are on their way to wipe us out anyway ... hand me my AK47 and bugout bag...
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th March 2018, 16:00   #650
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
so no serious scientists publishing on this, now we need to know if they are all paid off by Men in Black or if they know that diverted Oort cloud bodies are on their way to wipe us out anyway ... hand me my AK47 and bugout bag...
Don't forget your binoculars....never forget your binoculars!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 18:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 19:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 15:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 14:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.33525300 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21.