Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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 Friday 10th August 2018, 13:14   #1051
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Thanks for that link. I parsed through a bunch of positive and negative reviews, then went over to Wikipedia and...yeah this isn't any sort of definitive treatise on the subject. But I can see why PH likes it:

"He [Robert O. Becker] has been named as one of the most influential figures in the area of anti-EMF activism."

The positive reviews seem like the worst kinds of cognitive bias, the mediocre reviews seem to wish it didn't meander so much and make odd conclusions out of thin air (even those folks who seemed to have the know-how to digest it), and the negative reviews were just either harsher versions of the mediocre reviews or people against animal cruelty.

There were also a number of comments dealing with how Dr. Becker lambasted the USA's science establishment, but totally trusted the Soviet medical research he apparently relied on. Yeah, that made a serious blow to credibility.

Granted I don't trust USA science as much as some European science (based on my own experiences on an unrelated topic), but I trust science from state-controlled places like China, North Korea, and the old Soviet Union even less. At least from back 50 odd years ago.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 13:32   #1052
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I give you the skin cancer, which is thermally caused
Skin cancer is not caused thermally; UV radiation mainly acts via chemical intermediates (ROS etc).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
the conclusion that EMR wasn't a major factor is determined by what exactly?
By the exact same type of measurement you rate so highly in other studies (Balmori, Everaerts & Bouwens). But I agree, that aspect of the study was insufficient.
Incidentally, having supporting information that car exhaust fumes have a strong negative impact on environmental health is surely something we can all agree on as being a good thing no?

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 13:38   #1053
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
What am I supposed to do about this?
Be humble, with a dash of humility, and a willingness perhaps to believe what you believe, but realize when some of your sources hurt rather than harm your cause.

When someone asks a point-blank question directly specifically to you, as I have on multiple occasions, answer it. If you don't know, say so. And don't answer part of a post, and blatantly ignore other parts.

Don't attack other people just because they disagree, especially when they have been polite to you (or at least no more or less rude).

Open your mind and realize that when Nohatch or Borjam cut-down your source that you might consider an "oh crap, they are correct" moment. Maybe that doesn't stop your belief, but should stop you from citing that source. Will it eventually change your mind about the harm of EMR? Maybe, maybe not. Not the point really.

You seem to view this as an attack on your religion rather than a true quest for the truth/facts. A real quest for fact is willing to take some hits and to tell the quacks they are harming the argument, not helping. Goodness knows I've had my share of retractions and learnings this way. Ask me offline some time about my current dietary habits...a long, drawn-out story not dissimilar to your EMR beliefs...but with a happier ending more grounded in fact.

Personally, I share your "suspicion" but have yet to see a hypothesis make it to a theory. I see scattergun science. But your approach is almost as damning as the research you cite. So...I'm left to believe EMR is not harmful, or at least nowhere near as harmful as you imply, regardless of what I might "think."

And since there are dozens other things causing faster harm to the environment than EMR that I can personally tackle, I choose to spend my limited spare energies there. You can't convince me with your current tact, and Elkcub becomes the most sane source of information.

So while you purposefully or accidentally ignore people, it might behoove me to purposefully ignore you if your current tact continues.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 14:27   #1054
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Incidentally, having supporting information that car exhaust fumes have a strong negative impact on environmental health is surely something we can all agree on as being a good thing no?
You wouldn't think so in my country.

I really feel bad for the well-meaning folks who work at the EPA these days.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 15:03   #1055
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 706
Must! Resist! Reply!

Oh who am I kidding....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
There is a very interesting half-hour talk on youtube by Harvard School of Public Health researcher Susan Clark
Please note that Susan Clarke is not a researcher at HSPH. She has an undergraduate degree from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and then worked there for a decade as a research assistant (i.e. assisting an actual Harvard researcher with lab work, admin, teaching etc.). She has not done any research herself or published any papers, and doesn't actually work there any longer.

She has no claim to Harvard credentials yet actively uses them to lend herself an air of authority. This lady is, wait for it, a pseudoscientist

Please listen to this interview here if you want to see what she's about: https://www.thehighersidechats.com/s...5g-conspiracy/

PH, look I know I'm being flippant and a little provocative, but I second Kevin: most of us truly believe you do your case more harm than good by providing people like this with a platform (or posting that Iranian anti-microbial resistance "paper" for example).

Oh, I was curious how much you recognize of this recent birding tour report from Kos? http://www.wisebirding.co.uk/wp-cont...rt-for-web.pdf
Sounds lovely to me despite the cell towers

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 10th August 2018 at 15:06.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 15:04   #1056
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
You wouldn't think so in my country.

I really feel bad for the well-meaning folks who work at the EPA these days.
Ugh well the UK is just as bad: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-3...-deaths-a-year
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th August 2018, 19:41   #1057
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
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. 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.
Diana,

Adding to your ever-growing Panagopoulos collection, I've attached a 2015 paper of his entitled: "Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies." He points out what appears to be a very serious procedural flaw in many EMR studies that did not find positive EMR effects.

I know you're gonna like it!

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 online now  
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, 20:30   #1058
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
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).
Well, if they want to assess the effect of mobile phone base stations, they got it kinda wrong.

If they want to check the effect of radio transmissions in general, their measurement procedure wasn't bad.

And, anyway. Let's assume that mobile phones are bad. In that case, a mixed measurement of mobile phones and broadcasting, etc, would have probably shown some results even if less conclusive.

However, what determines that mobile phones are supposed to be bad and FM broadcasts are not?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 20:38   #1059
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Adding to your ever-growing Panagopoulos collection, I've attached a 2015 paper of his entitled: "Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies." He points out what appears to be a very serious procedural flaw in many EMR studies that did not find positive EMR effects.
Well, I didn't comment on a previous paper posted here, but these guys have (as a friend said several years ago) an astonishing renaissance-like, all encompassing ignorance about digital modulation systems. They seem to consider that mobile telephone transmissions are amplitude modulated by voice. As Pauli famously said, they're not even wrong.

The only meaningful way to determine wether there is an effect is laboratory studies in carefully shielded and prepared chambers and using properly programmed signal generators. Anything else would be subject to so many variables. Like the tadpoles experiment for instance.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 20:43   #1060
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
As for scientific journals and their so-called Impact Factor, I subscribe to the view in this Wiki article.

Quote:
...Validity as a measure of importance
It has been stated that impact factors and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors[22] which may invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline.[23] The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication also varies highly among disciplines from 1–3% in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5–8% in the biological sciences.[24] Thus impact factors cannot be used to compare journals across disciplines.

Because citation counts have highly skewed distributions,[25] the mean number of citations is potentially misleading if used to gauge the typical impact of articles in the journal rather than the overall impact of the journal itself.[26] For example, about 90% of Nature's 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications, and thus the actual number of citations for a single article in the journal is in most cases much lower than the mean number of citations across articles.[27] Furthermore, the strength of the relationship between impact factors of journals and the citation rates of the papers therein has been steadily decreasing since articles began to be available digitally.[28]

Indeed, impact factors are sometimes used to evaluate not only the journals but the papers therein, thereby devaluing papers in certain subjects.[29] The Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.[30] The effect of outliers can be seen in the case of the article "A short history of SHELX", which included this sentence: "This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of the open-source SHELX programs (and the Bruker AXS version SHELXTL) are employed in the course of a crystal-structure determination". This article received more than 6,600 citations. As a consequence, the impact factor of the journal Acta Crystallographica Section A rose from 2.051 in 2008 to 49.926 in 2009, more than Nature (at 31.434) and Science (at 28.103).[31] The second-most cited article in Acta Crystallographica Section A in 2008 only had 28 citations.[32] Also, impact factor is a journal metric and should not be used to assess individual researchers or institutions.[33][34]
Unfortunately, it can and has been weaponized.

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 : Friday 10th August 2018 at 23:05.
elkcub is online now  
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, 20:50   #1061
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Skin cancer is not caused thermally; UV radiation mainly acts via chemical intermediates (ROS etc).
And it's ionizing of course, the kind of electromagnetic radiation that is known to be very dangerous for living things.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 10th August 2018, 21:50   #1062
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Well, I didn't comment on a previous paper posted here, but these guys have (as a friend said several years ago) an astonishing renaissance-like, all encompassing ignorance about digital modulation systems. They seem to consider that mobile telephone transmissions are amplitude modulated by voice. As Pauli famously said, they're not even wrong.

The only meaningful way to determine wether there is an effect is laboratory studies in carefully shielded and prepared chambers and using properly programmed signal generators. Anything else would be subject to so many variables. Like the tadpoles experiment for instance.
So, I presented this paper at the Annual Helicopter Society meeting in the late 1990's (best paper award ), which showed conclusively that in-flight maneuvering states resulted in characteristic tri-axial vibration patterns that were all (except one) cyclically non-stationary. Hence, it made no sense to do continuous time-synchronous averaging during flight and expect to anticipate a fatal transmission failure. During the Q&A period, two manufacturer's reps got together and angrily insisted that their products (like all their competitors') did continuous time-synchronous averaging. Period! So, I had to remind them that their products had notoriously high false-alarm rates, which was actually the problem that motivated the session.

I'm used to people insistent upon making convenient but erroneous assumptions. For them, the bad news was really hard to take, because global sales depended upon their primary assumption being correct. Unfortunately, laboratory studies are not immune to similar mistakes, and in this case, I think Panagopoulos found one. In its own way, it may be an important discovery about the bio-response to EMR.

Quote:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
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 : Saturday 11th August 2018 at 03:56.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Saturday 11th August 2018, 13:15   #1063
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 345
Some further thoughts on the RSPB study

The more I think about that study, the more I am convinced it is pure hooey. The RSPB is fully aware of the research about EMR, (I know this because I had an email from their conservation director saying so) and they are, or should be, fully aware that EMR causes oxidative stress. So their conclusion that nitrogen dioxide and trace metals are the only factors responsible for oxidative stress in the sparrows cannot possibly be supported. There may be more than one cause of oxidative stress in the sparrows they studied, but this does not take into account the fact that sparrow populations are also declining in places with little or no traffic but with EMR in the environment.

Automobile traffic has been around for quite a while, and traffic fumes used to be a lot worse in the days of leaded petrol, also before traveling into city centers became prohibitively expensive, as it is in London. So in the days when leaded petrol was available, sparrows weren't declining, but they are now? Really? Furthermore, if you look at the dates when sparrows started to decline, they mirror the rise of wireless technology, starting with 2G in the early 90's when cell towers started going up especially around big cities. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.

Yet, except for a slight nod to EMR (measurements taken which are not discussed in any meaningful way) the study authors conclude that traffic fumes are the culprit in sparrow declines. They decline to look at which wavelengths are being employed, distance from cell towers or the nearest source of Wi-Fi, or anything like that. Nope, that's EMR disposed of.

Why, when they undoubtedly are aware of the research on EMR? Could it possible have something to do with the fact that Big Wireless is busy funding nature NGOs all over the place in an effort to show how green and environmentally friendly they are? They are shelling out a lot of money, and it doesn't do to bite the hand that feeds you.

I am not talking about venial corruption here, the kind of corruption that slips money into back pockets in the full knowledge of wrongdoing. But it is a Faustian bargain nonetheless. It is the little white lie that turns into the big black lie once you have acquired the habit of lying. I'm talking about the little justifications for taking the money and averting your eyes from what you don't want to see. Big Wireless' money is very useful. It pays salaries and it pays for a lot of good projects, like buying land for nature reserves and special programs and more. So we don't mention that Big Wireless' products are anything but environmentally friendly (mining, conflict minerals, energy use, toxic e-waste) and we certainly don't engage in research that might prove EMR is in fact killing birds and insects and other life forms.

The justifications, I imagine, go somewhat like this: Yes, there is some research showing EMR is a problem, but, you know, it isn't 100% conclusive, is it? I mean, there is some doubt, isn't there? Obviously if there were no doubt that EMR were dangerous to the planet we would have to do something about that, absolutely, but there is still some doubt, we don't have to do anything till they reclassify EMR or somebody (not us, heaven forfend) produces that one piece of research that proves absolutely 100% without a doubt that EMR is killing birds, insects and everything else. And meanwhile we do a lot of good things with that money, really we do, and there are a lot of problems we can point to that nobody would disagree about. So we'll focus on those.

And that is how you sell your organizational soul a little bit at a time. I had hoped that when the 2018 Horizon Scan of emerging environmental issues came out, a few of the major NGOs whose scientists participated in writing it might have stood up and demanded a moratorium on 5G--you know, just a little bit more time to study the effects of 5G frequencies on man and nature? But no, not a peep out of anyone. And meanwhile the RSPB comes out with a study like this one. Pure hooey--and I'm being very polite here.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2018, 21:27   #1064
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
Diana,

Would you mind posting that study again, or a link to it?

Nice post, but I fear the conspiracy theory police will soon be on your case. :)
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 online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 11:01   #1065
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 345
@ Ed I've attached both the Peach et al study (originally posted by Nohatch) and the Everaert-Bauwens study, for comparison. Have a good look at both, and see what conclusions you come to.

Since the RSPB admit that E-B is an excellent study and even cite it, why on earth didn't they ever try to reproduce the results, as they could have done with the Peach study as part of their investigation into sparrow declines? Their examination, and dismissal, of EMR as a cause for sparrow declines, is cursory at best. Why exactly do they dismiss EMR as a factor? Do they need maximum ICNIRP radiation levels before they will consider it, or for the EMR to exceed ICNIRP levels?

The fact is that not a single NGO has said a word about wireless technology, while all the NGO sites promote apps designed to help people find and identify birds, insects, etc. Now, given the severe ecological impact of wireless technology exclusive of EMR (not to mention the ethical problems), you really would expect them to protest on some level, but not a dickie-bird. That doesn't strike you as odd? It does me.

As for conspiracy theories, I do know some very serious people who consider this a conspiracy, with government and Big Wireless in bed together, the former for reasons of military supremacy and population control, the latter for the money. The stakes are very high as whichever country "wins" the race for 5G is expected to gain economic and technical dominance for a decade. While I have personally been rather dismissive of conspiracy theories in the past, in this case I do wonder. If so, there would be pressure on the NGOs to fall in line. However, it could equally well be a more simple issue of subornation--hard to turn down all that lovely money from Big Wireless in an age where donations from an ever-poorer public are getting thin on the ground. For myself, I have determined to donate whatever I leave when I shuffle off this mortal coil to whichever NGO comes out against Big Wireless first (in a major way, no half-measures). So far there aren't any candidates.

Anyway, read the Peach study and see if you agree with my criticisms of it. I have real trouble swallowing the notion that leaded petrol didn't wipe out sparrows, but unleaded petrol is doing so, and even more trouble when I know sparrows are disappearing in places that have virtually no traffic but do have EMR, like the village square I sat in yesterday morning that had not a single sparrow where there used to be dozens. You might want to reread Warnke as well. I can't seem to attach it here but I'll attach it below.

I just had a letter from an acquaintance in South Africa who used to be an editor for Farmer's Weekly (the oldest publication in S.A.) which used to run a column for pigeon fanciers. The expert who wrote the column told him it was common knowledge that pigeons would disappear whenever a cell mast was erected in the area. Since racing pigeons are phenomenally expensive birds, he points out that "these guys notice when their birds go astray, and they have absolutely no doubt that masts disrupt their pigeons' homing abilities".

Anyway, see what conclusions you come to, and we can discuss it further.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Peach2018_Article_DepletedSuburbanHouseSparrowPa.pdf (950.6 KB, 4 views)
File Type: pdf Everaer Bauwens Sparrows.pdf (246.9 KB, 1 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 11:06   #1066
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 345
@ Ed Here is Warnke, attached. You will notice that he has a great deal to say about oxidative stress caused by EMR, which is well documented in birds, beginning with studies of kestrels near high-power lines in the 70's. So if London sparrows are showing signs of oxidative stress, as I would expect them to be, how can Peach et. al be sure that petrol fumes are to blame for this and not EMR?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Warnke.pdf (2.14 MB, 5 views)
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 21:13   #1067
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
Thanks for the material, Diana. It will take me some time to read it, but I'll try to comment over the next several days.

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 online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 04:14   #1068
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed Here is Warnke, attached. You will notice that he has a great deal to say about oxidative stress caused by EMR, which is well documented in birds, beginning with studies of kestrels near high-power lines in the 70's. So if London sparrows are showing signs of oxidative stress, as I would expect them to be, how can Peach et. al be sure that petrol fumes are to blame for this and not EMR?
As a first stab at an answer, it's more than likely that several factors operate simultaneously to diminish Sparrow populations. EMR and unleaded gas are difficult to separate statistically if they're correlated, which I would think they are. However, looking for an explanatory mechanism I did find the attached article referenced by Peach, which says:
Quote:
...Rising environmental pollution
The growing population in the cities have led to rapid strides in industrialization and a parallel growth in the transport sector.
The lack of stringent policies has only led to the release of harmful pollutants in the environment causing serious air and water pollution. Drinking polluted water containing chemicals is also a cause for death of sparrows. The unleaded fuel, which is said to reduce pollution and considered safe for humans, when burnt, releases methyl nitrite which is a harmful chemical. The methyl nitrite gas is known to kill insects and bio magnification in the remaining insect population. The insects, over a period of time, develop immunity towards these chemicals. However, when consumed, the sparrows and their fledglings are directly affected by the poisonous effect of this chemical. Loss of habitat Sparrows require hedge type of habitat for feeding, roosting, and other purposes. But the current fad for landscape beautification has resulted in destruction of these natural hedge habitats. Hedges are being replaced by steel solid fences and these have resulted in the loss of their habitat. Mono culture of exotic plants and grasses is the current trend for plantation instead of the native species of hedges and grasses. Mud routes are now replaced with paver blocks leaving no place for mud bath which is an essential activity for sparrow in maintaining their body temperature.
The predicate to his theory is that leaded gas produces less methyl nitrite than unleaded gas, but I'm not a chemist. I haven't had a chance to study Peach's statistics in detail, but it appears that EMR was simply a covariate. Food supply was his controlled variable and the focus of the study.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Sparrow-An-Angel-in-Peril.pdf (3.62 MB, 2 views)
File Type: pdf FactSheet_Octane_History_2016.pdf (559.5 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Monday 13th August 2018 at 07:21.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 07:21   #1069
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
As a first stab at an answer, it's more than likely that several factors operate simultaneously to diminish Sparrow populations. EMR and unleaded gas are difficult to separate statistically if they're correlated, which I would think they are. However, looking for an explanatory mechanism I did find the attached article referenced by Peach, which says:
The car emission issue is complex as well, because gasoline is different from diesel. Also, diesel itself has become more complex with the modern engines burning it at higher pressure and temperature.

Moreover, due to European policy to fight climate change the user quota of diesel has increased a lot, which means that the composition of the urban pollution mix hasn't been constant in time. 30 years ago private diesel cars were a rarity, it was mostly used for professional purposes (taxi, transport, etc).

Anyway, even though correlation does not mean casuality the study has found some correlation between NOx pollution (diesel) and no correlation with EMR as they have measured it (1 MHz to 2 GHz with a very heavy weighting to the 900 MHz - 2.6 Ghz due to the log periodic antenna used).

The EMR phobic camp hasn't even defined what they freak about. Microwaves? Only mobile phone frequencies? Pulsed transmissions (outdated since 3G+4G5G took over)? Among the EMR paranoid camp one can even read stuff like "modulated" signals, as if it made a difference with digital modulation systems. I wonder wether someone read a 1940's book on radio communications and assumed that mobile phones are amplitude modulated.

And what is a microwave? I even read on this thread that the 50 Hz fields created by power lines (with a tiny wavelength of six thousand kilometers, tiny by any measure) are commonly known as microwaves (sigh!).

@elkcub: So: laboratory tests are useless because of some mystical, magic property of "natural" mobile phone radiation compared to synthetic, laboratory controlled generators which allow to shape the signal exactly. Time to summon experimental theologists to the debate?

Last edited by Borjam : Monday 13th August 2018 at 07:26.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 10:56   #1070
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 345
@ Ed, Borjam Naturally things get complicated, and I am not saying they aren't. But if you look at a broader picture, instead of just at the UK, a rather different pattern emerges. We don't have hedgerows in Greece, certainly not the way they used to in the UK where they were a real feature of the landscape not found everywhere, so if cutting down hedgerows was a major factor you would expect sparrow populations to diminish in the UK but not elsewhere. However, that is not the case; sparrows are vanishing worldwide, and the places they like to live (thick hedges, bushes, the tops of palm trees, etc.) are not vanishing worldwide inasmuch as sparrows are vanishing in the countryside as well as in cities. If they were only vanishing from cities, it would be a different matter.

As for EMR being a covariate, it seems to me they disposed of it without considering it much at all. They took a few measurements and dismissed it, as far as I can see, even though it is known to cause oxidative stress. So, while other factors may also cause oxidative stress, I can see no evidence that they considered EMR as one factor that caused oxidative stress in the sparrows. They should have considered that EMR could 1) be the major cause of oxidative stress in the sparrows, and not the petrol fumes 2) act to promote oxidative stress caused by petrol fumes (see Kostoff on synergies) or 3) be one of two equally important causes of oxidative stress in the sparrows.

The real sticking-point, for me at least, remains the fact that sparrows are not only vanishing from cities, but also from the countryside. You get different perils in the countryside from what you get in the city. Cities will have fewer suitable habitats, perhaps (though sparrows are highly adaptive little creatures and used to flourish as well in cities with very few green spaces like Athens and Middle-Eastern cities as in cities with lots of parks, like London) and in the countryside there will be more food (seeds and insects) but perhaps more pesticides, and more sparrowhawks. But what really gets me is the fact that they are vanishing pretty much everywhere at once, regardless of whether they live in the city or the country, and the common factor is the presence of cell towers, with falling populations correlating nicely with the upgrading of cell towers and the presence of Wi-Fi. So I don't see how you can ignore that. Here, the sparrowhawks are vanishing at the same rate as the sparrows.

Ed, see also below.

Borjam, I simply don't see where you get the "no correlation to EMR". Based on what? What do their figures mean to you, then? What would you expect to see if they had found a correlation? They did find EMR present in the environment (of course) and then they discounted it as a variable. Considering that the UK has a lot of public Wi-Fi, and London especially has a lot of cell towers, where do you get the "no correlation"?

You want to know what the EMR-phobic camp, as you put it, freak about? Man-made, non-ionizing radiation from whatever source, all of which is pulsed and polarized, and all of which is shown to have deleterious effects on human health and the natural world. Pulsed transmissions are not outdated since 3G and 4G took over; pulsed radiation is a major feature of EMR (see our previous discussion re the Panagopoulos/Johansson/Carlo paper). As for calling EMR "microwave radiation", it is commonly used to describe all the frequencies used for mobile telephony, mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, etc. You may not approve, and you may quarrel with the usage (as I am sure you will) but the term is used that way and there is nothing I can do about it.

@ Ed The sub-text of the Peach paper particularly disturbs me. It seems to me the argument essentially reads like this: petrol fumes from internal combustion engines are causing sparrows to vanish, therefore we will be better off with electric cars (how are we going to power them? More coal? More nuclear?). 5G will be the age of the electric "smart" vehicle and since we have determined that EMR doesn't affect the sparrows, 5G will be a positive boon to sparrow populations.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Monday 13th August 2018 at 10:58.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th August 2018, 12:34   #1071
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
But what really gets me is the fact that they are vanishing pretty much everywhere at once, regardless of whether they live in the city or the country, and the common factor is the presence of cell towers, with falling populations correlating nicely with the upgrading of cell towers and the presence of Wi-Fi. So I don't see how you can ignore that. Here, the sparrowhawks are vanishing at the same rate as the sparrows.

Borjam, I simply don't see where you get the "no correlation to EMR". Based on what? What do their figures mean to you, then? What would you expect to see if they had found a correlation? They did find EMR present in the environment (of course) and then they discounted it as a variable. Considering that the UK has a lot of public Wi-Fi, and London especially has a lot of cell towers, where do you get the "no correlation"?
Well, they didn't observe changes in EMR exposition correlating with population fluctuations. They did with the presence of Nitrogen oxides, however.

Unlike EMR, the fumes of diesel combustion vehicles are well known carcinogens, not mythical ones.

Quote:
You want to know what the EMR-phobic camp, as you put it, freak about? Man-made, non-ionizing radiation from whatever source, all of which is pulsed and polarized, and all of which is shown to have deleterious effects on human health and the natural world. Pulsed transmissions are not outdated since 3G and 4G took over; pulsed radiation is a major feature of EMR (see our previous discussion re the Panagopoulos/Johansson/Carlo paper). As for calling EMR "microwave radiation", it is commonly used to describe all the frequencies used for mobile telephony, mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, etc. You may not approve, and you may quarrel with the usage (as I am sure you will) but the term is used that way and there is nothing I can do about it.
Some time ago you said that microwave was equal to EMR, which is plain absurd. Of course with "microwave" you can describe mobile phones and WiFi, because those services use frequencies greater than 800 MHz, which are microwaves. (In theory microwaves would be frequencies greater than 1 GHz but 800 MHz is close enough, so the propagation of a 800 MHz transmission has much more in common with 1 GHz> transmissions than with a VHF signal.

Pulsed? No. Bursted? Maybe. Let's begin to use vocabulary properly. Or maybe we will begin to say "phrynobullastic" transmissions, because, well, "phrynobullastic".

GSM (old digital mobiles phones) used a pulsed transmission doing time division (several phones shared each second of transmission taking turns). Even good old Morse communications (not exactly a recent invention!) are pulsed.

Quote:
@ Ed The sub-text of the Peach paper particularly disturbs me. It seems to me the argument essentially reads like this: petrol fumes from internal combustion engines are causing sparrows to vanish, therefore we will be better off with electric cars (how are we going to power them? More coal? More nuclear?). 5G will be the age of the electric "smart" vehicle and since we have determined that EMR doesn't affect the sparrows, 5G will be a positive boon to sparrow populations.
Well, that's an entirely different matter of course.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rsary-science/

Electric cars: if you are standing by a road, it's an obvious fact that internal combustion engines are poisoning you. Why do you think that some cities are planning to ban diesel engines soon? Why would a city like Madrid limit vehicle speed to 60 - 80 KM/h?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 13:03   #1072
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Electric cars: if you are standing by a road, it's an obvious fact that internal combustion engines are poisoning you. Why do you think that some cities are planning to ban diesel engines soon? Why would a city like Madrid limit vehicle speed to 60 - 80 KM/h?
Have you seen any studies about the displaced pollution?

So the electric cars aren't polling on-location, but what about all the extra pollutants at the site of the power plant from the need for more electricity? Is it a net gain in efficiency and net loss of pollutants?

(Honest question, because I've never seen a good, concrete answer. So I'm curious.)

Don't get me started on nuclear as the solution until they solve the waste problem; both the spent fuel and the decommissioning of the facilities themselves at end of life. Once they solve both of those, sign me up. Until then, um...easy "no."
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 13:45   #1073
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 706
Somewhat off-topic but this is a good breakdown on electric vs petrol cars:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-electric-cars

As to perceived bias pro 5G by the RSPB, note that the EMF 'expertise' for the Peach et al study was provided by someone who runs a consultancy firm together with Dr Magda Havas. Not exactly in the pocket of 'Big Wireless'.

PH I'm surprised by your reaction to the study. At least they included it as a factor to consider, and pretty much replicated what was done by Balmori, and in the Belgian sparrow study. Similarly flawed, but it's a bit strange to big up the one and call the other "pure hooey".

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th August 2018, 14:04   #1074
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 277
I still wonder why nobody has studied the correlation between the increasing popularity of reggaeton and the decline of insect populations, anyway.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 13th August 2018, 14:25   #1075
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Somewhat off-topic but this is a good breakdown on electric vs petrol cars:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-electric-cars
Thanks for that. It looked really good, beyond good, even for hybrid cars, until it got down to the bottom. I knew I had read that battery production (plus resulting pollution from disposal) was a problem. Looks like hybrids and pure electrics are still the way to go, but not by as big a margin as the hype overall. Less pollution locally but not as huge a benefit in the overall calculation from end-to-end.

For me personally, can't go all-electric because of the ranges I need (about 250 miles minimum) vs. infrastructure I need a hybrid (since I can't afford a Tesla). This is just the distance curse because of where I live vs. my family vs. the places I visit most often when not commuting. A problem for alot of US citizens I suppose.

Decided my best bet was to share an older car with my girlfriend and start using an spedelec ebike to commute. She'll always have some sort of car because of health needs, so it strikes the best balance we can.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 17:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 18:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 14:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 13:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19318199 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09.