Page 2 of 4 [ 47 posts ] [Go to page]   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:16 am
 Nationalised Joined: May 13, 2008Posts: 11764Location: Somewhere up in the hills
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:30 am
 Too Big to Fail Joined: Jun 26, 2012Posts: 3024Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
On broad topic of electromagnetic exposure. I'm not familiar with the wifi/microwave end of the spectrum, but did previously inform myself on the low-frequency end of the spectrum (in particular AC power electromagnetic fields, ELF EMFs (extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields)).

There has been a huge amount of research, and no strong effect observed or discovered. That includes epidemiological studies, theoretical work/modelling, tissue/culture studies, and live animal studies. Nobody has discovered a clear effect, nor any mechanism by which it might occur.

The strongest possible link is that perhaps there is a link to childhood leukemia. Big epidemiological study in UK showed that power-related EMFs may contribute 2 excess cases of childhood leukemia annually in the entire UK. Those EMFs come from all electrical infrastructure (power lines of course, but every electrical wire and appliance in your house too). 1 of those perhaps from power lines/infrastructure and 1 from domestic wiring and appliances.

(Aside: I actually met anti-power line activists who argued: "well of course they'll own up to childhood leukemia as it's an uncontroversial disease and won't cause much upset, but they're covering up the migraines/whatever because that's more serious"... madness.)

That's still not a proven effect, but if I remember correctly, it's the main plank of evidence behind classifying ELF EMFs as an IARC class 2B possible carcinogen. Nevertheless, the WHO guidelines are that the benefits from electrical infrastructure (which are clear and evident) far outweigh the harms, both proven and possible. A much greater harm; demonstrated by experience, experiment, theory and animal studies; is electrocution. That really does kill people, adults and children.
e.g. in 2010 it led to 28 deaths in GB (22 in the home/leisure), for example http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk ... 4=A5F50D0F and even then it's a pretty rare way to die https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... wales-2010

Anyway, I haven't read the study linked in detail, and certainly not the many studies it links to. I did go to the effort of reading many studies around ELF EMFs in the past, and was ultimately happier of their safety the more I learned about the studies done into their effects. Taking a highly "precautionary principle" approach may be ok, but you've got to be careful you don't introduce further (larger) risks inadvertently or diminish quality of life. Also, I would be a strong advocate of science-based policy for these things. There are science based recommendations on EMF exposure limits published by WHO/IARC. The basis for the numbers is a bit wooly, because no clear risk has actually been identified, but it's the best available. We'd work to those limits in Ireland. There's also an advice that where there's a "no-cost/low-cost way to reduce exposure", you might as well do it.

In some countries (e.g. NL), bowing to public pressure, they've started working to even lower strict limits. But there's no analytical basis for those limits, they're just based on fear of a number. So the next step is to go lower again (if people get nervous/afraid again), and again and again. That would be fine if there weren't costs to doing that. Ultimately, greater and greater levels of (for example) shielding cost more and more money. It's money eventually paid by electricity users, so becomes essentially a tax. But that money (and time and engineering effort) could have been used to address other more pressing concerns: reducing other real harms, or improving quality of life in various ways; it's not free, and ultimately there's always a trade off.

Back to wifi etc.,: I'd keep kids away from mobile phones/laptops at young age, not because of fear of electromagnetic fields, but because I'm not convinced they're beneficial to their development and socialisation. I also don't see much cost to doing that (the "arguments" are not necessarily a negative, since you're also establishing ideas of discipline/rules, etc.,). It's a personal choice for each family of course.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:36 am
 Too Big to Fail Joined: Feb 21, 2008Posts: 4255
Coles2 wrote:
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Eh.. Its a study of studys put out by a crank organization out of Wyoming..

They did have one neuro-oncologist from San Diego sign on. But there are many thousands of those out there. You'll find he is probably a paid consultant to the organization one way or another.

Basically No scientific merit. Like most medical science papers.

Basically we evolved in a sea of electromagnetic muck and the bodys cells have developed multiple mechanisms to deal with it. If there is any actual physical effect from man made microwave radiation it will be due to a small number of individuals having deficiencies and variations in the bodys natural defense mechanisms rather than any gross negative effect.

So really not that different from something like peanut allergies. Are we going to ban peanuts just because of a very low frequency dysfunction in some peoples immune system?

If you are really that worried about RF radiation make you kids wear mormon style full body underwear. That will stop about 90% of the potential radiation effect given typical body mass distribution. Topped off with a tin foil hat of course.

For really high frquency radiation one of the absolute best inhibitors of high energy free radicals in human cells are the various amphetamines. But probably not a good idea to give to your kids on a regular basis..

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:01 am
 Too Big to Fail Joined: Jun 26, 2012Posts: 3024Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
jmc wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Eh.. Its a study of studys put out by a crank organization out of Wyoming..

They did have one neuro-oncologist from San Diego sign on. But there are many thousands of those out there. You'll find he is probably a paid consultant to the organization one way or another.

Basically No scientific merit. Like most medical science papers.

The biggest problem is mechanism.

I'm not saying I disagree on your overall point, but you don't have to have the mechanism to have something you can change public health policy on. Before knowledge of bacteria/viruses it was possible to empirically work out helpful hygiene protocols and save lives.
With regard to leukemia and ELF EMF, when I was reading on the topic, there was no established mechanism. There was, however, an epidemiological observed phenomenon, albeit a weak one. The big problems in the analysis were dosimetry (e.g. you may live near a power line, but once you're in the house the magnetic field essentially doesn't penetrate), the orientation of your bed also changes how you get dosed, etc., etc., and confounding factors (e.g. living near a power line often also means you live near a major road, also means your neighbourhood is less desirable (visual amenity) and cheaper so maybe your family live there because of lack of money, etc.,)

Quote:
Basically we evolved in a sea of electromagnetic muck and the bodys cells have developed multiple mechanisms to deal with it. If there is any actual physical effect from man made microwave radiation it will be due to a small number of individuals having deficiencies and variations in the bodys natural defense mechanisms rather than any gross negative effect.

True, but some engineered sources are pretty powerful. With power lines, for example, there are observable sensory effects. Contact voltages can occur due to electric field gradients on the scale of your body. Taller linesmen have more difficulty than shorter guys as their hands and feet are further apart so climbing a tower they get more small shocks.

Phosphenes are a real phenomenon too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene ... timulation If you're in a strong field environment, moving your head around, it can produce visual artifacts due to electrical interference with your visual systems. To be clear, this is at levels FAR higher than any member of the public would ever experience from electrical infrastructure, and much higher than electrical infrastructure is designed to expose utility workers (who get much closer) to.

The mechanisms for these effects are pretty clear though, they're also well modelled and catered for in design manuals.

Quote:
So really not that different from something like peanut allergies. Are we going to ban peanuts just because of a very low frequency dysfunction in some peoples immune system?

If you are really that worried about RF radiation make you kids wear mormon style full body underwear. That will stop about 90% of the potential radiation effect given typical body mass distribution. Topped off with a tin foil hat of course.

For really high frquency radiation one of the absolute best inhibitors of high energy free radicals in human cells are the various amphetamines. But probably not a good idea to give to your kids on a regular basis..

Peanuts are a real risk to some people, clear mechanism too. Not advocating to ban them, but they're banned in some environments already based on risk assessment. That's ok, in my book, if inconvenient.

I'd caution that even though I do not see risks to people (grown ups / kids) from electromagnetic fields as we are discussing them here, many people's fears of these are very sincere. I don't propose just changing policy as a result of feelings, but it is worth hearing folk out.

(I stress, as we're discussing them here: clearly you can make an injurious effect with the electromagnetic spectrum, from a super-powered infra-red beam to burn somebody alive, through to skin-cancer inducing UV and beyond to hard X Rays and Gamma Rays; which brings me back to my old mnemonic for the EM sprectrum, from leaving cert physics: Gordon Xeno Undressed Violently Infertile Male Rabbits)

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:56 am
 Nationalised Joined: May 13, 2008Posts: 11764Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Good contributions.

On the issue of mechanism, this comes up time and time again. An impact on health is observed but the findings are dismissed as 'inconclusive' because the mechanism isn't understood. That's crazy 'flat-earth' stuff.

On the EMF from powerlines, my understanding is that studies found a doubling of the risk of childhood leukemia for a 0.3-0.4μT exposure.

That kind of exposure from powerlines is relatively rare now, but it is worth noting that similar or higher exposures were found in studies of apartment blocks. In a study of apartment buildings in Hungary the mean exposure in the apartments above the transformer rooms was 0.66μT. A similar study in Finland found 0.61μT, Switzerland 0.59μT.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:25 pm
 Too Big to Fail Joined: Feb 21, 2008Posts: 4255
Col. Max Pyatnitski wrote:
jmc wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Eh.. Its a study of studys put out by a crank organization out of Wyoming..

They did have one neuro-oncologist from San Diego sign on. But there are many thousands of those out there. You'll find he is probably a paid consultant to the organization one way or another.

Basically No scientific merit. Like most medical science papers.

The biggest problem is mechanism.

I'm not saying I disagree on your overall point, but you don't have to have the mechanism to have something you can change public health policy on. Before knowledge of bacteria/viruses it was possible to empirically work out helpful hygiene protocols and save lives.
With regard to leukemia and ELF EMF, when I was reading on the topic, there was no established mechanism. There was, however, an epidemiological observed phenomenon, albeit a weak one. The big problems in the analysis were dosimetry (e.g. you may live near a power line, but once you're in the house the magnetic field essentially doesn't penetrate), the orientation of your bed also changes how you get dosed, etc., etc., and confounding factors (e.g. living near a power line often also means you live near a major road, also means your neighbourhood is less desirable (visual amenity) and cheaper so maybe your family live there because of lack of money, etc.,)

Quote:
Basically we evolved in a sea of electromagnetic muck and the bodys cells have developed multiple mechanisms to deal with it. If there is any actual physical effect from man made microwave radiation it will be due to a small number of individuals having deficiencies and variations in the bodys natural defense mechanisms rather than any gross negative effect.

True, but some engineered sources are pretty powerful. With power lines, for example, there are observable sensory effects. Contact voltages can occur due to electric field gradients on the scale of your body. Taller linesmen have more difficulty than shorter guys as their hands and feet are further apart so climbing a tower they get more small shocks.

Phosphenes are a real phenomenon too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene ... timulation If you're in a strong field environment, moving your head around, it can produce visual artifacts due to electrical interference with your visual systems. To be clear, this is at levels FAR higher than any member of the public would ever experience from electrical infrastructure, and much higher than electrical infrastructure is designed to expose utility workers (who get much closer) to.

The mechanisms for these effects are pretty clear though, they're also well modelled and catered for in design manuals.

Quote:
So really not that different from something like peanut allergies. Are we going to ban peanuts just because of a very low frequency dysfunction in some peoples immune system?

If you are really that worried about RF radiation make you kids wear mormon style full body underwear. That will stop about 90% of the potential radiation effect given typical body mass distribution. Topped off with a tin foil hat of course.

For really high frquency radiation one of the absolute best inhibitors of high energy free radicals in human cells are the various amphetamines. But probably not a good idea to give to your kids on a regular basis..

Peanuts are a real risk to some people, clear mechanism too. Not advocating to ban them, but they're banned in some environments already based on risk assessment. That's ok, in my book, if inconvenient.

I'd caution that even though I do not see risks to people (grown ups / kids) from electromagnetic fields as we are discussing them here, many people's fears of these are very sincere. I don't propose just changing policy as a result of feelings, but it is worth hearing folk out.

(I stress, as we're discussing them here: clearly you can make an injurious effect with the electromagnetic spectrum, from a super-powered infra-red beam to burn somebody alive, through to skin-cancer inducing UV and beyond to hard X Rays and Gamma Rays; which brings me back to my old mnemonic for the EM sprectrum, from leaving cert physics: Gordon Xeno Undressed Violently Infertile Male Rabbits)

What I find odd about the whole low band / mid band EMF medical effect story over the decades is both the lack of any viable causality mechanism and the lack of even a basic knowledge of sample theory / statistical analysis by the vast majorly of paper authors. The reason why there are so many study of studys is because the original papers sample sizes are nearly always statistical meaningless from an epidemiological point of view. So the papers resort to trying to tease out the statistically meaningful from the essentially statistically meaningless.

Now what is even odder is there actually is a very well documented deleterious medical effect of one very prominent facet of modern urban / industrial society - the constant background noise. If you want a likely culprit for any possible negative effect of power lines I'd look at elevated levels of ultra low frequency subsonic background noise. Not RFI.

Given the general population distribution frequency of psychiatric / psychological / personality issues and the socio economic profile of those claiming EMF related health issues I think we can easily explain pretty much all of them as either psychosomatic or else people grasping for some simplistic causation mechanism for some malaise that is just part of the general health imperfections of the human condition. There is no such thing as perfect health.

And the rest are just sick for reasons that are a mystery and will remain so. Because most of modern human physiology is just well informed guess work and there is only so far a differential diagnosis will get you with chronic less serious health issues.

The phophenes you mentioned being a case in point. Try explaining exactly how the optic nerve / pathway produces that particular visual effect in all situations. Especially in space. Plausible mechanisms for 90% of the scenarios, vigorous hand-waving for the other 10%.

Still very much a work in progress.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:08 pm
 Too Big to Fail Joined: Jun 26, 2012Posts: 3024Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
jmc wrote:

What I find odd about the whole low band / mid band EMF medical effect story over the decades is both the lack of any viable causality mechanism and the lack of even a basic knowledge of sample theory / statistical analysis by the vast majorly of paper authors.

Lack of a mechanism isn't a showstopper at all IMHO. Bad stats/sampling/etc., is more problematic.
What I would say is that from reading the literature (about 5 years ago, granted), and from working with people who were professional epidemiologists, they felt that the stats were good enough to say there was almost certainly no significant effect.

Quote:
The reason why there are so many study of studys is because the original papers sample sizes are nearly always statistical meaningless from an epidemiological point of view. So the papers resort to trying to tease out the statistically meaningful from the essentially statistically meaningless.

Or the sample is genuinely large, but poorly controlled or characterised. It's genuinely hard to do this work. Very hard to work out whole body dosing from available data. It's not just because of people not knowing how to do stats.

Quote:
Now what is even odder is there actually is a very well documented deleterious medical effect of one very prominent facet of modern urban / industrial society - the constant background noise. If you want a likely culprit for any possible negative effect of power lines I'd look at elevated levels of ultra low frequency subsonic background noise. Not RFI.

I'm aware of even less data backing up health effects from subsonic noise. I can think of other "second order" effects and associations that I would judge more likely to be health-damaging (but not with stats, and either way not something that registers on my (over-active) risk perception list).

Coles2 wrote:
Good contributions.

On the issue of mechanism, this comes up time and time again. An impact on health is observed but the findings are dismissed as 'inconclusive' because the mechanism isn't understood. That's crazy 'flat-earth' stuff.

In fairness to (my understanding) of the ELF EMF research, the absence of a mechanism isn't used to dismiss harm. If it showed up as a measured health impact (in wild or in lab), that would be enough. The relevance of a mechanism would be as another way to establish a limit or a precaution. So say we had a mechanism how the field could cause a disease, say cancer. Say we believed that mechanism to be real, but we hadn't seen the cancers happening yet. Maybe we've gotten lucky with how we designed stuff. So we could introduce precautions based on the mechanism without having seen the harm in the wild.
By the same token, if we observed harm but didn't know how, we could work out some parameters that influence the effect (e.g. distance from risk, time-exposure, periodicity, etc.,) and design some control measures around those. As we came to understand the mechanism in the future, we'd hopefully make our controls both more effective and more efficient/targeted.

For ELF EMF we have neither basis. Only well established effects on people are sensory (touch voltages and nervous system stimulation). The guidelines on exposure are based from these effects, with a large factor of safety.

Quote:
On the EMF from powerlines, my understanding is that studies found a doubling of the risk of childhood leukemia for a 0.3-0.4μT exposure.

That kind of exposure from powerlines is relatively rare now, but it is worth noting that similar or higher exposures were found in studies of apartment blocks. In a study of apartment buildings in Hungary the mean exposure in the apartments above the transformer rooms was 0.66μT. A similar study in Finland found 0.61μT, Switzerland 0.59μT.

Even that is rather tenuous/uncertain as far as I recall. I'll try to look up later some of the info and sources I'd have used before. If you're genuinely afraid of the magnetic field, then you also want to look at sources in your home. Remember, it's current that creates the magnetic field. It's also distance that influences the strength of the field. Volts don't matter, amps do (so a 220kV line, carrying 10A is producing same magnetic field as a 220V flex carryign 10A, even though one of those is moving 1000 times the power of the other). Using a hair-dryer, curling tongs, or electric blanket, because the proximity is so close, can be expected to give you a much higher dose than overhead line.

Transformer may expose you to high field. Well designed transformers minimise that. Not so much for health reasons as efficiency. All those magnetic fields can introduce eddy currents in neighbouring conductors, leading to heat, leading to waste and parasitic loads.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:30 pm
 Neo Landlord Joined: Jul 8, 2010Posts: 240
Coles2 wrote:
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Yeah, calling it "Dementia" is totally not scaremongering. Most things are going to have a stronger effect on children than on adults, on account of them being smaller and all. And it's generally a red flag when an article that is effectively a literature review is published in an obscure (the official journal of the Saudi Society of Microscopes, no less) journal in an unrelated discipline. The conclusion has several examples of logical fallicies and misinformation. For example:
Quote:
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation?

This is a guilt-by-association fallacy. Humans are mammals, as are Bengal tigers, wolves, and white rhinos. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these animals, so why would we expose them to their parents? The IARC classification scaremongering also relies on people's ignorance of how substances are classified by that organization---most substances are listed as being a probable, possible, or unknown risk. Only one has been classified as "probably not carcinogenic to humans" (other scary Class 2 B carcinogens include aloe vera and pickled vegetables. The even scarier Class 2A (Probable carcinogens ) include shift work, red meat and using a hot flying pan.)

David Gorski, a cancer surgeon and science blogger well used to dealing with medical scare stories:http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/06/06/how-is-the-cell-phone-cancer-myth-like-jason-voorhees/
Quote:
In the absence of better basic science that nails down a heretofore-undiscovered potential biological mechanism by which exposure to radio waves could cause cancer, I have a hard time managing to muster any enthusiasm about recommending more studies than the ones that are already going on, particularly in light of various recent studies that I’ve examined that purport to find a link between cell phones and cancer but really do not. In other words, as a skeptic who’s probably the most open-minded (perhaps almost to the point of my brains falling out) to the claim that cell phones cause cancer, I still consider the claim, on basic science considerations alone, so incredibly implausible as to be an incredible, albeit not quite physically impossible, claim. I base this opinion on a preponderance of evidence that shows that brain cancer incidence is not increasing, inconsistent cell culture and animal studies that suffer from publication bias and when considered in the context of Bayesian prior plausibility are in fact negative, several epidemiological studies that failed to find a cell-phone cancer link, and the fact that the only epidemiological studies that claim to find a cell phone-cancer link have come from one group in Sweden whose principal investigator is known for being an expert witness in lawsuits against mobile phone companies.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:39 pm
 Nationalised Joined: Apr 1, 2010Posts: 10546
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

$1 \text{ Jy}=10^{-26}\text{ W m}^{-2}\text{ Hz}^{-1}$

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of $10^3 \text{ Jy}$ when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be $10^7 \text{ Jy}$. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be $10^8 \text{ Jy}$ at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:50 pm
 Nationalised Joined: May 13, 2008Posts: 11764Location: Somewhere up in the hills
pishwish wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
@pishwish, What you should do is write a rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure and explain to them why you feel it's wrong. I'd say they'd appreciate your opinion on it. Meanwhile I think it serves the debate well by highlighting the myriad studies that have found why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults, and the consequences.

Anyone with children is well aware of the behavioural changes caused by FOMO. Children always have the device in hand; they check it constantly. This behaviour increases their exposure to the device. Sure, some adults suffer from it too, but it is far more common with children/teenagers. 'Hilarious and stupidly bad' to mention it? Maybe, but the paper still serves this debate well.

Yeah, calling it "Dementia" is totally not scaremongering. Most things are going to have a stronger effect on children than on adults, on account of them being smaller and all. And it's generally a red flag when an article that is effectively a literature review is published in an obscure (the official journal of the Saudi Society of Microscopes, no less) journal in an unrelated discipline. The conclusion has several examples of logical fallicies and misinformation. For example:
Quote:
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation?

This is a guilt-by-association fallacy. Humans are mammals, as are Bengal tigers, wolves, and white rhinos. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these animals, so why would we expose them to their parents?

Firstly, I don't expose my children to chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, or petrol. You shouldn't either.

Secondly, a child's parents are indeed mammals but they are not in the same class as Bengal tigers because they don't do as much harm to children as Bengal tigers do. Fred West? Hannibal Lector? Yes, they too are mammals BUT they actually DO significant harm to children so it could reasonably be argued that they are a similar class of a hazard to children as Bengal tigers, wolves or white rhinos.

With regards to 'digital dementia'. Dementia is defined as a condition of memory disorders, personality changes, and impaired reasoning. If the same conditions are observed and experienced by people who are heavily exposed to electronic devices then I'm not surprised that it gets labled as 'digital dementia'. I didn't post the term and I'm sorry if it offends you, but it's a tough world.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:03 pm
 Nationalised Joined: May 13, 2008Posts: 11764Location: Somewhere up in the hills
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

$1 \text{ Jy}=10^{-26}\text{ W m}^{-2}\text{ Hz}^{-1}$

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of $10^3 \text{ Jy}$ when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be $10^7 \text{ Jy}$. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be $10^8 \text{ Jy}$ at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

Interesting post. Could you estimate the scale of the exposure to EMF now compared to the pre modern age? A factor? Thanks.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:32 pm
 Under CAB Investigation Joined: Mar 14, 2013Posts: 1916
The EMF from computers is definitely affecting a few here. For any real conclusion to be drawn it requires replicable emidemiology studies, in vitro testing etc and some reasonable scientific mechanism. Epidemology studies with no replicable results are not evidence. Any clown can do a test to get a significant p values by not screening correctly. Quoting singular open source data is crazy, you have to look at the overall data. WHO and IARC are the reasonable authorities. Andrew Gelmans statistical blog is good on what is and what isnt good research.

_________________
An increase in the number of paupers does not broaden the market. M. Kalecki

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:05 pm
 IMF'd Joined: Sep 13, 2007Posts: 31689Location: Tullamore
werpen wrote:
The EMF from computers is definitely affecting a few here. For any real conclusion to be drawn it requires replicable emidemiology studies, in vitro testing etc and some reasonable scientific mechanism. Epidemology studies with no replicable results are not evidence. Any clown can do a test to get a significant p values by not screening correctly. Quoting singular open source data is crazy, you have to look at the overall data. WHO and IARC are the reasonable authorities. Andrew Gelmans statistical blog is good on what is and what isnt good research.

I think EMF from computers definitely fries brains. Look at the effects on here...

_________________
"It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good."

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:27 pm
 Under CAB Investigation Joined: Mar 14, 2013Posts: 1916
yoganmahew wrote:
werpen wrote:
The EMF from computers is definitely affecting a few here. For any real conclusion to be drawn it requires replicable emidemiology studies, in vitro testing etc and some reasonable scientific mechanism. Epidemology studies with no replicable results are not evidence. Any clown can do a test to get a significant p values by not screening correctly. Quoting singular open source data is crazy, you have to look at the overall data. WHO and IARC are the reasonable authorities. Andrew Gelmans statistical blog is good on what is and what isnt good research.

I think EMF from computers definitely fries brains. Look at the effects on here...

At least 20%. Good enough for many open source journals. Ill give you a credit

_________________
An increase in the number of paupers does not broaden the market. M. Kalecki

Top

 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election threadPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:29 pm
 Neo Landlord Joined: Jul 8, 2010Posts: 240
Quote:
Firstly, I don't expose my children to chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, or petrol. You shouldn't either.
You seem incapable of conceding a point. The point being that things in the same IARC category do not necessarily present the same risk and that the IARC categories are easily misused. For example: According to the IARC, red meat is a Class 2A probable carcinogen. Do you feed your child red meat? That must be worse that feeding your child DDT or diesel, since these are only Class 2B possible carcinogens!

Quote:
a child's parents are indeed mammals but they are not in the same class as Bengal tigers they literally are. Class Mammalia because they don't do as much harm to children as Bengal tigers do. Fred West? Hannibal Lector? Yes, they too are mammals BUT they actually DO significant harm to children Not really, one is dead and the other never existed so it could reasonably be argued that they are a similar class of a hazard to children as Bengal tigers, wolves or white rhinos. So now you are arguing both sides of the analogy

Top

 Previous topic | Next topic Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 2 of 4 [ 47 posts ] [Go to page]   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Welcome to the PIN - General Rules & Guidelines for posting    Rules & Posting Guidelines       Media Resource & Support - Puball Nua Na Gaillimhe The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE    The Republic of Property       New Developments       Self-Build       Planning       Interiors       What's it Worth? (WIW)    The Central Bank       Supply Demand Demand Supply       IMF Watch (IRL)    Property Prices Ireland.       Dublin Unclassified - Property Price Drops       Dublin North - Property Price Drops       Dublin West - Property Price Drops       Dublin South - Property Price Drops       Rest Of Ireland - Property Price Drops    Rental Prices Ireland.       Rental Price Drops    Sell, Buy or Rent?    Property Accident & Emergency    The Future       Weather       The Electric Car    The Golden Circle       NAMAwatch (Pt. I)       Anglogate    The Internet Global Property Bubbles    International Property Bubbles POST Property Bubbles    Post Irish Property Bubble    The Soup       The Cookbooks       The Chopping Board & Blender       The Compost Heap Linksville    Online Resources & Tracking tools       Pinster Prepare          Water          Food          Shelter          Communications          Barter / Trade          Money / Hard Currency / Precious Metals          What If / Worest Case Scenarios speculations The Property Pin Website - Open Development    The Property Pin Website Open Development Forum

 LATEST POSTS FORUMS Follow, Retweet @dailypinster - Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!