and, newlywed atheists, let’s hope that the leading NDP couple clue in to the likeliest source of their respective cancers in the news, and start (unlikely, i’m sure) using their public exposure & talents in a good direction on this, those affected body parts on higher likelihood list to be affected, stats spiking up since mass cell deployment, thyroid & prostate (away from the head & out of the pocket or the belt, young couple…)

0  0 (0)

i did reference the long quotes, sorry am always on the fly, so did a swift extract & paste, it’s in public domain at the scribd link

happy wedding, and to your mate

0  0 (0)

I do have to ask whether you’re within the realm of fair use with the size of your quotes — unless you’re linking back to where you got them, I suspect you may be in violation of all manner of copyright by posting such huge chunks of other people’s works. If this is the case, I might have to delete that comment or the excerpts themselves for fear of being hit with a lawsuit.

Also, could you kindly link them anyway? You should always cite your sources.

0  0 (0)

“Popular opinion can be swayed against perfectly harmless scientific endeavours and ruin them for everyone” — I worry about your possible perception of “perfect harmlessness”, but it cuts both ways, as here with microwave research: Read what happened to Henry Lai, for example in the 90s when he found alarming DNA breaks. Better yet, get a sense of the ugly undercurrents by reading an industry insider’s book, by Robert C. Kane (star Motorola man), posthumously posted at http://www.scribd.com/doc/21783803/Cellular-Telephone-Russian-Roulette . I’d say if you’re not turned after reading that , nothing will do it, short of those bodies in the streets kind of thing. It doesn’t take great prescience to figure something is very, very wrong. Just an attitude in line with (Trent U.) Prof. Bocking’s statement (quoting from http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-08-28/told-you-so#comment-10726 ):
………….
From recent Alternatives Journal issue (35:3), closing the piece by Stephen Bocking (Trent U.), “Skewing Science: Four new books expose how government and industry maipulate science to fit their needs”

“…two challenges of environmental policy. One is to avoid defining political questions as matters of science, because that implies that unrealistic standards of proof are needed before action can be taken, while also privileging those who are able to buy expertise. The second relates to making decisions in the context of uncertainty. Acting in a complex world means gathering information, evaluating the weight of evidence, taking precautions and adapting to change. Too often, the chosen approach has been to wait for absolute proof — with the consequence being a toxic environment and loss of life. Even uncertain knowledge implies a responsibility to act.”
…………..

Why not a few quotes from Kane I’ve used in the past & have handy, if it’s ok with webmaster:
…………..
It might seem unlikely, but also on the industry side of the balance there is a storehouse of`available published research. That industry data clearly indicates that the cellular telephone manufacturers and service providers knew, or should have known, through their own studies that exposure of humans to radiofrequency radiation emitted by transmitting portable cellular telephones is dangerous and causes biological and cognitive effects. However, the cellular industry manufacturers and service providers never cite this research.
…………..
[another if not too long for you all]:
…………..
Industry research both internal and published clearly indicates that company engineers and scientists are well aware of the excessive and dangerous power density levels to which users of the portable products, such as portable cellular telephones, are exposed. In some examples, which have been discussed, industry researchers confirmed that in order to comply with the proposed safety standards the portable transmitter power level would need to be reduced to about 0.001 watt. That means in order for some of the companies’ portables to comply with the proposed safety standard the power would have to be reduced by a factor of about 600, and that’s just to meet the power density safety level. That doesn’t even consider “a safety margin for the many enhancement and “hot spot” mechanisms.

[...]

The IEEE/ANSI C95.1—1982 safety standard also included a safe energy absorption level based on the amount of energy absorbed within the body. However, as with the power density guide, portable radios and portable cellular telephones were categorically exempted. If the portables were required to comply with the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels it would have meant a limit of 8.0 mW deposited into any one gram of tissue. The standard is also conveniently, and artificially, structured so that highly localized “hot spots” can be “averaged out” over a full gram of tissue. One gram is the smallest unit of tissue that the standards consider. Further, the standard has defined that the one gram of tissue must be in the form of a cube. This allows researchers, motivated to do so, to arbitrarily select—to hunt, so to speak, for areas of lower energy absorption that can be used to help lower the “average” absorption level that is reported.

We already know that energy deposition into tissue results in heating. Absorption of 8 mW into a single gram (8 mW/g) or into approximately one cubic centimeter results in approximately a 1—2°C temperature increase in that tissue. We also know that temperature increases within the brain of 1—2°C will result in tissue damage. So the safety standard effectively established a “safe” exposure level that first allows for damage or destruction of brain tissue and, second, exempts the most serious offenders. Since 1982, the IEEE/ANSI standard has been further revised to limit the maximum absorption to 1.6 mW/g. Even though a blizzard of research reports now find that the portables exceed that radiation absorption level, no action is taken—the portables remain exempt by virtue of the FCC’s “grandfathering” of existing products.

[....]

Even with all of the background activity related to tailoring the safety standards to suit the manufacturers and system operators, research continues to uncover disturbing pieces of evidence. Rather than the benign technology the industry claims, the evidence continues to paint a malignant picture of the effects to be expected due to human exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

[...]

C. H. Durney pointed out the apparent Catch—22 when he observed that humans cannot be used as test subjects—”guinea pigs”.181 If the cellular industry convinces the responsible government agencies that laboratory data from animal experiments cannot be used and also convinces those agencies that human experiments are unethical, then the industry is free to do as it pleases. What a wonderful environment for the free reign of unencumbered commercialization of technology. In that environment the saying “let the buyer beware” will take on a whole new meaning.

But Durney’s admission is unusual because even with nuclear radiation experiments humans were used. With radiofrequency radiation it may be that the potential for harm to human test subjects is already so well known that human testing is unthinkable. With radiofrequency energy testing there should never be an instance when the testing is performed without the informed consent of the test subject—such as portable cellular phone users.

As such, the other laboratory techniques are employed to determine exposure, absorption levels, and effects. Numerical analysis is commonly employed to provide solutions for radiation absorption by computer-simulated human bodies. Sophisticated computer analysis is available for frequencies including the cellular telephone transmit range and with complex models of the human head and brain.

Currently computer models comprised of millions of cells can subdivide the human head into as many layers as exist in reality. Further, a cell size of only a couple of millimeters greatly improves the resolution available to detect localized “hot spots.” Couple this with MRI techniques and the picture is of a truly sophisticated modeling capability, but it still requires proper data input for accurate output data. The old saying “garbage in – garbage out” remains true especially for the computer modeling experiments. If researchers insert nonrepresentative material characteristics, tissue types, or physical structures, their sophisticated results will be little more than sophisticated garbage.

We already know of at least a couple of instances when nonrepresentative input data and test conditions were used to arrive at completely erroneous conclusions that have been broadcast worldwide. The basis on which the industry’s representations of safty have been established is rooted solely in the “belief’ that any short-term exposure that does not cause an immediate, observable effect must be safe. The standard-setting committee has taken the position, in the past, that if any effect were to occur they “believe” that researchers should be able to observe and measure that effect immediately. Of course, we realize that such thinking is as nonsensical as “believing” that exposure to nuclear radiation is harmless because the effects take years to be seen.

Some in the research community do not buy into the dogmatic posturing and continue the research to learn bioeffects interaction mechanisms. Today research activity related to finding biological effects tied to low-level exposures to radiofrequency radiation has moved into the forefront, while research into thermal effects continues in the background. Most notable is a 1980 review of scientific research that nicely describes the conflicts between the two opposite research groups. In that review H. Cook, who received his funding from the National Science Foundation, concluded that some of the prior research did not proceed in a professional or scientific manner. Therefore, no conclusions could be drawn, with respect to dosimetry and experimental techniques, from papers presented at the suspect Fourth Tri-Services Conference (1960). In effect, Cook was indicating that the dosimetry studies had provided artifically optimistic findings.

It’s very enlightening to learn that even during the early 1980s a few researchers were outspoken on the issue of research bias. They judged some research and perhaps the industry- and military—sponsored researchers as biased toward industry expectations rather than scientific knowledge.

That’s a very strong conclusion to draw so early in the evolution of radiofrequency technology. We might expect that charge to be made today, in view of the raging controversy over safety issues of millions of hand-held radiofrequency transmitters. But for the industry bias in research to have become evident so long ago, when the stakes were very low, raises extreme alarm today in view of the $100 billion industry now at stake. If researchers and industry were painted as biased and disingenuous at that time, when no corporate or economic survival was at stake, what might we expect to be occurring today that has not yet come to our attention?

The shift in focus to effects caused by low-level exposures occurred for two reasons. First, effects due to high level exposures have been fairly well documented and accepted. Second, the telecommunications industry had been successful in convincing government agencies and a large part of the research community that damaging effects must be tied to low-level exposures. This came at a time when the industry also claimed that their portable products exposed operators only to low-levels of radiation.

Inquiries questioning the safety of radiofrequency energy absorption invariably were answered with the industry response that no link had been found between low-level radiofrequency radiation exposure and hazardous biological effects. Of course, this is a false statement. Keep in mind that with the ever-present “hot spot” absorption mechanisms, even very low radiation exposures can provide enhanced locally high-level absorptions within the brain.

Let’s reconsider the issue from a different perspective. Instead of pointing out reasons and evidence that confirm hazards or dangers, let’s look at what researchers interested in utilizing the medical applications of radiofrequency energy absorption have observed.

In the United States, 915 MHz has been allocated by the FCC for medical use. If other frequencies were available for medical therapy, researchers and therapists would, no doubt, have selected a slightly lower frequency, because the frequency range just slightly below 900 MHz is optimal for absorption of radiofrequency energy—the frequency range corresponding to the portable cellular telephone transmit band.

Generally, these researchers with medical applications in mind are supporting the findings of electromagnetics and bioeffects researchers. That is, radiofrequency radiation is absorbed so well at frequencies in the range of portable cellular telephone transmissions that they, the hyperthermia researchers and therapists, will use it as a method of inducing heating or to destroy tissue. In the case of hyperthermia treatment the medical therapists intend to destroy cancerous tissue. In the case of portable cellular telephones, dangerous absorption levels and tissue destruction make no such distinction.

Moving ever closer to the time when the portables were placed on the market, researchers continued to voice their concerns about adverse biological effects in humans. At the same time, medical therapy researchers were enthusiastically enjoying the findings that the deep penetration effects of energy in the 700-950 MHz range were ideal for hyperthermia treatments. It might seem as if the researchers were working at cross-purposes, but as with nuclear radiation, which can be medically beneficial as well as lethal, radiofrequency radiation can be medically beneficial as well as lethal. Recall that when nuclear radiation experiments began early in this century, no one understood that there was a danger. It was only years afterward, when some of the most creative and gifted researchers became ill and died of radiation poisoning, that the world believed there to be a danger. As with nuclear radiation, radiofrequency radiation is a two-edged sword.

…………..
[and another, might have messed up the paragraphs though in the transfer here]
…………..
H. P. Schwan and K. R. Foster have also investigated
the possibility of weak field interactions with biological
tissues. In their work the researchers do not describe any
theoretical interaction mechanism, but they do confirm earlier
findings that the cell membrane plays an important part in
determining the cell electrical characteristics with respect to
radiofrequencies.123

[daryl's note - cf goldsworthy's recent remarks]

At this opposite end of the energy exposure issue, low-level
exposure, we find that researchers are consistently reporting
biological effects at surprisingly low radiation levels. In very
early experiments, conducted to

123 H. P. Schwan and K. R. Foster, “RF-Field Interactions with
Biological Systems: Electrical Properties and Biophysical Mechanisms,”
Proceedings of the IEEE 68, no. 1 (January 1980).
109

investigate microwave induced hearing sensations, J. C. Lin
confirmed that a biological hearing effect is induced at power
density levels hundreds or thousands of times lower than levels
previously thought to cause any effects. In essence, Lin
confirmed what USSR researchers have been insisting all
along. That is, the exposure limits in the United States and
other Western countries are much too high and not really based
on biological effects.

Interestingly, the IEEE/ANSI standards are claimed to
have been established at a level that is ten times lower .
Than any measured biological effect. But in 1977 Lin
demonstrated just such an effect at levels much lower than the
limit of the safe exposure standard. The effect was described as
a thermal shock wave caused by a rapid expansion of tissue
due to energy absorption and propagating within the brain.
Today’s “safe level” of radiofrequency exposure remains at
least 100 times higher than the threshold levels found by Lin.
At that time Lin stated:

The effect is of great significance since the average incident
power densities required to elicit the response are
considerably lower than those found for other microwave
biological effects and the threshold average power densities
are many orders of magnitude smaller than the current safety
standard of 10mW/cm².124

In a follow-up, or follow-on, to previous research
reporting modifications in brain cells at low-level radiation
exposure W. R. Adey also reported that weak modulated
radiofrequency radiation results in major physiological
________

124 J. C. Lin, “On Microwave-Induced Hearing Sensation,”
IEEETransactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques MTT-25, no. 7
(July 1977):605-13.
110

changes. These weak exposures, less than that which would
result in temperature increases of 0.1°C, have also been
observed to produce chemical and behavioral changes. Adey’s
findings indicate a particular sensitivity of brain tissue to
radiofrequency radiation exposure that is modulated at between
six and twenty Hz (cycles per second).125 One way of
observing this sensitivity is to record the changes in the brain
wave patterns (EEG) of humans and other animals as they are
exposed to the low—level radiation. In some cases the
modified EEG patterns persisted for several days. Adey has
proposed that the radiation fields lead to a disruption of intercell
communication and that the disruption of that
communication can lead to uncontrolled cell growth. But, the
safety standards do not consider that low level radiofrequency
energy absorption reorients cells or disturbs the equilibrium of
biological and electrophysical processes of cells within the
brain of humans.

These researchers have long been engaged in the
of low-level exposures to radiofrequency radiation. Typically,
they employ radiation levels low enough to rule out any
measurable tissue heating and concentrate instead on the
effects of low frequency modulation of the applied frequency.
In their most recent report they state that
Evidence has accumulated that sensitivity of brain tissue to
specific weak oscillating electromagnetic
________

125 W. R. Adey, “Frequency and Power Windowing in Tissue Interactions
with Weak Electromagnetic Fields,” Proceedings of the IEEE 68, no. 1
(January 1980):119-25.
111

fields occurs in the absence of significant tissue heating.126
The sensitivity includes modifications of the passage of
conductive ions through the membrane of brain cells.
The researchers go on to explain that the passage of
calcium and potassium ions through the brain cell membrane is
fundamental to brain activity. Disturbances in this
communication link are shown by modifications to the EEG
readings of test subjects. These modifications have
been/demonstrated and documented by these and other
researchers, as described earlier.

During 1988 S. F. Cleary presenteda review of the state
of research related to nonthermal interactions and effects of
radiofrequency radiation. His conclusions include the
understanding that
cellular studies provide convincing evidence that RF
radiation, and other types of electric or magnetic fields, can
alter living systems via direct nonthermal mechanisms, as
well as via heating. 127
…………..

Now, after what I said repeatedly, how can you still say, “EMF = cancer”?
For myself in my body, RF exposure means microwave hearing (going on as I type this, esp. loud these past weeks since our “smart” meters have been activated at around 900mHz 4x/hr., perfect for brain absorption…) and weird transient dyslexia I fortunately thus far have a successful way to treat, that tellingly began in the late 90s, when it all started in deadly earnest in our neighbourhood…cf important Swedish studies about health care costs rise matching exactly turning on of network there, also Firstenberg’s studies of US stats, and in Ont. the costs plateaued throughout the 90s, until you know what, and it’s impossibly rising since then, NOT attributable (yet) to aging or equipment costs; not to mention variegated symptoms of many people I know…

“Tinfoil” can work if it’s carefully deployed. Science, eh? Like, laws of physics? Onus on you to account for them falling skyscrapers, eg…

I’ll look into orac later, if h’s all that influential, i just might go after him but so much to do…

Why don’t you scrub my redundant posts, it messes up your page, doesn’t it?

0  0 (0)

So the Ketcham article wasn’t what convinced you — just the fact that it made a reputable science journal like Gentlemen’s Quarterly is what’s so amazing to you. Sorry to have to break it to you, but unless it’s a peer-reviewed science journal, anything goes. Even science-based journals like New Scientist or Popular Science get it wrong sometimes. The thing about science is it’s self-correcting when it’s done right — biases are rooted out and eliminated, experiments repeated time and again to verify the results are actual results and not one-off flukes, and people with vested interests are eventually exposed for what they are. This may take time, but eventually science wins. Popular opinion can be swayed against perfectly harmless scientific endeavours and ruin them for everyone in the meantime, though.

At the same time, trumped-up science can get way more public acceptance than the legitimate body of science for unpopular things like that cigarettes are harmful, or that the global climate is changing for the hotter. Pat answers like “it’s cold here now, so that can’t be true” become commonplace. Or, in the case of radio transmissions, so-called “electrosensitives” get more airtime than the science saying they’re making things up. And people like yourself, once solidly in the “EMF = cancer” camp, can’t be made to read the contradicting science unless you think you can crusade for the truth.

What’s worse is your level of “magical thinking” about one field leads directly into that same magical thinking about others — I mentioned 9/11 Truthers intentionally, hoping to determine whether you were a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. And it appears you are.

I’ll tell you what. If you do manage to visit Orac’s and out-debate him (or, if he is not an expert in the field though he seems to be to me, if you out-debate whichever expert he defers to), you stand a very good chance of convincing me, at which point I’ll print a public retraction on everything I’ve said, and I’ll show up at council meetings and vociferously petition to stop the Eastlink tower that’s now going up, now that the council has been overruled.

0  0 (0)

0  0 (0)

have too little time still, just glanced at orac & co, i think i should debate over there really, this really is a chance encounter between us here, but if i go after orac or others you praise, i’ll try to remember to notify you, whether or not i can get to going after what you have said above

what do you know about “9/11 truth”? we could have much fun with that now…i could even tie it all together for you! you seem to be half inviting it…see what went on maybe throughout this webpage i remember, you should recognize one name (have to read it all, though)…http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/103/2009-09-11/sept-11-remembrance-gpus…i have left off involvement with the greens, i did have a good bit of influence there, but they severely have disappointed on this issue, even though they were the only party to take notice with a policy bit in ’00 & a pronouncement in ’07, not that that’s why i worked with them…anyway, i posted a bunch of stuff, lots of references to studies and political stuff, see maybe before i can get back here or to orac, full webpages, http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative ,
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-23/eu , &
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wireless , one guy somewhat like yourself appears somewhere there; and where i actually had mentioned Levine in the process of making an example of one poor blogger, throughout page http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/11005/2009-09-12/fellow-green-twitters-where-are-you

i already told you about the big flaws in the scand. study, i’ll try to make time on it for you soon

and will you not heed my comment about not looking at cancer study? i’m not avoiding it, it’s just so wrongly typical of your prevailing authority-experts

we’re at deep cultural odds, i think you see that, but it’s not impossible something good can ensue from interchange here, we’ll see

later
dv

0  0 (0)

0  0 (0)

And could you please stop posting “look, it’s really relevant, here’s X-anti-radiation-website and they linked to it too”? Please??? I don’t care how many inside-the-echo-chamber sites link to the same article, that doesn’t make it any more true. The 9/11 Truthers and the Obama Birthers all link to one another too.

At least stop saying the same thing over and over until you’ve read that Scandinavian study, and properly accounted for the fact that THERE IS NO INCREASE IN CANCER RATES SINCE THE USE OF CELL PHONES HAS BECOME PREVALENT. There SHOULD be, if anything you say is even remotely true. But that study (the one you said “was shown to be flawed” without any sort of proof) says as much.

PS: a “flaw” in a study is not the mere fact that it disagrees with your personal pet theory.

0  0 (0)

jt, i can tell about the “poor eating habits”, it really does affect attitude & judgement

but no time to respond now, and why didn’t you email me a notice of your post? if it’s an authentic “104 views”, you’ve got some buddies you can negatively influence, and i should try to find time to help you & them

but not before you tell me you’ve read the gq piece, and if you won’t read (there is evidence of misreading above, but maybe later on that…), Ketcham did an interview with Camilla Rees at
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cell-phones-the-new-cigarettes-gq-thinks-so/

your post above is riddled with difficulties (and some inconsiderate behaviour), but have to go at them later

0  0 (0)