The stochastic effects of Non-ionizing radiation and its potential to cause cancer isn't the same as electromagnetic sensitivity syndrome.
Loving better call saul btw
Actually I think Pete just posted something relevant, the new study is very interesting and relates to 5G whereas old ones (tons of them of course) did not.
It does not refer to the 'sensitivity'that people can 'feel' and that the video blows away. The sensitivity and being made to feel sick by using a phone is clearly crap.
But 5G causing cancer etc does seem to warrant further investigation as per Pete's link
However, Pete don't run away from the city screaming just yet, it refers to how quite a few countries limit exposure to lower levels than the USA, and all your stuff is from USA websites. Maybe Australia is already very low? I dunno. You can look that up.
Pete if you believe your link you, have to believe the video too - both scientific studies but on different aspects of RF harm.....
Spend all day and night playing on your phone and staring at it's small screen for hours on end, instead of exercising, and then blame your headaches and general lack of well-being on electromagnetic radiation. Forget electromagnetic hypersensitivity, there are already names for this phenomenon....sloth and causation fallacy.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Actually I think Pete just posted something relevant, the new study is very interesting and relates to 5G whereas old ones (tons of them of course) did not.
It does not refer to the 'sensitivity'that people can 'feel' and that the video blows away. The sensitivity and being made to feel sick by using a phone is clearly crap.
But 5G causing cancer etc does seem to warrant further investigation as per Pete's link
However, Pete don't run away from the city screaming just yet, it refers to how quite a few countries limit exposure to lower levels than the USA, and all your stuff is from USA websites. Maybe Australia is already very low? I dunno. You can look that up.
Pete if you believe your link you, have to believe the video too - both scientific studies but on different aspects of RF harm.....
But why would 5G be any different to 4G? This is not a new technology, just a slightly higher frequency.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Spend all day and night playing on your phone and staring at it's small screen for hours on end, instead of exercising, and then blame your headaches and general lack of well-being on electromagnetic radiation. Forget electromagnetic hypersensitivity, there are already names for this phenomenon....sloth and causation fallacy.
Spot on .
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said.. But why would 5G be any different to 4G? This is not a new technology, just a slightly higher frequency.
Exactly. It is different.
But who cares what we think
A thousand studies showed mobiles towers to not be harmful, but now with the new 5G a couple of pretty darn well conducted studies show maybe not.
My point is its the first thing Pete has shown that is not lunatic rantings.
The first video show the lunatic fringe are making stuff up, then Pete posted a new study about the new frequency that is concerning.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Kamikuza said.. But why would 5G be any different to 4G? This is not a new technology, just a slightly higher frequency.
Exactly. It is different.
But who cares what we think
A thousand studies showed mobiles towers to not be harmful, but now with the new 5G a couple of pretty darn well conducted studies show maybe not.
My point is its the first thing Pete has shown that is not lunatic rantings.
The first video show the lunatic fringe are making stuff up, then Pete posted a new study about the new frequency that is concerning.
Same technology, just uses 6Mhz more on the top end of the signal -- up to 26MHz. It's superficially different ... so it's still a lunatic ranting. It's the same as ranting like a lunatic because your home wifi router also uses 5GHz on top of the original, older 2.4GHz standard.
Mobile phones are relatively new items and have only been really used by the public the last 15-20 years.
we are the first generation of guinea pigs, in my prior job I was on my mobile at least 3/4 hours a day.
A lot of people spend double that.
There is no waaay that there is no long term negative affects, I believe in twenty years from now we are going to have some real large group cases/studies with long term effects to eyes, eye development in kids, social skills, brain tumours, cancer etc etc etc.
This is like when cigarettes had only been mainstream for twenty years.......
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mark _australia said..Kamikuza said.. But why would 5G be any different to 4G? This is not a new technology, just a slightly higher frequency.
Exactly. It is different.
But who cares what we think
A thousand studies showed mobiles towers to not be harmful, but now with the new 5G a couple of pretty darn well conducted studies show maybe not.
My point is its the first thing Pete has shown that is not lunatic rantings.
The first video show the lunatic fringe are making stuff up, then Pete posted a new study about the new frequency that is concerning.
Same technology, just uses 6Mhz more on the top end of the signal -- up to 26MHz. It's superficially different ... so it's still a lunatic ranting. It's the same as ranting like a lunatic because your home wifi router also uses 5GHz on top of the original, older 2.4GHz standard.
So you didn't read the study properly it would seem.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
Same technology, just uses 6Mhz more on the top end of the signal -- up to 26MHz.
so if 26MHz = 5G,
Does that mean 27 MHz = 6G??
that would put me 44+ years ahead of the pack
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Kamikuza said..Mark _australia said..Kamikuza said.. But why would 5G be any different to 4G? This is not a new technology, just a slightly higher frequency.
Exactly. It is different.
But who cares what we think
A thousand studies showed mobiles towers to not be harmful, but now with the new 5G a couple of pretty darn well conducted studies show maybe not.
My point is its the first thing Pete has shown that is not lunatic rantings.
The first video show the lunatic fringe are making stuff up, then Pete posted a new study about the new frequency that is concerning.
Same technology, just uses 6Mhz more on the top end of the signal -- up to 26MHz. It's superficially different ... so it's still a lunatic ranting. It's the same as ranting like a lunatic because your home wifi router also uses 5GHz on top of the original, older 2.4GHz standard.
So you didn't read the study properly it would seem.
The link to sott.net? That paragon of ethical integrity and scientific journalism? No I didn't -- I prefer my science fiction to have space ships and laser swords.
Maybe you should not be so close-minded just because of what site it was on.
It references studies by real proper scientist types. Big studies.
Maybe you like how Scientific American referred to it then? "Taken together, the findings "confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects" in rats, some of them "relevant to carcinogenesis," says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study." - Scientific American
Or because you won't go read it because it was on SOTT........
The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to "environmental" cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation. "All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study, demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding," explained Ronald Melnick PhD, formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). "Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures."
As to "superficially" different- so was the isomer of Thalidomide ....... a mirror image of the same compound was dangerous as hell.... and the other was fine. Totally different results from an identical chemical. Superficial insignificant differences have surprised us before.
When all the studies showed cell towers were safe I went for it. Now some pretty good data to the contrary, so I ponder.
Don't ignore it just cos its from Pete's crazy site, its reported elsewhere too.
Try this:
ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Maybe you should not be so close-minded just because of what site it was on.
It references studies by real proper scientist types. Big studies.
Maybe you like how Scientific American referred to it then? "Taken together, the findings "confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects" in rats, some of them "relevant to carcinogenesis," says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study." - Scientific American
Or because you won't go read it because it was on SOTT........
The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to "environmental" cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation. "All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study, demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding," explained Ronald Melnick PhD, formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). "Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures."
As to "superficially" different- so was the isomer of Thalidomide ....... a mirror image of the same compound was dangerous as hell.... and the other was fine. Totally different results from an identical chemical. Superficial insignificant differences have surprised us before.
When all the studies showed cell towers were safe I went for it. Now some pretty good data to the contrary, so I ponder.
Don't ignore it just cos its from Pete's crazy site, its reported elsewhere too.
Try this:
ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/
LOL really? Because sites like that aren't about reporting the facts as they are, but propagandising them by cherry-picking data and misrepresenting conclusion. Or just blowing things out of proportion.
Rats aren't people, and both those studies used the same breed of rat WHICH IS PRONE TO SPONTANEOUSLY DEVELOPING TUMORS. The devil is in details like that.
Rats = Sprague-Dawley strain: science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/lab-rats-cancer.htm and check their sources, or just google "Sprague-Dawley rats cancer".
And did YOU read the last paragraph: "In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study's results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer-which by now amounts to hundreds of studies-has "given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health." Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. "We continue to agree with the FDA statement," he says."
Thalidomide -- apples and oranges.
Sorry, I'm just going to keep ignoring Pete and his sources. And ehtrust.org -- here's the founder: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#Controversies Shades of Andrew Wakefield.
Check your sources. It's not hard.
^^^ cherry picking?
There are quotes from about 6 or so top scientists or organisations (in relevant fields) there that say it is significant, you pick the one that says err maybe not
I don;t really care what sott normally does. Pete used that link cos its the site for crazies he reads, but Scientific American and WHO reported it also. You are backpedalling now as you rubbished it just based on the link but didn't read the content.
As to thalidomide - its a very valid example and I used it as you said "superficially" different can't be significant. Bloody oath it can. Yes it has nothing to do with RF or cancer but I used it to show one can't just ignore a little difference- science has done that before to everyone's peril.
Rats aren't people? Thanks for pointing out the bleedin obvious but once rats show cancerous response to things in sufficient numbers, the stimulus IS LISTED as possibly carcinogenic.
If the rats that are prone to cancer developed tumours at a greater rate it is significant. So the throwaway line that they are already susceptible is irrelevant. If a quite a few renowned scientists said its a good study and warrants consideration, and one bloke thinks not, I will not disregard it totally. I figure they must have developed tumours at a higher rate than normal, else the very smart folks would all be slamming the study huh?
"Check your sources" indeed. But maybe don't just criticise based on the link, the link might be a dodgy website but they are just reporting the same as many others. Yeah maybe with their slant, but still reporting a proper study.
That "one guy" is the director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health and he's basing his decision on hundreds of studies. HUNDREDS of studies, not one study and the self-serving beliefs of a half dozen crackpots. The other "one guy" who agreed with him about the results from HUNDREDS of studies is the director of theDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute.
Many places reported the study but took the time to look at the science. SOTT doesn't supply such gems that puts the whole thing into perspective, like that last paragraph ("hundreds of studies") or this one: "Rates for those cancers increased as the doses got higher butthe evidence linking them with cell phone radiation specifically was weak by comparison, and the researchers could not rule out that they might have increased for reasons other than RF exposure"
Or this one "As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators ... had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer"
Or even this one "Epidemiology studies investigating cell phone use patterns with human cancer risk have produced inconsistent results".
All from Scientific American link you posted. You won't see SOTT etc mention things like that in their cherry-picked propaganda pieces.
4G and 5G is the same technology --non-ionizing RF transmission. 5G is using higher frequency carrier waves. That's it.
The problem with thalidomide was the chirality of the molecule used. That's a significant, not superficial.
Apparently statements of the bleeding obvious aren't enough. Rats aren't people -- the things that give rats cancer might not be the same as what affects other mammals, let alone people. The male and female lab rats don't even get the same types of cancer. Being susceptible to something is significant -- it means it's more likely to happen when compared to non-susceptible subjects. In other words, cancer rats get more cancer, easier.
Read the studies look at the testing methods, look at the results. The "worst case" rats were getting 6W per kg of body weight, or twice what a cell phone puts out total. That test was the equivalent of putting you in a 500W microwave for 19 hours a day for your whole life. You'd probably get cancer too.
And the WHO lists all sorts of things as POSSIBLY carcinogenic. Big whoop, I'm going to have another coffee anyway.
If you're susceptible to woo merchants, then no amount of sciencing is going to convince you. Enjoy your SOTT subscription.
Well there was a sixty minutes story on it years ago where several nuerosurgeons said they thought there was something in it. That since the advent of mobiles they have seen a rapid rise in prevalence of certain tumours. They said that they wouldnt let their kids put their phone to the ear and made them use it on speaker. Good enough for me to do same
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
Well there was a sixty minutes story on it years ago where several nuerosurgeons said they thought there was something in it. That since the advent of mobiles they have seen a rapid rise in prevalence of certain tumours. They said that they wouldnt let their kids put their phone to the ear and made them use it on speaker. Good enough for me to do same
No, we haven't. Epidemiological studies have difficulties pointing out specific causes.
If you're making a "documentary" then you really want to find "specialists" to back your story up -- that's why the CAM/Alt-med/quack medical industry likes to hate on the medical establishment...until one of them says something to back up their claims.
And surely you'd be better off talking to oncologists about cancer 
