Slashdot Mirror
Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals
Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals. Why haven't they gained more attention? Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"
The fact that you think global warming is a real is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.
See? Two can play that game.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
It's electromagnetic radiation that you're talking about, in other words light. You are in fact talking about photons. Radiation from cell phones = photons = light.
It seems to me Watts has been pretty effective in causing big expenditures of effort to deal with his criticisms. As a stat guy, i think he has some credibility. Oh sure, not peer reviewed, but i figure peer review has broken down on this subject. pretty good evidence of this.
New Report Shows 20th Century Global Warming Caused By Data Manipulation
February 2, 2010 (LPAC)—Instrumental temperature data from 1850-1980 have been so systematically tampered with as to bring into doubt whether there was any significant global warming in the 20th Century. This is the conclusion of a new 110-page report by meteorologists Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, published by Science & Public Policy Institute.
The claimed warming was the result of intentional statistical manipulation by the climate data centers at NOAA, NASA, and the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Among the ruses employed:
* From 1989 to 1994, the number of temperature stations used in compiling the data was reduced from 12,000 to less than 6,000. Stations showing a temperature increase were favored, while stations reporting temperature decline were dropped from the record. According to D'Aleo and Watts: "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler."
* The data centers employ corrected, not raw, temperature values in their calculations. But corrections were done in such a way as to systematically reduce the recorded temperatures from earlier periods so as to create an appearance of upward temperature in the recent two decades. Statistical filters were employed which masked the urban heat island effect, while claiming to account for it.
* Sea surface temperature data was also manipulated. Satellite input was removed by NOAA in 2009 after complaints of a cold bias in the Southern Hemisphere. The immediate result was an increase in reported global ocean surface temperatures of 0.24 degrees C, leading to the nonsensical claim that the 2000s was the warmest decade in a millennium.
While the new report provides an admirable debunking of the global warming fraud, an even more important question remains unanswered. Global average temperature is a mostly meaningless figure. Earth's biosphere over the past 2 million or more years has been characterized by the successive advance and retreat of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. The orbital parameters position us for another ice sheet advance at the present time, or at any time within the next several thousand years. A decrease in summer average temperature at high northern latitudes would be one of the warnings for an advance phase of the ice sheets. This would be especially important to know for northern Canada where the Laurentide ice sheet originates. However, as climatologist Timothy Ball notes in a case study appended to the D'Aleo and Watts report, there is only one thermometer north of latitude 65N in Canada. This is the Eureka station located at a particularly warm, protected spot on Ellesmere Island. Baffin Island, thought by some glaciologists to be the key originating point for ice sheet development, is devoid of weather stations, as are the Northwest and Yukon Territories.
There was no global warming. Will there be global cooling of a catastrophic sort some time soon? Leaving the genocidalists who organized and ran the global warm hoax in control will assure that we shall not find out. So let's get them out of there.
life would likely have evolved to not be affected by EM radiation
Oh, geez, because we have mechanisms to protect us from sunburns it's safe to step into an X-ray machine? I don't think so.
Biological systems have evolved protections against the EM radiation we encounter. That does not include microwaves (or X-rays).
position than you are to have a molecule get wiggled
Microwaves are perfect for "wiggling" molecules; that's why we use them for boiling water.
but by the time they were educated enough to understand the arguments they would know enough to realize their skepticism was simply ignorance and doubt.
I do hope that the global warming arguments are better founded than the unphysical b.s. you have written.
So by your theory, I can dry a cat safely in the microwave oven, because the ~2.5 GHz photons won't cause chemical changes? Good to know.
Ok.
Silly me. And here I thought I could get a sunburn on the beach in summer. Since one single photon from the sun can't have any effect on the cells of my body, clearly I don't need to fear anything even at high noon...
but there is no discussion of this pubs relevance to cell phones at all [...] What you need to do is show me conclusive evidence that a 2.5Ghz signal at 1 or 2 watts and at a distance of less that 1cm from human (or at least a mammal) tissue will sufficiently denature proteins to cause disease...
I don't need to show that since I'm not claiming that cell phones cause cancer; I simply don't know (nobody does). I'm only saying that none of your arguments against the possibility hold water. In particular, there are non-thermal effects.
then follow with your RELEVANT evidence.
My evidence is relevant to my claim.
Tell me how you are qualified and
I'm not going to get into a pissing match over unverifiable credentials with you. If you have the degree you claim you have, you didn't get your money's worth.
(I'll respond to your other b.s. in the other thread)