If Wikipedia has a great page on something, don't link to it
Tell people to search for a page instead of directly linking to it? Hyperlinks are a fundamental part of the web. Now who is "destroying the internet"?
If there was an actual study that definitively proved that cell phones are bad for you, wouldn't they have from quoted it?
We all know such a study does not exist or we would not be having this discussion.
I am not concerned about fear or advertisements. I am concerned about the evidence that there is a possible risk.
I watched the program on CNN. If you want to watch it, someone uploaded a video at: http://videos.next-up.org/Cnn/LarryKingLive/AreCellPhoneDangerousExtracts/28052008.html
There is a followup story at:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/434412
At the very least there is a case for more research.
The last Larry King Live show had a discussion on cell-phones and cancer. Particularly note the comments by one of the participants who points out the some of the recent *long-term* studies show evidence.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/27/lkl.01.html
ou expecting an impossible standard to be met to satisfy you. Again, this is not what I am saying. I am say that *other* people have an impossible standard of proof. ie the mobile phone companies that will never accept evidence of harm. Every time a new study comes out providing new evidence of health risks they say "there is no proof" - despite the study perhaps giving that proof or contributing to evidence. Same tactic as cigarette companies.
There is a difference between being afraid of the unknown and the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is guided by evidence and risk aversion, not fear or irrationality.
There is good evidence about a doubling of childhood leukemia rates for people exposed to power line radiation. There is growing evidence of health risks from mobile phone radiation.
I wasn't really commenting on electro-sensitivity as such. But on that topic it seems there is definitely something worth researching further.
And no, I have no opposition to vaccines - they are a good thing.
Hmmm well just to reply to myself... I should have read the article since they say "Even though the SwitchNAP is just a few minutes drive from Las Vegas's main airport, it's almost in the middle of nowhere"
Still, can't imagine it staying that way for long.
the desert is actually a pretty frigging cold place to be at night - which they again can use to their advantage Except it's not cold in the city at night. Daytime heat builds up in the concrete etc and it is released during the night. They are not building the facility out in 'the desert' where they might be able to take advantage of the conditions you suggest.
The fact that no clear trend has emerged from numerous, large studies indicates that any effect, if any effect indeed exists, is tiny and inconsequential. I would not be so certain. Two Interphone project researchers think otherwise.
Professor Bruce Armstrong of University of Sydney: "I think the evidence that is accumulating is pointing towards an effect of mobile phones on tumors".
Siegal Sadetzki of Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel: "The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not cause damage; apparently it damages health."
Ah so you have no rational objections then. You are pretty quick to dismiss health concerns given this is an ongoing field of research.
No they're not, you seem to think a list of unreproducible psychosomatic symptoms equals evidence. They are reproducible symptoms... and how do you know they are psychosomatic?
"Proven" isn't possible Exactly my point - this is an ongoing field of research. There is some evidence of health concerns which many people will say are not "proven". I don't want to wait for the impossible standards of "proof" that some people have.
Hopefully the recent trend will continue.. but I do notice one of the graphs shows that the 2005 age-adjusted incidence rate is still around 15% higher than the 1975 rate.
No objection to the aesthetics from me. My objections are for health reasons. Cancer, sleep disturbance, headaches, memory loss are amongst some of the reported effects in several studies.
Regardless of whether you think these are "proven" I prefer not to find out the hard way (ie I prefer to take a precautionary approach).
You are being very simplistic. I think you will find those opposing these things are highly knowledgeable on the subject.
I don't want a cell phone tower next to my house thankyou. I am also well aware how the technology works, and that there are choices about where to place towers. Some choices are better than others.
The biggest problem is companies/governments that don't care where they put things.
Actually the Wikipedia article gives examples of reports of sightings as recently as 2005. But you are correct about the nuts... ie no sightings have been verified.
Indeed the experiment involved exposing subjects for 3 hours while awake, then they slept. The paper says that participants carried out performance and memory tests, and reported symptoms and mood during the exposure session. They would have been awake during those.
In the paper they say that "in each room, the respective exposure area was shielded". Hence it is possible that both rooms were used for exposure in the same way - not one for real and one placebo. The two rooms were used so they could experiment on two people at a time.
Not true. As the posting below says, the FCC limits allow for 1.6 W/kg and the EU limit is 2.0 W/kg (and I'll add, also the Australian limit). Thus the experiment exposed people to radiation *below* allowed limits. There is something to worry about.
propose a test capable of determining whether an organism's DNA was altered by selective breeding or by direct manipulation.
I don't believe this is possible in general. The only thing that can be done is to compare a sample of an organism's DNA with known genetically modified organisms to identify whether that sample is a known genetically modified organism.
I suppose implicit in what you are saying is that if we could produce the same end product (that we can't tell apart with tests) by selective breeding or direct manipulation then we don't have anything to worry about since no-one is questioning the safety of selective breeding. Well, as I understand it, the problem is that we can't do this. Direct genetic manipulation is not as exact a science as supporters make out.
If we can selectively breed defensive chemicals and Round-Up resistant organisms, then we should as they are probably low risk because we are using time-tested methods. Directly modified organisms won't be the same and they belong in the lab until we understand them more.
That's not a weasel paragraph. It is saying that certain experiments have not been yet replicated and so we can't prove or disprove the original experiments. It means we need to do more research.
Dr Hyland provides references to his claims about "groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies" and the "human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal". I wouldn't want to dismiss these claims without checking the references.
Just because Dr Hyland's paper refers to GSM and TETRA radiation, it doesn't mean he is being dishonest. It happens to be a hot topic as you say and people want to know particularly about that issue. I'm sure Dr Hyland is well aware of other sources of radiation that are of concern. In his paper he talks about and references studies on TV and radio transmitters, cordless phones and radar. It is just possible that mobile phone radiation is a greater priority now.
There is still ongoing research and concern about all the types of radiation you have mentioned, and more, including radiation from power lines. No-one is saying that only GSM signals have a biological affect. It is just a one aspect that is being studied.
I'll address some major points from what you have said.
Firstly, you are saying that Dr Lai and others are committing fraud because they make us believe that electromagnetic radiation behaves in a special way towards biological organisms and we can't just examine chemical reactions.
I don't believe there is any fraud being committed. A paper by Gerard Hyland at http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/hyland_basestatio ns_0803.pdf entitled "How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans" explains why aliveness matters.
He says "the living organism [is] an electromagnetic instrument of great and exquisite sensitivity that is able to recognise and discern the presence of external electromagnetic radiation informationally, by decoding (demodulating) its various frequency characteristics" and "non-thermal influences of an informational kind are possible only when the organism is alive".
He also mentions interactions that don't require aliveness: "particularly if the frequency of the radiation matches or is close to that of an organised (collective) electrical vibration of a molecule".
It would be appear there is a genuine reason to believe that aliveness matters and this means there is no fraud, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. There is a genuine belief that research on living organisms is useful.
You say that exposing rats to 0.1 mT is not relevant because humans are unlikely to be exposed to such levels. Actually it is a useful experiment because it still allows us to learn something about radiation at non-thermal intensities. It may be easier to observer affects at these higher intensities than lower ones and provides a good starting point. There is always a question about whether thermal affects are coming into play, and we need to check that the researchers have designed their experiments properly. However, the studies do purport to be at non-thermal levels.
Now moving on to your points about Dr Lai's statement that "Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields do not contain enough energy to affect chemical bonds in molecules directly."
I'm confused about what you have written. You are correct to say that "In fact, ionizing electromagnetic fields are very, very strong. They cause electrons to be completely liberated from the atoms to which they were attached". This is true by definition. However, the statement is about non-ionizing electromagnetic fields which, by definition, are not strong enough to liberate electrons from atoms. Dr Lai is really just stating this definition.
Then you say "Actually, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields often promote chemical reactions" but you use an example of ultraviolet light which is not non-ionizing; it is ionizing. As you say, it is "especially energetic".
So I think there is some confusion here about ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation and no reason to call Dr Lai a liar unless I'm missing something.
The "junk science" label gets thrown around a lot but it is highly subjective.
If the risk of a disorder is 1 in 50000 then in the United States population of 293 million there would be 5860 people afflicted. Tell them there is no point worrying.
The article in question only talks about acoustic neuromas. What if there are other health affects that we haven't found? The overall rate could be a lot higher.
Slashdot Mirror
If Wikipedia has a great page on something, don't link to it
Tell people to search for a page instead of directly linking to it? Hyperlinks are a fundamental part of the web. Now who is "destroying the internet"?
Same here - I've used them for 3+ years. They provide exactly the service asked for.
For people like me in Australia the download day doesn't even start on the 17th - it is starting on the 18th at 3am...
We all know such a study does not exist or we would not be having this discussion.
I am not concerned about fear or advertisements. I am concerned about the evidence that there is a possible risk. I watched the program on CNN. If you want to watch it, someone uploaded a video at: http://videos.next-up.org/Cnn/LarryKingLive/AreCellPhoneDangerousExtracts/28052008.html There is a followup story at: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/434412 At the very least there is a case for more research.
The last Larry King Live show had a discussion on cell-phones and cancer. Particularly note the comments by one of the participants who points out the some of the recent *long-term* studies show evidence. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/27/lkl.01.html
There is a difference between being afraid of the unknown and the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is guided by evidence and risk aversion, not fear or irrationality. There is good evidence about a doubling of childhood leukemia rates for people exposed to power line radiation. There is growing evidence of health risks from mobile phone radiation. I wasn't really commenting on electro-sensitivity as such. But on that topic it seems there is definitely something worth researching further. And no, I have no opposition to vaccines - they are a good thing.
Hmmm well just to reply to myself... I should have read the article since they say "Even though the SwitchNAP is just a few minutes drive from Las Vegas's main airport, it's almost in the middle of nowhere" Still, can't imagine it staying that way for long.
Missing the point - heard of the precautionary principle?
Professor Bruce Armstrong of University of Sydney: "I think the evidence that is accumulating is pointing towards an effect of mobile phones on tumors".
Siegal Sadetzki of Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel: "The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not cause damage; apparently it damages health."
Hopefully the recent trend will continue.. but I do notice one of the graphs shows that the 2005 age-adjusted incidence rate is still around 15% higher than the 1975 rate.
No objection to the aesthetics from me. My objections are for health reasons. Cancer, sleep disturbance, headaches, memory loss are amongst some of the reported effects in several studies. Regardless of whether you think these are "proven" I prefer not to find out the hard way (ie I prefer to take a precautionary approach).
You are being very simplistic. I think you will find those opposing these things are highly knowledgeable on the subject. I don't want a cell phone tower next to my house thankyou. I am also well aware how the technology works, and that there are choices about where to place towers. Some choices are better than others. The biggest problem is companies/governments that don't care where they put things.
Actually the Wikipedia article gives examples of reports of sightings as recently as 2005. But you are correct about the nuts ... ie no sightings have been verified.
Indeed the experiment involved exposing subjects for 3 hours while awake, then they slept. The paper says that participants carried out performance and memory tests, and reported symptoms and mood during the exposure session. They would have been awake during those.
How often do you have 3 hour phone calls? Compared to the length of the typical call, it is prolonged.
In the paper they say that "in each room, the respective exposure area was shielded". Hence it is possible that both rooms were used for exposure in the same way - not one for real and one placebo. The two rooms were used so they could experiment on two people at a time.
Not true. As the posting below says, the FCC limits allow for 1.6 W/kg and the EU limit is 2.0 W/kg (and I'll add, also the Australian limit). Thus the experiment exposed people to radiation *below* allowed limits. There is something to worry about.
I don't believe this is possible in general. The only thing that can be done is to compare a sample of an organism's DNA with known genetically modified organisms to identify whether that sample is a known genetically modified organism.
I suppose implicit in what you are saying is that if we could produce the same end product (that we can't tell apart with tests) by selective breeding or direct manipulation then we don't have anything to worry about since no-one is questioning the safety of selective breeding. Well, as I understand it, the problem is that we can't do this. Direct genetic manipulation is not as exact a science as supporters make out.
If we can selectively breed defensive chemicals and Round-Up resistant organisms, then we should as they are probably low risk because we are using time-tested methods. Directly modified organisms won't be the same and they belong in the lab until we understand them more.
Perhaps you know of a way to selectively breed a cabbage which produces it's own pesticides? That's what they do with GMOs.
That's not a weasel paragraph. It is saying that certain experiments have not been yet replicated and so we can't prove or disprove the original experiments. It means we need to do more research.
Dr Hyland provides references to his claims about "groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies" and the "human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal". I wouldn't want to dismiss these claims without checking the references.
Just because Dr Hyland's paper refers to GSM and TETRA radiation, it doesn't mean he is being dishonest. It happens to be a hot topic as you say and people want to know particularly about that issue. I'm sure Dr Hyland is well aware of other sources of radiation that are of concern. In his paper he talks about and references studies on TV and radio transmitters, cordless phones and radar. It is just possible that mobile phone radiation is a greater priority now.
There is still ongoing research and concern about all the types of radiation you have mentioned, and more, including radiation from power lines. No-one is saying that only GSM signals have a biological affect. It is just a one aspect that is being studied.
I'll address some major points from what you have said.
Firstly, you are saying that Dr Lai and others are committing fraud because they make us believe that electromagnetic radiation behaves in a special way towards biological organisms and we can't just examine chemical reactions.
I don't believe there is any fraud being committed. A paper by Gerard Hyland at http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/hyland_basestati
He says "the living organism [is] an electromagnetic instrument of great and exquisite sensitivity that is able to recognise and discern the presence of external electromagnetic radiation informationally, by decoding (demodulating) its various frequency characteristics" and "non-thermal influences of an informational kind are possible only when the organism is alive".
He also mentions interactions that don't require aliveness: "particularly if the frequency of the radiation matches or is close to that of an organised (collective) electrical vibration of a molecule".
It would be appear there is a genuine reason to believe that aliveness matters and this means there is no fraud, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. There is a genuine belief that research on living organisms is useful.
You say that exposing rats to 0.1 mT is not relevant because humans are unlikely to be exposed to such levels. Actually it is a useful experiment because it still allows us to learn something about radiation at non-thermal intensities. It may be easier to observer affects at these higher intensities than lower ones and provides a good starting point. There is always a question about whether thermal affects are coming into play, and we need to check that the researchers have designed their experiments properly. However, the studies do purport to be at non-thermal levels.
Now moving on to your points about Dr Lai's statement that "Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields do not contain enough energy to affect chemical bonds in molecules directly."
I'm confused about what you have written. You are correct to say that "In fact, ionizing electromagnetic fields are very, very strong. They cause electrons to be completely liberated from the atoms to which they were attached". This is true by definition. However, the statement is about non-ionizing electromagnetic fields which, by definition, are not strong enough to liberate electrons from atoms. Dr Lai is really just stating this definition.
Then you say "Actually, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields often promote chemical reactions" but you use an example of ultraviolet light which is not non-ionizing; it is ionizing. As you say, it is "especially energetic".
So I think there is some confusion here about ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation and no reason to call Dr Lai a liar unless I'm missing something.
The "junk science" label gets thrown around a lot but it is highly subjective.
If the risk of a disorder is 1 in 50000 then in the United States population of 293 million there would be 5860 people afflicted. Tell them there is no point worrying.
The article in question only talks about acoustic neuromas. What if there are other health affects that we haven't found? The overall rate could be a lot higher.