Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

[pbrinton]

No Government research here folks (certainly none that supports the claims being made.)

First of all, this is a bibliography, a list of papers and other sources that mention the subject in some way. It does not even list the individual findings, let alone describe the methodology used to derive the findings, or such basic information as the strength of the radiation or distance and duration of exposure. There is also a list of all the symptoms mentioned somewhere in all these publications.

The author states below the list of symptoms:

"Note: These effects are listed without comment or endorsement since the literature abounds with conflicting reports. In some cases the basis for reporting an “effect” was a single or a non-statistical observation which may have been drawn from a poorly conceived (and poorly executed) experiment."

And the "Government" part says:

"The comments upon and criticism of the literature made in this report, and the recommendations and inferences suggested, are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Navy Department or of the Naval Service."

So if this is your best source you seem to have more regard for its usefulness than even its author does.

Patrick Brinton


Once again, government research .
Adverse Bioeffects of EMF Radiation Shown in Government Research Going Back Decades (https://www.defendershield.com/adverse-bioeffects-emf-radiation-shown-government-research-going-back-decades/)

[Scott McKeown]

I'm not necessarily pro-Smart Meter or anti-Smart Meter but I found this report interesting. Maybe it's already been posted in this discussion thread. Apologies if so.

https://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf

Not all "science" reports or "studies" are created equal. There are high quality science reports and studies and not so high quality science reports and studies. And peer review matters.

This is a comprehensive report titled, "Health Impacts of Radio Frequency Exposure From Smart Meters" issued by the California Council on Science and Technology. The California Council on Science and Technology is an impressive group with Council and Board members hailing from the California Institute of Technology, University of California, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center, etc. etc.

In this age of anti-expertise, I realize that in some people's minds such institutional expertise immediately disqualifies it from being valid. Perhaps the hundreds of people who are involved from such a wide range of respected research institutions are all part of some Deep State conspiracy, or at least so the thinking goes. Bloggers and websites run by individuals with no serious experience at all in the field are, apparently, to be more trusted.

Here is my view on this issue: as in just about everything, dosage matters.

Scott

[Barry]

I'm not necessarily pro-Smart Meter or anti-Smart Meter but I found this report interesting. Maybe it's already been posted in this discussion thread. Apologies if so.

https://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf ...

Here's the summary from the report:

KEY REPORT FINDINGS

Wireless smart meters, when installed and properly maintained, result in much smaller levels of radio frequency (RF) exposure than many existing common household electronic devices, particularly cell phones and microwave ovens.
The current FCC standard provides an adequate factor of safety against known thermally induced health impacts of existing common household electronic devices and smart meters.
To date, scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non-thermal impacts of RF emissions such as those produced by existing common household electronic devices and smart meters.
Not enough is currently known about potential non-thermal impacts of radio frequency emissions to identify or recommend additional standards for such impacts

[arthunter]

Are we looking at the same page? When I click on the links in this article government files are opened with pages and pages of medical conclusions about the bioeffects of emf fields, especially the last link????
No Government research here folks (certainly none that supports the claims being made.)...

[arthunter]

Those of us who are concerned have lots of company. Governments or organizations that ban or warn against wifi https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128

[arthunter]

More of the same. Just look at this. Are all of these countries just stupid? I would love to know that this technology is safe, but the warnings are just overwhelming
https://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/worldwide-countries-taking-action.html

[barfly]

I noticed that this cellphonetaskforce list makes reference to a supposed filing by ARRL's Bioeffects Committee to the FCC. Since I'm a long time ARRL member with access to all of their web info, I wanted to see not the pull-quote but the entire filing to read in context. I couldn't find it in ARRL records or on the FCC web site.

The ARRL is a highly respected organization. The referenced quote implies that the ARRL supports their position, which is absolutely false. For example, the same referenced Bioeffects Committee, now known as the ARRL RF Safety Committee, issued this statement regarding the "Bioinitiative Report":

A relatively small group of scientists whose research and publications have been widely discredited by the RF safety scientific community has formed and is going on the offensive. They have published the “Bioinitiative Report,” which features only the discredited research and ignores the bulk of the research that has been performed on electromagnetic bioeffects. This publication is often quoted by those who wish to place excessive limitation on RF transmissions. This group has now gotten the attention of the new administration in Washington, DC. The IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation, COMAR, sent a response to the President’s Cancer Panel, that their summary of the perceived dangers of RF exposure “does not provide a balanced and objective analysis of the currently available scientific and medical evidence describing the association of RF exposure and tumor development.”<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


Those of us who are concerned have lots of company. Governments or organizations that ban or warn against wifi https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128

[pbrinton]

Are we looking at the same page? When I click on the links in this article government files are opened with pages and pages of medical conclusions about the bioeffects of emf fields, especially the last link????I clicked on the first link in the paragraph headed "What Government Research Has Found". After seeing the quality of their first linked source (one might assume they put their best material at the top, right?) I did not want to waste time looking at any more links.

If you expect people to be impressed by your evidence, you might be well advised to link directly to the material you think is strongest, rather than to a page that itself is at best confusing and in some places downright nonsensical and which links to the kind of material that I critiqued.

You say now that the last link is the best; do you expect readers who are not already believers is your cause (since believers are not going to bother anyway, and you are engaged in a debate with non-believers) to wade through a bunch of junk to get to the jewels?

I will often click on such links because I am curious and willing to look at real evidence. When my time is wasted I lose sympathy with the cause.

Please link directly to actual peer reviewed well conducted double-blind studies that include their methodology, exposure levels, frequency and strength of radiation and all the details needed to form a valid judgement on the subject. Anything short of this is wasting our collective time and attention. And please do not respond with a post with 50 links. Hit us with your very best two or three that meet these criteria.

Patrick Brinton

[Sieglinde]

Here is the real danger. I have not had any wifi issues after having my Smartmeter installed.
https://www.smartdatacollective.com/smart-meters-kill-wifi-not-people/

[arthunter]

Sorry, but I do not agree with your opinions at all. The first link is indeed research conducted by the Naval Medical Research Institute into the Biological Phenomena and Clinical Manifestations attributed to Microwave and Radio Frequency Exposure. What they've done is quite amazing. They have listed biological responses to emf and catalogued over 2000 references which relate to these bioeffects. And you think that there's no relevance to this discussion? Really? I find the very list of bioeffects to be important, especially given the source of this report.
Of course, there will be a disclaimer as there always is when creating a reference only publication. The other two links are equally important and I'm sorry that you missed them.

I'm not instructing others on this thread about how to do their research. What to include and what to leave out. I want to see it all. And I am not here to "impress" anyone. This is not a contest

This is a matter of public safety which many countries have acknowledged and acted upon.


I clicked on the first link in the paragraph headed "What Government Research Has Found". After seeing the quality of their first linked source (one might assume they put their best material at the top, right?) I did not want to waste time looking at any more links. ...

[arthunter]

I also could not find the origin of this quote but, because I am not a member of this organization, I do not have access to archives. What I did find are many references to the quote, including a press release for a lawsuit in Oregon about wifi in schools. One would think that this organization would have responded to this by now if indeed the quote is fabricated.


I noticed that this cellphonetaskforce list makes reference to a supposed filing by ARRL's Bioeffects Committee to the FCC. Since I'm a long time ARRL member with access to all of their web info, I wanted to see not the pull-quote but the entire filing to read in context. I couldn't find it in ARRL records or on the FCC web site....

[podfish]

Sorry, but I do not agree with your opinions at all. The first link is indeed research conducted by the Naval Medical Research Institute into the Biological Phenomena and Clinical Manifestations attributed to Microwave and Radio Frequency Exposure. . ...
well, to be accurate, the first link is to the advocacy site 'defendershield.com'. They in turn link to the NMRI report. The disclaimer Patrick refers to is on page 7. I don't think your interpretation of the report is correct, plus your casual dismissal of disclaimers kind of voids the point of having one, doesn't it??
In his forward, the author calls this document a bibliography, not a research paper. It's a collection of other papers, with (again, as Patrick says) no value judgements implied about their quality. The NMRI paper itself noticably does not make any inferences; all it does is collect a list of claimed physical effects and papers that discuss them.

If anything, this rebuts one of the pro-EMF-effect position: there is indeed a sizable body of research, and yet there's no concensus about the harm EMF can do. It's difficult to believe most scientists are ignoring a huge number of papers, since the NMRI itself has collected them. It's more likely that no strong case has yet been made despite the issue getting attention. It's instructive to consider climate change, which shows the reverse conditions: there's a lot of research done and in this case the consensus is that indeed it does exist. The only thing in common between the two is the accusation that (some) corporations and politicians deny the problems exist. The difference is that the scientific community at large accepts one as proven, and the other as not.

[arthunter]

Thank you for your opinion.

well, to be accurate, ....

[podfish]

Thank you for your opinion.yeah, I thought the logic was quite compelling :wink:

[Sasu]

There are many comments in rebuttal to the CCST report. Notable is Dr. Raymond Neutra (retired Chief of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control after 27 years at the California Department of Public Health, and head of the EMF program at CDPH)

Dr. Neutra concludes his letter, "This is not the way I would like to see public policy pursued. Unfortunately you are not alone in this pattern of language use, hidden assumptions and making the uncertain seem certain so a to provide cover for policy."



* * * * *

<header class="entry-header">Scientists Challenge CCST Conclusions
</header> The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Smart Meter Report, Health Impacts of Radio Frequency From Smart Meters (https://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf) was released in April, 2011. This report was produced in response to California Assembly members Jared Huffman (Marin) and Bill Monning (Santa Cruz) inquiry into the safety of smart meter wireless technology and the possible inadequacy of the federal radio frequency radiation (RF) safety standards.

International science and medical experts from Israel, Sweden, Canada, Greece and the US criticize the CCST findings. Although previous headlines varied about the results of the study, these experts agree, the study fails to protect public health.
Elihu D Richter MD, MPH (https://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Eli_Richter_CCST_-final.pdf) from Israel is “a medical epidemiologist who has assessed source-exposure-effect relationships for many chemical and physical agents over the past 40 years.” Dr. Richter writes, “ It is fair to say that we are no longer talking about mere precaution of uncertain risk, but about prevention of highly probable and known risks. Based on the accumulating evidence, it is now fairly certain that there will be widespread adverse public health impacts.”
Dr. David Carpenter (https://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Carpenter_final_CCST.pdf), public health physician and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, New York writes, “This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies.” He calls the report “faulty” and states, “The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows stronger with each new study.”
Olle Johansson, PhD (https://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Olle_final_to_CCST.pdf), Swedish Professor from the Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute writes, “Many smart meters are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. The smart meters are being forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of smart meters with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited…”
Lukas H. Margaritis, (https://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Margaritis_Official_letter_by_Margaritis-Fragopoulou.pdf) Professor of Cell Biology and Electron Microscopy and Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, Biologist and Researcher from the University of Athens, Greece, comment, “The California Council of Science and Technology has released a report on WIRELESS SMART METERS, in which any relation with health hazards has been bypassed. It is however ‘common secret’ between the researchers in the field of electromagnetic biology that such a statement has absolutely no scientific validity…”
Raymond Richard Neutra MD, DrPH (https://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Raymond_Neutra_ccstPDF.pdf), (CA EMF program) concludes his comments by stating, “This is not the way I would like to see public policy pursued. Unfortunately you are not alone in this pattern of language use, hidden assumptions and making the uncertain seem certain so a to provide cover for policy.”
California Department of Public Health (https://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter3.pdf) commented on the CCST study stating, “CDPH suggests further review of the literature on non-thermal effects, which is complicated and controversial, but does not support a claim of no non-thermal health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields.”
Dr. Carl Maret (https://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter35dove.pdf)

The CCST has now posted all comments online https://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/






https://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf

Not all "science" reports or "studies" are created equal. There are high quality science reports and studies and not so high quality science reports and studies. And peer review matters.

This is a comprehensive report titled, "Health Impacts of Radio Frequency Exposure From Smart Meters" issued by the California Council on Science and Technology. The California Council on Science and Technology is an impressive group with Council and Board members hailing from the California Institute of Technology, University of California, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center, etc. etc.

[barfly]

I didn't say or intend to imply that the quote was fabricated. I'm finding these things are often taken out of context or misconstrued, then propagated wildly. I saw the references all looked identical, none with additional info or any link to the original. I hoped to see what the original document referred to. Since I couldn't find it, I thought ARRL's statement regarding Bioinitiative was instructive as to their findings.

The FCC issues a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), followed by a period of public comment. This quote is likely one sentence taken from an NPRM comment submitted by ARRL. My best guess, given the date of the comment as 1994, wasn't there an FCC report & order issued in 1996 revising the exposure limits?

ARRL certainly is concerned with RF safety and part of that R&O was to update licensing requirements to include information pertaining to current FCC exposure limits and how to insure compliance.

And no, I don't think ARRL would necessarily respond about some web sites posting this quote from '94. Who would they respond to?


I also could not find the origin of this quote but, because I am not a member of this organization, I do not have access to archives. What I did find are many references to the quote, including a press release for a lawsuit in Oregon about wifi in schools. One would think that this organization would have responded to this by now if indeed the quote is fabricated.

[barfly]

Advocacy site? That seems pretty generous. It looks to me like a web store intended to frighten people into spending hard earned money on expensive, questionable products. The first thing I see is a "faux leather" cell phone case for $79.99.

"...revolutionary cell phone radiation shield uniquely structured to provide total protection from cell phone radiation without affecting signal quality."

Will someone please explain to me how this case prevents the phone from radiating, yet the phone still works?


the first link is to the advocacy site 'defendershield.com'

[Milgram Experiment]

I apologize for not getting back to you earlier as I do help people in the real world. I'm on the front line meeting those that are suffering and helping them mitigate their exposure. Once the exposure is gone so is the list of symptoms. I do this day in and day out. Standards set by the FCC is an absolute joke and a disgrace to the community. People thinking they are looking out for them are naive.


Have you tracked how often and how powerful the signal is? I suspect that the Smart Meter is not transmitting all the time.

[Milgram Experiment]

The problem with your theory is that the heart doesn't react every time the smart meter fires off a signal. I have spent thousands of hours testing with RF and electric fields. The galvanic skin response seems to react for longer periods of time every time. For seconds and not quick bursts. The environment was controlled and monitored with RF and electric field strength measuring devices. Another video coming soon addressing concerns raised. We appreciate all the skeptics as it helps strengthen the case.


There are a number of fine books on how to design experiments. Doing one in an uncontrolled environment is probably first on the list of don'ts. There needs to be more than one subject that complains of EMF problems and there needs to be a placebo affect (subject told that there is a Smartmeter next to his head and it is actually deactivated) You will need the specs of a Smartmeter to simulate what they actually do. This was just a story not a real experiment. You would need persons with medical and engineering expertise. I would recommend that it not be done in a home which has wiring, outside EMF etc. I suspect my wifi router is giving wifi out to my neighbors. Your environment would have to be better controlled. Bad experiment design which is actually designed to get the results that you want is very BAD SCIENCE.

[Milgram Experiment]

The American system relies on sick people. The doctors don't want to know what the problem is,. remember they "practice" medicine. They keep a blind eye to the cause as there is no money involved. How many doctors go to the home? You could be sleeping next to a big bottle of poison and they wouldn't care. They rely on your ill health....that's their job. There's lots of money in "treatment". I'll let the reader figure out how many jobs would be lost if people weren't sick. Big pharma, health insurance, doctors, clinics/hospitals, and the media.

Anyone can try and sprout seeds next to their WiFi router and figure out there is a problem. You don't need a paper or lab to watch the results, but they will scream that you do. Either use some common sense or listen to the doubters steering you into misery. No one really cares. I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror.

[arthunter]

Thanking you for your opinion does not mean that I agree with it... There's a reason that this research was done. Perhaps, as stated, it was to enable other researchers to access the huge body of literature which exists for this subject, both pro and con. In my eyes it was never meant to prove the theories, only to list the bioeffects under discussion and the resources available. This is important info, IMO.

Once again the baby is thrown out with the bath water. In the rush to discredit this information, the other references to government research have been ignored. Also ignored are the references to legal actions taken in foreign countries. I find this interesting. Obviously, other nations are not as willing to subscribe to technocracy .



yeah, I thought the logic was quite compelling :wink:

[podfish]

... The doctors don't want to know what the problem is,. remember they "practice" medicine. They keep a blind eye to the cause as there is no money involved. How many doctors go to the home? You could be sleeping next to a big bottle of poison and they wouldn't care.....your doctors must suck. I know a lot of doctors, some of them really well. I've never met one like you describe, though I have had some doctors describe a few colleagues that way (in particular, supervisors in prison healthcare). But hey, go ahead and base your argument on blanket condemnation of a whole class of people.

[Trail_Goddess]

Good grief! I am so sick of this baseless conspiracy theory tripe. There is plenty wrong with our system of healthcare(primary due to access), yet our average lifespan has almost doubled since the beginning of the 20th century! If doctors and medicine are trying to harm us they obviously suck at it.

The American system relies on sick people. The doctors don't want to know what the problem is,. remember they "practice" medicine. They keep a blind eye to the cause as there is no money involved. ...

[Barry]

... Anyone can try and sprout seeds next to their WiFi router and figure out there is a problem. You don't need a paper or lab to watch the results, but they will scream that you do. ...

https://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/595/animated-plant-image-0075.gif

That sounds like a nice easy experiment.
Anybody care to try it, along with sprouting seeds in a similar environment away from your router and report back? :waccosun:

[Trail_Goddess]

Sorry, but in the absence of proper scientific method the only thing this would confirm is that we will all just see what we already believe. Here's the Snopes on the results of this experiment.
https://www.snopes.com/cress-wifi-experiment/


That sounds like a nice easy experiment.
Anybody care to try it, along with sprouting seeds in a similar environment away from your router and report back? :waccosun:

[barfly]

I was about to post the same Snopes article link, but you beat me to it! For those that won't bother with it or reading to the end, here's the conclusion:

"It is true that in May 2013 a small school science project was done by five Danish schoolgirls, its findings cyclically reported and shared on social media for years thereafter. Although anti-technology sites continue to present the claim as novel and credible, seasoned researchers almost immediately identified significant flaws in the methodology. At least one attempt (https://www.eurekaselect.com/141391/article) was made to replicate the results of the teenagers’ research, but no information emerged between May 2013 and April 2017 to suggest it was ever determined that wifi definitively stunts the growth of cress, or any other plant."

I don't agree that no one should bother. There's no point in seeing this from someone like Paul Harding (Milgram Experiment), who already has both a reputation for producing misleading, false info, as well as having a significant financial interest in the result.

However, this experiment is so simple that it can easily be done. Just be sure to take pictures at intervals starting from day one, include some that clearly show the room, position of plant trays & router, any details of light source, heater vents, and so on that might influence the results. Then keep a notebook and document everything. Use a pen, never erase. If you write something in error, strike a line through it. Water with a measuring cup. A thermometer next to each set of plants would be nice.

Any experiment is subject to errors. Being a good scientist does not require having perfect equipment, an unlimited budget, 100% controlled environment. It *does* require thinking critically about the possible sources of error, quantifying as best you can, documenting everything and incorporating error analysis into your results.


Sorry, but in the absence of proper scientific method the only thing this would confirm is that we will all just see what we already believe. Here's the Snopes on the results of this experiment.
https://www.snopes.com/cress-wifi-experiment/

[Trail_Goddess]

Absolutely give it a shot if you like! My point about scientific method is that without it we see the results as supporting what we believe because that's how we roll. Science is the best way humans have come up with to keep from fooling ourselves, and we are very prone to fooling ourselves! If what you believe is not true do you want to know? Then science is how to do that.

[arthunter]

Quite a list of signatories here...
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

And a page of research:
https://www.saferemr.com/2015/09/recent-research-on-wifi-effects.html?m=1

[Sasu]

This is a ppt from the California Dept of Public Health from 2009- before smart meters were deployed. Note the science known- EMF linked to leukemia and brain tumors, children more vulnerable...
https://ehib.org/cehtp/cehtp.org/emf/pdf/EMF_Webinar_CDPH_10_26_09.pdf

A Range of Reasons for Precaution
Raymond Richard Neutra MD DrPH

(2)Wrong Question for a Health Officer to Answer

• Are all scientists virtually certain that there is some health risk from transmission lines, cell phones, cordless phones and cell base stations?

(3)Right Questions

• “How certain must we be of how much ill-health from cell phones, cordless phones and base stations before we would opt for cheap or expensive protection? “
• What precautionary options are available?

[podfish]

This is a ppt from the California Dept of Public Health from 2009- before smart meters were deployed. Note the science known- EMF linked to leukemia and brain tumors, children more vulnerable......

(3)Right Questions

• “How certain must we be of how much ill-health from cell phones, cordless phones and base stations before we would opt for cheap or expensive protection? “
• What precautionary options are available?
I agree with the identification of the 'right questions', but I'm confused why you think this supports your usual position. I read it exactly opposite. They express some concern, but not much. They do want further research, but don't seem to find anything that can be considered definitive. For example, here are many of the slides:

Breast Cancer Early Evidence „
Epidemiologic studies largely negative „ None designed to test specific hypothesis „ Animal studies inconsistent „ German and US results inconsistent „ Several laboratories report effects in MCF-7 cells „ Effect seen only in certain type of cells „ ? relevance

Breast Cancer „ Well-designed residential and occupational studies with comprehensive exposure assessment found no indications of increased risk „ The weight of the evidence available today suggests that power frequency magnetic field exposure is not a risk factor for female breast cancer development

IARC and WHO Evaluation Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF) 2002, 2007
ELF magnetic fields classified as Group 2B “Possibly Carcinogenic” based on „ limited human data (epidemiologic studies) of childhood leukaemia. „ inadequate animal data. „ Other exposures and outcomes considered “inadequate to classify”

==== And the summary:

Interpretations for policy development
Not proven – no need for action „ Low/no cost PP based on childhood leukemia (Kheifets et al. 2005, WHO 2007) „ Enough evidence for 0.2 µT limit according to Kundi et al. (2006) „ Extrapolation from tox leads to 10 µT Limit (Valberg 2006) „ Other outcomes (adult leukemia, brain, breast cancer, ALS, miscarriage) need to be considered thus much larger expense justifiable under PP (Henshaw et al. 2007, Bioinitiative 2008)

[Shandi]

Not all scientists are unbiased, and many are paid hefty sums to come up with certain conclusions, like the religious "scientists" that have "proved" that the earth was created in 7 days. They have a vested interest in gathering more sheeples. And they're just one example...


Absolutely give it a shot if you like! My point about scientific method is that without it we see the results as supporting what we believe because that's how we roll. Science is the best way humans have come up with to keep from fooling ourselves, and we are very prone to fooling ourselves! If what you believe is not true do you want to know? Then science is how to do that.

[Sasu]

Leeka Kheifets is a scientist hired by PG&E to say there's no problem. So the fact she expresses some concern, PRIOR to the smart meter roll-out is significant. Jack Sahl works for Southern California Edison (SCE). The CPUC has a no and low cost EMF program they ignored to deploy millions of watts of smart meters.


I agree with the identification of the 'right questions', but I'm confused why you think this supports your usual position...They express some concern, but not much. They do want further research, but don't seem to find anything that can be considered definitive.

[Sieglinde]

I would like to see epidemiological studies from areas that first did not have Smart meters and then after they were installed. I remember first hearing about them when I lived in another town and the main concern was privacy. (Indoor Marijuna grows?) but that was about 8 years ago and I don't know when they first started installing them. Remember each EMF exposure is different. Living under high tension lines is far different, for example, than a device that may not be constantly radiating radio frequency radiation.


This is a ppt from the California Dept of Public Health from 2009- before smart meters were deployed. Note the science known- EMF linked to leukemia and brain tumors, children more vulnerable...
https://ehib.org/cehtp/cehtp.org/emf/pdf/EMF_Webinar_CDPH_10_26_09.pdf

[Sieglinde]

Scientists, who are competent, will publish results in juried scientific journals. To my knowledge, the creation scientists have never had an article approved for publication. These are peer reviewed articles. It would have to be quite a conspiracy to have a bunch of scientists game that system. BTW, my bias is that I have total contempt for conspiracy theories.


Not all scientists are unbiased, and many are paid hefty sums to come up with certain conclusions,...

[Trail_Goddess]

Not only are not all scientists unbiased, I would go so far as to say all scientists ARE biased, because they are human. The power of science is that conclusions are crowd-sourced among experts, and are self-correcting with new evidence. Individual quirky opinions average out, and ideas have to go through the meat-grinder of peer-review and the scientific community.

The scientific process, as imperfect as it is because it is executed by humans, is the closest thing we have to a pure meritocracy, and it works better than any other known way of understanding reality. Again, if you're actually interested in knowing what you believe is based in reality and not only on what you want to be true, you have to be willing to use scientific method and except tested, peer reviewed evidence even when it doesn't show the results you want. Adapting the consensus of a robust majority of experts in a field takes logic and evidence, and is constantly being worked on. It's how we get a more accurate working model of reality.

Not all scientists are unbiased, and many are paid hefty sums to come up with certain conclusions, like the religious "scientists" that have "proved" that the earth was created in 7 days. They have a vested interest in gathering more sheeples. And they're just one example...

[podfish]

Leeka Kheifets is a scientist hired by PG&E to say there's no problem. So the fact she expresses some concern, PRIOR to the smart meter roll-out is significant. Jack Sahl works for Southern California Edison (SCE). The CPUC has a no and low cost EMF program they ignored to deploy millions of watts of smart meters.guilt by association? anyway, that doesn't offer anything to change my perspective: there's no proof that there's harm, and there are people involved in trying to find out if some harm potentially exists, so there's unlikely to be some sudden revelation that this has all along been really bad for us all. There's enough supporting information for those who are concerned to stay concerned, it's not an imaginary issue like chemtrail poisoning, but again from my point of view there are a lot of environmental and behavioral hazards far more threatening that we tolerate every day. There still are few things in our lives as dangerous as our cars, for example.

[podfish]

Not all scientists are unbiased, and many are paid hefty sums to come up with certain conclusions, like the religious "scientists" that have "proved" that the earth was created in 7 days. They have a vested interest in gathering more sheeples. And they're just one example...babies and bathwater? This resonates of a quote I used a while ago, from our boy who grudgingly admitted that some (scientists), he assumes, are good people. Hey, maybe most are.

and anyway, the point of the scientific method is to minimize that kind of problem.

[Sasu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YBxyY8FoOs


babies and bathwater? This resonates of a quote I used a while ago, from our boy who grudgingly admitted that some (scientists), he assumes, are good people. Hey, maybe most are.

and anyway, the point of the scientific method is to minimize that kind of problem.

[Sasu]

Dr. Louis Slesin has been reporting on EMF science for decades. This is an excerpt of a tribute to the late scientist Dr. NP Singh.

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/singh-comet-assay-radiation-research

Singh published his landmark paper on the comet assay in 1988 based on his studies of the DNA damage caused by X-rays…

A few years later, Singh turned his attention to the non-ionizing side of the radiation spectrum. He moved to the University of Washington in 1994 where Henry Lai was running experiments exposing animals to microwaves. They would continue to work together for the next 22 years. (Lai retired five years ago.) Like so many others, Singh paid dearly for the decision to do microwave research. It would change his professional and personal life. Singh felt as if he had fallen through the looking glass and entered a twilight zone where science was in the service of money and politics…

I got to know Singh in the mid-1990’s after he and Henry Lai surprised just about everyone with the news that microwaves could cause DNA breaks in the brains of rats. News of their findings leaked out and spread quickly within industry circles. Even before they had published their first paper together, operatives from Motorola and the CTIA, the powerful industry lobby group, came to their lab to see what they could find out…

In the wake of Reynard’s allegations, CTIA, led by Tom Wheeler, pledged research to rebut all health claims. Wheeler brought in George Carlo, a Washington-based fixer, to help him put out the fire. The strategy was simple: Do as little as possible to resolve the science. …

[Shandi]

Does this mean that you don't believe in conspiracies?


..BTW, my bias is that I have total contempt for conspiracy theories.

[Trail_Goddess]

Does this mean that you don't believe in conspiracies?
Conspiracy is just a term for people working together, often in secret or/and unpleasantly — and I mean “or”, because you can conspire to have a secret birthday party. Conspiracy theory is a explanation of events that is based in speculation that is devoid of evidence.

[podfish]

....Conspiracy theory is a explanation of events that is based in speculation that is devoid of evidence.that depends on your standards for accepting evidence. I again refer to chemtrails. Those who worry about them think they have evidence in their favor. As we all are seeing these days, there are always at least two sets of facts to choose from.

[Trail_Goddess]

Evidence of chemtrails would include specific information on the act taking place that is able to be documented and verified. People going on about something that could happen isn't evidence that it has happened. Or you could claim that crop dusters are chemtrails! They kind of are, and there is very good evidence that they exist!

that depends on your standards for accepting evidence. I again refer to chemtrails. Those who worry about them think they have evidence in their favor. As we all are seeing these days, there are always at least two sets of facts to choose from.

[Trail_Goddess]

That would be facts and alternative facts?

As we all are seeing these days, there are always at least two sets of facts to choose from.

[Sieglinde]

Yep, folks posting on this don't understand that properly designed studies are made to take the bias out of science. This is what peer reviewed journals are for.


babies and bathwater? This resonates of a quote I used a while ago, from our boy who grudgingly admitted that some (scientists), he assumes, are good people. Hey, maybe most are.

and anyway, the point of the scientific method is to minimize that kind of problem.

[Sieglinde]

There are different kinds of conspiracies. Birthday parties my have two or three people working on them. The conspiracies I am talking about take hundreds of people.


Conspiracy is just a term for people working together, often in secret or/and unpleasantly — and I mean “or”, because you can conspire to have a secret birthday party. Conspiracy theory is a explanation of events that is based in speculation that is devoid of evidence.

[Shandi]

I think that a lot of us "believe" certain things, without researching the evidence for them. I have many beliefs that I've come to from personal observation, and statistics. And my beliefs have changed over time as I get more information and have more personal observations and experience.

If a professional tells me that this is better than that, I look to see how they may benefit from my believing them. I follow the money whenever possible. I don't spend a lot of time reading scientific papers, nor do I know anyone that does. It just doesn't seem like an inspiring way to spend my life. But I wouldn't put anyone down who does study scientific papers, and makes decisions and beliefs based on that.


Conspiracy is just a term for people working together, often in secret or/and unpleasantly — and I mean “or”, because you can conspire to have a secret birthday party. Conspiracy theory is a explanation of events that is based in speculation that is devoid of evidence.

[arthunter]

The politics of consumer safety ....
https://www.saferemr.com/2017/03/cell-phone-safety-guidance-from.html?m=1

[Barry]

The politics of consumer safety ....
https://www.saferemr.com/2017/03/cell-phone-safety-guidance-from.html?m=1

The basis of the article above is this article in SF Chronicle.

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-05-29_10-20-14.png
New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/New-records-show-how-state-reworked-secret-cell-11160254.php)May 19, 2017
And here are the un-published recommendations (https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/198/6/1986-Cell%20Phones%201-26-15.pdf)

[arthunter]

An interesting article about "Conspiracy Theory"...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

[arthunter]

I find myself in an interesting situation which is relevant to this thread. I decided long ago not to run wifi in my home. Since I share my home this was a condition of anyone moving in. Just recently my house mate decided to run wifi on her router to boost her cell phone reception. At first I tried to compromise and we agreed to shut off the wifi when not in use. She even showed me how to disconnect the modem using the power cord in the back. OK, I can deal with that. But then things progressed and she seemed to be on her phone constantly
At this point she forbade me from turning off the wifi saying it was a felony. Whoa.

So here we have a modern problem. Can you force someone in your environment to live with wifi? The wifi is now on 24/7.

[Milgram Experiment]

Yep, folks posting on this don't understand that properly designed studies are made to take the bias out of science. This is what peer reviewed journals are for.

Ignaz Semmelweis didn't have peer support for washing his hands between inspecting a cadaver and delivering a baby. Our economy would collapse if people knew that artificial EMR was the cause of their illness. How do I know the cause? Because of peer reviewed and published science and once the source is gone people get better. Pretty simple......It all depends on where you look. Instead of critiquing you shoud get out there and do it yourself. I know.....It's so easy to be a keyboard commando.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

[podfish]

(1) Ignaz Semmelweis didn't have peer support for washing his hands between inspecting a cadaver and delivering a baby. ...
1) he was running an experiment; peer review comes AFTER.

2) economy collapse when people find the cause of their illness? Really?? Have you noticed that a lot of people are suffering from a variety of things without many of the rest of us showing evidence of caring? Only if the majority felt ill without obvious cause would that premise make any sense (I assume you mean that if people all agreed that it was harmful, they'd force it to stop). And even if there were many people in that category, how's the widespread passion about Trump working out so far?? I doubt there's anywhere near as many who'd be outraged about WiFi (considering they'd have to give up their toys) as are currently working to get Trump out of here. Without any successes so far. And I don't see any effective efforts to stop the use of cars. Smoking's still around too.

3) anecdote isn't evidence. It's anecdote unless you're implying that the peer-reviewed science is showing that removing WiFi makes symptoms going away?? I've seen some citations of some studies with positive reports, but the whole point of this ongoing discussion is that there is at best some support for the theory - not that there's widespread evidence of it.

[arthunter]

I posted this example from my own life to illustrate an interesting point. As more info comes out about electromagnetic radiation dangers, who will be responsible for the injuries which might develop. I heard Lloyd's of London absolutely will not insure against microwave radiation, so who will victims sue? The industries who profited from this technology or the entities who forced it on the public without their consent? This is worth reading (https://www.saferemr.com/2013/05/upcoming-who-meeting-on-radiofrequency.html?m=1).

I find myself in an interesting situation which is relevant to this thread. ...

[Sieglinde]

So you believe badly done studies. That is great.


Ignaz Semmelweis didn't have peer support for washing his hands between inspecting a cadaver and delivering a baby. Our economy would collapse if people knew that artificial EMR was the cause of their illness. How do I know the cause? Because of peer reviewed and published science and once the source is gone people get better. Pretty simple......It all depends on where you look. Instead of critiquing you shoud get out there and do it yourself. I know.....It's so easy to be a keyboard commando.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

[Sieglinde]

That keyboard commando remark shows this guy is a troll or at least behaving like one. Is he a scientist? I have my doubts.


1) he was running an experiment; peer review comes AFTER.

2) economy collapse when people find the cause of their illness? Really?? Have you noticed that a lot of people are suffering from a variety of things without many of the rest of us showing evidence of caring? Only if the majority felt ill without obvious cause would that premise make any sense (I assume you mean that if people all agreed that it was harmful, they'd force it to stop). And even if there were many people in that category, how's the widespread passion about Trump working out so far?? I doubt there's anywhere near as many who'd be outraged about WiFi (considering they'd have to give up their toys) as are currently working to get Trump out of here. Without any successes so far. And I don't see any effective efforts to stop the use of cars. Smoking's still around too.

3) anecdote isn't evidence. It's anecdote unless you're implying that the peer-reviewed science is showing that removing WiFi makes symptoms going away?? I've seen some citations of some studies with positive reports, but the whole point of this ongoing discussion is that there is at best some support for the theory - not that there's widespread evidence of it.

[podfish]

I posted this example from my own life to illustrate an interesting point. As more info comes out about electromagnetic radiation dangers, who will be responsible for the injuries which might develop. I heard Lloyd's of London absolutely will not insure against microwave radiation, so who will victims sue? The industries who profited from this technology or the entities who forced it on the public without their consent? This is worth reading (https://www.saferemr.com/2013/05/upcoming-who-meeting-on-radiofrequency.html?m=1).If there are ever any proven dangers, there will be plenty of targets for lawsuits.

Lloyds probably won't insure against hurt feelings or demonic possession either; there's no reason to think that they're part of some grand conspiracy where the select few can injure the rest of us with impunity.

[Shandi]

Since this was a condition for move-in, and you are the landlady, it would seem that you can give this person notice. Her threat indicates ill will; it's not going to get better. I'd get her out ASAP.


I find myself in an interesting situation which is relevant to this thread. I decided long ago not to run wifi in my home. ...

[Sieglinde]

Your house your rules. You shouldn't need Wifi for a phone anyway. That is what cell towers are for.


Since this was a condition for move-in, and you are the landlady, it would seem that you can give this person notice. Her threat indicates ill will; it's not going to get better. I'd get her out ASAP.

[podfish]

Your house your rules. You shouldn't need Wifi for a phone anyway. That is what cell towers are for.phones use wifi for 'free'. Using the cell tower will require a data plan and cost more.

[arthunter]

Oh thanks folks ..

Yes, I could put my foot down and throw her out but I think that I'm dealing with an addiction here. Look up "Brain Hacking", 60 minutes, about cell phone addiction.. this is not normal use we're talking about.

[rossmen]

Or maybe it is the new normal. I reserve addiction as a self defined term, as in do we regret our own frequent behavior? Maybe her phone is her route to happiness. I do disagree with your tenant that turning off the wifi is a felony, bs.


...Yes, I could put my foot down and throw her out but I think that I'm dealing with an addiction here....

[podfish]

I do disagree with your tenant that turning off the wifi is a felony, bs.she's likely heard somewhere that it's illegal to jam radio signals and unconsciously extrapolated. It's true - don't jam the WiFi. Turning it off is fine, and I think shielding to block signals is fine too. 'Course IANAL either. (fun acronym)

[Sieglinde]

I would have never moved into a place with wifi restrictions. I use wifi to watch TV. I cut the cable.


phones use wifi for 'free'. Using the cell tower will require a data plan and cost more.

[Sieglinde]

I would throw out a drug user or an alcoholic if they were disruptive to my household. What is the difference?


Yes, I could put my foot down and throw her out but I think that I'm dealing with an addiction here. ...

[Milgram Experiment]

Nobody is going to force anything to stop. Especially when we are in love with our smart phones. I say this while viewing a study reinforcing how they actually make you dumber. https://www.businessinsider.com/smartphones-make-you-dumber-cognitive-capacity-study-2017-6

Classic troll tactic....throwing in Trump's name has nothing to do with the discussion. If you wanted to point fingers maybe we could look at your friends Tom Wheeler or maybe Al Gore (Silver Spring Networks)? Just sitting here thinking of all the people that relied on their misled guidance.....true enemies of humanity.

You can choose to drive a car 100 miles an hour and smoke till you are blue. The great thing is the utility isn't forcing you to do it and if you don't they aren't charging you a fee not to. :wink:

Widespread evidence? Yes, I witness positive results consistently. It depends on where you look. Sitting behind a computer screen Googling for evidence probably won't work as well as hands on. Just my opinion.

[Milgram Experiment]

Maybe a WiFi router next to your bed sitting on a nightstand? :thumbsup:


I would have never moved into a place with wifi restrictions. I use wifi to watch TV. I cut the cable.

[podfish]

Maybe a WiFi router next to your bed sitting on a nightstand? :thumbsup:no way, that's dangerous...

You might get up in the night and trip over the wire.
:rofl:

[podfish]

.... I reserve addiction as a self defined term, as in do we regret our own frequent behavior? ....O.T. but addiction can be defined as having a physically-measurable component. Its colloqial use is one thing, but misdefining it lends support to the just-say-no crowd.

[arthunter]

I do hope that those of you who believe that it is safe to live in a constant soup of EMF radiation are right because it's about to get a whole lot worse. I don't have the knowledge to agree with this women's opinions at the end of the video regarding fascism, etc
but the rest of it is factual and based on local news. My house mate did try to turn off the wifi but our router is still showing it as operational. It seems that Comcast thinks it has the right to turn your modem into a wifi hotspot .

and on it goes ... The missing ingredient? ... Choice!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=em-uploademail&v=ycQmarqLKwE

[rossmen]

Comcast is just trying to serve you, as in reducing customer calls. Wifi seems to be transitioning from a choice to a right. Pushing back against change makes you evil in the modern world. To be the devil, the only greater power is to be godchrist. Making the world a better place involves holding steady as much as embracing change.


... My house mate did try to turn off the wifi but our router is still showing it as operational. It seems that Comcast thinks it has the right to turn your modem into a wifi hotspot.

[Sieglinde]

This is why restaurants etc. cannot install cell phone jammers. Would be nice in church but again, no jammers.


she's likely heard somewhere that it's illegal to jam radio signals and unconsciously extrapolated. It's true - don't jam the WiFi. Turning it off is fine, and I think shielding to block signals is fine too. 'Course IANAL either. (fun acronym)

[Sieglinde]

What is the but? Your house your rules. She, like me may not believe that wifi signals are harmful but you do. So your house your rules.


Yes, I could put my foot down and throw her out but I think that I'm dealing with an addiction here.

[podfish]

....Classic troll tactic....throwing in Trump's name has nothing to do with the discussion. If you wanted to point fingers maybe we could look at your friends Tom Wheeler or maybe Al Gore (Silver Spring Networks)?...hey, at least I avoided bringing in Hitler (oops, just did).

and sorry, I have no idea who Tom Wheeler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler) is. I do know who Saul Alinsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) is, though. Does that count?

[arthunter]

5g technology will be run on the same frequency as crowd control weaponry. Interesting. I will be continuing with this research on my blog...

https://www.sott.net/article/345599-5G-networks-will-use-the-same-frequencies-as-pain-inflicting-crowd-control-weapons

[Barry]

... My house mate did try to turn off the wifi but our router is still showing it as operational. It seems that Comcast thinks it has the right to turn your modem into a wifi hotspot.

Just unplug it! :idea:

[Milgram Experiment]

hey, at least I avoided bringing in Hitler (oops, just did).

and sorry, I have no idea who Tom Wheeler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler) is. I do know who Saul Alinsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) is, though. Does that count?

Why am I not surprised. Tom Wheeler ran the FCC under the Obama administration. He was also head of the cell phone industry many years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ZdeLpCHbc Could be compared to Joseph Goebbels.

[sharingwisdom]

Cell tower engineer whistleblower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnthtcjX0A0&sns=fb


5g technology will be run on the same frequency as crowd control weaponry. Interesting. I will be continuing with this research on my blog...

https://www.sott.net/article/345599-5G-networks-will-use-the-same-frequencies-as-pain-inflicting-crowd-control-weapons

[arthunter]

Important info ...

San Francisco Passes Cellphone Radiation Law (https://www.baycitizen.org/news/environmental-health/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation/)

Also, this woman has an interesting story. She has many videos online
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcibHTt1tTk

[arthunter]

25 million dollar study about cell phones and cancer. I did not post the first link above. I've never seen it before


NIH National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Study
(https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiofrequency-radiation-study/)

[spam1]

What to make of the apparent life extending result for exposed vs. not exposed. Can both be true? (possible increase in cancer in male rats AND extended life in male rats?). If true, is it a good trade off (extended life but higher possibility of cancer?).

25 million dollar study about cell phones and cancer.

NIH National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Study (https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiofrequency-radiation-study/)

[arthunter]

My husband, who is the greatest technology advocate that I know ( built his own computer before they were commercially available ), also denies that there's any danger. He's experiencing his second incidence of cancer, the first incidence occurring on his neck where he held his cell phone. Talk to him about the joys of cancer.


What to make of the apparent life extending result for exposed vs. not exposed. Can both be true? (possible increase in cancer in male rats AND extended life in male rats?). If true, is it a good trade off (extended life but higher possibility of cancer?).

[arthunter]

This is a page from Environmental Health Trust that I just came across regarding wifi, etc., .. thought that I should share...

Cancer Expert Declares Cell Phone And Wireless Radiation As Carcinogenic To Humans (https://ehtrust.org/cancer-expert-declares-cell-phone-wireless-radiation-carcinogenic-humans/)