"Growing, Growing, Gone?" imagine a world with only 900 million people-just 200 yrs ago!!

2008 6.6 billion
2000 6.1 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1800 900 million
1700 615 million
1000 275 million
1 A.D. 180 million
1000 B.C. 120 million
2000 B.C. 100 million

*2030 estimate is over 8 billion
source: Schott's Almanac / Page-a-day calandar

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

2008 6.6 billion
2000 6.1 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1800 900 million
1700 615 million
1000 275 million
1 A.D. 180 million
1000 B.C. 120 million
2000 B.C. 100 million

*2030 estimate is over 8 billion
source: Schott's Almanac / Page-a-day calandar

---

The future might not be as awesome as predicted here as the world's fertility rate has been on the steady decline for a good half of a century. If things keep going the way they are, 2 billion more people by 2030 probably won't become a reality. Does anyone wish to discuss why the world's total fertility rate has been taking such a drastic hit? Also, why are males losing their ability to reproduce? I have my theories, but I'd love to hear from others in the community.

https://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ity+rate+world

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/05/11/1428.aspx

Which is why it's so odd that population control is never talked about w.r.t. global warming, climate change, pandemics etc. 1.3 B chinese, 1.2 billion indians, .3 US, .25 Indonesia. At least China has the right idea, and in the US, if it weren't for immigration the population would be about flat. Why is no one talking about this issue. Maybe smart meters will reduce sperm count; at least that would be a positive.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

2008 6.6 billion
2000 6.1 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1800 900 million
1700 615 million
1000 275 million
1 A.D. 180 million
1000 B.C. 120 million
2000 B.C. 100 million

*2030 estimate is over 8 billion
source: Schott's Almanac / Page-a-day calandar

---

an interesting program on Ireland and its historic stones highlighted an early Christian stone artist who carved "high crosses" / Celtic crosses with concentric design and human figures.

i thought about that ancient community, how isolated it was from the rest of Europe, and yet the invaders came, the Vikings, the Romans, humans preying on each other for what must have been meager treasure.

the population summary stunned me with how great the population growth has been in just the last 200 years. Will the planet survive humans? "Gone" may mean the population grows so large it essentially self-destructs by poisoning on a global scale.

It seems so sad to me to limit a family to just one child, as the practice is in China. Sadly it lead to diminishment of value of girls, if we are to have only one child, let it be a boy. Throw that baby girl off the bridge.

As a U.S. citizen, during the era of "The Population Bomb" i thought, let's control our population ourselves, rather than have the government dictate these policies for us.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Which is why it's so odd that population control is never talked about w.r.t. global warming, climate change, pandemics etc. 1.3 B chinese, 1.2 billion indians, .3 US, .25 Indonesia. At least China has the right idea, and in the US, if it weren't for immigration the population would be about flat. Why is no one talking about this issue. Maybe smart meters will reduce sperm count; at least that would be a positive.

---

Wait a second.... You are advocating using electromagnetic frequencies to sterilize people against their will! I'm sorry, but that is fudged up! Why do you hold such an anti-human point of view? And if you really think China has the right idea, I'd suggest researching the dire consequences of their one child policy for yourself. I would rather focus my energy on creating a healthy and happy human population rather than a suffering infertile one as you suggest.

And why do some here think that the world cannot sustain 8 billion people? Please do tell.

First: Sorry I did not mark the final comment with LOL for the humor impaired; I thought it would be obvious that since the radiation from smart meters is 1/1000th of cell phone, and there are more cell phones than people (or nearly so) that radio frequencies don't really have any affect of fertility (or anything else for that matter). However I do agree and it has been proven that cell phones are dangerous, but mostly (like 99.99/100) that is due to people dialing while driving.
Second: I think with global warming, climate change, polluted oceans, lack of clean water, lack of housing that it is self evident the planet can't handle the current population of 6.2B.

I think the only way to have a healthy and happy human population (which it has never been, except for a very few individuals at a time at a tremendous cost the rest of the population), reduced population is the only choice. I suppose you think having 19 kids is some kind of ticket to an afterlife? How can anyone think that more is better. I have traveled 4 weeks in China in the last two years, working directly with Chinese in the middle class; and they all recognize that left alone, they would look like Bangledash instead of a moderately well to do and modern nation.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

It seems so sad to me to limit a family to just one child, as the practice is in China. Sadly it lead to diminishment of value of girls, if we are to have only one child, let it be a boy. Throw that baby girl off the bridge.

---

Old news. Recently (maybe last 5 years) the population has skewed so far that girls are a "premium". The tradition of having the parents move in with the daughter is changing as there are too few daughters. Parents need at least one girl for support in their old age. So, these things balance out over time. But, if you want to talk about diminishment of the value of girls, just look to the Saudi countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and large parts of India. Much worse there even with no population control.

I can't imagine living in the crowded conditions such as those in India.
The other day I saw a picture of a woman riding on a train. She was
perched on the connector between two cars, riding inches above the
tracks. I also recall hearing they have open toilets on the trains; the
human waste just falls onto the tracks.

Who knows what the perfect ratio of humans per square mile of land on
earth is? It seems as more and more people live on the planet there is
less and less clean water, fewer endangered animals, more dangerous
chemicals.

China is considering stopping the one child practice perhaps in ten
years. Time magazine story from July 2009:
https://www.time.com/time/world/arti...912861,00.html

Village in India has banned unwed women from using cell phones!

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...hones-unwed-wo

* * * * * *

"How plastic bottles are defusing the population bomb
By Dana Blankenhorn | Oct 29, 2010\

China is easing its one child policy but it may be too late.

That’s because we may all be getting done in by the simple plastic
bottle.

As I’ve been reporting at ZDNet Healthcare for some time, and noted
here a year ago, Bisphenol-A is becoming highly controversial.

The chemical helps harden plastic for use in things like bottles and
medical equipment. It has long been used to line metal food containers,
but is now considered questionable by the EPA, although the industry
disagrees. (The FDA has also gotten into the act.)

BPA, whose effects mimic the female hormone estrogen (it was originally
developed with that in mind) is now found everywhere. (It’s even on
paper receipts.)

The latest news is a study of Chinese workers confirming what I wrote
about last year. BPA makes reproduction harder.

Those with detectable urine BPA had more than three times the risk of
lowered sperm concentration and lower sperm vitality, more than four
times the risk of lower sperm count, and more than twice the risk of
lower sperm motility.

But wait, it gets worse:

Similar dose-response associations were observed among men with
environmental BPA exposure at levels comparable with those in the U.S
population.

Your little fellas may not be very happy, either.

China began adjusting its policy on children in part because it was
successful, because growing affluence meant many Chinese women were
choosing not to have big families, bringing population growth below a
replacement level. Now that level may prove hard to, uh, raise.

BPA still has its friends. Fox News likes it fine. But a scientific
consensus is growing and Canada has become the first country to
officially declare BPA toxic.

Trouble is, are we too late? If BPA is everywhere, even in our oceans,
and if BPA does make reproduction harder, as the China study indicates,
the population bomb may not only be defused, we could be running in the
other direction.

All of which brings up a question that should concern all medical
researchers.

The chemical industry is right about something here. BPA was heavily
studied before it became ubiquitous. Some of the current studies are
also subject to questioning.

If we can be so wrong about something as common as BPA, what about all
those exciting, new compounds the FDA is being pressed to approve every
day? And at what point does our valid skepticism about scientific study
yield to cynicism?

That’s a pretty scary Halloween story if you ask me. Just send your
kids out in a white lab coat."

Can I ask where you got the figure that smart meters are 1/1000th of cell phone radiation? I sense that your sources may have been funded by disinformationist groups with political ties to cover-up the real issues in both cell phones and dumpmeters.

Have you read the BioIntuiative Report?


Have you heard of Dr. Robert C. Kane's book, "Cellular Telephones Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective" (He's a 30 yr. product designer and biological researcher for the telecomm industry. " he radiofrequency radiation emitted from a portable cellular telephone is better able to heat and cook than is the energy used in a microwave oven. The energy radiating from the portable cellular telephone is deposited deeply into muscle and brain tissue more efficiently than the energy used with microwave ovens."

Independent academic review of biological and epidemiological effects of cellphone radiation. https://www.neilcherry.com/documents.php#rf

"Effect of extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field exposure on morphological and biophysical properties of human lymphoid cell line
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1702e53b63f0ee


https://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=554
Barrie Trower, a physicist and former British Secret Service Microwave Weapons Specialist, said he came out of retirement because microwave technology that was used for weapons is now being used in schools. Speaking at the University of Toronto recently, Mr. Trower said he refuses all gifts and all money; consequently he tells it “exactly as it is.” He said there is a lot of proof that microwave radiation – used for cell phones and WiFi - is harmful and governments have known this for many years.

Dangers of EMF https://smartmeters.transbay.net/doku.php?id=health

Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the "Wireless Revolution"
Part 1: https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6518153738782954894
Part 2: https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5215387335182409069

Dr. Magda Havas' s site (magdahavas.com). She's posting studies from the archives of Dr. Zory Glaser, Ph.D., LT, MSC, USNR., a former US Navy researcher, NIOSH Manager, Executive Secretary Advisor to the US FDA, who compiled 2300 studies from 1951 to 1972, many from the military, showing health effects from radio-frequency radiation.
https://www.magdahavas.com/2010/09/06/pick-of-the-week-9-0-95-and-2-45-ghz-most-lethal-microwave-frequencies/


Dr. Dan Harper, M.D., was among the first to arrive at the Encinitas City Council meeting the evening of July 21. Carrying a 12-inch stack of medical journal articles about the health risks of electromagnetic field, or EMF, radiation, he was there to speak on behalf of his patient, Michael Schwaebe.
https://thecoastnews.com/view/full_s...-doctor-shares

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

First: Sorry I did not mark the final comment with LOL for the humor impaired; I thought it would be obvious that since the radiation from smart meters is 1/1000th of cell phone, and there are more cell phones than people (or nearly so) that radio frequencies don't really have any affect of fertility (or anything else for that matter). However I do agree and it has been proven that cell phones are dangerous, but mostly (like 99.99/100) that is due to people dialing while driving.
Second: I think with global warming, climate change, polluted oceans, lack of clean water, lack of housing that it is self evident the planet can't handle the current population of 6.2B.

I think the only way to have a healthy and happy human population (which it has never been, except for a very few individuals at a time at a tremendous cost the rest of the population), reduced population is the only choice. I suppose you think having 19 kids is some kind of ticket to an afterlife? How can anyone think that more is better. I have traveled 4 weeks in China in the last two years, working directly with Chinese in the middle class; and they all recognize that left alone, they would look like Bangledash instead of a moderately well to do and modern nation.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

I think the only way to have a healthy and happy human population (which it has never been, except for a very few individuals at a time at a tremendous cost the rest of the population), reduced population is the only choice.

---

I would have to disagree with this statement. Weston A. Price studied isolated people all over the world in the 1930's and found numerous examples of populations of healthy and happy humans, at no cost to the rest of the world. The main differences between these people and the rest of the world were that they didn't consume any of the foods of modern commerce (sugar, white flour, canned foods and preserves, etc.), and they consumed 10 times the fat soluble vitamins from animal fats as did the people of his day. Dr. Price found that mineral absorption is dependent on levels of fat soluble vitamins in the diet.

Humans definitely have the potential to be healthy and happy, to live in harmony with each other and the environment, as these people in many parts of the planet did. Step one would be to stop taking advice about what is healthy from the government and the mainstream media (which is little more than the propaganda arm for the multi-national corporations who essentially run our government), and to start finding out for ourselves what it means to be healthy. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that we were far healthier as a nation before we started letting our government tell us what to eat.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Can I ask where you got the figure that smart meters are 1/1000th of cell phone radiation? I sense that your sources may have been funded by disinformationist groups with political ties to cover-up the real issues in both cell phones and dumpmeters.

---

Actually it was reported here, as well as the PD, that 10 ft, the RF field is 1/1000th that permissible by FCC. Since FCC permits cell phones, I inferred that it must be less than 1/1000th. But of course, this is mostly due the fact that RF fields decrease as radius squared; so if the meter produced 1/10 permitted value at 1 foot, it would be 1/1000th at 10 feet.

Cell phones operate between 800 and 900 MHz, same for smart meters, as well as some at 2.4 GHz (same as wifi). water absorbs more effectively at about 900 MHz, minimum at 2.4 GHz, peaks again at just above 3 GHz. Thus, microwave ovens would be more effective in heating water at other frequencies, but 2.4 GHz appears effective in heating fats and oils, which a lot of food have in them (cook meat in a microwave and you see this dramatically). Lots of documents on this in the IEEE Explore or google scholar.

You also quote a guy name Cherry and I read the quoted article which is just a collection of statistics that he claims supports his conjecture. I am very dubious of a papr that contains NO instances of counter examples. I would call this propoganda. Google scholar shows 34 cites for this paper, most by the same author. In contrast, this paper in IEEE Spectrum https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/st...rnumber=861774 contains examples of positive (though only slightly), negative and inconclusive results. My take: except for local heating effects, probably negligible effects from RF energy.

You cite Havas:

Quote:

---

Dr. Magda Havas' s site (magdahavas.com). She's posting studies from the archives of Dr. Zory Glaser, Ph.D., LT, MSC, USNR., a former US Navy researcher, NIOSH Manager, Executive Secretary Advisor to the US FDA, who compiled 2300 studies from 1951 to 1972, many from the military, showing health effects from radio-frequency radiation.
https://www.magdahavas.com/2010/09/06/pick-of-the-week-9-0-95-and-2-45-ghz-most-lethal-microwave-frequencies/

---

so I read the link, which she linked to a research paper that showed microwave motarity but completely related to microwave heating. Your microwave oven produces about 5 W/ cm^2, the study reported rats die at 2 W, and estimated 78 mW/cm^2 was the level that tissue could safely dissipate. So using your quoted study, the safe level is 100,000 times greater than a Smart Meter at 10 foot distance (1 watt at 10 ft = 0.001 mW/ cm^2). And in the same report it noted that continuous radiation was needed, so if you time average the exposure (a few seconds per hour) it's even smaller. Thus, any reasonable person, even if there were some effect, would ignore smart meters and focus on AM and FM radios (50,000,000 mw), Police and Fire Radios (100,000 mw), Cell phones (2000 mW). And since there are 400 million cell phones sold every year, if there were more than the very smallest effects, it would show up dramatically now.

I work in the area that includes radio testing (some our our equipment is specifically designed to be the most precise measurement equipment for RF signals available anywhere at any price) and I know many researchers who would be giddy to get some positive results of effects. There's no conspiracy, it's just that if there are any effects, they are so small that they are not separable from random noise (which we also make equipment to test random noise from radios, and which the earth is being subjected to continuously from outer space).

Other disturbing aspects of your citations are that they lump ELF, RF, and Microwave all together and claim their effects are indistinguishable . Since sunlight is also EMF energy, though of much shorter wavelength and thus higher energy density likely more damaging, it is interesting to note that standing the sun exposes you to approximately 1kW/m^ (or 100mW/cm^2). Clearly, you can get heating effects and sunburn from continued exposure, the levels from a smart meter correspond to standing in the sun with a sunscreen SPF of 27,000; pretty small effect I'd say, and I'll still enjoy going out in the sun regardless.

In closing, we worry about things that have little to no effect, when very large problems (over population, for example) are ignored.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

I would have to disagree with this statement. Weston A. Price studied isolated people all over the world in the 1930's and found numerous examples of populations of healthy and happy humans, at no cost to the rest of the world. The main differences between these people and the rest of the world were that they didn't consume any of the foods of modern commerce (sugar, white flour, canned foods and preserves, etc.), and they consumed 10 times the fat soluble vitamins from animal fats as did the people of his day. Dr. Price found that mineral absorption is dependent on levels of fat soluble vitamins in the diet.

Humans definitely have the potential to be healthy and happy, to live in harmony with each other and the environment, as these people in many parts of the planet did. Step one would be to stop taking advice about what is healthy from the government and the mainstream media (which is little more than the propaganda arm for the multi-national corporations who essentially run our government), and to start finding out for ourselves what it means to be healthy. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that we were far healthier as a nation before we started letting our government tell us what to eat.

---

Yes, I agree populations like on Okinawa that work hard, eat mostly fish, and avoid tobacco and alcohol can do well, as long as population is held in check. Modern life (sitting at a computer instead of digging in a garden) is clearly detrimental to health. Yet here we are. And, for the most part I think it is our own laziness rather than any conspiracy that occurs. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"; No one tells me that I prefer In and Out burgers to tofu, I figured that out on my own. And I like candy better than celery, and ice cream better than beet juice. Being a human being is bad for my health.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Which is why it's so odd that population control is never talked about w.r.t. global warming, climate change, pandemics etc...

---

selective blindness, dude. It's a big topic. It's just that often people try to be careful that it doesn't sound racist or selective (we were here first with cars, so you guys can just stay third-world, ok??). So it's not necessarily front-and-center. But it's by no means ignored.

I appreciate that you can present what you find as truth in the FCC & PD. Perhaps there needs added info though.

According to the FCC, There is No RF Federal Health Standard
The PD concludes that there is a Federal health standard for RF emissions (PD Summary at p.1, Conclusion at p.10, Finding of Fact 3 at p. 11) and that is a factual error. According to the FCC web page, “FCC Consumer Facts on Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,”, “…there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy….”1 This is an important distinction and should not be overlooked. " (reference: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html)

The PD Errs in Concluding that the FCC has set health standards for RF emissions.
In its opening comments, Network states that the PD incorrectly concludes that
there is a federal health standard for RF emissions (Finding of Fact No. 3). Network cites to statements posted on the FCC’s website. Network is correct. The FCC has only issued guidelines, not standards, for RF emissions, and those guidelines are based only on thermal impacts due to RF emissions."

What you didn't mention, and in fact minimized, is that that standing in the sun at noon, with smartmeters, cell towers, cell phones, wi-fi, and ionized radiation at airports are culmulative. People's health are indeed being affected. I, myself, have had issues around RF, EMF and more...heart palpitation, burning of the skin, hard to breath, foggy brain. As soon as I left the area, my symptoms went completely away. I have grandchildren and these little ones are even more vulnerable to such environmental toxic soups.

https://www.pikeresearch.com/blog/articles/pge%e2%80%99s-smart-meter-program-takes-more-hits
A high profile event in San Francisco – home to PG&E’s corporate headquarters – brought together leading scientists from around the world to highlight the
latest research on the public health impacts of various wireless technologies — including smart meters.

It turns out that there is very little data available about smart meters, according to Elizabeth Kelley, founder of the Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc., who made a presentation on smart meter technology at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The lack of data, however, has convinced Kelley more research is required before more smart meters are installed throughout the country. She alleged she is in contact with growing numbers of consumers reporting maladies that have transpired since smart meters were installed in their homes. “So far, studies have looked at the growing array of wireless signals permeating our homes and businesses in isolation. Yet today, there are growing numbers of electromagnetic technologies operating simultaneously, a situation she described as a “toxic soup.” (Interestingly enough, PG&E was authorized by the CPUC to rely upon power line communications, but then independently switched gears and opted for wireless transmission via Silver Springs Network.)

Wounded by wireless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zzRP_J7P-c
In this press conference, Josh Hart, Director of Stop Smart Meters, introduces three people from various walks of life who have become electro-sensitive by being exposed to radiation from wireless technology. Their moving stories indicate the dangers to public health and safety of the unregulated, untested deployment of electro-magnetic technologies like PG&E's so-called 'smart' meters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Actually it was reported here, as well as the PD, that 10 ft, the RF field is 1/1000th that permissible by FCC. Since FCC permits cell phones, I inferred that it must be less than 1/1000th. But of course, this is mostly due the fact that RF fields decrease as radius squared; so if the meter produced 1/10 permitted value at 1 foot, it would be 1/1000th at 10 feet.

Cell phones operate between 800 and 900 MHz, same for smart meters, as well as some at 2.4 GHz (same as wifi). water absorbs more effectively at about 900 MHz, minimum at 2.4 GHz, peaks again at just above 3 GHz. Thus, microwave ovens would be more effective in heating water at other frequencies, but 2.4 GHz appears effective in heating fats and oils, which a lot of food have in them (cook meat in a microwave and you see this dramatically). Lots of documents on this in the IEEE Explore or google scholar.

You also quote a guy name Cherry and I read the quoted article which is just a collection of statistics that he claims supports his conjecture. I am very dubious of a papr that contains NO instances of counter examples. I would call this propoganda. Google scholar shows 34 cites for this paper, most by the same author. In contrast, this paper in IEEE Spectrum https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/st...rnumber=861774 contains examples of positive (though only slightly), negative and inconclusive results. My take: except for local heating effects, probably negligible effects from RF energy.

You cite Havas: so I read the link, which she linked to a research paper that showed microwave motarity but completely related to microwave heating. Your microwave oven produces about 5 W/ cm^2, the study reported rats die at 2 W, and estimated 78 mW/cm^2 was the level that tissue could safely dissipate. So using your quoted study, the safe level is 100,000 times greater than a Smart Meter at 10 foot distance (1 watt at 10 ft = 0.001 mW/ cm^2). And in the same report it noted that continuous radiation was needed, so if you time average the exposure (a few seconds per hour) it's even smaller. Thus, any reasonable person, even if there were some effect, would ignore smart meters and focus on AM and FM radios (50,000,000 mw), Police and Fire Radios (100,000 mw), Cell phones (2000 mW). And since there are 400 million cell phones sold every year, if there were more than the very smallest effects, it would show up dramatically now.

I work in the area that includes radio testing (some our our equipment is specifically designed to be the most precise measurement equipment for RF signals available anywhere at any price) and I know many researchers who would be giddy to get some positive results of effects. There's no conspiracy, it's just that if there are any effects, they are so small that they are not separable from random noise (which we also make equipment to test random noise from radios, and which the earth is being subjected to continuously from outer space).

Other disturbing aspects of your citations are that they lump ELF, RF, and Microwave all together and claim their effects are indistinguishable . Since sunlight is also EMF energy, though of much shorter wavelength and thus higher energy density likely more damaging, it is interesting to note that standing the sun exposes you to approximately 1kW/m^ (or 100mW/cm^2). Clearly, you can get heating effects and sunburn from continued exposure, the levels from a smart meter correspond to standing in the sun with a sunscreen SPF of 27,000; pretty small effect I'd say, and I'll still enjoy going out in the sun regardless.

In closing, we worry about things that have little to no effect, when very large problems (over population, for example) are ignored.

---

You start with:

Quote:

---

I appreciate that you can present what you find as truth in the FCC & PD. Perhaps there needs added info though.
According to the FCC, There is No RF Federal Health Standard

---

Often, quotes out of context can seem to support a position they do not; in the exact same link the quote continued:

Recently, some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use may be linked to cancer and other illnesses, posing potentially greater risks for children than adults. While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used. The FCC closely monitors all of these study results. However, at this time, there is no basis on which to establish a different safety threshold than our current requirements. (emphasis mine)

You go on to say:

Quote:

---

What you didn't mention, and in fact minimized, is that that standing in the sun at noon, with smartmeters, cell towers, cell phones, wi-fi, and ionized radiation at airports are culmulative.

---

You are just making this up. There is no evidence of any kind that says solar radiation, cell phones, wifi have in any relationship to the well studied cumulative effect of ionizing radiation (radioactivity). And, a very cursory glance at the energy density differences are in the millions to trillions (EMF is millions to trillions of times less energy dense than ionizing radiation). This is really analogous to saying that a laser light used to cut steel is cumulative with an LED flashlight, and that over a long enough period, an LED flashlight will also cut through steel.
You also say

Quote:

---

People's health are indeed being affected. I, myself, have had issues around RF, EMF and more...heart palpitation, burning of the skin, hard to breath, foggy brain. As soon as I left the area, my symptoms went completely away. I have grandchildren and these little ones are even more vulnerable to such environmental toxic soups

---

I don't doubt you felt something, I just say there is no scientific evidence, which removes placebo and confounding effects, that supports your symptoms be related in any way to RF fields. You say "as soon as I left the area" but could it be allergies (boy, as soon as I leave sonoma county my headaches go away too, but ascribe that to Luther Burbank and all his pollen). If there were any such connection, there are thousands of lawyers with truck loads of money that would fund the research. Really, it is not for lack of trying that there has been no connection made. It is for lack of evidence.

And finally:

Quote:

---

I have grandchildren and these little ones are even more vulnerable to such environmental toxic soups

---

REALLY! are you going to pull out the "what about the children, think about the children!" card. There is also NO evidence that children are more vulnerable. Are children more vulnerable to Mumps (No, much worse for adults), broken bones (nope, heal much faster), Bruises (nope, don't hear about them getting blood clots from that).

Finally, you are fighting the wrong battle. For some reason Smart Meters have caught your attention, but they are so much lower in power, duration and proximity than some many other sources of EMF that fighting them is a very poor use of anyone's time or energy, compared with real problems, like the problem of overpopulation on the earth (to bring this back on topic...odd huh, that they might be related, but fighting such perceived problems takes energy and resources away from real problems).