Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

[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...H_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]

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-cente...ation-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/cel...-from.html?m=1

[Barry]

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

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


New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings
May 19, 2017
And here are the un-published recommendations

[arthunter]

An interesting article about "Conspiracy Theory"...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-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.

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.

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.