I bet the signal she gets from her tin foil hat is immense.
The writer is obviously better informed than you. It’s a serious issue that deserves attention rather than immature snipes.
No, it isn’t. You mistake dismissing the claims for not understanding them. Later on your reveal your true motives by referring to those who dismiss these claims as “closed minded”. For many people fringe theories like this are a means to try and assert a claim to be more open minded, better informed, etc. They like feeling like they are in a minority who truly get what the slavish masses do not understand. This is the only real substance to these baseless claims.
The claims are dismissed because they are absurd. They are ridiculed because they are ridicolous. Simple.
What an idiotic message, responding to a well researched, scientific article. You really do sound like a half wit
I sincerely hope that our journey towards independence isn’t hijacked by every crackpot theory out there. Will we also be anti-vaxxers? Are the Flat Earth Society also going to get a chance to publish on this website? Any articles on how The Illuminati are running everything? If this blog becomes a vehicle to publish any and everything, without some sort of editorial sense, then it falls far from it’s objective of being any sort of “voice for Wales” and will just become yet another in a long line of noble free publishing intentions that was scuppered by an inability to… Read more »
Good of you to try and soil the debate with totally unrelated issues, it helps to understand where you’re coming from. (You can always tell the people who cannot bear to look at information objectively — they come out with hostile ad hominems, straw men and every other kind of fallacy under the sun). If you truly believe that the WHO is an agency worth looking at, then what do you think of the official view of their cancer arm – the IARC – which considers RF/wireless radiation as a Class 2B cancer risk (as contrast to the document you’ve… Read more »
I see exactly where you’re coming from. This belief matters to you. It is irrational. It has no scientific basis but it is a belief you have and I have attacked it so with religious you just attack back less a fundamental part of who you are, a core belief, be reappraised. I understand it is painful to address these parts of yourself but there is help out here if you are willing to listen. Good luck.
Quoting the WHO is a bit flawed. Their guidance is 20 years out of date and the research referred to in this article is much more relevant to the technology that has emerged since the WHO last looked at this. Any ‘journey towards independence’, as you call it, needs discussion from all involved. It needs to be an inclusive process in which all views and concerns are aired. Everyone needs to listen to the concerns of others. Maybe this is a journey that you, brighty, with your closed mindset, are not ready for? Maybe you’re not able to see the… Read more »
The quote you pasted from the WHO website is not the opinion of the WHO as an organization, but instead the writing of the one person (yes: 1 person) who sits in the office tasked with electromagnetic fields. That person is an electronics engineer with no (like in: zero) competencies in biology, medicine or other health related field. Keep that in mind.
Yes, everyone should be aware that the head of the WHO’s EMF project, Dr Emilie van Deventer (who, by the way, has no medical credentials whatsoever, is an electrical engineer and used to do research on the development of wireless telecommunications technologies), has admitted that scientists are divided on the health impacts of RFR: “The data is gray. It’s not black and white.” […] “There is no consensus, it’s true. There’s a big group and a little group, but it’s still two groups. I can’t tell you that there’s one group that is completely correct.” Source: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2015/03/u-office-removes-statement-about-safety-of-wi-fi-radiation-following-activist-pressure/ In a video… Read more »
When a large aircraft and a small aircraft nearly collide its described in the media as a ‘near miss’ . Well that’s the same as a collision. This is standard lexicon for challenge and debate, but not childish, shouty comments of a juvenile nature. In the meantime it’s proper to air these differences and note those who seek to interpret the evidence as an opposite opinion or an unsure one, need to declare who they are and allegiances. I see a re run of the climate change sceptics, most health issues where concerns are raised contrary to vested interests of… Read more »
I remember all the nonsense was being talked about the carcinogenic effects of smoking. It was 30 years and more before eventually defeating the tobacco giants and countless painful deaths world wide. I’m mindful of the expression that ‘pioneers are always shot at’ . Circle the wagons.
Except, of course, it was actual scientists that researched and published studies into the health effects of smoking in legitimate peer-reviewed journals and charlatans in the pay of the tobacco industry that refuted these claims. It was never scientific orthodoxy to deny the harm that smoking does. Your parallel is invalid.
An invalid parallel and also common refrain for those who have baseless arguments, phrases like “Pioneers are always shot at” is an amusing little rhetorical device but it is no use in a rational discussion based on evidence and… oh, you don’t want one of those. I see.
You’re the one using rhetorical fallacies, Brighty – “crackpots, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, illuminati” are straw men and ad hominems that have no basis in honest debate. Seems you know the theory of intellectual arguments but only get involved in them when it suits you, and hope nobody notices your own baseless arguments.
This is what happens when we start to listen to the kind of anti-scientific crackpots that have Neil McEvoy’s ear. Suddenly you find yourself on a slippery slope towards publishing all sorts of flat-earthisms. Get a grip.
Can anyone here actually draw a relevant complaint with the author’s points without resorting to playground name-calling?
I don’t advise a haircut, man. All hairdressers are in the employment of the government. Hair are your aerials. They pick up signals from the cosmos and transmit them directly into the brain. This is the reason bald-headed men are uptight
Having worked in the Health sector and in particular health promotion the scepticism you show now was prevalent in much greater numbers over denials about the risks of smoking. Often trotted out was the person who smoked tirelessly all throughout life and was unaffected by the tobacco smoke. The constant clever advertising of fags targeted at the young. Your chances of a healthy life, and therefore immunity from illnesses. The older movies where there was the popular actor forever smoking a cigarette. A role model for the tobacco industry. What is this if blatant denial of the extreme affects on… Read more »
Whereas I, like most, would prefer reasoned science than the agenda led dribble that leads this article. There is NO equivalence between the smoking/tobacco issue and this one. You cannot make the false projection that a past suppression of the dangers of smoking means that because EMF damage is being dismissed then it is only a matter of time before it too follows smoking and becomes a widely accepted viewpoint. That isn’t science. I can’t make something up and then say “hey, they laughed at Galileo as well!” as any sort of scientific justification to my theories and definitely not… Read more »
The economy will be able to cope with a realisation that current EMF pollution is harmful and a resultant call for the industry to engineer solutions to make it safe/safer/as safe as possible.
The economy will not be able to cope with continued rises in chronic diseases, cancer, infertility and drops in life expectancy.
Current EMF pollution is not harmful. The rest of the world will not come around to your irrational belief as the rest of the world is using science.
If it’s not harmful, why are you calling it “pollution”?
Exactly – it is pollution.
I have learnt much from your web references Simon, and thank you. I am planning to write to the Chief Medical Officer for Wales and these will be most useful evidence to refer too. By way of causal life style choices, there are specific responsibilities on the appropriate Health Authorities to seek to inform and protect for the very reason that costs of health care can run into countless billions of pounds. It’s in their interest to do so. Let alone human suffering. Eg The cost of treating smoke related diseases and chronic lifestyle choices is astronomical. Much could have… Read more »
At least you have been astute enough to identify my deeply held concern about the possible affects life styles and modernity can have on the vulnerable and particularly children. I subscribe to the notion ‘that it takes a community to raise a child’. Whereas adults can with enough knowledge make informed choices, what to eat, drink, all lifestyle choices that children are mostly unable to do. I make no apology for this reference. Importantly let’s focus on the future issues to do with this very well written and carefully sentenced article. It references to ‘ there is a significant body… Read more »
Well said, Graham. I think the saying is ‘History doesn’t repeat but it rhymes’. There almost certainly could be ways for the telecoms industry to create safer alternatives, but until the pressure mounts for them to do so, they will ignore it. There is also a mountain of mythology to break through in the public’s mind that man-made EMFs are “safe” — even though the industry is on record as saying “let me be clear, the industry has not said once that cell phones are safe” apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940431. Swisscom, the Swiss version of Vodafone, applied for a patent to make WiFi… Read more »
Wow, what a load of gullible fools there are in the world. I’ve got a bridge I want to see you and if I don’t you’re all going to be ill. Now form an orderly queue.
Brighty, what is the safe level of microwave radiation for a pregnant woman?
Due to MWR, here in Finland it is recommended to keep mobiles away from pre-schools and the unborn.
Wasn’t there something about this in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure ?
It really annoys me when someone says ‘read the science’ in support of this microwave technology. All that proves is that the writer certainly hasn’t ‘read the science’ and if he has, then he hasn’t understood it.
It really annoys me when enthusiastic amateurs think that reading science on the internet makes them well placed to make judgements on things they do not really understand. I have a bachelors degree, 1st class honours, and a PhD in this subject. I’ve studied the science and passed tough assessments in it. So I assume you will now tell me what makes you qualified to pass comment on it now?
“It really annoys me when enthusiastic amateurs think that reading science on the internet makes them well placed to make judgements on things they do not really understand.” You said it yourself Blighty. You have no idea what you’re talking about. What a wasted education. I suggest you start learning about electromagnetic frequencies from an expert, type Barrie Trower into Youtube and start learning from someone who knows what they’re talking about.
That sounds reasonable.
So, being an expert, would you not recommend, say for a village, a feeder running fibre optic cable to each dwelling?
Also, what would be your assessment of the effects of MWR exposure leading to a degeneration of the protective
sheath surrounding brain neurons in the unborn and children, given their thin skulls more absorbant brain tissue?
@brighty please tell me then, whats the dominant mode of interaction between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and living cells? (hint: “dominant” means that there are more than one).
An excellent article.
It agrees with leading experts in this field, such as Dr Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism, McGill University, Canada:
“Increasing the dependency on wireless is going in the wrong direction. We should leapfrog to higher techniques such as optical fibre.
All EM radiation is probably carcinogenic. Clean up your EM environment; there are alternatives.”
I was in Norway sailing last summer and spent an afternoon with another fellow from Oslo. He was a researcher into the effects of wifi and mobile phones. He was not preachy on the subject but quite convincing in a matter-of-fact way. Consequently I exchanged my wifi broadcaster for a cable-only router when I got home. Never been one for using mobile phones as a phone as I had been reading research some 15 years ago into their possible detrimental effects due to their use – especially the type that was then being introduced to police forces. I think it’s… Read more »
Agree, glasiad. If one uses a mobile, best to keep it in a bag or back pack, at 20cm distance.
Also, check your children do not put them under their pillows at night. I know I would have done as a child.
We all remember reading under the bedclothes, torch aglow, of Dan Dare’s or other’s adventures!
Glasiad, you’re right that one of the issues at stake here is informed consent, and I am strongly in favour of an informed population being able to make their own decisions. The problem is that at the moment people are not being given the information they need in order to be able to make such decisions; instead, they are being given the impression that exposure to wireless carries no risks. But there is also the huge issue of involuntary exposure: children do not give their consent to be exposed to RFR (a 2B carcinogen) from WiFi networks at school; most… Read more »
Electrophobia is not a new phenomena. Its microwave variant started in the 70’s when a New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur, wrote The Zapping of America and then Currents of Death about HT powerlines. The US Airforce took this very seriously. In a continuous range of studies over 50 years now, they have sought to discover how non-ionizing radiation might effect their capability and impact on very expensive pilots and air crew. They certainly found that there would be an increase in cataracts as result of medium intensity exposure over time,however epidemiological evidence on cataract instances does not seem to indicate… Read more »
Martin, I’m afraid we’re not talking about electrophobia but about physiological impacts, the existence of which has been objectively proven. Interestingly, the US Navy has research, dating from 1971, which shows divergent effects from those you refer to: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf You can read an account of how Professor Magda Havas acquired it here: http://www.magdahavas.com/introduction-to-from-zorys-archive/ For those who are interested, Dr Don Maisch’s PhD dissertation provides a detailed account of how and why RF exposure guidelines were set at current unprotective levels, a process in which the influence of the “military-industrial complex” (Eisenhower) was decisive. Maisch has made it freely available to… Read more »
Sadly the evidence once read leads me to firm opinion that more investigation is needed and tentative warnings made public. Not to do so is irresponsible. I have written to : Dr Frank Atherton Chief Medical Officer for Wales and Vaughan Gethin Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Cynulliad Cenedlaethiol Cymru, asking firstly, for a statement on whether there is cause for concern, secondly, whether public bodies in Wales are carrying out sustainable development effective to achieving the 7 well- being goals the recent legislation (WBFG (Wales) Act 2015, outlined as key areas to focus, thirdly to be explicit… Read more »
Well done Graham, but I’m afraid I can almost guarantee that you will get the standard fudge of an answer from Public Health Wales, the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Minister, i.e., there is “no consistent evidence to date that exposure to radio signals from wi-fi and WLANs adversely affects the health of the general population.” (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wireless-networks-wi-fi-radio-waves-and-health/wi-fi-radio-waves-and-health) The Welsh Government, councils and public bodies in Wales all quote this in response to any concerns being raised about WiFi or any other source of man-made RFR. Again, one question is, what about babies, children and other vulnerable people? Furthermore,… Read more »
Annelie, I welcome your call for temperance and patience, on cut and paste responses. It’s a professional way of directing you to the revoving door. Sadly, Wales as part of a Union, then the main policies, despite the fact that The Assembly has oversight of the NHS in Wales, is led by the London based Ministries. It’s the Department of Health England will determine the policy in this matter, and most others, and will endure conformity of practice and responses. I suspect, as you do, that the draft has already been prepared with stock answers and fudge. I find it… Read more »
Not a great deal of pleasure to confirm your considered views without regard for reciprocity but of standard cautious text replies to searching answers needed to be in front of game changing health issues. The letter by electronic mail, no hard text from Vaughan Gethin’s sent from admin staff was perfunctory, and anticipatedly so. Quote ‘ The Welsh Government is advised by Public Health England (PHE) Centre for radiation chemicals and Environmemtal Hazards’. ‘PHE’s position is there is still no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to electro magnetic and other radio technologies at levels below international agreed levels affect human… Read more »
I have responded to Vaughan Gethin about the standardised and antiseptic response. We agree with little thought, that this was position neutral. 3 Brass monkeys I suppose. Well then. I shall await the response from the Chief Medical Officer, before any further thoughts. But it is likely to echo the sentiments already struck. That said I’ve not had an acknowledgement from Dr Frank Atherton, so I’m not hopeful. Whichever way. But is the issue falling around ‘consistent’ evidence to which you referred too, and ‘ no convincing evidence’, to which Vaughan referred too. There is a difference. Ah, but both… Read more »
Graham, if you would like to get in touch with me on this issue, you can send an email using the contact address on the Wiser Wireless Wales website and it can then be forwarded to me.