http://depletedcranium.com/?p=1493
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=698
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=421

I’m going to have to make a post just listing all the damn studies because there are a lot of big good studies. (There are also a lot of crappy small and poorly done studies that find various problems)

        david said:

i am sorry, it is not good enough to keep saying that studies you don’t like the results of are not legitimate studies. you say this over and over again about studies that are legitimate, were controlled studies and carried out by very competent people whose opinions are at least as valid as yours because their work represents a lifetime (in many cases) of accumulation of knowledge.

If you look back I did not just write that they were invalid, I described why they were invalid. They were not controlled unless there is a control group, which they don’t have. They are not legitimate if the samples are too small, or the statistical analysis is done wrong or if the results fall in the error bars.

Who did these is not the point. Science is not a popularity contest and many many well respected researchers have been found wrong over the course of their careers, this is par for the course in science. Furthermore they are not extending an opinion – they are coming to a conclusion, and these can be right or wrong.

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/9625-1

Here is a link to the story that was delivered to radio stations nationally today by Public News Service.
Good timing, given the FDA’s recent announcement that cell phones are not harmful!
Listen to the audio story (its on the right–click the play button)

Best,
Camilla Rees
http://www.electromagnetichealth.org

They came to the conclusion that 4 watts per kilogram was the lowest level at which physical effects could be observed (note that this was not to the point of injury but where there was enough dialectic heating to observe some noticable effects).

They came up with a safety margin of ten to one. So the limit for controlled exposure (such as occupational or for short times in a controlled enviornment) is .4 watts per kilogram. For the general public, such as at the base of a cell transmitter they go even further to .08 w/kg – a huge safety factor of 50 to one.

Even so, you don’t usually really get to the point where you come even close to this in most circumstances on the ground or anything.

so you’re looking at maybe 4 watts to cause some discomfort and how much to cause a real injury? I don’t know, but at least something like 8. That’s a pretty descent safety margin.

Not that this is even the real danger you worry about when someone is working on an antenna. As far as injuries and deaths in the field go, RF exposure is not the big hazard. The thing that gets communications workers is falling, or rather the abrupt stop at the end.

        dm said:

studies do show both sides, that is true however the original studies that were commissioned by motorola were suppressed because they didn’t like the findings. there are three things to consider and those are it is either harmless, harmful, or somewhat harmful and with the bulk of studies weighted towards the latter two it begs prudence and further study.

This is one of the major problems in any attempt to have a meaningful discussion with people like you. You seem to be under the impression that you can hold up a collection of studies and say that the very existence of them proves something is there. It just doesn’t work like that. Like the other poster who was banned from this site, I strongly suspect that you have not read in their entirety these studies and vetted them for exactly what they say, and how they where carried out.

For example in the H-P Hutter, et. al. paper I mentioned above, there was a very small sample space of only about 300 persons, and the researchers relied on subjective reports of symptoms. It should be apparent even to you the walking up to someones house and asking them if they experienced more headaches or had more trouble sleeping since the cell phone tower was built (which is what these people did) biases the results to the point of meaninglessness.

Now had they asked the subjects to keep health logs over a reasonable interval like three months, had not told them this was an EM study, had they done this for twenty or thirty sites and included the same number of sample groups from areas without towers. Had they done these things and then found a statistically valid, and by that I mean complete with a full Bayesian analysis, they would have some creditability. As it stands most of these studies look like they were done by high school students, and it is the quality that counts in this sort of thing not quantity which seems to be at the root of your arguments.

The bald fact is that the overwhelming results when proper methods are used finds no impact to health, it is only the poorly designed studies that find correlation and then at levels that are indistinguishable from experimental noise. Drawing any conclusion from garbage like this is just not valid. I don’t know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in: I have looked at these studies, and I do have the background to interpret them, and there is no real evidence. There just isn’t.

Endlessly claiming that there is evidence when there is not by listing subjective anecdotal reports of an effect, poorly framed studies, and holding up political opinion as fact just doesn’t cut it, and what is worse all of you that pursue these ridiculous ideas, not just the EM crowd but just about every one of the groups that claim cover up and conspiracy are swiftly becoming the collective equivalent of the Boy that Cried ‘Wolf’ and are going to have the effect of desensitizing the public from seeing the real issues.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO RF/MW RADIATION

Exposure standards for public exposure to RF/MW radiation at cell phone frequencies in other countries is, in some cases, substantially lower than the US and Canadian limits (Table 1). The World Health Organization EMF Research Program is involved in a multi-year effort to review RF/MW health effects and make recommendations for exposure standards. In the interim, other countries around the world show considerable variation in what they consider safe exposure levels:

* Saltzberg (pulsed)………………………….. 0.1 microwatts
per centimeter squared

* China……………………………………………6.6
microwatts per centimeter squared

* Russia…………………………………………..10 microwatts per centimeter squared

* Italy……………………………………………..10
microwatts per centimeter squared

* Switzerland……………………………………4.2
microwatts per centimeter squared

* Auckland, New Zealand………………….50 microwatts per
centimeter squared

* United States ……..around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared

* Canada …………….around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared

There is substantial controversy among regulatory agencies in the federal government over the RF/MW exposure standards now in effect. A growing body of scientific evidence has linked RF/MW exposure to biological effects and health effects at levels lower than current FCC RF/MW standards allow. With respect to pulsed RFR, amplitude-modulated RFR and chronic low-level exposure there is uncertainty about risk, and no presumptive assurance or

warranty of safety can be made (see FDA and US Government Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group comments above).
Share Article

        Finrod said:

I couldn’t be bothered. I frankly have far more important things to do with my time. I do appreciate the efforts of tireless champions of science and rationality who are willing to wade through this tripe to show how and why it is wrong. They have more patience than I have.

What I wanted to illustrate was that it doesn’t seem to matter to these people what the studies say. Papers that find no effect are handed up as proof in the same lists as those that claim to. Frankly I doubt if they read any of them beyond skimming the abstracts – something the poster ‘Mark’ more or less admitted to.

But trying to argue with them by pointing out flaws in the studies they hold out is generally a waste of time, because as you’ve seen, even when the very authors of these studies admit outright the work is compromised and therefore valueless, the fools tell you to your face you haven’t. Look what our banned friend wrote after I pointed this out in two of the papers he tabled:“…and frankly, you did not impeach the valididty[sic] of the studies I submitted …” You can’t fight this sort of entrenched stupidity.

One unfortunate thing though that should be pointed out, is that full text of much of the serious research on this matter (all of it negative) is not available to the general public, or is not easy to get because of fees. However the junk is always easy to find and easy to get, and this doesn’t help.

        Mark said:

Hello Finrod,

I’ll tell you what.

Why don’t you err on the safe side and assume that I am
incapable of understanding any of the studies.

Okay?

So now, with THAT in mind —

Why don’t YOU read them and see if YOU understand them, okay?

Once YOU understand them — explain them to Gordon and the other attack squad here
and then we can all agree that the crew here is just not informed on the health issues here.

But take it one step at a time — read the studies yourself, k?

Get reading…!

Thanks,

Mark

I couldn’t be bothered. I frankly have far more important things to do with my time. I do appreciate the efforts of tireless champions of science and rationality who are willing to wade through this tripe to show how and why it is wrong. They have more patience than I have.

Tell you what though (well, not you specifically, because you’ve been banned), I do recall that the guy who died from cancer after making all those ads for Marlborough once said that he offered an executive from the company a cigarette after a shoot, and the exec baldly stated that there was no way he’d smoke that sh*t.

Can anyone from the other side point to any telecommunications executives who refuse to use mobile phones because of the perception of danger? That would be a real eye-opener.

It has to be a real instance though, not just something you made up.

        david said:

They receive too much money from Bill Gates to say or do too much but there is much out there and more coming that will force them to update their policies.

These types of accusations are stock and trade of this whole electrosensitive nonsense and to date I have seen less proof of this than I have for the effect itself. You people post the studies, as flawed and as silly as they are, and can produce reams of testimony from people that think they are victims, but not one shred of evidence that anyone is getting paid off. You seem to take this as a given, and it does nothing for your credibility.

        david said:

oday The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (?NISLAPP?)

Oh yeah… them. They’re actually funded by a law firm. See: http://www.swankin-turner.com/projects.html

They’re the same ones who made a stink about aspartame, “mercury poisoning” from dental fillings, flouridization of water.

I’ve seen some of their statements before. Their science is roughly as good as their website design.