On Dr. George Carlo
October 27th, 2008
|
| Share |
George Carlo is a major force in the “your cell phone is going to kill you” movement and in a previous post I received a comment claiming that he was somehow a respectable figure and that my lack of information on him and his background constituted a lack of integrity.
My response to this is that the previous post did not need to go into Carlo’s background because that was beyond the scope of the post, which was really looking directly at the alleged “study” on health effects from RF radiation. Covering Carlo’s background extensively would have doubled the length of the post and taken it onto a second tangent. However, I will be more than happy to address George Carlo’s claims and background and will do so here.
Assuming his biographical information is correct, Carlo does indeed have a doctorate, although the field is not mentioned. He began work in the field of environmental sciences in the the early 1980’s, publishing papers on analysis of contamination of aquifers with various organic substances. His later work, however, seems to have become less mainstream over time.
Carlo was apparently involved in some of the investigation of breast implants in the 1990’s which would result in claims that they caused numerous medical problems. The breast implant lawsuits of the 1990’s forced Dow Corning to file for bankruptcy, destroyed numerous careers and investment portfolios and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars lining the pockets of trail lawyers and plaintiffs. Since then silicone implants have been brought back on the market and the initial scare has been looked back upon as a prime example of scaremongering and bad bad science hysteria gone out of control.
(Carlo, by the way, also is a lawyer.)
Involvement in the cellular industry research program:
One of the things that Carlo claims (constantly) is that he was the number one guy for the research of cell phones and health effects by the wireless phone industry. He portrays himself as being a whistle blower, who was employed to prove cell phones were safe but upon finding that they were not, he was forced to choose whether to tell the truth to the public or stay with the industry and engage in their lies and deception. He makes himself out to be some kind of combination of Deep Throat, Gandhi and Jesus.
This is certainly not the case and is at best, an exaggeration. Carlo may have been part of the “Wireless Technology Research Program,” which he constantly talks about. It’s noted in his Wikipedia article and on nearly every page he is on, but It seems that the study group Carlo was involved in was not all he has made it out to be. About twenty five million dollars was committed in the early 1990’s as part of a study of cell phone health effects. Although no evidence of a link to cancer was ever found, Carlo began running his mouth off about it when the funding for his particular study group started to run dry.
This ended in the 1990’s and since then, Carlo has been cashing in on wireless phone concerns. It actually seems to be his entire career at this point.
Some of the claims made by Carlo:
Wireless Technology is Linked To Autism - Carlo stated “These findings tie in with other studies showing adverse cell-membrane responses and disruptions of normal cell physiology. The EMR apparently causes the metals to be trapped in cells, slowing clearance and accelerating the onset of symptoms.”
Cell Phones Cause Cancer and Genetic Damage – Carlo has written books about this, but this is not supported by any verified and well controlled studies.
Other Studies are Flawed - Carlo has called nearly every study that has shown no link between cell phones or wireless devices and disease flawed. This includes some of the largest and most rigorous studies. He does not give any reason for this, other than vague claims that the industry was involved in the studies.
Filters or Blocking Products Should be Used – There is really only one way to stop radio waves and that is to put a shield of some type around an area. To block cell phone radiation, a faraday cage would be effective. Carlo, however has suggested “scrambler” or “passive reflector” products that do nothing of the sort. These are just little stickers or other magical charms to stick on a phone.
Vaccines Contain Heavy Metals and Radiation Makes it Worse – Carlo has found some support in the anti-vaccine groups. He has spoken of the alleged heavy metals in vaccines and he claims that cell phones and other wireless devices cause these materials to be retained within brain cells.
“If there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low we can’t even detect it” – Absolutely ridiculous. Linear Non-Threshold taken to the point of sheer insanity. Unfortunately for Mr. Carlo, it’s impossible to get away from microwave and electromagnetic radiation. It comes from the sun, stars, the ionosphere and even if you were in a cave lined with copper and mu-metal, your very body creates electromagnetic radiation as a “blackbody radiator.” All things above absolute zero create some radiation. And yes, it can be detected, even at very low levels.
Phone Masts Pose a Great Danger to Public Health – The Anti-mast debate seems to have a problem with physics and geometry. Carlo has been involved with promoting the ‘dangers’ of cell phone masts, especially near schools. However, if he understood the inverse square law, he’d realize that a powerful mast outside a school constitutes considerably less radiation to students than a single teacher having a small cell phone in her purse while within a few feet of students.
Cell Phones Triple or Quadruple the Risk of Brain Cancer – Such an enormous jump would be hard to miss in any halfway decent study and Carlo loves to go into the press and make claims of a three or four times increase in brain cancer, but he never seems to give more than the vague figures off the cuff. Studies, Mr. Carlo? Primary Data?
He’s also frequently cited on badscience.net for his bad science.
I’m sure there’s more out there about Carlo. The guy loves the media and you can find him pandering to reporters and websites all over the place. Just google the name of George Carlo and you’ll quickly see that he’s one of the most vocal and public figures in the pro-bad-science movement.
Unfortunately, at the time of this posting, his website, Safewireless.org is down. Perhaps this is a good thing in the long run, assuming it doesn’t come back. It had plenty of unsubstantiated crap on it.
The term is unscientific or unobjective or even crude, but really there’s only one word that can truely capture the spirit and persona of George Carlo: Assclown. George Carol, you are an assclown, and that’s all there is to it.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, inverse square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
October 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I can think of a few other words to describe him and others like him that have debased their academic credentials in this manner: science whores. They are prostitutes in every sense of the word. Like any good hooker they will say and do anything you want for money.
Quote Comment
October 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I don’t know about this whole approach. I have to say I have kindof mixed feelings.
I do think that what they say should be refuted with data and scientific reason and not just ad-hom, and I do understand that you do that and have plenty of examples here about the real science behind this and why things are a certain way and not just name calling. The idea of just making a clown or an assclown out of those on the bad science side kind of makes it seem like an emotion based thing that is cheap and not set in science. It’s not a scientific or logical argument. It’s just making fun.
But on the other hand, I think you might have something here in real value. I think it kind of says that this guy is a fool and should not be listened to. It says that you have addressed his side but then it says to just write him off as a fool. There may be some real validation in that. In a way it says that you don’t want to elevate this to the level of actual valid scientific debate: this guy;s statements are so wrong and have been proven wrong so many times that he’s just an idiot who shouldn’t be taken seriously or elevated to the level of science.
I don’t really know though. Really I’m split on this.
Quote Comment
October 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Well here’s how I would put it: Does doing dishonest make you a dishonest person? No. Not if it is an isolated instance. I’m sure that everyone has lied their way out of a situation once or twice in their life, at least. Does getting drunk once in a great while make you a drunkard? No, of course not.
But if you are always dishonest or frequently are then you are a dishonest person. If you get drunk every day or almost every day you’re a drunkard or an alcoholic, as it’s called today.
Carlo is not someone who has engaged in bad science or drawn the wrong conclusion on occasion or even sometimes. He IS a jackass or assclown because he does it all the time. This is how he makes his living. The subject is not just the individual claims that are wrong, but the fact that this person has made himself the posterboy for this whole line of idiocy. He is a fool and does not deserve any kind of a good reputation.
I know it’s a logical fallacy to say that something is wrong because of the source, but in his case, anything he says is at least suspect and should not be taken as true or even probably true without verification. His actions have been so bad that they have come to define him.
He is an assclown.
Quote Comment
October 27th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Ctrl Alt Del said:
Carlo gave up the right to be treated like a scientist when he embarked on this route. The onus is not on us or anyone else to prove his contentions wrong, but on him to prove them right.
Quote Comment
October 28th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Respect is meaningless if it is given out to everyone equally without any exception. To receive any kind of respect or credibility you have to meet some kind of standard of honesty, decency and respectability.
This guy is a liar and shameless. As it has been pointed out, he’s not just someone who has made some false statements. False statements are what his whole public life is based on and it’s his whole goddamned career.
Bottom line is that nobody here made an ass or an assclown out of him. He made one out of himself.
Quote Comment
October 28th, 2008 at 3:09 am
“If there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low we can’t even detect it”
That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. There’s no safe limit to electro magnetic radiation? If there is then we can’t detect it? I presume he means the RF kind – like as opposed to visible light.
We can detect the electromagnetic radiation from the tiny transmitter on the pioneer probes that are now moving into interstellar space. We can detect the radiation from small pulsars outside our galaxy, billions of light years away.
If there was no safe level, even at the lowest detectable levels than surely we’d all be dead now!
This is just so jackass crazy. This idiot claims that it’s an epidemic where people are dropping like flies of cancer many times higher than without cell phones? I don’t know anyone who has ever had brain cancer and I know people who have been using cell phones for close to 20 years and have lived in the shaddow of cell phone towers for going on 30 years. Hell, I know people who have been living near airport radar or UHF television for 50+ years. If the numbers were half as dramatic as this idiot wants us to believe it would be almost impossible not to notice the rash of cancer.
Quote Comment
October 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’ve learned that, in general, someone relying on a doctorate, but who won’t specify the field (as well as the source, so it can be verified) is almost always selling a bill of goods.
It’s imperfect, but it’s a very good heuristic.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I wonder if you actually read Dr. Carlo’s book. If Dr. Carlo was not the number 1 guy doing research for the cell phone industry, who was? Was he not paid to do research for the cell phone industry?
So you think that cell phones are perfectly safe? I wonder how much you really know about this subject.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Doug Cragoe said:
A good deal more than you, it would seem.
The calculations that describe the amount of energy that these things can transfer to tissue are not that difficult to understand, nor is the square inverse law. Armed with these two tools I can say that there is no risks from EMF exposure from cell phones and that the field strengths of EMF from other sources that the body is exposed to at any given time completely swamps the contributions that might be made by a cell-phone.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Doug Cragoe said:
There is no number 1 guy doing research for the phone industry. There is no single Czar of all research for all cell phone companies. However, Carlo did indeed direct a scientific body which had funding for research from a major cell phone industry group. When the funding ran short he cashed in on this position and started making some wild claims that the end data did not even turn out to support.
It does seem that the industry group involved did make a poor decision in not realizing that they were funding a program directed by such a dishonest individual. But it does not even change the fact that none of the data indicated what he has claimed. He constantly talks about how data indicates this or that, but never cities the data. It’s not enough to say “Studies prove cell phones kill” – you have to actually be able to provide the studies.
The data is very one-sided on this one. Some of the largest, most rigorous studies in the history of epidemiology have shown zero increase in cancer or other diseases. It has been so researched that it is to the point where it is pushing the limits of statistical study size. The sheer amount of investigation that has gone into this is mind boggling.
Doug Cragoe said:
Quite a lot actually. I’ve looked into it a lot and found a lot of data on the theory of RF health effects as well as the practical studies. They continue to indicate that the thermal model is entirely acurate. It’s well tested and established. The theory behind this and the observed results have been consistant all the way back to the earliest observations of VHF and UHF fields in the early 1930’s. All data continues to confirm that the thermal model is correct and that other effects are not significant bellow this level and show no measurable ill effect.
If you don’t want to listen to me, then fine. I’ll admit that I’m not a professional RF safety expert. However, there are a couple very experienced health physicists, radio technicians, enviornmental health people and others who stop in here from time to time and they concur on this issue.
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I think you guys are the clown ****s, who know nothing about RF and EMF and how it affects your health. I had a burn to my face and neck from RF and EMF from a cell ph. 10 yrs ago
and it still feels like it is burning today. I have ES, my eyes where also very affected by it. I’m a human being not a lab rat and I can tell you cell phones are very harmful to your health and
Dr. Carlo is the only person I know who is looking for a solution while you have nothing better to do than to bash him. take a look at your useless self, what are you doing other than making a very serious situation even worse. Sham on you.
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Barb Makota said:
And you as stupid as you are are deluded. The reasons why you are wrong have been explained to you in terms even you should be able to understand. Your beliefs fly in the face of logic and science; logic and science that we are qualified to understand both by our years education, and practical experience in these fields. You on the other hand have nether. Furthermore these are not arcane subjects, there are literally millions of us around the world that understand these things and earn our living applying this knowledge.
Vast networks for energy and communications that work and continue to work that were designed and built with this knowledge stand testament to the accuracy of that knowledge, while the inability of anyone to duplicate the phenomena you claim under any reasonably controlled conditions proves that they are lies, or fantasies.
These are the facts, and failure to accept them is the act of a fool.
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Barb Makota said:
Damn. I should say for the record that I have never stated that RF energy can’t cause burns.
So how many kilowatts was this phone putting out??
Quote Comment
February 6th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Barb Makota said:
Christ, where do you get such an idea? There are plenty of regulars on this site who are professionals or researchers or otherwise EXTREMELY knowledgeable about RF and EMF and how it effects your health.
Guess what! I have had more RF safety training in my career than any of the idiots who claim to have ES. I’m certified in both Canada and the United States, because I’ve worked in both and I’ve been re certified and licensed for almost everything related to this crap you can think of.
Look at this site Notice all the licensing and regulation there is related to commercial microwave links, repeaters, satellite transmitters, radio station broadcast, television stations, cell towers. You know whose job it is to make sure that the sites are done properly with these regulations and that the installation and servicing is done as per regulations? That would be me.
In some ways the regulations in the US are even more strict. They’re actually a bit less complicated, but one thing about the US is that you need to be licensed and certified to install certain kinds of transmitters even down to a very low power like small VSAT systems.
So please go ahead and tell me I know nothing about RF and the health issues. Please show me who the real ass is.
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Well Now,
You all sure like to talk like you know everything and how Carlo knows nothing.
You may know RF and engineering as do I, but that does not make you an expert on its effect to the human body over time.
Many laughed at people who thought smoking caused cancer, and it took many years to prove it, but it was correct.
Fact is you are not doctors and the real effects to the human body by cell phones over long periods of time to our cells and our DNA are beyond your scope and knowhow.
The point is not that everyone using cell phones will get cancer, but that some people may be more prone to tumor like growth if exposed to cell phone radation over time.
Maybe Carlo cannot prove this yet………. but guess what…you cannot prove it is not true either.
There are many studies other than Carlo’s that contend that cell phones may cause a serious risk to people over time, so I suggest you open your eyes and see the world for what it is, a complex place where the things you think cannot happen…do happen.
PHD from MIT in engineering, chemistry, bio physics
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
t-ray said:
Bull**** – no one with that level of education talks like that. Do you think you are dealing with fools who will swallow that sort of self-serving appeal to authority?
Go and try to spin your crap to those who might fooled, you have no credibility here.
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Three different Ph.D.’s eh? Maybe you should go back for a fourth. I wonder how many you can get before learning that the ‘h’ is not capital.
t-ray said:
I’m not aware that this was ever seen as an outlandish idea. There were claims that smoking could increase cancer risk going all the way back to the early 1800’s, but it really wasn’t fully established until the 1930’s, partially becasue so many people died young of various respiratory problems anyway.
Quote Comment
August 12th, 2009 at 4:51 am
t-ray said:
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Quote Comment
August 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
No matter how you or anyone feels about Dr. Carlo. The facts remain,
THE FCC TCA 1996 sec 704 – Pre-empts any local, state authority to deny wireless permits based on RF/EMF due to health or environment, “Unless the RF/EMF exceeds the FCC limits”.
Yet The FCC website claims “It does not conduct the RF/EMF analysis for each and every site”
So the questions are: Who Does? Why Not? Especially with new emerging technologies and the proliferation of more antennas? With new emerging scientific proof from reputable scientists.
Did you know in April 2009 – the European Parliment voted 522 (22 nay) (8 abstain) to reevaluate the cumulative effects of RF/EMF, standards for children under 12 using cell phones, and citizens living in close proximities to towers/antennas?
I think you fail to see the picture and work for the industry your self – The Fact Is Where Monies are to be made such a market will stop at nothing from lies and loopholes to make those profits. The Earth produces a natural RF – but with all the money to be made in the wireless market – such proliferation creates areas that exceed the natural limit. Any radiation is bad for people exposed (living) 24/7 next to their homes. MORE AND MORE AND MORE is all we see and no one can come up with an exact plan for such networks- I mean come on.
This WIRELESS INDUSTRY is just re-creating the TABACCO Industry- LIES just to make a buck. If their are any findings that lead to any potential human, environmental harm – People should have the right to say NO!
Obvious this industry isn’t going to stop working – but responsability needs to be taken to safely deploy such markets. Not this ENDLESS ACCOUNTABILITY WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW!
Quote Comment
August 18th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Gordon said:
You are so wrong that the US has strict regulations – we have the most outrageous levels. All the european countries have 100 times less then the US… anyone want to back this look at the (Bio Initiative) Let me know then if you agree with WORLD KNOWN Ph.D, DR., Masters of this field and internal medicine.
Anyone who thinks things need to change send a letter of concern to congress asking them to REPEL FCC Sect. 704 that pre-empts local and state govt on health and environ on RF levels. – WHY?? Because anyone who know the US money to be made is first priority over human health and environ. LOL
Quote Comment
August 18th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
JANE DOE said:
The regulations in the United States are based on levels which are roughly 2% of the lowest thereshold levels at which any biological effects are noticed. In other words, if you stood at the base of a tower, the levels would have to be fifty times what they are there in order to have even a chance of observing noticable tissue heating beyond the normal variations seen in nature.
Of course, if you take a few steps away then the level rapidly decreases even further. By the time you’re fifty paces away, the levels are thousands of times bellow the danger level.
BioIniative has such outlandish claims it’s laughable. I don’t care who there has a PhD or what its in. Look at the info. Perhaps the idiots at that site do know better, in which case they’re just plain liars.
The standard in the US is based on IEEE recomendations which were adopted by a number of other countries including Canada and the Netherlands and a few other European Countries.
Its Not Rocket Science said:
For good reason. They were right to recognize that assclowns would inject themselves into this when the levels are perfectly safe.
Its Not Rocket Science said:
It’s unnecessary. Surveys can and are done if there is some reason to believe that there is a problem. If a community is so concerned they can send someone there with an isotropic power density meter and if it turns out to exceed the standards then they can report it to the FCC.
It remains unnecessary because the equipment always produces the same kind of levels and this can be predicted. Do they do surveys for each and every individual phone sold in the US? No, of course not. The equipment (the transmitters, amplifiers, antennas) have all been tested and certified and the levels produced will always be the same. If you put a 6 db horizontal plane antenna on top of a 100′ tower and connect it to a 1kw amplifier, the levels at ground level will always be the same. The designs are approved and the equipment is approved.
There’s such an enormous safety margin anway.
Its Not Rocket Science said:
The Europeans lead the world in fear of RF. But then again, they can’t touch the South Koreans when it comes to fear of fans. They put warning lables on fans there to avoid “fan death”
JANE DOE said:
It doesn’t matter what you think of the US economic system or US companies or the wireless industry. This is a strawman. Low level RF radiation is harmless and that’s based on sound science. It doesn’t matter if the radiation is produced by a for-profit company or a socialist government or a non-profit foundation or an individual amateur radio operator. Hell, it could be a transmitter owned and operated by a group of Neo-Nazis and it still wouldn’t hurt you.
This is the same logical fallacy you see with depleted uranium. No matter how much you disprove of a given military conflict or the politics that caused it, the chemical properties of the element uranium remain constant.
Quote Comment
December 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
In all the research I have read. I have found that almost all the industry funded studies deal with thermal effects. The cell phone does not cook your brain it does not excite the molecules enough to cause them to cook. What about the non- thermal effect? I have read many studies on that one and it it quite scary. I can’t find any that industry has done, where are they? Or have they done any?
When I ask The Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau
Health Canada about the studies his answer was “industry doesn’t paid for all the studies” “That the studies you see in Europe are based on precaution not science”. 15,000 studies and not one is based on science. We are talking about the Gene pool people. We are as healthy as our cells. Precaution must be used.
I have a hard time trusting someone that is a RF technician telling me they know about health related issues. You know what they tell you about health related issues not from your own scientific research. Yes the world has plenty of its own EMF, but a natural form. Not to say that the human body cannot handle a certain amount of unnatural EMF, But I think we might be reaching an overload
Quote Comment
December 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I’m still not aware of any solid evidence for non-thermal effects of RF radiation nor am I aware of any theoretical mechanism that would imply it.
Cells are too small compared to the wavelength of RF radiation for them to resonate or act as receivers in any kind of meaningful way. Cells are just little bags of fluid that do various biochemical things, but rf radiation is not able to directly effect chemicals so all it can do is impart energy that ends up going to heating. Obviously this will cause damage when it reaches a certain point, but it takes quite a bit of radiation to do that.
Quote Comment
December 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Are you for real? “Cells are just little bags of fluid that do various biochemical things” A scientist you are not that you have made quite clear.
I think in another 20 years you might be taking your foot out of your mouth and painting that picture of an ass on your own face. There are plenty of non industry studies and I’m sure you have read a few yourself.
Quote Comment
December 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
person123 said:
The only one here being an ass is you, 123. Instead of offering up insults, why don’t you post links to these non-industry studies you refer too, and we can analyze them here to see if they are valid. You will find that we are open minded enough to consider the posiblity that we are wrong and change our thinking – are you?
Quote Comment
December 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m sorry if I offended you, I am only referring to the picture on YOUR site in regards to the ass.
Here is a good one you can spend days in here.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
One thing I think we can agree on is that this technology is virtually untested and unregulated.
We have 2G,3G, and now 4G what the hell does all this stuff mean! We have no idea of the long terms effect of this. A constant pulse odourless, colourless, tasteless wave of EMF Radiation affecting everyone even as we sleep,(a time when our cells need the rest and rejuvenation) even as your children and grand children sleep. Has any account been given to the unique susceptibility of growing children? Caution is most definitely warranted.
There has to be a better way to move forward on this issue. I believe the health of our planet depends on it.
Quote Comment
December 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
person123 said:
Obviously my description of cells is very simplified – accurate, but simplified – cells are little bags of fluid, that is correct. They have a membrane around them which is made of proteins and lipids and they contain organelles and the “various biochemical things” they do is a huge oversimplification. They produce enzymes and proteins and oxidize glucose and do numerous other things.
Still, the point of the analogy being that RF radiation can’t act directly on them in any meaningful way other than to heat the fluid. This can cause damage if it’s extreme enough, but RF radiation does not alter the chemistry of the cells nor does it really change how they are able to operate.
All it does is vibrate electrons and thus the molecules they are part of, but it does not change the ion state or anything like that. For RF radiation to produce any kind of overall electrical potential, you need to have some kind of antenna – a structure that is made of good electrical conductor and ideally resonant to the signal. The human body is not a very good conductor and it doesn’t act as much of an antenna. There are too many things to interfere with that effect and certainly cells don’t because they’re too small. Even if it did act as an antenna, it would just create a micro-volt level of excitement. Hardly anything to be concerned about.
Quote Comment
December 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
person123 said:
Yeah, they’ve come up on a number of occasions here:
http://depletedcranium.com/new-claim-on-rf-radiation-gets-even-crazier/
person123 said:
Actually, I can tell you exactly what it means:
2G is the first generation of standardized all-digital mobile telephony. It’s focused primarily on voice traffic but also supports data at baseband speeds up to about 128kbps, but normally is more like 64kbps. 2G is what standard GSM and 1x CDMA are
3G is the next generation of standards and includes EVDO, UMTS and HSDPA. It normally still uses the 2G system for voice calling, but it includes more effecient encoding and spread-spectrum modulation. It provides high speed data capabilities. Normally it operates on the higher bands
4G is intended to provide infrastructure grade broadband or near infrastructure grade broadband. It (usually) operates on higher frequencies and uses encoding similar to wifi. Wimax is an example of 4G
person123 said:
Oh, don’t worry about that. There are decades and decades of applied research on this. Some of the first research on the issue of RF radiation and health goes all the way back to the hayday of broadcasting and was done by groups like RCA and the BBC.
The first mass use of microwaves (the same frequencies used in 3g and 4g) came with the production of the magnetron in 1940. which quickly became standardized in Allied radar. The multi-kilowatt radar systems actually did cause a few injuries, mostly to hapless sailors, due to the fact that when under way at sea, they were weary of shutting down the radar, even when someone needed to access the area.
The injuries observed during the second world war resulted in large scale studies and the first established safety levels for microwaves. Research continued into the 1950’s which resulted in guidelines that are still considered valid today. Yes, the framework for our safety guidelines are 50 years old, but that’s because they’ve only been confirmed by more research.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7498052433339986964#
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Seems the author of this blog is on the same alleged ass level as Dr. Carlo. The world is not black and white, with the truth on one end and the lie at the other, that is why an intelligent person is the first to challenge his own opinions. Smearing opponents for his differences, is like emptying the latrin aginst the wind.
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
sigh said:
As much as your point is true in some cases, it doesn’t mean that all positions taken on a subject, all opinions, and all points of view, need survive analysis.
While it is proper to examine all sides of an argument at the beginning, that does not preclude rejecting most of them on evidence, and coming to a conclusion.
In this case the evidence has been examined atnd the position of Carlo has been found unsupportable. This being the case the accusation that all sides of the issue have not been weighted is simply wrong.
This has become one of the touchstones of determining if a supporter of ant idea it him/herself a crank, they endlessly accuse others of not taking into account all the evidence, while rejecting outright any that show they are wrong. They never argue the facts, but instead attack and question the integrity of all those that do not agree with them. With supporters like these, Carlo hardly needs enemies.
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that EMF exposure can
change gene and/or protein expression in certain types of cells, even at intensities lower
than ICNIRP recommended values. However, the biological consequences of most of
the changed genes/proteins are still unclear, and need to be further explored. Thus, it is
not the time point yet to assess the health impact of EMF based on the gene and protein
expression data. The IEEE and WHO data bases do not include the majority of ELF
studies; they do include the majority of the RF studies.
(Source: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_5.pdf)
or…
The same mechanism is stimulated in both ranges, but in the ELF range, where no
heating occurs, the energy input rate is over a billion times lower than in the RF range.
The stress response is a natural defense mechanism activated by molecular damage
caused by environmental forces. The response involves activation of DNA, i.e.,
stimulating stress genes as well as genes that sense and repair damage to DNA and
proteins. Scientific research has identified specific segments of DNA that respond to
EMF and it has been possible to move these specific segments of DNA and transfer the
sensitivity to EMF. At high EMF intensities, the interaction with DNA can lead to DNA
strand breaks that could result in mutation, an initiating step in the development of
cancer.
(Source: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_7.pdf)
Quote Comment
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
The bioiniative report has some of the most ridiculous ****amamie and plain stupid asserting I’ve seen in my life. It will not be accepted as evidence here.
Quote Comment
April 21st, 2010 at 1:30 am
[...] special interest groups like “Bioiniative” and assclowns like George Carlo and Leonard Hardell are not reliable sources. Any source that begins with the premise of a [...]
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Really– bad science? Carlo may be a relative “nobody”, but there are many major neurosurgeons & oncology experts who are speaking out on the potential & likely danger of long-term cell phone use. These docs are chairmans & directors of their departments at major teaching hospitals. They have “day jobs”– don’t need the revenue from creating false scares:
Ronald Herberman, M.D., Director of University of Pittsgurgh’s Cancer Institute
Keith Black, M.D., Chairman of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center & Director of Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute has expressed this concern.
Devra Davis, Ph.D., Director of The Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh’s Cancer Institute has expressed this concern.
Paul Song, M.D., Radiation Oncologist, private practice in Los Angeles
Sanjay Gupta, M.D., practicing Neurosurgeon, CNN correspondent
These docs have no axes to grind– they’re simply concerned that cell phones are today’s “cigarettes”… that 10 or 15 years from now, there will be more conclusive evidence and that we will be sorry if we don’t take some precautions today. Studies are trending in the direction of “danger” based upon 10 years worth of data. Do you want to wait until we have 20 years worth of data? Or do you want to be prudent today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKHg08f5_xo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRRaur2DobQ
If you’re really interested in the truth, and not the spin, watch the youtubes and then make better choices.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Leanne Watt said:
The first thing that one needs to take into account when considering something like this is that most physicians are not scientists. Most medical students and residents receive little training in the scientific method. This makes all too many physicians very susceptible to pseudoscience because they don’t have a good grasp of what good scientific methodology is all about.
Good scientists naturally have a strong suspicion of any claimed observational result that purports to overthrow an extremely well-established theory. That’s just common sense, not hidebound establishmentarianism; most such anomalies eventually go away. But that doesn’t mean that you ignore anomalies; you just treat them with caution.
To date ALL of the properly conducted, properly designed cohort studies of this have shown nothing. The studies that seem to show some relationship have been done by self reporting cellphone use among those already suffering from cancer, and with very small samples. this is not good experimental design at all. The others show statistical evidence well below the noise floor, and thus cannot be seen as credible.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Leanne Watt said:
First of all, that’s just an appeal to authority. Saying that a lot of people with big jobs and titles worry about something doesn’t count for anything. What matters is evidence. Data, observations, verifiable studies. That’s what actually is important. It does not matter if someone is a nobody or a famous researcher. Show me the data and the source does not matter.
In any case, these are not researchers but physicians and some of them are not even involved in research or the fields pertinent to the topic. I’m especially disipointed in Ronald Herberman. He’s “expressing concern” of something which he obviously has not done a lot of research in. He’s just echoing the concerns he’s heard from others.
This is not about the individual, but there’s a reason why I go after someone like George Carlo. It’s not simply that he has bad data. He has personally made a career out of this crap and using his name to try to promote it. My term for someone like this (in addition to assclown) is “professional liar.” That’s what he does to make money – he says stuff that he can’t back up just to make money selling books, seminars and snakeoil products.
Leanne Watt said:
**sigh** Larry King….
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
Hello, just stopped by doing some research for my Los Angeles 4g website. Lots of information out there. Not quite what I was looking for, but interesting page. Have a great day.
Quote Comment
January 21st, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Jacklyn @ Los Angeles 4G Wireless said:
Are these spams going to be dealt with?
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Amazed by the blog, whoever you are who slaughters Dr George Carlo.
Why do you do this? I am confused?
Regarding the extraordinary Dr George Carlo, who seems by about 2006 to have made himself total persona non grata in both camps i.e the “how absurd it is to think mobile phones could cause cancer” and the “mobile phones are poisoning you: you will develop a hideous disease and your children will be mutants”. I find no trace of him since 2006 2007?
Does anyone know what has happened to this man?
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2011 at 1:01 am
Alaistair Troubadour said:
I don’t like liars. Actually one of the things that annoys me most is people who will say anything that they think can make them some money and promote it as science. Carlo is a perfect example. He tries to puff up his credentials and then throws around a lot of baseless claim so he can sell lectures and books.
Anyway, I don’t know what happened to him since 2007. Perhaps enough people started to wise up to his scheme? Or maybe he’s moved onto some other areas like selling “magnetic fuel savers” or homeopathy or some other dishonest living.
Quote Comment