Reply With QuoteThere is one BIG difference here, the output ( in Watts) of the Crystal Palace transmitter is bloody huge compared to the output of a wireless router and without checking the frequency is probably different as well.
To those of you who assured me we’re all ok sitting at our computers with wireless routers close by, I have come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence for any complacency. The “safe” use of wireless is still unproven. Ignorance, uncertainty and lack of conclusive proof of either beneficial or deleterious effects on humans seem to be the most accepted scientific opinion after an overall study of all the tests conducted so far, the Stewart Report being only one example.
I can only find one report on the Crystal Palace area - analysis conducted for The Sunday Times by Professor Gordon Stewart (not the same as Sir William Stewart of the Stewart Report) in 1999. This found an higher incidence of cancers. Another report possibly distilled from this one, suggested that we can only take evidence of 30years, not 50years from the Crystal Palace area. This report suggested that incidence of cancer were higher than the norm – and also discussed this result in samples of radio hams and WW11 wireless operators.
I am finding difficulty coming up with many reports on the effect of wireless on PLANTS – except that I have found a book that tells me they grow better in a pyramid! Mmmm
If anyone is interested, I was out in very rural Africa and my companions were complaining that the chief would not grant them more land on which to grow their “mielies” (corn). I could see miles and miles of power lines disappearing into the distance so I suggested they simply use the space underneath – they looked at me in horror assuring me that things “grew funny” under these cables. These people knew nothing of ELF. Mmmm I only found one report suggesting stunted growth on trees growing near power cables. There is still the problem of my begonia!
So that leaves me just as sceptical as I was before! The woo way is HIGHLY suspicious of magnetic smog and perhaps they are right to be that way. Perhaps, in our own ignorance, we should all increase our dose of free radical scavenger supplements and do a bit of meditation! :P
There is one BIG difference here, the output ( in Watts) of the Crystal Palace transmitter is bloody huge compared to the output of a wireless router and without checking the frequency is probably different as well.
Michelle
I applaud you on your question for information. If after considering the mountain of evidence you decide that you are undecided (which is not a state to be decried) then so be it. Again decisions must be formulated on what we know now and as such are subject to a process of revision. However, I would like to point out the distinction between pseudoscientific views (woo) and sceptical/scientific views. It may or may not be right to be suspicious about magnetic smog but a scientific conclusion will be based on evidence and reason where the other is not. ???
Regards
Median
I don't know what the hell is in there, but it's weird and pissed off whatever it is.
To Doubting Thomas and Median
Yes – you are RIGHT! What you say I accept.
Because of my great age, I have seen a tremendous change in the amount of “smog” in my home and homes of others. From a touch of smog I am progressing annually to greater and greater “clouds” of smog. Our houses and offices are not like Crystal Palace true, and I, like millions of others, have fallen in love with modern technology and own more and more stuff that “emits” something. I have been working with computers since the first day my eyes saw one and I fell in love – that’s quite a time now. Being an “obsessive” person, once I am working on a computer I never think to take a break. I can report that I am very healthy and cannot attribute any negative physical effects of my way of life. The way computers work and the ethereal nature of the Internet has changed my concepts of how other things might work, but my body? Not anything I can FEEL.
I really DO need answers to questions that float about in the back of my mind.
The woo idea of “suspicion” is one – they are sceptical about unknown negative influences of all magnetic fields because they believe that everything is MORE than simply what we can observe and test now.
I am so skeptical I feel it is wrong to simply brush this idea away….it is truly arrogant to do that. There is a computer program written that “translates” pictures of the human aura – I think mmmm. But then there is also a computer program written that “translates” pictures of the atomic structure of matter – I think mmmm. The best photo of atoms is a very vague to say the least – and we can only get down to one atom by using a program that WE have designed which to me, seems no better that the one that gives us a picture of the human aura. If we cannot photograph properly the stuff of matter – how can we deny there might be some more subtle field that cannot be captured by scientific method? How CAN we be SURE?
We seem constantly looking for cancer as the definition of whether our electronic smog affects us or not. But what if it affected more subtle things like our immune systems, our minds, our conciousness, the robustness of our physical structure, or our mitochondria? The internet had only just come to us mere mortals when I found a report from Russia suggesting that in a “field” free radical scavengers are “paralysed” (like your mouse won’t work in the sunshine) and I see there are many more studies being done on the same topic now – in which case, seeing no one can know, it isn’t a bad idea to take some food supplements.
I might seem flippant – it’s only my sense of humour – but I am NOT laying traps or arguing pro woo – I would like to sort my own thoughts out. And as I said before I have so many questions and no answers!
I think we need to be careful of falling for the fallacy known as the Argument to Ignorance. This is where we take our lack of knowledge (our ignorance) of something and take it as evidence to support that thing.
For example:
<blockquote>- we don’t know 100% that ghosts don’t exist;
- we don’t know 100% that God doesn’t exist;
- we don’t know 100% that low-level electromagnetic radiation is completely harmless.</blockquote>
The fact that we do not or can not know definitive answers to such things doesn’t make them more likely to be true (!)
All we can do is to look for evidence to support such things. If evidence is lacking where we would expect it to be found (such as a higher incidence of illness/disease/death closer to radio transmitters for example) then this is a case where the absence of evidence certainly is evidence of absence.
After 100 years of artificial EM radiation (there’s plenty of natural EMR – the Sun (light) produces a lot) I think it’s safe to conclude that it is quite harmless in low to moderate amounts.
.
Re this - trouble is there IS some evidence for this!Originally Posted by John Jackson
I would like to think you are right about low to moderate amounts being ok – that’s what I’d LIKE to think – but that’s not always acceptable.
Of course there is much research (on going) about people who claim to have EMS……and suggestions of increases in hearing voices, psychosis, spiritual experiences, epilepsy, etc etc etc not to mention autism, allergies, Alzheimer’s and goodness knows what else as possible results of living in ELFs for a generation and/or television eye/brain stimulation and stuff in the younger generation. The mind boggles! :o
What I was suggesting was that “Under the circumstances (my bit of recent research) I have to question both science and woo”. I did not say my premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that my premise is false only because it has not been proven true. I have no premise! I’m trying to formulate one…..
Even the results of scientific research must be considered carefully for reasons given in another posting – best be a bit skeptical about that too! I am. :-\
Michelle :)
I am an electrician by trade and know a fair bit about electronics.
It just occurred to me that all this worry about EMF and radiation etc from hundreds of different sources has only happened because engineers have invented lots of other electronic devices to measure all this radiation, which undoutably exists, but we don't know what if any harm it does.
One way of looking at this is to realise that TV detector vans work by tuning into the radiation emitted by televisions, they can pinpoint the exact room.
One of the simple pieces of test gear i carry with me most of the time is called a "volt stick", this can detect if voltage is present in cables without breaking into them. It works by detecting the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the wire.
In other words, you are surrounded by some kind of EMF wherever you are unless you are in the middle of the country-side.
To avoid all of this you could always have your electricity disconnected and completely cover the inside of your house with tin foil to block any radiation from outside, oh, and don't forget the land line phone as well.
Mind you, if you do all that how will we know what happens.........
Yes - you're right of course. I wonder how much EMF our bodies were getting a hundred years ago? The ordinary person was still aspiring to an electrified home - though he might have had gas lighting. I know that electricity (60hz usually) was simply chosen from one of other frequecies that could have been used - and of course in the early days it hadn't been tested for safety. I wonder when it was that most western people lived in electrified houses - a generation ago? Two generations?
Do people in remote regions where there have never been electrified homes have the rate of altzheimers' and cancer that we do? These statistics are hard to find out....just wondering..
How far away from a wall where there is wiring or - say - at a plug point can you get a reaction on your volt stick?
Michelle :)
Actually the volt stick is not very sensitive, i was just using it as an example but there are other instruments that are more sensitive.
By the way in the UK the mains frequency is 50Hz not 60Hz.:)
OK - is it USA thats 60Hz? Remember reading somewhere. In Africa I lived in a house where every plug was fused because of the "English" wiring system. We were the only house I ever knew like that - it was a real pest - we used to buy appliance plugs in UK, or get friends to, because we couldn't buy such things easily. Now, in the UK, in all the "English" houses we have lived I have not seen that system here at all!!! Is that an old fashioned thing?
So I still have the question of Alzheimer's' and cancer statistics in remote, unelectrified places.......
Michelle :)
That would be hard to say. People are probably prone to die younger of many more things in undeveloped places so their rates of Alzheimer's and cancer may appear to be less.
Again, you have to know how to look at these things properly otherwise you'll form false conclusions.
.
Hi John
yes - I did check out my questions - This forum is making me work so HARD! and the statistics in DEVELOPED countries ARE higher - but then if you check out my "increase" list on the other thread it could be a million different OTHER reasons and not the fact that our houses are electrified - that was my question/suspicion/suggestion/possibilty rather than mobile phone/ computer/routers etc. It was that several generations might be now "reaping" the effects of living in ELF
Michelle :)
In relation to air borne polution and cardiac arrythmia
http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte....2006.027292v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10615837
Both of these trials relate to inhaling air borne polution( chemical) by either elderly patients, who would be pre disposed to the condition as it worsens with age or for patients already fitted with ambulatory defibrilators because they already have cardiac arrythmia.
Cardiac arrythmia can be triggered in even younge and healthy by breathing in certain agents. Glue sniffing and butane sniffing have lead to fatal cardiac arrythmia, reports of which can be found on line.
Diabetes, there are two types
Type 1, young onset, possibly viral damage to B cells or an autoimmune reaction
Type 2, old onset linked with obesity, lack of excercise, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance. There is a genetic component. Treatments should include weight loss and excercise. The incidence of type 2 is on the increase, possibly due to the rise in cases of severely overweight adults and a diet composed of too much refined sugars
Thanks - will check out
I was meaning irregular heatbeat - you can get that just with too much irish in your coffee!Cardiac arrythmia can be triggered in even younge and healthy by breathing in certain agents. Glue sniffing and butane sniffing have lead to fatal cardiac arrythmia, reports of which can be found on line.
yes - agreeDiabetes, there are two types
Michelle :)
An interesting point is to consider how easy it is to get a TV or radio signal (almost) anywhere in your house, or in the street, or pretty much anywhere in Britain. Now think how hard it is to get a signal from your router when you are just in the next room, let alone across the street. The debate over EM radiation rages on, but there seems no doubt the by far the biggest influences are radio transmitters and power lines, not the small, low-power devices we put in our homes.
Better sorry than safe.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks