'Electrosmog' aka Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Radiation (EMR) vs. Health
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
There are no dangers, it's an entirely psychosomatic illness resulting from people not understanding science and saying radiation sounds scary, it must be making me sick. You might as well have health campaigns about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it.
It's worth noting that all devices work on radio frequency waves, the same as that of the cosmic microwave background radiation. If they genuinely were sensitive to radiation then they'd be in constant agony, even after isolating themselves from any modern appliances. The only way the Internet will make you I'll is if you stay up all the time staring at a tiny screen and don't sleep, but the same results would be seen from reading, playing board games or anything else.
It's worth noting that all devices work on radio frequency waves, the same as that of the cosmic microwave background radiation. If they genuinely were sensitive to radiation then they'd be in constant agony, even after isolating themselves from any modern appliances. The only way the Internet will make you I'll is if you stay up all the time staring at a tiny screen and don't sleep, but the same results would be seen from reading, playing board games or anything else.
Perfectly harmless? There must be research being done. It's highly unlikely people would just make these things up
Original post by Daniellaaa
Perfectly harmless? There must be research being done. It's highly unlikely people would just make these things up
There has been research done. The big problem is the findings are not those that proponents of electromagnetic hypersensitivity want. Until there exists a plethora of blind studies supporting their claims, doctors and scientists will continue to regard it as psychosomatic.
Surely, if you believe you have this 'condition', spending a lot of time on tsr is the last thing you should be doing? Wouldn't you remove all possible local causes and go low/no tech?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Daniellaaa
Perfectly harmless? There must be research being done. It's highly unlikely people would just make these things up
There has been research done, and it's shown that electrosensitivity isn't real. Making things up is a poor choice of words - the cause doesn't exist; RF waves doesn't affect us. The symptoms are real, but in the same way that the positive response to a sugar pill when told it's powerful medication is real - it's entirely attributable to the nocebo effect.
Original post by RobML
Apart from heating effects caused by super-strong microwave signals, non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless. That's gcse-level science for goodness sakes.
I have a feeling you're shilling.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I have a feeling you're shilling.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The World Health Organisation and many others including myself would disagree with you..
Original post by Limpopo
The World Health Organisation and many others including myself would disagree with you..
Elaborate.
Original post by Foo.mp3
...
If you are unhappy with the existing scientific consensus then, please, step up. Conduct your own primary research, write your own meta-analysis or literature review (without cherry picking) and get it published in a suitable peer-reviewed journal. If your case is a good as you think, it will be easy.
Create that paradigm shift. Until then, a lot of people will remain sceptical.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Be serious. It’s not merely a question of frequency, but of intensity, and exposure, as you should know full well
And the intensity of a wifi signal is negligible as a result of the inverse square law (rarely do you have the router right next to you), which also means exposure is negligible. Your claimed illness has no consistency with what we know of RF radiation and the evidence for it being purely psychosomatic is overwhelming.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Obviously you're attracting some heat for this. Intended non-combatively, what's the logic behind dismissing a well-conducted peer-reviewed systematic review? And you're not allowed to say "because it's Wessley" 
I know how many people feel about him but that doesn't invalidate his conclusions; I see no evidence of systematic bias in the paper unless it's in the selection of articles for review (if so, please give a well-conducted study that he missed out).
I'm not even going to comment on including Gywneth Paltrow as evidence for your cause.
And personal experience is irrelevant because one can't internally discriminate between psychologically generated and "genuine" (read: biological) symptoms.
(My credentials, since they're relevant to the discussion: I work on multiple medical and psychological research projects as either the principal investigator or a significant contributor, so I'm well informed on good research practice.)
Posted from TSR Mobile
I know how many people feel about him but that doesn't invalidate his conclusions; I see no evidence of systematic bias in the paper unless it's in the selection of articles for review (if so, please give a well-conducted study that he missed out).I'm not even going to comment on including Gywneth Paltrow as evidence for your cause.
And personal experience is irrelevant because one can't internally discriminate between psychologically generated and "genuine" (read: biological) symptoms.(My credentials, since they're relevant to the discussion: I work on multiple medical and psychological research projects as either the principal investigator or a significant contributor, so I'm well informed on good research practice.)
Posted from TSR Mobile
if you seriously think wifi is that harmful you might as well live under a rock :/ the name of 2B group is: probably carcinogenic, and the definition of that is:
“Possible” means different things to scientists than to the general public. To a scientist, it means theoretically and logically possible as opposed to impossible. It’s a very low ranking as to the truth of a matter.The next steps up the ladder of probability that something is true are: plausibly and then probably and then“proven” (meaning it is so likely to be true that we take the liberty of saying it’s proven, even as nothing is castin stone). This continuum has been termed “the four Ps”.
“Possible” means different things to scientists than to the general public. To a scientist, it means theoretically and logically possible as opposed to impossible. It’s a very low ranking as to the truth of a matter.The next steps up the ladder of probability that something is true are: plausibly and then probably and then“proven” (meaning it is so likely to be true that we take the liberty of saying it’s proven, even as nothing is castin stone). This continuum has been termed “the four Ps”.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Half way out the door so no time to go into detail but, as I implied with my earlier comments, consider: the nomenclature (long term symptomatic manifestation of electro-sensitivity vs. short term self-reported electro-sensibility)* and (in the context of) methodology (precisely what they tested, how, and in what broader environmental/psychological context), in the context of the (background/focus/agenda of the) authors/sponsors of the relevant 'studies'
There are a host of reasons for me to suppose that my symptomatic improvements have been environment related (e.g. the psychological boost of changing location ought really to work contrary to the improvement I've seen), although I accept that it's difficult to internally discriminate/convince sceptics that it's not merely 'all in the mind'
There are a host of reasons for me to suppose that my symptomatic improvements have been environment related (e.g. the psychological boost of changing location ought really to work contrary to the improvement I've seen), although I accept that it's difficult to internally discriminate/convince sceptics that it's not merely 'all in the mind'
Well, you can't discriminate, particularly as those who claim to be electro-sensitive are by default already convinced of the argument, leaving them open to confirmation bias and construction of narratives favourable to their interpretation. Personal opinion is therefore potentially biased and consequently irrelevant.
The only way to prove long-term effects of electro-sensitivity is to sample a large number of participants from naïve populations, one in a presumed high-risk area and one in a low-risk area, who have been resident in the same location for (say) 10 years plus, and then to compare degree of symptoms. If you find a statistically significant difference in symptoms after controlling for age, pre-existing conditions, diet, exercise, socioeconomic status, alcohol intake, drug use, etc....at that point you could start to consider electro-sensitivity as one of the remaining possible causes.
Since this hasn't been done, there is currently no reason to accept the hypothesis that electro-sensitivity causes symptoms of any kind.
Note that I'm not saying it's not true and I'm not intending to dismiss your beliefs about your symptoms, but as scientists healthcare professionals are unable to reject the null hypothesis without an adequate degree of evidence, which has not been provided at this point. The thing is, you can criticise the methodology of the existing studies, the agenda of the authors and anything else you like, but at best all you can do is dismiss the existing evidence, which still leaves you without scientifically acceptable evidence to support your argument - and in the absence of evidence, you still cannot reject the null hypothesis. The assumption is always that there is no effect until proven otherwise.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Foo.mp3
Half way out the door so no time to go into detail but, as I implied with my earlier comments, consider: the nomenclature (long term symptomatic manifestation of electro-sensitivity vs. short term self-reported electro-sensibility)* and (in the context of) methodology (precisely what they tested, how, and in what broader environmental/psychological context), in the context of the (background/focus/agenda of the) authors/sponsors of the relevant 'studies'
Can anyone think of an adjective to describe this sentence?
Original post by Foo.mp3
They said similar things about tobacco and asbestos. See the topic introduction TEDx lecture I've now included in the OP. If you're still not convinced, visit the link in the OP to the research he mentions. If you're still not convinced, well then frankly I can't help you 
It's in the "possibly carcinogenic" group because there's no good quality evidence to confirm any risk. If and when there is a reasonable quantity of valid evidence, as there is with processed red meat, it will be reclassified in a more risky category.
Your arguments are anecdotal which, as I've already pointed out, are inadmissible as scientific evidence. You claim to know better than people who have approached the subject with a scientific method, who have dedicated their lives to assessment of carcinogenic risk and decided to drop this in the "we don't know" category. Personally, I put my faith in research and statistics, not gut feelings and anecdotes.
It's poor form to be promoting this as fact when the evidence is lacking.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Foo.mp3
A relevant epidemiological study showed fairly strong, statistically significant, associations between exposure intensity and depression, fatigue, sleep disorder, concentration difficulties and cardiovascular problems
Ok. While that's a start, there is no control group, the study is underpowered and the participants self-selected. The measure made it obvious what the point of the study was, so the participants aren't naïve. They didn't take pre-existing health, socioeconomic status etc. into account...maybe the area near the base stations has cheaper properties, for example, so you get people with lower socioeconomic status (who typically have poorer health) living in those areas. (Just an example and not one I'm espousing, but the point is you can't rule it out using their data.) I also see no evidence of statistical corrections for multiple comparisons, which is a major oversight.
Would you have applied the same standard to taking sensible precautions relating to tobacco? Or aspestos? Or leaded petrol? Methinks not. A prescient, precautionary approach is wise, to suggest otherwise, putting rigid scientific positivism ahead of public health and safety, is morally reprehensible
If the evidence base was comparable, then yes I would apply that standard. It's the basic rules for evidence-based practice. Don't mistake me; I have no issue with the concept of electrosmog causing harm and I'm not trying to rip the idea apart (I just enjoy a good debate). On approach, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe anything (in terms of healthcare) until it's proven to me, whereas you're trying to do the proving. Someone has to take the first step when advancing a new argument and much luck to you. My objection is to casting it as fact when the evidence isn't there. You have an idea which may have merit but isn't proven (yet?).
I'm not convinced you're clear on what ‘my argument’ is, so here’s a refresher:
"This is quite possibly the next big thing in terms of public health .. 'Electrosmog' .. is emerging as a source of all manner disruptions of physiological processes .. [and] actually merits serious consideration, with serious implications for all many organisms"
"This is quite possibly the next big thing in terms of public health .. 'Electrosmog' .. is emerging as a source of all manner disruptions of physiological processes .. [and] actually merits serious consideration, with serious implications for all many organisms"
No, I get it, and I'll continue to call it unfounded until you prove otherwise. Come on, this is fun! (Unless you're annoyed in which case, no fun. Don't know you, can't tell.)
You know what they say about assumption, right? (see above re: tobacco, aspestos, lead, for a clue) 
Goes both ways, sir.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Now that's just bad manners - if there are studies backing you up in that 600 page document, by all means point me to them, but don't expect me or anyone else to comb through every study in the electrosmog-demonising equivalent of Lord of the Rings to prove your point for you. That's your job.
Please quote me where I've made such a claim
Please quote me where I've promoted a particular belief with regards to the carcinogenic effect of non-ionising radiation as fact
Please quote me where I've promoted a particular belief with regards to the carcinogenic effect of non-ionising radiation as fact
I'm on my phone so quoting is infuriating, but I'll be happy to quote as soon as I'm back on my laptop. Here's what I intend to quote - I'll highlight that I'm doing this from memory so it may not be spot on, so I'll correct if needed later:
a) What you said in the last post I responded to re. electrosmog being detrimental to various physiological systems (not specifically carcinogenic; I'm objecting to your presentation of electrosmog as definitively harmful in any way).
b) In this thread, you refused to accept the findings of Wessley and colleagues, purely on the basis that Wessley has a personal agenda which you can't prove affected his research findings. (And as long as we're source-bashing - "Microwave News"? Really? I mean if we're chucking sources out the plane due to personal bias, that website's going to be first in line for a parachute.)
c) The WHO experts who have dedicated their lives to categorising carcinogenic risk factors have said that electrosmog is "possibly" carcinogenic. If you say electrosmog is harmful, you're disagreeing with their opinion that there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
In summary: the evidence is inconclusive and electrosmog is currently a question mark in terms of risk of any kind, so you shouldn't be advising anyone to make life choices based on it. Unless you want to tell people to avoid pickled vegetables and everything else on the "possibly carcinogenic" list, which would make for a very boring life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Foo.mp3
Regarding observed/documented effects on sperm, here's some further reading (see Summarised Studies)
Great, selected scientific studies 'summarised' (note not critically appraised) by someone whose job it is to persuade you to buy his 'anti-EMF' phone case.
And just to be clear I am on this occasion referring to the wavewallcases website you have linked to Foo, and not yourself.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Alas the protection afforded by said trusty mug would've been negligable, at any rate, and you can be hit by 'of concern' levels of radiation emitted by a mobile phone from across a room. On the flip side, if it doesn't have mobile internet/Wi-Fi/bluetooth enabled then, when you're not sending/receiving calls/txts, it's practically inert, so no biggie having it beside you as you sleep really (e.g. on airplane mode)
Well, it was more the distance from the phone that I hoped would protect me. The mug was just a handy storage device. It was an old style no internet Nokia though, and given my alarming lack of friends I never got many texts or calls so I think I was fine regardless.
I just read the opening to this thread though, and I'm super interested in your experiments and experiences. My anxiety/fatigue/migraine/ibs issues started when I was 18. The sixth form college I'd been going to for two years already and had always been fine at was undergoing renovation. In my third and final year there we moved into the new building for some classes and nearly every time I went in there I felt so ill and dizzy and altogether just not right. It was to the extent that I couldn't use the new library in that building at all and my English classes had to be moved out of that building. I used to wonder whether it was something to do with the more powerful wifi that was installed because it was obviously a super modern building and technology ran throughout it in a way that it hadn't in the old building. Anyway, I still go dizzy all the time but doctors blame it on anxiety. I always maintain that my anxiety stems from the dizziness and feeling generally unwell.
Original post by Foo.mp3
...
...
How are your vitamin D levels?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Lenz law
- Physics Magnetic fields
- How exactly does step up/down transformers work?
- A level physics- Further mechanics question (1)
- Dr Kathy Romer answers your questions about Physics!
- AQA A Level Physics question (electromagnetic induction)
- How do I report a government site for promoting medical misinformation?
- ACP vs PA
- Physice revision?
- OCR A A-level Physics Unified Physics (H556/03) - 15th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Physics MCQ
- How would an induced emf graph look like if magnetic flux varies in a sine curve?
- Physics Alevel question :- electromagnetism induction and alternating current
- A Level Physics AQA concept help
- A Level physics Magnet field question (1)
- can someone help me with gcse physics
- Physics A Level Question Forces - electromagnetic and electrostatic force
- GCSE Physics AQA Topic 7 (Electromagnetism) I need help!!!
- GCSE Physics Electromagnetism Question (5 Marks)
- Physics EM Induction A-level Question
