'Electrosmog' aka Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Radiation (EMR) vs. Health

I used to think relatively highly of you... that is to say, I agreed with you on most points

However, now...



My parents were like you; except far left, rather than right wing

They believed the vaccine-autism BS - fortunately this was long after I was born, so didn't affect me.

Despite not having a scientific background, they decided they knew better than scientific consensus. They believed journalists and shady snake-oil-dealers than scientists, who were 'paid shills'.

They 'researched' the subject, ignoring all the scientific articles that disagreed with them, because they were 'clearly biased' and 'had vested interests' - rather ignoring the vested interests of the dodgy people who make a living out of selling 'protection' and 'treatments' for electrosmog. (If you want to read up on the various dodgy practices that some people employ - including pharmaceutical companies - they I'd recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Science)

They were alarmed at how almost all the scientists were in the pocket of industry, and came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy by the government and the military-industrial complex to force technology down our throats.

My father had issues with his bones (ankylosing spondylitis, AS), and, after some 'research', found out the 'real' cause of AS was too much starch in the diet.

They 'researched' some more, and started believing David Icke's conspiracy theories. How electrosmog was a conspiracy to turn us into weak-willed, ill, sterile zombies. The pharmaceutical industry was a key part of this conspiracy, because they were the ones who benefitted, by feeding us poisons disguised as treatments. Etc.

They came to the conclusion that global warming was again another setup by the government to control us with fear, and to implement population reduction programs.

Then my mother got cancer. She didn't seek treatment - cancer-treatment uses toxic chemicals and radiation, so the treatment is actually the most lethal part of getting cancer, right?

So she took to 'natural' cures, 'alternative medicine' - homeopathy, reflexology, crystal healing, eating a diet of only raw vegetables.

Needless to say, she's dead now.

I warn you, the road you are going down leads only to insanity. Leave while you have got the chance.

Old skool cathode ray tube TVs do emit a little x-ray (ionising) radiation, but this is not generally what we mean by 'electrosmog' EMR

x

...get some and test for yourself, as I have)
...
I’m sorry you had that experience but hope that you can see that it has zero bearing on my own, as a sceptical, cognizant adult who has tested himself in a number of environments blinded/unblinded/before learning of electro-sensitivity, and consistently experiences a range of fairly-to-very marked specific and non-specific symptom onset/enhancement

You have been challenged in this thread, on point of fact, and have so far failed to respond, apparently preferring to "lurk"

Perhaps you'd have the decency to reply to the outstanding e.g. should you wish me to address your further comments/queries?

That would be a bit silly now wouldn't it? No, I was referring to the following, outstanding challenges:
Not in the last bit offended, don't worry, just believe it important to set the record straight, particularly on a topic as serious as this

Not quite (see above)

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.

there is only 1 way to protect urself

You certainly are confused if you think you've already answered this request. I challenged you to provide quotes, in order to directly substantiate the ad hominems you attempted to level against me. These have, thus far, not been forthcoming. Do you refuse?

The experts are quite clear on the subtle and insidious harms that are going on every time we expose ourselves to microwave radiation (be it thermal intensity or otherwise). Slowly those responsible for public health, and particularly child wellbeing (e.g. in educational settings) are starting to wake up to this inconvenient truth

Say what you like about Fox News, God bless them for this: Fox News Covers Pediatric Academic Societies Symposium

News: Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions (Scientific American)

"Chronic exposure to [RFR] is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats"

"I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure."

Link: Study Info

Link: Study Findings

News: Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions (Scientific American)

"Chronic exposure to [RFR] is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats"

"I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure."

Link: Study Info

Link: Study Findings

News: Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions (Scientific American)

"Chronic exposure to [RFR] is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats"

"I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure."

Link: Study Info

Link: Study Findings

So if you had children sleeping in a room with e.g. a DECT base station next to bed, you'd just leave it in place until the 'proper peer-review'?

"..designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives"

Could you paraphrase, please?

*SNIP*

Seem fairly straightforward to me

Oh well then, better scrap the entire, $25 million, full-maturation cycle study and start over, from scratch, while people continue to fry

Even where the safety/well-being of your children are concerned?

What if their mother saw the sense in a precautionary approach, would you block her taking steps to safeguard her kids!?

All the evidence? Deary me

0, 1.5 are < 1.6, and was the relationship not observed across all exposure groups in a dose dependent response?

According to prejudiced nay-sayers like you, oh and all the evidence (how could I forget)

According to this 'logic', if a tree falls in the woods and no-one hears it then it never actually fell. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees!