An article over at the Gruan.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/the-debate-about-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-and-artificial-electrosmog-its-complicated

This part caught my eye:

“We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.”

I have NFI what that is supposed to mean. Can someone ‘please explain’.

sibeen said:

An article over at the Gruan.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/the-debate-about-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-and-artificial-electrosmog-its-complicated

This part caught my eye:

“We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.”

I have NFI what that is supposed to mean. Can someone ‘please explain’.

They are saying that the EMR levels caused by humans are a quintillion times higher, reportedly, than the natural background levels. Seems a straightforward enough statement.

“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”

—-

What an idiotic argument.

dv said:

“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”

—-

What an idiotic argument.

Pretty clever though. Implies there is no debate, asks if you need proof that millions have cancer, and throws in a guilt trip about acting on cancer and asbestos. All in a single paragraph.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”

—-

What an idiotic argument.

Pretty clever though. Implies there is no debate, asks if you need proof that millions have cancer, and throws in a guilt trip about acting on cancer and asbestos. All in a single paragraph.

I mean basically
a) if there is any added risk of brain cancer from mobile phone usage it must be EXTREMELY minute to the point of being insignificant, given that they’ve been in use for 30 years and studied extensively but no correlation has shown up, and given that there is no known mechanism for such low energy EMF to cause cancer…
b) there is as much chance to think that it reduces the risk of cancer than that it increases it. OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A PHONE GOING ALL THE TIME WE DON’T WANT THIS TO BE LIKE TOBACCO AGAIN THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”

—-

What an idiotic argument.

Pretty clever though. Implies there is no debate, asks if you need proof that millions have cancer, and throws in a guilt trip about acting on cancer and asbestos. All in a single paragraph.

I mean basically
a) if there is any added risk of brain cancer from mobile phone usage it must be EXTREMELY minute to the point of being insignificant, given that they’ve been in use for 30 years and studied extensively but no correlation has shown up, and given that there is no known mechanism for such low energy EMF to cause cancer…
b) there is as much chance to think that it reduces the risk of cancer than that it increases it. OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A PHONE GOING ALL THE TIME WE DON’T WANT THIS TO BE LIKE TOBACCO AGAIN THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

it’s going to be a lot harder to wean people off their phones than it was for cigarettes…

have they compared rates of testicular and cervical cancer with mobile phone use?

iirc when mythbusters were doing the mobile phone in a plane myth, the biggest spike was when it first rang.
Since it is usually in the area of your pocket when that happens, I reckon those would be the more likely cancers to correlate with mobile phone use

stumpy_seahorse said:

have they compared rates of testicular and cervical cancer with mobile phone use?

Yes:

http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/94364-114

“Conclusions: Based on incidence data, there is no convincing evidence of increased risk of testicular cancer from cell phone use. Given possible lag time incidence, continued monitoring is needed.”

stumpy_seahorse said:

have they compared rates of testicular and cervical cancer with mobile phone use?

iirc when mythbusters were doing the mobile phone in a plane myth, the biggest spike was when it first rang.
Since it is usually in the area of your pocket when that happens, I reckon those would be the more likely cancers to correlate with mobile phone use

or women the area would be breast cancer, since many women put their phone in their bra.. Some anecdotal evidence can suggest a positive.. but it is unproven froma science standpoint

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

furious said:

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

yeah apparently

furious said:

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

could get awkward in the cold weather…
pocket dialling all and sundry…

Arts said:

since many women put their phone in their bra..

Tell me more…

I wonder if a nipple print could be used for security

• I wonder if a nipple print could be used for security

Needs more research…

dv said:

I wonder if a nipple print could be used for security

no

nipples can be alerted, moved, changed, copied too easily

one advantage is that the warmth would help the charge in the battery in winter.

dv said:

sibeen said:

An article over at the Gruan.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/the-debate-about-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-and-artificial-electrosmog-its-complicated

This part caught my eye:

“We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.”

I have NFI what that is supposed to mean. Can someone ‘please explain’.

They are saying that the EMR levels caused by humans are a quintillion times higher, reportedly, than the natural background levels. Seems a straightforward enough statement.

OK, and that doesn’t appear to be codswallop?

Sunlight, sunlight, everywhere

OK, I was going to pen a poem…but I can’t.

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

An article over at the Gruan.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/the-debate-about-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-and-artificial-electrosmog-its-complicated

This part caught my eye:

“We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.”

I have NFI what that is supposed to mean. Can someone ‘please explain’.

They are saying that the EMR levels caused by humans are a quintillion times higher, reportedly, than the natural background levels. Seems a straightforward enough statement.

OK, and that doesn’t appear to be codswallop?

Of course it does. It’s obvious bullshit.

Also from the article:

“She has been campaigning for the safer use of Wi-Fi technology, especially in children.”

Damm kids and their implants!

get off my lawn!!

that’s what i thought, either the background emr is really really low (then uv sunburn probably wouldn’t happen) or a quadrillion is rubbish.

My phone burns my ear after a while, not sure this unit reduces the TX power to just that required for a reliable connection, but I think it’s just heat from the RF output devices (they work over a fairly wide band, and would need impedance adaptive stuff), and likely’s not RF heating of the ear.

I don’t like a hot ear, not that hot anyway.

I’ve always tended to stay out of the very near field of antennas, being part of the antenna doesn’t appeal to me.

But you know, everyone’s a fucken parasitically excited antenna element these days, it’s the latest thing.

I hear that the catalyst show on this was bad and Demasi was the reporter. it was her who did the Satins episodes that were junk too.

Well actually, ‘no evidence of health risk’ is exactly the same as ‘safe’.
So far as there is any such thing as ‘safe’.

Well actually, ‘no evidence of health risk’ is exactly the same as ‘safe’.
So far as there is any such thing as ‘safe’.

furious said:

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

Yes. Yes they do.

Divine Angel said:

furious said:

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

Yes. Yes they do.

That must have been tough before mobiles were invented

Divine Angel said:

furious said:

• since many women put their phone in their bra..

Do they?

Yes. Yes they do.

I also tuck my iPod NANA in brasville while exercising
and I almost never use my iPhone without a wired earpiece.

d’oh.. NANO

Ogmog said:

d’oh.. NANO

!http://techtickerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ipod-nano-review-front.jpg

iPod NANA

stumpy_seahorse said:

Ogmog said:

d’oh.. NANO

!http://techtickerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ipod-nano-review-front.jpg

iPod NANA

!https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/107/303722448_78a58c8ef0_b.jpg

Nana: This disturbed song is fucking tight

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/02/16/experts-audience-slam-abc-catalysts-report-wi-fi-danger

Experts, audience slam ABC Catalyst’s report on “Wi-Fi danger”

Science and health experts are slamming the latest episode of ABC’s Catalyst on the potential health dangers of wireless devices, calling it “scaremongering” and “incorrect.”

ABC’s science TV program Catalyst has drawn severe criticism from scientists and audience members for its treatment of the question on whether wireless devices could be harming our health.

“Australia’s safety agency says there’s no evidence of harm, but that’s not the same as saying its safe,” was the argument put forward in the show’s description on ABC’s website, and echoed throughout the report, which aired last night on ABC.

“Of course it is impossible for science to demonstrate that anything is absolutely safe, and so regardless of whether we’re talking about Wi-Fi or orange juice, science cannot demonstrate absolute safety,” says Professor Rodney Croft,director of the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy.

Criticised for sowing fear

The half-hour special, presented by Dr Maryanne Demasi, featured experts and researchers from various fields, in particular focusing on the work of US cancer epidemiologist Dr Devra Davis. 

“I was particularly disappointed to see “Wi-Fried” air yesterday in the guise of science journalism, and felt it important to reassure other viewers that the fringe position provided by Dr Davis and associates is merely that, a fringe position that is not supported by science,” says Croft.

_____

What the heck is going on at the ABC? Why didn’t someone pick this up?

dv said:

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/02/16/experts-audience-slam-abc-catalysts-report-wi-fi-danger

Experts, audience slam ABC Catalyst’s report on “Wi-Fi danger”

Science and health experts are slamming the latest episode of ABC’s Catalyst on the potential health dangers of wireless devices, calling it “scaremongering” and “incorrect.”

ABC’s science TV program Catalyst has drawn severe criticism from scientists and audience members for its treatment of the question on whether wireless devices could be harming our health.

“Australia’s safety agency says there’s no evidence of harm, but that’s not the same as saying its safe,” was the argument put forward in the show’s description on ABC’s website, and echoed throughout the report, which aired last night on ABC.

“Of course it is impossible for science to demonstrate that anything is absolutely safe, and so regardless of whether we’re talking about Wi-Fi or orange juice, science cannot demonstrate absolute safety,” says Professor Rodney Croft,director of the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy.

Criticised for sowing fear

The half-hour special, presented by Dr Maryanne Demasi, featured experts and researchers from various fields, in particular focusing on the work of US cancer epidemiologist Dr Devra Davis. 

“I was particularly disappointed to see “Wi-Fried” air yesterday in the guise of science journalism, and felt it important to reassure other viewers that the fringe position provided by Dr Davis and associates is merely that, a fringe position that is not supported by science,” says Croft.

_____

What the heck is going on at the ABC? Why didn’t someone pick this up?

maybe no one watches Catalyst

I’ve just about given up on ABC news breakfast too.. it’s trashy magazine viewing on the same level as sunrise and today, without the cash cow..

What I saw of the show wasn’t too bad, though wasn’t fantastic.

It was sort of working in that territory of pervasiveness disinclines people from thinking about stuff, the Lie of normal.

Don’t be alarmed, sometimes normal when you give it a shake appears weird.

~ fifteen years ago I looked up the science done going back on the subject, the russians had done extensive research and came up with safe exposure levels lower than many other countries.

It seems strange to me that there is widespread discussion of things like this, which as dv says, even if they do any harm it must be very small, but little discussion of things that we know do significant harm.

Like emissions from burning fuels for instance (and I’m not talking CO2 here).

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems strange to me that there is widespread discussion of things like this, which as dv says, even if they do any harm it must be very small, but little discussion of things that we know do significant harm.

Like emissions from burning fuels for instance (and I’m not talking CO2 here).

please be quiet in the back…

Mind you it could be true I mean surely you’d need to be brain damaged to text and drive and text and walk across the street straight in front of a bus that barely misses you and you don’t even notice. Selfie taking whilst in imminent danger is another one.

Srsly, how did Demasi keep her job after the Statin debacle? Why were they not hyperalert to problems with her reporting after that?

because, balance.

dv said:

Srsly, how did Demasi keep her job after the Statin debacle? Why were they not hyperalert to problems with her reporting after that?

The Wikipedia article about her is quite interesting in a way.

It’s almost like it has been continually edited and re-edited by two or more people with opposite positions on the merits of the Catalyst Statin programmes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Srsly, how did Demasi keep her job after the Statin debacle? Why were they not hyperalert to problems with her reporting after that?

The Wikipedia article about her is quite interesting in a way.

It’s almost like it has been continually edited and re-edited by two or more people with opposite positions on the merits of the Catalyst Statin programmes.

well hopefully there will be another battle soon regarding this piece.

I recently won a little wikiwar about whether Gillard is an athiest.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Srsly, how did Demasi keep her job after the Statin debacle? Why were they not hyperalert to problems with her reporting after that?

The Wikipedia article about her is quite interesting in a way.

It’s almost like it has been continually edited and re-edited by two or more people with opposite positions on the merits of the Catalyst Statin programmes.

well hopefully there will be another battle soon regarding this piece.

I recently won a little wikiwar about whether Gillard is an athiest.

Aye, godless and barren.

Aside from all of the egregious reportage it would be foolish to assume that mobile phone emmissions consequences for human health is negligible.

The peak power density from mobiles is 1 W/cm2 inside your head, which is well within pubished safety guidelines AFAICT.

There have been studies which show dramatic effects on sperm in vitro…

CONCLUSION

Long–term semen exposure in the area of mobile phone RF–EMR leads to a significant decrease in the number of sperm with progressive movement and an increase in those with non–progressive movement.

Prolonged direct mobile phone exposure may bring about sperm DNA fragmentation

For men readying themselves for fatherhood, especially when registered fertility problems exist, it would be better to avoid holding a mobile phone in a trouser pocket for long periods of time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/

Media Watch smack down of “Wi-fried?”
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4411611.htm

She doesn’t respond like a scientist.

there is always speaker mode for those worried

I put my smartphone on speaker mode so I dont have to hold it next to my head

CrazyNeutrino said:

there is always speaker mode for those worried

I put my smartphone on speaker mode so I dont have to hold it next to my head

or if your phones speaker mode is not up to it

a blue tooth phone speaker

ABC Online Science has been dreadful for ages.

Alan Sunderland has said that normal editorial procedures were applied in this case: it’s so fucking sad. ABC used to be the place to go for science broadcasting.

dv said:

ABC Online Science has been dreadful for ages.

Alan Sunderland has said that normal editorial procedures were applied in this case: it’s so fucking sad. ABC used to be the place to go for science broadcasting.

sigh

http://www.skeptics.com.au/2016/02/19/bent-spoon-nomination-for-abc-catalyst/

BENT SPOON NOMINATION FOR ABC CATALYST

ABC-TV’s science program Catalyst and one of its chief science reporters Dr Maryanne Demasi have been nominated for the Australian Skeptics’ Bent Spoon award.

A report by Dr Marianne Demasi, titled “Wi-Fried” and broadcast on February 16, looked at the supposed health dangers of wi-fi connections for smart phones, laptops, tablets, etc.

The program and Dr Demasi have been criticised before for promoting unsubstantiated scientific ‘evidence’ of ‘dangerous’ products. In 2014, Dr Demasi and Catalyst presented a case against statins in cholesterol control. The program was criticised for using ‘experts’ with vested interests in promoting alternative medicine to put the anti-statin case, and pitching the proponents of established evidence-based medicine into a minor role.