Rodney Palmer: When Pseudoscience and Narcissism Collide

This ridiculous farce of an invented controversy got way out of hand way too fast.  My apologies for sleeping on this one.  I thought that sanity would prevail, and everyone would surely see the perpetrators for the fools they are.  It seems that I over estimated the Canadian media’s ability to be dedicated to journalistic integrity…a stupid mistake I will never make again.

I’m talking about the WiFi “debate” currently raging in some Ontario school boards, backed by embarrassing fringe academics and credulous media presenting the tired old “equal time to both sides” narrative on an issue where both sides are not equal.

As I previously discovered (and no media seemed to notice), at the head of this parade of delusory panic is one Rodney Palmer.  Rodney lives in scenic Collingwood, Ontario, and sells warmish wooden boxes that he claims can cure/treat asthma and prevent cancer.  Seriously.  I’ve had a run in with Palmer’s product in the past, and the woman working the booth thought I was a Chinese spy.  Seriously.

Had the media that credulously covered this inane story bothered to perform even a modicum of a background check on the man making extraordinary claims that don’t appear anywhere else in Canada (especially in WiFi saturated ares like Toronto and Ottawa), they would have given him the laughed-out-of-town treatment he deserves.

Instead, Palmer was granted a national audience, and instead of backing up his claims with anything more substantial than empty anecdotes, he continued his crusade of panic.  This is what happens when you feed a narcissist: they only grow stronger with attention.  Palmer and his group of “concerned parents” petitioned the Town of Collingwood to remove WiFi from the public library (which is an autonomous body under the Public Libraries Act, and not under the purview of municipal politics). By this point, Palmer’s name, face, and erroneous cause was national news on virtually every major Canadian news outlet, even catching the attention of Peter Mansbridge (who went with the tide, and presented the old media error of false balance) as he exclaimed, “It’s invisible, but it’s everywhere.”

Unstoppable narcissism never acts alone, and Palmer had brought in his trusty band of fringe non-experts-but-somehow-declared-experts Magda Havas (another narcissist academic whose entire career vests in the idea that cell phones, WiFi, and your laptop will cause cancer and sterility) and Barrie Trower (a cold war-era weapons ‘expert’ who equates ‘using’ WiFi signals with exploding bombs), whom Palmer and his group flew in from the UK to speak to the media on this story’s behalf.

And ho-boy does Palmer know how to manipulate the media.  It should be noted that before he sold warm wooden boxes to treat lead poisoning, Palmer used to be a journalist for CTV news. Maybe “former journalist” was all the credentials our 4th Estate needed to hear before giving every word Palmer spoke with more weight then it deserved.  I guess “purveyor of warm boxes” doesn’t have the same zing that it did in the good old days.

While most media outlets covering the story did point out that WiFi signals are well below the safe guidelines, and Health Canada is very clear that there is no evidence that WiFi causes any health risk, the narrative pushed was one of balance, not evidence.  It is a narrative that media-savvy skeptics are are too familiar with:

  1. X is not a problem. We know this for a FACT.
  2. But SOME people think that X is a huge problem, so let’s needlessly pursue this.
  3. Filling a 24-hour news cycle is hard, and we have bills to pay.
  4. Talk to one actual expert (out of 10,000 who agree) that says X is safe.
  5. Talk to one person (out of 3) who is not an expert, is probably just a concerned parent, and says X is dangerous.
  6. Talk to just about anyone we can find that will reinforce our preconceived narrative structure.
  7. Concerned parents get more screen time than the expert with 15 years of education.
  8. Close the story with a family, a child, and some playing.
  9. Shut up, that’s a better story.
  10. Brought to you by Vagisil and Capitol One.
  11. Stay Tuned for Canada’s Next Top Model….or something…..

Recently, Palmer’s parents’ group voted to shut off WiFi in a Meaford, Ont. school.  This is a decision which, much like the Library in Collingwood, does not rest with the targets of Palmer’s grandstanding, but with the Bluewater School District.  This is important to note, as it seems to be Palmer’s modus operandi: launch a loud, alarming, emotional plea against a target that has no ability to affect any policy at all.

Palmer’s track record of activist diversion includes:

  • Using a parents committee to vote down Wifi (which is the decision of the school board, not the school itself)
  • Petitioning Ottawa to place a moratorium on WiFi in Collingwood schools (which is a provincial matter, not federal)
  • Petitioning the municipal government of Collingwood to ban WiFi in its libraries (which are under the purview of the Public Libraries Act, not the Town of Collingwood)

Knowing that Palmer is such an accomplished journalist, I refuse to believe that he is so stupid as to petition an impotent political body.

I suspect that real change is not is primary goal: it’s making a huge public stink.  And he is doing this is droves, getting the entire country to have panic attacks about a perfectly safe and proven technology.

As you can expect, Palmer never once provides any evidence of his claims, but instead farms that job out to Magda Havas (an embarrassment to a university if there ever was one), while he yammers on with testimonials and anecdotes.

I have one simple message to Rodney Palmer, the Safe School Committee that he runs, and every media outlet that has given his voice a megaphone:

ANECDOTES AND STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW MANY YOU HAVE!

If you tell me that lots of kids are reporting headaches and accelerated heart rates at school but not at home, maybe you should take the time to rule out EVERYTHING that is different at school than it is at home.  Teachers, subjects, classrooms, bullies, friends, sleeping, recess, sports, girls, boys, the walk/bus to school….I can think of about a hundred different things that go on at school that don’t go on at home.  Palmer says that he “ruled everything else out,”  but has not provided one shred of evidence of his mythical study.  Instead, he show videos of interviews, and re-tells stories. So once again,

ANECDOTES AND STORIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW MANY YOU HAVE!

Palmer providing testimony before the Parliamentary Committee

If anecdotes are all it takes to convince you, then I have one for you: I remember when I was a boy in school, I had lots of headaches, stomach aches, and trouble concentrating.  I couldn’t sleep very well and I had some behavior issues when I was at school.  Miraculously, all these problems went away at home, especially on the weekends.  WiFi wasn’t around in the 1980′s, so I wonder what it possibly could have been back then?

And yet, remarkably, the foolishness gets even foolishnessier. Palmer’s ego must be reaching a fevered pitch, because Parliament is launching a special committee to investigate his claims that WiFi is causing harm to children, and won’t somebody please think of the children!?

In this video produced by Global News, Palmer testifies before the Parliamentary committee that,

I’ve become an epidemiologist here, tracking down names of people phoning me and saying ‘My little daughter was brought home from school because her heart [was] pounding so much the teacher can see it through her shirt.’

No, Rodney.  “Tracking down names of people” making complaints does not constitute epidemiology, and it does not make you an epidemiologist.  You need an understanding of biology, statistics, demographics and then to actually publish the results.  So far, all you did is show interviews.  This is not epidemiology.  This is raving.

“How is it that this is MY responsibility to bring all these people in in?”

That’s the rub, isn’t it?  Rodney Palmer, this is NOT your responsibility.  You have assumed this role upon yourself because you’ve proven either unwilling or incapable of understanding the existing scientific consensus that WiFi is safe.  This is part of what makes you a narcissist.

In one of the most exaggerated uses of the word ‘expert’ I can imagine, Palmer was summoned to provide testimony before the Special Parliamentary Committee.   That’s right: the man who sells wooden boxes that he claims can cure asthma was brought in as an expert. Have we devalued expertise in this country so much as to accept this man’s ego-mania as “expert testimony?”  On the one hand, we have a doctor saying WiFi is safe.  On the other hand, we have a “Father of Two”, saying it’s causing headaches.  Like Mugatu in Zoolander, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

I have two clarion calls for this post:

1) National Media:  You still can act responsibly.  Put this man back to the fringe where he belongs.  I know he is probably a personal and professional friend to some of you, and I know that he once did some good journalism work.  But he is NOT an expert in this area…not in the slightest.  ‘Fatherhood’, box selling, and being really concerned are not credentials. If you continue to give his demonstrably false theories such a loud voice, you will serve to undermine education and science discourse in this country for years.

2) Rodney Palmer: Go Away.  You’re wrong, you’re an ego maniac, and you need to understand that you are not an expert, and being a father does not give you any special insight to the effects of non-ionizing radiation.  You need to listen to what more scientists than just Magda Havas are saying.  She is not a heroic scientist, challenging the paradigms and norms of her dogmatic scientist peers: She is more accurately lumped in with the lunatic fringe, screaming all the louder while no one listens to her ideas, because they’re crazy.  And you’re wrong.  You need to stop wasting the time and money of our government.  But I know you won’t, because your ego drives you now.

I humbly suggest readers might do well to take the time to write to their MP, informing them that WiFi is perfectly safe, and the government should continue to listen to the actual scientific experts who have degrees, training, and don’t have an ideological axe to grind.

P.S.

This post will inevitably attract some of the more angry anti WiFi chorus of pseudo-science, and they will leave crazier and crazier posts accusing me and all skeptics as being dogmatic, and insisting that I “do my homework”.  Wrong.  The impetus is on you to provide the evidence of your claim.  I’m not researching your point to make your argument, especially when existing science tells me you’re wrong.

**UPDATE, FEB 25, 2011**

If you scroll down into the comments section, you may notice that Rodney Palmer himself left a note, effectively threatening me with a libel lawsuit.  After several months, I responded to this despicable tactic, and you can read it here.

DISCLAIMER: The words and opinions expressed in this post are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of the other authors of Skeptic North, or any of my past or current employers.

271 Responses to “Rodney Palmer: When Pseudoscience and Narcissism Collide”

  1. Michael5MacKay says:

    This issue will not go away soon.

    There are also BC schools being petitioned to turn off their wi-fi. Peterborough, the home of Canada’s own Magda Havas, is also feeling a lot of pressure to ban Wi-Fi in schools.

    This week was not the first parliamentary hearing into Wi-Fi. There were two days of hearings in the spring, I think into cellphone safety standards (but it’s all “radiation” innit?. Witnesses included Havas, and a collection of some other well-known fearmongers. In those two days, a number of astonishingly stupid things were said.

    There are also a couple of new books on the dangers of cellphones. The most high-profile is “Disconnected” by Devra Davis. She’s getting a lot of media attention, almost none of it critical.

    Palmer is a media-savvy activist, and I fear the public response to his actions will be capitulation, at least in the short term.

    • vicmcleod says:

      We cannot rule out that the proliferation of wireless signals in our environment is a cause of cancer being the number one killer; of babies being born with leukemia; this is not histeria but fact.
      I would suggest to Rodney Palmer to not waste time with this blogger.

      • Cory Albrecht says:

        Vic, we also can’t rule out that the increasing use of wasabi in North America, thanks to the growing popularity of sushi, is the cause of autism. This is not hysteria, but fact as the two trnds dovetail quite nicely.

        By the way, do you understand the difference between “ionizing” and “non-ionizing” EMF radiation? Guess which kind cell phone signals, wifi signals and your microwave are?

      • vicmcleod says:

        would be nice if you could address the issue rather than make a foolish response.

  2. John Greg says:

    Go get him Steve!

    “Have we devalued expertise in this country so much as to accept this man’s ego-mania as ‘”expert testimony?”‘

    Yes. That’s what we get when we fail to exercise our democratic franchise and complacently fail to vote such paleolithic cretins as Harper, Campbell, et al, out of office.

    “National Media: You still can act responsibly.”

    Well, not really. Almost all of our national mainstream media is owned and run by a very attentive, very aware, very right-wing uber-capitlaist very small group of people whose rhyme and reason is to make as much money with as much sensationalistic horse feathers, pure dishonesty, and social misdirection as possible.

    Acting responsibly is quite completely against the intentional purpose and goal of almost all Canadian (and American for that matter) mainstream media. And the whole WiFi thing, amongst many others, is a perfect example of their intention: create fear and misdirect the public’s attention away from the really serious issues of corporate social control and governmental fascisitic practice.

  3. I managed to get the physics profs at Trent U. to write a letter to the local papers. (my alma mater) They pointed out this interesting article on the Nocebo effect that is probably at the root of the symptoms. How sad and ironic that Rodney Palmer is probably making his own children sick, blaming it on others and profiting from the result.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0d9499ec-2d75-11de-9eba-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=a712eb94-dc2b-11da-890d-0000779e2340.html

    • Steve Thoms says:

      James, I too am a former Trent student, so it’s always with tremendous embarassment that I read something so pitifully wrong to come from one of its professors.

      You mentioned that Palmer might be “making his own children sick”. I’m not certain I can go that far, but speaking as a teacher, I have another theory:

      These kids are manipulating the hell out of these gullible and/or reactionary parents. I’m sure that some kids probably are having some symptoms (after all, the list of symptoms is so mind-bogglingy long, and filled with non-specific symptoms that just about everyone gets), but I highly doubt that anything statistically significant is going on.

      These kids see that national media is coming to their town and asking them how they “feel.” I remember how awesome I felt when a local radio host interviewed me for my costume when I was 10, and these kids have NATIONAL news people coming to them! These kids feel incredibly special now, and they know what cues to say to get the adults riled up. The kids are smarter then the adults.

      Whether or not it’s intentional (I doubt these kids are being malicious or narcissistic), these kids are playing the adults like a fiddle.

      • The reason the symptoms are long is because nerves run every part of your body. Combine that with different genetics, hydration, toxicity, nutrition, lifestyle, injuries, etc and you have each child being impacted differently.

        Health Canada Safety Code 6 says we don’t want to cause the unintentioanl stimulation of tissue with frequencies from 3 KHz to 100 KHz because experimental studies have shown nerve and muscle depolarization with electromagnetic induction. For frequencies from 100 KHz to 300 GHz heat effect is to be avoided.

        When they did these codes to protect the public, they were trying to find out what the allowable frequency interaction with human exposure was. When you are doing a frequency equation, you need to compare frequency to frequency to find out cause. It is really an oversight that the whole process including the World Health Organization overlooked the fact the humans are an intricate electrical system with their own frequencies. In an electrical application, we insulate conductors or provide co-axial cable to avoid electromagnetic interference. Children and humans in schools are essentially a bare conductor without protection from EMFs so symptoms will be from head to toe. When I heard of a child losing their eyesight, I called the medical professionals and asked if nerve depolarization could do that.

        Let me make this more personal for men or women. I am working with doctors and discussion has included that we have reproductive problems as a species. I asked from that engineering perspective if testicles had nerves and could fertility be affected if nerves aren’t functioning at capacity?

        Wi Fi is convenient to avoid construction costs of pulling wires per computer except we don’t understand we are radiating ecosytems with us in it.

        Please go to any electrical professional and ask them about the frequency interaction with a bare conductor, it is taught in every province every day as standards.

      • Robert Riedlinger says:

        The kids are not imagining.Electro sensitivity is real.It is just a matter of time my friend until you get zapped and understand the effects it can have on your health.Keep your cell phone close to your ear,move close to a tower,install WiFi in your home and make sure you get a smart meter installed on your gas,water and electric power.Five years from now you will change your tune.

    • Please go back to the physics instructors and assign frequencies to the bare conductor called child. Your physics profs didn’t have all the data and did they include an electrical professional to explain frequency conflicts?

      Mr Palmer isn’t profiting, he is a concerned parent like yours would be. According to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, Mr Palmer’s children and others have nerve and muscle depolarization as well as heat effect from the unintentional stimulation of excitable tissue. Do you have parents that would make you sick so they can profit from that?

  4. Rob Tarzwell says:

    Even Peter Mansbridge? How embarrassing!

  5. Rodney Palmer says:

    Mr. Thoms, are you familiar with the Libel and Slanders Act of Ontario? I suggest you read it immediately.

    • P@J says:

      Mr. Palmer. Nice.

      You came all the way to this site, and instead of addressing any specific point, you make a threat? Have you heard of Simon Singh?

      Steve, Good reporting. keep up the good work.

      P@J

    • Tim says:

      Hi Rodney Palmer,

      It would help if you pointed out the portion that is “inherently inaccurate” and/or “willfully damaging”.

      As far as I can tell, Mr. Thoms seems to be free and clear of any litigation due to slander.

    • David Smart says:

      Rodney Palmer is a complete and utter fraud.

  6. Blondin says:

    I can attest (and I’m sure my Mother will back me up) that, as a child, I suffered a lot of stomach aches, head aches and dizzy spells on Monday mornings (especially when I had some homework or an assignment that was due but not done). And I’m talking about the ’60s.

  7. Robert North says:

    And lets not forget – If it’s dangerous in schools, it’s dangerous in homes. Most dangerous part of the EM spectrum due to exposure? Sunlight. Great post Steve.

  8. Michael5MacKay says:

    @ Rodney Palmer

    Two words: tu quoque. This is what he said about Health Canada: “They’re lying when they say it is safe,” Mr. Palmer told reporters after the meeting. “They know there is evidence that shows that it is unsafe and they’re taking this risk with children all across Canada.” (From the October 28, 2010 National Post)

    Palmer seems to be turning into a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who can read can see that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that wi-fi is safe:

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/18/wi-fi-making-sick/

    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/kill+your+kids/3406808/story.html

    http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/medical-attention/2010/08/16/barrie-parents-blaming-wi-fi-for-childrens-behaviour-in-school-are-apparently-unfamiliar-with-children-school/

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2215

    It is only a handful of poorly-conducted studies by fringe scientists and fear-mongering “activists” that purport to support Palmer’s claims.

  9. B S (really, those are my initials) says:

    To those who experienced these symptoms during school prior to the introduction of Wi-Fi: The Canadian government has been secretly testing the effects of Wi-Fi on students since the 1950s. During these ongoing tests, students across Canada have suffered long list of vague side effects such as pre-test jitters and feminine problems in gym class. That’s what a guy outside my Tim’s said, anyway.

  10. Cam says:

    Fantastic. Thank you for this detail and accuracy. Shameful that such idiocy can bring the national media and local groups to their knees so easily.

    Also, can I get threatened too? Rodney Palmer is a fraud! Bring it on, Fraudney!

  11. Steve, what part of your technical education are you using to qualify or disqualify anyone? Using this forum to insult Rodney Palmer and Dr. Havas is disrespectful to the significance of the issue. Dr. Havas is a education professional and Mr. Palmer is a professional and a parent that has every right to be public in his concerns when he isn’t receiving the required science by the governments representing us.

    I was a witness for the Committee that Mr. Palmer spoke at, why didn’t you include that there is a reported oversight regarding Safety Code 6? Safety Code 6 or any study should have included the frequency conflicts with biologic tissue and radio frequencies. Due to the fact children or people were treated as furniture and not electrical properties, Health Canada missed critical data. Health Canada admits there is a heat effect but doesn’t know the cause so they have determined the amount of heat load per kg of tissue. That in itself should be alarming because the heat is generated inside the body.

    Safety Code 6 says that the unintentional stimulation of tissue and the heat effect are to be avoided. Experimental studies have shown there to be nerve and muscle depolarization. If the nerves aren’t working, nothing works. The children Mr. Palmer refers to are effectively bare wires in the Wi Fi application but with their own frequencies. Their interaction with Wi Fi will cause electromagnetic induction, electrical changes and tissue inside the body polarizing from 4.8 to 10 billion times a second. All of those can produce a heat effect.

    As I stated for the committee, Mr. Palmer has every right to be concerned. According to Safety Code 6 his children are suffering from nerve and muscle depolarization which could impact every part of their bodies. As an electrical professional I have been called to troubleshoot depolarization of electrical distribution which in reality means electrical failure. My recommendation to the committee was to go to their provincial electrical professionals and get them to explain what a frequency conflict can do. The electrical professionals would tell them what happens when you have frequency conflicts between electrical systems.

    Safety Code 6 states why Wi Fi should be removed immediately and wires can be installed to bring the internet to schools in a safe manner that will protect the signal as well as the people. The science has changed and that was brought forward in the committee meeting but you chose to ignore it while slamming concerned parents and professionals.

    As a science professional that lectures medical education where doctors receive education credits they need for licensing, being skeptical is part of science. You are cynical and disrespectful in this article.

    I got into this discussion when I saw the oversight in Safety Code 6 and I reported that as a qualified professional. I haven’t seen Mr. Palmer be anything less than candid and professional in his opinion. Dr. Havas has done lots of work on this issue and you should take closer looks at what she has done once you see the cause is an electrical conflict.

    As a professional I don’t pick sides, the science represents itself. I am very thankful to Mr. Palmer, Dr. Havas and anyone for stepping up, it defines them for service before self. Here is the link to the audio from the Committee Meeting so people can hear the entire meeting including the witnesses. http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=6720

    • Saying that WiFi isn’t necessary because ethernet is sufficient is as silly as saying that light bulbs aren’t needed because candles do the job just fine. Wireless networks have obvious advantages over wired ones. The cost of wiring up every student’s desk with ethernet would be massively more expensive than installing a simple WiFi access point. On top of that, more and more computers are coming on the market without ethernet ports due to the ubiquity of WiFi, devices like iPads and the Macbook Air. In the near future, only the high-end expensive laptops will have ethernet ports.

      If we ban WiFi from schools now, what about hospitals in the future? The doctors there are now using iPads (which are WiFi only) to increase efficiency and reduce errors: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Trio+helps+hospital+results/3768201/story.html
      There may be other similar innovative applications for schools down the road, and they’ll be missed if we get rid of WiFi.

      The problem is that all this non-sense you’re spouting sounds to me like anti-technology and anti-progress twaddle. When the best that your group can muster is one lone “expert” who doesn’t appear to know how to conduct proper studies, I see no reason why anyone should take the fear mongers seriously.

      • Kathy says:

        Where do you think all the brain cancer is coming from? WI-FI is the big change & too many holding a cell phone to their heads?

        My middle school age son can hardly stand to be at school. He feels sensations, headaches, nausea. My older daughter got sick from WI-FI at high school. Came home with a migraines, dizzy & violently ill many days. She feels better anywhere w.o wi-fi. No migraines without wi-fi.

        I get dizzy, feel burning, and feel pressure since 4G hit. So is this family out of luck? If it were you, you’d think twice.

        Be careful, micro-wave illness might get someone in your family w the amount of towers out there now. Add smart meters and we have a toxic soup.

        Hospitals, are you kidding? Give the sick a break. What will the doctors do when they get sick from it? I can’t handle the vomiting I have to go through to see a doctor.

        K

      • Kathy says:

        We’re thankful for Dr. Havas & other research doctors like her. We have no, read it, no problem with technology, as long as it’s run through a cord. Wi-fi should be a personal choice.

        There is a saying, “Ignorance is no excuse.” The industry has no safety studies, none. They based their studies on minute exposures. We are the the science. They sold all their weirs, that’s all.

        Many of the smart younger generation? Your parents deserve health to be there for you. Some would love to go into technology, but can’t handle the level of frying that goes w wi-fi

        Our lives don’t have to revolve around daily nausea. Our country’s leaders need to, stop believing industries lies.

        What was wrong w what we had before 4G? Did everyone have to pack a handheld computer? Faster downloads for what? Do we all have to be surrounded by cell towers?

        What will happen if most using this is sick? Anyone read about France’s policy of NO wi-fi in schools or government agencies? They must care about their health.

        We need to take our country’s back.

        K

  12. EMR_Lorax says:

    Mr. Thoms,some things you many want to consider.

    Most of the parents across the country who want Wi-Fi removed from schools are electrohypersensitive. I’m a senior I.T. tech with 12 years of enterprise and SMB experience who has installed well over 100 Wi-Fi networks and I too became electrohypersensitive a few years ago. So if I can “feel” Wi-Fi and it makes me unwell (which it does), I certainly don’t want it in my children’s school.

    I am fully aware of the mechanics behind Wi-Fi, how the power density of the SSID beacon is high enough to cause symptoms in moderately sensitive people, even when no data is being transmitted to and from the wireless access point.

    Dr. Havas, who you skewer in your above article, just had an important study peer reviewed and published in the European Journal of Oncology. The double study demonstrates how heart rates can double in a sensitive person exposed to a DECT cordless phone base unit.

    I do believe there will soon be a double blind study replicated and then published demonstrating the effects of Wi-Fi on the heart rates of sensitive individuals – this was preliminarily demonstrated in an investigative program on Wi-Fi.

    Health Canada has no interest in these findings, for any negative proclamation about Wi-Fi or cordless phones will also pull cell phones and cell towers into the same negative light and that will have a profound effect on the economy.

    Mr. Thoms – have you read any of the literature? That would be peer reviewed, published studies funded by the wireless industry and also independently.

    And who are these scientists on the fringe that you speak of? Henry Lai of University of Washington who is respected by both the industry and those concerned about wireless. Sir William Stewart, a biologist former head of the U.K. Protection Agency, spoke out against Wi-Fi in 2007 based on a report he commissioned in the early ’90′s. Dr. Lennart Hardell, Prof. Olle Johansson, Dr. David Carpenter – these are all scientists who are highly regarded across the planet. And the findings of German scientists and M.D.’s were serious enough that in 2007, Germany recommended wired connections over Wi-Fi to all it’s citizens. But I suppose you can dismiss anything if you want to…

  13. Brad says:

    We are bombarded with FAR more radio waves (often at higher power) from non-wifi sources, all the time. With little to no ill effect. But somehow the LOWER POWERED wifi is more dangerous than other forms of similar radio traffic for…uh…what reason was that again? Oh right, because kids don’t like going to school. SCIENCE!

    • Robert Riedlinger says:

      A lot of people like you don’t know that they are affected by EMFuntil a tumor appears.

      • Snookums says:

        And a lot of people like you don’t know they are crazy until a lot of people like me tell you. Good luck with your non-existent illness.

  14. Scott says:

    Curtis, if you are anyone can prove they are “electrohypersensitive”, James Randi has a million dollars waiting for them. Really, this claim would absolutely qualify.

    The word should probably be electrohypochondriac.

    Having a flashlight shined on you is about a trillion time more dangerous than being around wifi. Learn some physics people, this is more embarrasing than people thinking the World is about to end when they see a comet.

    Wifi puts out tiny amounts of power. You get FAR more EM radiation for all the TV and radio stations in town. This is a total farce.

    At least it Canada being all stupid instead of the US this time.

    • Hi Scott,

      How can I get hold of James Randi? I can qualify it scientifically and further support it through advanced infrared imaging of radiated people. I lecture and show this in medical education where doctors get education credits they need for licensing.

      Health Canada admits there is a heat effect and this heat isn’t a blanket warming you from the outside. The heat effect could be seen and qualified for Mr. Randi. Please have him contact me or forward me his contact info please.

  15. Robert North says:

    I have yet to see a single double blind study that shows individuals can detect WiFi signals. Scientific method here folks.

    • EMR_Lorax says:

      Well here’s a link to the peer reviewed and published cordless home phone study – the subject experienced heart palpitations:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EI9fZX4iww

      Here’s the press release:

      http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cordless-heart/

      A Wi-Fi heart study is not far behind – you can see the initial proof of concept in Global TV’s 16:9 investigative piece on Wi-Fi on schools. And although that is a “rough test”, the results will be replicated under strict scientific standards in an upcoming study on how Wi-Fi can affect the heart.

      To Brad and Scott: Have you walked around with a power density meter and measured background radiation levels from radio and TV vs. those in proximity to a Wi-Fi router and DECT phone base or even in a room with a cell phone that is transmitting on a call, not to mention near cell phone transmitter antennae. Compare the background levels of radio and TV to these sources and you will see that what your are stating is factually incorrect.

      • Michael5MacKay says:

        Peer-review just means that other scientists have read the study before it was published. It is no guarantee that the the information in the study is correct. Replication and verification by larger, high-quality studies is necessary. I’m sure you’re aware of a number of highly-touted and promoted peer-reviewed studies have failed that test, and subsequently been debunked.

        In this case, I find it extremely odd that Ms. Havas and her colleagues were able to find 40% of the subjects experienced immediate and dramatic effects when exposed to 2.4 GHz EMF. If the effects are so dramatic, why did it take so long for them to be discovered?

        I’m willing to bet that the effects won’t be replicated in a better-designed, larger, study.

      • Robert North says:

        Do you have the link to the actual study, rather than the website quoted, an ‘investigative report’ show or YouTube?

      • Robert North says:

        http://www.aspartame.info/mediarch/medit057.html

        Are we talking about this institute? Just so we’re clear.

  16. Michael Kruse says:

    The Havas studied quoted has a lot of flaws, including bad blinding and poor statistical analysis (read, “none”, here). It is a small study on 25 and 75 people and the effects were not co-related statistically with those who claimed to be electrically hypersensitive – in fact there was random distribution of these individuals which leads me to think that the study was not blinded very well at all. As well, one small study of 25-75 people does not cancel out the 47 studies done before it that showed no connection during double blind studies (search for James Rubin and electro hypersensitivity for his King College London Dept. of Psychology review of the literature surrounding this)

    The study is so weak that Havas spends most of the discussion portion discussing other people’s findings instead of her own.

    One final note, the studies on tissue by EMF are just that, studies on TISSUE in a petri dish on the lab bench. Generally very few of any studies that find effects on the bench are then replicated in vivo and the EMF studies are no different. What is not different, sadly, is that no one will stop taking the unjustified cognitive leap from dish to patient that continues to be the basis for the evidence of the effects of low level microwave radiation on human subjects.

  17. eloise says:

    Curtis Bennett, I am very interested in your comment at 8:01pm. Will you please tell us what the frequency conflicts are between biological tissue and RF? Is there a source where we can confirm this? This specific information could be very enlightening to the discussion. How deeply into a living human being does the microwave and or magnetic field penetrate? Is this a function of the electrical or magnetic field or both. Please provide more info.

    • In order for Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, W.H.O., FCC and whomever to determine the impact of radiofrequencies on human tissue, you can’t leave the frequency of the biologic tissue out of the equation. Due to the oversight of all of the parties leaving out the frequency conflict, they missed causation of tissue stimulation and the heat effect that puts wireless in contradiction of Safety Code 6.

      Never to take away from humans, this is an electrical equation where you have to include the frequencies involved and Safety Code 6, W.H.O., etc treated humans as objects. They did not include the frequency of biologic units or the fact they are in effect a bare conductor. When I was referred to Health Canada radio frequency professional for discussion on this, he didn’t disqualify my opinion at all. He said “they aren’t electric”.

      The source where you can confirm this is with any electrical or electronics professional. Provinces and states teach electrical standards, this is basic electrical. Ask them what would happen to a bare conductor carrying a signal of 7.8 Hz or other Hz when a frequency of 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz is imposed on it? 7.8 Hz means 7.8 cycles per second and 2.4 or 5 GHz is 2.4 or 5 billion cycles per second.

      As for your question on function, it is a function of the electromagnetic field and is penetrating the body. Part of my discussion with Health Canada radio frequency professional was how deep in the body? He said it didn’t penetrate the body and I said if it went through walls, roofs, etc, it wasn’t bouncing off the skin. Health Canada and Safety Code 6 state it best. They want to avoid the unintentional stimulation of excitable tissue because experimental studies showed there was nerve and muscle depolarization with the electromagnetic induction. Health Canada says to avoid a heat effect but there is a heat effect at what is referred to as non thermal as well as thermal. The higher frequencies are more electromagnetic radiation which produces more heat.

      The fact they know there is a heating effect means there is a heat source and it isn’t outside the body gently warming it. The heat is being generated inside the body because of the emf radiation penetration and that should disturb any professional. Dr. Havas and others have studies that verified health effects and are more qualified on biologic effect now that causation is known.

      Something else I have participated in as a temperature specialist is to image emf radiation in the infrared spectrum. The SARS method of measuring heat isn’t the only way to measure the heat effect, it can be seen in the infrared spectrum the same way we image inflammation or cancer for medicine. Radio frequency interaction with human tissue will be lectured in medical academia for education credits in Florida in January, 2011. That makes it medical education, not just opinion.

      We consult for a wide variety of professionals, governments and their insurers. Health Canada and others don’t want responsibility for radiating populations as well as ecosystems. Insurers will not cover their health costs while they profit. If they offset profit with health costs, they will owe money and it is illegal under the Auditor General’s Act to impact future generations with what we do today. None of this means there can’t be technological advances, there is a reason we have insulated and co-axial cables. It is to avoid electromagnetic interference.

  18. Ian Chadwick says:

    Almost all of the studies about wireless radiation concentrate on cell phones because, as the three Royal Society studies (the original 1999 report and its two follow-up studies) stated, cell phones generate more than 100 times the radiation energy than WiFi devices.

    If WiFi is a danger, cell phones are at least 100 times more dangerous (not to mention you hold it right up against your head and WiFi transmitters are usually far away).

    Why aren’t the concerned parents calling for everyone to dispose of or at least shut off cell phones in the presence of kids? Is that being overlooked because it would be too inconvenient? I’d be curious to learn how many of the parents concerned about WiFi still use cell phones.

    Cordless phones work on the same frequency as WiFi. And let’s not forget about microwave ovens: they transmit signals when running (strong enough to block FM signals from satellite radio). What about the new “smart meters” attached to your house? Aren’t they wireless transmitters, too? Cordless door bells and cordless thermometers, are also. The list is growing.

    If WiFi is a threat to kids, these devices must all be a danger because they also transmit wireless radiation, often at greater strength than wifi. Have concerned parents eliminated them from their homes? Not to do so would be hypocritical, don’t you think?

    But even if you remove all cordless devices from your home, all wireless transmitters, microwave ovens, and cell phones, you’d still be subject to the EMR from devices all around you in neighbours’ homes, local restaurants, cell phone towers, and so on. Those signals pass through walls – just like radio and TV signals do. And guess what? Radio and TV waves are radiation, too! Every electrical device, every electrical motor, generates some EMR. There’s no escape.

    Thanks for the interesting read. (By the way, there are no “industrial strength” WiFi devices as some people claim.)

    • JAM says:

      Hi Ian

      May I add one more to your list. The plant is electromagnetic as well, as in aids to navigation.

    • Iris says:

      Certainly, but what you forget is the WiFi is imposed on the kids for chronic exposure, while the personal devices are choice and one can choose not to use them or reduce exposure at least. WiFi is working all the time emitting radiation.

  19. Troy says:

    Dr. Havas forgot to read the manual that came with the heart monitoring equipment she used in her dect phone study…it specifically states that the monitoring equipment is sensitive to wireless signals…so it was that monitoring equipment that eacted to the dect phone NOT the persons heart (unless of course they were afraid of the evil radiation given they already believe themselves to be electro-sensitive) DOH!!!!!
    If you look at the graphs she provides they corespond precisely to what you’d expect to see from signal interferance, NOT variations in heart rate.
    One of the key elements of following the scentific method is full disclosure…so where does Havas provide the entire study instead of the cherry-picked results she wants us to see? Why do I have to pay her publisher to get access to most of her studies? If she submitted her work for peer review, so waht!!!! The obvious point of import is “what did the peers haveto say?” (And did they manage to say it without using any of the Kings English LOL)

  20. Kevin says:

    I used to get headaches the first few weeks of elementary school, back in the late 1970′s. I think it was the combination of the stress of adapting to structured activity combined with flickery florescent lighting.

    But it could have been any of hundreds of differences between home and school.

    One thing I know for sure – it wasn’t wi-fi. Not in 1978.

  21. Alex says:

    Hooray for Rodney Palmer and to Steve Thoms, I hope you never have to experience my suffering as you and many others keep ignoring the Canaries like me. I hope that you never acquire this horrible illness and loose your job like I did. I hope that you never acquire this horrible illness and be reduced to a life of isolation, suffering and ridicule. I hope that you never acquire this horrible illness as you will wish that the good lord would come very soon! I simply cannot believe that people who write these articles are educated individuals or are being funded in some way by these by the perpetrators of this murderous technology. Surely, anyone who knows the principles of Physics and Biology should know radiation is toxic whether ionizing or non-ionizing. A Rooster is still a Rooster even dressed up as a hen; no matter what the farmer does he cannot call it a hen. Anyone who refutes the facts that radiation from WIFI is harmful should go back to the basics, do the research on Madame Curie and her husband on how their lives ended. To Rodney Palmer I say thank you for taking the courage to fight this third world war for all of our children!

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Alex:

      What “illness” are you referring to?

      Contrary to your claim, radiation is not toxic in the ways you described. Radiation runs on a spectrum, one that includes harmful, high energy x-rays and ultraviolet (ionizing), to low-energy radio waves (non-ionizing). Included in this spectrum is visible light, which is also considered electromagnetic radiation.

      Furthermore, there’s a significant difference between electromagnetic radiation, and radioactive decay, such as exists in lead, uranium and plutonium. I suggest you do research beyond Madame Currie, as there are no WiFi devices I am aware of that run on radon.

      Third world war, huh? Okay.

      • Alex says:

        I am referring to EMF sensitivity, which happens to be a very real medical illness; diagnosed by a very real Environmental specialist. You are obviously only looking at the science paid for by the the telecommunication industry. If you should take the time to do some real research, you should be amazed to find that more studies by independent researchers and Epidemiologist indicate that this type of radiation is toxic. Better yet, I should like to invite you to spend one hour in my home to witness the real destruction of radiation from wifi and other cellular devices.

        There is actually no difference as the effects and symptoms of illness produced are the same. Exposure to radiation causes harm to the body, weakness in the limbs, inability to walk requiring the need for Assistive Devices; speech difficulty, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Parkinson’s disease symptoms and Alzheimers; the list goes on. I know, I experience the symptoms every day once I am exposed! I was at the top of my career and earning a very comfortable living. EMF sensitivity took away my ability to earn my living and to be a productive member of society.

        Believe it or not, we are in the midst of a third world war as this technology silently wreaks havoc on the world’s population. You know, a few years ago I read an article by a very forward thinking author, he wrote that our much loved appliances would start attacking us. I laughed and thought that this was junk science.

        I suspect that you must love your technology very much. I ask you again, at this very time, with your tremendous skepticism, to pray that you are never afflicted with EMF sensitivity. Please educate yourself about this technology with independent research. Stop trying to sound too educated because believe me, you are very ignorant about the disastrous nature of this technology. Please show some respect for your colleagues, stop “langbasting” them in this very vile manner.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Alex, I’m afraid that the medical literature does not support “EMF Sensitivity” as a legit disorder/illness. Maybe it will one day, but as it stands, not now.

      Studies have been done analyzing the ‘nocebo’ effect in people claiming to suffer from EMF sensitivity. In these studies, people were told that they were in a room that blocks out EMF radiation, and the people reported that the symptoms went away. When they were told the EMF waves were turned back on, the symptoms apparently returned. But here’s the rub:

      The EMF waves were on the whole time.

      In studies where the patients *thought* that there were no EMF waves, they reported symptom relief. When the patients *thought* that the emf waves were around, they reported symptoms. In no case were the presence of actual EMF waves making any difference.

      So what does that tell you?

      I’m not suggesting you do not suffer these reported symptoms, but I am skeptical that you have been thoroughly examined by several MD’s to confirm this (not ‘environmental specialists’) study that so far, does not exist in the medical literature.

      Also, what “colleagues” of mine do you claim I am lambasting? Mr. Palmer, as a purveyor of warm wooden boxes that he claims can treat asthma and arthritis, is *NOT* a colleague of mine. Magda Havas, whose career is vested with the idea that EMF waves cause biological harm, is *NOT* my colleague.

      And don’t you think that by using the phrase “Third World War”, that it cheapens the actual world wars? I wonder if your grandparents would appreciate the notion that their friends getting blown apart by mortar fire is comparable to iPhones and wireless routers.

      FYI: You were exposed to EMF radiation every day of your life. Every. Single. Day. And at frequencies and power output levels far exceeding wireless technology.

  22. Paul Doyon says:

    Seems like the only narcissist here is the one and only Steve Thoms. A music teacher imagining that he is an EMR expert! Wake up an do your homework before you shoot off your mouth.

    “If only closed minds would come with closed mouths.”

    • Kim Hebert says:

      And Rodney Palmer is a journalist, so I guess he’s not an expert either. Well, glad that’s settled.

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Well, there is a difference between informed skepticism (what I call “critical intelligence,” but also known as “Partial Skepticism”) and uninformed or blind skepticism (i.e. just plain ignorance). I suggest that Steve Thoms read up on the subject before he continues making a fool of himself by speaking out his ass. Sounds to me like the effect of trickle-down psychopathology. Is he just like the people in Hans Christian Andersen`s story, The Emperor`s New Clothes, being fooled by the swindler tailors, into thinking the Emperor is wearing clothes when he is actually wearing none? Or is he a swindler himself? Only in this case the swindlers are the Military-Electronics-Industrial Complex. I am not sure he possesses the intelligence for the latter even though this is something he probably indeed admires and is something to which he strives. At any rate, I suggest that people educate themselves on the matter before speaking out their asses. You can read the following books and make up your mind for yourself rather than believing the rhetoric you read on blogs like this:

        The Body Electric, Robert O. Becker, M.D
        Cross Currents, Robert O. Becker, M.D
        Electromagnetic Fields, B. Blake Levitt
        The Zapping of America, Paul Brodeur
        Would You Put Your Head in a Microwave Oven? Gerald Goldberg, M.D.
        Zapped, Anne Louise Gittleman, M.D.
        Disconnect, Devra Davis, Ph.D.
        Currents of Death, Paul Brodeur
        Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, George Carlo, Ph.D.
        Dirty Electricity, Samuel Milham, M.D. M.P.H.
        Radiation Rescue, Kery Crofton, Ph.D.
        Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Cane, Ph.D.

        “the proper attitude for the creation of knowledge is neither a dogmatism of apprehension or comprehension nor an utter skepticism, but an attitude of partial skepticism in which the knowledge of comprehension is held provisionally to be tested against apprehensions, and vice versa.”
        (David Kolb, Experiential Learning, 1984, pp. 107-109).

        http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/grassroots/articles/820-willful-ignorance-or-mindful-intelligence-part-2-developing-

        Cheers,

      • Thermoguy says:

        Wi-Fi in schools is illegal and violates Safety Code 6 which governs frequency exposure for humans. The mechanism linking the frequencies to adverse health effects was reported to Health Canada and again by expert witness at the request of Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health.

        Health Canada should have enforced Safety Code 6 and used the weight of evidence approach on an ongoing basis as per code. Instead they dismissed electricity as peer reviewed science and did not follow the recommendations in the report of the committee.

        The stimulation of tissue is to be avoided, it can lead to nerve and muscle stimulation. Safety Code 6 doesn’t include or acknowledge any of the frequencies in the human body, the voltages, currents, other electrical/chemical considerations, communications.

        The code acknowledges people are heating and has assigned a power density(electrical load) to every sq. cm of your body or watts per Kg. Inducing an existing, unprotected electrical system with volts times amps at high frequency when it has its own frequencies, volts and amps is very dangerous electrically. The company that provides your electricity or telecommunications wouldn’t allow interference on their grids. Humans have their own grids and it is illegal to interfere with the human grid. It violates Safety Code 6 and Health Canada isn’t enforcing it.

        Wi-Fi is in US courts today where parents seek an injunction. The difference in this court case is the mechanism linking the frequencies to adverse health effects is proven and the peer reviewed science is electricity. Health Canada and the FCC can also bear witness the frequencies envelope people in an electromagnetic field(power density) except the humans are the conductors.

        Go to this link for the US Court Filings and read Barry Trower’s declaration where it refers to genetic mutation of ovaries. http://www.thermoguy.com/emfeducation.html

        Here is another link to a Wi-Fi Risk Advisory which includes 2 reports on Wi-Fi Safety by the BC CDC and Tony Muc for Simcoe County Schools. You will see they admit the heating is taking place but humans are treated as tissue in a microwave, not intricate wireless systems that don’t run at those frequencies. As a result, their reporting is inaccurate. They need to resubmit their reporting with the electrical changes in their reporting. http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Wi_Fi_Health_Risk_Advisory.pdf

        Rodney Palmer and everyone should be concerned, they aren’t being qualified but are being ignored on a public safety emergency. It isn’t rocket science, it is electricity but now the dangers of the frequencies are now lectured in medical education for CE credits needed for licensing. It is applicable in 50 states.

        Health Canada today is reporting the frequencies are safe when the law has changed and they aren’t safe. Now we are getting calls from seniors with pacemakers and health monitoring equipment because they are to stay out of electromagnetic fields. Due to Health Canada’s negligence we are taking the electromagnetic fields to their homes.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      At no point did I *ever* claim EMR expertise. Provide evidence that I made that claim. All I did was take a look at what the majority of studies lead to. Rodney Palmer, on the other hand, claimed to be an epidemiologist before a parliamentary subcommittee.

      And then he threatened to sue me.

      I love it when people say “Do more research” when they actually mean “Do more research that agrees with my position! Or I’ll call you closed-minded and arrogant!” I’ve read plenty of the cranks’ articles on the matter (cranks like Levitt, Lai, Davis, Havas), but I’ve also read studies by government institutions and universities. I see no compelling evidence that would overturn huge reams of what we know about how EM waves travel (ie: non-ionizing radiation). If you would spend but 5 minutes more poking around this site, you’d see that.

      But given that you hastily claimed that your comments were “suddenly” in moderation without bothering to read our commenting policy, I doubt you’ll look around here much longer, except maybe to hurl invective at me.

      Thanks for the over-long insult, though. It’s reassuring that when someone goes to great lengths to effectively say, “Oh yeah, well you’re stupid”, I generally rest easy that whatever side that person is on, I’m glad I’m not there.

      • Paul Doyon says:

        If you are not an expert, then why are you shooting off your mouth? Obviously, then you are seemingly ignorant on the subject.

        Who cares about Rodney Palmer anyway? He threatened to sue you because you were attacking him.

        Levitt, Lai, Havas (not quite sure who Davis is) are not cranks (though they might get cranky from overexposure to EMFs) LOL . (Interestingly, people like them who find health effects from exposure to EMFs are suddenly attacked by people like yourself though.) They are respected university researchers with PhDs in their fields doing independent research that benefits the public.

        There are lots of studies by government institutions and universities connected to the military-electronics-industrial complex, which do nothing but protect industry profits. Actually, this has even been termed the military-academic-industrial complex by other people with PhDs in their fields. These are not independent studies, but rather studies paid for and influenced by the military and industry — and more often than not the outcome has been decided before the study has even begun.

        The Essex Study is a clear example of this. Subjects exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation for a relatively long period of time were eliminated from the study because they got ill and could not continue with the experiment. Brian Stein, a respected UK businessman and originally skeptical about ES, talks about this in a British TV program:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHldCC9Otqo&feature=related

        He developed internal bleeding from the experiment and was hence eliminated from the study. Moreover, the only symptom they measured were headaches. Symptoms of microwave sickness (dubbed way back in the early 70s) vary extensively depending on the subject and on a number of parameters (e.g. type of frequency, duration of frequency, physical condition of the subject etc.). These usually include nausea, heart pain, headache, intestinal disturbances, skin rashes, fatigue, tender lymph nodes, anxiety, insomnia, and so on ad nauseam.

        Furthermore, it is well known that Simon Wessely, one of the researchers in the Essex Study (who also has made quite an effort to debunk legitimate illnesses like Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME as it is known in the UK) or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (as it is known in the US and Canada) has ties to industry, US health agencies, and the US military. The following video shows clearly how much the military and industry is tied into setting the standards: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/428197/ Also available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUnykR_T-UY

        I initially thought that the naysayers when confronted with the facts regarding EMFs were either (1) pathological liars, or (2) in psychological denial. I later came to the conclusion that others were not interested in finding the truth per se but in winning the argument — the obsessive arguers. I later came the conclusion that some just did not have the intellectual capacity to connect the dots and make logical conclusions. So to reiterate, we have (1) the pathological liars, (2) the psychological deniers, (3) the obsessive arguers, and (4) the willfully (or not) ignorant. Which one are you? Perhaps a combination of all four!

        You are obviously not on my side. And thank God for that.

        You seemingly want to be on the side of the 1%. Good Luck!

        Have a Radiant Day!

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Another book I forgot to mention is BLACK ON WHITE: VOICES AND WITNESSES ABOUT ELECTRO-HYPERSENSITIVITY THE SWEDISH EXPERIENCE, which can be downloaded at the following website for free:

        http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf

      • Iris says:

        Then why do you insult Rodney Palmer?
        What does it mean about you ?

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Paul, I’ll see your handful of studies, and raise you about 35,000 that say otherwise. http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/

      (Side with the 1%? Really?)

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Yeah! Right! I would like to see you even try. Why? Because there are no 35,000 that say otherwise. What a bunch of crapola! Typical Hyperbole Tactic!

  23. Jack says:

    Corporate Science says these microwaves are safe. Corporate Science used to say that Asbestos and Cigarettes were safe. Corporate Science says GM Food is safe.
    Trouble is, Corporate Science is an “input” into a product to help sell it, It looks like science but it’s not.
    My experience of skeptics is that they are either hired hands or closed minded or both.
    Anyone who places their faith in an industry’s argument that their product is safe, in today’s world, is demonstrably a fool.
    There’s enough good science, as well as anecdotal evidence to banish wifi from every school as well as any other place where living organisms exist.
    Drop your agenda and, as Paul said, ignore the rhetoric and do some proper research.

    • Dianne Sousa says:

      Jack,

      I find it curious that you use the examples of cigarettes and asbestos as proof that the science showing wifi is safe is wrong. Actually, you’re not just claiming the science is wrong, your claiming that the science is fabricated or maniuplated in some way.

      Right now, you are literally surounded by products that have been determined safe using the scientific method. How are you determining what is good and bad science. Claiming that one should distrust the overwhelming evidence that wifi and related technologies is safe because there is a corporate interest in the success of the technology is incredibly weak. You have to show the weakenss in the science itself, not just imply that it might be there. That’s the only way to make a compelling case.

      “Ignore the rhetoric and do some proper research.” Really? I see you using the term “corporate science” and thumping your chest about skeptics as closed minded hired hands.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Corporate science? If you looked at the studies I, and other Skeptic North bloggers link to, you’d find that they’re funded by universities, and governments. Rot by Rogers, AT&T, or Bell Telecom.

      And if I am tasked to follow the money of who funds the research, why is the onus not on you to do the same? If you follow the research that says it’s dangerous, you’d find the same small number of fringe academics and anti-EMF activists pushing their agenda.

      Why does WiFi safety have financial agenda but WiFi danger does not?

      Your arguments are the same, tired old tropes I always hear, and I’ve even devoted a whole article to them: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/09/why-wifi-why/

      You say, “Drop your agenda and, as Paul said, ignore the rhetoric and do some proper research.”

      Show evidence of *my* agenda. You imply that I am somehow funded by corporate backers: Prove it.

      • Iris says:

        NO. YOU are the one who needs to make it clear who funds you.
        It is obvious you are not neutral, nor scientific.

      • Steve Thoms says:

        So you don’t need to provide evidence of your claim? Gotcha.

        By that same reason, I have a claim: My cat is plotting with the neighbour’s dog to overthrow the Prime Minister. I’m very concerned. Don’t ask me to prove it. You prove to me it’s not happening! It’s obvious that you’re in bed with this unholy dog-cat alliance.

  24. Paul Doyon says:

    Looks as if comments are now being suddenly moderated?

    • Kim Hebert says:

      No. Please read the commenting policy. First-time comments are always moderated, but people may caught in the filter even after a comment is approved for various reasons. Patience, please.

      • Paul Doyon says:

        My first comment was not moderated. Go figure!

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Rather it seems that my comments are being selectively moderated. ;(

      • Kim Hebert says:

        Your comments are not being selectively moderated. There is no other moderation in place other than the initial comment moderation that is explained in the commenting policy. Seriously, have patience. We are not sitting by our computers constantly hitting refresh to see if there are new comments – we have jobs, kids, etc. Sometimes it takes time to approve a comment if one gets caught up for some reason.

        We apologize for the inconvenience, but for the last time: YOU ARE NOT BEING SELECTIVELY MODERATED. NO ONE IS.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      I suggest you poke around this site a little more. Many of the studies you linked to have already been de-bunked (such as the Havas study on cordless phones) by our bloggers (some of whom, unlike me, have relevant expertise). Click here for more information, and a host of massive-scale studies from universities all over the world.

      I have no conflict of interest, and nobody pays me a dime for my words.

      I cast a stone (but I’m not the first)

  25. Michael H. says:

    Indeed, the Titanic was thought to be unsinkable. Ionizing radiation was threated completely save a few decades ago and their where boxes to radiate your feet in every shoe shop! And people used it heavily…

    Of course today people wouldn’t use such a dangerous crap, guess in 20 years they’ll love about you blog and your shinny ideas…

    Get the complete story, read:

    Robert C. Kane – Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette

    Robert C. Kane had been working as top developer inside Motorola for decades, developing mobile phones. He died from brain cancer a few years ago, not without leaving this planet with a message, which you can find in his book:

    http://microondes.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/robert-c-kane-cellular-telephone-russian-roulette/

    Download from the above page and make your own mind.

    Michael Heiming

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Okay, so one guy dies of a brain cancer who works for Motorola, therefore working for Motorola causes brain cancer? Not sure I follow your logic, friend. What of the countless tens of thousands that work for Motorola, Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Samsung, Blackberry, and Apple who *don’t* develop brain tumors?

      As for your Titanic metaphor, it’s meaningless. Yes, the Titanic was once thought to be unsinkable, and an engineering flaw coupled with human error sunk it.

      But you know what? Elevators were once thought perfectly safe, and they still are! Same goes for any new technology, there’s always some crank/fringe people out there who think that just because there were engineering failures in the past, that therefore must mean that all engineering projects at a given time not only might be doomed to failure, but *will* be.

      I need better evidence than a deathbed confession by one guy, sorry.

      When you say, “make your own mind,” you really should just come out and be honest. What you really mean is “Agree with my position.”

      • Paul Doyon says:

        In Robert Cane`s case, he was a test subject for exposure of cell phone radiation to the brain. I guess at the time, he was also a non-believer. I know about twenty people with brain tumors at the moment. Are we looking at a coming epidemic? I consider it a possibility.

      • Michael H. says:

        Steve,

        you should really start reading the book, it is full of scientific prove and points to a high number of studies who prove things. It isn’t just one man, despite he was a top Motorola developer, among others responsible for cell phone security!

        Simply read the book, make your own mind and come back.

        http://microondes.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/robert-c-kane-cellular-telephone-russian-roulette/

        It is also a good read, I can’t do more for you, despite pointing you to some other valuable resources about the problem, I have collected:

        http://microondes.wordpress.com/bookslivres/

        Good luck

        Michael Heiming

      • Iris says:

        Steve, See below. What do you think? is it one person?

        Mobile Phone Use and the Risk for
        Malignant Brain Tumors: A Case-Control
        Study on Deceased Cases and Controls

        Abstract
        We investigated the use of mobile or cordless phones and
        the risk for malignant brain tumors in a group of deceased
        cases. Most previous studies have either left out deceased
        cases of brain tumors or matched them to living controls and
        therefore a study matching deceased cases to deceased controls
        is warranted. Recall error is one issue since it has been
        claimed that increased risks reported in some studies could
        be due to cases blaming mobile phones as a cause of the
        disease. This should be of less importance for deceased cases
        and if cancer controls are used. In this study brain tumor
        cases aged 20–80 years diagnosed during 1997–2003 that
        had died before inclusion in our previous studies on the
        same topic were included. Two control groups were used:
        one with controls that had died from another type of cancer
        than brain tumor and one with controls that had died from
        other diseases. Exposure was assessed by a questionnaire
        sent to the next-of-kin for both cases and controls. Replies
        were obtained for 346 (75%) cases, 343 (74%) cancer controls
        and 276 (60%) controls with other diseases. Use of mobile
        phones gave an increased risk, highest in the 1 10 years’ la-
        tency group yielding odds ratio (OR) = 2.4, and 95% confidence
        interval (CI) = 1.4–4.1. The risk increased with cumulative
        number of lifetime hours for use, and was highest in the
        1 2,000 h group (OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.6–7.1). No clear association
        was found for use of cordless phones, although OR = 1.7,
        95% CI = 0.8–3.4 was found in the group with 1 2,000 h of
        cumulative use. This investigation confirmed our previous
        results of an association between mobile phone use and malignant
        brain tumors.

  26. Jack says:

    “If EMF waves cause harm beyond a simple thermal effect, it would overturn huge reams of physics” – I have read a number of times now where EMR in the radio frequency range is being trialled for use therapeutically for various medical conditions. Not by your so called quacks but by doctors in mainstream medicine.
    Odd that these microwaves – non ionising below thermal effects – can have an impact on cells in one arena but in the public arena they don’t.
    Russian researchers recently found issues with mobile devices and their impact on children http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/russian-res-children-emf/.
    Not sure who funds them. Not sure if they’re “fringe academics” either.
    Most universities nowadays have “partnerships” with various companies in various industries. This is a way of sourcing funds.
    At the end of the day, if there is any industry money anywhere near any research into the health impact of that industries product, it can’t be valued very highly.

    “Right now, you are literally surrounded by products that have been determined safe using the scientific method” – I’m not aware of any single microwave emitting product on the market that has had any real pre-release safety testing.
    Since Allan Frey discovered that weak microwaves caused a breach of the blood brain barrier way back in the 60′s the microwave industry has worked hard to minimize, control and guide any research.
    As far as the skeptic point of view goes I find it interesting that most sites like this will also argue that:
    gm food/crops are safe and good
    fluoride in our water is safe and good
    any natural therapies are a scam
    and that any industry (select whichever one you want) although not perfect has our best interests at heart and in any case must follow the regulations set by the government.
    Love to get hold of that handbook
    :)

  27. Paul Doyon says:

    “Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientific studies over the last fifty
    years have consistently revealed that “invisible forces” of the electromagnetic
    spectrum profoundly impact every facet of biological regulation. These
    energies include microwaves, radio frequencies, the visible light spectrum,
    extremely low frequencies, acoustic frequencies and even a newly
    recognized form of force known as scalar energy. Specific frequencies
    and patterns of electromagnetic radiation regulate DNA, RNA, and protein
    synthesis, alter protein shape and function, and control gene regulation,
    cell division, cell differentiation, morphogenesis (the process by which cells
    assemble into organs and tissues), hormone secretion, nerve growth and
    function. Each one of these cellular activities is a fundamental behavior that
    contributes to the unfolding of life. Though these research studies have been
    published in some of the most respected mainstream biomedical journals,
    their revolutionary findings have not been incorporated into the medical
    school curriculum. [Liboff 2004; Goodman and Blank 2002; Tsong 1989;
    Yen-Patton, et al, 1988]

    “An important study forty years ago by Oxford University biophysicist C.
    W. F. McClare calculated and compared the efficiency of information transfer
    between energy signals and chemical signals in biological systems. His
    research, “Resonance in Bioenergetics” published in the Annals of the New
    York Academy of Science, revealed that energetic signaling mechanisms
    such as electromagnetic frequencies are a hundred times more efficient in
    relaying environmental information than physical signals such as hormones,
    neurotransmitters, growth factors, etc. [McClare 1974]”

    Dr. Bruce Lipton (The Biology of Belief, pages 111-112)

  28. Steve Thoms says:

    I’m just curious as to where the sudden interest in this more-than-a-year-old blog entry is coming from! Surely there are more recent, more relevant, and better written Skeptic North posts than this one!

    One comes to mind:
    http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/

    • Iris says:

      I will answer your question, although you don’t deserve it considering the last post you wrote me.
      I saw your article by accident while searching in google for something else. What I saw is pure slander towards an informed citizen whose intentions are pure and respectful, and this made me sad and angry, that you use the platform of your website in order to hurt a human being who has enough courage to criticize the same “consensus” you don’t even dare asking questions about.
      This already makes him much more skeptic then you and your group.

      Iris

  29. Paul Doyon says:

    Int J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 5. [Epub ahead of print]

    Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome.

    McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, Marino AA.

    1Department of Neurology, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA.

    ABSTRACT Objective: We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity). Methods: The subject, a female physician self-diagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies. Results: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control. Discussion: The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes. Conclusion: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.

    PMID: 21793784 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/%20%20%20%2021793784

  30. Paul Doyon says:

    Psychol Med. 2008 Dec;38(12):1781-91. Epub 2008 Mar 26.

    Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case-control study.

    Landgrebe M, Frick U, Hauser S, Langguth B, Rosner R, Hajak G, Eichhammer P.

    Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is frequently claimed to be linked to a variety of non-specific somatic and neuropsychological complaints. Whereas provocation studies often failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between EMF exposure and symptom formation, recent studies point to a complex interplay of neurophysiological and cognitive alterations contributing to symptom manifestation in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients (EHS). However, these studies have examined only small sample sizes or have focused on selected aspects. Therefore this study examined in the largest sample of EHS EMF-specific cognitive correlates, discrimination ability and neurobiological parameters in order to get further insight into the pathophysiology of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

    METHOD:
    In a case-control design 89 EHS and 107 age- and gender-matched controls were included in the study. Health status and EMF-specific cognitions were evaluated using standardized questionnaires. Perception thresholds following single transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) pulses to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were determined using a standardized blinded measurement protocol. Cortical excitability parameters were measured by TMS.

    RESULTS:
    Discrimination ability was significantly reduced in EHS (only 40% of the EHS but 60% of the controls felt no sensation under sham stimulation during the complete series), whereas the perception thresholds for real magnetic pulses were comparable in both groups (median 21% versus 24% of maximum pulse intensity). Intra-cortical facilitation was decreased in younger and increased in older EHS. In addition, typical EMF-related cognitions (aspects of rumination, symptom intolerance, vulnerability and stabilizing self-esteem) specifically differentiated EHS from their controls.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    These results demonstrate significant cognitive and neurobiological alterations pointing to a higher genuine individual vulnerability of electromagnetic hypersensitive patients.

    Comment in
    Psychol Med. 2009 Jun;39(6):1050-2.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Paul, I’m curious:

      Before cordless phones, cellphones, and WiFi were as ubiquitous as they have been in the past 15 years, how was your health?

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Good question? With the advent and increase in this technology, we have seen skyrocketing rates of a number of disease states: Autism, ADHD, Depression, Strokes, Brain Tumors and other Forms of Cancer, Epilepsy, MS, Diabetes, Lupus, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Colitis, Crohn`s Disease, Alzheimer`s and on and on ad nauseam. And here we don`t only have correlation; we also have causation. We have thousands of studies (not 35,000 though LOL) showing adverse effects which can be inferred to be causal in these disease states. This assessment is, FYI, what is called “semi-empirical” in that it also uses a theoretical methodology which makes use of fundamental axioms, scientific laws, and experimental results to engage in a reasoned model building of theoretical inquiry.

  31. Paul Doyon says:

    BMC Genomics. 2008 Feb 11;9:77.

    Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin.

    Karinen A, Heinävaara S, Nylund R, Leszczynski D.

    STUK – Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Laippatie 4, 00880 Helsinki, Finland. anu.karinen@stuk.fi

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Earlier we have shown that the mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency modulated electromagnetic fields; RF-EMF) alters protein expression in human endothelial cell line. This does not mean that similar response will take place in human body exposed to this radiation. Therefore, in this pilot human volunteer study, using proteomics approach, we have examined whether a local exposure of human skin to RF-EMF will cause changes in protein expression in living people.

    RESULTS:
    Small area of forearm’s skin in 10 female volunteers was exposed to RF-EMF (specific absorption rate SAR = 1.3 W/kg) and punch biopsies were collected from exposed and non-exposed areas of skin. Proteins extracted from biopsies were separated using 2-DE and protein expression changes were analyzed using PDQuest software. Analysis has identified 8 proteins that were statistically significantly affected (Anova and Wilcoxon tests). Two of the proteins were present in all 10 volunteers. This suggests that protein expression in human skin might be affected by the exposure to RF-EMF. The number of affected proteins was similar to the number of affected proteins observed in our earlier in vitro studies.

    CONCLUSION:
    This is the first study showing that molecular level changes might take place in human volunteers in response to exposure to RF-EMF. Our study confirms that proteomics screening approach can identify protein targets of RF-EMF in human volunteers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267023

  32. Paul Doyon says:

    Neurotoxicology. 2007 Mar;28(2):434-40. Epub 2006 Aug 1.

    Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations.
    Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F, El-Batanouny M, Salem E.

    Community, Environmental and Occupational Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufiya University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt. gaafar17@yahoo.com

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    There is a general concern on the possible hazardous health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiations (RFR) emitted from mobile phone base station antennas on the human nervous system.

    AIM:
    To identify the possible neurobehavioral deficits among inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations.

    METHODS:
    A cross-sectional study was conducted on (85) inhabitants living nearby the first mobile phone station antenna in Menoufiya governorate, Egypt, 37 are living in a building under the station antenna while 48 opposite the station. A control group (80) participants were matched with the exposed for age, sex, occupation and educational level. All participants completed a structured questionnaire containing: personal, educational and medical histories; general and neurological examinations; neurobehavioral test battery (NBTB) [involving tests for visuomotor speed, problem solving, attention and memory]; in addition to Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ).

    RESULTS:
    The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls: (10%), (5%), (5%), (0%), (8.8%) and (10%), respectively (P<0.05). The NBTB indicated that the exposed inhabitants exhibited a significantly lower performance than controls in one of the tests of attention and short-term auditory memory [Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)]. Also, the inhabitants opposite the station exhibited a lower performance in the problem solving test (block design) than those under the station. All inhabitants exhibited a better performance in the two tests of visuomotor speed (Digit symbol and Trailmaking B) and one test of attention (Trailmaking A) than controls. The last available measures of RFR emitted from the first mobile phone base station antennas in Menoufiya governorate were less than the allowable standard level.

    CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
    Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition. So, revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas and using of NBTB for regular assessment and early detection of biological effects among inhabitants around the stations are recommended.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16962663

  33. Paul Doyon says:

    J Psychosom Res. 2007 Mar;62(3):283-8.

    Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study.

    Landgrebe M, Hauser S, Langguth B, Frick U, Hajak G, Eichhammer P.

    Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:
    Hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields is frequently claimed to be linked to a variety of unspecific somatic and/or neuropsychological complaints. Whereas provocation studies often failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between electromagnetic field exposure and symptom formation, neurophysiological examinations highlight baseline deviations in people claiming to be electrosensitive.

    METHODS:
    To elucidate a potential role of dysfunctional cortical regulations in mediating hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields, cortical excitability parameters were measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation in subjectively electrosensitive patients (n=23) and two control groups (n=49) differing in their level of unspecific health complaints.

    RESULTS:
    Electrosensitive patients showed reduced intracortical facilitation as compared to both control groups, while motor thresholds and intracortical inhibition were unaffected.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    This pilot study gives additional evidence that altered central nervous system function may account for symptom manifestation in subjectively electrosensitive patients as has been postulated for several chronic multisymptom illnesses sharing a similar clustering of symptoms.

    PMID: 17324677 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17324677

  34. Paul Doyon says:

    Health Phys. 2007 Jun;92(6):621-8.

    Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds.

    Lin JC, Wang Z.

    Source
    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607-7053, USA. lin@uic.edu

    Abstract
    The hearing of microwave pulses is a unique exception to the airborne or bone-conducted sound energy normally encountered in human auditory perception. The hearing apparatus commonly responds to airborne or bone-conducted acoustic or sound pressure waves in the audible frequency range. But the hearing of microwave pulses involves electromagnetic waves whose frequency ranges from hundreds of MHz to tens of GHz. Since electromagnetic waves (e.g., light) are seen but not heard, the report of auditory perception of microwave pulses was at once astonishing and intriguing. Moreover, it stood in sharp contrast to the responses associated with continuous-wave microwave radiation. Experimental and theoretical studies have shown that the microwave auditory phenomenon does not arise from an interaction of microwave pulses directly with the auditory nerves or neurons along the auditory neurophysiological pathways of the central nervous system. Instead, the microwave pulse, upon absorption by soft tissues in the head, launches a thermoelastic wave of acoustic pressure that travels by bone conduction to the inner ear. There, it activates the cochlear receptors via the same process involved for normal hearing. Aside from tissue heating, microwave auditory effect is the most widely accepted biological effect of microwave radiation with a known mechanism of interaction: the thermoelastic theory. The phenomenon, mechanism, power requirement, pressure amplitude, and auditory thresholds of microwave hearing are discussed in this paper. A specific emphasis is placed on human exposures to wireless communication fields and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coils.

    PMID: 17495664 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664

  35. Jack says:

    Steve I see your argument: Pickles is on the 2B list which means the list can’t be taken with any seriousness.
    It appears that Pickles were added to the list way back when and was based on some studies based on Asian Pickles. Further studies seem to support the move to put Pickles on the list – it’s suspected that some sort of fungi is responsible for pickles being carcinogenic (possibly!).
    But yes, when you say “Pickles Iris Pickles” it does have the effect of calling into question the validity/accuracy of the list.
    And of course, it wouldn’t have the same impact if the word Pickles was replaced with “DDT”, “Lead”, “Dry Cleaning Chemicals” or “Car exhaust Fumes” all of which, btw, are on that ridiculous list.
    As much as I enjoy skeptic sites I still can’t figure out what motivates an individual (or group of individuals) to take up defending powerful industries (take you pick) when these industries clearly have the power, influence and resources to fend for themselves.
    I used to refer to skeptics as Acceptics but I think there’s more to it than that. Skeptics are clearly not sceptical at all, it appears these groups are hellbent on upholding the status quo through selling the messages of various industries.

    Steve you say “Show evidence of *my* agenda. You imply that I am somehow funded by corporate backers: Prove it.”

    I don’t need to, I’ve seen enough of these quackbuster type sites.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Nah, not defending any industry. I’m trying to prevent hysteria from taking root. Not all take the same route, it would seem.

      You don’t need to prove your claim that I am funded by corporate backers? That’s a nice, unassailable position, you’ve built for yourself there! With that logic, I can claim to be the King of the Moon. Don’t ask me to prove it. I’ve seen enough non-moon-king types to know that I’m the King of the Moon.

      • Jack says:

        you’re trying to prevent hysteria from taking root?
        As a self professed non expert on emr what motivates you to do that?

      • Steve Thoms says:

        “As a self professed non expert on emr what motivates you to do that?”

        You’re asking me what motivates me to write for a skeptic blog?

        We all care in our own ways, and we all act in our own ways.

        Now, I’ll ask you one more time: Provide evidence of your claim that I am funded by a telecom company. That’s a pretty serious accusation to make of someone, and without backing up your claim, your claim is meaningless.

  36. Paul Doyon says:

    BMC Public Health. 2006 Oct 30;6:267.

    Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields–a survey among general practitioners.

    Huss A, Röösli M.

    Source
    Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012 Berne, Switzerland. ahuss@ispm.unibe.ch

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Five percent of the Swiss population attribute symptoms to electromagnetic fields (EMF). General practitioners (GPs) might play a key role in recognising an emerging health risk, since they are the first to observe and follow up persons who attribute symptoms to EMF. It is unclear to what extent EMFs have become an issue in general practice and which experiences GPs report from the consultations.

    METHODS:
    We conducted telephone interviews in a random sample of GPs in Switzerland in order to assess the frequency of consultations in primary care due to EMF and the GPs’ experience with these patients.

    RESULTS:
    342 general practitioners were interviewed, corresponding to a response rate of 28.2%. 69% of the GPs reported at least one consultation due to EMF, but GPs with a certificate in complementary medicine were much more likely to report EMF consultations. The median of EMF consultation numbers within one year was three. An overview of the most recent EMF-related consultation per GP yielded sleep disorders, headaches and fatigue as the most often reported symptoms and mobile phone base stations, power lines and the own use of mobile phones as the main EMF sources suspected to be associated to symptoms. GPs judged the association between EMF and the symptoms to be plausible in 54% of the cases. There was no combination of symptoms and EMF sources that was remarkably and consistently judged to be a plausible cause of the symptoms.

    CONCLUSION:
    In our survey, GPs often judged the association between the health problems and the suspected exposure to be plausible. This plausibility assessment seems to be based on grounds of preventive positions in a situation of scientific uncertainty. More research effort is needed to obtain more insight on a potential association between long term EMF exposure and unspecific symptoms.

    PMID: 17074080 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC1635563

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17074080

  37. Paul Doyon says:

    Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):245-58.

    Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment.

    Johansson O.

    Source
    Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Stockholm, Sweden. olle.johansson@ki.se

    Abstract
    Recently, a new category of persons, claiming to suffer from exposure to electromagnetic fields, has been described in the literature. In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000-290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. The aim of our studies has been to investigate possible alterations, in the cellular and neuronal systems of these person’ skin. As controls, age- and sex-matched persons, without any subjective or clinical symptoms or dermatological history, served. Immunohistochemistry using antisera to the previously characterized marker substances of interest has been utilized. In summary, it is evident from our preliminary data that various alterations are present in the electrohypersensitive person’ skin. In view of recent epidemiological studies, pointing to a correlation between long-term exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields or microwaves and cancer, our data ought to be taken seriously and further analyzed.

    PMID: 17178584 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178584

    • Steve Thoms says:

      “The aim of our studies has been to investigate possible alterations, in the cellular and neuronal systems of these person’ skin. As controls, age- and sex-matched persons, without any subjective or clinical symptoms or dermatological history, served.”

      So in other words, “We accept that EMF sensitivity is a real condition because of anecdotes, and we’re looking to see how it works”.

      Poor study. Science doesn’t look to see how things work before determining if in fact, there is an actual effect.

      Being published in a peer review journal is not the be-all and end-all decision. This poor study has tens of thousands of better studies to compete with, and it’s authors went into the study looking for en effect.

      It’s like when researchers look for why homeopathy works, without first determining *if* it works.

      Call me closed minded (and you do), but I need better than a study with confirmation bias unaccounted for.

  38. Paul Doyon says:

    Occup Environ Med. 2006 May;63(5):307-13.

    Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations.

    Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M.

    Source
    Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. hans-peter.hutter@univie.ac.at

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    The erection of mobile telephone base stations in inhabited areas has raised concerns about possible health effects caused by emitted microwaves.

    METHODS:
    In a cross-sectional study of randomly selected inhabitants living in urban and rural areas for more than one year near to 10 selected base stations, 365 subjects were investigated. Several cognitive tests were performed, and wellbeing and sleep quality were assessed. Field strength of high-frequency electromagnetic fields (HF-EMF) was measured in the bedrooms of 336 households.

    RESULTS:
    Total HF-EMF and exposure related to mobile telecommunication were far below recommended levels (max. 4.1 mW/m2). Distance from antennae was 24-600 m in the rural area and 20-250 m in the urban area. Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (0.05 mW/m2) than in the urban area (0.02 mW/m2). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to HF-EMF from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality.

    CONCLUSION:
    Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms of action at these low levels are unknown.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850

  39. Steve Thoms says:

    It would appear that Paul Doyon is an anti-EMF activist who runs a small group called “EMF Refugees”.

    I suspect Paul (or some in his group) might have something to do with this sudden interest in this old article.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      Brilliant Deduction there Holmes!

      • Paul Doyon says:

        And since when is speaking the Truth a cardinal sin, anyway? Unless of course you are a Platonist and believe in the Noble Lie. I personally prefer Socrates.

      • Erik Davis says:

        You prefer a man whom we know nothing about except what was written in his voice by others, primarily Plato whom you disagree with? Thanks for that — your wifi reasoning is making more sense now.

      • Steve Thoms says:

        So you’re admittedly part of an anti-EMF activist group. Why should anyone accept your positions?

        Whenever you talk about the agenda of the telecom companies, why don’t you disclose agenda? Instead, you pepper your “critiques” in insults and poor studies, and expect us to take you seriously? It’d be like listening to PETA talk about how fishes have higher reasoning skills!

        I could give a fetid pair of dingos kidneys about the profits of any telecom company, which is why I only source university/government studies, and tens of thousands of them, at that.

        You have implied that I am somehow under the payroll of a telecom company: Prove it.

        Are you and your group behind this sudden wave of negative (note, negative, not critical) comments?

  40. Raj says:

    Steve, Your ideas are creative, well expressed and very entertaining to read, but oh so misguided. I have thought long and hard as to whether I should even waste my time to reply to your ‘idiocratic’ thinking. I have also been thinking that I would do the world a favour and not warn you so that your spawn does not further contaminate the gene pool, but knowing that other innocent and impressionable people are reading your blog and could perhaps be fooled into complacency by your unsubstantiated rhetoric, I will respond with these little gems of wisdom right from the telecommunications industry itself. They would know if cell phones are safe, right?

    Well, check this out. It’s from the teeny-tiny little size 5 font hard copy text of ‘Safety and Product Information’ from BlackBerry (why or why is the size of the font so small??? … I can hardly read it!) or it’s available online (if you know where to look) for your viewing pleasure as big as you want to make it on your computer screen. http://docs.blackberry.com/en/smartphone_users/deliverables/33393/BlackBerry_Curve_9350-9370_Smartphones-Safety_and_Product_Information–1745746-0712024743-001-US.pdf

    For instance on page 23: “Use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers).” Why do you suppose there is such an advisory??? … and I will leave that to you to do some inferential thinking and perhaps give an informed response. I look forward to it.

    The rest of the BlackBerry booklet is peppered with descriptors such as: not inherently safe, explosion, fire, serious injury, damage to property, dangerous, disrupt network, permanent hearing damage, epileptic seizures, blackouts, serious harm or death, malfunction, keep from… the abdomen of pregnant women and lower abdomen of teenagers. Who woulda known?

    If you don’t want to post my message on your blog (I will, however most certainly post it where you will be sure to find it) or you don’t have an intelligent response, I would invite you to apologize to Rodney Palmer and to Dr. Havas for your ridiculous diatribe. They have the public interest at heart. You, Steve, just want people to look at you, if only for a moment, to create your virtual legacy somewhere on the web. However, long after your words have disappeared into the maw of the infinite www, people like Mr. Palmer and Dr. Havas will be immortalized for changing the world and for keeping our children safe.

    So go ahead. I dare you. Keep that cell phone in your pocket. Do us all a favour.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      I’m not in the habit of censoring comments, even the ones that hurl little more than insults.

      So the Blackberry booklet lists possible fire safety issues, no matter how remote the chances, that they are required by law to put in because no battery-charged product is entirely safe, therefore WiFi is dangerous?

      Right.

      I’ll remind you, and others to just be honest. When you say, “do some inferential thinking and perhaps give an informed response…” Just come out and say what you really mean “If you don’t agree with me, I will insult you and call you closed minded, until you believe what I believe.”

      Right.

      • Raj says:

        Honestly Steve, your reading skills are lacking. You have missed the point entirely because you are feeling insulted. Get past the emotion and read the part about keeping the phone away from your body especially away from unborn children and the reproductive area of teenagers and using the speaker phone(page 23). Then you will get the point. However, if you wish, please continue to keep your phone in your pocket right next to your body and put the phone directly on your head when you need to speak and you will see how harmful RF radiation really is. Are you up for this experiment? BlackBerry advises against it … would the telecommunications industry lie? I suggest that you believe them. They obviously know something that you don’t…surprise, surprise.

      • Raj says:

        What Steve?… no quick pithy reply yet? I am disappointed. Although I do understand… your fundamental thinking and your whole raison s’etre for your site has been challenged. This is pivotal, not because I want you to believe some ‘fringe academics’, but because I want you to believe the very telecommunications industry that you have so heroically defended (Richard the Lion Hearted??? – more like King John or the Sheriff of Nottingham – rogues that they were!) … only to discover that what the fringe academics and the telecommunications industry believe is actually the same thing … that RF radiation and the human body are not compatible. I would say that would be pretty shocking. That would leave me absolutely tongue tied and unable to respond, which is exactly what you are doing.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      By the way, you *should* fear my spawn. Because my Spawn will fuck shit up.

      http://www.gamerdna.com/uimage/HLj8GyU/full/spawn_avi-jpg.jpg

      Don’t talk about how people shouldn’t feel insulted and how they need to get past emotion when you make insults, and dehumanizing ones at that. It’s easier to treat someone like a subhuman when you liken them to spawn.

      • Raj says:

        Is this the best you can do? When you do not have an intelligent comment you start to swear? Getting angry does nothing to further you argument. So what do you ‘believe’ now?

      • Steve Thoms says:

        You forfeited any intelligent debate when you wrote the dehumanizing “spawn”, and then complained about personal insults.

      • Raj says:

        You think that people who have valid concerns about environmental toxins such as wifi are ‘childish’? Posting ‘scary’ pictures is childish – how old are you anyway or is gaming just a way of life for you? I have checked your ‘teacher’ credentials with the Ontario College of Teachers and you aren’t one, so stop claiming to be one. I was going to report you for conduct unbecoming of a teacher. Aren’t you embarrassed about the language you allow on your site?

    • Steve Thoms says:

      I get your point, Raj. Your arguments aren’t as subtle as you think they are. While you were insulting my spawn and suggesting I need to beef up my reading skills, that time might have been better spent looking at the reams of data we at Skeptic North have already research.

      http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/08/its-wifi-day/

      I’ll ask you what I’ve already asked your fearless leader, Paul:
      How was your health before Wifi technology was ubiquitous?

      • Steve Thoms says:

        “Teacher” is not a protected title in Ontario. Doctor, electrician, Police Officer, Judge….these are protected terms. If teacher was a protected term, there would be a backlog of court dates for every dance teacher, art teacher, guitar teacher, and self-help guru that uses the term.

        Spawn, however, is a protected term. I encourage you to not throw that around lightly. Not because of the law, mind you, but Spawn himself will show his charred face….and he’s pretty mean about it.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Raj, I’ve never claimed to be registered with the Ontario College of Teachers, not once.

      Music education, like any arts education, runs on slightly different rules.

      Stalk much?

      • Raj says:

        On Oct 31, 2010 you claimed to be a teacher. Steve wrote: “I’m not certain I can go that far, but speaking as a teacher, I have another theory.” In the province of Ontario, the designation of ‘teacher’ is a professional one that you cannot claim as you are not qualified or licensed. The fact that I am able to check you out on the Ontario College of Teachers site verifies that. You cannot make your own rules, even on your own blog. And my comment stands – I am so glad that you do not teach my children.

  41. Nathan says:

    I have to say that the anti-Wifi folks commenting on this thread don’t appear to be worth the time in discussing this. You guys don’t seem to understand the very basic principles of Skepticism, nor the scientific method. If you did, you would understand things A LOT better. I think you need to go back to the beginning and learn the basics. As Steve said, you disagree, that’s fine. You need to learn how to filter your information properly. You can find all sorts of information for all sides of all kinds of arguments…but it doesn’t mean they’re any good.

    • Jack says:

      “The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science”
      So the recent Danish study that showed no link between mobile phone usage and cancer – that’s the sort of applied science we’re talking about?

    • Paul Doyon says:

      Seems to me like it is the other way around Nathan.

  42. Jack says:

    “We all care in our own ways, and we all act in our own ways.

    Now, I’ll ask you one more time: Provide evidence of your claim that I am funded by a telecom company. That’s a pretty serious accusation to make of someone, and without backing up your claim, your claim is meaningless.”

    I said that you were funded by the a telecom company? I’ve scrolled through the posts twice and I cant find it. If you could paste it for me as a reply to this it’d be helpful.

    And yes we all care in our own ways.
    But what I don’t get is:
    the govt and Pharma are more than able to push their vaccines on humanity.
    The govt and Telcos are both more than able to ensure that the “wireless world not only survives, but thrives.
    The govt and pharma are more than able to suppress and regulate out of existence any natural therapies that have not been “scientifically” proven.
    Why do you spend your time and resources doing their work for them?
    They are getting their way anyway.
    Why do you do it?

  43. Steve Thoms says:

    For those as curious as I am as to why this post, written over a year ago, suddenly has a slew (bevvy? heap? spate?) of negative (note that I’m using the word ‘negative’, and not ‘critical’) comments, it’s because Paul Doyan, Raj, and the other recent commenters are part of an anti-EMF quacktivist group calling themselves “EMF Refugees”*, and Mr. Doyan is their leader.

    I have been notified that the group sent out an email to its members, directing them to flood this post with “information” about the dangers of EMF.

    Why they’ve decided to heap the negative comments on a post so old is beyond me. It’s particularly baffling because many of the accusations that I have not addressed this or that point, actually have been addressed by myself, or other Skeptic North bloggers in later posts. (Such as the IARC list, which was discussed by our own Michael Kruse http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/06/cell-phones-and-wifi-and-cancer-oh-my/).

    They’ve picked one post out of a dozen, and it’s not even the most recent one I’ve written on the topic (this one is http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/06/cell-phones-and-wifi-and-cancer-oh-my/).

    So make no mistake, friends: This is not a sudden uptick in EMF concerns: this is an organized effort by a dedicated, but small, vocal, and IMHO childish, group devoted to EMF scaremongering.

    *EMF Refugees? Really? When I think of the Somalian refugees fleeing to Canada because pirates rape them daily, or the Serbian refugees fleeing political imprisonment and torture, I’m sure these people see themselves in the same way: as refugees.

    • Jack says:

      it’s come to this – can’t attack the argument so attack the person.
      Still like to know though, why do you feel compelled to defend large industries that can look after their own interests?

      • Steve Thoms says:

        I’ve already said that I couldn’t care less about industries, which is why I site government and university studies.

        You and your organization are engaging in a shell game at this point. I’ve already addressed every one of your points, as have other bloggers.

        If you’d spent the time to look around and engage in the due-diligence that you accuse me of lacking, you’d notice 13 other articles on here, most of which were written *after* this one.

        I find your organization’s tactics to be childish. Your arguments, and the arguments of Iris, Paul, Raj etc… have already been addressed (ad nauseum), don’t blame me if you don’t spend the time clicking the links that I’ve provided again and again *in this very thread* that address your points.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      This Quackivist (which is not even a word btw) cannot even spell my name correctly. You are the Quacks my friends.

  44. Nathan says:

    @Jack
    Nope, you don’t get it.
    Believe it or not. You guys putting up a couple or even a bunch of studies does not mean you’re using any kind of skeptical muscles. The basic principles aren’t being used. I could give you some studies that make pretty silly claims, maybe even reasonable ones about the existence of a Pegasus type species, but what you’re doing is referred to as ” cherry picking”. The general scientific consensus is that EMF is not hurting you. That’s the “current” information. No one on this site will tell you that there is no way that, in the future, some new information wont come out that shows EMF is bad. If it did, everyone here would accept it. It’s actually pretty simple. It’s to protect us and others from jumping the gun and fooling ourselves into believing something that isn’t nessisarilly correct. And you know what? There is always a margin of error and sometimes (when new info comes out) that changes sciences mind (and ours) again. We continually evolve with the information. You on the other hand are standing on your selected studies and YOUR mind can’t be told otherwise. You folks are practically the definition of close-mindedness.
    So proper skepticism means that all the minds here can and WILL be changed. When the general consensus is changed on the matter, so will we. That’s the great thing about skepticism, you’re wide open to changing with the information. It sometimes takes a lot of courage to stand up against something when you have close-minded people such as yourselves that exercise no measure of objectivism. But this is why we do this in the first place. To protect the public from scare monger-gun jumping folks such as yourselves.

    • Jack says:

      thanks Nathan, I think I’ve learnt something – To be a skeptic means to follow the general consensus, a bit like a sheep.
      Not sure where the critical thinking enters the equation, but at least I understand who I’m dealing with.

      • Nathan says:

        If by “sheep” you mean the majority of the scientific community then yes, I guess it’s like that. However, I don’t know if you realize this but it’s the exact same thing you’re doing. Only difference is I’m following the majority of the scientific community while you follow a select few scientists who’s reputations I need to question. Hmm, you know what that sounds like? Kinda like a cult.

  45. Jack says:

    Just read your most recent link.
    The theory is right but the problem is that the current consensus is industry driven.
    I know for a fact that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency rely almost solely on whatever WHO proclaims.
    A good bet that most countries are echoing the WHO.
    Industry likes it that way, keeps it simple.
    A bit misleading naming so many regulatory bodies when they all get their instructions from one source.

    WHO of course, is industry friendly to put it nicely. Spend some time on Microwave News to get an idea of the corruption.
    But I guess, even though they only report the happenings at WHO (although with commentary) this will no doubt be deemed an “activist” site and therefore to be ignored.

    I’m just a layman, ’tis a pity I can’t rely so faithfully on the “consensus”, which is an illusion created for profit.

  46. Jack says:

    hey my last comment never showed up!?

  47. Paul Doyon says:

    It seems to me that just because you self-proclaimed “Skeptics” lack the information and/or the ability (or the will) to understand certain phenomena you prematurely and automatically attack it as being quackery. In their time Copernicus and then Galileo were indeed attacked in the same way by quacks like yourselves (who indeed believed they were highly intelligent beings) because Copernicus and Galileo dared to claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun hence stating that it was not the center of the universe.

    An example of this is your simplistic but worn-out argument that microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation, but rather non-ionizing radiation. If you have really indeed done your homework, you would know that one of the ways that so-called ionizing radiation does damage is via the creation of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) or free radicals like the hydroxyl (OH-) free radical, which is formed due to the breaking of bonds of H2O (water). Free radicals like the hydroxyl free radical damage the cell wall, the mitochondria, and DNA. Hydroxyl free radicals are also produced by ultra violet light, which, for your information, is not usually considered as ionizing radiation. And if you did your science homework in high school, you would also know that the hydroxyl free radical is also created via what is known as the Fenton Reaction, which occurs with the combination of iron (and other metals) and hydrogen peroxide. Well, it has been shown by Sajin that the amount of electromagnetic radiation less than you get from cell phones is enough to cause red blood cells to leak hemoglobin (which contain iron) and it is common knowledge (obviously not among yourselves though) that cell generation of hydrogen peroxide in common in human biological processes. Furthermore, the Fenton Reaction is an acknowledged process that occurs in human biology. On top of this, we now have numerous scientific studies showing an increase in a number of free radicals due to exposure to so-called “non-ionizing” forms of electromagnetic radiation. Hence, you need to do your homework and stop talking out your asses.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      “Free radicals and other reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS) are generated by all aero- bic cells and are known to participate in a wide variety of biological and biochemical processes. The ROS designation comprehends not only free radicals, such as superoxide radical anion (O2•–), carbon- ate radical anion (CO3•–), hydroperoxyl radical (HOO•), hydroxyl radical (HO•), peroxyl radical (ROO•), and alkoxyl radical (RO•), but also non-radicals, namely, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), singlet oxygen (1O2), hypochlorous acid (HOCl), and ozone (O3). H2O2 is a major ROS in living organisms, and its homeostasis can have diverse physiological and pathological consequences. In addition, H2O2 can produce reactive HO• radicals or ferryl intermediate [Fe(IV)=O]2+ by the Fenton or Fenton-like re- action. H2O2 and other ROS oxidants are connected to aging and severe human diseases such as can- cer, cardiovascular disorders, and Alzheimer’s, and related neurodegenerative diseases. On the other hand, emerging evidence supports a physiological role for H2O2 as a second messenger in cellular sig- nal transduction. It is well known that the exposition to certain noxious risk factors, such as some xeno- biotics, infection agents, pollutants, UV light, cigarette smoke, and radiation, may lead to the produc- tion of ROS. On the other hand, ROS, as well as reactive nitrogen species (RNS) like nitrogen monoxide (•NO), nitrogen dioxide (•NO2), and also non-radicals such as peroxynitrite anion (ONOO–), peroxy- nitrous acid (ONOOH), nitrosoperoxycarbonate anion (ONOOCOO–), nitronium cation (+NO2), and dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), are continuously generated in small quantities on normal cellular processes. Endogenously produced ROS and RNS are essential to life, being involved in many different biologi- cal functions. However, when overproduced, or when the levels of antioxidants become severely de- pleted, these reactive species become highly harmful, causing oxidative stress through the oxidation of biomolecules. It is of extreme importance that oxidative stress has been implicated in the etiology of several diseases and in aging. Consequently, in a normal cellular environment, ROS are essential to life,
      while in the case of overproduction or depletion of antioxidants they might become deleterious [1–5]. The very important fact is that Fenton chemistry plays a crucial role in both physiological and patho- logical processes in living organisms. The Fenton and Fenton-like reactions are probably the earliest chemical means of ROS generation by Nature. The most reactive species, such as hydroxyl radicals, are produced by this way.”

      http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912×2325.pdf

    • Art Tricque says:

      “In their time Copernicus and then Galileo were indeed attacked in the same way by quacks like yourselves…”

      Another poor argument: the Galileo Gambit.

  48. Nathan says:

    Also, skepticism is not a belief. It is a method, much like science. Tried and tested and a great way to reduce the margins of error. This requires no belief.

    • Jack says:

      oh please, it’s a belief in “the consensus”

      • Nathan says:

        No, trusting scientists to do the science work is only part of the method Jack. If it relied solely on that, then yes it would be a belief. However, the other factors involved in using skepticism as a tool are what make it a great form of “bologna detection”. It’s not just about a consensus. Also, you are “believing” even fewer scientists then us, how does this strengthen your argument? You make no use of critical thinking at all. Aren’t you worried that the people doing these studies aren’t trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Don’t you want them to be held accountable for their claims? You don’t want other scientists to check their work? You’d rather uproot all ofthe wifi in the world and get rid of anything that emits EMF? All this…because a couple scientists told you it’s hurting you? Seems like a big step to take with so little information. Personally I find the evidence lacking and until there is for information I’m reserving my judgement on this one. Before we uproot everything, I need real solid (narrow margins of error) proof.

  49. Michael Kruse says:

    @Iris and Paul – the Bioinitiative Report has been thoroughly refuted by many scientific agencies all over the world ( http://www.emfandhealth.com/Criticism%20Bio-Intitiative.html) – with the general criticism that it cherry-picks the data that agrees with their position and ignores the data that does not. This is not good science, it is good propaganda.

    As far as your cries over “slander,” scientific debate lies at the heart of new discovery. Criticism and a thorough challenge to new ideas is important in weeding out the unsupportable hypothesis and deciding which direction in research is going to be the most fruitful. By and large, most of those espousing the idea that EMR emitted by cellular tech is harmful have the burden of proof in their corning and have not provided sufficient enough evidence to support their claim, until they do, they will be criticized by their colleagues and pushed to the fringe.

    As to your insistence that there is a conspiracy to hide the alleged dangers of EMF similar to the organised effort to hide the effects of tobacco and asbestos, let me make an important point: the science surrounding the health effects of tobacco included both experimental and epidemiological investigation. This is important – it is good to flag behaviours or dangers that may affect our health, but if there is no apparent uptick in the stats relating to the suggested health problems then we cannot jump to a causative relationship. In smoking, there was a very large increase in the incidence of lung cancer at the beginning of the century, which matched an increase in the volume of smoking. After it was shown that tobacco could cause tumors the evidence began to converge on a probable relationship between smoking and lung cancer. (see the excellent book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway for a description)

    This does not exist so far for EMF, cell phones, power lines, smart meters, dirty electricity etc. There has been no increase in brain cancer or other head tumors since the widespread use of cellular tech began. The studies showing an increase in tumor around power lines etc do not control for the “clumpiness” of random distribution (you could find similar conflations of disease states around fire hydrants or chip wagons if you looked hard enough.) The definition of EHS is so vague it would fit anybody with any kind of anxiety disorder so it is very difficult to show an incidence in the population: you have not provided the epidemiology to go along with your (very weak) experimental evidence.

    This goes to my final point. You and your compatriots conflate so many different causes and effects it is very difficult to take your claims seriously. The conflation of a 1000V/m electric field and the modicum of output from a WiFi device (from a list of papers submitted by Might Slug) is not very good science and only belies your forgone conclusion that the world is against you. Instead of responding to legitimate criticism, Lai, Havas and others ignore the scientific debate and preach to their converted. Havas did one very poor study and instead of trying to find out where she went wrong or improve the controls, she ignores criticism and engages in science by press release.

    Those of us promoting the scientific method are not out to get you. We give a popular voice to the pressure put on the legitimate science by others in the field – the normal working of the scientific method. The weight of evidence so far is against you. The minute this changes, I will gladly support a reduction in the use of cellular tech for whatever patient population it effects. Until then, you will continue to be ignored and maligned as conspiracy theorists (you really should look into the types of messages used by those who tout theories on the Kennedy Assassination or Alien Abduction – it will inform your debate and make it better if you avoid it, it is hard to take you seriously otherwise.)

    • Iris says:

      Michael Kruse:

      You twist things. First of all I did not write the word conspiracy.
      This is your invention.

      Second as someone who did not even read the Bioinitiative you think that you promote a scientific debate but that is not what you are doing, you and Steve only quote as parrots other people/ bodies ignoring conflicts of interests. That is everything BUT a scientific debate.

      The website you quote as a criticism on the Bioinitiative is
      involved with conflicts of interests, surely it does not interest you does it? as long as it serves your goal to downplay risk. What you and Steve are doing is itself cherry picking what you like that does not show/ downplay risk.

      It’s ridiculous that Steve tells someone else to prove he is funded by the industry. It’s Steve’s responsibility to say clearly who funds him.

      • Art Tricque says:

        “What you and Steve are doing is itself cherry picking what you like that does not show/ downplay risk.” It is clear Commenter Iris has not read or has chosen to ignore the BioInitiative Report itself. For example, in the section on the blood-brain barrier, it cites only the work of one researcher, conveniently an EMF causes health problems partisan, instead of reviewing the complete science. This is one of the reasons that serious scientific bodies such as the European Union Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (EU SCENIHR) have criticized the BioInitiative Report, They also instead have looked at the comprehensive evidence, and have producted accessible, neutral and nuanced reports, for example the most recent one in 2009 at http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/ .

        “It’s ridiculous that Steve tells someone else to prove he is funded by the industry. It’s Steve’s responsibility to say clearly who funds him.” Commenter Iris does not seem to know that making an accusation without any evidence with a view to poisoning someone’s reputation is the definition of libel. It is at least a logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack. If she has evidence, let her bring it forth. At the risk of repeating myself, it still does not address the content of any claims Steve has made.

      • Steve Thoms says:

        “It’s ridiculous that Steve tells someone else to prove he is funded by the industry. It’s Steve’s responsibility to say clearly who funds him.”

        I love this level of paranoia.

        You get to make any claim you like, then angrily exclaim that it’s the duty of everyone else to prove you’re wrong.

        I claim that Paul Doyon is paying you to leave these comments! You’re clearly in cahoots, so the responsibility is on you to say how much he’s paying you! I will accept no answer but an admonition from you!

        Also, prove that there is not a giant teapot orbiting the earth, right now! The onus is on you to disprove my claim!

    • Michael H. says:

      “the Bioinitiative Report has been thoroughly refuted by many scientific agencies”?

      Now show us some, those were radiation protection agencies from various countries, known to be in bed with the mobile phone industry.

      When you look at the scientists who worked on the BioInitative, you find quickly out, those are the top researchers in the field of Bioelectromagnetics:

      http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/participants/index.htm

      Your industry slave agencies, still believe in the crap that we are just a bag of saltwater and as long as you are not barbecued in a short time, it can’t heart you!

      Read the radiation protection limits and you’ll find out…

      Here are some books to get you going:

      http://microondes.wordpress.com/bookslivres/

      Best regards

      Michael Heiming

  50. Daryl says:

    Hey, Iris, Paul, Jack, Raj,

    Very good of you to step up and confront these skeptos on this site, who dangerously mislead innocent onlookers. “Deever” bade them ‘adieu’ (did any of them get it?) a while ago, and when he found a taunt at this site not long ago, properly ignored it & this site. He had been almost alone in taking on the mass of “skeptokookiness” around here, many links available. Must be haunting esp. Thoms. (I have my theories about that, but whatever.) Yet there is abiding concern for the more vulnerable genuine skeptically-inclined (“Acceptics”? — better than my term, “skeptokooks”…let’s divide them up, innocent sheep-like Acceptics, blinkered skeptokooks).

    I should mention one thing the hapless Thoms indirectly encourages, taking up this issue on this site at another location. As victim of online slander myself, it seems not the best thing to revisit old scurrilous material, which will bump its reference up in search engine listings. The fool who dismantled his own libel against me, after many months, could do little about the many-months-longer abiding of the libel in search listings. I had been on the verge of suing.

    There are many things with which to go at the usual crew here, adding to the various angles brought by you. Maybe soon. Local utility maintenance will shortly shut off our power for a time, so will have to wait anyway, and finish this quickly.

    Adios.

    • Erik Davis says:

      Daryl — I’d like to speak to Deever. Is he in there? Can you let me speak to him? What about Sybil or any of Eve’s three faces?

      You really are a piece of work, D.

  51. Art Tricque says:

    “The Body Electric, Robert O. Becker, M.D; Cross Currents, Robert O. Becker, M.D; Electromagnetic Fields, B. Blake Levitt; … ; Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Cane, Ph.D.”

    Mr. Doyon seems to think that books are convincing evidence, like our commenter friend Deever. I do not seem to recall seeing books on any hierarchy of scientific evidence.

    • Daryl says:

      It’s what in ‘em, Artie, not the books themselves. But for weight of evidence types, like those you & yours support (“Health” Canada, for example), we know the book weights do count for something.

      Kane’s book must have been brought before you before (note surname spelling). It is a must-read. Except for Acceptos.

      • Kim Hebert says:

        Support? Um…did you miss Erik’s series criticizing Health Canada? Or the many many times Health Canada is criticized in other articles here? No one is free from scrutiny, and nonsense (well, the stuff we’re made aware of) will be called out here no matter who/where it’s from.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      Hello Art,

      Books contain information. Do you want me to spell it out for you? The more information you have, the better you are able to make a sound judgement. However, if you are willfully ignorant, which I am guessing you are (from your comments), then you are going to block out information. And when you do this, your judgement will become less sound. Unfortunately, some people, even when presented with information are unable to connect the dots. Perhaps this is due to brain damage from too much cell phone usage! Perhaps it is just genetic! I am sorry I do not have evidence at hand to support my assessment. Just information!

      Cheers!

      • Art Tricque says:

        Since books can be written by anyone, without any scrutiny of the ideas, facts or theories contained therein, they are an unreliable source of information. This is why scientific articles that undergo peer review, and why literature reviews and systematic analyses of multiple articles are considered much better sources.

        By offering books as examples of the key sources of information upon which he relies, Mr. Doyon demonstrates exactly how unaware of the unsoundness of his approach he is.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      I agree, Art. It is probably best that you do not read books and hence remain ignorant. By the way, Dr. Robert O. Becker was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Science. I guess he is a quack too since his position is in line with all the other people you are calling quacks! You guys are truly convincing the world, aren`t you? LOL

      • Art Tricque says:

        “It is probably best that you do not read books and hence remain ignorant.” That Mr. Doyon continues to not understand that books are a poor source of information for a scientific debate speaks for itself. Since I rely on regular updates of scientific journal articles, like the monthly lists provided at the University of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment’s Rf.com site (see http://www.rfcom.ca/), it is doubtful that I am “ignorant”.

        “Dr. Robert O. Becker was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Science.” Mr. Doyon appears to be unaware that there is no such thing as a “Nobel Prize in Science”, and that the nominees for any of the Nobel prizes remain confidential for 50 years (see http://www.nobelprize.org/faq/nominations.html ).

      • Daryl says:

        Of course would Tricque rely on Krewski’s joint! I was told, that way back Krewski was retained to argue for the safety of Agent Orange spayed on forests. After Skeptic North wears out its own supporting role for defenders of the indefensible, how will it be recycled?

        Remember HESA last year — industry hacks were worried enough that a smidgeon of sanity might prevail as a result of hard-to-control Committee action (minority Parliament), that an extra meeting was called, giving another one of your hacks an extraordinary second shot at defending the indefensible before the committee, and there was a weird invitation to one witness who seemed there to gratuitously mention how good a guy Krewski was, when no one brought him & his up!

        Population studies, indeed. A euphemism for what, Art?

        Canadians, beware. But Canada is a weak point among defenders of the indefensible, due in part to its non-intellectual culture, one reason why guys like Krewski & Muc get recycled.

        And resident book-reader here, Tricque, loves ‘em.

        One commenter, was it Kim Hebert caught in this skepto pile, declares skeptical viewing of Health (or better, on the microwave file at least, “Death”) Canada. Go for it, let that be an entry for you, trace the hierarchy all the way to ICNIRP-IEMFP, do like Tricque, read some books proferred here by Deever et al many times over the year since Thoms’ calumny.

        Start maybe with Kane, who mentions HC’s predecessor, Health & Welfare, whose radiation research group was turned to by US pushers of kill telephony, probably to avoid their own EPA, which they couldn’t handle so eventually de-funded. Tells a skepto nothing, we imagine.

        But imagination, well, skeptos seem trained to avoid that.

        What I always want to know from skeptos, is how they justify confidence in swallowing their breakfast every new morning.

  52. Paul Doyon says:

    You know, I never even heard of Trent University until Magda Havas. Ranked at 2711 in the world, it is not like one has to have a super high IQ to get in I would presume — which is also obvious from the quality of the comments appearing here on this website from one of its former students. Now, please do not ask me for scientific proof of my assessment. It is just common sense — i.e. a logical inference so to speak. Now, having said that, it can be certainly said that Dr. Havas is the one that has put this university on the map. Unfortunately, it can also be said that this website by one of its former students is indeed a major embarrassment to Trent University — due to the fact that Mr. Steve Thoms and his brilliant friends here are very adept at speaking out of their asses. I hope you did not learn how to do that at university!

    • Art Tricque says:

      “Now, please do not ask me for scientific proof of my assessment. It is just common sense — i.e. a logical inference so to speak.”

      This perhaps is one of the most telling comments Mr. Doyon has offered, one that betrays a lack of knowledge of how science works.

      Science is often at odds with common sense, and requires sophisticated tools and reasoning. Questions of health involve many disciplines, from biology to physics to epidemiology. To suggest that only common sense is required is a most illogical inference.

      • Paul Doyon says:

        There are theoretical arguments against following a purely positivistic agenda of empiricism in science, my friend, which as you may or may not well know, is in contradistinction to what has been termed as rationalism, i.e. using reason or rational and deductive thought processes to make logical inferences. Behaviorism, based on positivism, and as spawned by the Iikes of Skinner, was torn apart by Chomsky`s critical paper in 1959. (I imagine that you guys would also call Chomsky, one of the world`s greatest minds, a quack, since you seem to equate activism with quackery.) I also apologize for your misunderstanding of my use of the term “common sense” since what I implied to say was “good sense” since it seems that the “common sense” of the people behind this website is lacking in the latter. Cheerio

  53. Jack says:

    Hello Michael,
    well worded but wrong.
    The list of scientific agencies that have refuted the BioInitiative Report your link EMFANDHEALTH)includes MMF Mobile Manufacturers Forum!??
    EMF-NET appears to have a large number of Industry participants.
    The ACRBR researched (I use the past tense because it was recently dissolved) closely with industry, so close in fact that Telstra was their research partner. They were often criticized down here for their industry friendly ways. The home page had warm fuzzy pics of children using mobile phones for Christ’s sake.
    Interestingly your link didn’t mention the Telstra partneship “ACRBR is the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bio-effects Research. It is funded by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia to support research on EMF & health.”
    All about perception isn’t it?
    In any case this EMF and Health site is obviously biased – and fair enough, there’s profits that need to be protected.
    And propaganda is the game isn’t it?

    Just for the record (I know your post was directed at Paul & Iris) there is no conspiracy, it’s just running an industry that places profit ahead of all else, including ethics and people.

    I suggested earlier that Steve read this http://www.emfacts.com/the-procrustean-approach/ but he wont because he claims Don Maisch is an activist. Funny how us doubters are smacked over the head for not having faith in the (Industry) consensus but a skeptic won’t even consider looking at opposing material because they can label it as quakery, activism, pseudo science or whatever.

    If everyone subscribed to “the consensus” as you believe they should then nothing new would ever be discovered. The Earth would probably still be the centre of the universe.
    Although in fairness I suspect that the suggestion is that we should leave the thinking on this issue to brainy people at universities and elsewhere that have links to industry.

    You gotta wonder though, why does the Telco industry feel such a need to be close to regulatory bodies (and the research) on this issue, if, as they keep telling us, these microwaves have no biological impact (obviously Paul’s post above are just lies right?).

    You skeptics, and I’ll pretend for a mo that your regular joes just like me, need to stand back and look at what’s truly going on.
    No conspiracy, just business.

    • Art Tricque says:

      Commenter Jack also attemps to refute criticism of the BioInitiative Report by suggesting some of the organizations that offered criticism had industry members. This is evidence of a logically fallacious argument, one he continues to pursue, despite it having been pointed out previously (although, since the listing of comments and replies to this article appears not to be working properly, it would be fair to suggest he might not have seen it): that somehow industry is preventing the ‘truth’ from being known. However, even if every study that supports a lack of danger from EMF were industry-funded, or even directly conducted and published by industry, it would not obviate the conclusions of the research. He also does not address the criticisms of the BioInitiative Report by government agencies, such as the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Those criticisms still stand.

      “…skeptic won’t even consider looking at opposing material because they can label it as quakery, activism, pseudo science or whatever.” This is a projection of Jack, Mr. Doyon and others of this ilk. I suspect skeptics are more open to all evidence; they will just treat all that evidence with the appropriate tools and techniques of the scientific method. Believers of the ‘truth’ on the other hand, cannot handle contradictory evidence, and reject it a priori or remain silent about it (for example, Commenter Jack ignores the criticisms of the BioInitiative Report by the French AFSSET and German BfS). It also leads then to categorize rational rejection of poor evidence by skeptics as dismissiveness.

      Ihave read Mr. Maisch’s treatise. His claim that “…Western standard setting organisations have actually followed what can best be described as a Procrustean approach. This approach consists of cutting off from consideration scientific data that does not conform to their bed of knowledge”, no doubt from whence Commenter Jack took his theme, is just as flawed an argument in the original. The sad fact is that all the evidence has been weighed, and the EMF fear-mongerers have lost on the evidence. All that is left is to claim corruption, collusion, calumny and conspiracy, and to make deputations to ever more junior and peripheral bodies of politicians and school and library boards.

      • Daryl says:

        Oh, well, it goes on at this webpage, we see. A websearch on the unjust object of Thoms’ calumny indeed puts this page already atop the pile. So one more comment will affect the pile little, one supposes.

        If Trique has read Maisch’s book, let him spell out what was unconvincing to him. He must have had deever throw a quote or two from it at him. (Found one at http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/02/new-study-shows-emf-effect-on-brain-%E2%80%93-so-what/ re Binhi; from a senior Russian scientist, a comment salient here but unlikely to impress a skepto-credulo, please adjust comprehension for this non-native speaker’s English, “it is true that for the relatively long period, say about 20-40 years, science in Russia has been developing out of the high pressure of the industry, thus making more fundamental insight in the areas of no clear practical future.”) A Russian study just out (cf Jack’s comment on the “warm fuzzy pics of children using mobile phones”):”This study submits the results of a four!year monitoring of a complex diagnostics of the psychophysiological indicators for 196 children aged 7 to 12 years old: 147 of them are child users of mobile communication (test group) and 49 are in the control group. We have identified the following major trends of the psychophysiological indicators for child users of mobile communication: an increased number of phonemic perception disorders, abatement of efficiency, reduced indicators for the arbitrary and semantic memory, an increased fatigue. A steady decline of the parameters from high values to bottom standards has been found.”(in Russian viewable at http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Message-2.pdf ).

        If he has read the Bioinitiative, let’s take maybe just Blackman’s ch 14, and he should tell us what is so wrong, without relying on his info filterers in all the august panels he can’t seem to get might be corruptible by culture or otherwise.

        Take some time to read Kane, if it is true you have more book patience than your fellow cheerleaders here. Then criticize. Let’s see.

        But, oh my, what would the Trottiers think?

        Cheerleading for a killing status quo should make even the the most hardened (of head) skepto tremble somewhat. But it won’t, since these are “cleared” (it smells a bit like Scienntology even) of worry.

  54. Bob Loblaw says:

    Wow. Classy.

  55. Othersteve says:

    Life is not risk free. Deal with it and move on.

  56. Char Z. says:

    narcissism:
    •Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See synonyms at conceit.
    • A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/narcissism#ixzz1dpzr32t2

    The writer of this article definately has excessive love or admiration of himself, a certain self-proccupation that fuels the attack mode, and a clear lack of empathy for a parent trying to do what is best for his child in a controversial issue.

    Steve cannot prove the thousands of studies showing biological effects AND harm have no basis. (see Zory Glaser’s list compiled for the U.S. military in the 1970s, you cannot dismiss all these) SO even if other (industry funded) studies show different kinds of results, does that mean NO PRECAUTIONS should be taken?

    Awareness of radiofrequency HARM has a history, which clearly is beyond the author of this site: http://emfwise.com/awareness.php#timeline

  57. Char Z. says:

    The choices are two, apply the Precautionary Principle to the proliferation of microwave devices, or play Russian Roulette with public health. Since studies exist on both sides, that leaves only these choices.

    BTW, studies go quite far beyond the BioInitiative Report, which is a compilation of evidence. Check out Zory Glaser’s 1970s compilation of studies done for the U.S. military. And here is more history of the awareness of radiofrequency’s harmfulness:
    http://emfwise.com/awareness.php#timeline

    • Chip says:

      Interesting dichotomy there. The problem is, in this game of Russian Roulette, not only is the gun not loaded, the gun is imaginary.

  58. David Scott says:

    Since I’m on his mailing list, for the moment, Dr. Paul Doyon has invited me to join in this discussion, which he labels a “sick mission” on the part of Skeptics North. He may regret this invitation.

    I object to Dr. Doyon’s approach to persuasion. Calling obviously intelligent and well informed people “ignorant” or “stupid” and suggesting that they must be on the take from the big corporations is beyond insulting. It is ignorant and stupid.

    Some years ago, Dr. Doyon sent out a group mailing claiming that watering seeds with water that had been microwaved would prevent the seeds from sprouting. After a quick search, I wrote back and told him that many science teachers had tried to duplicate this result with their classes, and none had succeeded. I suggested that he loses credibility when he circulates nonsense. I posted his email conversation with me on my website. Dr. Doyon got mad at me, in a very personal way, noting that I do not even have an MA, and calling me a sociopath, as well as threatening legal action because I had published his “private emails”. Of course I was terrified. I immediately replaced his name on my website, calling him “anti-microwave guy”. But my wife and I, just for fun, ran the experiment of sprouting seeds, double blind, and published the result. http://www.themaninchina.com/microwaveexperiment.htm

    Dr. Doyon now tells me that he is no longer ES (electro sensitive). Apparently he took some chelation therapy that removed the heavy metals from his body. Those heavy metals were turning him into a walking antenna, and making his ES symptoms much worse.

    My experience of Dr. Doyon is that he is very emotional about his beliefs, quick to launch personal ad hominem attacks and threaten legal action if his beliefs are publicly questioned. His invitation to his group, EMF Refugees, to flood this site with “information” could be seen as inviting a denial of service attack. He continues to lose my respect.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      OCCUPY SKEPTIC NORTH. LOL

      Dr. Scott! Thank you very much for your comments.

    • Paul Doyon says:

      Dr. Scott, Obviously, your behavior is seemingly that of a socio- or psychopath. Personally, I am not going to go to the trouble to make a webpage about yourself. Your ego is obviously already overinflated. After all, who calls themselves “The Man in China”? There are over a billion people in China, Dr. Scott. What is it that makes you “The Man in China”?

      • Paul Doyon says:

        Sound familiar?

        Pathological Lying
        Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

        Grandiose Sense of Self
        Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

        Manipulative and Conning
        They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

        Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
        A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

        Shallow Emotions
        When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

        Incapacity for Love

        Callousness/Lack of Empathy
        Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

        Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
        Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

        Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
        Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

        Irresponsibility/Unreliability
        Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

        http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

  59. Sibylle Gabriel says:

    Read the book :”Rainbow and the Worm” from Dr.Mae Wan Ho and you will understand that this artificial all day will cost us much more then you ever could imagine.

    Dr. Mae-Wan Ho has pointed out for many years that the quantum coherent electrodynamic nature of life is what makes organisms extremely sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Evidence is accumulating on both cause and effect (although not everyone has connected the two). Brain damage and cancer risks from wireless phones (mobile and cordless) are now well-documented (see Wireless Phones and Brain Cancer, and other articles in the series, SiS 51). The developing embryo and foetus will be extra-sensitive. Years ago, she demonstrated in her laboratory that exposure of fruit fly embryos to static magnetic fields as well as alternating electromagnetic fields results in excess deaths and abnormalities, and the kinds of abnormalities were different, as one would expect them to be. There have been other studies on embryonic development in other species including birds, frogs, mice and rats. Among the most dramatic results (photographs provided) were published in 2010 by researchers at Kebangsaan University in Malaysia (Rosli Y et al, International Journal of Biological and Life Sciences 2010, 6, 3). They exposed pregnant female mice to low intensity EMFs of 1.2 mT or 0 mT (control sham exposure) for six hours per session, on gestation day 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15. They found 5.9 percent still births from abnormalities in the lungs and thorax in the EMF exposed compared to 2 percent in the controls; and over 70 percent of the surviving foetus in the EMF exposed group showed a spectrum of morphological abnormalities, including total absence of hind limbs (18 percent), incomplete fore and hind limb digit separation (25percent) and stumpy tail (12 percent).

  60. Sibylle Gabriel says:

    I recommend to read the book: The rainbow and the Worm” from Mae Wan Ho.

    Dr. Mae-Wan Ho has pointed out for many years that the quantum coherent electrodynamic nature of life is what makes organisms extremely sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Evidence is accumulating on both cause and effect (although not everyone has connected the two). Brain damage and cancer risks from wireless phones (mobile and cordless) are now well-documented (see Wireless Phones and Brain Cancer, and other articles in the series, SiS 51). The developing embryo and foetus will be extra-sensitive. Years ago, she demonstrated in her laboratory that exposure of fruit fly embryos to static magnetic fields as well as alternating electromagnetic fields results in excess deaths and abnormalities, and the kinds of abnormalities were different, as one would expect them to be. There have been other studies on embryonic development in other species including birds, frogs, mice and rats. Among the most dramatic results (photographs provided) were published in 2010 by researchers at Kebangsaan University in Malaysia (Rosli Y et al, International Journal of Biological and Life Sciences 2010, 6, 3). They exposed pregnant female mice to low intensity EMFs of 1.2 mT or 0 mT (control sham exposure) for six hours per session, on gestation day 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15. They found 5.9 percent still births from abnormalities in the lungs and thorax in the EMF exposed compared to 2 percent in the controls; and over 70 percent of the surviving foetus in the EMF exposed group showed a spectrum of morphological abnormalities, including total absence of hind limbs (18 percent), incomplete fore and hind limb digit separation (25percent) and stumpy tail (12 percent).

    • Incredulous says:

      Sadly, Dr Mae Wan-Ho’s grasp of quantum physics and what entanglement is and can mean as far as the human body is concerned, is less than negligible. See through the fluff of the subject she talks about above. Here’s a quote about her beliefs: “…Dr. Ho introduced a complex theory of how the body is intimately connected by water, collagen and quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement means that many systems link together and behave as if they were one system. Dr. Ho explained how protons are able to act as superconducting communication channels.

      Connective tissues like collagen fibers have properties such as that of changing a photon’s frequency. She exposed evidence that the Meridians of Traditional Chinese Medicine use such connective tissue as its pathway to allow information to travel. Dr. Ho also talked about the structure of water that, together with collagen, forms a huge liquid crystal that operates via proton-conduction…”

      http://www.faim.org/energymedicine/quantumenergydenmark.html

      Bad science, a sell for quack alternative therapies.

  61. Iris says:

    Art Tricque:

    Contents: first, show me the contents. He should get rid of slander first, as this is his contents right now. Quotes of others is hiding behind big bodies no matter who funds them.
    Despite that, I did relate to the ignorance presented here, and called all of you to read the Bioinitiative, of course, remembering that you are part of the big experiment we all take part in whether we like it or not.
    One of the people who responded me, Michael, I saw he admitted he thinks there is no value in books. How does this look for someone who wants to claim he is educated on any subject?

    Regarding funding: you misunderstood.He should present his website and who funds the website from the beginning, as a part of the website, honestly. That’s what an honest person does. But Steve Thoms has a very interesting motive, which he stated himself: to “prevent hysteria”- why is he bothered by “hysteria”?
    what is his interest to calm it down? No person has such an interest, “to prevent hysteria” without a reason.
    Instead he is calling other people, in a childish way, to prove who funds him.

    SCENIHR – you relate scientific approach to them: one of the key people of them was kicked out of IARC committee because of conflict of interest so he could not participate in the decision to classity RF as possible carcinogen? They are not the neutral symbol.

    Bioinitiative: don’t tell me what I read and what I don’t, because I did my homework. I do not see you relate to the DNA breaks that you support in making to people RIGHT NOW by ignoring REFLEX project, Henri Lai’s works, and other independent laboratories that showed this effect, and that are also presented in the Bioinitiative.
    As one example.

    • Daryl says:

      Iris,

      The only ones who might panic, are those heavily invested personally in this monstrous foisting of kill telephony & associated wireless overload on a hoodwinked public, people like those at Skeptic North holding tight the hood, even oblivious some to what they are doing. From Kane’s book, sinceit has been brought up, justly, again & again:

      “However, any newly designed portable phones may prove pointless, as newer research results have moved the issues to a broader front with additional revelation since 1993 and 1994 of DNA modifications and chromosome damage from radiofrequency radiation. Even before the most recent bioeffects studies showing DNA and chromosome damage were known the extent of industry and government complicity became evident through a private conversation with a representative of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when he confided that the FCC doesn’t want to regulate portable cellular telephones because it doesn’t want to create a panic.141 “

  62. Jack says:

    Steve I see you’ve haven’t allowed my last comment from 2 days ago to be posted. Thanks for your integrity.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      All comments, even the nuttier ones, by everyone, have been approved. We’re having technical difficulties at this site, and since we’re a volunteer organization, these kinds of fixes take time. As of this writing, 18 comments made by you have been approved. The links *are* online, if a little hard to find (we’re looking into this).

      For a site that is supposedly industry-funded (as your group continues to claim), you’d think we could do a little better.

      I’m a little too “full of aspartame” to fully understand these things, so be patient with me, I beg of you.

  63. Enrico Grani says:

    Dear Steve Thomas, congratulations on twisting persons explanations, ignoring peer reviewed studies, and in general being incredibly uneducated on the issue of man-made artificial pulsed RF frequencies. You, as a music teacher talking about WiFi and clearly not understanding how the human body reacts to these frequencies, is like myself talking about music (which I know nothing about). However there is more than enough information in the comments prior to mine (including links and abstracts) for people to make their own minds up). To discredit the scientific achievements of reputable scientists is like believing the world is flat. Well at least you have displayed persons comments, so obviously freedom of speech is not impeded on this blog. I do wish you good health and that you and your crew do never become (EHS) – electro-hypersensitive. It can be very disabling, and make no mistake it does not discriminate and can manifest due to RF over-exposure in some individuals, as we do not all share the same genetics, cell lines, ability to repair, etc. The Soviets coined the term “microwave sickness” – which is (EHS)-electro-hypersensitivity. Look up(irradiation of the US embassy in Moscow) for some facts you may not know about.

  64. Iris says:

    Steve,

    Your claims about me are super ridiculous, slander and pure lie.
    you make a fool of yourself, interesting to see how far you are ready to go to avoid something the public has a right to know about you. I don’t run this website, you do.

    Tell us, Steve. Who funds your website?

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Iris, for the last time:
      It has been explained to you again and again that this is a volunteer website. No author at Skeptic North is now, or has ever received a penny for what is written here. If you’re still not satisfied, I have some advice for you: You’re welcome to investigate the matter yourself, and come back to us with your findings. If you’re so certain we’re funded by any company at all (let alone a telecom company), you should be able to find that information.

      I categorically reject your paranoid accusation, yet you persist. Your job is to provide the evidence of your claim. This is basic, basic, basic stuff, Iris. They teach it to you in grade 9 English.

      Do you see your tremendous assumption? You assume that we’re funded, and therefore you will accept no answer other than one that confirms your suspicion. My charge to you about you being funded by Paul was not a serious one, but merely to demonstrate that you can’t put the onus of negative proof on someone else of your positive claim (you provide the evidence of your own claim, not charge people to prove your claim is wrong). This is the exact same logic used during the Witch Trials of the middle ages:

      Court: You’re a witch!

      Victim: No I’m not!

      Court: Prove to this court you’re not a witch!

      Victim: How? By not casting a spell? Okay! Done!

      Court: Ah, but anything you do that clears you of being a witch, must be some kind of demonic contrivance.

      Victim: What? Well what sort of chance for examination does that….

      Court: BURN HER! A WITCH!!!!

      In the case of this poor victim, and your accusation, the assumption is the same: Party A assumes X without evidence, and is only interested in conformation of X, without ever acknowledging, in the interests of a full examination of the available facts that, and this is important, x might be wrong.

      The simplest answer tends to be the right one, but you’ve chosen to pile assumptions onto assumptions, and then task others with proving you wrong. Is this really how you operate?

      Because you still haven’t disproven my giant teapot orbiting the earth theory. Go ahead: prove me wrong.

      • Iris says:

        Steve,

        You don’t understand. The claim that I am funded by Paul is not ridiculous because you did not provide evidence for it-
        it is ridiculous because the claim that there is risk, is not represented by economic interests. You don’t relate to the contents. In contrast, your claim that there is no risk is. What you expose here is that you THINK you are skeptic while you are not. If you were a skeptic person, you would have questioned people who have economic incentive to keep the status guo. What’s disturbing about it is that you go full length in order to hurt people that have no interest to hurt YOU personally, but it does not prevent you from trying to hurt them personally. As someone wise told you before- you work on strengthening those who don’t even need your help.
        Why would you do it? Do you understand now why it looks that you are funded??
        you noticed that I was not the only one to think that, right? do you really think you are immune to radiation?
        It seems you would like others to calm down before you completed your own research.
        when you will have kids (maybe you have), will you advance their exposure to radiation? because this is what you are actually doing in your blog.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Iris, I already said, and I quote,

      “My charge to you about you being funded by Paul was not a serious one, but merely to demonstrate that you can’t put the onus of negative proof on someone else of your positive claim (you provide the evidence of your own claim, not charge people to prove your claim is wrong)”

      Read more carefully before you shoot from the hip.

      Does Havas, Davis, Lai, (etc) not have a financial stake in this game? Why does that charge apply to one side of the argument, but not to both?

      Prove your claim, or back away from it.

  65. Iris says:

    Dianne,
    What makes you downplay findings of risks that were peer reviewed
    in scientific journals for the past 20 years?

    Why do you care about my standards, I did not see you explained yours. Don’t tell me what I have reason to believe and what not.
    You downplay risk findings as what? as a “Scientific argument”?
    so your whole idea is to call risk findings non scientific?
    what a ridiculous approach is this? if you are a thinking person,
    you should not classify risk findings as non scientific just because they imply that the env. you live in is not safe as you would like to assume.

    Tell me, Dianne, what is YOUR interest to downplay risk?

  66. Bremdy says:

    Steve why do you disparage any possibolity

  67. Iain says:

    “There is no funding source at all.”
    Yeah right – there’s the Big Lie right there. SOMEBODY had to pay the $10 to register the skepticnorth.com domain. Who? Big Pharma? Big Hydro? Big Bird? And what are they demanding as quid pro quo for renewing the site?
    No answers? Obviously we can’t trust anything you guys say ever again.

  68. Enrico Grani says:

    Steve Thoms claiming Paul Doyon is paying persons to leave comments is slander in itself. Look up slander Mr Steve Thoms and try to comprehend the definition, as clearly you are a music teacher and not a physician, nor a biologist. As they say empty vessels make the loudest noise.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Yes, Enrico, this is exactly correct. My claim that a critic is funded by a third party is ridiculous, more so because I did not provide evidence of this claim.

      Perhaps now you understand why I said that?

      Or am I giving you too much credit. Iris has already shown no such understanding of my “subtle” point.

    • Dianne Sousa says:

      Enrico,

      I find it interesting that those that share your belief in the dangers of EMF’s cry slander and libel when a person on their side is criticized, but apparently don’t see the problem with their charge that the consensus science is manipulated by corporations.

      I don’t know if you think there is a conspiracy keeping the “truth about EMF’s” out of public sight or not, but understand that their is some irony there.

      Also, maybe YOU should look up the definition of slander, as it is not what you think it is.

      • Enrico Grani says:

        Dear Dianne Sousa, I find it very disturbing that the term narcissist is used to describe Dr Magda Havas by the “so-called volunteers” of this blog like Steve Thoms. Dianne are you or Steve Thoms self proclaimed psychiatrists? A narcissist is a personality disorder with a specific code for billing in the DSM-IV. If calling a reputable Dr Magda Havas, a narcissist, in the public domain is not slander, then please explain to me what is. As clearly it is YOU Dianne, who need to perform due diligence before opening your mouth, and research into what the word slander actually means. I do not know exactly what you are trying to achieve other than to cause confusion? Your comments are interesting in the fact that you have not looked into the scientific documents from BOTH SIDES – industry and independent? But do you really care what the scientific results are, I think not. To make an informed decision we must always take everything into consideration. When one tries to tarnish the reputation of a reputable scientist who has performed their due diligence and label them as a narcissist, it shows clearly that the owners of this blog have no interest in healthy debate, but would rather argue and disparage a persons integrity, with the assumption of impunity. Personally for myself and many others, to argue is unnecessary as the science speaks loud and clear, without need to slander other persons good reputation, high ethics and morals. It would be the honourable thing to do, to write a written apology on this blog and retract the accusation of Dr Magda Havas of being a narcissist. No-one who runs this blog has the knowledge nor expertise to diagnose another person on the Internet with any disorder. Make no mistake Dianne Sousa, I know very well what the definition of slander is; I suggest you purchase a dictionary. However, if you do not possess the funds I can send you a dictionary free of charge. With Kind Regards.

      • Kim Hebert says:

        Merely using the word narcissist is not the same as claiming to diagnose someone. Nobody here has claimed to legally diagnose anybody with a psychiatric disorder. Please familiarize yourself with colloquial speech; for example, by reading the first entry for “narcissist” from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissist

        You are arguing against something that was never said.

  69. Nessie says:

    How can we exclude that electromagnetic fields (EMF) affect health, when the brain itself uses them to send commands to the nervous system, hence the possibility of interference ? How can we assume that EMF don’t cross our skulls, when they cross several layers of walls so easily ? How can we pretend there is no effect, when advanced medecine now uses EMF (different frenquencies that cellphones’) to heal people, instead of surgery ? Comparison with sunrays is a joke : Sunrays are stopped by walls, unlike EMF, and it induces D vitamin in the human body, unlike EMF. So even to a 11 years old,it’s obvious they’re different. The truth is, we just don’t want to see the truth because we love our i-toys and we want a reassuring voice to tell us there is nothing to fear.

  70. Enrico Grani says:

    Is there any reason why my comments are not being displayed ?

  71. Othersteve says:

    Flawed science by flawed scientists = anti-WIFI industry.

    You are all idiots.

  72. Paul Doyon says:

    The gullible mind explained

    Thursday, May 05, 2011
    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032293_gullible_minds.html#ixzz1e1XEIrAf

  73. Paul Doyon says:

    Yes, Steve Thoms, I am secretly a billionaire paying all these people here to post comments on your site. You can come to my house and see my Lamborghini parked in my driveway. Now if that is not science, I do know what is! Please stop making me laugh. Please!

  74. Enrico Grani says:

    Kym Herbert = “Merely using the word narcissist is not the same as claiming to diagnose someone. Nobody here has claimed to legally diagnose anybody with a psychiatric disorder. Please familiarize yourself with colloquial speech; for example, by reading the first entry for “narcissist” from dictionary.com” : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissist

    “You are arguing against something that was never said.”

    Kym: I am not arguing, and it was written, not said but written in the public domain, can you comprehend that without distorting facts?
    Kym you may split a hair with an axe, and good luck in that, however, your definition of colloquial speech is a poor defence for slander; and you know this very well indeed. One cannot slander the reputation of a professional scientist and then have another in “their skeptic crew” on their blog defend them under the guise of colloquial speech, it will never wash. Very poor attempt to defend slander by your peer. Very sad indeed, and shows the quality of the integrity of the blog owners/volunteers?

    • Kim Hebert says:

      To be very clear to everyone commenting here: No Skeptic North author has either said or written on this blog that Magda Havas or Rodney Palmer have narcissistic personality disorder.

      I “defend” nothing, as there is nothing to defend. And I define nothing – the dictionary does that for me.

      Read our disclaimer and our commenting policy before continuing to comment here. Further false accusations of illegal activity or intent on the part of blog members will not be tolerated.

      • Enrico Grani says:

        Steve Thoms = “Unstoppable narcissism never acts alone, and Palmer had brought in his trusty band of fringe non-experts-but-somehow-declared-experts Magda Havas (another narcissist academic whose entire career vests in the idea that cell phones, WiFi, and your laptop will cause cancer and sterility) and Barrie Trower (a cold war-era weapons ‘expert’ who equates ‘using’ WiFi signals with exploding bombs), whom Palmer and his group flew in from the UK to speak to the media on this story’s behalf”.

        Kim Herbert to be clear to every one commenting here: The Skeptic North author above called Steve Thoms writes that Magda Havas (another narcissist academic whose entire career vests in the idea that cell phones, WiFi …

        Kym Herbert to be clear, so you may understand, when a person writes that another person is a narcissist, the definition of narcissist is a personality disorder as defined by the DSM-IV which is a psychiatric manual.

        Your disclaimer and commenting policy are questionable by the false accusations of Rodney Palmer and Magda Havas being labelled as narcissists by Steve Thoms. My observations are written by your own Steve Thoms, he wrote the accusations and not me, then you go off tangent as if people cannot understand English. Kym Herbert, tunnel vision is very limiting to a brain who seeks knowledge. Or possibly you know everything hence your feeble explanation which is contrary of what Steve Thoms has written on this blog (a blog which cannot be taken seriously, by any stretch of the imagination – with all due respect).

      • Kim Hebert says:

        Do you see the word disorder anywhere in what you quoted? No, you don’t.

        Enough of this nonsense.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Rodney Palmer claimed to be an epidemiologist before a parliamentary sub-committee. I find it curious that you chose to hold me to one set of standards, but Mr. Palmer another.

      I used narcissist as my ‘opinion’, but made no medical/psychiatric claims whatsoever. I am legally protected to do so. Kim has already pointed out the difference to you between colloquial usage and medical usage.

      If you seriously can’t distinguish between colloquialisms and medical advice, then you need to re-evaluate your entire vernacular to make sure you use only the driest, most technical language possible, because I could go through your comments (and everyone’s, including my own) and pick out every instance of a technically misused medical, scientific, and legal term (slander and libel are misused an awful lot).

      But I don’t, because that misses the point entirely.

      • Enrico Grani says:

        Dear Steve Thoms you claim that I hold you to one set of standards but Mr Palmer another, how interesting since I do not determine standards between people. So you claim to be “legally protected” because you claim a person is a narcissist in the public domain, it is still slander, a medical/psychiatric claim which you have not made is a poor defence for slander, and you know it, hence the need to say that you are legally protected to do so, how interesting.

        What if I decided to be an ignorant person by using certain spiteful vernacular to attack the integrity of your character, would I also be protected like you claim to be? You see Steve, Dr Magda Havas is actually an academic scientist with qualifications and you are a music teacher, or are you also an academic scientist who researches into electromagnetic fields and health effects?

        Steve I have a question for you and please do not do yourself a disservice: have you by any chance read and understood the many many peer reviewed scientific studies on EMR and health effects, both positive and negative? … or did you miss the point entirely? Please Take Care and Be Well.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Look up what slander means according to Ontario Law. If I am a music teacher unable to make psychiatric diagnosis (which I never did), then you are not a lawyer, and you are unable to make legal accusations and claims (which you did, at great length).

      You want so see some hilarious examples of attempts at slander and libel? Read the comments in this thread.

  75. Michaele Blazer says:

    You can have one site that focuses on just one product type like digital cameras or dog beds or cordless drills for instance. Or you can have one big site that focuses on all sorts of products.

  76. Iris says:

    IARC (international agency of cancer research) classified RF radiation as possible carcinogen to humans, and according to Dr. Robert Baan’s letter from IARC WiFi is included. I sent this letter to Steve Thoms, asking him to tell this to his readers honestly. Will he do it?
    Kim says Rodney Palmer is not a scientist- he does not need to be a scientist in order to do everything to protect his child. Surely it does not justify going to a crusader after him over the internet.

  77. Kim Hebert says:

    I pointed out Rodney’s profession only to illustrate the absurdity of a comment against Steve being a music teacher. Thank you for making my point explicit…

  78. Art Tricque says:

    “Kim says Rodney Palmer is not a scientist- he does not need to be a scientist in order to do everything to protect his child.”

    This comment illustrates a logical fallacy and an evidentiary double-standard.

    A logical fallacy, because it employs an appeal to emotion, the focus on children. I guess it would be OK to criticize Mr. Palmer if he were only trying to protect adults?

    Mr. Palmer applies a standard of risk analysis to EMF that most likely he does not apply to anything else in life. For example, if he drives his children around in a motor vehicle, he willingly is exposing them to demonstrated risks far greater than those for EMF. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

  79. Steve Thoms says:

    Pardon the error in the hyperlink above. Mea culpa. http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/09/why-wifi-why/

  80. Iris says:

    What you do is slander, you exploit the blog trying to influence public opinion using slander. You have no right to do that.
    This is not the way to go, Steve.
    Do you want some pickles? they are only related to cancer, that’s all, not something serious, in your opinion.
    Otherwise they would not find their way to the list of course.
    The fact you don’t read the science on pickles and to which types of cancer they are related to, does not make your argument more impressive.
    Your arguments on the blog only shows you try to downplay risk.
    The fact you use slander to advance your interest does not serve your purpose, your interest as it emerges from your blog,
    is to convince the public there is no risk, or insist that there is no risk. Why would you do it, if you recognized the DNA breaks studies, the brain tumors studies, the heat shock proteins findings, the blood brain barrier damage, why would you ignore all this? I don’t know, but that’s exactly what you do.
    What “majority” are you talking about? whom do you quote as the
    “majority”?
    IARC’s decision is already the consensus, this IS the majority.
    Why do you deny it?

    Rodney Palmer bases his arguments on pupil’s experience, scientists he trusts, and data that was already published on risk. So he really does not need to be a scientist.
    He does not need to invent the wheel, other people did the hard work.
    But you need not use slander in order to “prove him wrong”, it does not add to your reputation.

  81. Steve Thoms says:

    No, pickles are not related to cancer. The list by the IARC lists them as “possible” carcinogens, in the same remote way that coffee and talcum powder is. If you want to live in a Faraday Cage because of that, go ahead. But don’t expect me to buy your hysteria.

    The IARC is not the scientific consensus, it is one organization of respected experts. But I certainly do not reject it: I accord it with a modicum of skepticism, proportionate to what the existing scientific data already says, as well as what the IARC actually says.

    I don’t know why you people from your group (EMF Refugees, for those following) ask for where I’m pulling my information, since I’ve linked to it over and over again. Last time, Iris: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/

    And as for Palmer: he’s basing his arguments on anecdotes, and his friend, Magda Havas (who has already promoted his wooden box that he claims can treat asthma and cancer). His word is not good enough, no matter how much he claims to be an epidemiologist.

  82. Raj says:

    I agree with Iris. Steve, I disagree with your core life philosophy in that you think that it is okay to slander people you do not even know about an issue about which you are not eminently qualified in a public forum. You cavalierly bash away with your libelous commentary about Mr. Palmer and Dr. Havas and I am quite ‘skeptical’ that even an apology will be able to legally undo the effects of your bullying behaviour as you have chosen to attack them openly on the internet, without just cause, I might add. You claim to be a ‘teacher’, but you are not like any teacher I know – your bullying behaviour is unprofessional to the absolute degree. No teacher I know would knowingly put his/her students in harm’s way, which is what you are doing by not carefully examining both sides of this issue of wifi in the classroom. I am truly glad that you do not teach my children.

  83. Steve Thoms says:

    Yep. My “core life philosophy” is that it’s okay to slander people. My “spawn” agree. You, sir, are insightful to gleam so much from a blog post written over a year ago.

  84. Art Tricque says:

    When one disagrees with Palmer and Havas, one is “libeling” and “attacking” and “bullying”. No, it is disagreeing, and to make the other claims is the typical irrational response of those without evidence. As for threats of legal action, this also is the last refuge of the quack without evidence on his or her side. And as a teacher who “knowingly put his/her students in harm’s way”, I would not wish this either. But I would wish their decision as to what constitutes harm to be based on a thorough, rational, scientific and skeptical assessment, rather than one that was emotional, cherry-picked, conspiracy theory-laced, and logically-flawed.

  85. Paul Doyon says:

    It`s glean btw — not gleam. Jeepers, I have to stoop this low to give this guy spelling lessons.

  86. Raj says:

    BTW, where do you keep your cell phone? Bet you won’t be able to keep it in your pocket anymore. A man-purse serves the purpose quite well. I of course will never know, but you will. And then you will truly know ‘what’ you believe. I am betting that you won’t be putting your cell in your pocket anymore and in that case, I win!

  87. Raj says:

    What I have gleaNed from your blog post is that you like to pick on people, for whatever obscure reason you might have… perhaps low self-esteem? Others have suggested that you are employed as an telecommunications industry lackey paid to quell public opposition to wifi and/or to discredit people like Mr. Palmer and Dr. Havas who can provide evidence of harm. This is a highly plausible supposition in my mind, especially after my ‘shocking’ BlackBerry revelation failed to alter your mindset. It is what it is … and it’s my job to raise the spectre of doubt about what your motives really are.

  88. Iris says:

    Steve,

    You avoid the point again, how easy.
    If you knew anything about Talc or coffee you would not use them
    as a way to downplay the IARC classification.
    Talc is also related to cancer as well, read Dr. Samuel Epstein’s books instead of writing rubbish and you will get the info, not from the ACS. Same about coffee, so no, you are not as cool as you think you are. The fact that the text was written a year ago does not make it less slander, it only shows that you did not understand during this year that you did something wrong.
    If you were a father, I wonder how much you would give your child to be exposed to radiation on which the maximum you can do is to play a song about, or copy paste from the FDA/ ACS etc websites.

  89. Paul Doyon says:

    Seriously, if I were you, I would be so embarrassed I would go hide in a hole somewhere and never come out. What amazes me is your brazen inability to your own foolishness!

  90. Paul Doyon says:

    to see your own foolishness. LOL

  91. Steve Thoms says:

    Paul, I asked you a question: How was your health before WiFi/Cordless phones/cell phones were ubiquitous?

  92. Steve Thoms says:

    Obviously, I keep my phone attached to the end of a 6′ javelin, and it’s guarded by a small, but ferocious army of worker bees.

    Duh.

    Why, where do you keep yours?

  93. Jack says:

    and don’t forget my question Steve – why do you feel so compelled to spend time and resources defending what is apparently the “general consensus”?

  94. Paul Doyon says:

    Excellent! I got sick living in the vicinity of several cell phone towers. It took me six months before I even imagined the cause — i.e. I did not get sick because I saw the towers and then imagined myself getting sick. I got sick and was very ill for six months looking for answers before I even suspected that these might be the cause. It took me another six months to recover I would say back to about 85% of my previous health. That was 6 years ago and I would say that I am 100% better now. Satisfied?

  95. Steve Thoms says:

    I believe I’ve already answered that. But if you need elucidation (though I doubt it would quell your concerns about my motivations), I can’t stand it when people spread fear, hysteria, and paranoia. I couldn’t care less about how you live your life, or the profits of telecom companies (who have screwed me over too, rest assured), but the second your pseudo-science starts to intrude on the lives of myself, and those I care about, I’ll fight back.

    It’s interesting that you say “spend time and resources”….when this post was written over a year ago (and you still haven’t noticed the dozen+ articles written on the subject at this site), and I’ve not spent any “resources” to speak of, other than, you know, research.

    More pressingly, why do you think you know better then the 35,000+ studies I’ve cited?

    And again, how was your health before WiFi, Cordless phone technology was ubiquitous, say, 15 years ago

    The more you, Paul, Raj and company avoid this question, the more I’m convinced that I’m dealing with trolls.

  96. Raj says:

    At the risk of repeating myself and the BlackBerry Safety Manual, as you seem to not get it, I quote: “When you wear the BlackBerry device close to your body, use a RIM approved holster with an integrated belt clip or maintain a distance of 0.59 in. (15 mm) between your BlackBerry device and your body while the BlackBerry device is transmitting. Use of accessories, other than RIM approved holsters with an integrated belt clip, might cause your BlackBerry device to exceed radio frequency (RF) exposure standards if the accessories are worn on your body while the BlackBerry device is transmitting. The long term effects of exceeding RF exposure standards might present a risk of serious harm”. I have made the suggestion of a ‘man-purse’, but from your pic this might not be quite ‘you’, so perhaps something a little more rugged such as a backpack would be more of a fashion statement for you to transport your cell phone.

  97. Steve Thoms says:

    If I were a telecom lackey, I’m sure I could do better then driving a Toyota Corolla.

    I suspect *you’re* funded by some industry backers. It would be a highly plausible supposition in my mind. I suspect you’re in the pocket of the huge multinational Faraday-Cage manufactures. You’re probably just another shill for Big Cage. Don’t ask me to present evidence, it’s just a likely scenario.

    Here’s hoping I don’t wake up tomorrow with a big Chain Link fence around my apartment.

  98. Art Tricque says:

    Wow, that is a slam-down, the “pharma shill gambit” applied to the telecom situation … not at all. It is logically flawed. Even if Steve were employed by the telecom industry (which he emphatically has stated he is not)…yea, if he were Satan or any religious or non-religious evil entity you would care to chose, it would not make the substance of his arguments incorrect.The Blackberry revelation is hardly “shocking”: it is simply the result of having a standard testing mechanism so that results from different transmitting units (in this case mobile phones) can be compared.“Low self-esteem” Funny, I do not recall that making such personal accusations is part of the best practices of argumentation and rhetoric.Finally, re “…people like Mr. Palmer and Dr. Havas who can provide evidence of harm.” Palmer and Havas are experts at communication, which I mean with grudging respect. They are poor proponents or scientific rigour, skeptical thought, and rational discourse.

  99. Steve Thoms says:

    That’s me: Mr. Rugged n’ Manly. Rwar.

    What you don’t see, cropped out in that photo is a chainsaw, a six pack of Bud, and, like, 30 pounds of body hair.

    Of course, I’m standing on piles, and piles of money from Rogers and Bell (but really, there’s too much sawdust and hair covering it up anyway).

  100. Jack says:

    ah finally an answer: you hate it when people spread fear, hysteria, and paranoia. I don’t much care for it either but usually truth prevails and false fears, hysteria, and paranoia will not amount to anything in the longer term.
    It annoys me even more when it’s whipped up as a money making scam such as with the great swine flu hoax.

    In any case it’s curious you seem to feel the need to push the points that is already in “general consensus”.
    As for the 35,000+ studies – not sure where your link is (many here don’t work).
    However quantity does not equal quality (Skeptic handbook pg 7).
    As an example here in Australia (where I live) the now disbanded ACRBR (a govt body charged with the responsibility of studying the impact of rf-emr on health) did a number of studies.
    One was to survey 100 or so homes to check that radio frequency levels (caused by wifi, cordless phones etc) were still below the govt guidelines. And guess what, they were.
    Here’s another study that gets dropped into the “rf-emr is safe” basket.
    BTW this independent body had as a business partner local telco Telstra. Like they say in court, never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.

    And never mind that the govt guidelines are set only to avoid us getting cooked.
    In fact if you want to learn about industry influence down under have a read of this http://www.emfacts.com/the-procrustean-approach/
    How was my health before the wireless age?
    Pretty good, about the same as now, thanks for asking.

  101. Steve Thoms says:

    I claim no special knowledge about how things are done in Australia vis-a-vis the regulatory standards, but with regards to broken links, here is, for the umpteenth time, http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/ a quick primer on tens of thousands of studies by independant, university and government studies tasked with evaluating EMF/EMR safety.

    Agreed, quantity does not equal quality. However, poor quality (such as the studies performed by Havas, and Lai) equal poor quality.

    Similarly, the plural of anecdotes is not data (Skeptic Handbook, pg 9). Palmer, and the EMF Refugees cite personal anecdotes, and supplement them with poor studies, and then are shocked when skeptics don’t find that convincing.

    If your health has remained “pretty good” before and after the “wireless age”, does it not tell you that there is little to these claims, and there is a huge placebo effect going on here?

    As a side note, emfacts.com is an activist cite, and is an unsuitable source for evidence (conflict of interest, and all that).

    Also, Swine Flu Hoax? 18,000 deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations (in the US alone) from swine flu, in addition to the regular influenza deaths (which annually kill anywhere between 250,000 to 500,000, depending on the strain, and the season). This is a hoax to you? You and I, sir, have drastically different definitions of the word “hoax.”

  102. Jack says:

    Flu deaths yearly in the U.S are ESTIMATED to range from 3500 to 49000. Deaths from swine flu for the year 2009 (to which you refer) are not yet finalised and even then will be an ESTIMATE.

    As a side note: any site/person/entity that questions the “follow the leader” approach or contradicts the BELIEFS of a skeptic, for THAT reason alone is an unsuitable source of evidence.
    LOL – critical thinking at it’s best!

    BTW I don’t own a mobile phone and have no wireless devices what so ever in my home or workplace – the precautionary approach. And I don’t need to live in a cave to achieve that.

  103. Nathan says:

    “follow the leaders…..of the scientific community” Remember that the majority of the people on this site are not scientists and need to rely partially on the science that scientists do. Following the mass scientific majorities are only a small part of the system used for not fooling ourselves. Accepting only credible sources is also important. Again, when proper evidence is presented and studied, peer reviewed, studied some more by independent sources who don’t stand to gain from such information, I and many others believe that the “truth” will win out. If you are right, then in the future, it will be known. Until that time we are not jumping on the band wagon with you because it’s a dangerous slippery slope. We follow what most of the scientists say, where you follow only a few. How is it that you think your argument has more validity than ours?

  104. Art Tricque says:

    “I don’t own a mobile phone and have no wireless devices what so ever in my home or workplace.” Yet you have been bathed in the electromagnetic energy from microwaves from long-distance point to point microwave communications links, two-way communications radio (like those used by all public safety agencies such as police, fire and ambulance) and paging systems, GPS, satellite communications, garage-door openers and other home electronics in your neighbourhood, and broadcast communications for decades, as have every man, woman and child in Australia, Canada and in the rest of the developed world. There are no massive outbreaks of cancers that have been discerned.

  105. Nathan says:

    What is it that makes you think your studies are so compelling? Just going with a gut feeling on this one?

  106. Nathan says:

    Also, skepticism is not a belief. It is a method, much like science. Tried and tested and a great way to reduce the margins of error. This requires no belief.

  107. Iris says:

    You have got it wrong.

    Pickles are associated with stomach cancer in studies. RF radiation is associated to cancer in studies, both epidemiological and laboratory. Whether you like it or not.
    I sent you a letter which says clearly that the definition is based on studies that show the effect of cancer.

    ***you ignore*** the fact you do not have the right to use slander even if you think differently from Rodney Palmer.
    The right thing to do is to apologize to Rodney Palmer on your blog.

    You quote bodies that have conflicts of interests.
    Why being an uncritical parrot is such a high priority for you as a musician?
    If you look at history, all the big advances were thanks to those who did not go with the “majority” opinion.

    You use a doubtful excuse “to prevent hysteria”. Why are you so bothered whether there is “hysteria” or not, as a musician?

    It is very strange that you feel so much the urge to prevent “hysteria” with slander, towards informed citizens.
    They invested their time in learning while you were occupied with how to prevent this critical voice to be heard.
    Using slander just shows you are run out of real arguments to the point.

    IARC is the international body that has the authority to determine what is carcinogenic and what is not.
    Not the FDA, ACS, etc. ACS is funded by industries, what do you expect them to say?
    What do you know on funding sources of the FDA?

    Moreover, What is your interest that society will wait more before it takes precautions?
    what is your interest to ignore evidence and warning signs?
    what is your interest to turn precaution interests of the public to the word “hysteria”?

    As someone who shpritz his ignorance all over this blog, sit and read the Bioinitiative report with the 2000 references,
    and then come back to tell us about the “majority”.
    The same about the group of cheer leaders you raise here. All of them should read the Bioinitiative report.

    Again, what is your interest to “prevent hysteria”?

  108. Dianne Sousa says:

    Paul,

    “Satisfied?” Nope, not one bit. The above is a claim that you make about the state of your health and a specific cause. You didn’t provide any evidence at all that you were ill, what that illness was, or that you recovered from it and are now illness free. Before I can judge what caused your illness you need to show me that you were sick. Proof please.

    Yet, you say you suffered an illness that was caused by the cell phone towers that were in the vicinity of your house. Those specific towers and not any others whie you were out of your home? Not only do you claim these towers made you ill, you claim that they were able to do so even though you do not spend 24 hours a day there (I think this is a safe assumption). Again, proof please.

    You also think there is a conspiracy composed of millions and millions of people that work in a masterfully coordinated way to make it look like all these technologies are safe, and in the process make you look ridiculous when you claim the opposite. Why do they need to conspire so? Apparently the vast majority of us are too stupid to understand what’s really going on, and too closed minded to be swayed by your evidence even if you had it. In that kind of environment there is no need for a conspiracy.

    Paul, if you have decent proof of anything you say take it to court. March every person who claims that they are suffer from EHS and have been harmed by wifi and related technologies into court and have them lay out their anecdotes.

    But it won’t make for a compelling case. Anecdotes are not data, as you say (this is ridiculous), they are unsubstantiated claims. A pile of anecdotes is just a pile of unsubstantiated claims.

    You’re not a victim of wifi, you’re a victim of your faulty thinking.

  109. Nathan says:

    The “major advances” you speak of are yes, often lead by a few, sometimes even one. However, that being said, all this means is an idea starts somewhere. Science found the advances you speak of to be obviously reasonably truth, because those advances were verifiable. Just because science says “EMF- doesn’t seem to be a problem right now” doesn’t mean that they won’t figure out that it is or isn’t in the future. It’s perfectly reasonable to reserve judgement until all the evidence is in. Which ties into the hysteria you’re talking about. I can’t speak for Steve but to me it seems it’s important to prevent hysteria because well… How about humility? Or perhaps just simply, not wanting my fellow man to get taken in and hurt by something that hasn’t been verified with very little reasonable doubt. Your agenda has plenty of doubt currently, and until that changes, science has it’s position.

  110. Art Tricque says:

    Questioning the motivation of Steve is a logical fallacy: it does not address the substance of his arguments. Any argument one makes along these lines can be dismissed.Alleging conflicts of interest and industry associations is conspiracy mongering. There is plenty of evidence from publically funded sources assessed by public bodies that suggests that there is little to fear from EMF. EMF fear-mongerers have lost the scientific battle, and must resort to ad hominem, conspiracy and emotional hysteria attacks to make their case. That is why Steve has written as he has.The Bioinitiative Report cannot be taken seriously by any skeptic or official public scientific commission. Why? A self-selected group of evaluators; using a ridiculously cherry-picked subset of the evidence (I have read the whole report; it is easy to point out examples of this); publishing by press release and on the internet, and only later in a journal…edited by one of the report committee’s members; need I go on? That is why serious organizations from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) to the European Commission’s EMF-NET to the French government authority Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety to the German government authority Federal Office for Radiation Protection criticized the report. The French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety said: “…the different chapters of the report are of uneven editing style and quality. Some sections do not present scientific data in a balanced fashion, do not analyze the quality of the articles cited, or reflect the personal opinions of their authors …, [the report] is tinged with conflicts of interest in several chapters, does not reflect a collective effort, and is written in militant style.”

  111. Nathan says:

    It’s also important to preserve skepticism (by using it) so that we don’t start down the slippery slope that I mentioned in a . Taking precautions when there isn’t enough evidenceto suggest a real problem is not a good idea because if we did that for every little thing that came up there would never be progress. All it means isyou continue studying it to make sure. And when you’ve exhausted that you must put the idea aside, maybe on a shelf somewhere, and when or if new evidence shows up that suggests that there might be a problem, you can go dust off your idea and give it a go with the new information. But there is a point when you have to stop beating a dead horse and abandon ideas that are comming up empty.

  112. Nathan says:

    Sorry, hit send button before completing. Should have read “mentioned in a previous post” and “empty” was going to read “comming up with negative results”

  113. Paul Doyon says:

    Hey Sweetie Pie, I do not have to prove anything to you! And please do not put words in my mouth! Do you want me to prove that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west? If you are running a fever, have a runny nose and diarrhea, do you have to prove to me that you are sick? I think I would probably be able to take your word for it. Or would you like me to ask you for a note from your doctor? Or do you really think a give a flying banana? Stop making laugh! Seriously! The plural of anecdotal evidence is DATA! Hello! Please stop making an idiot of yourself. Please do go crawl in a hole with Thoms and save the world from your embarrassment!

  114. Steve Thoms says:

    Every year police receive thousands of reports that there is a UFO above their community. These cases eventually turn out to be the moon, or Chinese Lanterns. Just because a large number of people report their personal, unsubstantiated reports of something, is no reason to assume it’s a legitimate claim.

    The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. What you call “anecdotal data”, taken by themselves, scientists call them unsubstantiated claims.

    But since you’ve worked it out that scientific data that runs against your claim is therefore crooked, telecom-funded science, and data that supports your claim is the good science, tells me that you’re a conspiracy theorist, who won’t accept any answer other than “I agree with you”.

    Don’t pretend that you’re here for debate, when it’s clear from your tone (such as your calls that I need to “crawl into a hole”, or calling others “Sweetie Pie”) that you’re here to troll (and rant, and yell). I’ll not spend time dealing with you any further, especially in light that you instructed your group to “Swamp” this post.

    But by all means keep posting crazier and crazier comments that keep undermining your own position.

  115. Kim Hebert says:

    Yeah, someone is making an idiot of themselves, alright. :) Take care, honey bun.

  116. Dianne Sousa says:

    Paul,

    You could have taken one of two routes to deal with my challenge of your claims. It seems you’ve chosen to dismiss them through a lame attempt to belittle me. The other more appropriate route would’ve been to refute my points. You’ve failed to do this.

    You don’t seem like a completely stupid man, so I’ll make my point one more time in a different way. You claim that wifi and related technologies are harmful, and can cause illness in people. You want to see policies changed and people held responsible for this harm. To justify this, you use the pile of anecdotes from people who claim to be ill from EMF’s including your own. When challenged to provide evidence for your own personal claim, you say that you should not have to prove anything. I should take this on your say so alone, and presumably I should take everyone elses claim as factual as well, in the absence of any evidence. On top of this, you want us to accept that these anecdotes constitute data, even though each bit of datum is completely unsubstantiated.

    This is riduclous in the context of your calls to reduce EMF use. These policies affect everyone, so you need to provide a strong justification for any changes you advocate for. If you want EMF policies changed because you’ve been hurt by cell phone towers, people will expect that you will provide evidence of the illness and evidence of its cause so that they can judge for themselves.

    If you can’t provide this, the small amount of scientific work that you think supports your cause is irrelevant. Without any independently verified victims of EMF, it is far more likely that the illnesses that people claim to have suffered from were caused by something else. This is why I called for proof of your personal story.

    While you continue to beat your anti-EMF drum and balk at our insistence that the onus is on you to provide good evidence for your claims, there are those whose lives are worse because of your fear mongering. If their illnesses were caused by something other than wifi, it is possible that their suffering would end with appropriate treatment. I wonder, do you have an honest concern for the victims that you claim exist? If so, it would be wise for you to engage in debate in a meaningful way.

  117. Jack says:

    lol, no shit sherlock

  118. Paul Doyon says:

    Diane,

    You are doing it again. You are putting words in my mouth and twisting the facts, which is obviously what this website is all about. I do not have to prove to you that I was sick. However, you are more than welcome to try to prove that I wasn`t. Good luck. I hope you can speak Japanese, because the doctors that I went to see do not speak English very well. ;)

    There are thousands of studies going back to the 1960s showing biological effects. Is that so difficult to understand? Along with this, there are Yes, anecdotal accounts from all over the world of people getting sick. Is it so difficult to put two and two together? Is it so difficult to connect the dots? Do you seriously think that all these people from all over the world are making it up?

    Like I stated before. People, who when presented with the facts, still don`t get it can be classified into four categories: (1) the pathological liars, (2) the compulsive arguers, (3) the psychological deniers, and (4) the willfully (or not) ignorant. And as I asked before and to which I did not receive an answer, “Which one are you?” I suspect a combination of “all of the above.”

    Anyone with an IQ over 100 will be able to discern this website for what it is: a load of horse shit. I am not sure who is funding it, but I imagine that he, she, or they are probably not too happy that you are losing your weak and full-of-holes arguments. No one is going to be convinced of your arguments unless they are really really stupid. Would you please stop speaking out of your asses! The onus is on you to prove that this technology is safe and not the other way around. Good luck!

  119. JJ says:

    Paul, thanks for that list. Projection’s a funny thing.

  120. Art Tricque says:

    “The onus is on you to prove that this technology is safe…” This is the “prove it safe gambit”, which for irrational fearmongerers usually means “prove it has zero risk”. This is a logical let alone a scientific impossibility. It is also a standard that those who request if apply very selectively. And even then, one would need to contrast the benefits of using a technology against any risks. On that basis, the use of microwaves measures up well: it provides economic and social benefits on a vast scale — everything from improved location services from GPS to faster and better responses to emergencies from public safety radio communications to greater productivity for business and personal users of mobile telephony — with, after 60 years of study, low probability of the risk of health issues.

  121. Dianne Sousa says:

    Paul,

    The point you ignore is that you have to be able to prove that you were ill because of the cell phone towers to have any reasonable expectation that you will be seen as credible. Every one of the anecdotal accounts you uncritically accept must be supported by strong evidence.

    Yes, it is difficult to put together the weak scientific evidence you provide with unsubstantiated anecdotal accounts. The conclusion you come to by doing this has very little chance of being correct. This is why we use a high standard to judge what is true from we simply want to be true. Never have I suggested that people who claim EMF induced sickness were making it up. I claim that they are simply wrong about the cause.

    The fact that you end your non-argument with a charge that this blog must have some type of shady funding shows that you are unable to deal with simple challenges to your claims. Do you honestly expect to tell a court or regulatory agency that they should prove that you were not sick? Prepare to be laughed out of the room.

  122. Steve Thoms says:

    Paul, you said,
    “Anyone with an IQ over 100 will be able to discern this website for what it is: a load of horse shit. I am not sure who is funding it, but I imagine that he, she, or they are probably not too happy that you are losing your weak and full-of-holes arguments”

    Paul, I’m so very glad you’re here. Really. I think I love that you’re commenting this way.

    Just….keep it up. If our mutual tactics are to help readers make their own minds up, You’re doing a wonderful job.

  123. Paul Doyon says:

    You are exactly right. Skepticism is not a belief. It is a disbelief. The kind of skepticism promoted on this site is Blind Skepticism. Another term we can use is Willful Ignorance. It is certainly not science and it is certainly not “critical thinking.” Critical theorists were skeptical of Positivism and Scientism. The Scientific Method is a tool. It is based on reductionism. It is a linear process. It is not an end in itself and it has its limitations. It is not a reified religious dogma as you seem to treat it here. Chaos/Complexity theory certainly has little use for it. And it cannot predict emergence, it cannot measure nonlinearity, and it does little to explain complex systems. Positivism is based on exactitude of measurement. Complex systems are not exact. The world is complex and there are many interacting variables involved in complex systems, which the scientific method cannot measure. Hence, the real world is not a test tube in which you can control variables. “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” “What you can count does not always count, and what counts you cannot always count.” Do you understand? Probably not. LOL

  124. Iris says:

    NO, this is twisting what I am saying. the libel is not because of the side one takes, the libel is a fact that this is what Steve is doing. If he had real arguments he would not need libel.
    But the point is that he is not entitled to exploit other people like that on his blog, no matter what his opinion is. It is not a legitimate method to do X on people for the sake of advancing anything.

  125. Dianne Sousa says:

    Iris,

    To be clear, in Canada a valid defence for libel is “fair comment”. This means that people are free to comment, even very harshly, on matters of public interest. Mr. Palmer hurts his own reputation by claiming expertise that he cannot reasonably claim to have, failing to provide credible evidence for any of his claims, and certainly for selling questionable products (though this does not affect the validity of his claims on wifi, it does raise questions about ethics). By publicly claiming that wifi is unsafe, and defending his own claims not with valid evidence, but by using his reputation as a concerned parent, he invites close scrutiny.

    Since Mr. Palmer has hurt his reputation more than anyone else, I suggest he sue himself for “gross negligence of reason”.

  126. Art Tricque says:

    Steve’s comments are not exploitative by any rational definition of the term. His comments are well within the bounds of polite discourse on the internet, let alone the rough-and-tumble world of blogs.

  127. Art Tricque says:

    Mr. Doyon commits yet another logical fallacy: we cannot win on the science, so we’ll attack the messenger instead. The attack is also illuminating, for it is another projection: labelling science as “religious dogma”. Skeptics here and elsewhere have enumerated and are quite aware of the limitations of the method. But it seems to be the best method around. Mr. Doyon certainly offers no other approach, except that we should believe people’s anecdotes about symptoms — symptoms like headaches and insomnia that are non-specific, that is they could come from any number of causes including psychosomatic ones, and for which no thorough scientific investigation is typically undertaken.

    I say “religious dogma” is a projection, because of the contrast between the skeptical approach and Mr. Doyon’s own stand: he believes the outcome that EMF causes health problems, and he does not care that the methods and evidence to suport the claim do not stand up to scrutiny.

    Finally, comments such as “Do you understand? Probably not. LOL” are quite tiresome. If it is his intention to engage in serious debate, and win over converts to his point of view, this approach — while within the bounds of the rough and tumble discourse on the internet — is undignified and offputting.

  128. Iris says:

    Iris says:
    November 16, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Art Tricque:

    Contents: first, show me the contents. He should get rid of slander first, as this is his contents right now. Quotes of others is hiding behind big bodies no matter who funds them.
    Despite that, I did relate to the ignorance presented here, and called all of you to read the Bioinitiative, of course, remembering that you are part of the big experiment we all take part in whether we like it or not.
    One of the people who responded me, Michael, I saw he admitted he thinks there is no value in books. How does this look for someone who wants to claim he is educated on any subject?

    Regarding funding: you misunderstood.He should present his website and who funds the website from the beginning, as a part of the website, honestly. That’s what an honest person does. But Steve Thoms has a very interesting motive, which he stated himself: to “prevent hysteria”- why is he bothered by “hysteria”?
    what is his interest to calm it down? No person has such an interest, “to prevent hysteria” without a reason.
    Instead he is calling other people, in a childish way, to prove who funds him.

    SCENIHR – you relate scientific approach to them: one of the key people of them was kicked out of IARC committee because of conflict of interest so he could not participate in the decision to classity RF as possible carcinogen? They are not the neutral symbol.

    Bioinitiative: don’t tell me what I read and what I don’t, because I did my homework. I do not see you relate to the DNA breaks that you support in making to people RIGHT NOW by ignoring REFLEX project, Henri Lai’s works, and other independent laboratories that showed this effect, and that are also presented in the Bioinitiative.
    As one example.
    Reply

  129. Paul Doyon says:

    ????? Attack the messenger?

  130. Paul Doyon says:

    Art, You are full of crap! This whole thread is just about what you are condemning. It is an Attack on Rodney Palmer. Talk about projection!

  131. By the Bioinitiative, do you mean the non-peer reviewed report by people who have a vested interest in keeping a controversy alive?

    As far as Steve’s interest in “preventing hysteria”, that sounds like a laudable goal in and of itself. If there was a fire in a crowded theatre, should one scream at the top of their lungs, or promote an orderly departure, or even look around and say ‘there is no fire, everyone sit back down”. Why would you criticize such an approach.

    I might ask why you and your group are promoting hysteria, because, clearly no one would do that without an ulterior motive.

  132. Iris says:

    Tell me why you call 2000 references an interest to keep controversy?
    What is your interest to shut up science? This is science.
    Are you skeptic only about people who show you risk?

    So you agree that the funding source was not disclosed on this website. If as you claim it’s a valid and positive interest, why is the funding source hidden?

    We don’t promote hysteria. Don’t you see the difference between emotions and scientific findings?

  133. Dianne Sousa says:

    Iris,

    I’m doing everything I can to consider you merely foolishly wrong, and not irresponsible, but it’s comments like this one that try my patience.

    There is no funding source of this website to disclose, as we are all volunteers. There is no hidden funding source. There is no funding source at all. You have no cogent reason to think otherwise. We are all individual skeptics with an interest in promoting science and critical thinking. Your suspicions are unfounded.

    Allow me to use a little of your own logic against you. If YOU had “real arguments” you would not need to throw around accusations of clandestine funding.

    Simply because you have some references, does not mean that they are scientific, or that they should be considered with the same weight as studies that show the opposite. Some of the studies you think are so convincing may be of low quality, some may be irrelevant, and some will consist of findings that show that EMF has negative effects in error.

    Tell me Iris, what standard are you using to decide what is good science and what is not?

  134. Iris says:

    Dianne,
    What makes you downplay findings of risks that were peer reviewed
    in scientific journals for the past 20 years?

    Why do you care about my standards, I did not see you explained yours. Don’t tell me what I have reason to believe and what not.
    You downplay risk findings as what? as a “Scientific argument”?
    so your whole idea is to call risk findings non scientific?
    what a ridiculous approach is this? if you are a thinking person,
    you should not classify risk findings as non scientific just because they imply that the env. you live in is not safe as you would like to assume.

    Tell me, Dianne, what is YOUR interest to downplay risk?

  135. Dianne Sousa says:

    Iris,

    I just explained to you why you should be skeptical of study findings that show risk. If they are in error, which they almost certainly are, there is no risk to downplay. You know, because there is no risk.

    Madam, the consensus science that is being discussed here is also published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Do you dispute this fact? You need to explain why you reject the consensus in favour of another position. If the answer here has to do with industry influence biasing findings, you have to show the presence and nature of the bias.

  136. Paul Doyon says:

    It sure is JJ. You would know!

  137. Paul Doyon says:

    OK, Art. Whatever you say?

  138. Iris says:

    Dianne,

    A. The fact that your basic assumption is that a risk is probably a mistake in the findings, shows you ignore actual peer reviewed findings that were replicated. What is your reasoning to ignore peer reviewed, replicated findings?

    B. As you wish, I present it to you and your friends: you asked for it:

    In addition to industry funding involvement in the Interphone, several authors participating in the Interphone
    received additional funding from their national mobile phone companies ref: Schoemaker 2005; Lahkola 2005; Schuz 2006; Hours 2007; Vriheid 2009 or by other private companies: Christensen et al 2005; Johansen 2001; Schuz 2006. These funds are not written in the Interphone protocol.

    Interphone and other studies: Muscat – two studies industry funded, Lakhola 2005,Schoemaker 2005; Christensen 2005; Lonn 2005; Christensen 2004; Lonn 2004; Hepworth 2006; Lakhola 2007; Sadetzki 2008; Lakhola 2008; Morgan (Motorola) 2000; Johansen 2001 industry funded-

    all these negative studies do not make declaration on conflict of interest

    Three: Schuz 2006; Lonn 2006; Schlehofer 2007; state “conflict of interest – non declared”, not clear if it’s coming from the editor or authors; and Takebayashi 2006 (Japan); Klaeboe 2007 (Norway); Hours 2007 (France); Takebayashi 2008 – declare: “conflict of interest: none”

    Source: Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies – how do they arise? Angelo G Levis et al Environmental Health 2011, 10:59 2011

    These are facts, Dianne, that you and your group insist of ignoring, not realizing that the joke is at your expense.
    Instead of recognizing it, you deny and deny and deny.
    Wake up.

  139. Paul Doyon says:

    Like I said, the (1) Pathological Liars, (2) Psychological Deniers, (3) Perpetual Arguers, and (4) Pompous Ignorami. It has a bit of a ring to it, doesn`t it?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] The WiFi hysteria in Ontario is still going on, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that WiFi is perfectly [...]

  2. [...] in a while, a scare hits the media about the dangers of Wi-Fi use. Whether they are talking about cell phones or wireless routers, the scaremongering remains the same. Cancer. We are all going to die from cancer that develops as [...]

  3. [...] and are generally the scourge of society. This story has been followed closely by bloggers at Skeptic North and have tracked its development in Canada. Despite the dubious history and background of the [...]


  • Steve Thoms

    Steve is a professional music teacher living in Kitchener, Ontario. He studied recorded music production at Fanshawe College, and Political Studies/History at Trent University, where he specialized in political economy and global politics. He is an amateur astronomer, and an award-winning astro-photographer. Steve also runs the blog, Oot and Aboot with Some Canadian Skeptic." can can be followed on Twitter, @SomeCndnSkeptic.