Levitt and Lai Peddling Discredited EMF Science

In an ongoing attempt to keep Canadian politicians informed about the true state of scientific evidence surrounding microwave radiation for communications, the kind used in cell phones and wireless networks, the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) at the Centre for Inquiry (CFI), Canada submitted a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) last Monday, November 8th.  This year, HESA has been investigating the possible effects of low-level microwave radiation on public health and has deposed many different speakers.  The transcripts to two of the interesting depositions can be found here and here, the latter having been conducted just a few weeks ago on October 28th.

Last week, we published a critique by CFI science advisor Lorne Trottier and electronics engineer Harvey Kovsky of the most recent “scientific” study by Magda Havas, promoter of the idea of “dirty electricity” and electro-hypersensitivity syndrome.  This week, on the heels of the reportage by the CBC and an article this Saturday in the Montreal Gazzette, we present another critique, this time of an article that appeared originally in a Canadian National Research Council publication the Environmental Reviews.  In this review, B. Blake Levitt, a science journalist who has published 2 books on EHS and the supposed dangers of EMF, and Henry Lai, an original author of the now debunked Bioinitiative Report, present a re-hashing of old science and try to make their case that there is such a thing as EHS and that we should be worried about low-level microwave radiation, an idea that has been refuted by Health Canada and several other agencies.

It is suspected , because Lai, Levitt, and Havas have not had much success in promoting these ideas and have been denied legislative change in the United States, that any adoption of changes to the laws in Canada would strengthen their case in other, larger, jurisdictions.  CASS is determined to not let this happen in Canada, and copies of the Havas and Levitt and Lai critiques have been sent to HESA in an effort to counter the fallacious claims being made by these purveyors of bad science.

(the HESA brief and both of these critiques are also available in french, so you can contact cass@cficanada.ca to receive these versions)

The original version of this article can be found here.

Critique of the Levitt and Lai Article

By Lorne Trottier

Introduction

This is a critique of an article by Levitt and Lai entitled “Biological effectsfrom exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays” that was published by the Canadian NRC.

The Levitt & Lai article is supposed to be an exposé of the myriad health risks from cell phone towers and WiFi. But in reality it is little more than a repackaging of an old set of arguments and studies from the discredited BioInitiative Report (BIR). The BIR was self published in 2007 by a well known group of alarmists to promote their claims about the harmful effects of EMF. See our web page on the BIR. Henry Lai is one of the authors of the BIR. The BIR has been roundly criticized by a number of mainstream scientific organizations such as the EMF-NET Committee of the European Union, the COMAR Committee of the IEEE, the Heath Council of the Netherlands, and several others.

Levitt & Lai’s article revives this old material. Levitt is a free lance “science” journalist, not a scientist, who has written other anti EMF tracts. Henry Lai is the author of a number of papers on the biological effects of EMF which were rejected by mainstream scientists, because his results could not be replicated by other scientists. For example his papers of 1995 & 1996 which purported to find that EMF causes damage to DNA have been widely criticized. Other scientists have failed to reproduce his results (Malyapa et al. 1997 *1 and Lagroye et al. 2004 *2). The Levitt & Lai article includes Lai’s own discredited study of DNA breaks, but it does not include the studies that refute it. This is true for the virtually all the studies cited in the article.

The fact that Levitt & Lai, who are American, arranged for the publication of this article by the National Research Council of Canada at this time, rather than in a scientific journal, is an indication of the likely purpose of their article, which is to influence the political debate on WiFi in Canada

Biological Effects

Levitt & Lai’s article opens with a review of basic cell phone and WiFi technology. They cover some of the history of this technology and its growing mass market penetration. Their summary is very simplistic and contains some basic technical errors on issues such as why cell towers are more closely spaced than in the past (because there are many more users, not because of “shorter wavelengths”). It is full of highly suggestive and alarmist language. The article goes on to provide commentary on an extensive list of impressive sounding studies that purport to show harmful biological effects from low level EMF exposure – the kind produced by cellular telephone base stations and WiFi devices.

The most glaring oversight by Levitt & Lai is that they ignored the existence of numerous objective assessments of the scientific literature on EMF by mainstream public health authorities. These assessments are based on a balanced approach and look at ALL studies, both positive and negative based on criteria established by the WHO:

“All studies, with either positive or negative effects, need to be evaluated and judged on their own merit, and then all together in a weight-of-evidence approach. It is important to determine how much a set of evidence changes the probability that exposure causes an outcome. Generally, studies must be replicated or be in agreement with similar studies. The evidence for an effect is further strengthened if the results from different types of studies (epidemiology and laboratory) point to the same conclusion.”

Using this approach, mainstream scientists have determined that studies showing harm, such as the ones cited by Levitt & Lai, used a poor methodology and/or have not been replicated in follow up studies. In fact, most have been strongly refuted by far more comprehensive and rigorous studies. In many cases, serious flaws have been found with studies that show harm. An excellent example of such an assessment is a 2009 report by the SCENIHR Committee of the European Commission entitled Health Effects of Exposure to EMF.  It stated (P 4) that:

“It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans.”

The science advisory bodies of virtually every industrialized country including the WHO, the American Cancer Society, and Health Canada, and similar organizations in Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden  have published similar assessments with analogous conclusions: the is no credible evidence of health effects from EMF.

The failure by Levitt & Lai to provide a balanced assessment is an exercise in alarmism designed to bamboozle the public and is totally contrary to an objective scientific approach. The public is not equipped to understand hundreds of highly technical studies. The public health authorities are constantly reviewing the scientific literature looking at all new studies. In fact Health Canada recently released a statement about the Levitt & Lai article saying that “No new data is presented” and “…the conclusions made by the authors are not based on a full examination of the scientific evidence”.

Electrohypersensitivity

Levitt & Lai then go on to describe a laundry list of non specific symptoms that have come to be grouped under the label of electrohypersensitivity or EHS. These symptoms include headache, fatigue, depression, hyper activity, skin rashes, heart palpitations, etc. These are common symptoms that many people experience as a result of the stresses and strains of modern life. He suggests that this grab bag of symptoms may be due to the alleged harmful biological effects ascribed to EMF according to his selected studies.

There are two main problems with this leap of illogical deduction. First, as has already been pointed out, the poorly done studies quoted by Levitt & Lai have been roundly rejected by mainstream scientists. If harmful biological effects from EMF do not exist, it seems impossible for this to cause EHS symptoms. Second, virtually all double blind studies that been conducted on individuals who claim to be electrosensitive have shown that EMF does not cause any symptoms. Rubin et al have done a systematic overview of all (46) double blind studies. They consistently show negative results. Levitt & Lai are honest enough to mention a few of these double blind studies, and not a single one supports their electrosensitivity claims. Double blind testing is the gold standard of evidence in science.

Yet somehow Levitt & Lai manage to ignore the obvious conclusions of these key studies and insist that the beliefs of EHS individuals cannot be wrong. They cite a number of non double blind studies such as surveys of people living near cell phone towers. These “studies” amount to little more than opinion polls of people who associate their EHS symptoms with their proximity to these towers. They state: “It makes little sense to keep denying health symptoms that are being reported in good faith”. This is the illogic of the children’s fable about the sky is falling where Chicken Little whips up the populace into a state of mass hysteria. This is not science.

The alarmist community, which includes a small but very vocal group of scientists such as Lai, is engaged in a campaign to actively disseminate their pseudo-scientific studies to the public. They even have their own self appointed organization with the impressive sounding name: International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS). They are attempting to do an end run around the mainstream scientists responsible for public health standards. Their goal is to alarm enough members of the public to believe that the “sky is falling” with respect to EMF, and use this to sway politicians to do their bidding.

An excellent recent example of this was a recent flair up in Barrie Ontario, where a group of parents alleged that their kids where getting sick in school due to the presence of WiFi. This included all the usual non specific EHS symptoms such as heart palpitations. This got carried to the point where Rodney Palmer, a spokesman for the parents, in testimony before a Canadian Parliamentary hearing, claimed that a couple of children had suffered “heart attacks” due to WiFi in their schools. He cited a recent “study” written by Dr. Magda Havas, one of the leading alarmists to back up his claim. The Havas study is so fatally flawed that a first year medical student could debunk it.

This tactic has already achieved some “success” in Europe and a few other countries where politicians have ignored the advice of their own scientists to impose new restrictions on EMF. This is also similar to the tactics of the anti-vaccine movement, and climate change deniers. The motivations of the individuals in these groups varies, but one of the most harmful effects on society that they share is similar. This is the growing distrust of science and rationality by the public. In a society that is totally dependent on science and technology, such irrational beliefs can have devastating consequences.

Conclusion

It is beyond the scope of this document to comment on every “study” that is cited in the Levitt & Lai article. We have refuted a handful of examples such as some of the DNA studies conducted by Lai himself. We could have discussed and refuted many others, but this is not the point. Full and ongoing assessments of the scientific literature for any possible threats to public health are the responsibility of publicly appointed health science bodies throughout the world. Virtually all these bodies are unanimous in their conclusion that EMF within current limits poses no threat to health. When the public and politicians start paying attention to charlatans with a pseudoscientific agenda while ignoring their own science experts, we are treading on dangerous ground.

References

  1. Malyapa RS, Ahern EW, Straube WL, Moros EG, Pickard WF, Roti Roti JL. Measurement of DNA damage after exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation. Radiat Res 148:608–617; 1997.
  2. Lagroye I, Anane R, Wettring BA, Moros EG, Straube WL, Laregina M, Niehoff M, Pickard WF, Baty J, Roti Roti JL. Measurement of DNA damage after acute exposure to pulsed wave 2450 microwaves in rat brain cells by two alkaline comet assay methods. Int J Radiat Biol 80:11–21; 2004.

Dr. Lorne Trottier. is an electronics engineer, a co-founder of Matrox a major hi-tech company. He is President of the Foundation of the Montreal Science Center, and has an honorary doctorate from McGill University. He has spent considerable time (with colleagues from McGill) putting together the web site www.emfandhealth.com which contains a wealth of information and credible scientific references on the issue of EMF and health. Included on the web site are references to statements from most of the world’s public health organizations attesting to the fact that there is no credible scientific evidence that EMF causes health effects. Dr. Trottier is a member of the CFI Canada board and a science adviser to the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) at the Centre for Inquiry Canada.

131 Responses to “Levitt and Lai Peddling Discredited EMF Science”

  1. Thomas Doubts says:

    An excellent critique by Dr. Trottier. Great piece and great work. Further to the issue is the disturbing bandwagon-jumping by some federal and provincial NDP MPs and MPPs. The member in my riding (Carole Hughes, Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing) even released a column calling on the federal government to alter Safety Code 6 guidelines which set out safe EMF exposure levels, arguing that there is no scientific consensus on safe levels of EMF exposure, and parroting the vague symptom claims by electromagnetic hypersensitivity proponents like Lai and Levitt. Attempts like this to influence policy (and drum up a few votes no doubt) without taking the time to critically examine claims does a disservice to constituents, and by extension, potentially all Canadians. It is unfortunate that media outlets fail continually to call politicians on the hogwash that often vomits forth from their craws. As a small town reporter, I’ve probably been guilty of this on occasion as well. But in this instance, I was not, and dedicated my monthly column (Everyday Skeptic #15 “Baby, don’t fear the WIFI”) to calling out Ms Hughes for her driveling spew. If anyone’s interested, check it out at http://www.kapuskasingtimes.com.

  2. deever says:

    Let’s start with the intro here: Why provide links to HESA testimony for only Apr 27 & Oct 28? Why not the most important of all, Apr 29? Here for the curious, http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4478290&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3 . Or hear it at http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=6050 . You will hear Johansson, Panagopoulos, Goldsworthy, Sasco. Even within the severe constraints, the effect of their testimony is significant, and must be contrasted to these so-called debunkers.

    It is interesting as well that, of all the meetings with webcast icons attached to the regular HESA webpage listing of meetings, these meetings 12 & 13 at HESA, to which so very many have been referred, have suddenly & unaccountably disappeared. Further, that Oct 28 meeting 34 was strange indeed. The only worthwhile & interesting testimony from an active scientist in the field, Blank, was very short indeed. But read or listen to it.

    • Art Tricque says:

      “the effect of their testimony is significant”

      A comment of marvelous hyperbole and an assertion, nothing more.

  3. deever says:

    [there should have been an apostrophe in my comment just made re the misssing icons, "meetings['] 12 & 13″]

  4. deever says:

    Further re the intro above: you are invited to follow my namesakes’ (with suffix, ‘two) very many comments at the CBC story linked to.

    Also omitted was the slightly better piece at http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/science-et-technologie/201011/12/01-4342185-antennes-relais-cellulaires-les-preuves-deffets-biologiques-saccumulent.php , “Antennes relais cellulaires: les preuves d’effets biologiques s’accumulent”.

    “debunked Bioinitiative Report” : that would be hard to do indeed, a rather large bibliography involved, eh?

    “a re-hashing of old science” : apparently too late for inclusion in their timely study were recent ones from Selbitz, Bavaria (broad symptomolgy) & (cancer) Belo Horizonte, Brazil, corroborating prior studies on the grave dangers of exposure to cell base station radiation. The former in translation at http://www.scribd.com/doc/38565331/Specific-Health-Symptoms-and-Cell-Phone-Radiation-in-Selbitz-Bavaria-Germany-%E2%80%94-Evidence-of-a-Dose-Response-Relationship .

    “adoption of changes to the laws in Canada ” : Whereas Liechtenstein almost led the way in testing significantly reduced base station output (an industry-spurred referendum overturned a Parliamentary initiative), France is now at the forefront in tentative administrative redress, by testing at least 17 localities similarly. Note well that the EU Parliament itself (see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0410+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN ) has taken rather seriously this “debunked” Bioinitiative Report.

    • Michael Kruse says:

      @Deever: More info is better, thanks for the link for April 28th as well.

      And now that you have mentioned it, here is a page listing the reports criticizing the BIR:

      http://www.emfandhealth.com/Criticism%20Bio-Intitiative.html

    • Art Tricque says:

      The Selbitz study; yes, that’s published in a respectable journal indexed in Pubmed…no it’s not. Not evidence.

      • deever says:

        you bring no evidence here of “no evidence”, don’t waste time

        it is hoped at least one other in your skeptish group is unafraid to read the actual paper for his/herself

      • Art Tricque says:

        Sorry, if the Selbitz “study” was not published in a quality (read Pubmed-indexed) peer-reviewed journal, then it counts as the Selbitz story. It has much less weight as evidence. Yes, I read it in the original German. Much less open to false interpretation because of differences been the original language and the translation.

    • Art Tricque says:

      Re Liechtenstein Yes, industry is always bad. Let’s ascribe more nefarious deeds to them. More alarmist tactics: can’t win on science, so fight with PR and disparage and allege…
      BTW Deever, what standard should we implement in Canada?

      • deever says:

        more silly comment discouraging me from reading more of what this replier posted

        but BTW a suggestion for HESA:
        …………
        EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

        4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;
        …………

        i’ll leave it to you to search for the stringency

  5. deever says:

    Now some quick remarks on Trottier’s bit, whose other poor piece deever also commented on at http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Relax+Cellphones+WiFi+safe/3489704/story.html#comments .

    “revives this old material” — they have been preceded, eg, by Khurana, Hardell et al in looking at mast studies, http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana_et_al_IJOEH-Base_Station_RV.pdf , “Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations”.

    “EMF causes damage to DNA have been widely criticized” – what Trottier will not tell you is that his studies are not alone in such findings, nor will Trottier tell you about the well-documented fraud involved on the mainstream side he is championing (see eg Devra Davis recent, Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family)

    “because there are many more users, not because of “shorter wavelengths”” — woe to us about the former, but does the latter not enter into it at all?

    “mainstream public health authorities[' ...] assessments are based on a balanced approach and look at ALL studies” — what Trottier does not tell you is that this begs the question of co-optation, culturally and otherwise, of said authorities; nor that, eg, this very same Dr Lai examined and found a disproportion of industry-connected studies on Trottier’s mainstream side of the scale finding no effect, whereas, what should be much more interesting for impartiality — who on earth would want to impugn such a technology without serious basis? — a similar disproportion the other way for independents. A central reason “Health” Canada’s “Safety” Code 6 is under review at HESA is just this apparent corruption of scientific pursuit, definitely not without precedent where enormous commercial & other interests are involved (eg on HC itself, see Shiv Chopra’s, Corrupt to the Core; for general background, see eg David Michaels’ (now working in the Obama administration,if you need mainstream approbation), Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Sheldon Krimsky’s, Science In The Private Interest: Has The Lure Of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?, McGarity & Wagner, Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. There is plenty more.

    “weight-of-evidence approach” — thus it is that $ & muscle account for this weight

    “different types of studies (epidemiology and laboratory) point to the same conclusion” — at HESA, the MPs heard on the side of right in effective condemnation of the status quo Trottier would have us “relax” about, concurring scientists from disparate fields all

    “poor methodology and/or have not been replicated in follow up studies” — some of the alleged poverty might be alleviated by fair funding distribution, no? And why on earth would WHO discourage mast danger studies? (We know why. Read, eg, Donald Maisch, The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications.) And what sane reviewer of even the “poor” literature overwhelmingly showing danger, could come away not being one of Trottier’s “alarmists”? Trottier’s “science” seems to imply abdication of some basic elements of human rationality.

    all i can make time for for now, will try to continue later, let’s see the skeptos step up & argue

  6. Composer99 says:

    Because, you know, the EU Parliament is the final arbiter of what constitutes good science or good epidemiology.

    • deever says:

      Great reply, Composer’. Really useful. I dare you to actually examine some of the material I have sampled for you here already. Then maybe you might come to agree with those politicians.

      • Michael5MacKay says:

        I have reviewed the material you cited. I don’t agree. Inadequate funding does not make bad science good.

      • Art Tricque says:

        Composer is right on the money, Devra – oops. As usual in the alarmist camp, Deever exaggerates the significance of poor evidence, in this case the EU Parliament resolution referring to the Bioinitiative Report. Yes, the self-published on the internet tract, that two years later was published in an obscure journal, only because the guest editor of the issue was a key member of the Bioinitiative Report! I am sure the articles underwent thorough peer-review. Are you sure you wish to deal with ethics, Deever? Returning to our main topic…

        Since the alarmist camp cannot win the scientific debate, they are now focusing on politicians and the media. The EU Parliament result was an omnibus environmental resolution that covered a whole host of topics, including funding for certain environmental projects. So not likely to be voted down, and certainly not a focused resolution about microwaves and health. It came about because the EU Environment agency wrote one of the Bioinitiative Report chapters, pleading precaution, so not arising from compelling science. And, when the body properly charged by the EU Commission to examine the *science* around the issue, the SCENIHR, examined it for the *third* time, in part because of the resolution, they once again came to the same conclusion: not an issue. I highly recommend the SCENIHR report; it actually reads like a scientific report rather than a PR tract. And it covers a whole series of EMF and evidence categories in a sober, rational and comprehensive way. No, the EU Parliamentary resolution is not a sound reason for or basis by which we in Canada should address the issue of microwaves and health.

      • deever says:

        Michael5MacKay — you read Maisch so quickly? stop with the worthless “bad science” tag; neither does $ nec. make for good study; this is an enormous problem in large part brought about by a situation of deep corruption, to combat which lay people must wade in and sort out what they can, as well as bring to bear much wider elements of human rationality than yield useless tags like “bad science”

      • deever says:

        “Composer is right on the money, Devra – oops”
        OK, {F}art, is that the way you go about things, playing with names. I sharply & publicly criticize Davis, btw, for mild prescriptions and deliberately ignoring main danger from infrastructure. Her bringing fraud stories is however most beneficial.

        “And it covers a whole series of EMF and evidence categories in a sober, rational and comprehensive way.” — I doubt the comprehensiveness very much, but hope to look at it even if recommended by you

  7. deever says:

    a few more minutes to quickly comment some more, picking up from where i left off:

    what is “non specific” about the symptoms listed?

    I know someone with “headache”, guess what, abates at distance from offending emitters.

    I know someone with “fatigue” from severe insomnia, guess what, abates at distance from offending emitters.

    I know someone with “depression”, guess what, abates at distance from offending emitters.

    I know someone who developed “skin rashes” — gone at shut off of offending emitters.

    I know someone with “heart palpitations”, guess what, abates at distance from offending emitters.

    What about probably the most widespread of all, Frey effect hearing — Trottier to tell sufferers this is “non-adverse”?

    “stresses and strains of modern life” — a very scientific comment, thank you

    “He suggests”, “his selected” — who? There were two authors. You must mean Lai?

    “this leap of illogical deduction” — yes, we know someone who suffers adult-onset seizures (neurologist clueless; no drug abuse nor trauma either) when & only when in close enough proximity to offending emitters; Trottier we suppose would have this person on anti-seizure medication side effects & all, instead by a leap of illogic this person self-distances from offending emitters, seizures go away…too logical for Trottier, we suppose

    “impossible for this to cause EHS symptoms” — eg, Ericsson engineer, impossible: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected , “The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves”

    “virtually all double blind studies” — notorious difficulties with such studies, not the least of which is non-uniformity of individuals’ response in various situations, particularly their immune functions at the time, which even could be “up” while participating in provocation; (see also trenchant comment by Lai & Levitt about whom was left out of certain studies); what is most important of all is that there are indeed people on the record as being consistently able to detect EM insult at provocation — only the deliberately incurious fail to examine closely such interesting cases, instead of “risk analyzing” them out by averaging; do a study on me re testing for ability to “hear”, say, “smart” (stupid) utility meter emissions, even at microW levels

    “gold standard of evidence” – not if the basic conceptuality or methodology is flawed, how silly

    “little more than opinion polls” — what hogwash! And go tell even, say, political pollsters who repeatedly predict with reasonable accuracy that they are working on fairytale non-science — does one maybe need a specific gadget to be a scientist? Further, the early leading research in the field, in E. Europe (stunning the Americans in their Moscow Embassy, eh?, usefully mentioned in the study), most reasonably actually asked people how said they felt — imagine that, instead of firing at a bag of saline solution and averaging and then reducing to 1/10 hr based on temperature dissipation alone…talk about ludicrous basis for judging health effect, ignore the outcry, but watch that thermometer

    “pseudo-scientific studies ” — do even skeptish readers here not see his rhetoric is not worth much?

    “self appointed organization” — what a laugh! go, read Maisch, his Procrustean Approach is of grim but apt title; that’s like, eg, accusing Bioinitiative people of cherry-picking studies, when a main point was to pick up those unreasonably cast off by the orthodox; talk about question-begging — but you see, apart from the corrupt, for Trottier et al this is a question of truth by coherence with their set of rules, regardless of general practicality or correspondence or perception or alternate theory, so I’ll give him points for that, as long as his ilk don’t seize public policy any longer

    “impressive sounding name” — great way to argue substance, eh? look what he is reduced to; take his august COMAR, eg, I think initiated after the public controversy generated by Brodeur a generation ago in heroic journalism not seen today (from reasons cognate to this travesty, it should be added), the “Committee On MAn & Radiation” — whose got the name! (a fun aside, if you know a Semitic language, is the priestly connotation to those consonants, very apt, i’d say, the high priests of the recalcitrant orthodoxy)

    “non specific EHS symptoms such as heart palpitations” — again, what’s “non specific” (try a hyphen while you’re at it)

    “Havas study is so fatally” — too bad for the flaws & lack of basic rigour, I’d say that public criticism is very good there, I had questions myself, but a stethoscope & timer can yield interesting results as well, and so what if one layperson relies on one questionable study? Why not argue more on substance, instead of trying to own the term, ‘science’, and all the adjectives it is common to attach thereto?

    “ignored the advice of their own scientists” — and paid attention to valuable dissent, obviously sniffing bad stuff behind the orthodox

    “growing distrust of science [...] by the public” — apart from the EMF-induced sickness & worse, maybe the sorriest result of the behaviour catalogued by, eg, Michaels (see book above), but credulous defenders of the indefensible here seem oblivious

    “growing distrust of [...] rationality by the public” — sorry, but narrow overspecialization has had rather had the side effect of narrowing of basic rationality; funny thing, those into “science” seem too often oblivious to science being subject to scientific scrutiny itself

    “society that is totally dependent on science and technology, such irrational beliefs can have devastating consequences” — the crux of the matter indeed: edit to “[over]dependent on”, and again, quit with trying to own the term ‘rationality’, see what reversal of devastation follows

    “We have refuted a handful of examples such as some of the DNA studies conducted by Lai himself” — you have done no such thing; there are numerous studies showing DNA breakage or response; from eg the 2nd HESA link above,
    “Just yesterday, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine reported that only four hours of exposure from a laptop with Wi-Fi on can damage DNA in sperm.”; “it looks as if the DNA is picking up all kinds of frequencies”; “you see that DNA is actually made like a fractal antenna”; “We have taken the DNA apart and found the pieces of DNA that actually respond to the EMF. “; “We have actually taken the DNA that responds to the EMF and transferred it to another piece of DNA, which we can turn on. We have shown that we can use this piece of DNA as an electromagnetic trigger. Columbia University owns the patent for this.”; from the Apr 29th meeting, “We can see the characteristic fluorescence denoting DNA fragmentation and cell death.”; “the presented findings are in agreement with the results of other experimenters who are reporting DNA damage in mammalian cells or mammalian and human infertility”; “Sperm are particularly sensitive because they are haploid, which means they have only one set of genes, and they are unable to repair doubled-stranded DNA breaks.”

    “Virtually all these bodies are unanimous” — list the dissenters for your skeptish audience, why not? Kruse just said, “More info is better”; why not talk about how the Russian academy still mocks your standards & methodology? I can show you stuff from 30 & 20 years ago on that, eg; what about the Chinese?

    “charlatans” — why don’t you name them specifically, Lorne, the maybe several hundred or thousand dissenters? From that study link to which (predictably?) omitted above, from (“charlatan”?)
    Dr Johansson, “that would also mean that thousands of papers would be wrong at the same time, and that has never, ever happened in science”

    • Michael5MacKay says:

      Dr. Johannson’s testimony before the Committee contained the single most stupidly unscientific comment I’ve ever seen. Did you spot it Deever? Tell me what it was: if you can’t, you really shouldn’t be trying to discuss the issue.

    • Art Tricque says:

      Deever, if you cannot understand the illogic of relying on your anecdotes as a sound basis for conducting a scientific argument, then you should stop all your commenting on the topic of microwaves and health. If you cannot understand statistics to know that by chance anyone might predict the outcome of any course of experiments with complete accuracy, if you cannot understand that non-specific symptoms are called that because they might result from any one of hundreds of causes, if you cannot understand that someone’s symptoms might abate because the cause they *think* is responsible is extinguished, if you cannot understand that the funding source of any study does not annul the results of the study, if you cannot understand that articles, studies or new theories only supported by positive evidence or arguments and which do not refute opposing evidence or arguments transgress rules of discussion taught in primary school, if you cannot understand that anyone can apply for public funds to conduct scientific research and that the fact that no Canadian alarmist seemingly ever has had an award is a sign of the poor regard for their work…

      • deever says:

        “illogic of relying on your anecdotes” — basically, you are demonstrating incapacity to engage, for illogical declaration of “illogic”, except in terms of the narrowest set of rules, as commented on already

        when eg a prominent astrophysicist tells me that complexity of biology with even anecdote as central is supplanting “simpliciity” of physics in some ladder of esteem, & a prominent mathematician tells me that untold frontiers in the field are expected from brain study, and i am well aware of historic gross complacency among touters of other scientific & political & economic paradigms (cf a century or so ago & the beginning of the demise of the last anglo -centric empire), such warning words from an Art Trique & co pale

        you do typify your crew in cavalier talk of “causation”, deafness to what people say they feel, incapacity to conceive of the sometimes possible inapplicability or non-usefulness of placebo-nocebo talk, inability to justify arbitrary bars of statistical interest, inability to face corruption re comparative funding or to conceive the necessity of wholesale makeover of sci. funding, inability to btw grasp that ‘primary school” is a big part of the societal problem leading to this juncture, should i dot-dot-dot this as well…?

    • Art Tricque says:

      …if you cannot understand that a Canadian academic who in 35 years has never published any research on microwaves in any respectable journal is not a credible source and deserves contempt, if you cannot understand that using Soviet and Chinese theories developed decades ago as the basis for questioning Western standards is trenchant nonsense, if you cannot understand that alleging by citing books that all the regulatory scientists and regulatory bodies are subject to capture or some vast conspiracy is irrational, if you cannot understand how in-vitro evidence directly challenged by contradictory in-vitro, animal and human evidence lacks weight, if you cannot understand that alarmists penning review articles who put on par small, self-selected survey evidence comprised of tens of data points with rigorous statistical analyses of thousands of respondents (or even forget to mention the latter at all) are at least guilty of shoddy work, if you cannot understand how the alarmist position contradicts all we know of physics, biology and electronics is intellectual in-curiosity, if you cannot understand that clinging to the alarmist position after decades of research rather than heroism is the height of scientific cowardice…if you cannot understand all that, then you live in a world of beliefs, alien and so far removed from the realm of the skeptic as to remove all weight from your comments.

      • deever says:

        “…if you cannot understand that a Canadian academic who in 35 years has never published any research on microwaves in any respectable journal is not a credible source and deserves
        contempt,”

        – why don’t you dare to name the person? I have had trouble with lack of rigour of expression of some academics, but they rather need assistance from capable complementary others, not “contempt” from blinkered fools (don’t worry, i won’t name anyone)

        ” if you cannot understand that using Soviet and Chinese theories developed decades ago as the basis for questioning Western standards is trenchant nonsense,”

        –they still are reticent or even mocking of your methods, let me dig up a quote or two…
        ………….
        “in his review of the IEEE’s data-base, theoretical biophysicist
        Vladimir N. Binhi from the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote that the
        IEEE’s dismissal of non-thermal effects was essentially based on
        flawed reasoning. According to Binhi, the IEEE incorrectly considered
        non-thermal effects as not possible since they contradict the known
        laws of physics and evidence for such effects are simply artefacts
        since they are not replicated in other labs. Where they have been
        replicated, IEEE considered that they had no significance for human
        health. Binhi analysed the IEEE data-base used as the rationale for
        the IEEE standard. Although it contained over 1300 references, a
        discrepancy is seen between the number of non-thermal papers sited in
        the IEEE standard compared to a 2005 Swedish review of research on non-
        thermal biological effects of microwaves. This review, by Igor
        Belyaev, included 115 references
        for peer reviewed and published non-thermal research papers, of which
        only about 25% are referenced by IEEE’s RF/MW standard. Another 85
        recently published papers, most showing non-thermal effects, were not
        included in the references for the IEEE standard. Given this
        discrepancy, Binhi stated that “consumers of the electromagnetic
        safety standards might expect a more attentive and careful attitude to
        human health.” [i'd say -- wouldn't you, dear readers?][from Maisch]
        …………..
        …………….
        [more info still good, Mr Kruse?]

        From Electromagnetic Interaction with Biological Systems (’89, Lin,
        ed.) in Part III, “Panel Discussion on Standards” (Raytheon’s
        Osepchuk, moderator):
        …………………………………

        [after mentioning the now late Dr. Ross Adey's referring to findings
        where "intermittent exposures may be more effective than continuous
        exposure", Adey:]

        “Therefore, the question of time constants cannot be discussed simply
        on the comfortable notions of Schwan and others that we’re going to
        take a look at the question of where and how quickly the body heating
        occurs and how quickly it cools off. That is frivolous, trivial and
        irrelevant.”

        [...]

        [Polish expert] Dr. Korniewicz [...] stated the original objective of
        standards as the protection of workers during 45 years of work from
        injury to the workers or their progeny. This is basic and must be
        enforced during a lifetime and not just for a few years. The
        threshold of highest permissible dose derives from ideas on maximum
        levels of exposure to chemicals. In the field of electromagnetics the
        analogous level is that of thermal effects. Time averaging is in many
        cases inappropriate – e.g., 6 minutes is too long for pulse fields.

        The next idea is to consider a “dose” not just for 6 months but for a
        long period. In Poland there is a trend to use dose limits in RF
        exposure standards. It is the opinion in Poland that the approach
        with dose rate limits by IRPA and western countries is unwise.

        Another concept accepted in Poland is the time for restitution. After
        8 hours of exposure it is desirable to have at least 10 hours of no
        exposure before the next exposure. [...]

        The resonance theory inherent in western standards is oversimplified
        according to Dr. Korniewicz. Though average SAR is higher at
        resonance the distribution of absorbed power is fairly uniform inside
        the body. At much higher frequencies, however, the SAR is
        concentrated in the skin and body averages are somewhat meaningless.
        Clearly microwave standards should match those of infrared at the
        highest micowave frequencies.

        [...]

        An anonymous speaker (audience) then spoke up to insist that there
        remain large differences between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. because U.S.
        limits apply not only for 6 minutes but for unlimited duration of
        exposure. He asked if standards-setters account for environmental
        temperatures and physical stress.

        [...]

        An anonymous speaker (audience) then opined that SA and SAR concepts
        may be irrelevant if recent indications on existence of “windows” in
        biological effects are established.

        [...]

        [the editor, Lin: ] One should not overreact to the criticism by Dr.
        Adey. Many factors go into standards-setting of which practicality is
        a leading example. A Standard for man is not a standard for the rat.
        The published standards generally do not extensively describe the
        details of conservatism resulting when animal data are extrapolated to
        man.

        ………………

        Now consider from Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on
        Science Threatens Your Health (’08, David Michaels)

        [internal memo from beryllium manufacturer:]

        “If beryllium is determined to be a carcinogen [...] Loss of invested
        savings for stockholders [is a real suffering that has] to be equated
        against the hypothetical nature of an unproven health hazard [...]”

        ……………………..

        ” if you cannot understand that alleging by citing books that all the regulatory scientists and regulatory bodies are subject to capture or some vast conspiracy is irrational,”

        – Art, you just don’t get it at all, how in a hierarchical situation all that needs to be “captured” are a few critical nodes, as it were, the whole enabled by deep cultural deficiency (which, tsk, tsk, you ain’t gonna do no double-blind studies about, eh?)

        ” if you cannot understand how in-vitro evidence directly challenged by contradictory in-vitro, animal and human evidence lacks weight,”

        —NO! apart from manipulation to fail, precisely what is interesting is the strange/unexpected & esp. if numerous outcomes, which cannot be cancelled out as you suggest, much less so re public health, where 1000s of studies are being pushed aside or cancelled, where a single study or two can be determinative — why not re RF? just why?

        ” if you cannot understand that alarmists penning review articles who put on par small, self-selected survey evidence comprised of tens of data points with rigorous statistical analyses of thousands of respondents (or even forget to mention the latter at all) are at least guilty of shoddy work,”

        — granted such difficult studies are not nec. definitive, but when over & over again similar results come not only from self-report but from checking health records, and this from all over and over time, what fool cannot think that this must not be ignored in re public health consideration, most esp. as people cry out?!

        ” if you cannot understand how the alarmist position contradicts all we know of physics, biology and electronics is intellectual in-curiosity,”

        —sorry, buddy, but the incurious shoe is on the other foot; did i not quote Whitehead here yet — no, it was at another skeptokook blog, here http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/

        ” if you cannot understand that clinging to the alarmist position after decades of research rather than heroism is the height of scientific cowardice…”

        — why don’t you try reading Brodeur, even Steneck, now Maisch, sample Davis, Michaels, Krimsky, so many more whileyou’re at it, mr curious

        “if you cannot understand all that, then you live in a world of beliefs, alien and so far removed from the realm of the skeptic as to remove all weight from your comments.”

        — i’d rather be light than a ponderous skepto, but you are again confirming for me how scientism has become religious surrogate

    • Art Tricque says:

      Deever is long on rhetoric, short on substance re body names. The ICEMS was founded by alarmists. It’s web site lists precious little activity at all, except for the oh-so-scientific-sounding “resolutions” that they are flogging now as internet petitions. COMAR is part of the IEEE. Now which do you think is the more august and credible organization?

      • deever says:

        How do you not see that the wrong kind of expertise is being touted by yourself for having decisive bearing on biological health?

    • Art Tricque says:

      Deever, why don’t you list the hundreds or thousands of dissenters/charlatans for us? You would seem to be in a better position to do so. Or at least provide a citation.

  8. Dianne Sousa says:

    Deever,

    I’ve trudged through your comments with some difficulty as you have a distinct inability to be clear. You tend to degrade into reactionary commentary that does not reflect an understanding of the gist of what you seem to be reacting to or commenting on.

    When this is pointed out, you dig in further and trail off with dismissive and sarcastic language; apparently reflecting your feeling that the opposing position is being dismissive, sarcastic, conspiratorial, disingenuous and so on.

    What is clear, is that this issue is of immense importance to you and I would imagine that this being so you would only apply the highest of standards to your thinking and evidence since you would want others to take you and what you say seriously.

    And yet, I cannot take you or what your say seriously. Your tendency towards hyperbole is a sign that you do not understand what you say. I find that you do not understand what others say either.

    If you are interested in having people agree with your take on this matter – or any other, you need to learn how to present your position in a clear and consistent way. Otherwise you appear as an alarmist, a crank, a fearmonger and any other host of terms that I am sure you are now very familiar, when people react to what you write or say.

    Even if your position is correct – the reality that exists regardless of any belief “in” it – you present it in such an appallingly bad manner that you simply have no standing to be so indignant in your responses when others disagree.

    You arguments and evidence are unconvincing and in spite of how important this issue is to you, you do not apply a high standard to yourself, your thinking or your evidence. Applying this standard is critical if you have a true concern for the victims you claim exist. You want decisions made and actions taken that affect many people and as such you are charged with the responsibility of being reasonably certain – beyond your feeling or belief – that what you are advocating for is correct.

    That is what a higher standard (critical thinking and scientific skepticism)provides you with. It is your responsibility to apply it to yourself first and not react with indignation when others critique you for this failing. Remember that you are claiming victims and until you raise your standards and change how you participate in this discussion you are bound to do them harm should they exist in the first place.

    • deever says:

      Sorry, Dianne, but it is rather bizarre that you would call me “indignant”, when I see guys like Art puff out a chest & stamp rhetorical feet; and too bad you have trouble following my prose trotted out here & elsewhere at admittedly too great speed, there are too many credulous masquerading as skeptos about, too much ground to cover. I can be as readable as the next person (sometimes only with wifely intervention,,mind you…); besides, this to-you-all off-putting niche I fill just here I’d gladly relinquish to another who’d step up. I also am fully aware of the general Cdn. non-intellectual milieu.

      Am in a hurry again now, am even trying to tame (some of) the prose just for you, hope you can follow, I think I have trotted out rather a lot here & elsewhere for you all to follow up if you dare, esp. the background stuff I’d start with, Micheals, McGarity etc; and impute nothing to me as needing some kind of emotional satisfaction in all this — i want nothing more than to be relieved to resume a life of some normality, from which i must abstain after recognizing all the suffering for what it is.

      • Dianne Sousa says:

        Deever,

        I have no trouble following your prose, I have trouble understanding your thinking as reflected by it.

        I don’t know what you want and I’m not sure you would pin yourself down into a clear position if pressed to explain.

        Can you list victims please? Where they are located? Where were they were treated for their suffering? What were they diagnosed with? If they did not receive a diagnosis, why not? What are other alternative explanations for what you may be seeing? What are the strongest arguments for them? Have you considered what evidence you would accept as showing you were wrong? What would you need to see? Have you looked for it?

        Have you applied any standard at all with any degree of rigour?

      • deever says:

        I missed Sousa’s 1:20 comment:

        “don’t know what you want ” — see eg a list of 18 recommendations (am assuming you’re Cdn) for HESA, someone put at http://errantenergy.blogspot.com/ , a good & immediate place to start (you should know that INSPQ has also produced a cell mast danger report, taken about 1&1/2 yr to do so, and still might be held back by Que govt for a few months, wonder what they’ll say…), that’s for starter public policy suggestion, if you want personal recommendations, maybe later

        “pin yourself down” — our household never fell for latter day wireless mania, no oven , no cell, no cordless, no baby monitor etc; many, many things we can dissent from and abstain from and seek provision or service in alternate fashion (food, medicine, childrearing, etc etc); but when one is assaulted to such a degree from synthetic xenobiotic radiation, time to fight back; there is no end point to be pinned down to, i see the issue as very broad indeed, but suffice it to say that everything with cells in its body appears endangered by human misuse of a patch of spectrum that no one can claim biological adaptation to; the suffering witnessed is so obviously connected to these mass EM insults, it should be obvious what is required, but too many are restrained from admitting evidence of harm for adherence to a narrow set of rules completely unsuited for public health determination…is that enough of a ramble to stick a few pins into?why would one want to necessarily pin someone down anyway?

        “list victims” — if the minimalist figure of 3% Westerners are “EHS” (a term i very much dislike btw, but will use it because common), would that be listable?

        “Where they are located” — everywhere, this is an intl. situation, just to take “EHS”

        “diagnosed with” — most physicians are still uneducated about what to even look for, but this is changing — your org. is in Toronto? check with Women’s College enviro. health clinic, see how long their waiting list is, and what they say about ehs; doctors’ groups in Europe have spoken out years ago already, I think at least in Germany, Ireland, Neth.; see re Dr Belpomme as important on this in France

        “alternative explanations” — as i see it, the EM insult is a universal stressor, there are umpteen ways bodies react, eg insomnia(rel. to melatonin suppression), in itself not a killer, but if no good sleep over a long period, one risks succumbing to whatever other vulnerabilities more; that is just one item

        “strongest arguments”– that is what i thought one should want to discuss, after non-disdainful acquaintance with a very lg. literature

        “what evidence you would accept as showing you were wrong” – this is the very issue with the “recalcitrant orthodoxy”, jettisoning of evidence as not meeting arbitrary bars, and with a background of corruption in terms of $ & muscle, this is very, very bad; but those bars might be fine within one domain, just not for overbearing intrusion into public health prescription

        have to quit for now

  9. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “How do you not see that the wrong kind of expertise is being touted by yourself for having decisive bearing on biological health?”
    Deever: plays coy in not mentioning names, then calls people out for doing the same, even though the attribution was obvious to all.

    On both accounts: “pot”, “kettle”, “black”.

    You disdain the IEEE and sing Ms Havas’ praises, yet she has only seven Pubmed references in 35 years. None deal with microwaves and health. Her most recent article was essentially self-published, being in a journal run by a dubious organization, and in an issue sponsored by the ICEMS, of which she is a prime member and some of whose other leading members work at the dubious organization behind the journal. The IEEE, on the other hand:
    “Most IEEE members are electrical engineers, computer engineers, and computer scientists, but the organization’s wide scope of interests has attracted engineers in other disciplines (e.g., mechanical and civil) as well as biologists, physicists, and mathematicians.” (per Wikipedia article on the IEEE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE#Membership_and_member_grades )
    So would you agree that the IEEE is more august, more respected, with at least as much if not more appropriate talent to address scientific issues like microwaves and health than the ICEMS?

    • deever says:

      Sorry, Art, I guess I’ll have to cut out the attempts at humour with you.

      Where did I sing a praise? Where did i disdain ieee, other than as out of their element in speaking to public health etc? THis is at the heart of it all, a biologic-based not dosimetric-based method to establish standards. In fact, as i already think i said, i am glad the Havas study thing has been exposed like this, the exposers must be following up on a lead from that other wonderful blogsite depletedcranium, no? The study is one study — did i cite it for you? — and maybe there is something to salvage from it yet anyway. If there were more collegiality & less hyperspecialization vs disdain rather by your side, someone like Havas could have assistance if not $ to do things more carefully, no? Why the species of kulturkampf, when in the face of great corruption skeptos & those of different inclination should go at a common adversary, not ea. other?

      Who & what are more august in the midst of dire situation is mostly irrelevant — see what I mean, Dianne, about chest puffing?

      • Dianne Sousa says:

        Deever:

        “Chest puffing”: You keep using these words, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      • deever says:

        OK,I don’t know what it means. You want to discuss/ debate,let’s do substance, no chest thumping (that better?).
        I wonder what in all the references i already put here you find uninteresting, unconvincing, you name it. I can’t care if you “cannot take you or what [i] say seriously” — look away from me! Get introduced to dissenting sources. Look into the ludicrous exclusions from determination of health policy in these matters. Find even Steneck, The Microwave Debate (84), a useful if so-so account. I recommend A. Marino’s slim volume, Electric Wilderness (85), for a glimpse at corruption in action up close, by a scientist in the field,suffering through corrupted process (re ELF) in NY state. Read what finally broke through into NA mainstream in Feb,of all places in gq, http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation . Some wide-ranging intros for you. Maybe even Art et al will be impressed with what lead researchers like Frey have to say (lots of him in Davis). Didn’t seem impressed though by Adey, above,eg. Go learn, forget about deever, except to ask for leads if truly not incurious.

  10. Art Tricque says:

    Strange, Deever, we do seem to be able to read your references, and reply to them, yet you seem to take no notice. We properly scorn references to GQ, non-journal articles, scientists who purport to be experts in the field but with no training, books (as anyone can write and get any book published), journal articles that cherry-pick supporting evidence without refuting or even alluding to contradictory evidence, and to anecdotes, because they are not relevant to a scientific discussion on a skeptic forum. Period. Full stop. Get over it.

    Incivility: pot, kettle black. I jibed, true, by calling you Devra, but did not insult. Thought you might wear it as a badge of honour to tell the truth, given you strongly reference her book here and in other forums. Heck, you even knew her book was to be released ahead of time, but I admit that may have been public knowledge. Instead, you replied with an insult. You could have called me Lorne or Michael and I would have understood the counter jibe, though I am neither of those gentlemen. You also seem to have a habit of using the word “incurious”, and thereby implying that your opponents are just that. As noted, I have read all the references — including GQ — before, in their original languages even. We skeptics are not “incurious”; however, we *are* also certainly not credulous.

    Deever, in turn, why are you so incurious? Have you ever asked Lai and Levitt why they did not include the large German studies about mobile phone site exposure (Meyer et al Umweltmed Forsch Prax. 2006;11:89-97; Blethner Occup Environ Med. 2009;66:118-123) in the section on the topic in their review article? The studies are only the largest in the field, and I’m sure they’re aware of them. They are a prime demonstration of how the purported biological effects turn out to be ephemeral when a statistically-significant population is studied. To forget one study may be regarded as a misfortune; to forget two looks like carelessness.

    • Art Tricque says:

      If I’m not mistaken both studies were funded by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. NB I misspelled Blettner’s name in the above comment. The Pubmed ID for the Blettner et al article is 19017702 and the Pubmed link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19017702

    • deever says:

      am very busy at the moment, just glanced to see what’s up, (doin’ too many forums as well), but that Ger. study indeed, we’ll see about that one, been there before, with Trottier even involved, we’ll see, back soon, i’ll look below after this post to see if a quick retort.reply possible; and, do get this, i’m not interested in playing self-restrictive skepto-forum games, if that is where you a;; will retreat to, not much with it; the credulity charge has a lot to do with corruption–take Frey’s telling of the blood-brain “replication”, eg, no comment from this crowd?

  11. Art Tricque says:

    Deever said: ” “debunked Bioinitiative Report” : that would be hard to do indeed, a rather large bibliography involved, eh?” Actually, it is rather easy to start. For example, Olle Johansson in Section 8 page 3 mentions “the fragile blood-brain-barrier” and cites “Persson et al, 1997″ and “Salford et al, 2003″. He neglects to mention the many other studies — which I am sure he knew about, I mean, he is a long time scientist in the field. Heck, Deever, you and I can find them at the U of Ottawa’s RFCOM site at http://www.rfcom.ca . Very incomplete review of evidence earns a fail.

    Deever also said: “that’s like, eg, accusing Bioinitiative people of cherry-picking studies, when a main point was to pick up those unreasonably cast off by the orthodox”. The Bioinitiative Report says in Section 1, Part I, sub-section B. Purpose of the Report on page 4 “This report has been written by 14 (fourteen) scientists, public health and public policy experts to document the scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields.” and “The purpose of this report is to assess scientific evidence on health impacts from electromagnetic radiation below current public exposure limits and evaluate what changes in these limits are warranted now to reduce possible public health risks in the future.” The report was intended to be a *review of the evidence* — and has been widely touted as being just that. However, it fails. The contrast with the SCENIHR reports is stark.

    • deever says:

      “very incomplete review of evidence” — Art, you are not facing this, in the face of pretty evident corrupt behaviour having tainted your science, “whistleblowers” draw attention to what they figure is unjustly overlooked, pushed aside, averaged out etc. Of course Olle J eg will cite what others neglect! What is so hard to grasp, the ‘cherry picking” is of the fine cherries spat out by your orthodoxy….i see i’m repeating the metaphor, i really should wait ’til not so pressed, if there is a real prospect of informing people here; why not ask Olle J yourself why he saw not fit to make an extensive review as you would have it? He’s a friendly guy & would answer you — while you’re at it, ask him if his office has been restored yet, which he & Panagopoulos & Sasco (but Goldsworthy pre-retirement) all lost right after their HESA appearance!! That gets past non-credulous skeptos?!

      • Art Tricque says:

        So let me get this straight. Deever and others in the the alarmist camp cite the Bioinitiative Report widely as a comprehensive review. When challenged, Deever says it is only meant to highlight selective “neglected” evidence. The Report itself is cited, where in its own words it claims to be a review. Deever then repeats that of course the report would cherry pick. This is logical inconsistency that a primary school student could identify.

      • deever says:

        back to the inadequate school for Art – it is tough for skeptos to speak a non-mathematical language? bioinit. seemed comp. in many regards, not to you? what is really crummy is that attackers of bionit. such as cons, & ind. hacks at hesa act as if it is what it isn’t — why the destructive tactic? ask yourself, start with this — who would want to see undone what has been built up unless there were dire findings (& don’t come back with the establishment idiocy that someone who sells emf protective devices etc )? who would wnat to push ahead regardless? who has a long documented history of the latter? (sorry, too on the run again for stronger reply)

  12. Art Tricque says:

    Deever, just improve the discourse and to understand your views on corruption better, do you consider it corruption that the mobile phone industry has funded scientific studies on mobile telephony and health?

    • deever says:

      expressed plainly like that, of course not; Sasco at HESA answered in the same vein — but read just one of the books I’ve put before you, some are online even (try Kane, Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette), and it is far beyond that theoretical contextless question…although this ties into much wider issues about work, insecurity, currency in general, very doubtful this little forum can absorb such breadth of discussion; enough to focus on evident disastrous effectively unbridled interests overtaking the public good, “sci. in the private interest” (Krimsky); & it’s not all about “industry”

      • Art Tricque says:

        Deever, there’s that famous sarcasm and belittling the capabilties of the readers, and not choosing to answer the questions by Gish Galloping away into other realms. Most science doesn’t agree with the alarmists, so it must be corruption and greed at play. I suggest it is much simpler: the science doesn’t support the position, and you have singularly failed to offer anything conflictingly scientific in that vein. That is why the position fails, and will continue to fail.

      • deever says:

        “famous sarcasm” – in my reply at 7:59? where? “belittling” – where? sorry you misunderstood — i DO believe this is best treated with comprehensiveness in mind, and ’tis unlikely this is a good format for that — is this not supposed to another one of those “bad sci” debunking places only, supposedly? who’d wanna’ hang around there except you folks who’ve created the spot?

        tell us, Art, have you glanced at the readings that provide you a long list of corrupt behaviour? what was wrong in what you read? start maybe with Chopra on HC

  13. Art Tricque says:

    To improve the discourse and understand your views better, you would suggest that Industry and Health Canada are both “corrupt” (choose more appropriate word if you like) as regards microwaves and health regulations (Safety Code 6). Since Canada’s regulations mirror the ICNIRP guidelines, Canada’s standards are broadly identical to those in Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US — most of the developed world. Is it your contention that the regulatory authorities in these countries are also “corrupt”?

    • deever says:

      Art, it is sufficient to say they are sorely mistaken, there existed alternate sane approaches, such dissent was effectively quashed, there is misapplication of thought from one domain to another, there is inappropriate scaling up of what should have remained specialized equipment, …If everyone really just relies on IEMFP-ICNIRP-WHO, what point in mentioning all the erroneous public “health” bodies, they all collapse together. Just see the OAHPP recent report, it is a similar useless exercise. I already prepared a swift & sharp criticism if you want, that is closer to home, maybe see what Copes said – and try to read incisively yourself, you know, devil’s advocate. http://www.oahpp.ca/resources/documents/10-09-2010_Wireless_technology_and_health_outcomes_v2.pdf
      “Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion – 480 University Ave, Suite 300, Toronto ON M5G1V2 1
      Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes: Evidence and Review Are there human health effects related to the use of wireless internet technology (Wi-Fi)?”

      • Art Tricque says:

        I am sorry, Deever, but youa re once again inconsistent. You have widely here and elsewhere said that Health Canada is fraudulent and corrupt. But you say other organizations that follow the ICNIRP guidelines are only mistaken. But Health Canada follows the ICNIRP guidelines too. Is Health Canada corrupt or not? Mistaken or not?

      • deever says:

        see response to November 19, 2010 at 3:21 am below

        see also Maisch on genesis of Australian public exposure guidelines and also ICNIRP, IEMFP (particularly salient Australian connexion)

  14. Dianne Sousa says:

    Deever,

    I’d like to point out two of the inconsitencies that you have presented here in response to my post above.

    You claim to personally know victims but have not claimed that you are a victim yourself. I can reasonably conclude that you do not claim to be sensitive to EMF. This being the case, you have removed what you have presumed to be offending sources of such radiation and claim that you are constantly bombarded. If you are not sensitive there is no reason, based on what you have said, to protect yourself from EMF signals.

    You estimate that perhaps 3% of people living in the west are victims of EMF radiation. This leaves 97% completely unaffected from the incredible danger that you promote. No person has ever proven that they are in fact sensitive. No person has ever proven that they have been harmed. With an estimated population of 1.26 billion people in North America and Europe this would mean that you claim that nearly 38 million people are victims – at minimum. This is an astonishing large number. You claim a conspiracy of a size that is impossible. Every one of your arguments have failed.

    If you agree that you ought to have a high degree of intellectual integrity when you hold a position and make an argument for or against something then I challenge you to sincerely rethink your position.

    There are not 38 million victims of EMF radiation anywhere.

  15. deever says:

    Yes, I am a victim, Dianne, in several senses, a)direct and obvious, b)surmised & historic, and c)by association having to deal with sufferers, and d)theorized as part of a general public having to pay for resultant increased access to health care, there must be other ways to characterize/categorize my suffering. But that is nothing compared to the serious suffering of others. a) eg rf hearing, part of general epidemic now, but in myself of still irregular occurrence; head discomfort when in presence of wifi; there is more; b) transient dyslexia onset late 90s, matching onset of symptoms of others in same household (in one sever insomnia, in anither svere headache, in another much decreased immunity, etc); c) sheltering an extremely affected person e.g.,and attending to emergency situations; d) how about, i remember a letter i wrote after a cbc radio sunday edition story, at the risk of offending in mixed company:
    ……..
    Your economist guest and interviewer both effectively contradicted themselves, and omitted the most obvious factors of all in discussing rising public health care costs. These were referred to as “drifting up slowly” and rising “relatively rapidly in Canada” — which is it? The threat was mentioned about attaining 50% of government expenditure, as was 100% — which is it? One example of eventual cost
    lowering was given, but in relation to Viagra. As example of rising costs, access to “diagnostic services” was mentioned. But is Viagra not on the lowest end of concern? What about asking why so many people are seeking diagnoses? Stay with the 50% stat, and a similar one comes readily to mind: one study tracing the rise in numbers of people afflicted by electrosensitivity since the 1980s, indicates that by 2017, 50% of the population will be afflicted. Note further: health care costs plateaued finally during the 90s, only to begin their
    inexorable ascent — shall we say, drifting up rapidly? –
    corresponding with the mass deployment of cell telephony and
    associated dangerous wireless since the late 90s.
    Decisions were said to have to be based on hard evidence. But for
    public policy, hardness is of a totally different order than for a theoretical scientist. That cost rise stat from the late 90s shows up where I have looked, in Sweden, Ontario, the US. Where should the focus be but on environmental factors? The glaringest example? The universal environmental and biological stressor of electromagnetic radiation, in all its man-made forms, cries out for closer attention than the cost of Viagra — besides, if a guy is trying to propagate after keeping a cell phone in the pocket, failure and even mutation is far likelier. Now that’s hard evidence.
    ……..

    I am a mild sufferer, but whereas humans e.g in crazed adulation of the internal combustion engine have eg yielded lung capacity, a man has to draw a line at his brain (yes, mass autism, dementia etc is certainly closely related!) — what % are you prepared to give up? What did I say that made you think I don’t hurt (not that that is a prime or sole motivator at all)?

    “97% completely unaffected ” — i said, did i not, 3% is minimalist, there are those who say 35% is closer to the unrecognized mark, others still who have charted the rise in such since the 80s and see a linear increase to attain 50% by 2017…see http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS2006_HallbergOberfeld.pdf

    “No person has ever proven” — your bar of proof is surely inappropriate for purposes of public policy

    “You claim a conspiracy of a size that is impossible.” – ??

    ” Every one of your arguments have failed. ” – ??
    “There are not 38 million victims of EMF radiation anywhere.” — there are many many more, just take from direct cell phone use, you, sad to say, will see the “proven”-even-for-you result in the next years, which is why eg Davis et al are crying aloud (also see neurosurgeons in Australia Khurana & Teo — great rise in psychosomatic tumours they must be seeing eh Dianne?)

    • Michael5MacKay says:

      The Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) has responded to a literature review by Khurana & Teo, concluding:

      ‘…Many of the conclusions made in the paper contradict those made by international expert committees, without providing adequate reasons for rejecting the standard view. On the contrary, we believe that the standard view of science, which is that there is currently no evidence that mobile phones have any negative health effects (as espoused by such groups as the World Health Organisation; see above), is an accurate reflection of the literature to date.’

      Deever, you are engaged in a Gish Gallop here, and responding to you is like playing whack-a-mole, as you continually throw up new claims rather than show how those sources you cited previously support your case.

      For instance, earlier you referred to Paul Brodeur’s heroic journalism without mentioning that his claims that power lines were dangerous were soundly discredited.

      There is evidence to support both sides, but the bottom line is that, by a substantial margin, the weight of the evidence supports the safety of wi-fi.

      BTW, in the same way you acknowldge that Havas’ recent study is poorly-performed, do you agree that Curtis Bennett’s theories about specific frequencies, and the notion that children function at 7.8 hertz?

      • deever says:

        “by international expert committees” — same old

        what’s a “gish gallop”?

        “whack-a-mole” – i learned from other skepto gangs the violent undercurrents, Dianne & her pins, you & your..what weapon would that be?

        you actually meet someone who dares to argue wide & deep instead of trying to pin & club, ok, squeeze into narrow confines, it’s tough, eh?

        “soundly discredited” — ?? i think some is rather well-established — you listening to hydro-quebec, fo another cdn. example,which refuses to share damning data it has? i know not much about the power line matters, but i did suggest you read Marino; goto Slesin’s microwavenews.com if you want to see about your powerline “discredit”

        “There is evidence to support both sides, but the bottom line is that, by a substantial margin, the weight of the evidence supports the safety of wi-fi.” — in a situation like this, the conclusion is that prevailing western conceptuality & methodology is unequipped to deal with what is being discovered; in such a situation, attention to personal detail — yes, incl. anecdote — where there is no reason to suspect lack of good faith, ulterior motive, basic irrationality, & so forth, taking reports seriously shouldbe the order of the day, and at an absolute minimum, as a “human rights” issue even, should ample zones to opt out be provided , difficult to do with a ubiquitous pollutant

        I have publicly taken to task Bennett on various other grounds, no need to get into that here more.

  16. Michael5MacKay says:

    @ deever @ 8:04 pm

    whack a mole is a carnival game; in the context it referred to various points you kept throwing out. In the same way, Dianne’s reference to you “pinning yourself down” was simply referring to the need for you, if you’re attempting a rational argument, to stick to the point, rather than constantly “moving the goalposts” by using the Gish Gallop. To suggest that either of us was threatening violence is just being silly.

    This most recent comment of yours makes it clear that you won’t even agree with the authors of this article and the rest of the commenters here how to evaluate evidence, so you’ve now confirmed that there’s no point even attempting rational discourse with you.

    Sorry,

    • deever says:

      the threat of violence was never perceived, the language was pointed out as revealing, and your failure to see even that casts more doubt on your & skeptos’ claim to own the term , ‘rational’

      neither do i expect it to be sensible to accede to your determination of what is acceptable evidence

      the point of coming here is to confront Trottier’s presentation, to sound the alarm in unlikely quarters in the hope that some quieter onlookers might learn of things kept hidden from them, i’ve given plenty of leads

      • Art Tricque says:

        Gish gallop again. And that famous Deever incuriosity at work too! Have you heard of something called a “search engine”? You can always look up terms with which you — somewhat lamely — claim you have no familiarity.

  17. Art Tricque says:

    Deever “violent undercurrents”. I think the use of the term is quiet revealing. You really hit that one out of the park. “hit”, oh there’s more of that Skeptic undercurrent again. I’m sure you don’t know what that expression means either, but you can always look up baseball metaphors using a “search engine”.

  18. Art Tricque says:

    Deever implies that the rational camp is guilty of cherry picking. This claim of scientific equivalence is one the most pernicious falsehoods spread by the alarmist camp. It is even hard for skeptics to address. The issue is even more fundamental than “weight of evidence”, which is firmly in the skeptic camp. The settled science is that microwaves at levels below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; aside: it is an outgrowth and affiliate of the International Radiation Protection Association, IRPA, the professional representative body for radiation protection professionals world-wide and its national societies with over 16,000 professional members; the ICNIRP partners with the World Health Organization WHO, the European Commission EC, the International Labour Organization ILO and the International Commission on Occupational Health ICOH) guidelines are not harmful. The alarmist camp has advanced an hypothesis that levels below ICNIRP guidelines are harmful. Some in-vitro studies have shown effects. Many in-vitro studies have not. A few animal studies have shown effects. Many others have not. As one gets to human studies, and insist on studies with high-quality design and large numbers of subjects, all of which lead to improved statistical prediction, the effects are not seen. Review studies — and I guess I have to repeat this for Deever again — like the comprehensive reports issued by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) of the European Commission then have looked at all the studies and because of the *paucity of supporting evidence* and existence of a mass of contrasting evidence not addressed have rejected the alarmist hypothesis. Even a little contrasting evidence not addressed would suffice to reject a hypothesis. It does not stop there: it is not only experimental evidence that speaks against the alarmist hypothesis. The physics of the energy of waves does not support the hypothesis: non-ionizing waves don’t have enough energy to do harm. And sciences of electronics and biology do not support the existence of structures in the human body that can even detect microwaves. Put all these elements together, and it is clear why the settled science is so settled, and the alarmist position so weak. Microwaves at below ICNIRP guideline levels do not affect human health.

    • deever says:

      “Deever implies that the rational camp is guilty of cherry picking.” — cherry-tossing is not the same as cherry-picking; or cherry-sorting based on wrongful criteria

      ““weight of evidence”, which is firmly in the skeptic camp” — when it is so easy to design a study to fail and so difficult to forensically examine heaps of them, and in a context of openly shown corruption, that this “weight” rests in your “camp” should be no badge of honour

      “settled science” — there you go again – why not try dropping the question-begging adjectives, as an exercise, that the noun suffers by? when on earth is ‘science’ ever “settled”?

      “The alarmist camp has advanced an hypothesis that levels below ICNIRP guidelines are harmful. — ok, I’ll proudly wear for this page the ‘alarmist’ badge, but only if you grasp that much, much more than that is being reported — it is NOT a mere question of power levels, what is so hard to grasp about that?

      “As one gets to human studies, and insist on studies with high-quality design and large numbers of subjects, all of which lead to improved statistical prediction, the effects are not seen” — false; the best station study in that regard would now be the ones omitted for lateness from lai & Levitt, mentioned already here at November 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm, & I have not had a moment to bring the strong criticism of the other German study; further, it is expected that skeptos will be forced to rely on ultimately arbitrary statistical bars to exclude uncomfortable data, or if that doesn’t succeed widen the terrain to include anything one wants to average out or nullify what one is averse to admitting

      “rejected the alarmist hypothesis ” — again, when one is dealing with public health, and even a serious hint of harm exists, to push ahead anyway reveals a fundamental wrongful devaluation of a basic element, and these are the assumptions that must be laid bare, that ultimately value judgements rest at the core, no matter how high are heaped thereupon specialized statistical methods; granted it is difficult in a culture now so overtaken by “risk analysis” to reinstate at least transparency regarding root values, so that e.g. a mother’s innate sense of precaution or avoidance trumps adolescents’ pressing ahead anyway, but this attempt at reinstatement must be made

      “Even a little contrasting evidence not addressed would suffice to reject a hypothesis. ” — I am missing the sense of this possibly significant admission, I need it to be clarifed.

      “physics of the energy of waves does not support ” — what about biological beings as energetic in ways unfathomed by your orthodoxy? what about trying to come to terms with , e.g. tradition Chinese medicine, which should suggest itself loudly as partner in study to get at the root of what people are crying out about? but among skeptos there are doubtless “debunkers” of TCM! see the problem? venerable TCM has enormous value unassimilable to some skepto methodolgy, so the latter just chuck it — something similar is going on re emf; and when it is deemed out of bounds to base public policy outside of accepted rules, that can be fair enough, in a role analogous to judges one expects the latter to not be arbitrary, to act within predictable rules; but a public policy matter must be inclusive, attending to poets and philosophers and culture critics and mothers and even self-declared sufferers, as much as those oriented to strict existing rule obeisance — and the eventual penalty of not doing so is quite simply, sickness & death (see comment already at November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am , and the Whitehead quote I brought)

      “And sciences of electronics and biology do not support the existence of structures in the human body that can even detect microwaves.” — ??

      • Art Tricque says:

        I see Deever, like some others in the lay alarmist camp, is a multiple woo, excuse me, “Evidence-free discipline”, believer. Skeptics don’t “chuck” fantasy energy medicine disciplines, we ask for evidence that they work. No evidence is available. I think I understand you better. You have discarded science. Embraced woo. Just like a few other recent alarmist players, like the Collingwood wifi scare clan, headed by two chiropractors, and not just any chiropractors, way off the deep end chiropractors.

      • Art Tricque says:

        “Settled science” Truce. It is vanishingly unlikely that microwaves at power levels higher than the ICNIRP are not harmful. They *are* harmful to human health. I think this may have been a simple misunderstanding of what I wrote, because I am pretty sure you would not stick your hand in a microwave oven on high. :-)

      • Art Tricque says:

        Deever “the best station study in that regard would now be the ones omitted for lateness from lai & Levitt, mentioned already here at November 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm” One reference is to a newspaper article, not a peer-reviewed journal; the other reference, the Selbitz study, is to a “special”-peer-reviewed but non-Pubmed-indexed publication. These are not authoritative pieces of evidence. The latter study is also by the lead of the German Naila “study”, which the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection called of “limited predictive value” because of numerous methodological errors. From my reading of the Selbitz article text — and I am not a scientist or statistician, and so do not consider myself the ideal expert to do so critically — I would note the following items. First, the numbers look small so that the statistical predictive ability would seem to be impaired, although the authors suggest there tests account for this. There would also seem to be a questions of knowing how many of the study participants, and in which sub-groups, thought their health was affected by mobile phone base stations as compared to the general population. All the participants new that they could be sent a survey, so differing rates of fear (the lack of participant blinding) might have affected the outcome. This might be indicated by the declining response rates as the distance increased. Someone more statistically inclined would have to evaluate if 71 controls are sufficient. The average ages for the groups seem to be older in the distance closer groups. The average age of the study group as a whole seems to be much higher than in Germany as a whole (early 50s vs 43 for Germany as a whole). It is also not clear why five distance groups were created, but that exposure measurements were done (or perhaps reported) for groups 1 & 2 combined, 3 & 4 combined, and 5, and whether this was combination was set it in the study protocol or undertaken post experiment.

  19. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “start maybe with Chopra on HC” Can you provide at least one specific Canadian example where Chopra, Devra Davis or anyone else can demonstrate fraud or corruption in the creation of the Health Canada Safety Code 6 guidelines on radio waves and health? I am not aware of any? Please don’t play coy; if you know of one, spell it out here. To the best of my knowledge, Chopra was involved with veterinary drugs.

    • deever says:

      In an important public service vein, at CBC was put out http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/wendymesley/2010/09/cellphone_safety_what_arent_they_telling_us.html ,
      “Cellphone safety: What aren’t they telling us?” . Davis interviewed usefully refers to subtlety re corruption. Chopra indicts HC top to bottom, the “cultural” (receptive background for either gross or subtle corrupting elements) aspect i already mentioned several times here:
      …………….
      “Memories from those days of my career at Health Canada
      bring back vivid images of what I viewed as a mafia-style corruption at the hands of a supremely well placed mob of public service officials and their political masters both inside and outside of the Canadian government.
      The question that comes to mind is, who was responsible for this type of corruption and who in the end was to benefit from it? Was it a particular Deputy Minister and his or her cronies or was it a Health Minister, a Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the PCO, the PMO, or all of them in a jointly orchestrated dance of corruption to favo[u]r
      corporate interests? The answer to this question is a very definite yes: all of them were jointly responsible.

      …………….
      Read his book to find out what he went through, how in his field stuff was determined to be pushed ahead regardless of uncomfortable sci. finding/assessment. Same hierarchy and culture over radiation protection branch, meant to protect radiation, not humans subject thereto. The perversity puts public health as dependent on industry & abettor health — in a sense that is true if a society is held hostage!

      An example from Davis’ recent book:
      …………….
      [...]Lin, an ICNIRP member, had produced a number of papers appearing to refute Frey’s work on the ability of pulsed microwave radiation to induce sounds inn the brain. [...] Lin’s critiques ignore Frey’s primary paper [..] in Science magazine in 1979. Using holography, an exquisitely sensitive technique that does not destroy tissue, Frey found that microwave pulses do not create motion on soft tissue. Lin’s studies finding a signal on the auditory nerve resulted from an experimental artifact. The tiny electrode assembly he used to “detect sound” actually produced it. When Frey invented and patented (for the Office of Naval Research) a special, nonintrusive electrode, he was able to show that the creation of sound in the brain does result from the low-intensity microwave signals, quite like those released by cell phones today.
      In his most recent critique of Frey, Lin ignores Frey’s Science paper completely. Instead, he cites five of Frey’s other papers, giving the appearance of thoroughness. Frey comments on this highly selective reading of his work: “This sort of thing has always been done by the ‘no hazard establishment people’ since the beginning, and has misled scientists and the public….”
      Frey recalls that some of the studies purporting to show that Frey’s work on the blood-brain barrier were wrong, did no such thing. “One group claimed to repeat our studies and find nothing. But instead of injecting a fluorescent dye into the artery where it could circulate like I did, they injected it into the abdomen, waited five minutes, killed the animals, and found no evidence that the dye had reached the brain. Of course not.”
      …………….

      • Art Tricque says:

        Re Chopra. I see. So Chopra really has no direct evidence. He indites all of Heath Canada, but did not work in the EMF area (in fact, pretty far removed), and you have extended his blanket condemnation to the EMF case? OK, well I’m sure his years of troubles with the department are a fascinating read, but unless you can show that he has specific evidence that the department committed fraud in promulgating Safety Code 6, then citing him as an argument has no merit. In fact, Ms. Beth Pieterson (Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health), who spoke at the Parliamentary committee meetings, should be commended: she *is* in fact *following* the science.

        “Davis interviewed usefully refers to subtlety re corruption” Subtlety means she has no direct evidence either. Evidence fail.

        “Frey and Lin” A thirty year old paper on the hearing effect? A quibble with methodology? IN the face of thirty more years of research using better techniques and instrumentation?

        The alarmist camp is reaching the end of the line: funding is becoming scarce and their future academic careers are becoming dim. They have to raise the alarm and throw whatever junk out of the sinking boat to politicians and the public — politicians and the public! Please help us brave, maverick scientists suffering under the yoke of business, mean scientists wanting robust evidence, regulators who follow good scientific practice — because the scientific debate is ebbing away.

  20. Art Tricque says:

    Deever said on November 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm “back to the inadequate school for Art – it is tough for skeptos to speak a non-mathematical language? … etc…”
    1. re “non-mathematical” I can always put things in plain English: you said one thing. Then you said something different. Which do you mean?
    2. Oh yes, conservatives and industry hacks are the only folks who could possibly oppose the alarmist camp. Really? Ad hominem attacks? Oh sorry, simple “non-mathematical” terms for you: calling people names? I fall into neither camp you cite, hence argument fail.
    3. “The dollar argument” This is a logical fallacy, repeated in this comment by Deever and in others. Whether something is worth millions or a dime has no bearing on whether or not the scientific evidence supports or rejects it. And as far as research funding goes, Deever or anyone else can apply to any one of a number of public research funding bodies for resources to conducts research. If funding bodies have rejected proposals put forward by alarmist researchers (and I do not know if Deever intended this implication, nor do I have any evidence as to whether this is happening or not), I suggest this is an indication that the funding bodies view the proposals as exhibiting a lack of promise.

  21. Art Tricque says:

    Deever “scientism has become religious surrogate” “fine cherries spat out by your orthodoxy” (must admit I liked the prose) “prevailing western conceptuality & methodology is unequipped to deal with what is being discovered; in such a situation, attention to personal detail — yes, incl. anecdote — where there is no reason to suspect lack of good faith, ulterior motive, basic irrationality, & so forth, taking reports seriously should be the order of the day” “your bar of proof is surely inappropriate for purposes of public policy” Science and skepticism are not in any way religious, a religious orthodoxy, a faith movement called scientism, or somehow exclusively applicable to the Western world. In fact, science relies on a lack of faith and a reliance on evidence. If Deever wishes to return to the rose-coloured world before the scientific method was established, where hearsay, anecdote, superstition and dogma ruled the day, well, I ask him to forswear all that which has arisen since the enlightenment because of science. Books may be enjoyable as entertainment, and perhaps good for a general introduction to a topic, but anyone can write and publish a book, and so they are hardly subject to much rigorous scrutiny and are no substitute for published peer-reviewed studies. Anecdotes may be useful for generating hypotheses, but for testing them, they are useless precisely because people *are* — even if unintentionally — unreliable. Rigorous science, well-executed statistics, a high-standard of evidence and energetic debate are vital to reducing ignorance and encouraging progress. To encourage such progress, the scientific method should be a prime method by which public policy is set.

  22. Art Tricque says:

    Deever commented on November 17, 2010 at 7:38 am about suggested exposure regulations. Recommending “the most stringent measures” is ducking the issue. The alarmist camp has no science by which to offer any specific suggestion. Why don’t we wing it instead? Try something that someone else is doing? That’s confidence in one’s beliefs! And I should look up the stringent standards? I guess neither Deever nor the alarmists who made the suggestions know what more stringent guidelines were in place somewhere else. Deever, stop being so coy and shy with information: be proud of those tougher standards and let us know the many jurisdictions where they are in place. I will at least say that Chinese or Russian standards that first came about because of ancient Soviet “science” (and which thus pervades the academe because of inertia in those countries). To be short, standards are set by modern open science, not by mimicry. The alarmists can only offer the latter and none of the former.
    In contracts, when the ICNIRP guidelines were first promulgated in 1998, they were published in a quality, peer-reviewed journal, Health Physics, and contained detailed specific limits for various radio frequency bands and situations. See: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998; available at the ICNIRP web site at http://www.icnirp.de/PubMost.htm

    • Art Tricque says:

      I will add that the average maximum level of exposure to microwaves in Canada are typically thousands of times below Safety Code 6 levels. A typical Wifi exposure is also hundreds to thousands of times below the Safety Code 6 standard. And since Wifi standards are essentially identical around the world for compatibility and low cost, the Wifi exposures are essentially identical around the world.

    • deever says:

      Art is getting as voluminous as deever, pressed again for time I’ll have to be selective in response for the moment, but maybe most instructive would be to go over that Ger. study brought as counter to other “poor” mast studies, will still have to wait.

      “To be short, standards are set by modern open science, not by mimicry”

      It is reasonably perceived as the very opposite, you see how far apart the sides are. Virtually all agencies defer to one in an effective hierarchy, ostensibly independent regulators failing to exercise the independence. The results of exclusionary science in fact mimicked nearly throughout.

      An interesting chart based on studies already much added to since ’01, even if found in a doc. prepared by your reviled Trent U. prof, is at pdf pg 5 of
      http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/07_Havas_WiFi-SNAFU.pdf , or if you prefer I see it at p 29 of Prof Kumar’s presentation put at
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/37980308/Radiation-Hazards-from-Cell-phones-and-Cell-towers .

  23. Art Tricque says:

    Deever’s review of the numbers of folks who are affected by EMF is based on “research” entirely consisting of self-reported questionnaires and surveys. The numbers are not scientific. Further, repeated provocation studies show people cannot determine if they are being exposed to microwaves at below ICNIRP guidelines levels. Deever and the alarmists can spin and quibble all they want, but the tally of studies is quite overwhelmingly negative, and no one has demonstrated such an ability under rigorous conditions, not even at the Women’s College Hospital Environmental Clinic. The sad thing is, people who think they are sensitive to EMF *are* sick; the illness is just not caused by EMF itself. Rather, assuming all known causes have been eliinated, it is idiopathic — from an unknown cause. Those who are suffering deserve our sympathy and treatment; the only treatment with any indication of effectiveness according to a 2006 systematic review (Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. 2006. “A systematic review of treatments for electromagnetic hypersensitivity”. Psychother Psychosom 75 (1): 12–8. doi:10.1159/000089222. PMID 16361870) is cognitive behavioral therapy. The longer sufferers are mislead into thinking that EMF is the cause of their pain, the longer they will miss out on effective treatment, and the longer they will endure that pain. To my mind, that is the worst effect of the alarmist chicanery. To be clear, by these statements I do not accuse Deever of deliberately wishing to prevent people who believe EMF is the cause of their suffering from accessing effective treatment.

    • deever says:

      “people who think they are sensitive to EMF *are* sick; the illness is just not caused by EMF itself.”

      exactly (using your ambiguous syntax to make my point)! (except say salivary gland tumour where obvious from pressing radiative device next to the head) so Art & co wish to do away with the most vulnerable?? I readily expect that deleterious bio-result of emf assault must be viewed individualistically, considering each victim’s weaknesses to discern patterns of succumbing; simplistic talk of causality is also at the heart of this cultural dilemma; see Gandhi re children’s heads & absorption rate vs prevailing guidelines — a more eminent researcher in the field will not be found than he, and see Davis for even his turning against what you all seem to so naively accept…gotta go, may not be able to rejoin the fray for a day or so

      • Art Tricque says:

        I am glad we agree. People are sick, and EMF is not the cause. Will you help them to get the cognitive dissonance therapy that they need? I do care, and do not wish them away; if you do too, please indicate that you understand this is the only scientifically validated course of treatment so far available.

        Wanting a to have your pet theory treated with different scientific standards is called “special pleading”. Sorry, the scientific method is the same for everyone. Anecdotes and case studies are a place to start, but not a way to confirm a hypotheses.

        And there’s another Gish Gallop away, a non sequitur introduction of yet another topic: please, will we not think of the children!? Yet another logical fallacy: appeals to emotion. It will not work with scientists, but oddly enough, more effective if one wishes to convince less scientifically literate politicians and lay people.

      • deever says:

        Are you playing games or cannot comprehend? Do you find it, like Diane, to be a trudge through what I say? The simplistic decidedly non-philosophical approach to causality is at the root of the problem, esp. when dealing with greatly complex beings. How on earth can you think that engineers & physicists have a handle on body electric? That is so out to lunch! I know someone who has undergone for occupational reasons such a psychiatric examination, a severe sufferer, and the examiner came away from that with an armful of studies related to the issue. The examined is about as clear-minded, highly literate & competent as can be. Do you not know of Brundtland? I know others like her who can point to someone in the room with a cell phone not turned off. did you hear MP Cardin attest twice at HESA to his own reactivity to your safe exposures? He needs his head examined, right? It is truly to hide in a shell to not grasp what is going on. It seems possible your organization is in fact supported by those in whose interest it is to confuse the public. You owe it to your humanity to meet with severe sufferers.

        “not a way to confirm a hypotheses” — if the conceptuality & methodology are suspect, other evidence is called for — how do skeptos go about everyday activity without pre-testing per their methodology everything they rely on?

        “children” — ?? what are you talking about? i actually am loathe to focus on children as most vulnerable and have said so clearly among advocates, although most seem to prefer the tactic; the elderly & already sick should be chosen if one must choose among the vulnerable, children after all have hopefully time to heal; the Gandhi example (must be what you wrongly read into) was brought as an example of a world-leading researcher who has turned on the industry,who said he was wrong to trust their intentions — read Davis, rebut her! She’s in Toronto Nov 22. I have tough questions for her myself.

        Won’t be back for at least a day.

        i should add that from Toronto longterm care facilities we have succeeded, pending long review already, in eliminating wifi, after witnessing elder suffering that stopped right after it was switched off, objective symptomology

        readers must be unaware that cellmasts have been ordered removed incl. with high courts upholding in at least France, Chile, Belgium ,Greece, Tunisia a case just launched in Japan, in Italy a high court upheld a labour tribunal ruling about occupational damage from cell phone use — get with it! Canada is next, sad to say it’ll likely have to be through the courts, I expect little from politicians via HESA, just some publicity for the issues, to put it out there as here among an until now largely hoodwinked gen. public…bye for now

      • Art Tricque says:

        Readers must be aware that many orders of magnitude more mobile phone masts and wifi access points (the latter both in public and in private) have been installed in the past years than the handful removed.

      • Art Tricque says:

        “children” You say you are loathe to bring up the children, yet you brought up the issue. Can you be internally consistent with anything?

  24. Art Tricque says:

    Deever “Are you playing games or cannot comprehend? … The simplistic decidedly non-philosophical approach to causality is at the root of the problem, esp. when dealing with greatly complex beings.” Not a game at all. Science is a serious business for serious people. You are concerned about the topic, clearly, and that is to be commended. But you seem lack an understanding of the scientific method, which puts you at a loss when others versed in the method question you. As to philosophy, it is a fine discipline, and I enjoy discussing Aquinas, Locke and Schopenhauer as much as the next man. However, I fail to see how the latter’s views on freedom change one iota whether or not a study offered in evidence in a scientific argument has proper blinding and a statistically sound analysis.
    You are correct in that human beings are complex. It is imperative that that complexity be studied through science, and not through casual references to friends that one knows, or ancient forms of “holistic” healing.

  25. crf says:

    The article says this was published by NRC (The National Reasearch Council of Canada).

    It was published by NRC RESEARCH PRESS. They are not exactly the same thing.

    (Also, NRC Research Press has completed its process of being spun out from NRC patronage, but this article was published before this event.)

  26. elemental says:

    Art writes: “As to philosophy, it is a fine discipline, and I enjoy discussing Aquinas, Locke and Schopenhauer as much as the next man. However, I fail to see how the latter’s views on freedom change one iota whether or not a study offered in evidence in a scientific argument has proper blinding and a statistically sound analysis.”

    Therein lies the folly of the dangerous mindset obsessed with scientific method. What confirms said scheme’s validity and applicability to real argument? Philosophy, of course. The scientific method is a philosophy promoted most often by those ignorant of external and (more) important approaches. In the case of the “sceptical”, promoted hypocritically: I’ve never seen an ounce of new scientific or physical content in a Sceptic’s article. Rather journal paper cherrypicking and emotional – gasp! – appeal, in this case to a colder and detached emotional base. Existence, causation – no scientific or statistical analysis can come close to proper identification of such.

    Reputability of journals is little more than a joke. I recall – (don’t ask for the reference, this was from a physics laboratory class’ warning to be careful with regression and can’t remember exactly where this appeared) – an article published in either Science or Nature in which a quadratic fit was applied to what any reasonable reader will conclude is a random distribution. Politics plague even the best journals. The peer review process, double blind studies and subsequent blindness to the obvious bear little connection to the philosophy of the scientific method. Openmindedness, on the other hand, goes back to the 17th century’s scientific revolutionaries and is sadly lacking in many of today’s natural philosophers.

    “You are correct in that human beings are complex. It is imperative that that complexity be studied through science, and not through casual references to friends that one knows, or ancient forms of “holistic” healing.”

    Art: modern, Western-science-based medicine will one day be ancient, too. If ancient means laughable, then today’s medical standards are a very bad joke.

    • Art Tricque says:

      Thanks for your reply. I hope I can take a little liberty and focus a reply on this case of EMF and health. You suggest that we cherry-pick. In the case here, I think it has easily been demonstrated as false: the EU SCENIHR report is the most comprehensive and scientific in tone of any review so far presented.
      You also suggest that skeptics show a lack of emotion. What emotional tone should one take when examining the evidence around EMF and health? Hysterical? Melancholic? Angry?
      Journals are not perfect. We should continue to seek to improve the journal process. To dismiss all evidence presented in journals, though, is not borne out: it is the nirvana fallacy at work. Also, comprehensive reviews have come about as way to aggregate and weigh multiple studies and pieces of evidence in part as a way to overcome issues that individual articles might have. Again, I point to the EU SCENIHR report.
      “Existence, causation – no scientific or statistical analysis can come close to proper identification of such” Correct, since in the real world neither zero nor 100 per cent probabilities can be demonstrated. In the case of EMF and health, is their another tool you think is better able to identify causation other than the scientific method?
      As for open-mindedness, I think you are off the mark: I am perfectly willing to entertain any hypothesis about EMF and health. However, I am not credulous, will submit it to questioning, and will reject it if it does not measure up. The alarmist position does not.
      Mea culpa on ancient medicine: whether something is ancient or not is not the measure of its rationality. Often claims are made for things in health that they must be effective because they are ancient. It does not follow in either direction. Do I follow you correctly, though, that as regards EMF and health, you feel today’s Western-science-based medical standards are laughable?

  27. deever says:

    Haven’t abandoned you, dearest Art & co, blinkered skeptics, will try to find a moment to review this page and comment. Thought to share with you another deever comment posted elsewhere just now, from a study I think I learned of some months ago in the Neth., now reported on at http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bomen101120.htm , plug it in to googletranslate or babelfish , the deever:
    ……….
    We have lived in the same location for over 20 years. We have been until last fall relatively distant in our urban setting from cell phone base station antennae (400 & 800m). Last fall at 200m a “low power” new 2.1-something gHz transmitter was aimed our way (and the general ambient level is of course up as well with more & more wireless mania dependencies). A Norway maple previously resplendent (at least 15 of those years) suddenly this spring became defoliated by half — only on the side facing the mast (photos available). There are other aspects of vegetative stress on the property: a giant aggressive
    rosebush for years near that Norway, probably in the same plume of radiation descending on our yard, has turned sickly; there have been leaf deformities never seen all our years here on grape vine & pear tree; one fir tree sheltered mostly from that plume, has newly browned-out spots ONLY where the branches poke out around a north wall thus directly exposed to this new emitter. Wake up! Synthetic xenobotic radiation like this is a universal bio-/enviro-stressor, and must be turned back starting now, lest everything with cells in its body eventually succumb in one way or another. All over our city, now further densely e-smogged with “smart” utility meters just activated
    this year, we have noticed accelerated tree stress this year, whereas In local ravines where radiation tends to be much lower there are few or no signs of this defoliation etc. Open your eyes, pay attention to your own symptoms and those of people around you, clue in & tell everyone you can, so as to effect drastic corrective change as speedily as possible. Another current anecdote: black raspberry bush part exposed to new “smart” electricity meter radiation (different locality, stronger transmission, higher frequency) had exposed cane leaves wrinkle and turn yellow and yield inedible-tasting fruit, canes sheltered just fine.
    ……….

  28. deever says:

    an interesting historical quote someone passed along to me:

    Dr. Marjorie Lundquist, participant from Biolelectromagnetic Hygiene Institute:

    Re replication of positive effects, ‘those of us in the health
    professions know that very often we have to make decisions based on less than ideal information, and we cannot afford to neglect the information at hand just because it does not come to us in the ideal garb we would like. I am a little concerned about the fact that when you are dealing with something that impacts people’s health, you can set aside non-replicated effects that are positive in nature. I have always felt there are other ways of providing a degree of validation of positive effects that may be less than the ideal way of replicating in another laboratory. When one sees enough such effects occurring across a broad enough field, one begins to get the feeling that there is something here that we are going to get tripped up by if we do not understand what it is.

    Response of panel member Dr. Joseph Morrissey of Motorola:
    ‘I believe the approach to take here… is to look at the entire playing field of results…Surely [a positive finding] must be replicated to validate it before this can change the group’s way of thinking and before it can be generally accepted in the field.’

    Dr. Lundquists’s certification has since been revoked by the AmericanBoard of Industrial Hygiene – the reason is unclear.

    • Michael5MacKay says:

      According to the ABIH’s website, Dr. Lundquist’s certification expired in 2003. http://www.abih.org/members/listing.html It indicates that she either voluntarily resigned, or failed to successfully complete the recertification process.

      • deever says:

        With the historic cloud over the whole business, official declarations are to be treated as unverified or unverifiable, as the quoted report about her position there. The main point of sharing that was to bring a piece of history (someone just sent me it today), showing the drastically opposed attitudes. In line with what I see as skpetos’ frequent deference to experts, it is strange indeed that on this business public health professionals’ judgements are accepted as trumped by words of those working closely with industry & its abettors. Very strange, in fact. Why not accept public health experts’ judgement
        on public health? Partly something to do with dated physics envy?

        You probably do not know that around the same time, late 90s, when Toronto Public Health expressed some learned dissent from “Health” Canada’s “Safety” Code, I believe every or just about every public health pro in Boston signed on to a petition against the imminent switch on of the cell network there, based on evidence they had brought before them (I think some had to do with sudden mortality spikes found in other US cities shortly after system switch on; I can maybe find out more, if there were some evidence of sensible receptivity here). I think they were all pressured to retract. They might have had other studies put before them, but I doubt that was the reason for retraction. But the nature of evidence handled by such people is different significantly from that by radio engineers et al, yet the latter crowd hold sway. I incline to cultural criticism rather than digging up specific dirt on people, the culture making it possible for the dirt to dominate. But dirt-digging is what it takes for some people to be swayed back to the side of right, even if it is only shades of dirt. Why do skeptos restrict their (open, anyway) skepticism on this business, esp. when shown just so many “shades”? When Devra Davis tells stories of fraud and aggression, that is serious and libellous if wrong. Means nothing to a skepto?

  29. Art Tricque says:

    Deever “How on earth can you think that engineers & physicists have a handle on body electric? That is so out to lunch!” and
    “Why not accept public health experts’ judgement
    on public health? Partly something to do with dated physics envy?”
    Deever suggests the rational perspective relies only on the research of engineers and physicists. This is incorrect: the position is based on research and expertise from a diverse set of fields, including health. For example, looking at just the first three members of the EU SCENIHR (see http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/members_committee/index_en.htm ): Prof. Anssi Auvinen has an MD and a PhD in epidemiology, and is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Tampere and senior researcher at the Finnish STUK Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority; Prof. Kenneth Dawson has an MSc in Mathematics and a DPhil in Chemistry, and heads up the Irish research platform on nanotechnology and health; and Dr Wim De Jong has a DVM and a PhD in Vetrinary Science, and is a senior scientist at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

  30. Art Tricque says:

    Further to Deever “How on earth can you think that engineers & physicists have a handle on body electric? That is so out to lunch!”

    The statement includes a non sequitur. It does not follow that because we do not have a complete understanding of brain, microwaves at below ICNIRP guidelines levels either cause health effects or do not cause health effects.

    • deever says:

      ?? and it follows from lack of surer footing re “body electric” that icnirp guidelines should prevail?? which is the worse implied non sequitur? add just these up — a)great number of independent worldwide disinterested health complaints, b)strong independent scientific worldwide dissent, c)strong military & financial & clandestine & industrial interests’ involvement, d) long 20th century history of such interests burying truths about dire health effects, e) copious learned & journalistic writings over decades about dangers & misbehaviour, f)what more does one need to guess that something is very amiss? a) all in their heads, attributable to anything but RF exposures; b) cranks and woomeisters all; c) conspiratorial claptrap; d)non sequitur that this must apply here; e) they don’t know anything about science; f) but if you defeat cell telephony how will you call 9-1-1 in an emergency? — what’s wrong with this, skeptos?

      • Art Tricque says:

        It applies in neither case: it is faulty argumentation on Deever’s part, and not a line of argumentation that I have used to support that rationalist case.

  31. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “The examined is about as clear-minded, highly literate & competent as can be.… He needs his head examined, right?”
    High intelligence is not automatically a prophylactic against faulty reasoning. Further, one person’s views are not a substitute for a comprehensive scientific review.
    As regards anyone needing their head examined: this is not an assertion that either I or anyone else on this article discussion has made. Those who feel they are affected by microwaves are not crazy; they are just mistaken about the source of their health problems. They *do* deserve compassionate and *effective* science-based medical treatment.

  32. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “It seems possible your organization is in fact supported by those in whose interest it is to confuse the public. You owe it to your humanity to meet with severe sufferers.”

    If Deever has any evidence to suggest that I work for someone or some organization whose intent is to confuse the public, then I welcome him to present it. Otherwise, this is another evidence-free assertion, a deliberate smear, and the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on his part. The logic is furthermore faulty in that, even if I were employed by such organizations, that would not automatically invalidate any evidence I presented. It would be another factor to weigh when considering the evidence.

    Re humanity etc. Another subtle ad hominem. My humanity is fully intact. As previously stated several times, I believe those suffering from any illness deserve compassionate and effective science-based medical treatment. Their suffering does not need to be needlessly made more acute and / or prolonged by alarmists whose views have not measured up to scientific scrutiny.

  33. deever says:

    Despisers of anecdotes, too much going on for me to retake up this thread just now, I’d like to get back to it, but remembered the following should be shared with you, on topic from yet another angle, re a study just out, it’s being picked up all over now, incl. ineffectual debunking attempts, I can provide you more specifically on tree stress, here are my own remarks you might come across on some of those web-published stories, search in news items on ‘wifi’ ‘trees’, you’ll see, & here is part of my story:
    …………..
    We have lived in the same location for over 20 years. We have been until last fall relatively distant in our urban setting from cell phone base station antennae (400 & 800m). Last fall at 200m a “low power” new 2.1-something gHz transmitter was aimed our way (and the general ambient level is of course up as well with more & more wireless mania dependencies). A Norway maple previously resplendent (at least 15 of those years) suddenly this spring became defoliated by half — only on the side facing the mast (photos available). There are other aspects of vegetative stress on the property: a giant aggressive rosebush for years near that Norway, probably in the same plume of radiation descending on our yard, has turned sickly; there have been leaf deformities never seen all our years here on grape vine & pear tree; one fir tree sheltered mostly from that plume, has newly browned-out spots ONLY where the branches poke out around a north wall thus directly exposed to this new emitter. Wake up! Synthetic xenobiotic radiation like this is a universal bio-/enviro-stressor, and must be turned back starting now, lest everything with cells in its body eventually succumb in one way or another. All over our city, now further densely e-smogged with “smart” utility meters just activated this year, we have noticed accelerated tree stress this year, whereas in local ravines where radiation tends to be much lower there are few
    or no signs of this defoliation etc. Open your eyes, pay attention to your own symptoms and those of people around you, clue in & tell everyone you can, so as to effect drastic corrective change as speedily as possible. Another current anecdote: black raspberry bush part exposed to new “smart” electricity meter radiation (different locality, stronger transmission, higher frequency) had exposed cane leaves wrinkle and turn yellow and yield inedible-tasting fruit, canes
    sheltered just fine.
    …………..

    Also see from Israel, just reported, where a committee similar to our HESA, has come up with some favourable if mild recommendations, if only mostly re children & schools, even that little will probably put to shame what our politicians will come up with after having heard & seen probably far more damning than the Israeli committee.

    Skeptics, set your sights in the right direction.

    • Steve Thoms says:

      Okay, I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but your comment calling us, “Despisers of anecdotes” tells me much.

      It’s not that we ‘despise’ anecdotes, it’s that they cannot be the primary source of information. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the mechanisms by which humans can very easily deceive themselves and be deceived.

      It doesn’t matter how many anecdotes you have, and it doesn’t matter how similar they are. THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. You claim to know a great deal about how science operates, and yet you cannot grasp this most basic concept.

      P.S.
      Gish Gallop information can be found here. You’re doing it. You’re not helping yourself as much as you think you are.

      • deever says:

        OK, so you don’t despise anecdotes, that could have been rhetorical overkill. But “that they cannot be the primary source of information” is a completely unjustified remark if applied generally. You really think my Norway maple is being “deceived”? Utterly bizarre that your bar of reliability completely excludes anecdote, esp. where corruption of process occurs, where inadequate conceptuality pertains, and so on. Unless we are not clear on what that term means for you. A story told under oath in a court of law, is that not an anecdote for you? And where do you see my alleged “claim”? And just what is a “troll” for these purposes? It is offensive to be among your type. Does that change the ‘troll’ designation? Why not debate your dumb Post article, here or another spot of your choosing, before a general public? Sorry to have not checked back here sooner or carefully enough to have seen this your silly reply.

  34. Composer99 says:

    Deever, we are bombarded constantly – constantly – by electromagnetic radiation that is rather more powerful – that is to say, more energetic – than any output from WiFi or similar devices.

    It’s called the Sun, and that EM radiation is visible light. Visible light is approximately 6 orders of magnitude more energetic than the EM radiation used in most wireless installations.

    I do not think anyone would seriously claim that visible-light EM radiation causes damage at the physiologic level.

    That being the case, why should we take seriously claims that much less energetic EM radiation (WiFi, etc.) is harmful in the manner you are claiming?

    • deever says:

      You’ve hit upon it, that visible light, if you’re stuck with line-of-sight signal transfer, is a likelier substitute. There is already much “r&d” on this, look it up, I’m in too much of a hurry, this tree study is getting play all over in even unlikely places, commenting here & there between errands. If the arrogation re microwave development had not occurred post-WW2, such alternatives might have been developed already, similar story to a whole range of monstrosities also endangering everything with cells in their bodies.

      Later.

      • Composer99 says:

        Uhh… I thought I was being perfectly clear.

        Once again, deever, if the EM radation you find so objectionable has 10-6 the energy of visible light which (except under very specific circumstances) does not cause clinical harm in people, on what basis can you conclude that wireless EM radiation is more harmful? Harm from exposure to environmental contaminants is usually a function of dose-response.

        An unreliable personal testimonial? Keep in mind that most people who provide testminonials are sincere, which does not in any way prevent them from also being mistaken.

      • deever says:

        Of course, I knew what you were saying. I just seized the opportunity for something else, good of you to provide the opening (you don’t have to accept the thanks).

        It’s hard to get what you do not get. Do you not think it reasonable to assume that planetary denizens are adapted/adaptable to deal with most non-synthetic emf/emr? How assume that they are re synthetic? Esp. when there is a heap of evidence to tell us we do not have a handle on what we are doing, with every frequency & modulation pattern we intervene with.

        Don’t fall for drab linear comparisons either, it seems that frequencies count, intensities do, “windows” exist, “peaks” matter…we have no comprehensive clue at all. Maybe, maybe, my hunch is that with assistance from medical & other traditions from very different parts of the world (esp. re Oriental “qi”-based med.) – but only if
        the orthodoxy here loosens up, which it will have to as the financial supports risk crumbling soon — a better understanding will emerge. But — did I say this slogan yet — there are other ways for humans to communicate.

        Radar, AM, FM, TeeVee, all of it needs urgent reassessment, blocked only by those who have interests in the status quo, as it’s been right from the WW2. Read some of the historic material I have suggested. Only now with unhinged mass proliferation has enough suffering emerged so as to not have a sufficient lid on it any longer. Heaven knows it is not the only class of modernist madness that needs undoing or redoing. If very much good has happened even with it all, it cannot be balanced by crude “risk analysis” vs death & sickness. Otherwise, we see human sacrifice has never really disappeared. Like I said, scientism as religious surrogate…

  35. Composer99 says:

    Bother, HTML did not render. That’s 10E-6.

  36. Art Tricque says:

    Deever ” A story told under oath in a court of law, is that not an anecdote for you?”
    Deever is unaware of legal standards. In a court of law as regards matters of *science*, an anecdote such as that about his tree would not be considered relevant evidence.

    • deever says:

      Be assured I have masters of jurisprudence at my right hand, a next resort now that HESA has spoken ineffectually as expected, much to perpetrators’ pleasure, in contrast to goings on eg in Russia, Israel, etc., where (must be crank) scientists & politicians come up with different prescriptions. Canadians must have differnet biology (in hardness of cranium?; maybe different geopgraphy, as in corporate plauyground).

      As for Art’s attempt here, well, how about:

      There was once a lawyer named Rex,
      who was small in the parts used in sex,
      When charged with exposure,
      He replied, with composure,
      “De minimis non curat lex.”

      But where’s Thoms? Let’s have Thoms vs “troll”, or better, Trottier, whose website should have alliterative parallel, emfand[netherworld].

  37. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “You really think my Norway maple is being “deceived”?”
    On the contrary, *you* are deceived by assuming that the effect of the maple losing its leaves was precipitated by the cause of mobile phone tower microwaves. We humans are very easily deceived into thinking something has caused an effect, when it has not. That was Mr. Thoms’ point.
    More generally, Deever’s anecdotes about plants and trees in his garden are an example the typical “woo” propensity for focusing on some alleged cause and making it the root of all evil, the “one true cause”. Something happened to the tree, then it must be microwaves. It could not be any one of hundreds of other possible causes; contrary to the claim by another earlier commenter, this shows precisely just how much *more* open skeptics are than those in the alarmist camp. I personally would like to know how only half his tree was affected; perhaps he has a qi generator that protected the other half? He certainly has not offered any evidence to suggest he has evaluated seriously the other possible causes. And as for qi, being open to such non-orthodox approaches, as Deever would like us to do, would require so much openness — in the oft quoted words — as to make one’s brain fall out.
    The Collingwood wifi in schools case is another example of this “one true cause” blindness, where the alarmist group spokesperson said words to the effect that the kids had headaches, that they had eliminated other causes to settle on Wifi microwaves, but provided no evidence which of the hundreds of other — much more plausible — causes had been evaluated and how.

    • deever says:

      “the root of all evil” — you mean, evil at the root?

      “qi generator” — I see that TCM is a favourite of you quack debunkers

      “brain fall out” — no, no, that’s what it takes for you folks to recognize harm, head fall off, brain fall out, those kinds of gross effecks (that’s your pal-in-”science” Death Canada gal Beth Pietersen’s term)

      your reply does not deserve more than mockery, sorry, you are basically impugning the observations and sensible inferences from people all around the globe for many years, in labs and out, increasing concomitantly with proliferation of your wireless insanity, you skeptos’ impugning international scholarship really is outrageous, in addition to blockish grasp of the relation of evidence to authority, causation to correlation, so many things

      • Art Tricque says:

        I would still like to know what other hypotheses Deever considered for the botanical distress he suffered. What evidence did he collect and consider and to reject all those other possible causes? His silence on the matter means he considered no other causes or evidence.

  38. Art Tricque says:

    Deever: “Don’t fall for drab linear comparisons either, it seems that frequencies count, intensities do, “windows” exist, “peaks” matter…we have no comprehensive clue at all.”
    This is wishful thinking, with no firm scientific support, and an example both of the “one true cause” blindness and of how increasingly desperate the alarmist camp has become. The scientific reviews have rejected the hypothesis that below-ICNIRP guideline level microwaves have health effects. But below-ICNIRP guideline level microwaves must have health effects, so let’s come up with an even more subtle and less plausible hypothesis about “windows” and “peaks”. A perversion of science — assuming the hypothesis is true — and an hypothesis that is not borne out by the scientific evidence.

    • deever says:

      “firm” — here we go again, trying to own the terrain by dubious adjective

      “blindness” — come on, again impugning maybe 1000s of scholars over many decades, tell your comments to them, try maybe Dimitris Panagopoulos’ work over 11 years, look it up, tell us what you find unfirm, one example among 1000s

      “scientific reviews have rejected” – as Martin Blank put it, filled by politician scientists, or as Olle Johansson puts it, the “seriously dependent” — did you even read Maisch? what are you afraid of?
      what about that front page book review about tobacco science on your own website here, see my comment there

      • Art Tricque says:

        “Firm” Please, by chance alone, ten people could end up perfectly predicting exposure or non-exposure in a provocation study. Repeating the study ten times with ten times the sample size could be undertaken. The latter would give firmer evidence; the former not. Or do you think all studies are always of equal quality or weight? I forgot: you consider anecdotes conclusive evidence.

      • Art Tricque says:

        “Impugn” nonsense, some researchers may be earnest, it just means the hypotheses they are investigating is false. Others are easy to impugn. L & L’s article — in a journal with Reviews in the title — leaves out the biggest hence very important study on one topic they address. Either they did not know the study (hard to believe), in which case they are ignorant, or they left it out on purpose, in which case they are scientifically inept at best, unethical at worst.

        “1000s of studies never proven false” Also nonsense, happens all the time in science, which Olle J well knows. Other scientists know this too, which is why he is no longer considered credible. Politicians do not know this, hence Olle J can get away with spouting such drivel at HESE. Moreover, since the alarmist camp is the one advancing the new hypothesis — that microwaves at below ICNIRP are harmful — it is for them to address why their hypothesis fails to explain a much larger and better body of contradictory evidence. They cannot, or will not, hence their hypothesis fails in the scientific world.

        “politician/dependent scientists” If Deever or the alarmist camp have hard evidence that the members of the SCENIHR committee are not scientifically competent, or tied to others, let them bring it forth. Otherwise, yet another argument fail.

  39. Art Tricque says:

    “c)strong military & financial & clandestine & industrial interests’ involvement”

    Ooh, and now Deever throws in the scary military angle. Now that is classy argumentation. The alarmist camp, right from the get-go through the use of the deliberately poisoning the well word “radiation”, uses wording with negative connotations against an unsuspecting public in a deliberate fashion to demean the rationalist argument. Cannot win in scientific forum? Tar your opponents instead. Attack via — as previously pointed out — the unsophisticated press, then the federal politicians, then the provincial politicians, then the municipal politicians, then even the school and library boards, each less and less capable of evaluating the suspect science with which they are presented. And either willfully or ignorantly report on the topic ad infinitum. The Canadian alarmist community provides examples.

    Magda Havas is on. She has never published any research on microwaves *ever* in a respectable journal in a 35 year career. Instead, she writes paeans, strike that “open letters” and submissions to municipalities and boards. In a recent missive she wrote that “Schools in parts of France, Britain, Canada and elsewhere are quietly replacing WiFi with wired connections.” She neglected to mention these are no more than a handful, and that in the same time period millions of installations have taken place in schools, libraries, public spaces and private homes. Oops, I guess that was an accidental omission.

    The alarmist campaigner Martin Weatherall is another case. For example, he has written to the Chief Coroner of Ontario saying that he had investigated Wifi at his wife’s workplace “…with a high quality radio frequency meter and discovered that the entire office was engulfed in very strong continuous microwave radiation. … microwave radiation readings that … were over two thousand microwatts per square metre and were higher than my RF meter could read.” He neglects to mention that such a level is 5,000 times below the Safety Code 6 guidelines. He also must have a faulty professional RF meter. A professional meter should be able to measure such levels with ease. I can even recommend a number of models should he wish to trade in his.

    • deever says:

      “poisoning the well word “radiation”” — it’s a deliberate counter-tactic to “non-ionizing” vs “ionizing”, the former long known through scholarship to be dangerous, yet use of negative prefix subliminally telling you, non-dangerous, can’t knock things about in one way, must be unable to do anything wrong at whatever levels we want for our purposes, general public be damned, eg see the moscow Embassy incident (very good of Levitt & Lai to mention, eh, Lorne?), where US screens its workers there at exponentially lower exposures than max. acceptable in the US (& here), yet keeps domestic standards unchanged, launches weaponry programme instead — right up the credulos’ alley (you are not skeptos, whatever you say, at least on these issues, but from what i’ve seen elsewhere, there would be scarce little we’d agree on, i expect)

      tell your buddies to put up someone more worthwhile debating

      • John Greg says:

        deever, you seem to be sinking into some early stage illiteracy syndrome, or something. Are you raging? All of your posts have been entertaining playgrounds of misspellings, poor grammar, and opaque or simply incorrect diction. But now, goodness, you seem to have given up on punctuation and capitalization almost altogether.

        By the way, amidst all your semi-coherent ranting do you actually have any meaningful, scientifically sound, reproducible evidence to back up all or even any of your bizarre claims?

      • deever says:

        the deliberate lack of caps reflects speedy composition,as well as lower regard for interlocutor response responded to in turn

        you skeptocranks’ repetitious calls for spoonfeeding of sci. stuiides is beyond tiresome, look for yourself, there are literally 1000s upon 1000s showing deleterious effects; never before, as Olle J says, in the history of sci. has such a thing occurred — public health policy can turn on a single paper, no assurance of “causal” mechanism, yet here you have so much you fools spit at or refuse to examine or go looking for on your own — gevalt

      • Art Tricque says:

        “Radiation” Nice try. The alarmist camp uses the term — true, in a deliberate fashion — because it has scary connotations for the scientifically unfamiliar, the average member of the public, average journalist and average politician. It is never used by anyone else in a lay context for any other topic. “Microwave” alone will do; “microwave radiation” is alarmist. Even Deever elsewhere calls it a microwave oven, not a microwave radiation oven. And I bet he or any other alarmist never says “turn up the luminous radiation” when he needs more light, or “can you adjust the UHF radiation detection level” when he wants to change FM radio channels.

      • Art Tricque says:

        “Microwave weapons program” Be happy to accept any evidence — US government documents accessible from Congress, .mil or .gov web sites would do — that the US has any weapons in use or active development that use microwaves at below ICNIRP guideline levels.

      • Art Tricque says:

        I am not buddies with Mr. Trottier, though I admire his commitment to science. Deever is welcome to provide any evidence that I am buddies with him. Otherwise, a sarcasm fail. ;-)

      • deever says:

        Art :

        ““Radiation” Nice try. The alarmist camp uses the term — true, in a deliberate fashion — because it has scary connotations for the scientifically unfamiliar, the average member of the public, average journalist and average politician. It is never used by anyone else in a lay context for any other topic. “Microwave” alone will do; “microwave radiation” is alarmist. Even Deever elsewhere calls it a microwave oven, not a microwave radiation oven. And I bet he or any other alarmist never says “turn up the luminous radiation” when he needs more light, or “can you adjust the UHF radiation detection level” when he wants to change FM radio channels.”

        [getting a bit clumsy to maintain recognizable thread sequences when responding, so forgive the otherwise redundant full quote for clarity]

        But I think you have set up an “own goal” with this argumentative tack & example, Art: the old ovens used to be called…”radar ranges”, remember? They started selling better, did they not (and unfortunately), with the name change…So, you know, “micro”, very small, wee, can’t hurt ya’. “-wave”, like the sea, or something, soothing, at least to early hearers. Like ionizing & non-ionizing, we know what the former can do, but the latter is non-that, so banish from your thoughts any notions of harm.
        So can i stick with “radiation” tout court now, with your non-alarmed permission?

        more Art:

        “I would still like to know what other hypotheses Deever considered for the botanical distress he suffered. What evidence did he collect and consider and to reject all those other possible causes? His silence on the matter means he considered no other causes or evidence.”

        Did you see the photos? I am admittedly a poor photographer, but early spring defoliation, and only on one side, and never before, and always very healthy beforehand (even to our neighbour’s chagrin, as he deals with some leaf drop — could the elderly man have maliciously poisoned half the tree & so high up?), lots of selective defoliation around town, little or none seen in low-lying low-rad ravines, other weird never-before-seen effects like this on the same property (see my earlier comment, i am being repetitious, but you must not have read carefully), that it is early spring is evident from foreground mulberry, a late leafer if early fruiter…What hypothesis does Art suggest for the collective harm & weirdness? I have other neighbourhood & on-property photos, but the camera cable seems not working, pics aren’t great, but i will try to put ‘em up. Here’s a couple from others out there, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsuP_WBBr2c &
        http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/threelimetrees0704.pdf . On the former, i know the comment from a pro was re disease. But that misses a major point, including re people, if immunity is stressed from EM stressor, there is likelihood of pathogenic success. Same with bees, varroa mites &c, but their general immune stress from constant bombardment is very plausible leading to other “causal” elements. With this even only skin-deep, if there is a constant surface battle being fought. Johansson long ago, and persecuted for it, showed evidence of such an immune response in skin cells from VDTs I think it was, for people who even said they felt nothing. But I certainly think there are many more pathways to this distress.

        more Art on Dec 10:

        “One does not need to scoff. It is simply the alarmist (and woo in general) myopic belief in the one true cause at work again. If Milham were still a rational scientist, he might have explained what other possible hypotheses for the rise in adrenal tumors he had considered, then rejected based on evidence. That is what scientists do: they come up with an hypothesis and try hard to falsify it. If it is still left standing despite repeated attempts, it is considered the accepted wisdom. Milham provides nothing. Hence, an argument fail; he is no longer a scientist; and his musings are no longer considered by health authorities.”

        “One true cause”? You sound like those evasive about the study, chopping up categories so the damning overview cannot be had. Do you really think your account is true to what goes on in sci. research, esp. in the contentious bioeffects field, moreso with such heavy interests depending on the results? You don’t seem as young as some of these commenters, you can’t be that naive. Besides, such an idealized view would not operate across all disciplinary boundaries, although I suspect you’d withhold the benediction, ‘science’, from any but those that come close to your measure of hardness & falsification attempts.
        To go back to the hackneyed example, what real understanding of tobacco causality is there? But has there still not been enough to condemn it? Do you really think that what Guy was doing in the Milham quote does not look suspicious? Guy I think is a villain in Davis’ book as well. Do you not think that Milham is on to something? Esp. when he charted things like the advance of unheard-of disease frequency along with the march of electrification (re ELF), even comparing county by nearby county? A “skeptic” waits for Godot.

        Look at all his work and see how he developed a nose for this. Way before him, the powers-that-were professionally ousted a Dr Maschi in France for his pioneering e-pollution ideas and practical therapies (’60s), he was reinstated I think with presidential honour as octogenarian. In France, awareness of this stuff is way ahead of non-intellectual Canada in your great Skeptic North. See their agency Affset, and other goings on there , court judgements, masts dismantled, test localities, etc. (Might happen in Quebec…)

        Art, Dec 11:

        ““Firm” Please, by chance alone, ten people could end up perfectly predicting exposure or non-exposure in a provocation study. Repeating the study ten times with ten times the sample size could be undertaken. The latter would give firmer evidence; the former not. Or do you think all studies are always of equal quality or weight? I forgot: you consider anecdotes conclusive evidence.”

        You saw me say anecdotes are “conclusive”? Important, yes, esp. in the complex world of biology. But even my expert
        TCM physician I can see sometimes pays less attention to my words than what he perceives visually and by pulse-taking. Is it art, is it science, is it both? It sometimes seems that skeptos’ mental alienation from their bodies-in-the-world is akin to some impossible religious effort at transcendence, and while you strive and look the other way, bad guys get away with some very bad stuff, and rely on your obliviousness and even arguing in their favour!

        Dec 11:

        ““Microwave weapons program” Be happy to accept any evidence — US government documents accessible from Congress, .mil or .gov web sites would do — that the US has any weapons in use or active development that use microwaves at below ICNIRP guideline levels.”

        This is stuff not I, but I know others, are into. I must have already referred you to Brodeur & Steneck who wrote about the Moscow US Embassy aftermath. (Also, careful with the quote marks, those words were again not exactly mine, why not be more closely accurate?)

        Last one:

        “I am not buddies with Mr. Trottier, though I admire his commitment to science. Deever is welcome to provide any evidence that I am buddies with him. Otherwise, a sarcasm fail. ;-)

        I remember a brief interchange with the object of your admiration about a year ago, in which he flung a near useless study at me, which I then criticized, his response while then quickly taking leave something like, “if you won’t listen to science”…

        I propose all entries on this thread, if any more to come, be put at the end now and replies can start from there.

  40. Composer99 says:

    Deever:

    Frankly you have been spouting pure, unadulterated BS. Your posts can charitably be described as ‘word salad’.

    You have been the one claiming effects leading to ill-health on the part of low-energy EM energy on this comment thread.

    As such, it is your responsibility, and no one else’s, to support your position with evidence. It is no one else’s job to go looking for research to support your position.

    If there are thousands of studies – something which I rather doubt at this point – then link to a few compelling ones.

    If you are not going to do the hard work of supporting your claim with something other than paragraph after paragraph of something more appropriate for modernist/post-modernist prose literature than a discussion on physics, that is too bad. But it’s not the problem of anyone else here.

  41. deever says:

    Yes, you all seem more carnivorous than salad-eating, what with the moles to whack and people to pin down (see above).

    This is a venue for physics? Come on. You’ve been given plenty of starter links to explore, what holds you back? Read ‘em all? See the Bioinitiative bibliography? See Panagopolous’ HESA submission? Just a couple of things already from this page alone, yet your daft request for more sci. ref. before digesting probably even the journalistic stuff salad-tossed before you (should of called in a butcher, eh?).

    Excuse me, pal, but I & others close to me have spent rather many hours of “hard work” poring over a huge amount of material obscured from general public view. You want me to spoonfeed you. I came here to debunk your ringleader Trottier’s dumb post about Lai & Levitt. Deal with that. Let him come out & talk for himself. Follow some of those links and feed yourself. Try an allied skeptokook site I already mentioned, lots o’ stuff brought there by me to an equally obtuse or credulous if narrowly technically competent gang (they’re ruder).
    http://depletedcranium.com/?p=9080&cp=all#comments

    http://depletedcranium.com/?p=8741&cp=all#comments
    Why not answer my book review comment? This is not in the main about physics. You want cutting edge physics on the matter, you’ll need to consider the place of water & best with “water” in the traditional oriental rubric, but that I suppose is lost on your types whacking your moles. You can explore http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm esp. the papers on water. But none of this is needed to fairly decide public policy re public exposures to xenobiotic radiation.
    http://yfrog.com/mrnorway10j
    http://yfrog.com/jknorway2j
    are two photos very early season of Norway referred to above.
    Enough scraps for you to chew on?

  42. deever says:

    Couldn’t help thinking of you when I was looking again in a book just returned to me, Sam Milham’s just-published memoirs, Dirty Electricity, finding this quote:
    ……………….
    At one memorable [Bioelectromagnetics Society, from which Milham "eventually resigned when industry influence began to heavily permeate their journal"] meeting [...] I was seated next to Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News [...] A University of Washington research group, headed by William Arthur Guy, presented the results of a $4.5 million study [...] for the [USAF} using rats in a germ-free exposure environment [...] showed eighteen cancers in the one hundred exposed rats, but only five cancers in the one hundred sham-exposed controls [...] very unlikely to have happened by chance. Nevertheless, the authors were declaring this a “negative” study.

    The exposures in the experiment were to non-thermal [...] levels of pulsed and modulated RF [...] (2450 mHz). I asked a question during the meeting about it, and [we] met with the authors after the presentation. The authors danced around this striking finding with completely illogical arguments. First, they claimed that the control cancer level was too low, and then that we couldn’t add all the cancers together, since they were of different types. It turns out that most of the cancers were of endocrine system organs.

    This was the first, and to date only, long-term, low-level animal study of non-thermal microwave exposures done in the [US]. In their scientific publications at the time, and still in their interpretation today, this group refuses to acknowledge that this well-done study showed RF exposure to be a potent animal carcinogen. In addition, at midlife, their exposed rats also had significant elevations of immune system T and B cells very similar to [some studied, mentioned in the book re EMF,] aluminum workers. Like [them], the rats were mounting an immune response to the microwaves. I think that with chronic immune stimulation, the immune system fatigues and fails, allowing cancers to occur.

    There also were seven benign adrenal pheochromocytomas in the exposed rats. These are functional tumors of the adrenal medulla, which produce adrenaline. [...][graphs provided]

    There has been a remarkable increase in cases, with a steep increase in annual cases beginning in [...] 2000, just as cell phones were becoming more popular. For example, there were eighty-three hospital discharges in Washington State for this tumor in 2000, but 208 in 2007. National [US] hospital discharges show a similar pattern with 1,927 total discharges for benign adrenal tumors in 1997, and 3,764 in 2007. Clearly something is going on, which may be a reflection of rapidly increasing ambient RF levels in our environment.
    ……………….

    His slim book is filled with such material.
    Scoff away.

    • Art Tricque says:

      One does not need to scoff. It is simply the alarmist (and woo in general) myopic belief in the one true cause at work again. If Milham were still a rational scientist, he might have explained what other possible hypotheses for the rise in adrenal tumors he had considered, then rejected based on evidence. That is what scientists do: they come up with an hypothesis and try hard to falsify it. If it is still left standing despite repeated attempts, it is considered the accepted wisdom. Milham provides nothing. Hence, an argument fail; he is no longer a scientist; and his musings are no longer considered by health authorities.

  43. Westcoast Guy says:

    Wew – just had to read this thread through the whole way. What a trip down fantasy lane, so say the least.

    FYI, I presented in Feb of this year in favour of WiFi by stating there were no harmful biological effects (thermal or non-thermal) found below Canadian Safety Code 6 levels. And that there has been no spike in world-wide cancer rates since cellphones came along. And that microwaves have been in commercial use since at least 1886 (look it up).

    The response by the anti-crowd was:
    - I belong to CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society)
    - CIPS gave me my certifications to use in public (I.S.P., and ITCP) in order to appear to be credible in a technical discussion
    - CIPS uses the words “Learning”, “21st” and “Century” in a document
    - CIPS -must- be part of the evil conspiracy of 21st Century Learning
    - The world-wide conspiracy consists of Microsoft, Oracle & Cisco
    - The conspiracy’s intent is to hard-sell cancer-causing, death-dealing WiFi equipment to unsuspecting end-user organizations such as school boards
    - Therefore, any comments, evidence, or counter-points to the anti-crowds view -must- be ignored as being “paid for by industry”.

    In reply:
    - I earned my credentials. They are not handed out like candy.
    - CIPS used the words in a membership drive training document.
    - World-wide conspiracy? By those three? Not a chance in the world. They’re too incompetent to hide anything -that- big, for any period of time, let alone decades.

    Oh, and that Lorne Trottier’s degree’s of B.Eng and M.Eng were for English and therefore he has no standing in a technical discussion. His degrees are, fyi, in Engineering.

    Since they cannot refute the science, or the work of 10′s of thousands of scientists, medical specialists or industry specialists over literally decades, with some 27,000 studies in general alignment (that “general consensus” thing that they hate), they go and attack the messenger(s).

    Pssst…. they’re still wrong.

    • Erik Davis says:

      >>Oh, and that Lorne Trottier’s degree’s of B.Eng and M.Eng were for English and therefore he has no standing in a technical discussion.

      OMG, I laughed so hard at that….as someone who actually does have an English degree.

  44. Rick says:

    This thread is infested with trolls.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] does not equal causation, which is almost a mantra for skeptics. Recent hysteria regarding WiFi and Cell phones has prompted many skeptics (including yours truly) to blog on the subject and express their [...]

  2. [...] (Update: In this article I point out logical fallacies in the film we saw. For more skeptical information about this issue please see this article on Skeptic North.) [...]


  • Michael Kruse

    Michael is an advanced-care paramedic in York Region, just north of Toronto, Ontario. A semi-retired theatrical lighting designer as well, he re-trained in 2005 as an EMT-PS at the University of Iowa and as an ACP at Durham College, and is currently working towards a B.Sc at the University of Toronto. Michael is a founder and the chair of the board of directors of Bad Science Watch. He is also the recipient of the first annual Barry Beyerstein Award for Skepticism. Follow Michael on twitter @anxiousmedic. Michael's musings are his own and do not necessarily represent those of his employer or Bad Science Watch.