No I don't trust them. My truth is that we all are human. I am reading the articles so I can see the short comings in the processes they are using. We do have a comprehensive case. They are confused, probably more than we are. One chink in thier armour that I notice is, how they are equating the effects of the use of a cell phone (near field) with the effects of base stations (far field). They are flipping from one to the other. I must say the EMF sensitives in Europe have put a ruffle in their feathers. I know how I felt when I was first confronted with the truth of this matter. The disblief that this monster has been allowed to grow so large, and how can it be stopped. Peoples minds are effected by the waves, so I have to work with the factor, that I must forgive them (to an extent) because they too are under the influence. So I look for information in the reports that they provide. Yes I am reading between the lines. I believe in the microwave auditory effect, I feel the effects on my nervous system, it scares me. I am trying to keep a tight control on my anger, anger is a bundle of emotions. How many times in my life so far have I been dissuated, because the one I have asked for help has said it's too complicated, usually what I have found out later is that they didn't have the answer in the first place. They may be experts in the scientific community but they are only part of what makes the world. They might be singing, but anyone with any insight can see the waves going thru the brain and figure that the brain is not a void, even the effects on neural synpse, neural synapse are roughly nanometres apart, would they not be effected in the wave. I never though I would have to think about such things. Thank you for responding, I don't have anyone to talk to about this. My husband gets a glazed look on his face when I ponder the situation out loud. Patty On Feb 24, 10:28 am, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes but sometimes rants about how complicated subjects happen to be > just another form of avoiding the issue and reaching conclusions > WHO's job is to > interfer with reaching conclusions, complicated or not Yes I would > assume they give some insights, but basically it is up to us to read > between the lines because WHO is NEVER going to tell us the whole > truth because they would lose their non profit funding and the top > people would lose their easy ride > > And just as I suspected, considering the link you provided, WHO is > singing > like a canary to protect the industry it is suppose to be studying for > ill > health effects Notice how they so eloquently keep the conversation > about > RF levels Not all wireless is RF And not all wireless is modulation > of RF > > THE BOLD BASIC TRUTH IS BRAIN TUMORS, CANCERS IN MEN N WOMEN, > DIABETIES, CENTRAL NERVOUS > SYSTEM DISORDERS, ADD TYPE DISORDERS, OBSESSIVE DISORDERS, > CHRONIC INSOMIA, CHRONIC FATIQUE TYPE DISORDERS, BIRTH DEFECTS AND > STILL BIRTHS, BREATHING PROBLEMS (Asthma), AS WELL AS > TOO LARGE OF A PORTION OF THE POPULATION IS LEANING TOWARDS > ROAD RAGES OR THE EXTREME OF GOING POSTAL > > Something in our environments are inducing our bodies to go through > these > multiple changes of our immune systems not being able to do the job > it use to > > Radiation and magnetic fields fill this bill more than any other > form of > technology advancement and that points at the advancement of wireless > > WHO can pretend from now until Doomsday, but pretending is what they > are doing WHO knows perfectly well where there money comes from and > they have the brains to not bite the hand that feeds them even with > despite unavoidable uncertainty to deal with I notice they also go > out of > their way to not link our 60 Hz grid or European's 50 Hz grid to not > be > considered part of the equation when it is a very large part of the > equation > > As summarized here, these separate avenues of scientific investigation > provide little support for adverse health effects arising from RF > exposure at levels below current international standards. Moreover, > radio and television broadcast waves have exposed populations to RF > for > 50 years with little evidence of deleterious health > consequences. Despite unavoidable uncertainty, current scientific data > are consistent with the conclusion that public exposures to > permissible RF levels from mobile telephony and base stations are not > likely to adversely affect human health. > > Radiofrequency (RF) waves have long been used for different types of > information exchange via the airwaves—wireless Morse code, radio, > television, and wireless telephony (i.e., construction and operation > of telephones or telephonic systems) . Increasingly larger numbers of > people rely on mobile telephone technology, and health concerns about > the associated RF exposure have been raised, particularly because the > mobile phone handset operates in close proximity to the human body, > and also because large numbers of base station antennas are required > to provide widespread availability of service to large populations. > The World Health Organization convened an expert workshop to discuss > the current state of cellular-telephone health issues, and this > article brings together several of the key points that were addressed. > The possibility of RF health effects has been investigated in > epidemiology studies of cellular telephone users and workers in RF > occupations, in experiments with animals exposed to cell-phone RF, and > via biophysical consideration of cell-phone RF electric-field > intensity and the effect of RF modulation schemes. > > FOR THE MOST PART, WHATEVER THIS ORGANIZATION WHO > LEADS, invokes in me to look in the opposite direction because my > gut tells me WHO is misleading us just as far as they possibly can > get away with > > I DON'T TRUST THIS ORGANIZATION "WHO". Do you trust > the FDA???? > > On Feb 21, 10:12 am, patty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi dboots; Just type in Characteristics, Dosimetry & Measurement of > > EMF it's out there google and yahoo. > > orwww.WHO.int/peh-emf/meetings/southkorea/en/SeoulWHOTaki.pdf. > > What I like to read is thier Workgroup Reports. Workgroup Report: > > Base Stations and Wireless Networks-Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and > > Health Consequences, is the latest I've > > found.http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2006/9633/9633.html > > I find the workgroup reports give an insight; In the one mentioned > > above they rant about lay people and how that we just don't understand > > how complicated this subject is. > > I would like to rant a bit too, difficult, they should be in the > > position of trying to prove that the hum does have a detrimental > > physical effect. I wrote and asked them to be honest about the > > hearing effect. > > It p's me off when I read that they say it is a trival effect, let > > them see the pain created by my facial nerve, which I can not control. > > I hope the information provided can link you > > Patty > > > On Feb 19, 7:10 pm, dboots <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > John Fudge Factor is right The webs they weave when they practice > > > to deceive > > > Patty Can you supply the link to this pdf ur referencing??? From > > > what I have learned about WHO, their funding leans their studies to be > > > also part of the problem of the "Fudge Factor" of influencing public > > > opinion > > > so sometimes we need to take time and try to read between the lines > > > for the truth because WHO > > > is never going to give you the whole truth and nothing but the truth > > > NEVER > > > > but nevertheless could you give us the link to this pdf anyway just > > > so we > > > can check out any newest fudge factors within some of their > > > representations? > > > > Thanks > > > > D > > > > On Feb 10, 4:41 am, patty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi John; Check out in Google Scholar: Characteristics, Dosimetry & > > > > Measurement of EMF by M. Taki a WHO Taki pdf from the Seoul South > > > > Korea Meeting - Some representations of the microwave auditory effect. > > > > It's near the end of the pdf.. > > > > Just Sharing > > > > Patty > > > > > On Feb 8, 4:23 pm, pmm232 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have been pushing different Political Members here in Australia > > > > > Labor and Liberal Governments also Local Council in the Town of > > > > > Maitland,New South Wales and the response with the Local Federal Labor > > > > > Member was it is unfortunate that I am very sensitive to this and even > > > > > if I moved I could suffer the same. > > > > > > Very helpful particularly when I think the problem here comes from the > > > > > Industrial area close to where I live no-one will get measurements > > > > > taken at my home only Lance Batey so far. > > > > > What do you have to do , run around the streets with a placard to get > > > > > help. > > > > > > I am sure this is coming from the Industrial Area, proving it is the > > > > > problem. > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > > Pam M. > > > > > > On Feb 1, 11:32 pm, "John Dawes" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The British Government has been aware of the Hum problem for the > > > > > > past 40 years and has made a few feeble attempts to find the cause. > > > > > > For the past 32 years the Department of the Environment (DoE) now > > > > > > part of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs > > > > > > (DEFRA) has been researching the problem and has achieved nothing, > > > > > > they are now no closer to finding the cause than the day they began. > > > > > > The latest wheeze from this department is to employ a psychiatrist > > > > > > and a psychologist who will convince Hum sufferers that the problem > > > > > > is all in the mind and if sufferers stop thinking about the Hum it > > > > > > will go away. > > > > > > This is a typical British solution which places the onus on those > > > > > > affected and covers up the tarnished image of the so-called experts. > > > > > > British Government funding also goes to the University of Salford > > > > > > who has been investigating the problem for the past 22 years and > > > > > > like the DoE has achieved absolutely nothing, although they appear > > > > > > not to be seeking a medical or psychological solution but rely more > > > > > > on a scientific fudge factor. > > > > > > Examination of the web pages of these two departments will show > > > > > > that in a combined total of 74 years of public research they have > > > > > > not managed to make one single measurement of the Hum. > > > > > > Unable to find any answer, these departments have repeated made the > > > > > > ludicrous claim that Hum sufferers have super sensitive hearing. > > > > > > It has been known for many years, and now substantiated by those > > > > > > who completed the survey on this web site, that the majority of > > > > > > sufferers are over the age of 50, many have poor hearing, and some > > > > > > are totally deaf. > > > > > > An old deaf person with fantastic hearing powers must be something > > > > > > new for the medical records, and only a government scientist could > > > > > > come up with an explanation like this. > > > > > > However, it is fair to say that these are not the only government > > > > > > departments who live in the realms of fantasy, after exhaustive > > > > > > research, the head of an NHS hospital department specialising in > > > > > > auditory problems has also recently made a similar statement. > > > > > > > The latest British Government Minister to turn a deaf ear to the > > > > > > plight of Hum sufferers is Ms Gillian Merrion MP. Minister of State > > > > > > at the Department of Health. We can only hope that the forthcoming > > > > > > General Election will bring a change in Government and Ms Merrion > > > > > > can employ her undoubted talents elseware.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
