subject:"Re\\\\\\\: \\\\\\\[PSES\\\\\\\] \\\\\\\[SPAM\\\\\\\?\\\\\\\] Re\\\\\\\: \\\\\\\[PSES\\\\\\\] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID"

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-06 Thread John Woodgate

It may also be significant that the Council of Europe disbanded the
committee that produced that resolution. Post hoc is not necessarily
propter hoc, but on the other hand, it often is.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-06 16:29, Pete Perkins wrote:

It’s easy to raise questions regarding results derived from data
without providing the technical detail and the arguments refuting the
original results. This technique needs to be rejected outright and
only pay attention to substantive arguments backed by data; the
complainer should start the argument with the folks who have published
their data and work to change their mind; then we will accept the new
limits announced by INCIRP.

:>) br, Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe 97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

*From:*John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:25 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure
Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

The Wikipedia page repeats part of the Buss document, which cites no
figures, not even any verifiable evidence. The resulting Council
resolution, while recommending ALARA, is overall typically alarmist
and even anti-science in its approach. Let us all now don our tinfoil
hats.

The probity of ICNIRP can be investigated at:
https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/funding-governance/index.html
It should be noted that IEEE concluded that recommended limits higher
than those of ICNIRP are acceptable.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-05 20:35, gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com
<mailto:gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Respectfully acknowledged. However, the following needs to be taken into
consideration. With the advent of 5G, this becomes an increasingly urgent
issue that demands sorting out. (Alarm klaxons sounding) SPAM.really?

***

Despite or because of the wide use of ICNIRP guidance, it also encounters criticism.
The Council of Europe says: "it is most curious, to say the least, that the
applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low
frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to
international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the
ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore
suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by
recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of
electromagnetic fields".[3]

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-05 Thread John Woodgate

The Wikipedia page repeats part of the Buss document, which cites no
figures, not even any verifiable evidence. The resulting Council
resolution, while recommending ALARA, is overalltypically alarmist and
even anti-science in its approach. Let us all now don our tinfoil hats.

The probity of ICNIRP can be investigated at:
https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/funding-governance/index.html It
should be noted that IEEE concluded that recommended limits higher than
those of ICNIRP are acceptable.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-05 20:35, gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com wrote:

***
Despite or because of the wide use of ICNIRP guidance, it also encounters criticism. The
Council of Europe says: "it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable
official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to
international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the
ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore
suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by
recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of
electromagnetic fields".[3]

See also
Mobile phone radiation and health
International Radiation Protection Association - IRPA

References

[1]"Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards" (pdf). World Health
Organization. Retrieved 7 January 2011.

[2]"WHO - International Organizations". Retrieved 27 October 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Protection
***

Gary Stuyvenberg
Sr. EMC Engineer
Thompson Consulting

On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk> wrote:

Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per
RED for 13.56 MHz RFID
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018, 3:59 PM

As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the rest are not, or vice versa.

For example, in the first citation, the first 7 words are not justified by
any peer-reviewed
research reports, the rest are largely true. In the second citation, the
first 14 words are
asserted without proof. In the third citation, the words 'produced by EMF
exposures'
and 'of EMFs' are asserted without proof. The sentence without these words
is claimed
to be true. In the fourth statement, the words 'reduce the harmful effects
of EMFs'
are superfluous; everyone knows that the rest of the sentence is true,
whether one is
exposed to EMF or not.

Alternatively, you can believe that the relevant IEEE and ICNIRP research reports are all falsehoods.

John Woodgate

OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-04 20:41, gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Re: Exposure Limits

Thought I would post this to the group as it has been the

subject of debate for many years. I found it Interesting as
it gets into the mechanisms at work and symptoms while
underscoring the importance of our work.

Gary Stuyvenberg

Sr. EMC Engineer
Thompson Consulting

THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPLAINED

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/03/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx

September 03, 2017 • 148,493 views

Story at-a-glance

- Exposure to microwave EMFs, like cellphones, causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction due to

damage done by free radicals from peroxynitrite that also cause single and
double stranded breaks in
your DNA

- Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from cellphones and Wi-Fi

networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias,
anxiety, depression,
autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility

- Excessive calcium signaling produced by EMF exposures also has important roles in producing

pat

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-05 Thread gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com

***
Despite or because of the wide use of ICNIRP guidance, it also encounters
criticism. The Council of Europe says: "it is most curious, to say the least,
that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of
extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were
drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European
Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are
none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links
with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum
threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields".[3]

See also
Mobile phone radiation and health
International Radiation Protection Association - IRPA

References

[1]"Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards" (pdf). World Health
Organization. Retrieved 7 January 2011.

[2]"WHO - International Organizations". Retrieved 27 October 2012.

[3]Huss, Jean (2011-05-06). "B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Huss, rapporteur -
Section 7. Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of
environment and health protection - Subsection 29". The potential dangers of
electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment - Report - Doc.
12608. Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly - Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. Retrieved 2013-04-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Protection
***

Gary Stuyvenberg
Sr. EMC Engineer
Thompson Consulting

On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk> wrote:

Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per
RED for 13.56 MHz RFID
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018, 3:59 PM

As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the rest
are not, or vice versa.
For example, in the first citation, the first 7 words are not justified by
any peer-reviewed
research reports, the rest are largely true. In the second citation, the
first 14 words are
asserted without proof. In the third citation, the words 'produced by EMF
exposures'
and 'of EMFs' are asserted without proof. The sentence without these words is
claimed
to be true. In the fourth statement, the words 'reduce the harmful effects of
EMFs'
are superfluous; everyone knows that the rest of the sentence is true,
whether one is
exposed to EMF or not.

Alternatively, you can believe that the relevant IEEE and ICNIRP research
reports are all falsehoods.

John Woodgate
OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-04 20:41, gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Re: Exposure Limits

Thought I would post this to the group as it has been the
subject of debate for many years. I found it Interesting as
it gets into the mechanisms at work and symptoms while
underscoring the importance of our work.

Gary Stuyvenberg
Sr. EMC Engineer
Thompson Consulting

THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPLAINED

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/03/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx

September 03, 2017 • 148,493 views

Story at-a-glance

- Exposure to microwave EMFs, like cellphones, causes massive mitochondrial
dysfunction due to
damage done by free radicals from peroxynitrite that also cause single and
double stranded breaks in
your DNA

- Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from
cellphones and Wi-Fi
networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias,
anxiety, depression,
autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility

- Excessive calcium signaling produced by EMF exposures also has important
roles in producing
pathophysiological effects of EMFs including each of the effects listed above

- Strategies that may help reduce the harmful effects of EMFs include
optimizing your magnesium level,
certain Nrf2-boosting foods, exercise, calorie restriction and strategies that
boost nitric oxide signaling
(which acts, in turn, by raising Nrf2)

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitte

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-04 Thread John Woodgate

As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the 
rest are not, or vice versa. For example, in the first citation, the 
first 7 words are not justified by any peer-reviewed research reports, 
the rest are largely true. In the second citation, the first 14 words 
are asserted without proof. In the third citation, the words 'produced 
by EMF exposures' and 'of EMFs' are asserted without proof. The sentence 
without these words is claimed to be true. In the fourth statement, the 
words 'reduce the harmful effects of EMFs' are superfluous; everyone 
knows that the rest of the sentence is true, whether one is exposed to 
EMF or not.


Alternatively, you can believe that the relevant IEEE and ICNIRP 
research reports are all falsehoods.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-04 20:41, gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Re: Exposure Limits

Thought I would post this to the group as it has been the subject of debate for 
many years.  I found it Interesting as it gets into the mechanisms at work and 
symptoms while underscoring the importance of our work.

Gary Stuyvenberg
Sr. EMC Engineer
Thompson Consulting


THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPLAINED

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/03/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx

September 03, 2017 • 148,493 views

Story at-a-glance


Exposure to microwave EMFs, like cellphones, causes massive mitochondrial 
dysfunction due to damage done by free radicals from peroxynitrite that also 
cause single and double stranded breaks in your DNA
Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from 
cellphones and Wi-Fi networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as 
cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility
Excessive calcium signaling produced by EMF exposures also has important roles 
in producing pathophysiological effects of EMFs including each of the effects 
listed above
Strategies that may help reduce the harmful effects of EMFs include optimizing 
your magnesium level, certain Nrf2-boosting foods, exercise, calorie 
restriction and strategies that boost nitric oxide signaling (which acts, in 
turn, by raising Nrf2)

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information