Hi Dave, I'm curious if you've actually watched the movie in its entirety or if your response is just the first reaction at somethingthat, at least at surface level, seems to be the usual and typical alarmist news.
>> "On occasions someone will state that cellular phones cause cancer and make >> the news only to be shown to be stretching the facts to get the results that >> they wish. No one has been successful in that endeavor, but it is not >> because of lack of trying." One of the points made in the documentary is that the wrong question has been asked - it should not be "How are cell phones (and other RF sources of certain frequencies) causing cancer?", but rather "How is RF (ofcertain frequencies) stopping the body from protecting itself against cancer?" >> "And I can assure you that engineers do take the potential dangers associated with RF seriously. Just ask cellular design teams about the many hours spent trying to reduce the exposure of users of their products. And I know of many hours and concerns being expended toward keeping the magnitude of the high level magnetic transmit fields that are used in electronic article surveillance equipment at a level that minimizes danger to those with pacemakers." I'm sure that engineers (btw, that's my background as well) do take the potential dangers of RF seriously. The problem, as detailed in this film, is that the legislation that sets the "safe" limits to which engineers adhere is created around the knowledge of what RF energy can do when it comes to ionization or thermal effects on molecules and does not account for the clearly demonstrated effects on DNA construction as well as melatonin (antioxidant) production. Additionally, again as discussed by "Resonance", cancer from exposure to RF is something that would need to be looked at after > 10 years of significant exposure to certain kinds of RF. We are just now getting there if you look back at how long most people have been using cell phones. Also, the effect RF can have on magnetically sensitive molecules which certain creatures (bees, butterflies, among others) use for compass-like orientation wrt Earth's magnetic field are also not they typical concern of engineers nor of ICNRP. >> "Engineers have expressed much concern about the products that they create, especially when it might endanger the public. It is unfair for anyone to suggest otherwise." As talked about in the film, the current cell tower grid (as well as other equipment) was certainly put up without a long term look at health effects. Please reference any studies examining the effects on melatonin production which were taken into account. Being concerned is not the same thing as being cautious. So yes, I'm sure we're all "concerned", but unfortunately, and for the most part, uninformed. In any case, if things are as the movie documents, what are we willing to do given the clear benefits of the technology involved here? For myself, until someone can "debunk" the supposedly alarmist claims, I'm going to minimize cell phone use. If I have to take a call I'lltry to stick to speakerphone mode. >> "I am not sure of the agenda of the group that produced the movie you listed, but you should question it since it appears to be aimed at alarming those who are easily mislead. My daughter actually attended a school meeting of concerned parents that were convinced that a cellular tower would endanger their children if allowed to be placed at the side of the playground. Perhaps if it fell down upon them it would be dangerous, otherwise the RF level at the ground near the children would not be significant. This is the type of non sense that scare tactics enable." This makes me really think that you haven't taken the time to see the movie, since the negative effects talked about are there even atlow power. If anyone has an agenda, it's an industry making billions of dollars which has managed, by way of bringing clear benefits to society, to avoid addressing the concerns discussed in the film (which are not those of "frying" your brain). It's clear that for most people, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind, especially if negative effects could take over a decade to become evident. So why not throw up a tower at your school if it'll pay for books, supplies, etc.? While you're at it, I heard that Coke is still sponsoring lunches at many US schools and they'd probably appreciate parents lobbying on their behalf against those with alarmist views. I think I can usually smell bunk, but the points "Resonance" made were pretty strong (outside of a couple of cases) and I had my wife, a researcher in biochemistry, sit through it as well to see if she would scoff at anything. It didn't seem that she saw any unreasonable claims. I repeat, if there are vortex members who cross the relevant domains here, I'd really like to hear why I shouldn't buy into what the movie is selling. Regards, Adrian ________________________________ From: David Roberson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Adrian, your post did not go unread, it just did not generate much emotion among our esteemed colleagues. There has been a long standing battle by lawyers and their clients seeking damages against the radio industry in cases that are poorly made. On occasions someone will state that cellular phones cause cancer and make the news only to be shown to be stretching the facts to get the results that they wish. No one has been successful in that endeavor, but it is not because of lack of trying. And I can assure you that engineers do take the potential dangers associated with RF seriously. Just ask cellular design teams about the many hours spent trying to reduce the exposure of users of their products. And I know of many hours and concerns being expended toward keeping the magnitude of the high level magnetic transmit fields that are used in electronic article surveillance equipment at a level that minimizes danger to those with pacemakers. Engineers have expressed much concern about the products that they create, especially when it might endanger the public. It is unfair for anyone to suggest otherwise. I am not sure of the agenda of the group that produced the movie you listed, but you should question it since it appears to be aimed at alarming those who are easily mislead. My daughter actually attended a school meeting of concerned parents that were convinced that a cellular tower would endanger their children if allowed to be placed at the side of the playground. Perhaps if it fell down upon them it would be dangerous, otherwise the RF level at the ground near the children would not be significant. This is the type of non sense that scare tactics enable. Dave
