>>"I watched a bit of the movie until I reached a decision that it was >>basically just alarmist in nature. Perhaps I should have watched more, but I >>had other pressing issues." Doesn't quick dismissal because it goes against established EMR science(that the primary effects would be thermaland ionizing rather than, for example, due to some kind of interference of EMR in intercellular RF communication), parallel the unreasonable skepticism against LENRin light of a good body of evidence for it? I don't recall which side of that fence you sit on at the moment, but if you see believe that there could really be something there, you might want to give this subject a little more time, before deciding it's bogus.
>>"Cellular telephones have been around since about 1984. That is a fairly >>long time and any ill effects, if substantial, should be apparent by now." The numbers both in terms of number of heavy users and cell tower density up to the end of the 90's are low enough that any stats showing negative effects on people up to that point would be easily lost in the noise. Besides, it's likely that no one was looking for anything other than brain cooking or quick DNA alteration in the early cell phone years. Again, not what the real problem seems to be. >>"I do not recall any discussion of melatonin production being suppressed but >>that may be relatively recently discovered." The movie makes a point that EMR not only in the visible light spectrum has been shown to affect melatonin production. A quick search brings up the following (there are others): EMR Reduces Melatonin in Animals and People (2000) http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/emf-emr/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm Blocking low-wavelength light prevents nocturnal melatonin suppression with no adverse effect on performance during simulated shift work. (2005) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15713707 Prevention of melatonin suppression by nocturnal lighting: relevance to cancer (2007). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554209 -- Adrian ________________________________ From: David Roberson <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Hi Adrian, I watched a bit of the movie until I reached a decision that it was basically just alarmist in nature. Perhaps I should have watched more, but I had other pressing issues. Cellular telephones have been around since about 1984. That is a fairly long time and any ill effects, if substantial, should be apparent by now. I realize that the first ones were in car mobile as was the original idea, but handheld units began to show up fairly soon. I remember the date well since I personally connected the first call in the state of NC using a cell site simulator where I was working for a company that had the first experimental license in that state. This was the second mobile telephone system in the USA and I have fond memories of that period. Our company plan was to design a handheld system that could be used throughout the world especially where wire lines had not yet been deployed. I guess you might call that an idea way before its time! The RF output level of the typical handheld unit is only .6 watts maximum. Usually most of that is directed away from the user and so the most anyone would have delivered to their head, etc. is perhaps .1 watts. It is hard to imagine that a temperature rise of more than .1 degrees would occur although it has been years since I was involved with those designs. We may have some active vortex members that are current with the measurements and it would be great if one would give us advice. I do not recall any discussion of melatonin production being suppressed but that may be relatively recently discovered. If you suggested that the RF leads to obesity in kids, that would be fairly easy to believe! For some reason, the kids of today are far heavier than my generation. I always get a chuckle when I visit the location of mountain top cellular towers in remote places. Most of them have a sign attached to the barbed wire protected enclosure that warns of dangerous RF levels that might exceed the FCC limits. These signs are usually placed beside one that warns of dangerous high voltage. Of course they are intended to scare off any unwelcome visitors. Most of the visitors on the tower are buzzards roosting near the cellular antennas and I have never seen a dead one below the structure. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Sampaleanu <[email protected]> To: David Roberson <[email protected]>; vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 10, 2012 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought 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'll try 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
