Ah yes, the “inconclusive” term again. This word is a must for anyone in the media reporting on the subject.
If the study was wireless industry funded then there are no affects and the scientists are competent. If not the one paying the advertising bills, your studies showing affects, are incompetent.
There are over 6,000 independent and government studies, before 1983, showing there is a problem. I guess they were all incompetent, since no money can be made from stopping the wireless giant.

Dr. George Carlo was given $28.5 million, from the wireless industry, back in the early 90’s and he found that there was intracellular communication disruption. He was asked not to publish his findings and did anyway. Subsequently, he was physically attacked and his house was burnt down. I’m sure scientists all over took note on this one.

So now we have “weight of evidence” meaning lots of industry funded studies showing no affect, versus independents showing there is.

Would you take a drug that wasn’t necessary with the only studies showing inconclusive results from the drug company funded studies? When independent studies were showing major problems? No, of course not! Unless you worked for the drug company. You may even follow closely the conversations of those opposing your livelihood. The goal may be a disruptive one and definitely to create doubt.

Well, thanks–I appreciate that comment, J.

To be clear, my position hasn’t really softened on the safety of SmartMeters–In fact, it’s always been rather squishy 🙂 which is why I continue to monitor the issue of EMFs and human health.

While I am open to the possibility of some people being sensitive to EMFs (based mainly on there being outliers in any normally-distributed population), I still question the reality of the condition; and I maintain that if it’s real, then it should be testable.

I also maintain that the Precautionary Limits of the new Bioinitiative Report (2012) seem to be unreasonably low.

I guess what has softened is my reaction to people who want to opt out, and my earlier post pretty much covers that.

Anyhow… Thanks 🙂

What I have noticed is that your position has been softening with regard to your assumption that sm’s are safe. It’s okay to change your mind over time! We welcome people of all opinions to share in the debate here and I for one am glad you continue to post here and be involved. 🙂

J

First, I don’t think my opinion has anything to do with the right of industry to install wireless meters. Then, about the inconclusive results… Science is a tricky endeavor. Let’s first eliminate bias from the discussion… Even then, there is no guarantee that the results will be conclusive. If not conclusive, then what? More studies; new parameters; rats; mice; sperm?… What will satisfy those claiming to be sensitive to low-power telecomm radiation? Studies involving those with EHS have shown no difference in response to exposure versus non-exposure… But critics (of course) claim bias… So, where do we go from here?

If you want a certain outcome (e.g., wireless radiation causes this list of symptoms), then speak to an engineer, because that’s what engineers do. All a scientist can do is collect data and evaluate the significance of that data in light of some working hypothesis.

Some things just do not correlate—like IQ and weight—while others show a strong relationship—like height and weight. All a scientist can do is look for relationships, and as much as I would appreciate seeing a consistent relationship of wireless radiation and biological harm, it just hasn’t appeared. When the multitude of studies are “not conclusive”, is it wrong to say that the technology is safe, or should we continue to seek a correlation that in all probability does not exist?

So, I guess my answer to your question of “what right does industry have”, I would have to say that they have every right to install a wireless meter on my house. Should people have the right to opt out free of charge?… Sure, why not… You can read my reasoning on that subject up above (see #1).

Take care.

You are right Josh, his story doesn’t add up. Here is one that does.

Paracelcus said it best…”Poison is in everything and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.”

Sunlight has many benefits. Rf radiation is being used to treat wounds and heal bones. Both use the same type of electromagnetic wave. The only difference is that the sun doesn’t radiate us 24/7 like the smart meter does, not to mention the 3am hour when it’s communication is the busiest.

Just imagine if it were daylight for 90 seconds at 3am everyday, it is after all the same as rf. Maybe some would awake and others not? Right now I’m looking for people that aren’t and I’m not having much luck. Circadian rhythm? Not when it only happens in smart meter territory and for the last couple of years. Go camping in the forest, without any cell towers, and cover your phone with foil before you get to your destination. It will cure you of the 3am wakeup until you return home.

Why don’t people understand this? Not everyone carries around an analyzer to detect this manmade nuisance. Ignorance is bliss especially when you can’t see, hear, or smell it.

Nevertheless, any exposure equals some risk, while no exposure equals no risk. Again, why take the risk? Especially when billions of people may pay a dear price if the gamble is lost.

And aerosol chemtrail spraying of our skies and the health destructive vaccination “programs” (in India, Africa – heavily populated).

Never, ever believe the corporatized and mainstreamed “environmentalist humanitarians.” Learned the hard, naive way.

No ties to the industry. Just a customer. You said yourself (a year or more ago) that you could not find any indication of my affiliation through my IP address or use of a proxy server, etc… and you won’t, because I have no affiliation with industry.

“…(unless you think you are wiser than the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization). ”

Where do you get that? Let me be clear about this: I totally agree with their evaluation; it seems fair and reasonable to classify RF radiation as a Class 2B agent, according to its definition in the IARC Preamble.

The question continues to revolve around exposure limits (duration and intensity) and robust scientific investigations that indicate biological *harm* due to exposure. For example: Is the documented change in glucose metabolism harmful, or just something that happens…?

RF radiation may be carcinogenic, but at what levels of exposure; at what intensity; for how long? My arguments are perfectly consistent given the uncertainty that exists within the research arena. I don’t know what the answer is, but (as I ref’d in my previous post #2) I think the latest Bioinitiative Report has proposed some unreasonably low limits for everyday exposure. Am I wrong? Maybe (but I don’t think so), and I’m willing to accept that uncertainty (risk) for now.

Uncertainty is valuable; it guides us in our investigation of the world. And if the IARC ranks the carcinogenicity of RF radiation with a high level of uncertainty (i.e., Class 2B), then I feel that I can live with that.

Your opinion (and reaction) may vary.

FYI – the latest IARC Monograph on this issue…
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php

If you’re not certain what levels of RF radiation are okay and science is “not conclusive” then what right does industry have to proliferate devices that emit the radiation until we know?
For people getting sicker and sicker from the impacts, whether or not others “believe” in it, this is truly an atrocity of huge proportions. At least, if the infrastructure planners lefts some places wired only we would have places to go and survive.
This is an ethics question after all.