Ribbit…

Richard, I sent the contents of your criticism of the Hardell study to Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center,
School of Public Health (his website is at saferemr.com) to find out what his take was. This is what he replied:

“For Table 8 which looks at high grade astrocytomas, only 3 of the 16 odds ratios were significant (p < .05) for >1 to 5 year latency, whereas 10 of the 16 odds ratios were significant for >5 to 10 year latency, and 11 of the 16 odds ratios were significant for >10 year latency. That the magnitude of the odds ratios increases with increased latency suggests that latency is important. That many of the confidence intervals overlapped does not negate the overall pattern of the results given the sample size for this table.”

In other words, latency- the time between exposure to cell phone radiation and a brain tumor appearing- is important with regard to this issue. The difference in the control group and the exposed group grew more significant with time. These statistics provided enough of a warning that this prompted the WHO to change their cancer risk designation of wireless to “possible.” And what makes this even more worrying is that the WHO is like a huge ocean liner- it doesn’t turn on a dime and is extraordinarily conservative when it comes to health issues (some would say compromised).

I disagree with your assessment- the null hypothesis that wireless has no effect on human health has actually been disproved many times over- it’s just that many ‘scientists’ and industry quacks are paid to deny this and manufacture shoddy science to sow doubt and delay action to protect human health. And the media dutifully reports what they are told by their overseers. Meanwhile the public is waking up- a jury in VT ruled $1 million in compensation for a family who was evicted from their land by a smart grid tower, and a school in New Zealand is ripping out the wi-fi after a student died from a brain tumor brought on by sleeping with his wi-fi ipod under his pillow. See: http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/fathers-win-school-wi-fi-battle-5787916/video

I suspect if we catch up with Richard in 20 years when wireless has gone the way of asbestos, he’ll still be croaking about the null hypothesis. 🙂

The point is that you can’t call the WHO to your defense and then accuse them of spin with which you disagree: “an increased risk of brain tumours from the use of mobile phones is not established”…

Which brings me full circle (long circle) back to my earlier comment: >> At this point, the null hypothesis prevails. Keep us posted on any significant developments 🙂

And what is your point? Again, the Hardell research raised enough red flags with the committee that *all wireless* was classified as a possible carcinogen. Never mind the spin that the WHO press office put on it.

“… the WHO IARC committee who decided it was significant enough…”

Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s the latest from the good folks at the WHO: http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/

FWIW…

Well then your view of the Hardell study does not line up with the WHO IARC committee who decided it was significant enough to move the cancer risk designation of wireless up a notch.

Your blind ‘null hypothesis’ cuts like a knife into the hearts of all those thousands of people complaining of ‘smart meter syndrome’ What if you were suffering from a terrible ailment and no one believed you? Since when does science not listen to what people have to say? Once in a while you can learn something if you actually listen to people… what kind of world would it be like if we assumed everyone was lying all the time? The kind of world the utilities are trying to create.

Something is definitely wrong here.

Even ninth grade high school girls figured out that wireless kills plants. Professor Richard doesn’t get it, yet has boasted of credentials given to annihilate their free thinking minds.

“An experiment by a handful of high school students in Denmark has sparked some serious international interest in the scientific community.

Five ninth-grade girls at Hjallerup School in North Jutland, Denmark, noticed they had trouble concentrating after sleeping with their mobile phones at their bedsides. They tried to figure out why. The school obviously doesn’t have the equipment to test human brain waves, so the girls decided to do a more rudimentary experiment.

They placed six trays of garden cress seeds next to Wi-Fi routers that emitted roughly the same microwave radiation as a mobile phone. Then they placed six more trays of seeds in a separate room without routers. The girls controlled both environments for room temperature, sunlight and water.

After 12 days, they found the garden cress seeds in the routerless room had exploded into bushy greenery, while the seeds next to the Wi-Fi routers were brown, shriveled, and even mutated.”

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wireless-router-wi-fi-plants/

FWIW: Like you, I didn’t care much for their “manufactroversy” comment. However, …

All your comments suggest that you do not read beyond the abstract, executive summary, or editor’s note, which says a lot about how much you truly want to understand the issue. EMF and public health is a science-based issue, and it deserves more than an emotional response to an abstract.

Case in point: Just look at the Carlberg/Hardell study that you cited as “one good study”: In Table 8, from which they cite the eye-catching odds ratio of 5.5, note the overlapping confidence intervals for each latency group within a category… That indicates that they are not significantly different… So, let’s not go down the latency road with this study, okay?

And where C/H did resolve statistically distinct groups, any association (given by the odds ratio) is rather weak, which at best provides a basis for future working hypotheses.

When you examine the data, the evidence just isn’t there…

All I know is when the conservative World Health Organization classifies something as a “possible carcinogen” then there is ample evidence (especially when combined with the thousands of other studies) that this is a risk to public health. Calling it a “manufactroversy” as your cited author did seems like it is denying what to any thinking person is an actual (and quite lively) controversy. Who has an agenda, after all?

Richard: You are either a paid troll or a hapless imbecile. If you don’t understand the biological science involved in anatomy, you have no business even commenting on pages like this one. I’ve read over 100,000 pages of scientific data relating the biological effects of electromagnetic energy on biological cells, and it’s hardly the stuff of an overactive imagination. You know damn well the military has been studying RF effects and radar “sickness” since the early 50’s. Why don’t jerks like you just shut up?

With a little bit of luck, technically challenged dolts and/or liars like you will become extinct within the next few months. Don’t forget to drop dead soon.