It seems that at every turn in our road to a better life through technology, some band of determined imbeciles stands ready to turn us back.
The churches are full of people who turn their backs on enlightenment, in order to embrace a two-thousand-year-old world view. Their foolishness extends from those who refuse modern medical care, to those who block research in the name of religion.
But unscientific silliness can be secular as well as religious. Recall the mommies who 'feel' that childhood vaccines cause a host of ills, chiefly autism. No actual evidence exists to support their notion, but they still stand ready to drive vaccination from the planet.
I read a new article today that a group of nut jobs in Santa Fe, N.M. are lobbying against Wi-Fi because of an 'allergy' to it. Forget that no such documented allergy exists, forget that it is Santa Fe, one of the holy cities of nuttiness, there is nothing to suggest that this is anything more than the ravings of the delusional or overly-credulous.
The simple fact is that if Wi-Fi or any other source of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) posed a real health hazard, we would all have been long dead. It is everywhere around us. Our homes, offices and stores are electromagnetic cocoons and we are tightly wrapped within them.
If EMR had harmful health effects, we would be experiencing an epidemic of illnesses such as leukemia, one of the favorite claims by the EMR alarmists. The situation is quite the contrary. According to this information from the National Cancer Institute, the incidence of leukemia in the population of the US has remained stable over the past twenty years.
This nonsense chaps my hide.
Things in this blog represented to be fact, may or may not actually be true. The writer is frequently wrong, sometimes just full of it, but always judgmental and cranky
14 comments:
i wouldnt normally give you the time of day - but seeings though your pathetic little blog has entered my consciousness here goes.
the health effects of wireless technology.
One of the first groups that has come against wireless technology is firefighters–although they might not want it publicized. Firehouses are often targeted by cellular phone companies as ideal places to place antennas. Because firefighters work and sleep in the same location, they opposed the continuous exposure to non ionizing radiation and were able to litigate against it. The International Association of Firefighters has taken the position that firehouses should not be the site of cellular base station antennas until more is known about the long term effects of exposure.
Electronic Fields A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect OurselvesThe firefighters found that they could not respond as well when exposued to continuous radiation. They understood that by using wi-fi, you never give your body a break. Many people sleep in close proximity to wireless devices–cell phones, routers, PDAs. The intensity of the exposure is not the issue. Chronic exposure to low intensity exposure is considered to be worst than a single high intensity exposure.
The work of Canadian scientist Magda Havas is frequently referenced to demonstrate the adverse biological impact of electromagnetic radiation. Her research focuses on the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) used by cell phones and other wireless technologies. There is little funding in the United States for research of the biological and health effects of RFR or and EMF by government agencies. Available studies are often funded by the wireless industry, and not surprisingly, these studies often find no adverse effects.
as they say - there is no smoke without fire(fighters)
From David--i wouldnt normally give you the time of day - but seeings though your pathetic little blog has entered my consciousness here goes.
You start with an ad hominem attack. That's right out of the conspiracy theory play book.
That unjustified slur aside, let's look at a couple of your assertions.
You begin with an appeal to authority, in this case the fire fighters. Everyone loves and respects the firefighters, so they must be right.
David, should we take all our medical and scientific advice from the firefighters? I have a persistent skin problem. Would you mind terribly popping down to Fire House No. 4 and asking their advice?
In my never humble opinion, I suggest we let fire fighters fight fires, and scientists do science.
Another point you make is that it is the long exposure to low level radiation that is most dangerous. In this case you offer the logical fallacy known as moving the bar. Since time has shown no ill effects associated with cell phone radiation, you have latched on to the idea that we haven't given it enough time.
Lastly, when you cite the work of a lone researcher as proof of anything you send up a red flag. If your authority had credible research, others would have signed on.
Your comment reads like a field guide for for the credulous. You imply that except for governmental ineptness and the machinations of the evil cellphone industry, we would have access to the real story.
Life is pretty simple when you are not trying to muck it up with problems that don't exist.
David, there are valid reasons to limit cell phone exposure, such as bothering me in public, but dying of cancer is not among them. At least, as science has found thus far.
Best wishes,
The Pathetic Merle Wayne Sneed
avid, is your middle name Wayne by any chance?
Merle! I absolutely love the picture you've posted here of Magda Havas wearing her special headgear to "zone out" as she puts it--"adverse brain zingies of electromagnetic radiation." Magda sells these protective hats, and she also sells a device to lower the timbre and volume of the annoying humming sound that people hear whenever they are in close proximity to conspiracy theorists.
ps Merle--try something with Bergamot oil in it--seriously--give it a try.
Hey Hey Merle Wayne Sneed! I got two relatives that I used to be very close to. They are anti microwave oven. They think they are getting brain tumors and brittle bones from all the microwave ovens in people's homes and restaurants. they think the microwave ovens caused their depression problems and now they have to take Zoloft to combat the effects of the evil microwave ovens. They beg their relatives to remove the microwave ovens from their homes. They site all sorts of scientific proof to back up their claims.
They have been wacky like this for 3 years now. They eat in restaurants all of the time, so I wonder how they deal with wait staff regarding the food prep. Please roast my burrito over an open flame.
I always like to give new stuff time (like, say, fifty years) before I jump in and try it. In the 50's, they treated acne with radiation. That turned out to be bad. I passed on the cholesterol drugs my doctor wanted me on, figuring I'd give them time, and now the tide is turning against them. So based on technology's track record, there is always cause for skepticism.
That said, I wholly support the following newish things: arthroscopic surgery, Sonicare toothbrushes, and ibuprofen.
It was nice of David to take time out from his busy Dungeons & Dragons schedule to stop by and teach us something cool though, Merle...even if his approach wasn't very awesome
ps Kurt--it has been proven that Sonicare=death
I agree with David! (and Kurt I guess but I never really know what he's talking about)
You're a bad man!
I have read about cell phones giving users tumours and laptops causing infertility. I don't know if that's wholly true because I'm not a scientist.
However, I can't deny that I am not scared about the one in a million possibilities these theories present.
I think this may be prompted by fear of dying in WW III.
My biggest fear is that a hurricane, earthquake or tornado will get me. Is there a hat I can wear for that?
Dennis read in Scientific Cat American that wearing tin foil hats makes you crazy.
David said "One of the first groups that has come against wireless technology is firefighters–although they might not want it publicized. "
hmmm if firefighters are 'coming out' -- how does a firefighter come out publicly against something and not want publicity? Does he come out secretly in e mails to David?
Post a Comment