- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / how do they plan to put the genie back in the bottle?
<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >>
Author Message
Agnes
# Posted: 26 Mar 2009 05:47
Reply 


Bryan.
Please leave off your usual "Industry Profit Protection Spin", its all in your mind kind of stuff. It bores us no end, but it seems to be the only thing you lot can come up with.
My Dr. Pearce does not think so, he cannot see anything wrong with my mental state at all, still cannot.

And, If you don't like our gruel, move on to somewhere nicer, where you might be appreciated like the MOA site where you can all pat each others shoulders and brag of your ingenuety.

I sure do not like you and your intimidating industry spin! And that you know!

And, If you doubt our side of things I suggest you produce to me "Evidence of No Harm by Microwave Radiation from your equipment" . Whenever we have asked for evidence your industry claims is there, all we get is silence, How Come, you've got it all sown up havn't you, paid for scientists and the like, so how come you cannot produce just One of the thousands of studies you claim exist that irrevocably proof your "Technology" is safe? No, you demand We produce evidence!

How come, all your industries "Spokespersons" CLAM IT right there and then, and their e-mails get changed (suddenly) and their phones dont work???
If you were a HONEST Industry this would not happen, now, would it?

During the whole exercise of OUR mast installation Erik kept a logbook.
We were NOT notified about when the mast was started up. But on the evening of the 7th of August 2003, beautiful weather and very warm, we went to sit on the terrace (facing the pub and the mast 20 meters away), and intended to have a barbecue, but this was cut very short by the sudden sickness that overtook us with violent headaches, nausea and vomiting.
Almost a year later we learned that the mast had been started up this same afternoon.

In Eriks log he points out 2 incidents of when I called him to tell him the mast must be off, because there was "Total quietness"
He took his com monitor, went around the house and found out there were NO Radiation READINGS whatsoever!

When the mast came back on, we also knew instantly, because of the sudden hideous noise, which produces sickness, and it says so in his log.
Incidentally the time matched the H3G report totally, when we finally got a transcript. (although most of the stuff they delivered was "re-created"!)
(Look I have worked on computers and with databases since 1986, and when a database record is "re-created" it clearly tells me its "Fiddled"
Computer records keep as accurate records once stored, and you can print them out as Originals for decades to come, so "re-created" If you are totally honest you would not believe that either would you? Fake Facts!

(Somehow I suspect you have all the records of Erik's Logbook and the way Your Industry People (read lawyers and barristers) succeeded in turning that to our disadvantage, as the Judge was very clearly biased towards them, against us, so much so that it was embarrassing at times.)

And so yes, we lost the case, big time, and interestingly the judgement was delayed for over a month more than usual, (unpresedented we were told) could not have anything to do with the General Election in 2005 could it, the judgement was delivered 3 days after the election!

But, Explain to me WHY WE KNEW WHEN THE MAST WENT OFF AND ON AGAIN, and I might take you seriously.
Otherwise you will just stay as you have been until now, the "Industry Profiteers Hot Air Spin Person", invading MY SPACE!

To me, you are Still the "INDUSTRY CREEP", planted to see if you can find out what we are up to, and getting more so by the minute.

Take a minute to think about it, I lost my home and place of work because of the pollution of your industries equipment.
We had 7 years left to pay on our mortgage on this home.
But At the age of 60+ we had to go out and find somewhere where we could get a mortgage on a house where there was no Microwave Radiation
and where we could hope to get a life.

I am sure you would not at the age of 60+ go out to try and find a mortgage as if you were a first time buyer.
Especially not if you already had an "Almost Paid For" Grade 1 Listed Home in the first place.
But a home (Grade listed or not) contaminated by an invisible pollution!
So a 21 year mortgage (Toxic Loan) on a semi derelict house was what I managed to secure.
To do that you have to be pretty desperate! don't you agree??

But I bet you would do it as well if you had been put against the wall like we were, the health of our employees and our own health and the existance of the company at stake.
Our employees livelihood depended on everyone at the company beeing able to work, just like in yours, even if on a smaller scale, there were family incomes at risk.

Some say, an Englishman´s home is his Castle, well it did not work out like that in our case, (You Lot had a freebee on our home and airspace and peace, and I am not just talking about the neighborhood, the beams went straight through the Middle of our house)
And there are loads more people who experience the same menace today, all over the world.
But, fleeing head over heels was what YOU had in store for us!!

We had to flee head over heels from the home and had to suffer the most "SQUALID" life for almost 2 years because of Your industries equipment emission.
I Never imagined I would know that kind of squalour Ever in my life, but I quickly learned how others can influence the circumstances that can affect your life and the quality of it or total lack of.

Almost All our waking hours had to be spent in an Unheated Industrial Unit (former American Army base hospital from the last world war, in Hanley Swan, you can look up the estate) as our home was too Toxic to go back to!
In the middle of winter, even through Christmas, feet and legs frozen up to our thighs so we had difficulty walking.
All at the same time as we had a perfect centrally heated home we Could Not Go Home To!

Chemical pollution you can see and smell, YOUR Pollution is INVISIBLE to the eye, but offers us the same health effects!
Even the HPA acknowledges that now.
http://mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=3898
"The review found that people who attribute illness to chemical and other environmental exposures report similar symptoms to electrical sensitivity."

When Erik called Health and Safety because we all had fallen sick by unexplained reason they told him that what he decribed was a typical "Gas Poisoning"! So we had All our installation measured and monitored.
There were of course No Gas Leaks!

Last year I learned through our old local paper that the H3G mast that evicted me out of my home and property will be coming down!
A New Owner of the neighboring house wants the mast away because of the harm it has done to the neighborhood.
That is some admission isn't it?
Agnes

topazg
Member
# Posted: 26 Mar 2009 12:48
Reply 


Graham,

You may be right about my having a grey line, but I can tell you the contents of article is way below it wherever it is. Frankly, I'm quite surprised you'd even reference something like this.


Haha, it just seems rather relevant to the original post in the thread. I feel that the "I can tell you..." partial sentence is somewhat subjective perhaps?

Of course, all these media lines need taking with a pinch of salt, but if "Six out of 10 said they would not be able to function if they had their phone stolen" then that has to say something for an over-dependence at the very least.

Remembering here that the UK Department of Health advice towards children under the age of 16 is:

"The expert group has therefore recommended that in line with a precautionary approach, the widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of 16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls. In the light of this recommendation the UK Chief Medical Officers strongly advise that where children and young people do use mobile phones, they should be encouraged to:

* use mobile phones for essential purposes only
* keep all calls short - talking for long periods prolongs exposure and should be discouraged"

At best I think the behaviour hinted at by the article is clearly inappropriate in the light of government advice surely?

Bryan
# Posted: 27 Mar 2009 17:19
Reply 


Graham,

Mild reprimand on the use of the phrase "I can tell you..." accepted.

'Over dependence' is a wording that I'm happy to accept.

"At best I think the behaviour hinted at by the article is clearly inappropriate in the light of government advice surely?"

Yes, if the behaviour described is real and widespread then I would agree with that too.

Agnes
# Posted: 28 Mar 2009 03:00
Reply 


Bryan.
I am waiting an answer: Quote:
"And, If you doubt our side of things I suggest you produce to me "Evidence of No Harm by Microwave Radiation from your equipment"

Your industry claim it exists.
So, Provide!

This site is NOT a social site for lonely Industry People.
This site is for the Vicims of the pollution from your industry.
So, DELIVER or get lost!

Agnes

Bryan
# Posted: 30 Mar 2009 17:12
Reply 


Agnes,

I'm not sure what it is in particular that I've said lately that has annoyed you so much, more than the normal anyway. It is not my intention to upset you; certainly I do not wish to cause distress. However, this is a discussion forum and there wouldn't be much discussion if everyone agreed.

I can't, of course, offer any definitive evidence in my defence. It is after all almost impossible to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, in lieu of that evidence arriving, or more likely not arriving, I offer up the near 4 billion people worldwide currently using mobile phones and suffering no immediate health problems of the type you have suffered from. Thus if your problems have been caused by cellular phone technologies then surely that makes you a very rare medical case indeed. It's not impossible I suppose but, just from a statistical point of view, it seems rather unlikely.

As regards the potential for long term effects such as tumours, well I can't say. Time will tell. I assume we all hope that there will turn out to be not long term effects.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 31 Mar 2009 00:40
Reply 


Bryan,

"I'm not sure what it is in particular that I've said lately that has annoyed you so much".
Dude, that statement made me laugh out loud for about five minutes... simply incredible.

"I can't, of course, offer any definitive evidence in my defence. It is after all almost impossible to prove a negative."
True, but you haven't offered up anything remotely convincing to support your case of "no risk" from mobile-phone technology.
I'm afraid that witnessing your way of sorting through evidence by fx. saying "of course I would be sceptical of that" and "it seems rather unlikely" leads me to conclude that the harmlessness of mobile-phone technology is all in your mind.

You never supply references to back up your claims (ok, one exception) and when we do, you mostly criticize the sources instead of the actual content. How are you to be taken seriously?

Moving on to: Nevertheless, in lieu of that evidence arriving, or more likely not arriving, I offer up the near 4 billion people worldwide currently using mobile phones and suffering no immediate health problems of the type you have suffered from.

Let me ask you a question: does your industry have any post-market surveillance in place to monitor the health impacts from the technology you develop and mass-market? Is your industry actively looking for possible health impacts that might affect your trusting customers? I think the answer is "no". Heck, 20 odd years ago your industry couldn't even be arsed to do the basic pre-marked testing that is required of any radiation emitting device. For contrast, go to your bathroom and look at the label of any soap or shampoo product in there. It will probably state that the product is undergoing regular laboratory testing. Happens for common foodstuffs too. Pharmaceuticals even!
How can you claim that no one is suffering adverse health effects from mobile-phone technology when you're not even looking?

You may have heard of the Precautionary Principle. It's an integral part of European Union environmental law and it goes a little something like this:
"The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action <-- (yep, that's you guys!). The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law."

Simply complying with ICNIRP guidelines has nothing to do with the Precautionary Principle. The criteria for either ICNIRP or WHO (same lot really) to accept a harmful effect from EMF are so ridiculously high that when they finally, if ever, wake up, then the amount of damage done will be irreversible. We can't wait for these "authoritative bodies". They must be replaced with responsible people who understand how to protect public health. Consider RCNIRP, the Russian counterpart of ICNIRP. Now RCNIRP declares responsibility for protecting public health. That's one hell of a difference I think you will agree. RCNIRP exposure guidelines are, as a result of their commitment, a lot more precautionary. The ICNIRP club only travels to exotic places to review the science and go "it seems rather unlikely" whenever a study does not fit their thermal-only view.
Speaking of the WHO it's funny how those extreme acceptance criteria only seem to apply to EMF. Thinking of the WHO fuelled avian flu scare, it only took one sneeze from a duck somewhere to bring biohazard taskforces down on the poor quacker. In cases of suspected carcinogenic effects of chemicals or foodstuffs, the very same agencies don't sit around and wait for 95-100% certainty before acting. Even if the health risk is relatively low, the damage done is multiplied by the amount of people exposed. Now consider Hardell and 4 billion people using mobile-phones.

In the case of mobile-phone basestations, which is our main subject on this site, scientific investigation has discovered a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. I doubt you will accept this as well as I doubt that you will actually look at the evidence.

I'll discuss with you on this forum but I think that you are really just wasting our time. The tobacco industry proudly called it "manufacturing doubt".

Bryan
# Posted: 1 Apr 2009 12:40
Reply 


Henrik (and Agnes),

I confess to being as mystified by your outpouring as I was by your mother's. I know my views will be out of line with yours but I'm still left wondering what in particular I've said recently that provoked such a reaction.

I have to say that I feel you are both being very unfair about my views and about the behaviour of the industry in which I work. It appears par for the course to accuse me of being a creep and make comparisons between the telecoms industry and those of tobacco and asbestos without any proof, but apparently it's risible for me to state the obvious about the apparent lack of any evidence for a real world effect.

My opinions are opinions it's as simple of that. But I believe they are based on common sense. Whereas your views appear to be based on a hunch that there is a link backed up by masses of very selective quotes and references, which you believe back up your view. Those quotes and references would be fine if they could in themselves be considered proof, but to date, nobody here has referenced anything that has changed my view.

Don't you see the irony in your accusations of irresponsible behaviour by the telecoms industry?

In the industry itself I have never witnessed anything but ridged adherence to all the regulations that apply, not just to the letter, but typically with margins that represent many orders of magnitude. You quote the precautionary principles at me, well fine, but where do you think the industry is not following this? From the inside looking out it appears very precautionary. How is that irresponsible?

I think the irresponsible behaviour is that exhibited by campaigners who are willing to see mobile phone and TETRA masts removed with a consequent direct impact on risk to life from lack of radio service in their localities.

I must also take issue with this point about pre-market testing (Graham has made it too). Every single radio device on the market is tested to ensure that it meets all the required safety standards, just like the bar of soap. Where is the difference? When a soap manufacturer launches a new soap product it does indeed have to pass a number of tests designed to identify any ill effects it may have on its users. These tests are based the best understanding about how a product like soap might present risk. It is no different for a mobile phone manufacturer. Each new product has to be conformance tested before it can be launched, and included in this are the mobile phone equivalents of the soap tests. What more could the industry be expected to do?

I'm still interested to know you views on my point about the statistical rarity of immediate effects such as headaches, sleep disturbance and rashes. What percentage of the population do you think suffer these problems where you would attribute the cause to mobile phone masts? Agnes is clearly one and many others contribute to this site too, but how many is that in total? Hundreds, thousands, millions even? If it were for example as high as 1 million, which would mean that by far the majority keep silent on the issue or just fail to notice that they have a serious medical condition, then that would represent only 0.00025% of the mobile phone-using population and only 0.00017% of the global population likely to be regularly exposed to mobile phone base stations. Alternatively, we might say that it would mean that about 1 in 4 million people suffer this alleged medical condition. Now consider what the rarest recognised medical condition is. I don't know what it is as it happens, but I doubt that there is anything else, no matter how obscure, that is as rare as that.

Of course just because something is rare doesn't mean it's impossible, but I think I'm entirely justified in saying that I think it is very unlikely.

topazg
Member
# Posted: 1 Apr 2009 16:46 - Edited by: topazg
Reply 


I will start by saying I am also slightly surprised at the vehemence of the last two posts against yourself Bryan. I think you are wrong in your assertions, under the basis of not understanding clearly enough the science that has been published, and the approaches that are taken to quantify unknown risk. I do feel so far that you have acted (personally at least, I'm in no position to talk about your organisation as a whole) in entirely good faith. Your comments come across to me as a "die-hard sceptic", if you excuse the term, as opposed to an "industry plant".

Some points that I would like to raise:

Whereas your views appear to be based on a hunch that there is a link backed up by masses of very selective quotes and references, which you believe back up your view. Those quotes and references would be fine if they could in themselves be considered proof, but to date, nobody here has referenced anything that has changed my view.

What _would_ change your view? I've highlighted a smattering of papers on here, but I've also linked to articles that are _not_ quotes but references of peer-reviewed work, such as my article on phones and health. In reality this article is selective - in some areas such as brain cancers and fertility it is close to exhaustive, in areas such as EEG and neurological effects it is less so, but the simple number of papers published showing an effect compared to not doing is about 60:40 in favour of an effect - certainly 50:50 at least. My question to you is: What would constitute evidence that would change your mind? My gut feeling is that you feel some people (this thread not withstanding) argue their case without sufficient reasoning to support their points, and this polarises you in the other direction on principle, as opposed to actually assessing the evidence out there yourself. I suspect that your mind is not changeable until the "powers that be" have changed theirs.

Don't you see the irony in your accusations of irresponsible behaviour by the telecoms industry?

I agree here entirely.

Every single radio device on the market is tested to ensure that it meets all the required safety standards, just like the bar of soap. Where is the difference? When a soap manufacturer launches a new soap product it does indeed have to pass a number of tests designed to identify any ill effects it may have on its users. These tests are based the best understanding about how a product like soap might present risk. It is no different for a mobile phone manufacturer. Each new product has to be conformance tested before it can be launched, and included in this are the mobile phone equivalents of the soap tests. What more could the industry be expected to do?

I'm afraid I do see this as incomplete information on your part. Pharmaceutical companies have the burden of proof to demonstrate lack of risk through scientific clinical trials. Food standards are the same for additives. Mobile telecoms devices do not. There are less parallels than you seem to claim.

There are, generally speaking, three levels of evidence - "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (~95% confidence), "Balance of Evidence" (~51% confidence), and "Evidence of possible effects" (~25-30% evidence). Both the pharma and food industries have to demonstrate that the risk of new products fall below the evidence of possible effects threshold. i.e. it is not possible to prove a negative, but the evidence of non-effect must be strong. On the other hand, ICNIRP say very clearly that their exposure guidelines are not safety standards, and should not be used as such. Paolo Vecchia, ICNIRP chairman, presented in Brussels at an EU conference in February this year, stating that "ICNIRP limits are intended to protect against established, acute effects (that exhibit thresholds). Protection measures for suggested long-term effects should be based on acceptability, rather than prevention, of risks." He commented that it is not ICNIRP's responsibility to assess these effects that come below the level of established acute effects (Slide 10 of his presentation here). He stated very clearly that he was totally aware of the levels of risks found at lower levels, particularly phones and brain tumours, but that the types of effects found are not appropriate for ICNIRP to legislate against. He said it was an irresponsible misuse of the guidelines to be used as a safety standard, as that is not their purpose.

As such, the guidelines being adhered to are those set on effects that are "Beyond reasonable doubt", where the evidence for the effects has exceeded the 95% confidence level. This is a level that is not used for many other industries at this stage, certainly not pharma / soap industries as you claim.

I would be prepared to bet my house that the evidence for potential health effects from phones has now comfortably exceeded the 30% mark (even quantitatively, the papers themselves show more than 30% showing an effect of some kind). If the industry was food, mobile phones would never have hit the market in the first place, but they simply don't have the burden of proof requirements that other industries have.

My question to you is, what would make you think otherwise to what you currently do? Having already explained that the previous answer (1 case of illness tracked conclusively to phone usage) is a technical impossibility, I would be interested as to a revised "evidence required" benchmark.

I would be interested in your response to my blog entry on ICNIRP and standards here

PS I'm also not following your statistical argument on the headaches issue - could you explain your numbers and reasoning further?

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 4 Apr 2009 13:54
Reply 


Bryan,

You say:
My opinions are opinions it's as simple of that. But I believe they are based on common sense. Whereas your views appear to be based on a hunch that there is a link backed up by masses of very selective quotes and references, which you believe back up your view.

Wow, that's an eye-opener. Your "common-sense" trumps all peer-reviewed science. I guess I'll have to keep that in mind from now on.

Don't you see the irony in your accusations of irresponsible behaviour by the telecoms industry?

Sorry Bryan, but your point there is lost on me.

In the industry itself I have never witnessed anything but ridged adherence to all the regulations that apply, not just to the letter, but typically with margins that represent many orders of magnitude.

True that your industry adheres to the regulations but it's really hard to see how you possibly could avoid doing that. No need to repeat why that is. Even though there exists evidence for health effects occurring within, and below, the margin levels that your industry, so comfortably, exposes people to, I see no effort on the industries part to explore and learn what is really happening. Neither before or after the mass exposure has begun (back to the pre-market testing argument). You leave it to others to play catch-up. Very responsible.

topazg,
We might disagree on how much evidence is enough to warrant action but I hope you can appreciate our (speaking of my parents and myself here) situation as you read what we have to say about it.
We simply don't have the luxury of sitting on a fence in the middle and waiting while we watch the evidence mark approaching. It is already a catastrophe for us and it was long before the evidence arrived. Society is being shut off from electrohypersensitive people and ironically, more and more people are becoming electrohypersensitive as a result of those inhibiting forces. I'm nowhere as bad off as my parents when it comes to electrohypersensitivity and even for me it's becoming difficult to go places, take public transport and even take consulting jobs at customer sites, which is how I make a living.
Speaking of consulting, Bryan : I've built factory control systems for one of Denmark's top pharmaceutical companies and therefore I know quite a bit about the levels of testing and documentation that they require - even before turning the damn thing on!
In comparison, the wireless industry is just a really sad joke when it comes to that.

I would be prepared to bet my house that the evidence for potential health effects from phones has now comfortably exceeded the 30% mark

Topazg, I have a lot of respect for the work you do but I'm not sure such daring will earn you any street cred' with the people that already have lost their homes due to electropollution.

So Bryan, I must agree with topazg when he asks "What _would_ change your view?". We can agree to disagree and I think my time and attention is better spent on the people that turn to Mast-Victims for help.

topazg
Member
# Posted: 6 Apr 2009 12:54
Reply 


Henrik, I'm really sorry, it's probably Monday morning vibes or something, but I'm not sure I followed the reasoning behind any of your points sent in my direction:

We might disagree on how much evidence is enough to warrant action but I hope you can appreciate our (speaking of my parents and myself here) situation as you read what we have to say about it.

Topazg, I have a lot of respect for the work you do but I'm not sure such daring will earn you any street cred' with the people that already have lost their homes due to electropollution.

I didn't really follow the reasoning behind making that assumption in your first point, nor quite the point made in the second one, with the exception of the fact I may have unwittingly offended someone somehow?

Ann
# Posted: 6 Apr 2009 13:59
Reply 


It would be funny - if it were not so serious - of how we use science when it suits us. The evidence is there if we choose to believe it, however 2 points:
the media are not taking any interest in the results and are generally not published or
the escientific research itself is flawed. The few that I read did not include ill people because they were taking tablets. That means people who are really affected by mobile phones and such like, are not even included in the research.
Sadly even the researchers are influenced by who gives them grants.
In the meantime no one takes any notice of people's experiences because they are merely 'anectodal evidence'.
So we carry on being poisoned and disturbed.
Bryan have not any of your children got headaches, bad temper or short memory?! Perhaps if they did you might take notice

brianct
# Posted: 8 Apr 2009 07:48
Reply 


'of how we use science when it suits us'

science is an ideology, and not just a method of enquiry....you can tell by the way people respond to those who criticise it.

Scientists made the atom bomb, agri chemicalsan now mobile phone technology....they have alot to anwser for

'Full transcript:
STORY - LIAM BARTLETT: The Namoi Valley in northern New South Wales is a beautiful place. The favourite view of John and Margaret Bryant.
JOHN BRYANT: It's just nice to know that I can sit here and look over there for a while.
MARGARET BRYANT: It's beautiful. A little piece of heaven on earth, isn't it?
LIAM BARTLETT: But John is terrified he won't be looking down upon it for much longer, he has terminal brain cancer.
MARGARET BRYANT: You've got to hang on, you've been so positive all throughout. So you've just got to keep on going.
JOHN BRYANT: Yeah.
MARGARET BRYANT: While there's life there's hope.
JOHN BRYANT: I know.
LIAM BARTLETT: Ironically, after a life of physical toil on the land, this rough-and-tumble farmer blames modern technology for killing him - his mobile phone.
JOHN BRYANT: Mate, there's no doubt about mine. I know what killed me.
LIAM BARTLETT: John, you're saying what killed you as if you're already dead.
JOHN BRYANT: Well, I am dead, aren't I? I'm a dead man walking, really, aren't I, when you think about it.
LIAM BARTLETT: Last November, John was working in his shearing shed when he lost control of the left side of his body. Doctors found a malignant tumour just behind his right ear.
JOHN BRYANT: I told Dr Hughes, he's a very good doctor, I said, "I don't want any crap, tell me the truth," you know. And he said, "I'll tell you the truth." This is the truth - he said with this disease there are no survivors, every one dies. So that was a good introduction to the Tamworth Hospital.
LIAM BARTLETT: This is a large and loving family. The Bryants have carved a full life here through farming and the family trucking business. John's mobile phone has been an essential tool of the trade for the past 25 years. And he's in no doubt those countless hours with it glued to his ear gave him the brain tumour. I can't begin to imagine what you're going through.
JOHN BRYANT: No, no-one can begin to imagine because people come up to me just, you know, they're trying to be nice and they say, "I can imagine how you feel." And I think, "No, you can't imagine how I feel," you know. And I reckon it's caused definitely by those bloody mobile phones.
LIAM BARTLETT: Doctor Teo, John insists his brain tumour has been caused by his mobile phone. Do you agree with his diagnosis?
DR CHARLIE TEO: Insist is a strong word, and there are always two sides to every story. But if the question is do I believe that mobile phones can cause brain cancer, the answer is yes, I do. The fact that you've deteriorated so much in the last three days means you probably won't survive for three more weeks with this. It's that bad.
JOHN BRYANT: Yeah, I know it's bad.
LIAM BARTLETT: Dr Charlie Teo is John's neurosurgeon, his last hope to beat the tumour. He's also the co-author of a frightening new study that's predicting a dramatic increase in brain tumours caused by the long-term use of mobile phones.
DR CHARLIE TEO: That's a huge fear. I mean, what if what if we're right? Then if we're right we're going to see a huge increase in brain tumours and brain cancer in the next decade or so. It's going to be frightening. And guess what, Liam, we're already frightened by what were seeing
etc
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=797215

Bryan
# Posted: 8 Apr 2009 12:53
Reply 


Graham,

I'd say your assessment of my position is quite accurate. Guilty as charged I guess and I accept the label 'die-hard sceptic'.

What can I say about my figures other than they were wrong. 1 in 4 million people would of course be 0.025% and not 0.00025%. Should you be worried about any calculations I do in my professional life? Perhaps! :-)

Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that this condition (EHS?), if indeed it even exists, must be extraordinarily rare. I'm open to suggestions about what anybody else thinks the real percentage of the population is that suffers from any of the alleged immediate effects; headaches, sleep disturbance, skin irritation and the like. I am merely guessing that it must be very small because of three key factors.

1. I don't know anyone who suffers, nor anyone who knows anyone who suffers, nor anyone who says the know someone who knows someone who suffers. In fact that accounts for a very large number of people who appear to have no problem.

2. This website is potentially global in its reach and yet there are only a small number of people describing effects like these here, and two of them are associated with the website.

3. The media love scandalous stories and yet I can only think of one or two stories over the last few years involving alleged victims appearing in either our local press (none there in fact) or the national press. If they were there in any significant numbers I don't believe for a minute that the press would just ignore it.

You ask quite reasonably what would change my mind. You're right that I didn't answer specifically the first time and I don't think I can this time. The honest answer is I don't know. Graham you certainly come across as someone who thinks carefully about what you say, so if you say that you'd stake your house on that 30% figure then I'm prepared to believe you are right. It's food for thought alright, but presumably that also means that 70% of studies show no effect.

So is 30% enough to be worried about? Yes it is, if that meant that 30% were showing a real effect that could be linked to real people getting ill, but I just don't see that. These studies only seem to indicate some kind of potential link to an effect or some minor statistical variation from the norm. Of course I haven't read anything like as much on this topic as either you or Henrik, so I could be wrong about that. However, just look out of your window, the world is normal, people are not keeling over in the street. Sure they could all have a brain tumour in the making, but I'd have thought that even that would have shown up by now.

You keep on reading and gathering information and I'll try to keep up with what you are saying. If a point is reached when I'm convinced then I'll let you know and I hope I'd have the good humility to thank you, and Henrik, for the work you are both doing. I'm not convinced yet but it is reassuring to know that you are on the case.

I know this is not an answer.

Ann,

When my son complains of a headache I reach of the paracetamol, I don't just look out of the window for something random to blame. I might as well blame the cat.

Henrik,

It is becoming clear to me how upset you and your mother are. I can also see how my comments, whatever their intended purpose, could be upsetting for you both. It has never been my intention to cause upset or distress and I think we are getting to a point where that seems to be all I am achieving. Therefore I think it's time I took a back seat. I will continue to look in on your site from time to time, but I won't comment unless I'm specifically addressed. You know where to find me anyway.

Thank you for allowing me to comment, for keeping my anonymity, and for your well considered and generally balanced responses.

Brian (brianct that is),

Thank you for the endless entertainment.

topazg
Member
# Posted: 8 Apr 2009 14:11 - Edited by: topazg
Reply 


You ask quite reasonably what would change my mind. You're right that I didn't answer specifically the first time and I don't think I can this time. The honest answer is I don't know. Graham you certainly come across as someone who thinks carefully about what you say, so if you say that you'd stake your house on that 30% figure then I'm prepared to believe you are right. It's food for thought alright, but presumably that also means that 70% of studies show no effect.

And here is the great joy of two-dimensional statistical certainty! I would not have said 30% of the papers show an effect, I would have said this is more like 55% - 60%. I would have said I would have put an "at least 30%" certainty that the effect is real given the totality of the literature. This does not mean there is a 70% certainty that it is not. It is important to remember that there is also the proportion of uncertainty in either direction (a figure I'm going to choose not to speculate on the value for).

The issue with papers finding an effect or not is a contentious one. Statistically speaking, if you research a totally random effect based on a totally random cause, 1 in 40 results should be a statistically significant increase in risk, and 1 in 40 results should be a statistically significant decrease in risk (bearing in mind that traditional p-values are two-tailed). We should _expect_ to find points of data demonstrating a risk regardless of whether there is one. There is a good question on how to aggregate data (and well covered by numerous papers on methods of meta-analysis), and how certain one has to be over data before it can be aggregated. Schuz's almost legendary cohort study is a prime example. Ok, so it's a cohort study and therefore not going to be included in a meta-analysis anyway, but due to flaws in the data collection it was very clear that, regardless of how many people they managed to get, the number they _didn't_ manage to get destroyed the resolving power of the study to 0 -- it would not be possible to draw any conclusions from it because, due to circumstances outside of the author's control, the data quality was simply absolute crap. However, this didn't stop them from writing an abstract saying "we can be happy mobiles don't cause cancer" and getting it around most of the national press in this country. It is very dispiriting that such poor science can get such definitive coverage.

So is 30% enough to be worried about? Yes it is, if that meant that 30% were showing a real effect that could be linked to real people getting ill, but I just don't see that. These studies only seem to indicate some kind of potential link to an effect or some minor statistical variation from the norm. Of course I haven't read anything like as much on this topic as either you or Henrik, so I could be wrong about that. However, just look out of your window, the world is normal, people are not keeling over in the street. Sure they could all have a brain tumour in the making, but I'd have thought that even that would have shown up by now.

But would you see it? If you get a headache, why? Is it your phone? Drinking too much last night? Not enough sleep? Air quality? Stress at home? Stress at work? How would you ever know?

The point of statistical maths is to attempt to spot trends that are strong enough relating a cause and effect that statistically a likelihood can be ascertained. The whole point of statistical significant confidence intervals is to say "this is the relationship strength, and there's a 95% chance that the value falls somewhere between this lower bound and this upper bound". If the middle value (OR) and lower bound are both above 1, it is considered that the finding is significant (there being a 2.5% chance that the real value is below the lower bound) - similarly the same can be said for the OR and upper bound being below 1 (a statistically significant protective effect). That you find data points consistently demonstrating effect just means there's a relationship, it doesn't mean it's going to be strong enough that people die in front of you at the point they make a phone call (to use a ridiculously exaggerated example ;))

How many people do you see keeling over after a single cigarette? How many people have died in your awareness due to not wearing a seatbelt? How many known and acknowledged risk factors have you simply taken other people's words on because "they said so"? Risk factors are calculated behind close doors based on complex evaluations over many years - very rarely (except in the case of epidemics / pandemics) are those risks ever so gross as to be visible to the layperson.

Of course, that does bring in the issue of "what is the risk actually worth?" If a tripling in risk of brain cancer is found to be associated with light phone use, is that in itself a big lifetime risk? Not really due to the incredible rareness of the disease - but whilst quantifying it in that manner makes sense from a personal decision making point of view, it would still be a very accurately defined demonstration of harm that should be well documented and publicly accepted and available - not to scare people from using things but so that they understand the risks they undertake by doing so.

My campaign is not to ban or change the world, for that's not my role in it. My campaign is to make sure as accurate information as possible reaches those that are responsible for taking those decisions. They bear the accountability for it, so they should be presented with as much pertinent information as possible. I may not agree with the course of action they choose to take, but that's fine, it's their job to pick the one they would choose.

You keep on reading and gathering information and I'll try to keep up with what you are saying. If a point is reached when I'm convinced then I'll let you know and I hope I'd have the good humility to thank you, and Henrik, for the work you are both doing. I'm not convinced yet but it is reassuring to know that you are on the case.

I know this is not an answer.


On the contrary, it is quite a full answer considering the issue at hand :) Likewise, I will be more pleased than anyone if, one day, wireless technologies were shown beyond reasonable doubt to contain no risk to anyone's health.

brianct
# Posted: 9 Apr 2009 01:31
Reply 


Bryan
Glad you were entertained...i wonder if youd care to tell that to the victims mobile phone induced brain cancer: 'you guys are so amusing!'

And you expect people here to listen to your industry funded ad nauseum arguements of how safe cell phone technology is....

Brian

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 9 Apr 2009 14:32
Reply 


topazg,

Not really due to the incredible rareness of the disease
Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the incredible rareness of brain cancer based on historical figures? For the first time in history (as far as I know), four billion people are regularly exposing their brains to a potential carcinogen. Has any direct and repeated exposure of that magnitude ever occurred in history before?
When, litterally, everyone is exposed - doesn't that completely change the picture on what magnitude of damage can be expected?

Bryan,
About your points.
1). Good to hear that all people that you know and who they know don't know anyone suffering from EHS. From personal experience, and what I've heard from others, I can say that it takes a while to figure out that you are being adversely affected by something as innocently looking as a mobile-phone. I used a mobile-phone once. By no means a "heavy user" though. Cost of handset and airtime prohibited that - I was a poor student then. Thinking back, I can't figure out why I needed a brick-sized mobile-phone at all. Today I'm happy without and I love my landline answering machine. I Digress. Anyway, I started getting a headache more and more often when using the mobile-phone. Within a year of the headaches appearing, I could not make mobile-phone calls without feeling sick. My point here is that it took a lot of trial and error to figure out that it was actually the active-mobile-phone-against-head scenario that was the cause of my headaches and nausea. It happened every time.
So, the people that arrive at this website have probably gone through similar amounts of self-testing and self-scrutiny before they were forced to accept that their phones and gadgets were affecting them. It's not an easy self-verdict when every so-called "authoritative body" is telling you that oh nooo, it simply can't be the mobile-phone that's a problem.

2). If you were experiencing strange symptoms from whatever suspected source, how would you even start searching for answers? Even when you have found a place, a website, where other people share your experiences - how long would it take for you to actually file your own case history?
Try coming up with some words to describe someone suffering from EHS and try googling. Are we even on the first page of results?

3). How many people rush to the press with whatever health problems they have? Would you stick your head out if you had, say, serious peanut allergy and someone built a peanut processing factory next to your house? Silly example maybe but it takes a lot of courage to stand up for anything really. The media do love scandals, but for someone to submit themselves to public scrutiny takes a lot of consideration and guts. Not many people are prepared to throw themselves out there.

topazg
Member
# Posted: 9 Apr 2009 16:32
Reply 


Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the incredible rareness of brain cancer based on historical figures? For the first time in history (as far as I know), four billion people are regularly exposing their brains to a potential carcinogen. Has any direct and repeated exposure of that magnitude ever occurred in history before?
When, litterally, everyone is exposed - doesn't that completely change the picture on what magnitude of damage can be expected?


This is a very good question. The answer is we don't know - sure, if the increase in risk is 20 fold we may well see a huge surge in mobile phone related brain tumours that would be truly catastrophic. However, looking at the ONS data, brain tumours in the UK are still simply not rising at all. Time will tell, and sadly there's no easy way to pre-empt the data.

Patty
# Posted: 9 Apr 2009 19:54
Reply 


Well said Henrik!

At least once a day I say to myself I don't believe it! How short sighted can people be.

From what I've been able to research and learn, because it really is a learn as I go. I can't understand why people don't understand that the linear qualities of all these transmissions are interfering with human electrical systems.

The scientist here that I talked to had a sound of doubt in their voices about whether it was a radioactive quality that we are dealing with. They were quite straight forward as to the lack of research capabilities that they were confronted with. Also they were enjoying the quality that they had a hummer to talk to.

I'm hoping that an answer or vindication for our suffering is found in Dosimetry, I was trying to understand the SAR and came upon Mechanisms of electrostimulation: Application to electromagnetic field exposure standards at frequencies below 100 kHz. It's been eye opening to the electronics of some of the different types of nerves and the shape of the cells.

This is some thoughts on the paper by Gold (something) because he happens to mention the supposided tinnitus. It's not tinnitus caused by and of our bodies alone! Some of us have taken the years to scrutinize ourselves before we even breath a word, because we know already that people aren't going to believe it. Because they can't hear it.

To Mr. Gold I would say, I've had my Magnesium checked already - It was normal, my doctor is quite sure I don't need my calcium checked. I'm thinking that they could look more into the production of melanin, melantonin, chemical responses that could be thrown out of wack. The incessant stimulation of neural networks, minute vibrations being pick-up and of course misinterpeted at the cellular and sub cellular level.

I've been worried about Mike that had posted here looking for support, I am wondering how he is making out. I have the same type of response in my arms that he had mentioned. I hope he's figuring it out.
I'm wondering if Ann is from Wales?

Anonymous
# Posted: 19 Apr 2009 13:15
Reply 


No Ann is not from Wales, but I love the place - have some good holidays there.

It is true that it takes years to make the connection. I am usually a very observant person (and science trained), but it took me 15 years, starting with the microwave oven that I used a little too often. However, it was the use of mobile phone that made the connection between ill health - headaches, depression, forgetfulness and bad temper. I used to be so forgetful that it was amazing I could do my job. It only because I was quite young that no one thought of dimentia. But I did not any promotion and was generally assigned to easy tasks.

Patty
# Posted: 21 Apr 2009 22:40
Reply 


I still think if you all could hear the waves like some of us, you would have such a greater understanding for what is going on. I just found an article that was scanned in Print Hearing Microwaves by Dr. J.C. Lin from 2002. The article was in an IEEE magazine it describes with gracious knowledge what I'm experiencing. I know from researching that Lin is working on the Bioinitive Report. I'm elated that they know of the microwave induced pressure wave and the effects on the head.

Don't lose faith in yourself. Have your doctors been able to give you any advice on how to cope?

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 22 Apr 2009 09:07
Reply 


Patty,

Where have you seen that James C. Lin is working on the BioInitiative??

brianct
# Posted: 23 Apr 2009 02:16
Reply 


Nice to see my post is still number one!

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 23 Apr 2009 10:03
Reply 


brianct,

Yeah, it became quite a long thread. I'm disappointed in Bryan for bailing like that because he "didn't want to upset us". His "no risk" arguments could add insult to injury sometimes - but we didn't throw ourselves out here to be stroked on the chin and patted on the back.
I think Bryan was advised to back off. It had become obvious to readers that he would not look at the evidence and nothing short of the WHO, ICNIRP, FDA, HPA etc. etc. admitting error would lead to a change in his mind. Not that anyone here needs Bryan to change his mind but at least he could acknowledge that evidence of harm exists. He never offered up any tangible references to the contrary.
We (us running mast-victims) agree that Bryan was assigned to debunk us. He used his work computer and posted on this forum during work hours. He explained otherwise but I just don't buy it. If his company is working him so hard as he claimed, why would he waste his precious spare minutes on a bunch of luddites like us? Doesn't add up.
I'm not even sure that it was the same person posting as "Bryan" every time. A few times, I detected a change in his style of writing. I might be wrong but I think now that "Bryan" was a concerted industry attempt.

Patty
# Posted: 29 Apr 2009 19:23
Reply 


Henrik; Hi I though I had read or seen his name included in the research documents. But I could get my wires crossed (easily), thanks for catching that. What a complicated research for the validity of the HUM. I got pretty upset when I read the magazine article about the Microwave Auditory Effect and that Lin stated the Thermoelastic Effect is widely accepted as a radiation. The gov. officals here told me it wasn't radiation. I will try to behave myself better. I probably lost it a bit, I found out my husband has cancer, it's caught early so prognosis is good so far.

I am wondering how they can be so sure that the electromagnetics pulsing thru the air doesn't mess with the ion channels in our brains or the dielectic properties of the cells in our brains.

Meanwhile more stuff gets added to our local transmission towers.

Anonymous
# Posted: 3 May 2009 13:08
Reply 


Sorry to hear about your husband's cancer, my son too. So many people with cancer these days, is there a connection? It is devastating isn't it? and the treatment is horrendous. It is like having a baby again. I've had to give up my job to look after him.
I have not dared tell my doctor about my symptoms from microwaves. Everyone I know, especially family, are cross with me and so I keep the subject to myself, but they are not allowed to use a mobile phone in the house. In fact one member is affected and is now on heart medication because they have a fast heart and anxiety.
It really is unbelieveable how much emotion the subject generates.
All I know is how I feel when I use a mobile phone or am near one. Luckily I live in a detached house so I don't get too much of the neighbours' microwaves, and I can cope with a certain amount of exposure.

brianct
# Posted: 6 May 2009 04:01
Reply 


'It really is unbelieveable how much emotion the subject generates'

because
1) a lot of corproate (and by extension govt interest) money is tied up in this wretched invention
2) People treat them as a necessity in life, ep their emotional lives.

It wont be till we get an epidemic of brain cancers, that people will be forced to rethink their love affair with these machines.

Agnes
# Posted: 7 May 2009 01:25
Reply 


Brianct.
WE DO HAVE AN EPIDEMIC!
A worldwide EHS epidemic!
If you just compare the "Swine Flu" criteria (the WHO seems to have rules that declare a "Pandemic" if a certain decease reaches more than 2 countries.
The Swine Flu reached the UK, USA and other countries from Mexico.
When it had reached 2+ countries with 256 victims (only fatalities in Mexico) it was declared a "Pandemic, stage 5"

So I wonder deeply, What is behind that the WHO, and our respective governments, have NOT issued Warnings on EHS which now is an epidemic present in every single country in the world where you find Mobile Phone Microwave Radiation in the environment.

The only likely answer is Monetary Gain!
Best regards.
Agnes

Ann
# Posted: 25 May 2009 22:16
Reply 


If we get an epidemic of brain cancers - which we probably have already - doctors will not recognise it. They insist that we don't know the cause of most cancers. Some risk factors are viruses, chemicals and radiation. Microwaves do not come into this category, they are regarded as harmless (not like X-rays.) But who would have imagine that sunlight would cause cancers - skin cancers, until recently. It seems that it is a matter of "quantity". We can all cope with some exposure to sunlight, microwaves and even X-rays, but it is the constant immersion into these waves that is harmful - as mobile phones provide. One day they will accept that microwaves cause cancer, by which time much harm will be done.

brianct
# Posted: 27 May 2009 03:17
Reply 


'But who would have imagine that sunlight would cause cancers - skin cancers, until recently.'

It doesnt..if it did,youd find every outdoors workman with skin cancer...
http://www.lifestylelaboratory.com/articles/ott/effects-tinted-light.html
http://www.healself.org/sun.html

brianct
# Posted: 27 May 2009 03:20
Reply 


Further:
'A paper presented by Dr. Frederic Urbach, et al, at a symposium held at the University of Oregon Medical School in 1965 states in the introduction that:

It has been suggested that prolonged exposure to sunlight may result in the development of skin cancer in man (Blum, 1959). As a result of the studies of Unna (1894), Dubreulh (1907), and many others (Blum, 1941), a number of arguments support the belief that sunlight is a causal factor in human skin cancer.

However, the following statement is included in the summary of the paper:

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were almost exclusively noted only on those areas which received maximal ultraviolet radiation while more than one-third of all basal cell carcinomas occurred on areas receiving less than 20% of the maximum possible ultraviolet dose. This suggests that some factor in addition to ultraviolet radiation plays a significant role in the genesis of basal cell carcinoma'
http://www.lifestylelaboratory.com/articles/ott/effects-tinted-light.html

<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >>
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on light forum script miniBB™ © 2001-2022