Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Electrical Pollution  (Read 24019 times)

Sam Adams

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2013, 09:29:09 pm »

People have all sorts of legitimate symptoms to "electrical allergies" but it's all psychosomatic.  Stick them in a faraday cage and tell them they've got a [imaginary] transmitter pointed at them and they freak out; stick them in a normal room and claim it's a faraday cage and they're fine.  It's nothing but hocus pocus science, snakeoil has a better reputation.
                               Ok, if you are incapable to do some research yourselves, and just want to jump on the negative uneducated band wagon, so help yourself. If your able to read and understand, I will attempt to direct you in a start.  Try,, Dr David Carpenter , former founding Dean of the Univ. at Albany School of Public Health..  Santa Cruz County Ca..  Public Health Dept--- Electrohypersensitivity  EHS.        Australian  Ass Professor of Neurosurgery  Vival G. Khurana..    EMF Safety Network of CA    emfsaftynetwork.org     Let me know, maybe I can read it to you aloud??? 
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2013, 10:12:13 pm »

Wow, that's a lot of hostility, there, Mr. Shark.

Actually, no, there's no hostility at all.  Perhaps you are projecting?

The only reply that I can give you is that I am a person who puts forth a LOT of effort to avoid holding incorrect ideas (to the extent that this is possible for a human being). I am skeptical of everything and constantly on guard against my own ego's tendency to bias. HOWEVER, as can be said of anyone, be it Einstein, Buddha, Jefferson, or Vos Savant, I have limits. When I run into them (always limits on time and energy, never on desire), I have to do what we all have to do at that point -- punt. That is what intuition is for. That is what common sense is for. That is what reputation is for (as in, the reputation my sources of information have with me, because I have and continue to periodically track their information back to primary sources, to see how honest they are being and how careful they are in their thinking).

A few days ago, on my own forum, I put up as the daily quote a phrase that had spontaneously occurred to me: "Always maintain a healthy skepticism -- of your own opinion."

Don't misunderstand the strength with which I'll defend my ideas. I remain willing to shed any idea -- my entire worldview, even -- at a moment's notice, if it is proven untrue. But the key word is proven. Would it make any sense, after putting so much effort and care into discerning the truth, to just drop everything I have learned as soon as someone tosses off a contrary opinion? No, sir, that would itself be an extreme form of gullibility.

The ideas you are supporting here are not ones which can stand up to any sort of skepticism.  There is literally no evidence at all to support that "primary cell perception" notion.  None whatsoever.  So I have trouble accepting your claimed rigor as honest, because there's no possible way that a rigorous analysis can lead to that.

I care about the Truth. Attacking that fact will not encourage pleasant discourse between us.

Anytime you want my sources, I'd be more than happy to share them. Eager, even. But it would help if you would inquire after them politely, rather than mid-sneer.

Not really.  No one is responsible for proving your claims to be untrue.  You are responsible for proving them to be true.  That's how honest discourse works.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Wolvenhaven

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2013, 05:49:38 am »

                             Ok, if you are incapable to do some research yourselves, and just want to jump on the negative uneducated band wagon, so help yourself. If your able to read and understand, I will attempt to direct you in a start.  Try,, Dr David Carpenter , former founding Dean of the Univ. at Albany School of Public Health..  Santa Cruz County Ca..  Public Health Dept--- Electrohypersensitivity  EHS.        Australian  Ass Professor of Neurosurgery  Vival G. Khurana..    EMF Safety Network of CA    emfsaftynetwork.org     Let me know, maybe I can read it to you aloud???  

There is absolutely zero reason for you to be personally attacking me because I don't adhere to a belief that you hold and that I call into question the validity of.  You point to one single study which has questionable research methods, and which no other researcher has been able to duplicate.  A quick search found 30+ studies which could not replicate any of the "findings" that electromagnetism in the non-ionizing range causes any repeatable, actual medical issues.  Here are a few:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPARPDSeriesReports/HpaRpd010/

http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract;jsessionid=D606B1D6DEDA05CB60D262E526884AE1.d03t03

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/67/2/224

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20536/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601

But what do I know?  I just require a researcher to not only publish their findings, but have proof that others can repeat the study so that it can be verified by others instead of blindly accepting any crackpot ideas which someone claim is a theory and which fits my own personal beliefs.  And so far the score on that is looking pretty dim with only 3 studies that have been show as a "maybe, kind of, possibly" while there are 35 others which say no.  Your own lack of understanding and knowledge of basic science as show in previous posts in this thread is really not helping your case either; sodium is not an electron nor is potassium a proton, how exactly are you supposed to understand electromagnetism if you can't even understand that?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 05:56:18 am by Wolvenhaven »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2013, 06:45:29 am »

Shark's Weak Dismissals
Quote
Joe Shark said: Mathis is engaging in some of the most basic failures that anyone can make when attempting to understand physics.  Particularly, attempting to establish an "absolute" reference, instead of accepting that everything in the universe moves relative to everything else.  His position is equivalent to those who tried to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe, because they couldn't stand the idea that they were not the center of it all.

It's easy for supposed experts to dismiss alternative views with broad claims and get acceptance from the general public, because the education system programs them to accept "authorities" as absolute truth dispensers. And subordinate authorities, like the Shark, have the advantage over brilliant mavericks, because of this known brainwashing.

So all Joe had to do was make a few trivial statements about Mathis, which were unfounded (including the claim that Mathis is trying to deny relativity), but, since Joe's position has the backing of the mainstream, the statements are good enough to satisfy most readers, including one who ridiculously compared Mathis to Buckwheat. I have considerable knowledge of science and it's obvious to me from reading both Mathis' extensive science and math papers, that he's much more knowledgeable than over 99% of other scientists and mathematicians. He knows most of the details of nearly every major physics experiment that's known and he can explain many of the details much better than nearly anyone.

The mainstream's primary expertise is in advertising and PR (public relations) etc. There's very little expertise beyond that. PR is part of male culture, called bluffing. It takes much less energy to bluff, than to fight it out with opponents, so bluffing saves energy. But it doesn't lead to increased knowledge. The mainstream pretends that all scientists agree on nearly every major claim in physics, astronomy etc. But to claim that scientists agree is to disprove that conventional science is really scientific, because real science involves disagreements and not pretending to be all-knowledgeable. Science was taken over by the ruling class in the late 1800s and it has become increasingly controlled ever since then. Science is controlled largely by so-called peer review in journals, which thwart new ideas, and by grants from govt and private sources, which tend to pay only for desired scientific findings, like CO2 caused global warming.

In reality scientists understand very little and disagree with each other tremendously. A lot of physics is largely imagination, like black holes, the big bang, expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy, wormholes, neutron stars, the size and age of the known universe etc. There are major problems in nearly all of the sciences. Radioactive dating methods are unreliable, so the age of the Sun and Earth, the time of the dinosaurs, the age of the rock strata etc are generally unknown. It's been found that rock strata are able to form quickly from flooding. There's also excellent evidence of biological transmutation of elements, as shown in Louis Kervran's book.

EM and Electric Pollution
There is plenty of evidence that electric and EM fields are dangerous in many cases. A Swedish study in 2002 studied cancer rates in Sweden and in the U.S. and found that radio waves from nearby radio stations increased cancer locally. When radio stations went out of business, local cancer rates went down. Microwaves used for cell phone communication have a bit shorter wavelengths than radio waves, but they can have similar dangers. When cell phones are held to the ear, the microwaves heat up the area and penetrate into the brain, as is shown in infrared imaging. They penetrate most deeply into children's brains. It's best to use speakers with cell phones, or other ways to keep them away from the head. I believe they also reduce sperm counts in males, when held on a belt or in a pocket.

Do you trust incompetent government to regulate industry and science to protect the public?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:20:54 am by Luck »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2013, 07:27:55 am »

It's easy for supposed experts to dismiss alternative views with broad claims and get acceptance from the general public, because the education system programs them to accept "authorities" as absolute truth dispensers. And subordinate authorities, like the Shark, have the advantage over brilliant mavericks, because of this known brainwashing.

You're claiming that someone who is the scientific equivalent of a flat-earther is a "brilliant maverick?"

So all Joe had to do was make a few trivial statements about Mathis, which were unfounded (including the claim that Mathis is trying to deny relativity), but, since Joe's position has the backing of the mainstream, the statements are good enough to satisfy most readers, including one who ridiculously compared Mathis to Buckwheat. I have considerable knowledge of science and it's obvious to me from reading both Mathis' extensive science and math papers, that he's much more knowledgeable than over 99% of other scientists and mathematicians. He knows most of the details of nearly every major physics experiment that's known and he can explain many of the details much better than nearly anyone.

The only thing Mathis demonstrates is an ability to use and misinterpret Wikipedia articles.  It doesn't take actualy knowledge, when you can fake it by quoting Wikipedia.

...because real science involves disagreements and not pretending to be all-knowledgeable.

Unless it's Mathis who is pretending to be all-knowledgeable?

There's also excellent evidence of biological transmutation of elements, as shown in Louis Kervran's book.

Um. no.

A Swedish study in 2002 studied cancer rates in Sweden and in the U.S. and found that radio waves from nearby radio stations increased cancer locally. When radio stations went out of business, local cancer rates went down.

Which study was that?  If you're going to make a claim, cite your source.

Microwaves used for cell phone communication have a bit shorter wavelengths than radio waves, but they can have similar dangers. When cell phones are held to the ear, the microwaves heat up the area and penetrate into the brain, as is shown in infrared imaging.

Infrared imaging?  Of brains?  IR doesn't image to any significant depth, so are we to presume that these were folks whose skulls had been removed and who were walking around with exposed brains?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

d.j.smith

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2013, 09:54:06 am »

MaineShark: thank you for providing me with a concrete example of someone who hears, but doesn't listen.
Logged
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2013, 04:16:13 pm »

MaineShark: thank you for providing me with a concrete example of someone who hears, but doesn't listen.

Didn't we already talk about projection?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Sam Adams

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2013, 04:26:03 pm »

          I normally don,t do personal attacks, say like crack pot ideas, or hocus pocus science, snake oil has a better reputation?  I also don,t rely on government institution for advise, but since you want more evidence and do rely on the gov and their granted science, here is some. WHO places RF radiation on B2 list of carcinogens, May 31 2011, which includes smart meters. Read or research Dr. Johanssons                              Parliament of European: Governments: Reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields May 27th 2011          FCC limits were set 1999 for safety standards not to exceed 1/100th radio electromagnetic radiation. Thats a reading of 1 on a RF reader meter.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2013, 07:45:46 pm »

I also don,t rely on government institution for advise, but since you want more evidence and do rely on the gov and their granted science, here is some. WHO places RF radiation on B2 list of carcinogens, May 31 2011, which includes smart meters. Read or research Dr. Johanssons                              Parliament of European: Governments: Reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields May 27th 2011          FCC limits were set 1999 for safety standards not to exceed 1/100th radio electromagnetic radiation. Thats a reading of 1 on a RF reader meter.

Sounds like a good reason to disbelieve such nonsense.

It's really just an excuse for a power grab, like "Global Warming" - all such claims have originated with government "scientists."  So if you don't believe in following the government's advice, then why are you promoting the whole "electromagnetic radiation is harmful" ploy that they created?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Sam Adams

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2013, 08:41:50 pm »



Sounds like a good reason to disbelieve such nonsense.

It's really just an excuse for a power grab, like "Global Warming" - all such claims have originated with government "scientists."  So if you don't believe in following the government's advice, then why are you promoting the whole "electromagnetic radiation is harmful" ploy that they created?
[/quote]                                                                      Its the US thats pushing the RF readers devices, along with monsanto,s hybird seeds[gene spliced], monsantos round-up, high fructose corn syrup in the majority of our foods, where these products are illegal in most foreign countries.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2013, 12:19:59 pm »

Why is it only 'electrical pollution' when its something that you don't agree with?
Why isn't the computer your typing on the source of the electrical pollution?
What about the wiring in your home?

Logged

Wolvenhaven

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #56 on: September 18, 2013, 02:50:30 pm »

Why is it only 'electrical pollution' when its something that you don't agree with?
Why isn't the computer your typing on the source of the electrical pollution?
What about the wiring in your home?

Because it's a made-up issue; reeks of the whole chemtrails nonsense.  Either that or we don't understand because we don't have our tinfoil hats on tight enough.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2013, 03:12:35 pm »

Either that or we don't understand because we don't have our tinfoil hats on tight enough.

Tinfoil hats are a conspiracy to amplify mind-control signals: http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #58 on: September 18, 2013, 08:16:51 pm »

Productive vs Non-productive Discussion
Much of the discussion here is hardly useful, except for entertainment or sadomasochism. What are the requirements for informative productive discussion? Sharing links to informative papers pro or con any issue is probably productive.

Name-calling is immature, non-productive and unscientific, except for entertainment etc.

Society has a scientific method for finding truth, but it is not carried out well and there are major flaws in its current use.

For a republican form of government, where representatives are elected to represent the interests of the people, the people and the representatives need to be reminded that representatives must represent the needs of all of the people, not just those who voted for them. They also need to be reminded that the people have the right and probably the duty to express their grievances, which the representatives should take into account to help them determine how to represent them better.

Concerns-Based Discussion
A promising method of productive discussion in local groups is for all sides to express their main concerns on any issue and to listen to all such concerns. Then, when the concerns are understood, all can mention any ideas that might satisfy all of the main concerns. The best of such ideas can then be adopted by the group. I've been experimenting with this process for a couple of years, but I don't have much expertise as yet. I believe, though, that failing to elicit parties' main concerns is what makes many discussions unproductive. And there are those who benefit from keeping the people divided against each other. They can benefit by manipulating a small percentage of the divided people so as to get a majority vote from one side or the other. That's what's been happening in politics for at least several decades, esp. at the national level. The major campaign contributors are thus able to get one side elected for a while, then the other side, all to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of nearly everyone else.

In this particular discussion of electrical pollution, it's apparent that one side is concerned about suppressed information about this and other matters, while the other side is concerned about baseless warnings. Then there are also the concerns some have about getting their entertainment or sadomasochistic needs met, but it seems those concerns are already being satisfied anyway. So, if I'm right about what the two main sides' concerns are on this matter, does anyone want to suggest a proposal that might satisfy both sides?

Solutions?
My own idea is that we can provide links to good papers on this matter, whether pro or con. Then our readers and ourselves can check out those links, if interested. And, if we want to make them sound more interesting, so people check them out, we can give some summary info about the linked items.

Questions about Rights
What about the issue of microwave and radio wave pollution? Most of us probably believe that we have a right not to have our properties or ourselves polluted significantly by others. So, whether it's true or not that such EM waves are actually dangerous to health, don't people have the right not to have their properties or bodies invaded by unwanted waves, aside from natural waves? Or does everyone who wants to pollute others with such waves have the right to aim as much intensity of waves at anyone or their property that they feel like?





Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Electrical Pollution
« Reply #59 on: September 18, 2013, 08:53:18 pm »

Questions about Rights
What about the issue of microwave and radio wave pollution? Most of us probably believe that we have a right not to have our properties or ourselves polluted significantly by others.

And therein lies the real issue.  It's not "those who are concerned about suppressed information" versus "those who are concerned about baseless warnings."

It's "those who want to pretend that this is an issue so that they can falsely claim trespass" versus "those who state that the proof of trespass must come from the individual making the claim."

Your transparent attempt to re-name the groups with such obvious bias (one is worried about something serious, like information suppression, and the other just trivially doesn't like having too many warnings) is "immature, non-productive and unscientific," to use your own phrasing.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up