It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How computer and phone EMF signals affect our blood

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
Here is a link to a pdf citing 106 studies of effects of radio frequency on living tissue. 93 studies found effects, 13 did not.
www.bioinitiative.org...


You DO know the scientific community views bioinitiative to be dubious fringers, don't you?



Another issue is that there are statements that do not
accord with the standard view of science, and the Report does not provide a reasonable account
of why we should reject the standard view in favour of the views espoused in the Report.


This is the nice way of calling them crackpots. Linky




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

That "Linky" is useless to determine whether any of those tests were of any value. My bet is they used the same 20-25 "participants" in each study. Plenty of squirrelly folks out there who will think they have a particular condition they don't, and a few who have the condition and know it, and an unknown number who have it, but don't know what it is.

I have no doubt that such a condition exists, but the exact definition and the tests that would need to be developed to find it--especially amongst the folks who are susceptible and don't know it--really haven't been developed yet. But they likely will be soon, as the number of experiments and studies regarding radio-EMF effects on life are increasing dramatically.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
a reply to: Bedlam

That "Linky" is useless to determine whether any of those tests were of any value. My bet is they used the same 20-25 "participants" in each study.


Behold!< br />


I have no doubt that such a condition exists, but the exact definition and the tests that would need to be developed to find it--especially amongst the folks who are susceptible and don't know it--really haven't been developed yet.


I'd say they have, and they're pretty straightforward. You take the EMF sensitives who say they can immediately detect cell phones or wi-fi routers or the like. Then you put them in a room with a phone or wi-fi router modified so that you can turn the transmitter on or off without giving them any indication, and preferably without giving the test administrator any indication either. Then you give them a number of challenges to see if they think the thing is emitting or not.

And in case after case, they can't tell. Problem solved.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
From your link to a group disagreeing with the inital bioInitiative report:

"In 2007 a group of interested individuals collated a series of views on the non-ionising radiation
health debate. This was entitled the BioInitiative Report1
, a web document dated August 31,
2007. The BioInitiative Report presents a series of views that argue for a change in public
exposure standards, but which are largely inconsistent with current scientific consensus. The
ACRBR have received numerous queries about this report from the general public, and have
provided this document to answer a few questions to clarify its perspective on the report. "
____________________________
So, a 2007 report about a new group concerned with a relatively newly recognized problem gets criticized by another group.

But---

8 years on, they're still here, and they've got even more ammo backing up their concerns.

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
So, a 2007 report about a new group concerned with a newly recognized problem gets criticized by another group.

But---

8 years on, they're still here, and they've got even more ammo backing up their concerns.


And they're still just as fringey and partisan.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Tusks
So, a 2007 report about a new group concerned with a newly recognized problem gets criticized by another group.

But---

8 years on, they're still here, and they've got even more ammo backing up their concerns.


And they're still just as fringey and partisan.


All truth goes through 3 stages....



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
All truth goes through 3 stages....


Well, that presupposes that it IS truth to start with.

Not a lot of love for bioinitiative at all. There are so MANY valid critiques it's hard to see what to post, but this one's nicely written.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Tusks
All truth goes through 3 stages....


Well, that presupposes that it IS truth to start with.

Not a lot of love for bioinitiative at all. There are so MANY valid critiques it's hard to see what to post, but this one's nicely written.



I've been in medicine for 41 years, never heard of this group "Science-Based Medicine", although it sounds similar to the name of a very respected publication "Evidence based Medicine." Looks like the NEW! James Randi foundation of Medicine

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join