Mother Arrested For Refusing Smart Meter

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I have a smart water meter. It saves time and hassle with the dogs etc. I wish I had a smart gas and electric meter for the same reason. The strength of the signal is just barely enough for the meter reader, now a driving job, to get the info and move on. If there is a problem, so an unusual difference in water use or unchanging readings, they notify us by mail and ask. I have yet to have anyone need to see the meter itself.
What people are forgetting is simple. The meter on your house is not yours. It belongs to the power company. If they want to change it, they can. If they want to remove it, they can. You cannot forbid access to their equipment. Doing so is in violation of their rights to their equipment as they deem fit. So......the basic premise is wrong. If she doesn't like it, don't use the meter at all. Sorry folks, when we rely on a power company to supply us with any type of utilities, we are stuck doing things their way. It's why we have building codes, fire codes, etc.

The premise that this is somehow tied in with "chemtrails", "morgellons", and turning into robots is just laughable at best. Neither one exists in the real world, outside the internet. Carnicom has been debunked over just about everything. He was even pranked into the whole "DiHydrogen MonoOxide" spoof. If he was a truly good scientist he should have known about that in a matter of seconds. He fell hook, line and sinker. He is hack, and one of the few real shills in the "chemtrail" business. Taking air samples from the mountain top is not a real good sampling of something miles over his head. That would be like taking a stool sample to see why you have a headache.
The video trying to weld them all together has no "evidence" that hasn't been presented and debunked here at ATS ad nauseum.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


Yeah as far as GENETIC defects yes. There is too little even known about the young science of genetics to say either way.

There is a proven link between these frequencies and cancer. That is why the world health organization to name one group has warned us to limit our cell phone use and to not build power lines in residential areas.

Search for those studies that these concerns are based off and make sure the are not funded by lobbyists or utility companies.

These issues associated with high and low frequency emissions are not new to us and have laws already for their regulation in many communities across the world.

Also the carbon emissions issue should not be ignored. The plans for further taxation based of fictitious numbers generated in a digital format we do not control is unacceptable.

That is also why they are being pushed even though the technologies they are supposedly being implemented for don't yet exist.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Double post.

So I will just add this. Agenda 21 will be resisted by many people. As much if not more fervently than David Rothschild advocates it.
edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


We get it. Your dogs get hassled and you are less comfortable. Oh the humanity.

Yes, Public health should be placed last on that list of concerns.......because we aren't comfortable enough to not risk our health if it means we dont have to get up for anything.....

The link to "chemical trails" is a distraction as well as being a strawman argument. The studies done since the NINETIES have proven that power lines and cell phone usage do degrade our health. That is not even arguable anymore.

These meters produce higher concentrations of those forms of radiation.

They make people sick.....they are then unacceptable for public implementation.

Advocating such harmful technology is irresponsible and damn near criminal.

It is also selling out your average man so he will have to pay more when they start taxing our "carbon point" usage.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I moved into a house with smart meters.
Mine are fine. The electric meter sends in a read every 2 weeks, and this shows on my monthly bill, what my usage is per 2 weeks.
The gas meter is a little different, they fly a small plane over once a month, and it picks up the read that way.

As far as danger from whatever wireless waves are in the air surrounding me, they're there without the meters. Cell phone towers. Satelite dishes. Without them, I wouldn't be on the Internet or have tv, or cell phone.

I guess it depends on your power provider if they're going to cut your power from using too much. That seems kind of silly, they would lose money doing that - we pay for what we use.

I like not having to send in my reading. I don't have to trudge through the snow in the winter to get out to the pole, and no one shows up in the yard unexpectedly either

edit on 7-2-2013 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


They wont cut your power for using "too much" they want to charge you for excess usage...you irresponsible enemy of all that is ecological.....want more taxes to feed big business ....then fight for these things to go nationwide so they can set limits to your usage, after which only the super rich will be able to keep living in the 21st century.

As if we didn't already have an unjust energy industry in the US.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Oh please! The BS around here is hitting every wall.

Don't worry about the radiation from smart meters if . . . .
You have a wireless router on 24/7
You use a cell phone
You use a cordless phone


And when a property owner agrees to have power from the grid, they must agree to give access to their property to maintain and upgrade the system.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Spruk
 


Yeah as far as GENETIC defects yes. There is too little even known about the young science of genetics to say either way.

There is a proven link between these frequencies and cancer. That is why the world health organization to name one group has warned us to limit our cell phone use and to not build power lines in residential areas.

Search for those studies that these concerns are based off and make sure the are not funded by lobbyists or utility companies.

These issues associated with high and low frequency emissions are not new to us and have laws already for their regulation in many communities across the world.

Also the carbon emissions issue should not be ignored. The plans for further taxation based of fictitious numbers generated in a digital format we do not control is unacceptable.

That is also why they are being pushed even though the technologies they are supposedly being implemented for don't yet exist.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)


Edit - I said mutations not defects, not defects, as the term Genetic Engineering, refers to the purposly modifying a living being's genetic structure (generally with the use of say a Genetic Retrovirus (to my knowledge none exist in the 'wild') or some form of technology. Speaking of which in our current level of genetics, it is not possible to re-write a born human's DNA, as their auto-immune system will automatically kill the new cell with the 'incorrect' genetic code.)

Note - Reason i have used the same source for the two, is simple, it aggregates a number of studies and is worded quite well.

Power Lines:
American Cancer Institute - Magnetic Fields


Mobile Phones:
American Cancer Institute - Mobile Phones

Earlier studies (1979 for power lines, which is the regulation you are referring too, and i THINK 1998-2001 for mobile phones) have been pretty much "debunked" as invalid or didn't stand up against peer review overall.

Now one study i do recall reading around mobile phone's did show a minor link (these are 'plausible' links simply stating that further study in the area was required) that excessive mobile phone use did show an increase in cancers of the exposed areas (ear, brain, blood etc), however these people showed excessive mobile use, to the tune of approximately 4-8 hours a day total time (so those people you see with mobiles glued to their heads), meaning the study itself was out to prove a link, not prove a hypothesis (commonly called 'shake and bake' studies), and thus has since been disregarded by the scientific community.

As for carbon emissions, i haven't had the time to go over the data, and watching two of my close associates argue of this (abet its amusing, however detrimental to their psychological states), one is a geologist the other is an environmentalists (former is a PhD the latter is a masters in eviro science), of course the latter is out to prove carbon is responsible for global warming, the former is arguing this is normal activity for the environment, so personally I'm on the fence.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Spruk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 



Biological hazards
The best understood biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause dielectric heating. For example, touching or standing around an antenna while a high-power transmitter is in operation can cause severe burns. These are exactly the kind of burns that would be caused inside a microwave oven.

This heating effect varies with the power and the frequency of the electromagnetic energy. A measure of the heating effect is the specific absorption rate or SAR, which has units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The IEEE and many national governments have established safety limits for exposure to various frequencies of electromagnetic energy based on SAR, mainly based on ICNIRP Guidelines,which guard against thermal damage.

There are publications which support the existence of complex biological effects of weaker non-thermal electromagnetic fields (see Bioelectromagnetics), including weak ELF magnetic fieldsand modulated RF and microwave fields. Fundamental mechanisms of the interaction between biological material and electromagnetic fields at non-thermal levels are not fully understood.

A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay. However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits.
[edit]Positions of governments and scientific bodies

World Health Organization
In May 2011, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review of the evidence on health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and concluded that there was limited evidence that cellphone users might be at increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, and that there was inadequate evidence of any other health risks posed by EMF.This "possibly carcinogenic" classification was often misinterpreted, meaning only "that there is very little scientific evidence as to the carcinogenicity of cell phone use".
en.wikipedia.org...

The "possible" risk is actually a major concern

Conclusions  
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working
Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a
conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and
therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC
Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐
term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important
to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "


www.iarc.fr...

linkinghub.elsevier.com...

jnci.oxfordjournals.org...

try more than ONE source if you are going to TRY and debunk decades of research by agencies, organizations, and universities across the planet.

Also even the world health organization has said what I stated. BUT hey I guess they need people like you with your one source to set them straight.

EDIT:
and

At first a civil court ruled against Marcolini, who appealed. The Appeal Court placed more weight on research done by Lennart Hardell’s group at the University of Örebro in Sweden, which years ago suggested that the use of mobile phones for more than ten years leads to increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma.

The Appeal Court considered this work more “reliable” and more “independent” than large international studies such as the Interphone study (conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and funded jointly by the industry and the European Commission), as Hardell’s studies were not funded by mobile-phone manufacturers. The Interphone study, published in 2010, failed to provide solid evidence that mobile phones increased the risk of brain tumours, although it hinted at a slightly higher risk for ‘heavy’ users (see ‘No link found between mobile phones and cancer’).

A further appeal from INAIL brought the case in front of the High Court, which has confirmed the Appeal Court’s decision and ruled once again in favour of Marcolini. The sentence is now final. Italian consumer advocacy organizations, such as CODACONS, celebrated the ruling, which they say will create a precedent that allows consumers who use mobile phones for many hours a day to sue mobile-phone manufacturers if they develop a tumour.
blogs.nature.com...

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by snowspirit
 


They wont cut your power for using "too much" they want to charge you for excess usage...you irresponsible enemy of all that is ecological.....want more taxes to feed big business ....then fight for these things to go nationwide so they can set limits to your usage, after which only the super rich will be able to keep living in the 21st century.


They don't have different rates here for different usage. So whatever I use, I'm charged for. I checked that out as soon as I moved here.
I had heard that there were different rates for peak times but not with this company.
Maybe that depends on what province or state the person lives in.
Power is expensive already anyways, without "over using" , so I'm one of those people that turns off all excess power.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Like I said this is agenda 21 and its proposed carbon tax based its point system. This is the technology they talk about where we each "do our part" and pay for going over our limit and so produce less carbon emissions. By hitting us in the wallet we will produce less carbon emissions and so be more conscious of the environmental impact of our activities.

sustainable.......

they may not be doing this yet, but that is the reason why they need this "monitor everything" technology. What, the old meters didnt work?.....flying planes over peoples houses and implementing high technology information centers is cheaper than a guy in a van checking meters?.....
edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Spruk
 



try more than ONE source if you are going to TRY and debunk decades of research by agencies, organizations, and universities across the planet.

Also even the world health organization has said what I stated. BUT hey I guess they need people like you with your one source to set them straight.



Did you not see the point where i said "note i am using one source, because it aggregates a number of studies" (paraphrased)?

Lets look at these articles you have linked:

WHO - May 31 / 2001 article: N/A : PR: 208 - This is a press release and not a study.

Hazard Classification 2B - "Possibly carcinogenic to humans"



Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

"Anotation 2: 'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent
and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or
confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence."
(Previous link)



000632-99-5 Magenta 2B 57, 99, 100F 2012
Magenta production 1 57, 99, 100F 2012
Magnetic fields, extremely low-frequency 2B 80 2002
Magnetic fields, static 3 80 2002


This was added in 2002, being classified as 2B is not a direct link or the proverbial smoking gun. The classification is listed as "possible", if it was upgraded to a classification of 2A or 1 then this is the smoking gun. Most items classified as 2B from the working groups are called "casual observation".

sadly i cannot get to the elsevier link, so i apologise for not getting to that one.

Wikipedia - Electromagnetic Raditation Hazards. If you want to use this as a source i'd suggest you copy/past the entry specific to your argument:



World Health Organization

In May 2011, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review of the evidence on health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and concluded that there was limited evidence that cellphone users might be at increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, and that there was inadequate evidence of any other health risks posed by EMF.[10][11] This "possibly carcinogenic" classification was often misinterpreted, meaning only "that there is very little scientific evidence as to the carcinogenicity of cell phone use".[12]


* Health Canada

"There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures [to electric and magnetic fields] at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors."[13]


* U.S. military definition

In Federal Standard 1037C, the United States government adopts the following definition:

Electromagnetic radiation hazards (RADHAZ or EMR hazards): Hazards caused by a transmitter/antenna installation that generates electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of ordnance, personnel, or fueling operations in excess of established safe levels or increases the existing levels to a hazardous level; or a personnel, fueling, or ordnance installation located in an area that is illuminated by electromagnetic radiation at a level that is hazardous to the planned operations or occupancy. These hazards will exist when an electromagnetic field of sufficient intensity is generated to: (a) induce or otherwise couple currents or voltages large enough to initiate electroexplosive devices or other sensitive explosive components of weapon systems, ordnance, or explosive devices; (b) cause harmful or injurious effects to humans and wildlife; (c) create sparks having sufficient magnitude to ignite flammable mixtures of materials that must be handled in the affected area. —Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms


Read the full article before posting it, the wikipedia entry shows there are two sides to the story, clearly showing your "side" and "my side" (or they as you put it so eloquently.)


Overall everyone is taking "precautionary" measures due to the 2B classification. Which incidentally is NOT a "huge deal", see second post, im running out of characters (so stand by
)

edit on 7-2-2013 by Spruk because: cleaned up some missing /'s



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


first of all clean up that mess of a post..

second..WHO funded those studies?

Was it cell phone manufacturers?

yeah.....

as far as two sides.....

the 2b classification is not for its NON risk. It is for the lack of evidence. Please look up a 2b classifications for cancinageans.

If there was NO risk it would not get a 2b classification. It is classified as such as there is concern for it but since it is still being tested they cannot be sure.

If they were sure that NO risk was associated they would say so. THEY CAN NOT. Also REAL independent studies NOT funded by cell phone manufactures have proven that there is a real risk.


Forget about reading an article get informed before you try to counter someone who has read up on this subject as a whole.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Part 2:

Other entries in the 2B classification are (i've cherry picked obviously listing the entire 2b grouping would be a tad overwhelming):

Note i am using Wikipedia, as these articles also cover the common occurrences:

Acrylonitrile - which is commonly found in synthetic rubbers
en.wikipedia.org... - Food contaminant produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus
Auramine O - Used in Antiseptic agents

Bitumens, occupational exposure to straight-run bitumens and their emissions during road paving - Classification 2B

Last one i promise: Caffeic Acid, classification 2B, this one was is a favorate with a vast majority of people and is found in several sources. That substance? Coffee.


This one you will love:


Biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from
household combustion of
, its classification? 2A (Probably carcinogenic).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to post



@zedVSzardoz - Actually you'd be surprised on "how well read" i am on the subject of sudden (and sad) demise of people and animals, including biological (natural causes) and unnatural causes. This comment should be taken as it is (a comment on the internet), as i take yours (of course no offense intended, this is the internet after all).

The studies to which i am referring too are listed as "proprietary", this means i cannot quote any specifics on the study unless i have prior authorization from the holder of said study, which i do not. You asked who paid for the studies i have made my assertions form, and i have stated "Government" & "private citizens", i have not mentioned studies done or completed by private holdings (companies) because i know full well you're response will be "but it was paid for by [xxxxxxx] organization that is linked to mobile phones/power/chocolate manufactures".

Here's a quote i have from a research associate of mine, who is an oncologist on the subject specific to mobile phones: "Well there isn't overly conclusive evidence to support either for or against the link to mobile phone usage and cancer, but i can tell you if i can avoid using mine i will because its a possible link." (again its a comment on the internet), take that as you will.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Spruk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


to quote myself in case you missed it....



the 2b classification is not for its NON risk. It is for the lack of evidence. Please look up a 2b classifications for cancinageans.

If there was NO risk it would not get a 2b classification. It is classified as such as there is concern for it but since it is still being tested they cannot be sure.

If they were sure that NO risk was associated they would say so. THEY CAN NOT. Also REAL independent studies NOT funded by cell phone manufactures have proven that there is a real risk.


and


IARC Classification
Group 1
Sufficient evidence in humans or
sufficient evidence in animals and
strong mechanistic data in humans

Group 2A Limited evidence in humans and
sufficient evidence in animals

Group 2B Limited evidence in humans and less
than sufficient evidence in animals

Group 3 Inadequate in humans and
inadequate or limited in animals

Group 4 Lack of carcinogenicity in humans
and in animals
www.fda.gov...

so it is not 3 and 4....which would support what you are saying.
The only difference in 2b and 2a is that it may or may not hurt animals. BUT is consistent in probably hurting humans. The testing on animals is on going.

LIMITED evidence means there IS evidence. Since the article and sources I listed say that the testing is on going, I would venture to say that they are finding MORE evidence supporting its dangers as the testing continues OR they would have dropped it down a notch by now.....they have not.

It is NOT safe by the WHO´s standards, they advice caution....so....implementing technology that the World Health Organisation is advising caution against because there is mounting evidence supporting the correlation of health issues and these emissions is not sound. It is irresponsible to force this upon the public.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I have a smart meter installed. I did not ask for it, it was installed on the pole on my rural property one day. It prevents the meter reader from going onto my property. Somehow, it sends the information back to my electricity provider. How, I don't know. As far as I know, the electricity company owns the pole, the meter and the lines. I don't see how one could deny them putting a smart meter in. It's funny though, according to the electricity company, my analog meter suddenly quit working properly , even though it was only 2 years old, and they put in the smart meter. Since I live on a rural property, I too am glad I no longer see them traipsing about my property. I noticed when I went to recycling once, many other meters suddenly "quit working" as hundreds of the glass analog meter covers were neatly stacked for recycle.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Again i'm fully aware of the classifications (as i have demonstrated in the "Part B" of my post), what i am trying to bring to light is the amount of things classified as 2A & B. You started "

If there was NO risk it would not get a 2b classification. It is classified as such as there is concern for it but since it is still being tested they cannot be sure. " (zedVSzardoz)

Previous post by you: "The "possible" risk is actually a major concern " (zedVSzardoz)
"They make people sick.....they are then unacceptable for public implementation. " (zedVSzardoz)
"The link to "chemical trails" is a distraction as well as being a strawman argument. The studies done since the NINETIES have proven that power lines and cell phone usage do degrade our health. That is not even arguable anymore. " (zedVSzardoz)
"Advocating such harmful technology is irresponsible and damn near criminal."(zedVSzardoz)

Now please correct me if i am wrong in this instance, but these words (Again from your own typings) show these are harmful as a fact, an absolute as if there is no evidence to state otherwise. What i am saying is you are making assertions on things perhaps you don't understand (my presumption), ie your attack on my (self admission, and i listed as to why i was using a single source) of using a single source.

These are NOT facts, they are listed as a "possible" cause, not a factual cause (Classification 1 in the class groupings is classified as fact), and as i have demonstrated Coffee (Group 2B) is in that group, to which i might note in the US approximately 3.1 cups of coffee are consumed per person (its an average, Source (it's Marketing Guff, keep that in mind), there is a cute article on wikipedia that some of you might be interested in.

Other things in the Group 1 classifications include car & truck exhaust (CAS: 000072-20-8, 1987) along with ethanol (CAS:000064-17-5, 2012)
Other things in Group 2B - Gasoline (in it's form you experience at the pump)

All of these are we exposed too (including the two class 1's above) each day. My problem with the Class 2B's are they (for the most part and from my understanding) are taken from casual observation (see my previous post) for a possible link.

By i say to everyone reading this thread, read the full articles and make your own mind up, clearly zedVSzardoz and I will have to agree to disagree in this instance.

Edit - I am happy to take this conversation off this thread (to another or in private), as its been completed derailed (and i was apart of that, so i apologise for that OP).
edit on 7-2-2013 by Spruk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


fair enough, agree to disagree..

But considering the possible risk and the lack of any real need to implement these meters since even their most persistent advocates agree that the technologies they are designed for are not even in existence, we can wait for further testing before possibly putting the public at risk. Also the studies that you base your position on did not include data gathered on younger people with MORE cell phone usage. That is HUGE.

here is the study done by the Lennart Hardell’s group at the University of Örebro which say they did find a strong link. It is the one that the Italian high court said was the least biased and most conclusive in case anyone wants to look that over.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

electromagnetichealth.org...

have a good one.

edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by Spruk
 


It emits dangerous levels of radiation.

It is part of the carbon emission scam where people will be taxed in the future for going over their allotted "carbon points". Agenda 21 at work.

It has SERIOUS health concerns associated with it. It also is jam packed with ease dropping technologies.

It is the equivalent of having a dozen cell phones strapped to your head and sending high frequency signals 24/7.

It is known to cause cancer and a whole host of other health issues.



edit on 7-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)


They stuck one of those on my house. With themselves know how much electricity you use. How much for lights, refrigeration, air conditioning... everything is itemized. can I can look online and see this too. I fear that soon they will charge more for peak hour use.and those peak hours will be your personal peak hour usage.
I set up a 290watt solar power system and 4990 watts worth of reserve batteries. I wonder if they get confused when its 7:00pm and there's no power going into my house..
Meanwhile something everyone can do is get some aluminum door screen and affix that in the house behind the meter. This blocks the rf radiation. My meter is opposite my master bedroom closet so it was no problem to put up a 6 foot x 9 foot screen...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Oh that! Yes i wont get too far in to it, but it might give you further insight into how I've formed my own opinions, so please keep that in mind when you read it!


My problem with questionnaires used as medical data is that they are inaccurate, it relies on the end respondent to be able to fill in with some accuracy of past events. I know (due to study and of course psychological studies) to show that (in this instance I'll use witnesses in a criminal act as an example, as I have the best overall knowledge in that area rather than crowd psychology (if you are bored one day read up on it, it's a very good subject area.)) memory recall of specific events in a "normal" (i hate that word in this context) healthy human is listed as "poor" when it comes to accuracy.

My last and final issue is in some cases (i this case the abstract does not mention it) doesn't take into account further environmental factors (so other carcinogenic, genetic factors or other biological factors) into the equation, which in my mind puts it square into the "Casual Observation" category.

I hope that further clears things up there, but i have to admit you'd be the type of gentleman i'd like to have a discussion with (on this subject specifically or others), it has been quite refreshing from the "nyer nyer, im right you're wrong" mentality.

Enjoy the reminder of your day or evening depending on your timezone
.





new topics




 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join