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.

 

Parents of boy with tumour want wi-fi out of school

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
the parents are clearly idiots.




posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


No...the parents are clearly trying to make sense of and come to terms with an ordeal that most parents never have to even imagine let alone endure!



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Logos23
 


Sorry, it's not logical in the slightest.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

paradox
reply to post by Logos23
 


Sorry, it's not logical in the slightest.


I agree that the parents are wrong headed here.

But you obviously are not a parent. There is no length I wouldn't go for my kids. None. No matter how crazy it may seem. Were one of my children no longer here, it would ruin my life.

I in no way expect anything logical from the parents of this boy. That is more than should be expected. If you don't have kids, you won't understand. If you do have kids....pardon my assumption. And color me shocked.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you're correct, but I do have a loved one who died of cancer and I still have enough of a brain to not make up some loony excuse for it happening. I don't see how having children or not is at all relevant to being able to use your brain. People get cancer and die. It happens. that doesn't mean the ipod you gave them 3 months ago did it and for you to go on some tirade about how wifi is evil or whatever. Do you see everyone else who has their child die of cancer doing the same?



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

paradox
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you're correct, but I do have a loved one who died of cancer and I still have enough of a brain to not make up some loony excuse for it happening. I don't see how having children or not is at all relevant to being able to use your brain. People get cancer and die. It happens. that doesn't mean the ipod you gave them 3 months ago did it and for you to go on some tirade about how wifi is evil or whatever. Do you see everyone else who has their child die of cancer doing the same?


Have children.
I promise you, your understanding will be improved by leaps and bounds.

I would literally skin myself alive and roll in salt for my boys. That isn't hyperbole. The term "beside myself" is too mild to describe the mental state I would be in were I this boys parents.

That is why society at large has to be the common sense balance for them as it pertains to their requests for legal changes. Find a way to funnel their rage and grief into something that is actually beneficial rather than illogical.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


I shared a story back on pg 2 of this thread, and I DID have a child die of brain cancer. Please understand these parents were probably given some sort of explanation similar to what we got. There is a correlation between electricity, in all forms , and cancers of the brain in children.

We may not fully understand it, but that does not negate it. It may or may not be related.

Keep in mind, we do not know everything.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Oh man, this is just nuts how people are not seeing the evidence here. I'm not going to say this specific case was a result of cancer. I don't know. Seriously though, there's so much evidence that has been known of "non-ionizing" radiation damaging dna and statistically correlating to increased risk of cancer. That we may not have nailed down the exact mechanism is not at all an excuse to dismiss the evidence.

I'm going to try a video representation for those who seem to be having difficulties making sense of the data:



Yet we have people concerned over 5x radiation levels on the California coasts potentially coming from Fukushima. Just nuts.

The readings are over a hundred times background levels in microvolts of radiation at the source.

Screw it, I'll throw out a few more:

Microwave Radiation Screws up BBB in rats

Accelerates Skin Cancer in Mice

Honestly, if you don't feel the fields, then I guess you have no reason to bother with looking at the data.

If a 1% increase per year isn't cause for concern, then I guess it's just not happening?!

Remember, the majority seem to be a-okay. Few seem to have sensitivities. So that 1% over large groups could very well be the majority adapting, and the few being at a several fold greater risk.

I use wifi, feel the effects, and mitigate the damage with vitamins and a specific diet. If it doesn't bother you, carry on!

edit on 24-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Correlation is not causation. That is important to keep in mind. There was a time when it was correlative to the general and reasonable man that there were dragons in the far reaches of the oceans.

While I don't want to get eaten by a dragon, I would like to see more than correlative evidence to support my fear of them.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


That evidence ( not for green dragon, sorry
) is readily available. We won't pinpoint causation until we know the exact mechanisms in play. Until then, common sense should suffice the wise.

scholar.google.com

very easy!

You know what else was found out around the time that "non-ionizing" radiation couldn't break dna bonds?

Smoking was good for you. Fail!
Linear no-threshold radiation was correct. Fail!

I mean, think about it. We're still running with an assumption from many decades prior, when our instruments were much less precise, and knowledge-base much less in quantity.

Doesn't it make sense to throw out assumptions that have been proven false due to mounting evidence over the successive decades?

Here try these scholar searches:

(1) (2) (3)
edit on 24-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


But of the thousands of people I know to a degree to see and hear of them regularly none of them has brain cancer, nor do their children.

I would readily admit that sleeping on a wifi device likely isn't wise. But am far more concerned with the corexit in my gulf shrimp, and I ate shrimp tonight.


Don't get me wrong...i am not scoffing and calling you crazy. Just assessing risk differently from you based on my own observations combined with some really old, stale, crusty assumptions.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yea you're good in your reasoning. Brain cancer rates are very low. An increase could still leave rates very low and your real world findings still be accurate.

There is no discrepancy between your findings and the data. That still does not prove that sensitive individuals are not prone to significantly increased risks than the statistical norm would indicate.

Like I already said, if you seem to not have isssues, carry on


The data clearly indicates it's a potential risk, however small.

BTW, being wiling to rip your skin off in it's entirety and dip your bare body in salt is probably a bit outside the statistical norm for the average father, but I'm not calling you crazy, either


I don't really worry about radiation from wifi or cell phone, I just realize that I seem to have a sensitivity to it, and have adapted as I see fit.

That means I simply don't carry it on my person, use speakerphone to talk, and take extra vitamin-c, b-vitamin and drink a lot of tea. I'm not losing sleep over this.


edit on 25-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

paradox
reply to post by Logos23
 


Sorry, it's not logical in the slightest.


I didn't talk about logic....I talked about a grieving process .


paradox
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you're correct, but I do have a loved one who died of cancer and I still have enough of a brain to not make up some loony excuse for it happening.


No disrespect at all....but that doesn't qualify you to be able to understand how a parent may or may not deal with the grieving process when they have lost a small child to cancer and to stand in judgement of them.

paradox
People get cancer and die. It happens. that doesn't mean the ipod you gave them 3 months ago did it and for you to go on some tirade about how wifi is evil or whatever. Do you see everyone else who has their child die of cancer doing the same?


Actually I see that most parents who have a child diagnosed with cancer do the same thing, yes. They may not all exhibit the same actions, but underneath they all find different ways to deal with needing to know what caused their child's cancer for it to make any sense and why their child and not someone elses.

Again going back to your original response....

paradox
the parents are clearly idiots.


You do not have the slightest idea what these parents and others like them have had to endure. You do not have children so cannot even partially get to grips with the emotions involved.
You have not had a child diagnosed with cancer. You have not lost a precious child to cancer or any other illness or disease.....You have never even had a child and as such have never experienced what it means to be a parent . But yet you honestly feel that in all good faith you are qualified to call them idiots?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Logos23

paradox
reply to post by Logos23
 


Sorry, it's not logical in the slightest.


I didn't talk about logic....I talked about a grieving process .


paradox
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you're correct, but I do have a loved one who died of cancer and I still have enough of a brain to not make up some loony excuse for it happening.


No disrespect at all....but that doesn't qualify you to be able to understand how a parent may or may not deal with the grieving process when they have lost a small child to cancer and to stand in judgement of them.

paradox
People get cancer and die. It happens. that doesn't mean the ipod you gave them 3 months ago did it and for you to go on some tirade about how wifi is evil or whatever. Do you see everyone else who has their child die of cancer doing the same?


Actually I see that most parents who have a child diagnosed with cancer do the same thing, yes. They may not all exhibit the same actions, but underneath they all find different ways to deal with needing to know what caused their child's cancer for it to make any sense and why their child and not someone elses.

Again going back to your original response....

paradox
the parents are clearly idiots.


You do not have the slightest idea what these parents and others like them have had to endure. You do not have children so cannot even partially get to grips with the emotions involved.
You have not had a child diagnosed with cancer. You have not lost a precious child to cancer or any other illness or disease.....You have never even had a child and as such have never experienced what it means to be a parent . But yet you honestly feel that in all good faith you are qualified to call them idiots?



You are so correct.these people only care about their crummy gadgets, facebook rubbish and corporate profits.

however here is the ULTIMATE proof that wi-fi/cellphones cause cancer.

this stupid women kept a cellphone in her bra.she said afterwards nobody told her it was harmful.

she obviously expected somebody to come around knock on her door and explain the dangers of cellphones.

shortly afterwards she got breast cancer in the the SHAPE of the cellphone.look at the photo at 1 minute and 35 seconds into the video.

it is cellphone shaped.

i urge stumson and others to bring this video to others attention.

also print out that photo and make it your pc wallpaper.

also print out the photo it and attach it your ear with a headband.

when people ask you what it is just tell them it is the cancer caused by the cellphone which was in the bra of the women.think of the lives you will save.maybe even more than jesus.

the picture is quite sexy and kinky as well.

www.youtube.com...=15



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

stumason

beckybecky
you said the power level is tiny.what is tiny?
#
define tiny.


As I said in a previous post, the amount of energy used in a typical WiFi router means you would have to sit next to one for a full year before being exposed to the same level of radiation from a mobile phone call lasting 20 minutes. That is tiny, defined.



beckybecky
the sunlight is on your hand is tiny but when you put through a magnifying glass it is concentrated is it not?
do you deny that?


Not at all, I don't believe I have disputed this in the slightest. Quite what focussed light has to do with this debate about WiFi is a mystery, mind you.


beckybecky
its called a point source.


Erm, I think you are confused again, Becky. In a magnifying glass, the actual "point source" of the light is the Sun - the magnifying glass just focusses that light into a finite area - something else entirely.


beckybecky
when you were small did you not burn ants with a magnifying glass?


Of course - I still do it now



beckybecky
that same sunlight burns.


Yes, but it has bog all to do with this topic. The reason it burns is because you're focussing energy that would otherwise have been spread over a wide area into a very finite space.


beckybecky
why do say is wi-fi is different?


Because it quite clearly is! According to the inverse square law, the power will decrease the further you get away from the router. How is that related, in any way shape or form, to focussing sunlight with a magnifying glass?


beckybecky
you claim to understand point sources but you seem incapable of understanding voulme and power density and concentration.why?


Quite ironic, considering you're equating burning ants with a magnifying glass as an analogy for WiFi......


beckybecky
you claim you can hold a light bulb to your head and not get cancer.for how long?

did i say lightbulbs give you cancer.did i?


What you said was, and I quote:



a point source next to your head gives you tumers


I chose a lightbulb, as it is a "point source" and you claimed point sources give you cancer, which is such a ridiculous thing to say as pretty much anything can be a "point source", such as a lightbulb. So yes, you did say lighbulbs give you cancer.


beckybecky
i said holding wi-fi to your head gives you cancer.


No, you didn't. You quite clearly said "point sources", which can be a wide variety of things.


beckybecky
because it is a point source.do you understand due to 1/r law the strength goes up sharply but you said you understand point sources but you then you seem to be flummoxed by the connection of point sources and concentration.


I am not flummoxed by anything - If anyone is flummoxed, it is you Becky. From putting words into people's mouths, to getting confused over things you patronise others about, to simply being incapable of spelling a simple word....


beckybecky
have you ever plotted 1/r.the Strenght goes up on y axis and decreases sharply along the distance axis or it goes up SHARPLY as you go towards the power axis=the y axis.but you seem to deny the lays of electromagnetism.


Show me where I denied any of that, Becky. Show me.


i was talking about wi-fi radiation.you are trying to divert attention to light bulbs for your corporate "friends".

a point source is your ipad /cellphone.it has a transmitter the size of a pea.put it next to your brain.it will be very powerful.


some people only care about their crummy gadgets, facebook rubbish and corporate profits.

however here is the ULTIMATE proof that wi-fi/cellphones cause cancer.

this really clever attractive and women like yourself kept a cellphone in her bra.she said afterwards nobody told her it was harmful.

she obviously expected somebody to come around knock on her door and explain the dangers of cellphones.

shortly afterwards she got breast cancer in the the SHAPE of the cellphone.look at the photo at 1 minute and 35 seconds into the 2 minute video.

it is cellphone shaped.

i urge you stumson and others to bring this video to others attention.

also print out that photo and make it your pc wallpaper.

i also urge you and others also to print out the photo it and attach it your ear with a headband.

when people ask you what it is just tell them it is the cancer caused by the cellphone which was in the bra of the women.think of the lives you will save.maybe even more than jesus.

you will find that the video picture is quite sexy looking and will appeal to straight men as the women cups her breasts.

The video also features a busty blond who repeatedly put a cellphone in her bra then takes it out.puts it in,takes it out.

www.youtube.com...=15


edit on 25-1-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

beckybeckyThe doctor said.

The doctor SAID.

how did the doctor know it was 4 months old? i mean a tumor is deep inside your skull and scans show its existance but no way in hell can you predict how long it been there because it not an EXACT SCIENCE.A different doctor might have 3 months or 8 months.

Well it's awesome how you pick and choose what you find the Dr. credible for. I am going to say the boy has no tumour, he has no cancer. The only proof we have is the Dr., which you clearly don't trust.

Case closed, no cancer, the iPad did nothing.

It's seriously disgusting how you keep marching ahead on all your topics long after you are proven wrong. Bye.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join