How computer and phone EMF signals affect our blood

I heard a discussion on a radio talk show this morning about the "psuedoscience" behind EMF danger claims. The show's host said there's no danger from EMF. It's all hype. He said he works in an office with wifi devices everywhere and he hasn't dropped dead yet.

Appartently, a fair number of people think that if exposure to something potentially dangerous doesn't kill you within 48 hours, then there was no danger. Any suggestion otherwise is hysterical hype and psuedoscience by quacks who want to sell something to the poor gullible fools.

A caller to the show argued that coal miners breathed in coal dust for years before manifesting respiratory maladies. The host said that was not valid. An apples vs. oranges argument.
Another caller took the argument to the other extreme and started talking about new age healing methodologies.
One extreme to the other. Where's the happy medium?


So I did some searching and found this on the all-knowing, all-seeing Tube:

Dr. Magda Havas:



Dr Havas specializes in this area. She teaches university courses on the subject.
Here's her site. Lots of info.

On a hilarious note, this vid also came up in my search:

I held my cell in my hand to watch both videos, actually I've been reading on it forever... I need the weather to warm up, so I can get outside!

(ignore)

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I held my cell in my hand to watch both videos, actually I've been reading on it forever... I need the weather to warm up, so I can get outside!

I feel your pain! It's a balmy 7 °F here.

It's weird. EM Radiation doesn't affect me.

Rather, I affect it.

Seriously, since I was little my parents wouldn't let me go near our old tube TV's because it would cause a slight gaussing effect like if you held a magnet to it. Barely noticeable, but enough to annoy my folks.

To this day I have detrimental effects on radio waves as well. Radios tend to fuzz out when I'm around.

I'm like Magneto, but with no useful application for my "superpower" beyond slight annoyance or radio fuzz.

It is bully mentality against anyone that claims to be sensitive to EMF.

Even ATS. Look at the NLB banner. The feeling sorry for herself meme pic to make fun of those that are sensitive to EMF. I have no Idea if it is bad for me or not but don't tell me I can't feel it. I have not clicked on a NLBS thread since I saw that banner because it is just so pathetic.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I think the logical question is: At what point does the power output, directional focus and proximity to the transmitter begin to cause cellular damage?

It cannot be a boolean answer.

This is very interesting and I would have to say it is predictable also. Increasing sulfur in the diet may help with this as long as you have enough sulfite oxidase enzyme in your body or you will have other problems. Also taking a baby aspirin or appropriate amounts of silicon in diet is advisable. Silicon is found in the peel of fruit and in some veggies, giving them a little glossy appearance. Trouble is with the way they treat the food, it is advisable to peel them so the antimicrobials and pesticides do not harm us.

I can't give a solution for this, I just like to know how things work. I did read that using food grade hydrogen peroxide in water to wash the produce helps neutralize these things but haven't found any food grade hydrogen peroxide around. Only a couple of drops in a gallon of water is needed to do this from what I have heard.

So you can ignore this, worry about it, or just use some preventive measures to help to deter it from effecting you.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Magda Havas science is frequently flawed:

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...
skeptoid.com...
www.skepticnorth.com...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ColeYounger

Magda Havas science is frequently flawed:

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...
skeptoid.com...
www.skepticnorth.com...

Her video actually shows the blood cells. The skeptic who is refuting her in the link you posted is not providing any proof.

There are many studies showing the harmful effects of EMF radiation..to the extent that wifi has been banned in many schools all over Europe and Russia.
Link

a reply to: ColeYounger

SO we're completely side-stepping the blatant methodological flaws of the study you presented? This is a classic moving the goalposts fallacy. Hell, I'll bite anyway.

You're basically linking to more pseudo-science that's not even on topic.

First link is not a scientific study, it is a vote by an advocacy group.
Second link is French so no way to critique the person, paper, publication or methodology.
Third link is another advocacy group.
Fourth link is another advocacy group.
Fith link is yet another advocacy group.

I gave up by this point. I'm not interested in playing junk science whack-a-mole where once one study has been debunked, another one is presented to take its place.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I do not personally have enough data inside my head to have an informed opinion, yet.
I will, however be watching this thread to see where it goes and what "proof" (from all sides) is provided.

At least this one, though obviously with your own opinion included, won't be as divisive (wishful thinking) as the NLBS thread. I agree with others that it was not ATS worthy.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I tend to have the opposite effect, at least on radio signals.
I can have a radio tuned in while I am near it and the moment I step away from it, it goes full on fuzzy. Get near it again, clear as a bell [thinking, "humm....dial must be a bit loose, or something")....step too far away again, same ole same.

Haven't noticed if this effect happens with other EMF producing devices.
Cell phone signal always great while holding it in the hand? ...not so much.

I do, however, suspect there is something to all this, at least for some and to varying degrees. It's why I've been taking more time to attempt to learn more about it all.

a reply to: rickymouse

Sir, your knowledge of all things nutrient, etc....is simply astounding.
A few times, I have vetted much of what you have posted in this regard....sound stuff

I just wanted to commend your knowledge.


.............
...and sorry for the multiple posts. For some reason, it isn't showing up when I post it all in one....?...humm.
I even cut and copied the other two posts from the "edit" function in the initial post....they are still there when I view them but won't show up here.
...never had that happen. Can we not reply to more than one other person [two at once] in the same post, or what?

Well, she's a botanist, too, although if you go over her site with a fine toothed comb you will never see where she discloses that. So I'm not sure from where her expertise in EMF or mammals derives.

I've never seen a life science post grad who'd got more than non-calculus based physics, at best. Botany grad school requires really low-level bachelors degrees, like geography. You can have NO math past algebra and Calculus I, and 2 semesters of non-calculus based general science and go flying down the botany doctorate, most of it's research.

a reply to: Bedlam

If her results can be duplicated over and over, why does any of that matter?

What does any of that really have to do with the information?


ETA: not saying they can be repeated.
...just asking.

a reply to: Jakal26

It would be like an aerospace doctoral engineer studying the human heart and making claims on his research. The short answer is, you'll probably get a better answer from a cardiologist.

A Botanist isn't exactly qualified to speak on matters of EM Radiation as if she's an expert.

Me? I'm an expert on jacks#it so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well, I think claiming she is simply a "botanist" is a bit dishonest or a bit ignorant (not stupid...so)

From her link it doesn't appear that she is simply a botanist with no experience in what she is discussing... < that was a quick search and I have no other knowledge of her, btw.

...........
Here is a pdf of a "double blind peer reviewed study" (their claim, not mine) published in the European Journal of Oncology LIbrary Vol 5 2010.

“Provocation Study using Heart Rate Variability shows Radiation from 2.4 GHz Cordless Phone affects Autonomic Nervous System.”

...for any that are interested.

a reply to: Jakal26

Oh I'm not meaning to discredit this person at all, merely give a logical explanation for Bedlam's assertion. She has interesting ideas, but I'm no expert on EM radiation so I have no room to dispute or qualify what she posits.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Bedlam

If her results can be duplicated over and over, why does any of that matter?

Have they been? So far, her studies seem to have a lot of issues.

What does any of that really have to do with the information?

If you're holding yourself up as a source of info and you don't understand bollocks about fields, then you're sort of not an expert. If I were a PhD in, say, English Lit, and had a website about electronics wherein I repeatedly styled myself as a PhD to bolster my authority, yet never let you know it was gained whilst writing an analysis of the image of the horse in Frost's poetry, then I'd be lying to you. It's sort of indicative of the person you're dealing with.

Thus it's a bad sign that the PhD someone flaps in your face repeatedly is in a non-physics topic, or you got it for $400 from a homeopathy diploma mill, or you got it for $400 from Trinity, or you got it from a defunct Alabama diploma mill. At least she really got a PhD from a decent school, but the problem here is that botany doctorate is amazingly light on any sort of hard science.

EM is an amazingly tough subject, and the basics don't overlap with life science degrees. So your average botanist won't know more about it than your accountant.