Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Idiotic WiFi study
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 100096" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Thanks for this transcript.</p><p></p><p>Here is what I can glean from it:</p><p></p><p>First, they begin by mentioning the massive increase in the incidence in autism (it's "horrific") carefully NOT mentioning that the understanding has changed, the diagnostic parameters have broadened a great deal and the attitudes have changed to the point where we tend to be more likely to find autism where it exists anyway. Then it mentions that at the same time, society has seen a massive increase in the use of electrical equipment, other things which emit electromagnetic radiation.</p><p>This is what I was talking about - is this coincidence, correlation or causality? By neatly mentioning the things together, the reader is made to think, "Wow! So they think there is a connection!" But that is carefully not said.</p><p></p><p>Next we come to the credentials of the researcher. Not only her qualifications (which may be perfectly fine) but who she works for. In other words, what sort of vested interest does she have, in identifying a problem as really bad?</p><p></p><p>Back to the EM radiation thing. </p><p>When radio first came out, it was called "wireless" because the radio signal travelled without the need for telegraph wires. it was a wireless signal. But what were these early radios made from? They used valves. The amount of electricity they drained was much greater than today's. The heat generated by these large boxes was amazing. You would turn them off and still hear the sound slowly diminishing over several seconds (due to the size of both the capacitors and resistors in the circuitry). If anything was going to cause a wash of electromagnetic radiation pollution, it was the early radios of the mid-20th Century.</p><p></p><p>When high-tension power lines began sprawling across the country, there was a corresponding increase in lawsuits against power companies, for the electromagnetic pollution. The trouble is, the courts won't recognise what scientific research cannot verify. The only scientific experts called in as witnesses were the ones making money by proclaiming themselves as experts in 'environmental medicine'. Few others would step forward and say, "Yes, this causes problems."</p><p></p><p>A few years ago there was some talk that mobile phones caused brain tumours. This was an idea born out of an observation of an apparent increase (based on anecdotal evidence) of brain tumours in an area near where the aerial of a mobile phone would be, when calls are being made. We were told to use an ear piece and microphone, for safety. Then tests were done which showed tat the earpiece acted like an even bigger aerial, it actually increased the risk (if risk there really was).</p><p>Then after exhaustive work in a number of countries, it was decreed that there is no danger and we could all use our mobile phones with confidence. Since then the number of mobile phones in use has greatly increased here in Australia (I think we have one of the highest user rates per capita in the world) and we have NOT had a rash of brain tumours. Our autism rate is high, but it hasn't increased at the same rate as mobile phone usage. I do stress, this is based on my own observations, but I do feel that if there was a genuine correlation between autism and electromagnetic radiation such as from mobile phones, then we would have seen a significant increase, enough to set alarm bells off even more. But I've been trawling for incidence figures over here, for the last few years the quoted incidence has been the same.</p><p></p><p>And another point about this article - by quoting incidence statistics from a reputable organisation, it lends a certain amount of credibility to the rest of the article, which could well be undeserved. By being able to say, "According to CDC reports" it makes it seem as if CDC are responsible for even more in this article, when in fact they would probably be shaking their heads in despair at this.</p><p></p><p>So I looked up Tamara Mariea. Yes, she is the founder of Internal Balance. This is where the article was first published (on their website) and the last couple of paragraphs read like an ad for her and her business. Testimonial stuff. Very suspect in an article like this.Having someone quoted as saying that she is inspirational only adds to the testimonial feel. You do not get this sort of personal promotion in genuine research papers.</p><p>So who is giving her such a glowing report?</p><p>Dr George Carlo, to whom Tamara in turn also gives a glowing testimonial.</p><p>I looked him up in Wikipedia and found most of the Wikipedia reference was based on Dr Carlo's own blog. And yes, he is another person with a vested interest in finding bogeymen under the beds when it comes to mobile phones and electromagnetic radiation. He headed an investigation into mobile phone hazards which initially found no problem, but he later came out and declared that despite this research mobile phones COULD BE dangerous. I do wonder why he changed his mind. A quote of his I found from 1999 indicates that he's not saying they're dangerous, just that there is no proof that they are safe and therefore he feels it's wrong to say they are. And the more he tried to say, "How do you feel about the massive increase in mobile phone use and ownership, when there is no proof tat they are safe?" the more criticism he copped, which is enough to turn someone into a rabid campaigner.</p><p></p><p>George Carlo and Tamara Mariea both work in the field of electromagnetic radiation-induced health problems. My concern is, this is a field which is not currently accepted by the mainstream scientific and medical fraternity. Both these people have a vested interest in scaring people into believing in them. Interestingly, I just found a letter reported to have been written by Dr Carlo in June 2007, in which he blames the increase in WiFi for a lot of health problems. Some of these health problems are ones which he is defining, and then treating. This is like me saying, "I have just identified a condition which I am going to modestly name after myself; Marg's Disease. The symptoms are fatigue, listlessness and a sense of annoyance with your children. But if you take this little blue pill I give you (at some cost, but I need to recoup my initial research and development) and also make sure you reduce your contact with children, then you will recover." Note: I do not define how much you need to reduce your contact with children. Also, it's not always possible to do this. So the failure of your symptoms to go away can always be ascribed to you not following the instructions right. And while you're following my program faithfully (and part of following my program also includes clearing your mind of any scepticism) you are NOT seeking treatment for other possible (and potentially serious) causes of fatigue.</p><p></p><p>Are they right? IS there a danger? Or are they simply trying to drum up business?</p><p></p><p>I don't know. It needs INDEPENDENT, impartial research to verify this. And from my experience working with people like this - those whose life's work is in a fringe area of health which is not fully accepted by mainstream - they tend to have a massive chip on their shoulder about their lack of acceptance and so use every opportunity to try to prove their point. Their research is often suspect because they just don't do it right (like the group I mentioned earlier) and then they cry foul because mainstream journals won't touch their work. They then publish in the popular press, which only scares away the big journals even more. They don't follow the rules of research and publication, then get upset when they are not accepted because of this.</p><p></p><p>So much of alternative complementary medicine ideas are contradictory. We are told to worry about electromagnetic radiation, told to be careful about electrical appliances in the home, told to be careful about the way we align our bed according to the magnetic ley lines of the earth's magnetic field - and yet we see ads for magnetic bracelets, medallions, etc. So which is it? magnetism - good or bad? </p><p>When electricity was first beginning to be used on an industrial scale, magazines were full of treatments administered by electricity. Electric shocks, for example. It was the latest fad.</p><p></p><p>Ms Mariea has admitted to following the progress of her own patients. So her samples are going to be biased. "improvement" is not likely to be getting measured objectively. She's combining the concept of chelation therapy for heavy metal toxicity with electromagnetic radiation pollution which is bringing in even more fields which are subject to debate as to whether they are legitimate concerns or not. What she has apparently observed may well warrant further research, but to say she has proved a connection is a huge leap of credibility here.</p><p>Dr Carlo may well have genuinely found, as he claims, reasons to be concerned about mobile phone usage. It should be independently studied (and by that, I mean without funding from the phone companies, who controlled too much of what was permitted to be researched - not acceptable research, fellas). But a lot of what he is saying now is based on his old phone company research, from what I can glean he hasn't done much more since then other than collect anecdotal evidence. He is at the ideas stage; no further. And to say yes, it's a serious cause of a lot of health problems which can be fixed by shutting off all power and living like a hermit - sorry, there is insufficient proof.</p><p></p><p>This is akin to my old friend who announced to me that he had been healed at a special healing service - the healer had diagnosed one leg longer than the other, and healed it - all within five minutes. A miraculous healing! Of course, not miraculous if he never had a problem in the first place. I'm not being critical of miraculous healing experiences in general, but there are shonks out there who are fraudulent and the 'one leg longer than the other' is a common trick used by the more fraudulent 'faith healers'. A faith healer who diagnoses a previously unknown and unverifiable problem and then heals it (so nobody could identify it afterwards anyway) is immediately suspect. </p><p>It's like the old elephant joke: </p><p>Q: Why did the elephant wear a green hat?</p><p>A: So he could walk across a billiard table without being seen.</p><p>Q: Have you ever seen an elephant walk across a billiard table? </p><p>A: No. Because it's such a good disguise!</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 100096, member: 1991"] Thanks for this transcript. Here is what I can glean from it: First, they begin by mentioning the massive increase in the incidence in autism (it's "horrific") carefully NOT mentioning that the understanding has changed, the diagnostic parameters have broadened a great deal and the attitudes have changed to the point where we tend to be more likely to find autism where it exists anyway. Then it mentions that at the same time, society has seen a massive increase in the use of electrical equipment, other things which emit electromagnetic radiation. This is what I was talking about - is this coincidence, correlation or causality? By neatly mentioning the things together, the reader is made to think, "Wow! So they think there is a connection!" But that is carefully not said. Next we come to the credentials of the researcher. Not only her qualifications (which may be perfectly fine) but who she works for. In other words, what sort of vested interest does she have, in identifying a problem as really bad? Back to the EM radiation thing. When radio first came out, it was called "wireless" because the radio signal travelled without the need for telegraph wires. it was a wireless signal. But what were these early radios made from? They used valves. The amount of electricity they drained was much greater than today's. The heat generated by these large boxes was amazing. You would turn them off and still hear the sound slowly diminishing over several seconds (due to the size of both the capacitors and resistors in the circuitry). If anything was going to cause a wash of electromagnetic radiation pollution, it was the early radios of the mid-20th Century. When high-tension power lines began sprawling across the country, there was a corresponding increase in lawsuits against power companies, for the electromagnetic pollution. The trouble is, the courts won't recognise what scientific research cannot verify. The only scientific experts called in as witnesses were the ones making money by proclaiming themselves as experts in 'environmental medicine'. Few others would step forward and say, "Yes, this causes problems." A few years ago there was some talk that mobile phones caused brain tumours. This was an idea born out of an observation of an apparent increase (based on anecdotal evidence) of brain tumours in an area near where the aerial of a mobile phone would be, when calls are being made. We were told to use an ear piece and microphone, for safety. Then tests were done which showed tat the earpiece acted like an even bigger aerial, it actually increased the risk (if risk there really was). Then after exhaustive work in a number of countries, it was decreed that there is no danger and we could all use our mobile phones with confidence. Since then the number of mobile phones in use has greatly increased here in Australia (I think we have one of the highest user rates per capita in the world) and we have NOT had a rash of brain tumours. Our autism rate is high, but it hasn't increased at the same rate as mobile phone usage. I do stress, this is based on my own observations, but I do feel that if there was a genuine correlation between autism and electromagnetic radiation such as from mobile phones, then we would have seen a significant increase, enough to set alarm bells off even more. But I've been trawling for incidence figures over here, for the last few years the quoted incidence has been the same. And another point about this article - by quoting incidence statistics from a reputable organisation, it lends a certain amount of credibility to the rest of the article, which could well be undeserved. By being able to say, "According to CDC reports" it makes it seem as if CDC are responsible for even more in this article, when in fact they would probably be shaking their heads in despair at this. So I looked up Tamara Mariea. Yes, she is the founder of Internal Balance. This is where the article was first published (on their website) and the last couple of paragraphs read like an ad for her and her business. Testimonial stuff. Very suspect in an article like this.Having someone quoted as saying that she is inspirational only adds to the testimonial feel. You do not get this sort of personal promotion in genuine research papers. So who is giving her such a glowing report? Dr George Carlo, to whom Tamara in turn also gives a glowing testimonial. I looked him up in Wikipedia and found most of the Wikipedia reference was based on Dr Carlo's own blog. And yes, he is another person with a vested interest in finding bogeymen under the beds when it comes to mobile phones and electromagnetic radiation. He headed an investigation into mobile phone hazards which initially found no problem, but he later came out and declared that despite this research mobile phones COULD BE dangerous. I do wonder why he changed his mind. A quote of his I found from 1999 indicates that he's not saying they're dangerous, just that there is no proof that they are safe and therefore he feels it's wrong to say they are. And the more he tried to say, "How do you feel about the massive increase in mobile phone use and ownership, when there is no proof tat they are safe?" the more criticism he copped, which is enough to turn someone into a rabid campaigner. George Carlo and Tamara Mariea both work in the field of electromagnetic radiation-induced health problems. My concern is, this is a field which is not currently accepted by the mainstream scientific and medical fraternity. Both these people have a vested interest in scaring people into believing in them. Interestingly, I just found a letter reported to have been written by Dr Carlo in June 2007, in which he blames the increase in WiFi for a lot of health problems. Some of these health problems are ones which he is defining, and then treating. This is like me saying, "I have just identified a condition which I am going to modestly name after myself; Marg's Disease. The symptoms are fatigue, listlessness and a sense of annoyance with your children. But if you take this little blue pill I give you (at some cost, but I need to recoup my initial research and development) and also make sure you reduce your contact with children, then you will recover." Note: I do not define how much you need to reduce your contact with children. Also, it's not always possible to do this. So the failure of your symptoms to go away can always be ascribed to you not following the instructions right. And while you're following my program faithfully (and part of following my program also includes clearing your mind of any scepticism) you are NOT seeking treatment for other possible (and potentially serious) causes of fatigue. Are they right? IS there a danger? Or are they simply trying to drum up business? I don't know. It needs INDEPENDENT, impartial research to verify this. And from my experience working with people like this - those whose life's work is in a fringe area of health which is not fully accepted by mainstream - they tend to have a massive chip on their shoulder about their lack of acceptance and so use every opportunity to try to prove their point. Their research is often suspect because they just don't do it right (like the group I mentioned earlier) and then they cry foul because mainstream journals won't touch their work. They then publish in the popular press, which only scares away the big journals even more. They don't follow the rules of research and publication, then get upset when they are not accepted because of this. So much of alternative complementary medicine ideas are contradictory. We are told to worry about electromagnetic radiation, told to be careful about electrical appliances in the home, told to be careful about the way we align our bed according to the magnetic ley lines of the earth's magnetic field - and yet we see ads for magnetic bracelets, medallions, etc. So which is it? magnetism - good or bad? When electricity was first beginning to be used on an industrial scale, magazines were full of treatments administered by electricity. Electric shocks, for example. It was the latest fad. Ms Mariea has admitted to following the progress of her own patients. So her samples are going to be biased. "improvement" is not likely to be getting measured objectively. She's combining the concept of chelation therapy for heavy metal toxicity with electromagnetic radiation pollution which is bringing in even more fields which are subject to debate as to whether they are legitimate concerns or not. What she has apparently observed may well warrant further research, but to say she has proved a connection is a huge leap of credibility here. Dr Carlo may well have genuinely found, as he claims, reasons to be concerned about mobile phone usage. It should be independently studied (and by that, I mean without funding from the phone companies, who controlled too much of what was permitted to be researched - not acceptable research, fellas). But a lot of what he is saying now is based on his old phone company research, from what I can glean he hasn't done much more since then other than collect anecdotal evidence. He is at the ideas stage; no further. And to say yes, it's a serious cause of a lot of health problems which can be fixed by shutting off all power and living like a hermit - sorry, there is insufficient proof. This is akin to my old friend who announced to me that he had been healed at a special healing service - the healer had diagnosed one leg longer than the other, and healed it - all within five minutes. A miraculous healing! Of course, not miraculous if he never had a problem in the first place. I'm not being critical of miraculous healing experiences in general, but there are shonks out there who are fraudulent and the 'one leg longer than the other' is a common trick used by the more fraudulent 'faith healers'. A faith healer who diagnoses a previously unknown and unverifiable problem and then heals it (so nobody could identify it afterwards anyway) is immediately suspect. It's like the old elephant joke: Q: Why did the elephant wear a green hat? A: So he could walk across a billiard table without being seen. Q: Have you ever seen an elephant walk across a billiard table? A: No. Because it's such a good disguise! Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Idiotic WiFi study
Top