Why arn't more people worried about EMF/EMR?

L[Deactivated] on 13/09/2013 - 08:24

as per the post? doesn't this worry most of you out there?

I mean for some of us 24 hours a day were getting hit with wireless radiation from multiple sources eg wifi, cordless phones, mobiles 3G and now 4G, smart meters (smart watches and glasses now too?) in our homes and around the neighborhood, microwaves that leak radiation

and more and more wireless untested gadgets and no one seems to care or no companies seem to be trying to limit us from it? shouldn't companies now after all the tech that goes into making products faster and more powerful try to make them also safer for daily use?

youtube - Professor Olle Johansson
youtube - emf

I know Siemens / Gigaset are the only ones that are trying on the cordless phone front with there ECO Plus range but what about uniden,panasonic apple, samsung, dlink,netgear etc

we keep getting faster tech with stronger and stronger signals that have never been tested on humans, however we never get any safety improvements.

Most scientist say for children the only safe level is 0 but now they have phones, wifi at home and in school

are we just the guinea pigs in this experiment?

anyway that my rant, whats your view?

Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • pax on 13/09/2013 - 08:33
    +4

    I for one welcome our new cancer creating overlords.

    But seriously, absolute concerns, but there is no linking between the effects of EMR and EMF, although you could try and draw links between them and cancer.

    The higher concern is what it might be doing to reproductive capabilities, but the way that society is moving, I am welcoming some control in human reproduction (and I am not talking about population size).

  • retiredfeline on 13/09/2013 - 09:00
    +1

    I'm more worried about people who posit unproven cause/effects who need help finding the caps key at the beginning of sentences. :)

    • blitz on 13/09/2013 - 10:25
      +1

      who need help finding the caps key at the beginning of sentences. :)

      I FOUND IT ONCE

      • scrimshaw on 13/09/2013 - 11:04

        And only once.

  • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2013 - 09:11
    -3

    Yes I am absolutely concerned. EMF/EMR is now so pervasive everywhere we go that it is now having detrimental effects on biological systems. There have been many studies showing that exposure to man made EMF's change the way chemicals and hormones are released and also disrupts cellular communications. One of the most extensive reports into this field is the Bio-initiative Report, which show even low wattage/low strength radiation from mobile phones, cordless phones and WiFi are detected by the body which changes electrical signalling and chemical release.

    EMR is like chemical or heavy metal exposure, the body can handle a little bit, it locks it up in fat reserves or other ways (sometimes stores it as a tumor)but if you continually expose your body to these chemicals/metals there comes a point where your body is overwhelmed and parts of biology start to break down. This is the same for EMR, It is a slight but constant assault on your body and over time it will wear you down and symptoms will more that likely eventuate.

    If you know about quantum physics you would be aware that everything is vibration, you are electromagnetic, the physical part of you is the manifestation of these electromagnetic vibrational frequencies. I know some on here will poohoo this notion but all I say to this is "do your research". The main role of DNA is to tune into phonons (sound)and convert them into photons (light), this is the 96% of the DNA science likes to refer to as 'junk'. It is not junk it is the most important role the DNA plays. DNA is an antenna continually tuning into its environment and making cellular adjustments accordingly. Should your environment contain a saturation point of man made frequencies then this 'information' is going to disrupt your Organic Biological System. (Lookup Dr Leonard Horowitz for more on DNA.)

    Anyway, Im not saying technology that uses microwaves is necessarily bad but I am definitely saying you need to regulate and I would suggest most of todays population needs to massively reduce their exposure to this type of radiation.

    I do make a product that harmonises EMF's that is attached to mobile devices or worn as a pendant, if anyone is interested you can pm me, i didnt write this to sell a product, I did so because I have read the reports and done research myself and I know it is a problem and only going to get worse if we dont change the intensity of the EMF's in our environment!
    Want to see future symptoms? Look up what is happening in Sweden, over 3% of population have Electrical Hyper Sensitivity, why Sweden? They were the first country in the world to have a cellular phone network.

    Do your own research, dont trust that the Government is regulating for your health, most studies are conducted in-house by the companies that make the products (telecommunications industry) so are biased with selective statistics.

    • ESEMCE on 13/09/2013 - 13:25
      +5

      WARNING!
      The above novel contains "facts" and none of it is at all made up, confused, or misconstrued from actual experimental findings. (according to it's author)

      This bit is actually a fact:

      "I know some on here will poohoo this notion…"

      as evidenced by this response
      But;

      "… it locks it up in fat reserves or other ways (sometimes stores it as a tumor)…"

      Err, no it doesn't.
      If anything EMR will damage DNA. Which may affect regulatory processes in the body.

      "The main role of DNA is to tune into phonons (sound)and convert them into photons (light)…"

      Oh really?
      So should I stop listening to sound to protect my DNA?

      "If you know about quantum physics you would be aware that everything is vibration"

      That statement alone proves that you know nothing about quantum physics. I'm not a physicist and will profess to be utterly confounded by the vast majority of Quantum Physics, but come on!

      "I do make a product that harmonises EMF's that is attached to mobile devices or worn as a pendant"

      Ah-ha! here comes the sales pitch!

      "over 3% of population have Electrical Hyper Sensitivity, why Sweden? They were the first country in the world to have a cellular phone network"

      Eh?
      "The world's first commercial automated cellular network was launched in Japan by NTT in 1979, initially in the metropolitan area of Tokyo. In 1981, this was followed by the simultaneous launch of the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) system in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden."
      (emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone

      • ESEMCE on 13/09/2013 - 13:29
        +2

        Note that I am not arguing that EMR cannot be dangerous, and I am always conscious to take my phone out of my pocket when I can to reduce my exposure to RF, but there's a line and winnie not only crossed it out, she redrew it in pseudo-science land.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2013 - 17:07
        -3

        I knew there would be one!
        I didnt say Sweden had the first cellular network, I said they were the first country to have a cellular network, meaning the entire country was now networked, not that they had the first ever tower!

        You really need to read in context, I also said that that chemicals and heavy metals get locked up in fat reserves and sometimes a tumor not EMR. I know EMR damages DNA that was the point of my post!!

        As I said, do your research and you will find that the main role of DNA is to tune into Phonons, do what you like with stopping listening to sound, there are plenty of research documents to suggest that certain music is not ideal for biology either, even plants.

        I also did not proclaim to be an expert or have the whole knowledge of quantum physics, I said " If you know about quantum physics" not I know everything about quantum physics. No one does dickhead!

        And if it was a sales pitch I would have included a lot more than PM me. The OP was concerned about this topic and I mentioned I have a product that can help.

        And talking about pseudo-science I would suggest that what we call 'traditional science' has more than its fair share of pseudo. Just because it is on the 6 o'clock news does not make it fact.

        There just is no pleasing some people!!

        • retiredfeline on 13/09/2013 - 17:46

          certain music is not ideal for biology

          My dad used to say that my choice of music was proof that I wasn't his son. ;)

        • iseenya on 15/09/2013 - 14:08

          You lost when you called scubacoles a 'dickhead'. Please give up and go away, you're polluting the site with your specious theories and rudeness.

        • ESEMCE on 15/09/2013 - 16:10

          I thought she(?) lost when she stopped talking about evidence (even if it was sloppy wording as claimed) and started talking about how she could sell "magical" crystals(?) that harmonise and absorb surrounding EMR to protect you.

  • siraitken on 13/09/2013 - 09:38

    What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

    • KiLLUMiN4Ti on 13/09/2013 - 12:01

      famous last words…

  • one man clan on 13/09/2013 - 09:48

    It's bunk. Electric hypersensitivity is not a diagnosis, it's a collection of symptoms more attributable to the nocebo effect than gadgets.

  • c64 on 13/09/2013 - 09:57

    i believe that wearing a tin-foil hat will protect you from most electromagnetic radiation

  • _Bruce_ on 13/09/2013 - 11:58

    Most scientist say for children the only safe level is 0 but now they have phones, wifi at home and in school

    Most? 'Children'? What ages are we talking about here? '0' really? There is no such thing as 0 (natural background radiation is not 0).

    vaguely relevant:
    http://xkcd.com/radiation/

    I am more concerned about cheap imported devices that put noise into the air/power line that causes issues with other devices (Cheap LEDs are known to be very bad at this.

  • macrocephalic on 13/09/2013 - 13:53
    +1

    Non-ionising radiation.

  • whitty on 14/09/2013 - 09:52

    Because one of the many radhaz lectures I've done had a video of Dr Karl saying it's all good.

    As for the general population they don't give a shit as long as they can get on facebook 24/7 and post pics of their food on instagram. I expect alcohol/drug consumption, driving unsafe vehicles and a number of other things people do are more likely to cause injury/illness than radiation in the air.

  • rt1 on 15/09/2013 - 18:42

    Well I guess Unbelievable was ok, but I can't remember ever thinking that they were threatening.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join