Nothing terrifically exciting this week, but several items of interest.
Some history. No revelations in terms of what we now know now, but some interesting observations
EHS was being recognised and discussed as a workplace issue back in 1995 (my own first encounter was around 1987, although I didn’t recognise it then for what it was)
Sweden was probably ahead of most places in this recognition – and of course they still are
One of the acknowledged authors was Olle Johansson
The telecom industry was active even back then in sabotaging research, freedom of information, and putting ‘psychological’ labels on EHS victims.
Several references to this story – sperm damage from phones.
Posting from Darius L – on ionising radiation, but contains links to many of his previous postings on non-ionising radiation and the lies and misinformation put about by regulatory authorities
More about brain tumours in young people
More on polarisation of waves. I haven’t had time to read the full text yet, but this is the second study on polarisation to come out recently.
What they don’t seem to address is whether changing polarisation is (a) technically feasible or (b) whether it might provide at least a partial solution to the damaging biological effects.
This is interesting for another reason. One of the arguments we often hear is that ‘radio and TV have been around a long time but they don’t affect anyone’. I know there are studies showing that this is not actually true, although I couldn’t cite any specifically. Well, this looks like another one.
Case study on pain and mobile phone
No revelations here, but signs that the Natural Health industry is becoming more aware of radiation issues. Not only does the mobile phone get a mention, but it makes it into the ‘top 3’.
And another, with quotes from Devra Davis
In similar territory, Big T is still fighting against the cellphone warnings being proposed in Berkley. What are they frightened of?
A couple of studies finding no effects. One of them is full of industry-speak, and they don’t include funding or conflict-of-interest statements.
One which did find effects – pre-natal exposure in rats
I’ll also post one item under ‘Wifi in Schools’ – mainstream coverage.
Most Users Ever Online: 176
Currently Browsing this Page:
Peter Williamson: 43
Arthur Fomalhaut: 12
Guest Posters: 2
Newest Members:ozbod, dotty-88, MJ, EMFguy, Saba, OldHotRod, brjarrard, bnsh8, Anonymous, appleannie
Moderators: Wifikid: 16, officeman: 0, WiFi96: 4, Peter Williamson: 119, peter williamson: 189
Administrators: Lloyd Burrell: 68, Lloyd backup: 0, Shabab: 0, shabab-test: 0