Thank you Dr Russell, better late than never!
Your response is not unexpected in the least, someone better put him in his place quick!

10 days is a very long time considering these forums are updated daily.

You refer to me as a Troll, my intention was not to cause trouble at all! I am sorry that you get that impression


You have said much, I will have to go away with my tail between my legs and do some more critical research!

Regards

Thank you for your thanksing me to take thr trouble - I was up to 3am writing that last one - I live in Hong Kong. Which has probably the highest density or RF signal power anywhere in the world and where we enjoy one of the worlds longest lifespans 2nd I think - go figure.

My mum died of cancer (in the UK) and never used a mobile phone in her life, didn't live near a mast nor did she smoke or drink. These sad examples of people dying of cancer prove absolutely nothing. Then when you aggregate them and look at them statistically - they prove nothing aggregated.

Here's a great example of bad science that Google throws up: http://www.ideaireland.org/emririshresearch.htm - self selected study of a handful of people, no control, no double-blind laboratory control exposure, no references cited. We just asked them if they feel bad and they said yes. The conclusion "This descriptive study demonstrates the devastating effects that exposure to electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields appears to have..." - how do these people know they are exposed to RF?

So now we have one more study that 'found a link' that will be used to counter some official epidemiological study of hundreds of thousands of people over years that found nothing. That is bad maths too.

Presumably you are an engineer which means you are supposed to apply rational, critical thinking and identify failings in test methods - even if its not your field. Please use your training, we just cannot have everyone believe everything you read on the internet.

Here's something more rational (but lower in Googles results - funny that?) - http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto...tsheet/Risk/cellphones

Anyway - I suggest you go buy these books:
Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) - actually a good book.
How to Lie with Statistics
How to Lie with Graphs
How to Lie with Maps

David
BEng CEng MIET
Professional Mobile Radio Telecommunications Engineering Consultant

Thanks David for your none defensive, encouraging and informative response

No David I am not a qualified engineer which is why I came here for guidance!

I now have vasts amounts of information that is considered to be reputable by my peers that I will go through
Your last comment has been noted and I will keep theses words in mind when going through the information

Regards

Michael
EngTech ICTTech TMIET
JIB Approved Electrician/Telecommunications Fitter

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_g...ling_bad_science.html
There's a lot of it about...

Dear Michael/@backinuk,

You claim that these forums are updated daily... by whom? We are all busy people (like you, I'm sure) and participation is voluntary and on an "as and when" basis. As it happens, this was the first time I came across this thread (so snide comments such as "it's better late than never" are not appreciated - you've just got a couple of hours of consultation and guidance from each of us for free, so I find your gratitude somewhat underwhelming!!). Your demand for attention and response was petulant. Perhaps you would have got a different response from people with a more measured approach? The information on (say) the Stewart Report and the material from your own Institution was just a click away, yet you came and here demanded that we look it all up for you (note point 4 in this forum's FAQ: http://www.theiet.org/help/forum-conditions.cfm) .

My response was not about "putting you in [y]our place quick" or sending you off with your tail between your legs or any of the other phrases you've used to dismiss our arguments as if they are personal attacks against you rather than responses to your position and evidence.

Similarly, I contest that this was about you obtaining knowledge (e.g. "I came here for guidance") - you didn't come on this forum and say "can people tell me about RF health effects". No, even your opening question ("What are the long term health implications of radiating this kind of power on such a large scale in schools and on the general public,") carried emotive phrases (e.g. schools - why those in particular?). You came here pugnaciously spouting material that contradicted established evidence and took umbrage at anyone who tried to point you in the right direction. As further examples, almost straight away you were coming out with phrases such as the "...general public are not aware of the real dangers..." and "I am beinging to realise that the wool is definately being pulled over our eyes regarding this subject!" These are phrases that smack of classic bad science conspiracy theory mentality.

This Institution is one of the places that you claim to have been doing this wool-pulling. I wasn't involved in any of the studies that my fellow members conducted, so the only way in which I'm defensive toward your unfounded accusations is as a result of the unprofessional and unscientific approach you have adopted in your quest.

This is the home of Faraday, a place of rational, reasoned argument. This is a place where one does not present scientific claims without at least some scientific evidence. Your approach, to attempt an analogy, was like walking into an opera house and shouting that Justin Bieber is the best opera singer ever, or grabbing Jamie Oliver by the lapels and berating him for not using more saturated fat in his recipes because you'd read a recipe on the web once that said it was good for you. So yes, I do get the impression of a "troll", rather than someone openly seeking knowledge.

I agree with you that this is a forum to debate this evidence (if you feel you must debate it) - but that wasn't the way to go about it. The scientific approach would have been to gather data (both the consensus view of the scientific community and, if you must, that of the quacks and snake-oil merchants on the web) and then venture an opinion backed up with the objective evidence. Not proudly state that you "didn't want to read what the ICNIRP, World Health Organisation (WHO) and all the government backed scientist had to say straight off as it would probably bias my train of thought" (oh the irony, given that you were lapping up any old rubbish on the web and happy for the charlatans to send your train of thought down whatever branch-line they chose).

So I'm sorry if you felt I (or anyone else) was unduly dismissive - but that's exactly what your evidence needed: dismissing, refuting and countering (as you didn't seem prepared or equipped to do it yourself). If you genuinely want to undertake your own critical research, and believe that you have some insights to offer that your fellow members (many of which have spent their entire professional careers in this field) have missed, then more power to you: I'd recommend formal training such as an MSc by research to begin with, but if you want to forge your own path then good for you. Note the key word *critical*: you've got to assess the veracity of the quacks and alternative practitioners, and be guided by good science if you have a genuine finding and want to change the prevailing consensus view. Anyone can create a website and espouse an alternative view: the onus is on you to pick their data apart, review what they've done, decide whether their experiments are fair (both experimentally and statistically), compare their results to other reproducible studies, and so on.

I don't seek to patronise, but to offer support and encouragement for your professional and vocational progress. If you are genuinely seeking to develop your skills in that area then I can recommend Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Sc...qid=1336640098&sr=8-1) as an excellent starting point. If you have an IET Mentor I suggest you talk this all through with them to build a Professional Development plan to aid you in this.

We've presented evidence for the prevailing view, and you've found opposing viewpoints. It's over to you now to dispassionately assess the evidence, and strength of evidence, on both sides and draw your own conclusions.

Best regards and good luck in your quest,

-------------------------
Eur Ing Dr. Russell J. Haines BEng(Hons) CEng FIET SMIEEE SMACM AMRI
IET Bristol Chair, College/Schools Liaison; Publicity; Acting Hon. Sec.
http://www.theiet.org/bristol, Twitter: @IETbristol

PS: Coincidentally released today:
"No strong evidence that mobiles or pylons harm your health, according to latest Position Statement from @theiet #BEPAG"

http://www.theiet.org/policy/m...leases/20120509_2.cfm

"The Position Statement is based on the review of 726 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Of these, 42 per cent covered static and low-frequencies, primarily relating to 50 and 60 Hz fields associated with power generation and distribution. 48 per cent of the papers dealt with radio-frequency fields, and 67 per cent of these were specifically related to mobile-phone frequencies."

HTH,

-------------------------
Eur Ing Dr. Russell J. Haines BEng(Hons) CEng FIET SMIEEE SMACM AMRI
IET Bristol Chair, College/Schools Liaison; Publicity; Acting Hon. Sec.
http://www.theiet.org/bristol, Twitter: @IETbristol

Unfortunately with the title
"The Possible Harmful Biological Effects of Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields"
immediately implies there are Harmful Biological Effects - possibly. Title FAIL.

People will not see 'possible' - in fact its a lighter font on the front page of the document!

Who comes up with this stuff? - do they know nothing about how people think? the power of suggestion,

That is an absolutely dreadful title and font.

Edited: 17 May 2012 at 06:31 PM by zerocred

I remember reading some document on mind control and how EMFs have been shown to influence the state of brainwaves. EMF is none damaging/ non inonising but the underlying effects could be tantamount to altering or suppresion of brainwaves in animals exposed ( humans, ex.).

In a recent IET magazine an article had covered how the human body acts like an antenna and how human beings actually radiant negligible EMF signals between each other for every action/thought produced. This innocent realization could have ramifications which certain frequencies of EMF broadcast at all hours of the day or scheduled to broadcast at "destructive/constructive" specifications or simply due to flux when you are asleep may be forming an imposing/blocking force on the cognitive processes of the mind, thus creating a wide assortment ot mental health problems that cannot be traced back as it is an "unknown" invisible force. It could be the brains attempt to create order from the chaos of a cascade of interfence on its channel.

Eitherway, just my opinion on how we may be inadvertently stunting our intelligence.

Rubbish