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,