5 ms·

What do you mean by credible? They are asking for: To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful To ap

What do you mean by credible? They are asking for: To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful To appoint...independent, truly impartial EMF & health scientists... to re-evaluate the health risks and...study the total and cumulative exposure Among other things, they are asking for scientific voice in the public policy space rather than the only voice being corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with this again?

Tharre 8y ago
> What's wrong with this again? That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite). But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.
- ColanR 8y ago
  They do back up their claims, and they give careful citations. > The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional. [0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699
  - dekhn 8y ago
    Results in SD rats aren't useful. They're misused widely in research. The results so far (surveyed across the literature; I'm a biophysicist who is familiar with all sorts of radiation and biology) are not convincing. most studies lack controls, or have poor study design.
    - ColanR 8y ago
      Sure they're misused; but they're still relevant as a first-level analysis. If the results are promising, more studies can be justified. No one is claiming that humans and rats have more than the most minor physiological similarity. But just because 'most studies' into EMF radiation at this frequency are not convincing, does not mean that they all are not. Those poorly conducted studies should be ignored, not used as mud thrown onto good studies. I thought this one was interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/
      - dekhn 8y ago
        I don't think rats that are highly prone to getting cancer for reasons that are specific to that rat subspecies' biology means they're relevant as a first-level analysis. As for ignoring poor studies: that's the first and best thing you should do, because otherwise, you'll spend a bunch of time trying to hypothesize your way out of a morass of contradictory, confusing, and ambiguous data.
    - alexandercrohde 8y ago
      Let's not confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. My proposal, whatever maximum dosage regulators approve, they will get a tower installed next to their house that exposes them to that dosage. Align the incentives.
      - dekhn 8y ago
        that sounds petulant.
- black6 8y ago
  > That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." Ever had an RF burn from an antenna? I have. It can definitely be harmful.

Tharre 8y ago

> What's wrong with this again? That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite). But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.

ColanR 8y ago
They do back up their claims, and they give careful citations. > The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional. [0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699
- dekhn 8y ago
  Results in SD rats aren't useful. They're misused widely in research. The results so far (surveyed across the literature; I'm a biophysicist who is familiar with all sorts of radiation and biology) are not convincing. most studies lack controls, or have poor study design.
  - ColanR 8y ago
    Sure they're misused; but they're still relevant as a first-level analysis. If the results are promising, more studies can be justified. No one is claiming that humans and rats have more than the most minor physiological similarity. But just because 'most studies' into EMF radiation at this frequency are not convincing, does not mean that they all are not. Those poorly conducted studies should be ignored, not used as mud thrown onto good studies. I thought this one was interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/
    - dekhn 8y ago
      I don't think rats that are highly prone to getting cancer for reasons that are specific to that rat subspecies' biology means they're relevant as a first-level analysis. As for ignoring poor studies: that's the first and best thing you should do, because otherwise, you'll spend a bunch of time trying to hypothesize your way out of a morass of contradictory, confusing, and ambiguous data.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    Let's not confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. My proposal, whatever maximum dosage regulators approve, they will get a tower installed next to their house that exposes them to that dosage. Align the incentives.
    - dekhn 8y ago
      that sounds petulant.
black6 8y ago
> That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." Ever had an RF burn from an antenna? I have. It can definitely be harmful.