PartSkeptic
Illuminator
You can fool some people with blunt statements of your opinion, but I doubt your opinion would mean much to anyone with any knowledge of radio emissions.
PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest
- Thread starter PartSkeptic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus partskeptic
- Status
You can fool some people with blunt statements of your opinion, but I doubt your opinion would mean much to anyone with any knowledge of radio emissions.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
There is a difference between cherry picking and choosing reliable consistent representative studies. I say you are the one doing the cherry picking because you are not evaluating and comparing the results.
It is thousands of studies, but probably only hundreds of really good ones.
The industry pays people to do studies designed to fail and then have them put opinion into their conclusions. The strategies are well documented and history has shown how effectively such tactics have been used by large organizations.
One thing I did was take the ICNIRP list of studies and examine them in detail. Of a very long list only about three mentioned possible cellular effects and the other spent a lot of time on heating. One must look at the organizations and the scientists who publish such articles and then the bias comes out. Some papers supporting the Telcos got blasted for their blatant lack of professionalism - yet those papers are still used in debate.
I have the intelligence and the ability to scan vast amounts of material in a critical way.
Do you have the humility to at least concede that I have some scientific support and am not some lone nutter?
I will give you the sites that are supported by scientists in the field. It is not easy to discern the truth among the massive disinformation campaign of the Telcos. It depends if you want the truth, or you prefer to believe the propaganda. The truth is not easy to live with but it may make you have a healthier old age. You may avoid early dementia.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Your problem is that I actually know what I am talking about and you do not.
When it comes to telecoms and radio, I officially get a string of letters after my name. You, on the other hand, have nothing but superstitious nonsense to offer.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No. For example, the proliferation of 3G, 4G and now, 5G in developed countries correlates with increased life expectancy, better medical outcomes and better general health in developed countries. You are claiming the exact opposite. You have an evidential mountain to climb.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You have repeatedly insisted that your intuitive perception that coincidences occur to you far more often than would be expected by chance, despite having no objective evidence to support that perception, is infallible. You have repeatedly claimed that you are far too intelligent to be subject to cognitive biases like confirmation bias and subjective validation, despite the fact that they were built into the way the human brain works by millions of years of natural selection.
Anyone who has studied probability theory in depth knows that our intuition is not only useless but downright misleading when it comes to finding patterns in noise. All sorts of erroneous beliefs, from astrology to dowsing to homeopathy, have been shown to be artifacts of our cognitive biases. Yet believers in them still refuse to accept this, and cling to the assumption that personal subjective experiences are a more reliable source of information than decades of careful scientific research. As long as you continue to take coincidences as evidence that you are receiving messages from god, despite having made no attempt to use the scientific method to test that conclusion, you remain a textbook case of what I described.
I've said all along that I am open to the possibility that non-ionising radiation can cause health problems, it's not inherently implausible. If they do it's also possible that some people are more susceptible to them than others, and that you are one of those people. It's certainly something that should be (and indeed is being) carefully investigated.
But it's a long way from that to accusations of deliberate suppression and/or falsification of research, let alone the sort of crazy conspiracy theories currently circulating about 5G.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
The accusations have been done by scientists who have gone step by step to show how the industry and their organizations under their control have indeed misled the public. They have written public documents and sent them to the media to expose the "myths" that are being perpetrated by those who are supposed to protect us. They have done the research to show who controls what and where the funding comes from.
The suppression is easy to figure out. Given the vast amount of studies showing harm, show me a popular article that does not report it as authoritarian and leave it at that. What all the main stream media do is add an emotional piece of propaganda from a scientist with a bunch of degrees whose says "Bunkum". The average reader concludes EMF are safe and that there are nutters out there. Or scientists who got it wrong.
The falsification of research is not that the numbers or the methodology is fake, it is that there are statements as to intent, and then statements that are unsupported by the research. The peers who review are either in on it, or are themselves misled. Remember it is intended to give the appearance of a legitimate piece of research, and all but the real specialists in the field will simply accept it based on "authority".
There is no money trail, and no transcripts of meetings where these are set up. There are suggestions which filter down that should this aspect be researched and the expected result obtained it will be generously funded. In one case, this was set up to debunk the ex-partner of Henry Lai, and when it turned out to support Henry Lai, they turned on him and tried to wreck his career as well. And they made sure their attempts were well publicized so that universities would "get the message". Surely you are not so naive as to realize this is how many big Corporates operate?
Give me one of what you consider a "good" study on why emfs have no biological effect, and I will try to take it apart to show you how it is done. I will give you one I consider good research for you to critique.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I do not have the expert knowledge and experience necessary to correctly and reliably identify a "good" study or critique a "bad" one, and neither I'm pretty sure do you.
abaddon might, if we ask him nicely.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I am reluctant, because those are quite technical and it is inevitable that PS will totally bork them.
However, since you so politely ask, here is a 2019 review of the findings of 94 peer reviewed papers on the matter.
Pretty sure you will comprehend it and also that PS will not.
Have at it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Oh, that shouldn't be a problem; PS has "the intelligence and the ability to scan vast amounts of material in a critical way." Or, to put it another way-
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Thanks.
I'll give it a more in depth read later, but from a quick skim the takeaway seems to be "evidence inconclusive, more (and much better quality) research needed", which is the impression I've been getting all along.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yup. Also of interest is the field strength used in the research. Not remotely what one might encounter in the wild.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,049
Partskeptic, in a different thread here Gillius claims that the virus is a vast conspiracy to kill off all humans by 'Them', and he knows he's right because he has exposed the entire conspiracy by looking at lots of movies, thus you'd be wrong. How do you rhyme that with your theory?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Is it too late for me to point out that occasional die-offs are not rare, but a damn near certainty. Thus, any prediction that claims one is coming "soon" cannot be falsified unless "soon" has some concrete meaning. One is always coming.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Gillius' hypothesis is also based on lots of (supposedly otherwise inexplicable) coincidences. The human tendency to attribute meaning to random chance is, I'm convinced, responsible for the great majority of irrational beliefs.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,049
I know, its just that we have two very certain doom prophets both claiming to certainly know the future who both base their predictions on cognitive bias and their own sense of superiority over the rest of us for seeing the pattern noone else sees.
However as they are contradicting each other I thought it would be interesting to point them out to each other. (Ok, so I'm a bit bored in lockdown)
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Thanks. This is a good start.
I skimmed the paper (which included noting a few key details) in 2 minutes. There is a lot a detail and I will need to delve into it to do a proper analysis.
But I can offer a quick critique. This is a key phrase.
The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6–100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact.
Now, spending a bit more time. The next key detail is that there are 125 references, and I looked at the last ones.
125 - Thermal (not relevant)
124 - FCC (they are not a political group)
123 - Dielectric properties of skin (needed for modeling but not effects)
122 - Absorption (blunt energy related to heating)
121 - Modelling absorption (says nothing about cellular effect but relevant to depth
120 - Human skin as antennae (need to see the relevance)
119 - Human exposure pulsed fields (need to check)
118 - Frequency dependence of heating (heat again)
117 - Dosimetry (always relevant)
Some of interest
101 - mitochondrion-dependent apoptosis (must check)
91 - Protein changes in macrophages (must check)
56 - Gene expression changes in the skin of rats
42 - Puffing of Giant Chromosomes
29 - Inhibition of the production of reactive oxygen species in mouse peritoneal neutrophils
3,4,5,6,7,10,11,15 are committees and organizations who are not unbiased.
I must look at the background of any of the scientists who appear to say it it safe and whose work is emphasized. And at the those who worry about effects.
The scientists who have studied the non-thermal effects of NRI have worked in pulsed fields (close to real life radiation) in 2G 3G and 4G. They have found harmful effects, and are warning that not enough has been done about 5G.
So the industry avoids the proof of harm by now exploring a new untested field. This allows 5G to be introduced before thorough testing by those who have found health issues in the lower frequencies.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
And there is your problem. I predicted that you would do so a few posts back and you did exactly as I predicted.
Tell me, did your god inspire me or did I know that would happen based on past behaviour?
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
I am taking a brief break from home projects.
I do not know where my analysis of Abaddon reference will go. I will post my methodology and findings as I go so that you can see how I draw my own conclusions as to credibility.
This is a concern. The source of funding:
Author Contributions:M.S. and M.-O.M. have contributed equally to conceptualization, structuring, datacollection and analysis, interpretation of data, and all aspects of writing of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, Bonn, Germany, PO number 4806344812
Then I checked the authors. Myrtill Simko: papers can be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ezV_zlcAAAAJ#
And here is one of hers from 2007 where she clearly describes a mechanism for NIR induced DNA damage:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...for-Diverse-Electromagnetic-Field-Effects.pdf
…Conclusions
….In general, it is known that modulations of the redox homeostasis lead to diverse cellular effects by the induction of different pathways, which can be mediated by free radicals directly or indirectly. Modulations at the antioxidant levels or activities influence the redox status of cells quite properly, leading to the corresponding cellular responses. Directly induced DNA damages by free radicals undergo sufficient repair mechanisms. In contrast, indirectly mediated effects such as the induction of signal transduction pathways are not controlled by repair mechanisms and thus, the establishment of epigenetic effects is likely.
…We hypothesized previously that EMF exposure can cause acute and chronic effects, mediated by ROS modulations by three different pathways of free radical involvement in physiological and pathological reactions leading to DNA damage and therefore, to an increased risk of tumour development
And the other author who was a professor assisting her in earlier work of hers.
Mats-Olof Mattsson papers at https:
//scholar.google.com/citations?user=e159f-MAAAAJ&hl=en#
This one debunks the standard and frequently sued myth that NIR cannot cause DNA mutations. It was co-authored by Lennert Hardell who is credited with good research showing emf harm
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/47199181/Mobile_telephones_and_cancer--
…Many discussions about a possible relation between mobile phone use and cancer start from the argument that the photon energy of microwave radiation is far too low to induce breaking of molecular bonds and thus exposure cannot directly affect DNA integrity. While this is obviously true, it seems to imply that because this is the case such exposures cannot be mutagenic. It must be emphasized that for low-level exposure to ionizing radiation only about 35% of DNA damage is produced by such direct effects, while the higher proportion is due to radical formation.
… Besides the fact that not even for ionizing radiation-induced carcinogenesis is a direct effect on DNA a necessary condition, malignant processes can be affected at a multitude of stages and thereby increase the risk of disease. Roughly, the process can be subdivided into the following stages: initiation (occurrence of a mutation, either induced or spontaneous), fixation (cells have to undergo divisions in order that the mutation will be fixed within the genome), survival (deviant cells or their daughter cells have to survive the life span of the organism), promotion (the clone has to grow to reach the neoplastic stage), progression (increase of malignancy, invasive growth, angiogenesis, metastases, etc.).
So what is the conclusion at this early stage. The authors have indicated harm in their early papers and have established their credential. Simko does a nice job on detail and explanation.
The question is: Have they been influenced to do this review in which they acknowledge it is too early to tell. The the Telco do their spin saying "See - no harm."
The study says:
...The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects
...Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.
At this point I wonder why Abaddon used this review. It seems to be indicating just what the anti-emf scientists are warning about - which is that an untested technology is about to be unleashed on the world in additions to the existing harmful technology.
I will do some more work later.
I do not know where my analysis of Abaddon reference will go. I will post my methodology and findings as I go so that you can see how I draw my own conclusions as to credibility.
This is a concern. The source of funding:
Author Contributions:M.S. and M.-O.M. have contributed equally to conceptualization, structuring, datacollection and analysis, interpretation of data, and all aspects of writing of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, Bonn, Germany, PO number 4806344812
Then I checked the authors. Myrtill Simko: papers can be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ezV_zlcAAAAJ#
And here is one of hers from 2007 where she clearly describes a mechanism for NIR induced DNA damage:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...for-Diverse-Electromagnetic-Field-Effects.pdf
…Conclusions
….In general, it is known that modulations of the redox homeostasis lead to diverse cellular effects by the induction of different pathways, which can be mediated by free radicals directly or indirectly. Modulations at the antioxidant levels or activities influence the redox status of cells quite properly, leading to the corresponding cellular responses. Directly induced DNA damages by free radicals undergo sufficient repair mechanisms. In contrast, indirectly mediated effects such as the induction of signal transduction pathways are not controlled by repair mechanisms and thus, the establishment of epigenetic effects is likely.
…We hypothesized previously that EMF exposure can cause acute and chronic effects, mediated by ROS modulations by three different pathways of free radical involvement in physiological and pathological reactions leading to DNA damage and therefore, to an increased risk of tumour development
And the other author who was a professor assisting her in earlier work of hers.
Mats-Olof Mattsson papers at https:
//scholar.google.com/citations?user=e159f-MAAAAJ&hl=en#
This one debunks the standard and frequently sued myth that NIR cannot cause DNA mutations. It was co-authored by Lennert Hardell who is credited with good research showing emf harm
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/47199181/Mobile_telephones_and_cancer--
…Many discussions about a possible relation between mobile phone use and cancer start from the argument that the photon energy of microwave radiation is far too low to induce breaking of molecular bonds and thus exposure cannot directly affect DNA integrity. While this is obviously true, it seems to imply that because this is the case such exposures cannot be mutagenic. It must be emphasized that for low-level exposure to ionizing radiation only about 35% of DNA damage is produced by such direct effects, while the higher proportion is due to radical formation.
… Besides the fact that not even for ionizing radiation-induced carcinogenesis is a direct effect on DNA a necessary condition, malignant processes can be affected at a multitude of stages and thereby increase the risk of disease. Roughly, the process can be subdivided into the following stages: initiation (occurrence of a mutation, either induced or spontaneous), fixation (cells have to undergo divisions in order that the mutation will be fixed within the genome), survival (deviant cells or their daughter cells have to survive the life span of the organism), promotion (the clone has to grow to reach the neoplastic stage), progression (increase of malignancy, invasive growth, angiogenesis, metastases, etc.).
So what is the conclusion at this early stage. The authors have indicated harm in their early papers and have established their credential. Simko does a nice job on detail and explanation.
The question is: Have they been influenced to do this review in which they acknowledge it is too early to tell. The the Telco do their spin saying "See - no harm."
The study says:
...The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects
...Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.
At this point I wonder why Abaddon used this review. It seems to be indicating just what the anti-emf scientists are warning about - which is that an untested technology is about to be unleashed on the world in additions to the existing harmful technology.
I will do some more work later.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Keep reading. I read your post after my post just before this one.
Your reaction of shooting from the lip is predictable by anyone of us.
I have told you how I operate. I do an initial skim. A quick analysis to gauge the effort required.
When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.
As Pixel42 points out. Intelligence also comes with experience. One has to know how to use it.
I disregard junk - such as those that who repeat stuff and are irrelevant. So far your link is not junk and I am giving it due process.
Last edited:
- Status