PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[JayUtah]

Basically scoffing, but not prepared to "prove it" with such a simple experiment.

Scoffing was the appropriate response. You don't have the right to demand affirmative defenses to your claims. You certainly don't have the right to demand a particular course of affirmative defense. That's tantamount to attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Hans]

Nobody's going to click on a blind link, PartSkeptic.

Incidentally it is now four weeks since you agreed to do a simple blind test of your claim to be able to tell whether or not the wifi is switched on from your physical symptoms.

In my experience believers in things want to have the 'possibility' that they are right. Doing a test would/might eliminate that. I see that kind of reluctance a lot in pseudo-archaeology.

They believe intensely that they are right but won't conduct experiments or pay for an expedition to excavate or otherwise look into their 'theory'. The possibility is good enough for them.

 

[gmanontario]

In my experience believers in things want to have the 'possibility' that they are right. Doing a test would/might eliminate that. I see that kind of reluctance a lot in pseudo-archaeology.

They believe intensely that they are right but won't conduct experiments or pay for an expedition to excavate or otherwise look into their 'theory'. The possibility is good enough for them.

Plus they usually make the fundraising statement or the mission objectives so insane nobody will donate or help.
Then that means to them that their particular belief is true because "THEY" won't help.
I see this all the time with all types of scammers.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
In court papers, I challenged the Telcos to have three executives "prove" there was no harm by taking a 5 day course of ciprofloxacin and then live with a device for 20 hours a day every day for 3 months that emitted radiation at the same power, frequency and pulsation as the cell tower. The answer - "I have an active imagination".

I’m surprised that the response wasn’t just “this sort of thing doesn’t belong in the court papers”.

I must have missed something along the way...why was the five-day course of cipro a requirement before the exposure to the radiation? And why would it prove anything? According to PS, they are "THEY!" so surely he wouldn't believe anything they (sorry, THEY) would say anyway.

 

[EvilBiker]

Plus they usually make the fundraising statement or the mission objectives so insane nobody will donate or help.
Then that means to them that their particular belief is true because "THEY" won't help.
I see this all the time with all types of scammers.

To be fair, I don't believe PS is scamming here - my take is that it's just another denial twist.

Honestly though, the test proposed is not going to be valid unless there is total transparency. My suggestion to PS was going to be that I rope in a couple of friends that I know in his area to adjudicate, but I suspect that excuses will be made in that regard too.

 

[gmanontario]

To be fair, I don't believe PS is scamming here - my take is that it's just another denial twist.

Honestly though, the test proposed is not going to be valid unless there is total transparency. My suggestion to PS was going to be that I rope in a couple of friends that I know in his area to adjudicate, but I suspect that excuses will be made in that regard too.

I didn't mean to call him a scammer, I just have seen this method used by scammers.

It's very transparent that he has zero intention of actually trying any test as it might not turn out for the better for his theories.

 

[Pixel42]

To be fair, I don't believe PS is scamming here - my take is that it's just another denial twist.

Honestly though, the test proposed is not going to be valid unless there is total transparency. My suggestion to PS was going to be that I rope in a couple of friends that I know in his area to adjudicate, but I suspect that excuses will be made in that regard too.

That would be great for the second run, but I still think this first one should be entirely for PartSkeptic's own benefit. He watched DowserDon make the same mistake every MDC applicant who got as far as a proper test made (in case you're not familiar, he ended up inviting about 20 people, including two University professors, to what was supposed to be a dry run), so he knows how that worked out for him.

If he ever does the test and thinks he got a positive result he knows he'd have to do a second, witnessed, one to convince anyone else. He also knows what conclusions we would draw if he wimped out of that second run.

 

[PartSkeptic]

To be fair, I don't believe PS is scamming here - my take is that it's just another denial twist.

Honestly though, the test proposed is not going to be valid unless there is total transparency. My suggestion to PS was going to be that I rope in a couple of friends that I know in his area to adjudicate, but I suspect that excuses will be made in that regard too.

I intend to do the test.

Yes, doing a few by myself is appropriate. Then I will take up the offer of neutral adjudicators. You do realize that I need to be reasonably headache free and pain tablet free to do the test. I take 2 pain tablets in the morning. By 3pm they have worn off. If I have not ventured out of the house that day (and often even the day before) I am in reasonable shape. That would be the time to do it.

At least you are perceptive enough to realize I am not scamming.

Yesterday I went to get do the final inspection of the house and get the keys from the electrician. I wore my head shield and was only there 15 minutes. When I arrived back to the new house I had a headache and felt nauseous. I lay down and took two aspirin. An hour later I felt okay. At 8 pm the headache was back. Was this the aspirin wearing off? At 12 midnight the headache was gone. When I woke this morning I was tired but no headache. I have to do some follow-up work at the old house with the tower. I am dreading it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I must have missed something along the way...why was the five-day course of cipro a requirement before the exposure to the radiation? And why would it prove anything? According to PS, they are "THEY!" so surely he wouldn't believe anything they (sorry, THEY) would say anyway.

The Ciprofloxin causes nerve and tendon damage. Some people are badly affected but I think many people have a small amount of damage. Subtle but enough to be an underlying issue that the EMF will make worse. It has been recognized that many EHS people have an underlying sensitivity, often to chemicals.

I am glad you are perceptive enough to pick this up.

Look up "Floxed". This is an example where the Pharma industry claimed that there was no side effects such as people were claiming. Anecdotal evidence. It grew to a movement who pressured the government. And only then was a "black box" warning issues. I know a woman who burst both here Achilles tendons 3 weeks after a 5 day course.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Plus they usually make the fundraising statement or the mission objectives so insane nobody will donate or help.
Then that means to them that their particular belief is true because "THEY" won't help.
I see this all the time with all types of scammers.

I wanted to see the reaction of people who have nothing to lose and quite prepared to stand on the sidelines shouting "Do it" even when they know that there is a possibility of harm.

Only one person is prepared to offer adjudicators. I have accepted after I do a few tests of my own.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Scoffing was the appropriate response. You don't have the right to demand affirmative defenses to your claims. You certainly don't have the right to demand a particular course of affirmative defense. That's tantamount to attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

The industry claims there is no harm. One cannot do tests that show there is no harm. A single test that does show harm is sufficient. I know that the Telco executive know there is harm. That is why they would not do it. Are you prepared to do it?

Let us design one to be built. It would mean three antenna. Straight, 60 degrees left and 60 degree right. This is to get the effect of multiple antenna an also reflections. Amplifiers. Then an arrangement to get random switching of the antenna so that there are periods where all are 4G, then 3G then 2G. And also combination of these. The period can be about 15 minutes each.

Send them signals that are pseudo cell signals. Each antenna would do a pseudo-random sequence of pulses of eight at powers levels that are maximum, 50% and 25 %. The peak power would represent 3,000 uW/sqm and the RMS power would be 1,600 uW/sqm when placed at 3 meters from the subject. The sequences should mimic talking to various cell phones simultaneously and changing as some go off and some go on.

The device would be on the whole time the person was sleeping. Also when at the office. The height should be near the ceiling aiming down.

This is what is not being tested in the laboratories. Since the industry say they are certain such level do not cause harm and that duration is not a factor I cannot see that they can refuse on the basis of no human experiments. If they are harmed then it is a dose of their own medicine.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No idea. Not sure I see the relevance either. Are cell phones radioactive?
If you have a point to make, you need to be a little clearer. What are you trying to say here?




What is this supposed to mean? You said earlier that symptoms manifested just 15 minutes after the tower was switched on.
Can you explain what 'sensitised to the level I'm at' means?



And they wouldn't try to prove their beliefs by a simple experiment!
Outrageous! Well, clearly we shouldn't believe them, then.

Radioactive...
Not according to the standard definition: "emitting or relating to the emission of ionizing radiation or particles."

But it is according to this definition: "emitting or relating to the emission of radiation or particles that are harmful to living cells."

Period that symptoms manifest...
It depends on the level and duration of the radiation - and also the source.
Next to the tower it can be 15 minutes to 1 hour. It used to be only the next day - but that was before my system became so damaged that the level and duration and source are so much less.

It is only recently that I became aware of getting a headache with WiFi. I had tested WiFi in a hotel room and it was low. Outside the room it was negligible. But my wife has a WiFi modem that seems quite powerful. I got the headache and realized the type of headache was from cell emf. The meter registers quite strongly even on the other side of the house.

I had proposed a test next to the tower, but if I am this sensitive now to WiFi it is an easy test. Except I must be headache free, and that is becoming a problem for me.

Telco test...
It was to influence the judge. They are human. It was also to make the Telcos nervous. And it certainly did. One that applied to join at a later stage told the court that if I succeeded it would destroy their industry. For once they told the truth.

 

[Mojo]

The industry claims there is no harm. One cannot do tests that show there is no harm. A single test that does show harm is sufficient. I know that the Telco executive know there is harm. That is why they would not do it. Are you prepared to do it?

Let us design one to be built. It would mean three antenna. Straight, 60 degrees left and 60 degree right. This is to get the effect of multiple antenna an also reflections. Amplifiers. Then an arrangement to get random switching of the antenna so that there are periods where all are 4G, then 3G then 2G. And also combination of these. The period can be about 15 minutes each.

Send them signals that are pseudo cell signals. Each antenna would do a pseudo-random sequence of pulses of eight at powers levels that are maximum, 50% and 25 %. The peak power would represent 3,000 uW/sqm and the RMS power would be 1,600 uW/sqm when placed at 3 meters from the subject. The sequences should mimic talking to various cell phones simultaneously and changing as some go off and some go on.

The device would be on the whole time the person was sleeping. Also when at the office. The height should be near the ceiling aiming down.

This is what is not being tested in the laboratories. Since the industry say they are certain such level do not cause harm and that duration is not a factor I cannot see that they can refuse on the basis of no human experiments. If they are harmed then it is a dose of their own medicine.

Have you tested it yourself?

 

[Pixel42]

The industry claims there is no harm. One cannot do tests that show there is no harm. A single test that does show harm is sufficient. I know that the Telco executive know there is harm. That is why they would not do it. Are you prepared to do it?

Let us design one to be built. It would mean three antenna. Straight, 60 degrees left and 60 degree right. This is to get the effect of multiple antenna an also reflections. Amplifiers. Then an arrangement to get random switching of the antenna so that there are periods where all are 4G, then 3G then 2G. And also combination of these. The period can be about 15 minutes each.

Send them signals that are pseudo cell signals. Each antenna would do a pseudo-random sequence of pulses of eight at powers levels that are maximum, 50% and 25 %. The peak power would represent 3,000 uW/sqm and the RMS power would be 1,600 uW/sqm when placed at 3 meters from the subject. The sequences should mimic talking to various cell phones simultaneously and changing as some go off and some go on.

The device would be on the whole time the person was sleeping. Also when at the office. The height should be near the ceiling aiming down.

And then? Why have you stopped describing the experiment half way through?

What would you expect to happen? How would you measure what does happen? How would you establish whether anything that does happen is the result of the EMF? Controls? Success criteria?

 

[Pixel42]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15784787/

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess whether people who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blind conditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whether they respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting.

Methods: An extensive systematic search was used to identify relevant blind or double-blind provocation studies. This involved searching numerous literature databases and conference proceedings, and examining the citations of reviews and included studies. The results of relevant studies were tabulated and metaanalyses were used to compare the proportions of "hypersensitive" and control participants able to discriminate active from sham EMF exposures.

Results: Thirty-one experiments testing 725 "electromagnetically hypersensitive" participants were identified. Twenty-four of these found no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity, whereas 7 reported some supporting evidence. For 2 of these 7, the same research groups subsequently tried and failed to replicate their findings. In 3 more, the positive results appear to be statistical artefacts. The final 2 studies gave mutually incompatible results. Our metaanalyses found no evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in "hypersensitive" participants.

Conclusions: The symptoms described by "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

 

[Pixel42]

Another, later, metastudy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21769898/

Do People With Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields Display Physiological Effects When Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields? A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies

Abstract

Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is a controversial illness in which people report symptoms that they believe are triggered by exposure to EMF. Double-blind experiments have found no association between the presence of EMF and self-reported outcomes in people with IEI-EMF. No systematic review has assessed whether EMF exposure triggers physiological or cognitive changes in this group. Using a systematic literature search, we identified 29 single or double-blind experiments in which participants with IEI-EMF were exposed to different EMF levels and in which objectively measured outcomes were assessed. Five studies identified significant effects of exposure such as reduced heart rate and blood pressure, altered pupillary light reflex, reduced visual attention and perception, improved spatial memory, movement away from an EMF source during sleep and altered EEG during sleep. In most cases, these were isolated results that other studies failed to replicate. For the sleep EEG findings, the results reflected similar changes in the IEI-EMF participants and a non-IEI-EMF control group. At present, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that people with IEI-EMF experience unusual physiological reactions as a result of exposure to EMF. This supports suggestions that EMF is not the main cause of their ill health.

Looks like quite a few such tests have been done.

 

[Pixel42]

This is an interesting one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23438710/

Are Media Warnings About the Adverse Health Effects of Modern Life Self-Fulfilling? An Experimental Study on Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields

Abstract

Objective: Medically unsubstantiated 'intolerances' to foods, chemicals and environmental toxins are common and are frequently discussed in the media. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is one such condition and is characterized by symptoms that are attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). In this experiment, we tested whether media reports promote the development of this condition.

Methods: Participants (N=147) were randomly assigned to watch a television report about the adverse health effects of WiFi (n=76) or a control film (n=71). After watching their film, participants received a sham exposure to a WiFi signal (15 min). The principal outcome measure was symptom reports following the sham exposure. Secondary outcomes included worries about the health effects of EMF, attributing symptoms to the sham exposure and increases in perceived sensitivity to EMF.

Results: 82 (54%) of the 147 participants reported symptoms which they attributed to the sham exposure. The experimental film increased: EMF related worries (β=0.19; P=.019); post sham exposure symptoms among participants with high pre-existing anxiety (β=0.22; P=.008); the likelihood of symptoms being attributed to the sham exposure among people with high anxiety (β=.31; P=.001); and the likelihood of people who attributed their symptoms to the sham exposure believing themselves to be sensitive to EMF (β=0.16; P=.049).

Conclusion: Media reports about the adverse effects of supposedly hazardous substances can increase the likelihood of experiencing symptoms following sham exposure and developing an apparent sensitivity to it. Greater engagement between journalists and scientists is required to counter these negative effects.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I have just done something that I have to post here.

It was 11 am and I am in good shape mentally and physically. I have an HP Pavilion dv9000. The power supply was stolen by a worker (along with two other old laptops). I tried to get a replacement, and even ordered one. When it was delivered, the plug was not the right size. I could not see a proper replacement on the internet. These things are very badly specified. An after-thought.

I saw a universal power supply at the hardware store and bought it. 100W with output switchable from 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24 volts - and a 5vdc USB port. The input was 110 vac to 240 vac and also 12 vdc from a car lighter socket. It had 8 different adapters.

So I tried the one that seem to be the right fit. The last thing I wanted was to break anything. I took the adapter out of the rubber holder and I was very happy that it fit relatively easily. I tried it two more times because I wanted to see if I could sense the fit of the inner pin. I also rocked to slightly and gently to feel the fit. Great.

I then assembled the adapter on the power supply, selected the correct voltage and then tested the adapter from voltage and for polarity with a voltmeter. All good.

And then the adapter would not fit. It seemed oversized. I went and got a set of drills and my vernier.

The inner pin was the the size of a 1/16inch drill bit. The outer sleeve of the adapter was 5.45 mm. The laptop socket sleeve was 4.95 mm.

How an earth did I fit a 5.54 mm plug into a 4.95mm hole?

It is possible the hole itself is 5.5 mm and the metal contact fingers are slightly less. I tapered the plastic on the adapter to see if that would help. But it seemed clear that the metal insert in the laptop is 4.95 mm. I have a 5.45 mm metal adapter hitting the 4.95 metal sleeve on the laptop.

Even pressing the vernier hard got me to 5.0 mm in any position.

My initial feeling was that I was hallucinating. But I know what I did. And I took it slow and carefully. Is this a glitch in reality?

So ironic that I have said that posters here are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and here I fit an larger round peg in a smaller round hole. I thought about temperature difference but it would not accommodate such a difference. Besides both were in the study the whole time.

I can just imagine the responses. I can assure you it is not me messing with you. It might be God.

 

[PartSkeptic]

And then? Why have you stopped describing the experiment half way through?

What would you expect to happen? How would you measure what does happen? How would you establish whether anything that does happen is the result of the EMF? Controls? Success criteria?

I guess you forgot the effects of electrosmog on people. The test subjects should be over sixty.

Tinnitus first. Then hearing loss. Then memory loss. Then disturbed sleep and bad dreams. Then headaches. Inability to concentrate. Some nausea and perhaps diarrhea. That would be enough for me. The symptoms would be clear enough toward the end. Then alternate the testing with two days on and two days off. Repeat five times. When the person has bad second on-days and good second off-days there is a distinct pattern tied to emfs.

Maybe at the end of the three months there would be some convulsions, some hand shaking, some peripheral neuropathy.

If we really did it properly, there would be some performance testing and a brain MRI. And full blood tests. Before and after.

Do you really think that anyone would volunteer for such a test?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Pixel42. I will check your reviews and check the studies. I will also check the reviews that do state there is an adverse effect.

I wonder how many of any of them will give a full description of the emf radiation used. Intensity, frequency, signal type, pulsation rate, whether the device was communicating or not. This is a major deficiency in all of these studies. The people doing them do not understand the parameters.

In my test, I will have my wife use her phone to watch videos to be sure the device is putting out a functional signal.