Discussions

Edited by author 08-21-2007 07:31 AM

Picking on the phone user

It's "socially unacceptable" to use your phone in public...

Why?

---

 

Body language: don't read too much into it. You're looking at a chap who has been through the mill. He was pilloried by thousands, just because he's black; he's nervous, and we had a TV crew in the room. Goma wasn't really happy about being photographed, and the photographer was having trouble finding the button to take the picture; both of us were starting to wonder if the picture would ever be taken.

Sorry I don't have a larger picture; my web site cuts all images down to 185 pixels to save storage and traffic costs!

Your body language is not very warm in that photo of you with Guy Goma! Would it have killed you to smile or put your arm around Guy? And why can't we see it bigger? http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/3513

Husbands and Wives

-------------

After a quarrel, a husband said to his wife, "You know, I was a fool when I married you."

She replied, " Yes, dear, but I was in love at the time and didn't notice."

-------------

The bride, upon her engagement, went to her mother and said, "I've found a man just like father!"

Her mother replied, "So what do you want from me, sympathy ?"

-------------

When a woman steals your husband, there is no better revenge, than to
let her keep him.

-------------

Man is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.

-------------

A little boy asked his father, "Daddy, how much does it cost to get
married?"

And the father replied, "Don't know son, I'm still paying."

-------------

Young Son: "Is it true, Dad, I heard that in some parts of Africa, a man doesn't know his wife until he marries her?"

Dad: "That happens in every country, son."

-------------

Then there was a man who said, "I never knew what real happiness was,
until I got married ... and then it was too late."

-------------

A woman was telling her friend, "I made my husband a millionaire,"

"And what was he before you married him?", asked the friend.

The woman replied, "A billionaire."

-------------

Just think, if it weren't for marriage, men would go through life, thinking they had no faults at all.

---------------

The most effective way to remember your wife's birthday, is to forget it
once.

---

Sorry. No idea what came over me...

Snotmail...

It's been weeks since Hotmail incompetence at spam filtering was exposed. Has this service got any better since then?

I don't think so, do you?

---

 

I was on Manhunt, to discuss WiFi hacking.

:-)

To be quite candid, I didn't think the basic threat was the one I would have advised them to focus on. Yes, it's unwise to do internet banking over a public WiFi hotspot that isn't encrypted - the risk that you've logged onto a fake hotspot which is intercepting your every keystroke is real. But it's small!

The real threat is of having an un-encrypted PC without passwords connected to your home WEP or open WiFi point. You may think it silly, but there is a lot of "targeted" hacking of execs with office laptops. While in the office, they are often well protected; but at home, an open access point means a serious hacker can access hard disk contents.

And it can be far more valuable than people think...

---

 

Afternoon Guy - you were at ITV to discuss Manhunt? How intriguing. Please tell us why...

It was not you I had in mind Guy, as a serious 'ES dismisser', and I'm sorry if you think I rant. I am an emotional guy and get deeply affected by the horror-stories I hear of wrecked lives and how others airily dismiss it as all untrue, wrong cause or 'in the mind'. It is making it difficult to get correct treatments and assistance, when yet another sufferer tells me how they were sent to a psychiatrist, even compulsorily sectioned, it does wind all of us up who try to undo the damage.

Biased?!

 Some one told me we at www.es-uk.org.uk are named in a computing magazine as ‘biased’(micro-mart). Presumably they are referring to our attitude to the science on health risks from Wifi’s and the whole microwave shebang.
 We ain’t biased, it is the reality as we experience it we rest our case on.
 I, Rod, as diretor and admimistrator meet, greet, talk to and listen to sentient, clever computer and mobile using workers, parents, business types, and teachers, all regular folks, just about every day of my life. Often they call on Saturdays and Sundays when not working. It is my job, it is what I do for hours everyday. They are all real, and all ill with an extra-sensitive reaction to not just WiFi but ALL electromagnetic fields, EMFs, 400 of them now.
Don’t take my word for it, we don’t make this up and we all wish it wasn’t happening, and you are welcome to talk to them too, just ask and I will try to fit you up with someone, perhaps nearby. Not all feel well enough to use electronic media often, or for long, others are not so bad. Visit some of them yourself please, try Troy for instance, I have never met him, he is totally independent of us, but at 17 years old has worked out for himself what is happening to his health, see him at: http://www.electrosensitivity.org/mystory.htm

Another who fell ill with EHS, and is a real creative loss wrote ‘The Passenger’ on Iggy Pop’s ‘Lust for Life’ album, some say one of the best rock songs ever, but I don’t want to start another argument, believe me I have enough of those with ‘scientists’ who will not even talk direct to those who are ill and know what is causing it. Ricky Gardiner has a website and talks about it at: http://freespace.virgin.net/ricky.gardiner/emf/emf1.htm

We have 50 personal stories like these on our website, I laboriously typed them all up and html coded them, they are all real, but not everyone wants to risk the ridicule from some ignorant quarters so do not allow real names. Others have a thicker skin. Go to
http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/personal%20stories.htm

It is very sad and emotional often, at both ends of the phone line for some ES are new to realising they will be lucky to get their lives back on track, because they were, are really, just like all of you who sniffily dismiss this ES reaction. They simply find it incredible and hard to believe, even when they have it initially. Just like you, and me three years ago when we started.
None of them wanted it, the new people sometimes cry as they realise they cannot carry on as they did before, schmoozing through life with all the fun and electronic conveniences. It hits people very hard, that is why we want to warn, urgently, and why Panorama and the BBC agree and had Sir William Stewart asking for new research if we are compulsorily exposing everyone’s children in schools to this new blast of signals.
 Most sensitives are aghast at what their reaction means in terms of making a living, we have Paul Collins just about managing to be a surveyor as long as his boss does not insist on time in the office, Jason Gleave with a transport business his lady is keeping going, Dr Rod Williams who had up to 65 employees in a computer consultancy now forced out and building an electro-sanitised house. Ricky who has serious difficulty entering a studio nowadays.
 We are only ‘biased’ against whatever science says this is not happening, simply because it has to be wrong, as it patently is happening.
Elsewhere I was criticised for making ‘mere assertions’, not so. I always point to the science, but yes it IS the science that fits with the reality as we know it is. What is the use of ‘science’ not in accord with the facts? It isn’t science, its mouthing doggerel dick-squawk not worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. I wish I could put it more strongly, these people and the sensitivity they are cursed with which is getting them down are as real as you and me. It is false and biased science which says otherwise.

COULD IT BE YOU?

Frankly, that is unlikely, only a few per cent react sensitively, in Sweden where it is officially recognised surveys show around two per cent, but some do go higher for some low level less serious reactions. Most, 80% we find, of those with ES have a previous history of environmental sensitivities of one kind or another, often to chemicals as MCS, others with sensitive dietary or skin conditions.

The fact is more and more individuals not Luddites or anti-something or other, but computer-using and geeky types too, are finding their threshold, if there is one, for resisting the accumulative health effects of EMFs, is crossed and symptoms result. Low level and non-specific at first so dismissable as temporary or 'other causes' or whatever and GPs agree with this, and indeed we are finding strong associations to do with the immune system being compromised, some of that ‘other causes’ is all in the mix. Continuing excessive exposure, and that ‘excessive’ depends on the unique tipping point of the individual, results in the symptoms all joining up day after day until you never feel fully well, and then get worse.
 Then it dawns “Halleujah! Something is wrong, I must be sensitive to something that is getting at me”. Typically then everyone flounders around for an explanation with more and more jigsaw pieces falling into place. We are getting thousands of website hits as worried types puzzle around 'could this be it?' And for some it is, a minority, a few per cent we think, and very unhappy they are: life, work, hobbies, fun, families all destabilised in a nightmare that is real. And bugger-all help coming from anywhere apart from us, and us unresourced telling the Dept of Health, George Hooker and Hilary Walker are the supposed radiation department, that we are doing their job for them, and no-one wants to take on their proper responsibility.
So now we say this ES reaction is politically incorrect, the govt took the money and no-one but an independent handful of us dare say it was reckless. We all took the industry word at face value and they turned a blind eye and worse to the health risks because they have an absolute goldrush. You may as well ask publicans or brewers if beer is a good idea, or car salesmen if we need more roads. Even knowing there will be alcoholics and traffic deaths and injuries they will still say yes. Do bears s**t in woods? Is the Pope a catholic? Did Mandy Rice-Davies say “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they” about those married rich men denying they had had a ‘bit on the side’ way back in the sixties. Will the industry deny these health effects are real or significant? Has any industry representative dared to approach us or responded positively to any health complaints with a listening ear, as they should. Have they heck?
Its enough to make you cross when you hear the suffering day after day and the silly scientific arguments from those who never try to meet and talk to the real thing, actual people, are they not evidence of the most positive kind.

---

Pub? What pub?

I put it down to pre-launch nerves on Kieren's part. He was just flustered, poor lamb.

---

You won't catch me!

Phishing... and how to avoid it.

Or, maybe not...

I repeat that I quite accept the possibility of "non-thermal" effects on human cells; I just don't think it's enough to say "There is an effect" before we go on to say: "Therefore these symptoms are caused by WiFi or cellphones."

Actually, I'm happy to accept that people are affected by WiFi or cellphones! - I just don't think that it's the same sort of effect as you get from (say) sunshine on skin.

Goldsworthy's treatise is worth reading, but states a lot of things as fact which don't ring true to me, and is "a new theory" which, I suggest, requires a lot of verification before it gets accepted.

We'll see.

"What I'm suggesting here is that nobody has yet come up with an explanation which actually impresses me, for WHY they have these symptoms. Panorama quoted a researcher who found that there are effects on the chromosomes. Fine! - but that damage is commonplace, and the symptoms are NOT headaches!"

Guy, how about Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy's explanation at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/pap..._bio_weak_em_07.pdf

This starts:-
"There have been many instances of harmful effects of electromagnetic fields from such seemingly innocuous devices as mobile phones, computers, power lines and domestic wiring. They include an increased risk of cancer, loss of fertility and unpleasant physiological symptoms. The power and mobile phone companies, hoping to avoid litigation, often assert that because the energy of the fields is too low to give significant heating, they cannot have any biological effect. However, the evidence that
electromagnetic fields can have “non‐thermal” biological effects is now
overwhelming. In this article, I will explain how these effects arise. I have included key references that should enable the more inquisitive reader to delve deeper. If you do, you will often find contradictory assertions and that the reproducibility of several experiments is only mediocre. As we will see, this is almost certainly because of differences in the genetic and physiological condition of the biological material and its ability to defend itself against electromagnetic insults. Defence mechanisms have evolved by natural selection over countless millions of years of exposure to natural electromagnetic radiation, such as that from thunderstorms. They can often hide the underlying effects of man‐made fields so we do not always see them in our experiments. We therefore have to concentrate on the experiments that give positive results if we are to discover the mechanisms. In this context, negative findings (frequently published in work financed by the telecoms and power companies) have no meaning."

With plenty of referenced studies in between, summing up with:-
"In the latter part of this article, I have explained how weak electromagnetic fields can interact with cell membranes to weaken them and make them more permeable. As with all theories, it will be subject to modification and refinement as time goes by, but some facts are already inescapable. There is undeniable experimental proof that weak
electromagnetic fields can remove bound calcium ions from cell membranes. There is also no doubt that bound calcium ions are essential for the stability of these membranes. Consequently, their loss will increase temporary pore formation under the mechanical stresses from pressure differences within the cell and abrasion by its moving contents. This very simple conclusion can account for virtually all of the known biological effects of electromagnetic fields, including changes in metabolism,
the promotion of cancer, genetic damage, loss of fertility, deleterious [harmful] effects on brain function and the unpleasant symptoms experienced by electrosensitive individuals."

I believe that the above is a worthy mechanism for the health effects people are experiencing with WiFi etc.

As for Panorama, this excellent programme really speaks for itself. Credit must go to Panorama's researchers, and to Paul Kenyon, the presenter.

How anyone viewing could doubt the integrity of the presentation and the risk to health, is beyond our comprehension.

The most important fact to come out of this programme is the stance being taken by Professor Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency. It is he who states quite categorically that there may well be a problem with WiFi technology and that an immediate review is called for.

Whatever the so-called experts (see below) might think, Sir William is a past Chairman of the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board) and his credentials give him the greatest credibility in this debate.

An associate spoke with an employee of a leading Telecoms Company the following morning and he admitted that his company had, in fact, encouraged employees to vote that the Wi Fi computer system offered no danger to health, as part of the BBC survey. No doubt they were also encouraged to write comments to ridicule the programme makers and say "how disgusted" they were.

This is typical of the tactics these companies will use to defend their business interests and win public support.

Lack of honesty and the pursuit of profit is the name of their game.

Similarly, many of the so-called experts brought in to ridicule the programme were nothing of the sort:-

Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of medical physics and clinical engineering, Royal Berkshire NHS Trust. He might know his X-rays (ionising radiation) but not his WiFi or microwaves (non-ionising radiation). He is linked to the notorious Science Media Centre - where the Guardian and the BBC online get their scientists from... Two of its major corporate funders are Vodafone and the Mobile Operators Association!

Prof Will J Stewart UCL and University of Southampton, Member of The Institution of Engineering and Technology, Communication Sector Panel he is also a member of the IEEE. Previously chief scientist at Marconi - a large Telecoms firm. here is a link to some of the staff he was working on at Marconi. He could probably build WiFi transmitters, but wouldn't have a clue about its biological effects.

Dr Paddy Regan, University of Surrey, Guildford Lecturer in nuclear and radiation physics. His expertise is clearly in the ionising part of the spectrum (i.e. NOT microwaves or WiFi). He isn't qualified to comment on Wi-Fi.

Prof David Coggan is a member of the Medical Research Council Epidemiology. He seems to always be wheeled out when it comes to minimising the potential health effects of any pollutant. Last year it was antimony in plastic water bottles. A few years back, it was pesticides. He was the Chairman of the Independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. He ws also involved in at least one study financed by the MTHR in a supervisory role.

I have read the article ‘Dowsing, WiFi sensitivity and Scaremongering' by Guy Kewney.

He is wrong. The fact that people do not have a sense for environmental non-thermal non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMF) (like eyes for light and skin cells for warmth) does not prove that no cells would ever react to EMF and cause an effect.

Recently it was found that EMF triggers the ERK cascade in cells ( http://www.biochemj.org/bj/imps/abs/BJ20061653.htm ), it was found that tomato plants react to EMF ( http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/p...icle/vianPSB1-2.pdf ), EMF affects cognitive performance and the waking electroencephalogram
( http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/p...icle/vianPSB1-2.pdf ), and so on.

So, there is reason to believe that the testimonies of persons connecting electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and EMF can be true. A simple double blind provocation test does not prove the contrary.

Kewney is right about the scaremongering, but he is wrong about the impossibility of cells reacting to EMF, triggering some mechanism, causing some effect. A subtle effect followed by pain as an autonomous alarm signal. Kewney is right, actually, that physical changes in the body can cause damage. EMF could cause self-destruction of the body by its own energy.

It is false to compare this to the cells of the retina and the light of a torch. Light has been around since long ago; the present EMF have not. Retinal cells have specialized by evolution; just cells of the body have not.

Yes, there should be proper, scientific investigations, not the simple double blind or cohort studies. First of all, the testifying persons seriously suffering from EHS should be investigated.

It is not true that the WHO's official tests and official policy says there's no reason to suspect low-level radio signals of causing health problems. First of all, the WHO does not perform tests at all. Secondly, the WHO says that no scientific basis currently exists for a connection between EHS and exposure to EMF and that the cause of EHS is not known (WHO Factsheet 296). There is no scientific basis currently for any cause of EHS.

Yes, we need investigations. True, probably the call of Sir William Stewart will not be followed by proper investigations.

If it was about pollen sensitivity, the investigations would be done. Why are the industry causing the EMF environmental pollution and the State anxious? Probably the result of investigations will be that indeed, some persons can develop serious impairments caused by an autoimmune reaction to the effects of EMF.

What is the problem? Just help the persons suffering from EHS, like we do take care of road victims. Just take some preventive measures. That's all that might happen, probably, so anxious people like Guy Kewney should relax and accept the fact that EHS exists and, given the testimonies and scientific knowledge, is triggered by EMF indeed.

Jan

Rod if you can find a single message from me saying "pull yourself together" or anything like it, I'll both apologise, and reply to your rant. As far as I can tell, the only comment I've made about electro sensitive people is one which suggests that they are really ill, and suffer real pain.

What I'm suggesting here is that nobody has yet come up with an explanation which actually impresses me, for WHY they have these symptoms. Panorama quoted a researcher who found that there are effects on the chromosomes. Fine! - but that damage is commonplace, and the symptoms are NOT headaches!

Sorry, but water's actual resonances are at much higher frequencies, and microwave ovens work by dielectric heating. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

More of Mr Read's (/m44) charmingly sesquipedalian yet oddly ungrammatical ramblings can be read at http://www.badscience.net/?p=241#comment-5995

While nobody is denying these symptoms occur, sensible people will reserve judgement until there is more than anecdote to back up the link to EM (even anecdotes with multiple exclamation marks are not sufficient). Much like MMR, this issue has created a bunch of ever more shrill patient advocacy groups, whose, possibly legitimate, dissatisfaction with people who don't believe them has caused them too see every contrary or even neutral opinion as part of a vast conspiracy. One cannot do better than to point to xkcd's response: http://www.xckd.com/c258.html