/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10065303
It's a shame people don't realize they're already being sterilized. Maybe.

Also, my mother had me when she was 34. Turned out fine. A number of things play into the odds. Least they used to. These days the DNA in most people's germ line cells, whether male or female, can be assumed suspect. For the generation being born now, it won't be viable. They'll have difficulty breeding for one or two generations, then reproduction will more or less halt.

Refer to magras and xenos, and every other study done on progressive heavy genetic damage in populations. Even if we remove the source, wireless devices, the damage has been done.

Sorry man. Quite a thing to drop on someone. Your ponderings have been done before, by people with the means to put some things into action.

>>10065344
>Turned out fine.
>mentally ill ranting about wireless devices

>>10065303
Anon, if we force people to have kids in their 30s we can select for longevity

>>10065356
It's a sad state when the average person's first instinct is to deny established fact. We're seeing the midpoints of what are known as crisis cults.

>>10065344
>Turned out fine
You sound like the person my policy would have spared the world from (and also sparing you from yourself)

>>10065303
you should ban all women from giving birth past 30 (28 if high mutational load to begin with) and all men from conceiving children past like 32-34 years old (earlier if high mutational load).
>>10065344
question: how symmetrical is your face compared to your parents and how tall are you compared to the men on both sides of your family? Do you get sick for longer than any of your older siblings or cousins, parents, uncles and aunts?
>>10065356
the amount of EMR emitted in technological society is not safe for humans you fucking idiot

>>10065367
I wouldn't call radiophobic retards like you "average" but I would agree that your behavior in perpetuating your made up crisis is indeed cult-like.

>>10065383
>the amount of EMR emitted in technological society is not safe for humans you fucking idiot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

>inb4 muh conspiracy

Fucking paranoid schizos.

>>10065390
Well it is a conspiracy, because its just cheaper for tech firms and the government to not give a fuck

>>10065398
Yes they so don't give a fuck that every developed country has commissions and funding devoted solely to finding health issues caused by EM. But none have been found.

>>10065365
the older a person is the more chances of them having congenital defects

Ideally, you'd have every citizen donate sperm and eggs while they're young, put them in cold storage for the duration of their entire life under the pretense of "if you give us your eggs/sperm we can clone you spare body parts as your organs fail"

Really what you're doing is VERY long term studies on people. Weeding out those with defects that appear late in life. If an individual lives a long and healthy life (i.e. they didn't need to use cloned organ replacements) then the eggs/sperm that's left unused can be used for a surrogate mother. Creating superior babies with less health defects and longer life spans.

Of course, offing organ replacements and collecting the necessary medical data would require a national health program of some kind.

>>10065383
>question: how symmetrical is your face compared to your parents
Comparable.

>and how tall are you compared to the men on both sides of your family?
My father was 5'7", I'm 5'6". The rest were dead a decade before I was born. I assume the former probably fits there as well.

>Do you get sick for longer than any of your older siblings or cousins, parents, uncles and aunts?
I don't have siblings. I developed mild microwave sickness ~10-15 years ago, beyond that I rarely get sick and never have. I was breastfed. Recently I've progressed to later stages of microwave sickness, which is likely irreversible especially in my present location and life.

>>10065404
>But none have been found.
Says who. Seriously guy, who are you even listening to?

>>10065404
>But none have been found.

This thread is being derailed by you so I was going to ignore you but holy fuck that's wrong. The FCC dictates what is an 'ACCEPTABLE' amount of radiation that is "SAFE." The ONLY FUCKING WAY they can discover what is safe, is by first discovering what isn't safe. To say they've discovered no hazardous effects is like saying humans can withstand an unlimited amount of EMF radiation.

The FCC finds how much make people sick, and that specific amount is very subjective. Subject to sway by many forces, all making that number sway in the direction of "oh yeah a stronger signal won't kill you." and by no means every swaying in the direction of "this might make some people ill." By that logic, as time progresses phones will become more and more unsafe till they reach a critical boiling point and outside forces are forced to act. We're seeing this right now with the push to install 5G infrastructure everywhere, as 5G is VERY clearly unsafe for humans.

>>10065418
The safety standard was actually heavily influenced by the tri-service commission, and people like Herman Schwann who apparently think you can model the human body as a conductive sphere and get by okay. (Pro-tip, you can't.) In the later stages telecom and electric utility conglomerates like EPRI had a major role. With the 1996 telecommunications act they solidified their ability to put towers wherever they wanted.

>5G
Millimeter waves. It's both a final cash grab and a surveillance / kill grid. Too bad it's conspiracy etc to say anything is wrong, and not to have complete faith in the collective and the machine.

>>10065303
It’s not as harmful for a woman to have children past 30 IF she had children when she was younger (late teens/early twenties). Statistically, issues in these cases are minuscule compared to a first child at that age.

It’s only an issue when you have these 30+ year old cat ladies with dried out wombs from being a thot all through their fertile years desperately trying to pump out a child last minute.

>>10065407
Do you think it's because their semen, not the education and care they give to child?

>>10065303
so, that means you wouldn't have been born sperg

>>10065303
Most people should be banned from having kids.

ITT

brainlets who think their wifi is going to kill them

>>10065494
Why wouldn't it?

>>10065514

It's one of those things where it's not worth dwelling on. Nothing is going to change unless very dramatic evidence in overwhelming amounts starts to emerge, so stop being a whiny fucking bitch about it. Whatever you got going on with your health, whether or not it's attributable to microwave sickness or whatever you're convincing yourself of, is something you're just gonna have to deal with the same way you deal with any sickness. Exercise, good diet, and not stressing the fuck out.

>>10065303

>emotional and physical trauma

What physical and emotional trauma do you speak of? That which the sperg/autist experiences or that which the sperg/autist causes in the environment?

How common do you think it has been throughout human history for us to breed into our 30's or 40's? Are you just upset over your own shortcomings in life and blaming your parents for them because they had you in their 30's?

>>10065536
>Exercise, good diet, and not stressing the fuck out.
Not bad advice when you're not being poisoned constantly, and watching the results of this poisoning play out en mass.

And besides, what do you know about the evidence?

>>10065303
People over 30 should be:
>Banned from enrolling in any tertiary education except for post tertiary education and professional courses
>Banned from having kids
>Banned from welfare

Seriously if you haven't figure out your life by then after society has invested 30 fucking years into you then that money would be better spent on the younger generation who have an extra decade of productivity ahead of them.

>>10065552

Not a god damn fucking thing considering there isn't any evidence of the dramatic variety in over-whelming quanitities. Whatever you got your panties in a bunch over is all in your head. Stop being a pathetic fucking victim.

>>10065560

God damn, what is it with this board and the fascist mindset?

>>10065566
>Not a god damn fucking thing
That's what I thought. The rest is fluff.

Stay out of things you don't understand, or get to the point. I'm not so bad to talk to, but I won't bother with a bunch of rubbish.

>>10065560
You have very low intelligence, and countless people far superior to you didn't have their life in order by 30

>>10065571

Get out of your self-indulgent self-satisfied bubble and take responsibility for your life. Do you really want to go to the end being this whiny and pathetic?

>>10065570
>Anyone that doesn't want to coddle me and support my gibmedat life style is a meany facist!

t. Your entire pathetically spoiled generation.

>>10065577

Fuck you cock sucker, don't lump me in with my generation of weak whiny insecure lazy entitled subhuman sacks of shit. I get shit done, I square my shit away.

Singling people out and telling them they can't is a surefire way to fuck things up in humanity.

>>10065575
COPE

>>10065576
"Not yet knowing life, how can you know death?" What do you even know about ends, or responsibility? You can't even engage with the magnitude of what I'm saying, you've retreated into fantasy and don't have the spine for either one.

Talk about pathetic. I'll ask you again, what do you need here?

>>10065595

Fantasy? I deal in the harsh truths of reality. Even if you're delusion that EMR is making you sick is null and void. Nothing will be done about it in your lifetime. You accuse me of retreating into fantasy? Stop fucking obsessing and whining about shit you have no control over and control what you can.

>>10065601

>Even if you're delusion that EMR is making you sick is true, it's null and void.


fix'd

>>10065601
Do you even know what you're saying?

>>10065604

Yes, do you not? It's pretty god damn fucking clear. Here, i'll repost it with the fix'd typo.

Fantasy? I deal in the harsh truths of reality. Even if you're delusion that EMR is making you sick is true, it's null and void. Nothing will be done about it in your lifetime. You accuse me of retreating into fantasy? Stop fucking obsessing and whining about shit you have no control over and control what you can.

>>10065608
>Yes, do you not?
You don't, but I do.

Either you're 20 years old and think the generalities you're arriving at describe it all, or you're a man who'll live like a trapped animal and quietly suffer whatever they decide for you. There's not much to talk about in either case, as you don't have the slightest idea what living your perfect verse actually entails. Everything you purportedly value is under attack and is coming to an end. Shutting down is not the answer.

>>10065620
>Everything you purportedly value is under attack and is coming to an end. Shutting down is not the answer.

At least we can agree on this. I don't know what your day to day life consists of, but I hope the majority of it isn't feeling sorry for yourself and resenting society for promoting too much of the EMR you seem to obsess over. I don't know if you use it as an excuse to not live your life. But I fight for what I value even though my time on this planet, inside this body is limited. Truth be told, I don't know much. I hope though. I hope life is heading towards something important. Something of value. Even if the only value is simply appreciating existence and trying to influence others to appreciate it as well through hard work and accepting things as is.

>>10065629
You're contradicting yourself and talking in circles. You can't have it all and you don't just get something for nothing. This is the matter made very clear, these devices
-Cause reproductive cell DNA damage and infertility
-Alter brain function and cause progressive brain damage, especially in children
-Compromise autonomic function
-Destroy the immune system
-Make bacteria and fungi behave differently, generally becoming more virulent

We're headed toward irreversible infertility. Yes, you can dissociate heavily and slather on a coat of self made beauty onto an ugly and miserable world that's falling apart, distorting your perception as needed, inside and out. But sooner or later that has to come to an end, and you must emerge from that rabbit hole, acknowledging what you really value, the real world, how you really can work, and your real needs.

Whatever you think you're fighting for, you're fighting for the wrong thing and you need to pull your head out. You don't make the rules, things work how they work, and this is happening. This is not a life you want to have to live.

>>10065671
>We're headed toward irreversible infertility
Once again, there is no evidence of the dramatic variety in enormous quantities. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

>Yes, you can dissociate heavily and slather on a coat of self made beauty onto an ugly and miserable world that's falling apart, distorting your perception as needed, inside and out. But sooner or later that has to come to an end, and you must emerge from that rabbit hole, acknowledging what you really value, the real world, how you really can work, and your real needs.

This is the exact event that has been taking place in every human being for the several thousands of years society has been evolving. What are you getting at? I'm not the one hung-up on a nonsensical idea that may or may not have merit.

>Whatever you think you're fighting for, you're fighting for the wrong thing and you need to pull your head out.

Bullfucking shit, and all i can do is restate my previous point as to why you speak nonsensical bullshit: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMATIC VARIETY IN ENORMOUS QUANTITIES

>You don't make the rules, things work how they work, and this is happening. This is not a life you want to have to live.

Will you please take your own god damn advice and let this shit go? Once again, i don't know what your day to day life consists of, but if it is encompassed mostly by this anxiety, you are going to suffer. You are going to suffer far more at the hands of your own mind far more than anything EMR could ever possibly do to you.

>>10065671

And if you can't let this shit go, start doing your own research. Start doing your own experiments. Start figuring out a way to save humanity from itself. You're not going to save humanity from extinction by arguing this bullshit on the /sci/ board on 4chan. Go brainstorm. Figure this shit out so that you can be humanity's savior.

>>10065344
>sun emits massive amounts in all spectrums of light, including radio
>earth itself generating EM waves
>dood wireless devices dooooood

>>10065415
>5'7"
Your dad was already a midget, it makes sense you couldn't get much shorter

>>10065688
>We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Fertility has been dropping rapidly in every developed country over the last 30 years. Irreversible fertility is not a bridge you cross when you come to it, it's a bridge you cross and can't turn back from.

>start doing your own research
For what? It's done. All that remains is a model with predictive power for producing therapeutic effects, and replicating Rife's machine. Both avenues are heavily guarded and you'd never get it into use. And we don't have time for that shit, this stuff has to go, now. The quality and quantity of evidence has never been the problem, it's about power.

The rest of you who either don't exist yet, or don't make yourself known, refer to my prior posts for more. In addition I've cobbled together a stripped down version of a few posts I've made. Be sure to follow citations in reviews instead of complaining that they're by a single author.

No reading version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsUWbUB6PE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5GiFMJVl6Q

Literature sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26300312
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29573716
http://cyrusfarivar.com/docs/WiFi%20Health/EBBE-review.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482415

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8388394

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
Historical reviews, symposium proceedings, etc ^
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

Irreversible infertility:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543

General theory:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096402.pdf

In vivo DNA damage in humans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667447

Behavioral changes with prenatal exposure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22428084

>>10065716
Some of the people involved:
Henry Lai did research for decades, including work about microwaves with Narendra Singh who developed one of the most sensitive versions of the comet assay.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014482788902650
(cited 10,000+ times). Unless you're dumb enough to unquestioningly believe every claim and slanderous remark by industry and its affiliates, there's nothing to make him a "crank".
Refer to the leaked memo by Motorola back in the 90's stating that they'd sufficiently war-gamed Lai and Singh's studies.
https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/j-f97issue.pdf
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-brain-cancer_b_3232534.html
https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry

And it's another matter with William Ross Adey.
His last paper before his death in 2004.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096402.pdf
-Taught at Oxford
-Worked with NASA
-Was one of the main researchers involved in the development of qEEG
-Early pioneering work in the use of computers to evaluate dynamic datasets like the EEG
-Worked in the DoD's project pandora
-Was the head supervisor and a lead researcher at UCLA's brain research institute
-Co-authored major papers like the original Ca2+ efflux study.
-Received millions in research grants from the department of energy, office of naval affairs, and private entities over the course of 30 years and practically until his death
-Was bulletproof enough in his manner and work that entities (eg WHO, Navy) would try to shit talk his work when it was inconvenient in one section, but unavoidably speak of him with a sense of reverence in a later one at a time when the field as a whole was experiencing widespread loss of funding / high probability of being fired or forced out if you didn't play ball. A trend that continues.

>>10065719
A note on autism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_syndrome
This genetic polymorphism causes calcium channels to be overactive, and intracellular calcium to be chronically elevated. It almost always presents with autism. Changes in cholinergic activity and chronic microglia activation are other common features of autism.

If you look around these days, many people are displaying low grade pseudo-autistic traits.

Other reviews.
http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/Herbert-Sage-2013-Autism-EMF-PlausibilityPathophysiologicalLink-Part11.pdf
http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/Herbert-Sage-2013-Autism-EMF-PlausibilityPathophysiologicalLink-Part2.pdf

>>10065716
>>10065719
>>10065721

>The quality and quantity of evidence has never been the problem, it's about power.

Well it looks like you got it all figured out. You gotta get into a position of power and save us from ourselves man. Get to it.

>>10065702
The bulk of the microwave band is severely attenuated by the atmosphere, and is non-polarized. It's in the picowatts/cm2.

>Earth's EM field
The Schumann frequencies are not comparable.

The earth's geomagnetic field is biologically active... naturally, and you see changes in biological systems when it is attenuated. These are known as hypofield conditions and they've been studied heavily for obvious reasons.

Re-evaluate yourself, you're very confused but feeling quite certain.

>>10065731

The only thing i'm certain of is that humanity will has a death grip on it's technological comforts and it will take exactly that, death and lots of it for anything to change.

If you think you can convince humanity to give it all up with all the evidence you have at your disposal, good luck.

>>10065577
If you're at an age where you can look down at other generations and still have room in your life for posting on 4chan then frankly society's investment in you isn't yielding the dividends it should.

>>10065716
>Fertility has been dropping rapidly in every developed country over the last 30 years.
Fertility, as in amount of children that are being born, or as in potency of gametes?

>>10065726
I'm informing you so you may take steps to protect yourself, and possibly a small number of people around you. You are your own savior, the architect of your own salvation, and you're on your own.

>>10065739
I'm not going to go there. All I can say is to accept reality and do what you can, and do what you have to.

>>10065390
>come on anon, lead pipes never hurt anyone
>jesus anon, it's just a little asbestos in the walls
>for the love of god anon, trans fats are just a safer alternative for saturated fats
This anon gets it. If radio waves were harmful, it would be all over the newspapers and the government would make them illegal to protect us. Since it has not been widely reported in the newspapers, it must not be true.

>>10065759

How the hell do I protect myself? Aren't these fields all around us?

>>10065756
Generally measured via sperm quality. Which is count of motile sperm, metrics for morphological features and functional parameters like motility, and DNA integrity.

Studies on oocytes are more limited but show they're also susceptible, especially the stem cells which will later form the female germ line. Induce damage in those, and you get them all.

>>10065764
You must go innawoods and bomb radio towers.

>>10065762
>the government would make them illegal to protect us.
Your'e telling me that the same companies that would try to skirt on costs as much as possible aren't using (or cover up the use) of such things out of the goodness of their hearts or something?

Also, forgive me for not believing something that has roots in people extending their microwave retardation onto radio waves.

>>10065344
Wow, this is like complete bullshit from beginning to end.

>>10065772

He was being facetious

>>10065767
I see. Do we have studies over the course of decades since, say, the Fifties? Because there can be many other factors at play, obesity and a more urban population chiefly among them, especially if the drop in fertility isn't a dive ever since cellphones became widespread.

>>10065407
Trump had baron at like 60. i think its fine

>>10065764
The best approach is minimizing exposure. That's just the unfortunate truth, there isn't any way around it.

I'm very tired and don't feel too grand, but here's a brief list that either have been shown to attenuate damage, or logically would.
-Make sure your magnesium and zinc levels are good. Magnesium blocks the action of glutamate and calcium influx.
-Supplement selenium. Eat one or two Brazil nuts per day, or supplement some other way. Don't over do it, selenium is a necessary nutrient but easily toxic.
-Take something like N-acetyl-L-cysteine to improve glutathione production.
-Vitamins E and C are important.
-Panax Ginseng has been shown to have calcium channel blocker properties and is full of antioxidants. It prevents death of neurons in the dentate gyrus. Overall it's also high in phytoestrogens and not suitable for daily use in men. Same goes for asparagus racemosus.
-Ginkgo biloba, gotu kola (centella asiatica), ashwagandha (withania somnifera), bacopa monnieri, celastrus paniculatus, and others can be helpful. The goal is to counteract oxidative and nitrosative stress and general increased free radical generation (which is involved in magnetic fields changing spin state of radical pairs, common around magnetite which I didn't even get into), and maintain the glutathione system, which is the main defense against H2O2 and peroxynitrite. Dealing with superoxide creates H2O2.
-Phenibut might be helpful, if for nothing other than treating peripheral symptoms. Though I found its effect on memory to be fairly disruptive, if not destructive.

Depends on where you live how feasible it is to shield your living space, and how you should do so. You can use aluminum foil and make sure it's grounded properly. Very red brick with a lot of iron. Plant trees to block 5G millimeter waves. I live in a fairly rural area, but near a main road. So I have cell phones etc driving by constantly.
[...]

>>10065792
Still thinking about all that.

>>10065778
There are studies around. Other possible causes that have been identified are highly processed food in general, various pesticides and herbicides, especially glyphosate, xeno and phytoestrogens, fluoridated compounds like teflon, contaminated water supplies, and many others. The problem is, the same trend is seen in Europe, despite differences in agriculture. More recently it's also seen in remote areas of Africa, where they don't lay hard infrastructure at all and instead have cell towers in the middle of villages. Wireless devices are a constant presence in all of these cases, regardless of other factors, and we have various types of experimental data which confirm it as a causative agent.

What I'm interested in is data from Russia, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Their safety standards have been 1000x lower than the bulk of the west, US included. I will look for that later.

>>10065303
let's ban all people from having children

>>10065810
how bout jus u LELE GOT EM

>>10065303
Yes but its should be mandated that they must have one if they aren't sterile by 27

Are you for real? That would stop most educated and accomplished people from having kids, whole countries and most STEM people.

>>10065882
>Implying the elite need cattle anymore.
Herd can be thinned. Especially if self improving AI is further along than we think.

>>10065731
>The earth's geomagnetic field is biologically active

>>10065415
>Says who. Seriously guy, who are you even listening to?
Try clicking the link and reading. You can read can't you?

>>10065418
>hurt to say that EM within a certain range is safe they have to test outside the range.
Wrong.

>durr wireless devices expose humans to an unlimited amount of radiation
Wrong.

Any other retarded red herrings?

>>10065418
>The FCC finds how much make people sick, and that specific amount is very subjective. Subject to sway by many forces, all making that number sway in the direction of "oh yeah a stronger signal won't kill you." and by no means every swaying in the direction of "this might make some people ill."
Wrong. There are extensive exposure studies all over the world, none have found any adverse health effects within the recommended ranges.

>We're seeing this right now with the push to install 5G infrastructure everywhere, as 5G is VERY clearly unsafe for humans.
You're very clearly lying.

>>10065762
>I know X is harmful because government scientists told me do
>therefore when government scientists tell me Y isn't harmful they must be lying
Brilliant argument. By the way, did you know that napkins are making you sterile?

>>10065303
Yeah

>>10065344
>Turned out fine.

no...

>>10065991
>Try clicking the link and reading.
I didn't even have to, I know the pattern. I just skimmed it and I responded correctly. ICNIRP guidelines are not protective and we've known this since the 70's. Refer to my sources.

>>10065981
>Hypofield conditions change the behavior of the system
>Hyperfield conditions change the behavior of the system
This is an example of a process with inputs that do not have a relevant threshold. So yes, the geomagnetic field is biologically active.

>>10067531
>I didn't even have to, I know the pattern.
OK I guess I don't have to respond to anything you said either, since I know the quack pattern. You cite known quacks like Martin Pall who were blaming everything on MSG before he switched to EM. None of the actual research cited contradicts the conclusion of the WHO that there is no consistent evidence of adverse effects from EM in the recommended ranges, so I guess you agree. It's just exaggeration and speculation and then the inevitable conclusion that EM causes all that ails us. Fucking quack.

>>10067625
>You cite known quacks like Martin Pall
Every time you say this, and every time you don't substantiate it.

>None of the actual research cited contradicts the conclusion of the WHO
This is false.

Demonstrate that you aren't muddying the waters, or go away.

>>10067642
>Every time you say this, and every time you don't substantiate it.
Ironic considering every time you claim WiFi is OBVIOUSLY UNSAFE FOR HUMANS you don't substantiate it.

There is basically no pseudoscientific syndrome that Martin Pall doesn't claim to have proven to exist or have the cure for (and he'll even sell it to you! just don't be upset when you pay $120 for a bottle of useless vitamins):

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Aerotoxic syndrome
Chronic Fatigure Syndrome
Fybromyalgia
Oh and he's a vitamin D nut too!

Basically he was a no-name microbiologist, stopped publishing real research in the 90s, and this is all he's done since 1999, pure quackery outside his area of expertise.

>This is false.
This is false. Wow so easy, thank you for showing me a superior debate style.

>>10067717
>you don't substantiate it.
Explain that.

>There is basically no pseudoscientific syndrome that Martin Pall doesn't claim
>[List]
Those are all real. If you have a problem with the idea that they exist, address that instead.

>pure quackery outside his area of expertise.
He did his undergraduate in physics and doctorate in biochemistry. Meanwhile, you say nothing of the pure physicists and engineers who jump in and comment on biochemistry and biophysics, including experimental methodologies they have no expertise in, and readily get behind their baseless and naive assertions.

It goes both ways, guy.

>Wow so easy, thank you for showing me a superior debate style.
I'm not sure what you expected. You got a whole bunch of sources and clearly read none of them, then said "nope" and all caps'd for a bit here and there. Like, what?

>>10067780
>Those are all real.
>Aerotoxic syndrome
Oh, I read this as anorexic syndrome. I haven't heard of this one and can't comment on it.

>>10065303
excuse me this is a gender insensitive topic, im calling the international human rights brigade to shut you down buddy

>>10065303
My mom had me at 45 and I'm retarded

>>10065514
Why would it?

>>10067825
Because it's been shown to do so.

>>10067780
>Explain that.
I already have.

>Those are all real.
They're all fake according to medical science. I know, I know, it's all a big conspiracy.

>He did his undergraduate in physics and doctorate in biochemistry. Meanwhile, you say nothing of the pure physicists and engineers who jump in and comment on biochemistry and biophysics, including experimental methodologies they have no expertise in, and readily get behind their baseless and naive assertions.
I agree, let's only listen to the actual experts. Too bad they all agree that none of these are real.

>I'm not sure what you expected. You got a whole bunch of sources and clearly read none of them, then said "nope" and all caps'd for a bit here and there. Like, what?
No, that's you did when you ignored the wikipedia article and all its citations. You're the one validating these debate tactics.

>>10067832
No it hasn't, see >>10065390

>>10067849
See:
>>10065716

>>10067844
>I already have.
You haven't.

>They're all fake according to medical science.
This is false, even when restated repeatedly.

>Too bad they all agree that none of these are real.
This is false. Read above, refer to the bioinitiative report, refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics, refer to the National Toxicology Program, refer to IARC.

Refer to:
>>10065719
Describe the scene when you walk into Adey's lab, stroll on over and start telling him how it all really is, and how you have it on good authority what's what. Adey might have had this to say:
"Do these EM fields constitute a health hazard? Based on available epidemiological data and laboratory studies, it has become increasingly clear that these fields acting either alone or in conjunction with chemicals that occur as environmental pollutants may constitute a potential health hazard. Much has been accomplished in the past decade in establishing a firm base of new knowledge, despite a grave and growing lack of research funds and also entrenched and often self-serving attitudes among influential groups who have denied the possibility of adverse effects, based simply on their a priori positions.

Potential hazards of these fields relate to athermal tissue interactions where tissue heating is not the significant factor in the observed effects. By definition, ionizing radiation is not involved. From a public health aspect, we should recognize at the outset the principal nay-sayers against the potential health hazards of athermal EM fields.
[...]

>>10067873
[...]
Engineers have taken the view that if it cannot fry the subject, it cannot hurt him. Physiologists have maintained that equilibrium phenomena, which they have believed to be the prime determinants of excitation at cell membranes, would not be influenced by such weak fields and therefore that they are of no physiological significance. Physicists not sufficiently informed in nonequilibrium long-range interactions and the vast burgeoning of new knowledge in quantum mechanics in their chosen field have stoutly maintained that these fields are too weak to disrupt even a hydrogen bond by an increase in thermal energy. All three views are erroneous because they ignore the fundamental importance of highly cooperative processes in biomolecular systems, based on long-range atomic interactions in nonlinear, nonequilibrium electrodynamics, and the quantum physical interactions that now emerge as the key phenomena in biomolecular systems.

Tissue interactions with electromagnetic fields have been widely studied in terms of two quite different endpoints: their thermal effects and ionization of atoms in biomolecular systems. Only recently has it become apparent that major biological interactions also occur in the absence of either significant heating or ionization. Ionizing radiation poses hazards to living organisms through its destructive effects on key macromolecular systems. It is implicit for ionizing radiation that it have sufficiently high photon energies to disrupt the atomic organization of the exposed macromolecular systems. Since EM radiation with wavelengths longer than the ultraviolet region of the spectrum (photon energies less than about 12 eV) does not possess sufficient energy to cause ionization, there has been a persistant view in certain areas of the physical sciences that nonionizing EM fields are incapable ofinducing bioeffects other than by heating.
[...]

>>10067880
[...]
This inadequate view overlooks the existence of cooperative organization in biomolecular systems and the profoundly important role that cooperativity appears to play in the detection of tissue components of nonionizing EM fields (4). The nature of these interactions is so far removed from the concepts and models that have guided research in ionizing radiation that expertise in the latter area can offer little in the search for underlying mechanisms. Equilibrium thermodynamics and the classical models of the statistical mechanics of matter appear equally inappropriate in their applications to most key questions on the biological effects of nonionizing EM fields.

Moreover, far from a limited biological significance restricted to considerations of potential hazards, the imposition of weak, nonionizing EM fields has proved a powerful tool in understanding both the sequence and the energetics of transmembrane signals initiated by hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters, and chemical cancer promoters at cell-surface receptor sites. We shall note that cell membranes function as powerful amplifiers of their first weak interactions with both EM fields and humoral stimuli, and that, as revealed by field effects, these interactions are nonequilibrium in character. They are consistent with quantum processes involving longrange interactions between electric charges on cell surface macromolecules. Since these studies have shown similar sensitivities in a wide range of tissues and cell types, we conclude that these electrochemical sensitivities may be a general biological properties of all cells.
[...]

>>10067883
[...]
Cells in body tissue initiate weak electrical and chemical signals by which they can "whisper together" in a private language necessary for the normal health of the tissue. Ifthis normal pattern ofcommunication is interrupted, unregulated cell growth may result. On the other hand, unregulated growth of cancer cells in culture is arrested when they make contact with normal cells; they may then differentiate once more into normal cells.

WR Adey - Joint Actions of Environmental Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Pollution in Cancer Promotion, 1990

>>10067873
>>10067880
>>10067883
>>10067887

tl;dr jesus Christ the shit you post is more boring and worthless than public affairs on c-span

>See:
>>10065716
None of these show adverse effects in humans. The only one that claim to show it are by the same crank who is misrepresenting his citations.

>>10067904
Yeah, in vivo DNA breaks in humans is totally fine. Same with having cells with genetic damage that look like they just got 1500 chest x-rays, while having DNA repair systems greatly inhibited for the next 72 hours after a 1 hour exposure.

Also, you didn't just read multiple 300+ page dense books and symposium proceedings, so don't give me any of that.

>>10067873
>You haven't.
I have.

>This is false, even when restated repeatedly.
It's not, are you delusional or just a liar?

>This is false. Read above, refer to the bioinitiative report,
Never heard of it, I bet it's a quack report.

>refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics, refer to the National Toxicology Program, refer to IARC.
Refer to them yourself. None of them support your mentally ill paranoia.

>Refer to:
>>10065719
>While Davis would argue that there is a proven, causal link between cell phones and tumors, Lai does not.
I see you learned how to misrepresent your sources from Martin Pall.

>>10067915
>Yeah, in vivo DNA breaks in humans is totally fine.
Yeah it is, it literally happens in all of your cells constantly. EMF barely effects it.

>Same with having cells with genetic damage that look like they just got 1500 chest x-rays, while having DNA repair systems greatly inhibited for the next 72 hours after a 1 hour exposure.
Why not make it 15,000,000 chest x-rays, it sounds better.

>Also, you didn't just read multiple 300+ page dense books and symposium proceedings, so don't give me any of that.
I don't have to read everything you post if most of what you posted is misrepresentations and crap. And you haven't read the thousands of pages of studies that found no significant effects.

>>10067926
>Never heard of it, I bet it's a quack report.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/

>Refer to them yourself.
>NTP
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/ntp-rf-peer-review
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8425056
https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/
>AAP
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520942152.pdf
(https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?bureaus_description=Office%20of%20Engineering%20and%20Technology&express_comment=0&limit=100&offset=0&proceedings_name=03-137&sort=date_disseminated,DESC)
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Electromagnetic-Fields-A-Hazard-to-Your-Health.aspx
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/AAP-Recommendations-Fact-Sheet-3.pdf
>IARC
Well known and self explanatory.

>>While Davis would argue that there is a proven, causal link between cell phones and tumors, Lai does not.
Refer to Lai's subsequent work, esp with Singh. We're not exactly on the cutting edge of current events here.

>>10067938
>And you haven't read the thousands of pages of studies that found no significant effects.
I'll read -all- of the literature, regardless of its reported result. Why do you think I know so much about the history? If what you were saying was true, I would have read everything Milton Zaret came out with and ignored all of Brookes Airforce base / Brenda Cobb's research.

Read Martin Pall's paper above. It's a good summary of why certain experimental designs get the results they do. That is, why a reverberation chamber has minimal effect but open space irradiation or an anechoic design does. Also, look into the history of the use of waveguides and horn antennas.

>EMF barely effects it.
This is false., the rest is misrepresented. Research double strand breaks.

>Why not make it 15,000,000 chest x-rays, it sounds better.
That figure is in reference to a comet assay. It's not about sounds.

>I don't have to read everything you post
I think you're just looking for excuses not to read anything.

>>10067960
>http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/
I called it.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/

>>NTP
""The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents' whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage," said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist."

>>AAP
This just says nothing has been shown and more research is needed.

>>IARC
"Possibly carcinogenic"

So none of these agree with your claim that EMF is harmful and all agree with the WHOs claim that no adverse effects have been shown. Palled again!

>Refer to Lai's subsequent work, esp with Singh.
Like what?

>>10067965
>I'll read -all- of the literature
I don't believe you, you're not listening to it.

>Read Martin Pall's paper above.
He's a quack with zero credibility, as are you for citing him.

>This is false., the rest is misrepresented. Research double strand breaks.
Your own paper shows almost no effect.

>That figure is in reference to a comet assay.
It's in reference to some junk science, no doubt.

>I think you're just looking for excuses not to read anything.
I think you're gish galloping and cherrypicking.

>>10067960
>Refer to Lai's subsequent work
"I don’t think the BioInitiative Report came up with any unanimous conclusion. Each author wrote his/her chapter and the opinion in each chapter is that of the authors alone. There was no communication and discussion among the authors on the preparation of the Report. As a matter of fact, I don’t personally know some of them." - Henry Lai 2013

>>10067980
>https://sciencebasedmedicine.org
Pseudoscience site. Didn't even skim. This is science, not politics, and I have better things to do than read an assortment of blogging cranks.

Highlight key points if you want them addressed.

>The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience
Bear in mind the units you're working with. It'd be nice if they'd just stick to reporting power density in air, peak power, and their method of measuring, including any time averaging, but instead we're stuck with SAR. You'd have to dig into their method of determining and calculating the nonuniform energy deposition in rats, considering their differing size and properties as an antenna. Read the link less selectively.

Overall, the study design follows in the spirit of the tri-service commission, just more drawn out. They can't justify very low intensity exposures with the kind of costs involved, and a suitable success is showing an effect at levels where they're claimed to be physically impossible. This is exactly what occurred.

Another important point, they used a reverberation chamber which depolarizes the wave. They're treating it as a toxin instead of replicating real world exposure, and in the process rendering it less active. A wave with uniform distribution does not reflect real world exposure, and research several decades old has shown such fields to be less active. And it still shows significant results, well I'll be.

>"Possibly carcinogenic"
Should have been upgraded long ago. The literature is in agreement, though you wouldn't know about that.

>Like what?
Go on pubmed, and look at his activities in relation to the bioinitiaitve report.

I don't like the debate structure and doubt its efficiency or usefulness. Just know that I don't expect or really want an immediate response, or necessarily a response at all. Forget about me. Take the time and read.

>>10067988
>I don't believe you, you're not listening to it.
Well, what can you say. Moving on.

>He's a quack with zero credibility, as are you for citing him.
You said it again, but didn't substantiate it. Old patterns die hard.

>Your own paper shows almost no effect.
Which. I cited hundreds.

>It's in reference to some junk science, no doubt.
You're arguing for your religion, not about truth. If this isn't the case, then go find out. Watch the second youtube link, she mentions one such paper within the first 5 minutes and to my recollection provides the source.

>I think you're gish galloping and cherrypicking.
I think you're just sitting down thinking 'bout nothin', looking at the thin air, breathing up the oxygen.

>>10068026
>Pseudoscience site.
BAHAHAHAHAHA OH THE IRONY

>NTP says that these findings can't be extrapolated to human cell phone usage
>But I'm going to extrapolate them to human cell phone usage
You lost, get over it.

>Should have been upgraded long ago. The literature is in agreement, though you wouldn't know about that.
So basically you agree that none of these sources say what you claimed they said, you just desperately wish they said it.

>Go on pubmed, and look at his activities in relation to the bioinitiaitve report.
He basically said the report is crap. Why only read one cherrypicked part of one cherrypicked report when you can read all the reports:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31625/InTech-Evaluations_of_international_expert_group_reports_on_the_biological_effects_of_radiofrequency_fields.pdf

Oh because it doesn't get you the result you desperately want to be true. How unfortunate.

>>10068026
>Pseudoscience site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science-Based_Medicine
"Science-Based Medicine is noted as an influential and respected source of information about medical controversies and alternative medicine.[4][5][6][7][8]"

Nice try, liar.

Meanwhile your source is not getting a lot of respect:

“In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields.” -Health Council of the Netherlands

>>10068039
>You lost
Says it all.

>So basically you
It's all about you, guy. The conversation cannot continue until you've read the literature in question and the papers it cites. Go to the mediafire link and read some of the stuff. Unless it's too much for you, and since it takes longer than a few minutes while you skim for a response to think you "won", it probably is.

>He basically said the report is crap.
Based on what, this?
>>10067996
Your interpretation is crazed.

>Why only read one cherrypicked part of one cherrypicked report when you can read all the reports:
Couldn't have said it better. Linking my post to get you started.
>>10065716

>Oh because it doesn't get you the result you desperately want to be true.
You have to realize what a bizarre thing to say that is. Well, of course you don't.
As for your link the name on it is familiar. I've probably read it already, and I'll get to it later.

>>10068048
>It's said that everyone respects them, and so do I
Hopeless. There are few sites with a higher concentration of veritably false claims masked in group-think and shoddy rhetoric. Its only value as a source is in keeping apprised of what the broader system is doing.

And just so it's clear how this is going to go, any further posts that don't directly pertain to the literature provided will be ignored. We've gone through your attempts to attack the credibility and character of the authors, as well as manufacture a disposition they've not provided themselves, and other tactics.

Now it's time to get down to business.

>>10068061
>Says it all.
Yes, it does. Thanks for admitting defeat.

>It's all about you, guy. The conversation cannot continue until you've read the literature in question and the papers it cites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
The conversation has already ended, you lost.

>Your interpretation is crazed.
A report written without any structure, methodology, or consensus is not a report at all. Just a collection of quack opinions.

>Linking my post to get you started.
>>10065716
I already responded to this crap.

>>10068067
>Many reputable sources say it's respected, but that's not enough
>I (a lone quack anon) said it's pseudoscience, so you must accept it
Why do all quacks lack self-awareness? Is this a common trait that one must have in order to become a quack? I guess if you were self-aware of how stupid you are, you would not actively display it.

>>10068073
Sure, as soon as you respond to every single piece of the vast majority of research on the subject, which has found no adverse effect. Until then, I will continue to sort through what should and should not be payed attention to based on the credibility of the source and the quality of their methodology.

>>10068076
The vast majority of research finds effects, which are in general pathological. Industry manipulation of the scientific process and the literature is common and well documented. Of particular relevance here is the organizational structure and methods of Phillip-Morris.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770318
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446868/

You've been directed to some other sources of differing results, or had them explained to you, with a few left unmentioned because you really don't seem interested in the niche aspects of the field. Provided are literature of the tri-service and project pandora era, which is necessary in understanding the shift in interests and sources of funding. Look into projects like Seafarer and Sanguine for a lens into this time.

Anyway, I'm going to go do other things now. Have a nice time while it lasts.

>>10067832
show me, I still have to see a good paper, with repeatability, that shows this.

>>10065560
well i barely made it with education, got my architecture degree at 30 yo after many years of effort, maybe it took too much cause im already kinda retarded, but id dint live my life so you bet now im gonna live my life and then have kids when im 35-40 with a 25-30 yo girl, so if you dont like my retarded family youll have to come and shoot it up yourself

>>10065746
i bouhgt each of my three children a house and a car, i have a house myself and a car i share with my wife, i am the economogenetic superioir majority upper class so walk on hom boy

>>10068101
>The vast majority of research finds effects
The vast majority finds no effects. This is an especially strong result since studies which find no effects are generally less likely to be published than those that do, and bad methodology can lead to confounding factors causing an effect. See

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31625/InTech-Evaluations_of_international_expert_group_reports_on_the_biological_effects_of_radiofrequency_fields.pdf%20%20Oh%20because%20it%20doesn't%20get%20you%20the%20result%20you%20desperately%20want%20to%20be%20true.%20How%20unfortunate..

> Industry manipulation of the scientific process and the literature is common and well documented. Of particular relevance here is the organizational structure and methods of Phillip-Morris.
Epidemiological studies proved tobacco was carcinogenic in the 50s. This was widely accepted in the 60s. Here epidemiological studies have consistently shown no effects from EMF, so there is nothing to suppress. You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming that EMF is like cigarettes, when you only know the latter is harmful due to scientific consensus. In reality, they have nothing in common.

>>10068939
>The vast majority finds no effects.
Go do some of your own reading.

>This is an especially strong result since studies which find no effects are generally less likely to be published
This is not universally true, and is especially false in the EMF field. A quick keyword search will show how many papers are negative, using their titles alone.

>and bad methodology can lead to confounding factors causing an effect.
This is a general statement and you won't ever go into specifics either because you don't actually know what it means, or because you realize it doesn't actually help your case. eg failure to account for magnetic fields from incubators used in in vitro studies, or the placement of metal objects in the lab. Other confounders involved in retrospective population studies have been discussed to death and handled from every angle you can imagine. They don't require further discussion here, especially if you're someone who's actually read the literature.

>Here epidemiological studies have consistently shown no effects from EMF
False.

>You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming that EMF is like cigarettes
Those studies pertain to the operating methods of Phillip-Morris, which telecom conglomerates have been working with since the 2000's. Something you know, since we've talked before.

>>10069501
>Go do some of your own reading.
So you have no response to the research.

>This is not universally true, and is especially false in the EMF field. A quick keyword search will show how many papers are negative, using their titles alone.
Biomedical safety studies are the most susceptible to publication bias. The high amount of negative papers despite this shows how lacking in evidence your position is.

>This is a general statement and you won't ever go into specifics either because you don't actually know what it means, or because you realize it doesn't actually help your case.
"The literature is filled with low-quality fishing expeditions in search of effects (as opposed to studies that tested hypotheses). Many of these studies were one-shot experiments, that were not followed up or even repeated by the investigators themselves. Many studies have obvious technical flaws, typically poor dosimetry (determining how much exposure the preparation actually received in an experiment) or poor temperature control (heating is a necessary consequence of RF exposure and most biological reactions are sensitive to temperature). Many of the reported effects were small, close to the level of background variability and small compared to potential artifacts (and hence difficult to identify reliably), with no particular relevance to health."

>Other confounders involved in retrospective population studies have been discussed to death and handled from every angle you can imagine.
Yeah, and unfortunately for your argument, the strongest controlled studies show no effects.

>False.
False.

>Those studies pertain to the operating methods of Phillip-Morris, which telecom conglomerates have been working with since the 2000's. Something you know, since we've talked before.
If they were using the same operating methods then they must be failing badly, as the tobacco companies did. Not to mention that it's comparing epidemiology in the 50s to what it is now is idiotic.

>>10069595
>So you have no response to the research.
It's not "research", it's PR and it's guilty of many of the criticisms it levies against other sources. Namely cherrypicking, no clear definition of sampling criteria, and misconstruing sampled data. It's also a familiar brand of double-speak that harkens back the WHO's environmental health criteria 16.

Example:
>2.26 The Austrian ministry of health (2009)
>The ministry states in a brochure that there is no scientific evidence that cellular phones are hazardous to man.
>The brochure yet recommends a reasonable use of a mobile phone and limited use by children.
Why? I know why.

There are some notable omissions, particularly the country with the oldest safety standard. Russia. Also omitted is the entirety of Eastern Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. Asia is also omitted. Why? Because with the exception of Poland which only slightly relaxed their standard, these countries follow the USSR standard, which has received only minor tweaks since the 1940's and is 1000x lower than much of the west.

This is a game, I know how it's played, and I know how you'll play it. I don't bother with these supposed protection bodies because they're political organizations with clear systematic biases and interests which unfolded decades ago and have remained pretty much the same. I've followed this history and I'm not working strictly from the present, and the reader which intends to understand how the world works shouldn't be either.

>>10070773
The reader should refer to the RNCNIRP, and the history of safety standard development. Those processes are reviewed in the mediafire link above.

Also, direct from someone with a key role in standards forming, starting with early dosimetry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884

>>10070773
And speaking of the WHO, back in the day when research by Carl Blackman, Baranski, and Bawin / Adey was fresh in people's minds, amidst a document that bizarrely asserted that certain effects "had to be via thermal mechanisms, with no substantiation, they had to concede that phenomena like the Ca2+ efflux studies were "difficult to explain by thermal mechanisms". These days people have forgotten, so they don't even mention it, and since the thermal vs athermal distraction's utility has faded, they scarcely go there either. There's no need.

That's how things evolve over time. This stuff is never short term and all that's happened is the people who understood best what was what have either died, gone inactive, or otherwise retired. Glaser was one of them, he had a whole storage unit full of old papers that were just sitting there molding. He stated that he was approached many times by telecom representatives, or people he suspected were affiliated with telecom, offering to take or purchase the papers. He refused stating that he believed they would bury them.

Adey remained active until his death in 2004. I believe it was the EPA that stated his stance was too extreme and controversial for their report, stripped it, and haven't released it to this day. The WHO's early documents on microwaves, a documented completed ~1982, remain classified to this day. Martin Blank remained active until his death earlier this year. Louis Sleslin has documented just about every development in non-ionizing radiation since 1980, and remain somewhat active.

Listen to people that have watched this for the last 40+ years. Don't stop at the official authoritative bodies that are pretty much a black box where you can't even infer its total inputs half the time.

Glaser, early 1970's.

>>10065303
Nem!

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/mapnatreps/RUSSIA%20report%202008.pdf
http://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_03_01_WHO.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ef5/ecff2e2ca8a9847b5bc39e5ae6449d2c0acc.pdf

More on the WHO.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

>>10070773
>It's not "research", it's PR and it's guilty of many of the criticisms it levies against other sources. Namely cherrypicking,
If it was cherrypicking it would not have included your quack report.

>no clear definition of sampling criteria
It clearly defines the sampling criteria, you obviously didn't read it and are yet again lying. It's clear who is following the facts and who isn't in this discussion. If you were you wouldn't need to constantly lie.

>and misconstruing sampled data.
What was misconstrued?

>Why? I know why.
I don't think you understand how examples work. Examples illustrate your point. They are not an excuse to restate your baseless speculations and conspiracies.

>There are some notable omissions, particularly the country with the oldest safety standard.
Funny how you would understand what was "omitted" if you actually read the methodology section that you claimed doesn't exist.

>I don't bother with these supposed protection bodies because they're political organizations with clear systematic biases and interests which unfolded decades ago and have remained pretty much the same.
All you've done throughout this thread is exhibit a clear systematic bias. If every scientific protection group is not credible you are certainly not credible. Again, you are severely deficient in self awareness.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
This guy is completely incompetent, he uncritically adopts the conclusions of the Bioinitiave Report which has already shown to be pathological science.

>>10072580
>If it was cherrypicking it would not have included your quack report.
It was included to provide contrast and a platform to explicitly criticize certain types of work. It's window dressing.

>It clearly defines the sampling criteria
No, it doesn't. Unfortunately I did read it, though admittedly not as carefully as other documents. All you've got is this:
>We found 33 expert group reports that were devoted to health effects of radiofrequency fields and that were published in the period 2009-2011.
"Expert group" is not defined, the window of time seems arbitrary, they didn't define what constituted a report, and they didn't define their search method.

Many countries in Eastern Europe and Asia routinely put out documents, and the RNCNIRP is probably one of them in the specified time frame. Though it's possible they deliberately avoided that.

>What was misconstrued?
This is addressed in my post.

>They are not an excuse to restate your baseless speculations and conspiracies.
Padding your posts with empty accusations is not effective dialog. We can do better.

>Funny how you would understand what was "omitted" if you
As above.

>All you've done throughout this thread is exhibit a clear systematic bias
You try to put things on a field where you think you can "win", then get mad when you didn't understand the topic enough to use this tactic effectively. You've demanded I address your literature and shown no sign of having read mine.

>This guy is completely incompetent, he uncritically adopts the conclusions of the Bioinitiave Report which has already shown to be pathological science.
That's all you can say about him? He's been publishing for the last 20 years in peer reviewed journals of one of the more brutal, high stakes fields of science. Given the level of knowledge you've displayed I hardly think you're an adequate judge of competence.

>>10065303
>suddenly scientists and other professionals aren't going to have kids
>most people who have kids in their early to mid twenties are fuckups
congrats you fucked the world dumbass

>>10072602
>It was included to provide contrast and a platform to explicitly criticize certain types of work. It's window dressing.
So what other quack groups released reports between 2009 and 2011?

>"Expert group" is not defined
It's "expert group reports that were devoted to health effects of radiofrequency fields."

>Many countries in Eastern Europe and Asia routinely put out documents, and the RNCNIRP is probably one of them in the specified time frame.
Funny how AGW deniers also always bring up Russian quackery to support their denial.

>This is addressed in my post.
Where?

>Padding your posts with empty accusations is not effective dialog.
So how is it an example?

>You try to put things on a field where you think you can "win", then get mad when you didn't understand the topic enough to use this tactic effectively. You've demanded I address your literature and shown no sign of having read mine.
I read more than enough. And again, this Gish gallop tactic won't work since I could demand the same of you, and you have a lot more to read.

>That's all you can say about him? He's been publishing for the last 20 years in peer reviewed journals of one of the more brutal, high stakes fields of science.
Spewing crap for 20 years is still spewing crap.

>>10072692
>So what other quack groups released reports between 2009 and 2011?
Doesn't make sense in relation to what I said.

>It's "expert group reports that were devoted to health effects of radiofrequency fields."
Ignoring parts of posts you don't can't respond to. Empty responses that even an AI could generate.

>Funny how AGW deniers also always bring up Russian quackery to support their denial.
>It doesn't matter, it's weird, it's probably wrong, and it's irrelevant. Why? Because it's RUSSIAN.
This one is funny because it brings us all the way back to 1970-1980. In the mediafire link read the Warsaw Symposium proceedings and proceedings of the Health Implications of MW or whatever I titled it. This is the exact view that surfaced occasionally. It was thoroughly destroyed as Russian studies were replicated in the decades that followed.

>Where
Refer to what follows "Example:"

>So how is it an example?
Above.

>I read more than enough.
Funny how you never speak in specifics.

You've read nothing other than the pseudoscience, myths, and junk you've been shoveled full of, which you regurgitate glibly on demand. Anon, for your own sake and your own self respect, stop doing this. Forget about me. Do some reading. Get your shit together.

>Spewing crap for 20 years is still spewing crap.
The same could be said about you and your trusted resources. ;^)

>>10065303
No because then industrialized countries would all have the same problem Japan has

>>10065772
~~~ ~~~
~~~WHOOSH~~~
~~~ ~~~

>>10068114
lol

Yo so I see all this harmful EM wave shiz, but can someone condense it into a brainlet version, what these guys are on about, why the nutty guy thinks what he does about EM? I don't care enough to read all that text. I'm expecting a "fk you" in reply, which is what I deserve, but idk, maybe someone is actually keeping up and can summarize.

>>10074142
EM is literally radiation
people are scared of it because of that, worried it'll cause cancer like UV radiation and stuff
but, it's non-ionizing radiation
that means, from a QM view, each photon has too little energy to knock any electrons off of their atoms, meaning it doesn't. so it can't cause trouble in that way, even when UV radiation does

>>10074149
wifi and cell phones are non-ionizing, but not ALL EM

>>10065344
>Also, my mother had me when she was 34. Turned out fine.
You're lying, I know you're lying because I'm also the off spring of older parents.
stop promoting something that will damage more people than you can imagine.

>>10074158
You’re a fucking retard. I know you’re a fucking retard because, while the risk of complications increases past the maternal age of thirty, the majority of children born to women over thirty are entirely normal.

>>10065560
>>Banned from enrolling in any tertiary education except for post tertiary education and professional courses
Only change I'd make is that they are banned from any gov assistance when enrolling in education.
This would allow them to retrain if they become redundant but still holds them accountable for their own decisions.

>>10074142
Refer to the "no reading version" above,combined it's like 30 minutes.

The gist of it is the following.
Extracellular space = highly conductive salts and ions trapped between extremely good insulators, the plasma membrane of cells. A roughly 40 angstrom barrier with a voltage of ~-40mV, which for a resistor that size, is fairly massive. This space is a very good conductor. You have the following:
movement of charge groups in the extracellular space(probably magnetically induced as the body is transparent to magnetic fields)->electric field->alignment of nearby charge groups in the corresponding plane->interaction with the charge groups in the calcium channel's voltage sensor, which is designed with two charge groups which have to move int he same direction at the same time which is to resist false positives from thermal noise->activation of calcium channels->influx of Ca2+ from VGCCs, NMDA receptors, etc->activation of calmodulin, some protein kinases eventually->increased generation of NO and superoxide->this eventually overwhelms endogenous mechanisms of handling this, calcium pumps are energy intensive and can't operate quickly enough, there's no way to internally buffer the calcium->NO and superoxide react to form peroxynitrite at a rate ~5x faster than superoxide can be dealt with by superoxide dismutase (SOD). Action of SOD creates H2O2 which is generally dealth with using the glutathione system. Glutathione is eventually depleted, gluthione peroxidase / reductase activity drops, free radical production increases. Radicals damage the cell, many of which diffusing readily out of the membrane and wandering to cause havoc far and wide.

Other mechanisms involve trafficking of iron. Free iron should generally go to ferritin, magnetic fields prevent them from moving to each other effectively. Magnetic fields on stuff like magnetite will generate a high intensity local magnetic field which can alter the spin state of local radical pairs.

>>10074172
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248324/

>>10068114
>if you dont like my retarded family youll have to come and shoot it up yourself
if you're as dumb as you say you are, no one will have to go shoot it up, you all will probably fuck yourselves up.

>>10074149
Yeah, just like explosives can't exist because the energy of the electrical signal to detonate them can't possibly cause that much destruction.

Assassination is impossible because the visible light reflected off a piece of paper can't possibly have the energy to organize a complex system like the human brain, or blow someone's head apart.

>yfw a world without transduction and amplification

>>10074158
This post doesn't make sense. Sorry things went wrong for you, but personally, and statistically, that just isn't.

If it makes you feel better though I have digestive problems, like most people these days, and trigeminal neuralgia. The latter of which probably was caused by a few things, and to my knowledge there's more of a sex correlation than age of parents.

>>10074178
>you all will probably fuck yourselves up
sure little buddy, sure. The world is made of billions of retards who can barely function, its the smart peopl who are at a disadvantage