They don't even get fined ? Anyone can do this and just get a slapped wrist for being a lying bunch of shitboxes ?
The anti-phone brigade has been ticked off by the Advertising Standards Authority for running posters declaring that a phone in blokes' jeans could ruin their genes. The posters, which ran in the toilets at service stations and shopping centres, claimed that "medical experts" are warning that a mobile phone can turn chaps …
YOU will be doing the Gene Pool a great favour by removing yourself from it.
were not all nutters BTW.
A lot of those suffering from MicroWave-Sickness are Techies!
Quite a few are EX-Telecoms personnel, who have due to exposure to work related RF Emissions have been permanently disabled by it.
The Symptoms are not pleasant and are aggravated by re-exposure to Pulsed PF fields such as 3G and WiFi.
The Mass Push to roll out (Politically friendly front page news) so called SMART METERS is an easy (but very expensive mistake) as they are not green and wont save power in the long run.
Poisoning everyone with ElectroSmog is not GREEN and will just increase the profits of those PharmaTek that manufacture products to fight Dementia/ADHD/CANCER/CFS/ME/Cronic Insomnia and other related degenerative conditions which are merely a symptom of a sickening population being poisoned at the Genetic Level.
Is it our fault that the communications industry is hell bent on discrediting anyone with views that would effectively put them out of business and into bankruptcy when the real dangers are finally published in full, (which is slowly being carried out by a few dedicated scientists.)
The DoD/MoD and other eastern and western Military have long known about the dangers through lab experiments and practical real world exposure of their Personnel whilst working with Radar and other RF weapon systems. (the Papers from such were published in the 50's, 60's and 70's, but were ignored by anyone outside of the Industry)
The Pro-Comms lobby lot would rather these reports were burned and forgotten.
The Seti Lot have long wondered why they cannot hear anyone out there (in space) quite simple really, an intelligent race gets to analogue RF broadcasting, then discovers digital, gets it genome burnt and either switches over to fiberoptics thereby going dark to outgoing RF transmissions or goes extinct due to too much genetic damage having been inflicted on its population.
Looks like we are going the latter route....
1 Fairly Harmless inhabitable Planet for Sale, Free to anyone Interested in Moving In.
"The Seti Lot have long wondered why they cannot hear anyone out there (in space) quite simple really, an intelligent race gets to analogue RF broadcasting, then discovers digital, gets it genome burnt and either switches over to fiberoptics thereby going dark to outgoing RF transmissions or goes extinct due to too much genetic damage having been inflicted on its population."
or that space is vast, and the chances of us pointing our telescopes at the exact spot to pick up weak signals are quite slim? nah, must be a some sort of conspiracy
While you make some interesting comparisons, you appear to be totally failing to spot the major flaw in your argument. That flaw is simply this: The systems you mention all output radiation at levels that are many times greater than those output by mobiles). In the case of Radar, it can be many thousands of times greater. The human body is actually rather efficient at coping with small doses of most forms of radiation, even if they are constant. Hence we've been able to deal with the Sun for all this time.
When using a mobile, your body is dealing with milliwatts of radiation. When dealing with Radar or Mobile telecoms base stations, your body would be dealing with Kilowatts of radation, possibly even megawatts. Levels 1,000,000,000 times higher than mobiles.
At least compare like with like..
I once was on-site at several powerful broadcast transmitters (~ 100KW) many years ago and remember a sign which went something like this:
HIGH-POWER RADIO-FREQUENCY FLUX BEYOND THIS POINT. NO METAL OBJECTS MAY BE CARRIED FURTHER. YOU MAY NOT ENTER THIS FACILITY IF YOU WEAR A PACEMAKER OR MEDICAL PROSTHESES WITH A METAL CONTENT. UNEXPECTED EFFECTS MAY OCCUR.
Even so, the few tens or hundred milliwatts emitted by my phone isn't going to do me any harm. This advert is complete tosh.
Mobile phones do not cause cardio-vascular problems.
They can interfere with pacemakers and if you have one of these you are given instructions on what to avoid. This includes:
Mobile phones near the pacemaker (you can use one but you are recommended to use the ear opposite to the pacemaker).
Magnets near the pacemaker.
Airport scanners (you are given a card to show them at the airport. They can then lower the power settings or manually search you).
I wonder if the ASA are prepared to do anything about the signs at the front of some churches that similarly make claims which 'lack [the] empirical evidence that most "experts" would require', to the effect that non-believers are doomed, or that attending their services give us access to something spritual?
Or is it one rule for product-bullshitters and another for sky-fairy-bullshitters?
cos if you don't accept it, the Clerics/Muhlahs/Priests will condemn your soul to hell.
and a large crowd of the their Faithfull followers will come round and beat you until you decide that you made a mistake in your heathen views or just kill you just to make the point.
Quote: "I wonder if the ASA are prepared to do anything about the signs at the front of some churches that  attending their services give us access to something spiritual?"
The problem with the EM Radiation Research Trust advertising is that appears to be making a statement of scientific fact backed up by, "empirical evidence that most "experts" would require", when, in fact, it does not. If the trust had made it abundantly clear that this was the opinion of its members, and that it was not backed up by the scientific community as a whole, then it might be accepted.
It seems to me that any statement about anything of a spiritual nature is - by definition - not a scientific statement, given that science is concerned with the material world, which can be made manifest to our senses (in some form or other) and subjected to repeatable, verifiable tests. However, if a religious group made statements which are materially measurable, e.g. "perform [insert religious practice her] and you will become wealthy", then I think they might be exposed to the same scrutiny.
Picture if you will the offending advert from the article with "Medical experts" replaced by "Religious experts".
I doubt that the ASA would have taken issue with that version, nor would anyone have given it any credence. Amazing thing, context - just one adjective shifts your expectation of the claim that follows.
I've yet to see a sign outside a church containing the word expert. There probably is one, but I'm willing to bet it's used within a bad pun context (Expert Teas?) and thus will not incur the ASA's "wrath". Use of the word Jesus doesn't trigger an empirical expectation for most people.
I'm pretty sure the ASA don't allow religious advertising which involves threats or material promises of salvation.
As to services giving "us access to something spiritual", surely it's possible a service *may* give you access to something spiritual - not necessarily an objective thing, but a thought, a feeling, something personal? Well, not *you*, obviously, but someone?
In any case surely organised religion is so tied up with notions of the collective, and the group, that assuming a given church wasn't a nuisance, no responsible lawmaker would really want to ban all that, which brings a bunch of people together and gives them a sense of community in this atomised age (Scientolologists and other cynics excepted)?
We are the Canaries...
We are the few that can actually feel the cancer growing (in us and in society), whilst all of you are carrying on oblivious to it, until you are diagnosed with Terminal Cancer or other Fatally Degenerative Disease, by which time its too late...
The Sheep(you lot!) are too timid to think for themselves(or do the grunt work and research) and actually stand up and say "hang on, what if this is really true and we are on the road to hell (or the abattoir) for the false idol of high technology", but a lot of those that know the truth are afraid to stand up as they know they will be ridiculed (didn't Jesus have the same problem.)
All your false hopes in high technology are going to see...
is the results of your CAT/MRI scan that confirm you have an un-curable CANCER of the brain etc, and you have not long to live.........
"All your false hopes in high technology are going to see...
is the results of your CAT/MRI scan that confirm you have an un-curable CANCER of the brain etc, and you have not long to live........."
I would have gone for a CAT/MRI scan, but it was too high tech for me. I will wait for a CAT/MRI scanner to be developed that is made from stones and woolly mammoth pubes.
quote: "The Sheep(you lot!) are too timid to think for themselves(or do the grunt work and research) and actually stand up and say "hang on, what if this is really true and we are on the road to hell (or the abattoir) for the false idol of high technology", but a lot of those that know the truth are afraid to stand up as they know they will be ridiculed (didn't Jesus have the same problem.)
All your false hopes in high technology are going to see...
is the results of your CAT/MRI scan that confirm you have an un-curable CANCER of the brain etc, and you have not long to live........."
If you'd be so kind as to provide comparitive strengths between mobile phone output, and ground-level background radiation, plus average (at the planet surface) background radiation during a solar flare (solar maxima?), and show me that a mobile phone is in fact more energetic over time than the background radiation(s) that the species has been subject to for millions of years, then I will be happy to investigate further into a conspiracy theory.
Given that every so often a large enough solar flare is predicted that "might disrupt communications and electronic equipment across the globe" I suspect that the ouput from the Sun is far more capable of destruction than the backround of anthropogenic radiation that we are certainly subjected to on a daily basis. Even when taking our "natural defenses" of a large localised magnetic field into account, we are parked 1AU away from a supermassive nuclear furnace, and have been bathed in EM radiation since life formed on the planet. I am not convinced burning my balls with a mobile will necessarily be substantially more damaging to me than just going for a stroll in the summer sun without taking sunscreen with me.
Of course if there is substantive proof that (for instance) solar flares and cosmic radiation are in fact half as energetic at the skin as a mobile phone, then I will be far more inclined to investigate further :)
"We are the few that can actually feel the cancer growing"
That reminds me (somewhat loosely) of the story about the entire village who complained of RF sickness following the installation of a mobile base-station in the area. Many complaints were made to the operator, who eventually had to make it clear to these hypochondriacs that the thing hadn't even been turned on yet!!!!
Can't find the link, but the University of Essex were able to reproduce it in a study - http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/mobile-phone-masts
"concluded that short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions"
is far more reasonable and balanced a conclusion than
"cancer clusters, clusters of ill-health, depression and even suicide" had been found in proximity to the masts and other wireless sources of microwave radiation"
which reeks of scaremongering!
You are also well aware, I suppose, of the intense radiation and energy being hurled at the entire planet (well half at a time) by our own sun? Orders of magnitude higher powered than what we are pumping out?
But still, don't let numerous _empirical_ studies get in the way of your beliefs!
Will Piss them off even more.
It's at that point their Highly Paid horde of over paid Lawyers, In-Pocket Scientists (who will prove the moon is made of cheese and JFK shot himself in the head in Dallas) and Spammers will be all rolled out to suppress any negative news articles or views that their glorious product or technology will not save the world.
Funny how all the anti phone campaigners on here are too frightened to reveal even a nickname.
If you want highly paid lawyers, there must be a few hanging around the anti-phone campaign. After all, if you are right (not that I think you are), then the phone companies are willingly exposing millions of people to danger. Then add in all the various electrical companies (after all, cables must be leaking all sorts of radiation). Just imagine if these "victims" aunched a legal action against the Companies. Any lawyers involved would make millions.
Finally, if you have *proof* that the phones are dangerous, produce it. Be prepared to answer questions with something other than references to sheep and vague references to companies covering up some unknown "truth" though.
it just seems to be the Anonymous Cowards who are screaming about the evils of technology (The irony of using an electronic device to put out these 'warnings' seems to be lost on them), not those willing to identify themselves (ok, of a fashion my name isn't really EyeCU). Who would you class as a Spammer?
The Bomb as I suppose you lot think that is all science is good for. You do tend to point it out whenever you are decrying the evils of science.
I don't imagine that having a 3G/4G/wi-fi antenna next to your balls does them any good, either.
We know that radiation in high doses is damaging - it's kinda common sense that radiation in small doses might be *ever-so-slightly* damaging, though at levels which are much harder to detect. We've got a lot more research to do before anyone can conclusively say RF signals are 100% safe to human tissues.
Here's a recent story about laptop wi-fi possibly affecting male fertility: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15943816
I suspect you're not from a scientific background. The word covers a broad spectrum of phenomena (I'll get my coat.) Just read the wikipedia description. First thing to think about is the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation.
Or, just remember not to use light-bulbs at night, just in case that extra 'radiation' may be slightly damaging you. Can't be too careful.
Phones put out the most radiation when making a call or using the internet. In those cases it will be next to the ear or in the hands respectively. Hence, not damaging to fertility.
Heck, I've yet to see any proof that talking on phones a lot causes any problems for gods sake. The last edition of this information I read said the tests were on exposed sperm. Exposed sperm don't last long even if you do nothing, never mind cooking them with a phone.
"Exposed sperm don't last long even if you do nothing, never mind cooking them with a phone."
So...you're saying that I'm wasting my time filling my fishtank with them then? Oh well, there goes my infertility insurance policy.
Does, um, anyone know if it's legal to dispose of 80 litres of semen down the drain in one go?
"No damage to fertility" - quite likely, if there's any danger anyway in the first place.
But it's clearly damaging to their hearing and to their intelligence, because most of those victims of Continuous Phone Use In Public Places seem a) to be shouting a lot, as if the phone itself isn't working and they must bridge the distance vocally, and b) to be just talking about anything at all, seemingly for the sake of talking.
The EHS Test (no, really - source http://www.radiationresearch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=30)
Do you suffer from:
Numbness, weakness or prickling sensations in your joints or limbs
Feelings of abnormal tiredness or weakness that cannot be explained by your life commitments
Changes in your ability to think clearly or finding it difficult to concentrate, depending on where you are
Aches and pains, cramps or muscle spasms in your joints, bones and muscles in your shoulders, arms, legs, feet, wrists, ankles, elbows and pelvis. Fibromyalgia
Sleep disturbance, insomnia
Feebleness, dizziness, tremors
A tendency to skin redness, itchiness, rashes, tingling or dry skin
Abdominal pain, digestive problems, irregular bowel movements, sickness
Feeling too hot, fever
A smarting, irritating sensation, a pain, or a feeling as if there is grit in your eyes. Blurred vision or flickering before the eyes
Nosebleeds or blood pressure changes
Heart arrhythmias or irregularities, palpitations or chest pain
Toothache or neuralgia
Hearing clicks, humming, buzzing, hissing or a high-pitched whine
Sensitivity to light, especially fluorescent lights or computer screens (sometimes, though rarer, even daylight)
Bouts of unusual irritability, rage, violence, destructiveness, feeling hostile
A generalised feeling of impending influenza that never quite breaks out
‘Missing time’, blackouts or convulsions
This may as well be an 'are you alive' test.
Solar radiation is taken to be up to 500 W/m2 when doing sizing calculations for oil platform flares (350 W/m2 max in UK).
API 520 has an interesting list of how long it takes to burn at different radiation intensities.
Oh yeah, that's mostly IR rather than microwave, of course, which is more energetic (IR that is). Although IR doesn't excite the molecular bonds in water like 2.4 GHz microwaves do...
I just checked. API 521 (520 is for sizing of relief valves) 5th ed. states solar radiation = 790 to 1040 W/m2. My previous nos were in Btu/h-ft2, for other criteria.
It gives time-to pain thresholds of 1740 W/m2 for 60secs, 6940 W/m2 for 9 secs and 19870 W/m2 for 2 secs, amongst others.
In Aberdeen yesterday the sun was acting as a heat sink, so 3.5 W/m2 for Newcastle sounds about right...
It so happens that 790 W/m2, impacting on yer ear, gives about 2.4 W/ear
It shall be put to use in future trolling attempts.
But really, I blame the popular press administered in unhealthy doses to people who are psychologically incapable of correctly - quantitatively or qualitatively - gauging cause-effect relationships, paired with paranoia. Something with "people with different needs" of the mind.
I have a colleague like that, locks on to any unlikely stuff you can find as long as it flies in the face of reality. If in the quiescent phase, she tries to push bizarro ideas on why Quantum Mechanics is wrong and can actually be explained by <pet hidden variable theory that makes no use of mathematics whatsoever and must therefore be correct>. She was going full antivaxer during the last flu flap, with claims about nasty holocausty tricks to reduce population count.
It's true, because the world's population is reducing, as is evident to anyone with eyes to see ... oh, wait: errrr ... 7 billion the most people ever, isn't it? Ah - the population figures MUST be false to cover up the fact that the UN/Illuminati/lizard people/Zionists/grey aliens/military industrial complex are trying to kill us all!*
*Just in case it is needed, I swear and affirm that this is sarcasm.
That's the signs that used to around the upper deck exit hatches anyway....
Might have been an order of magnitude or eight higher on the power though.
909 Radar in full smegawatt mode never made me that keen to find out.
And it was always the first thing to be triple checked if I was going aloft.
All I can say is, peer reviewed science or not, I get a weird tingle in my right leg if I put my phone in my pocket. It doesn't do it on the left, nor if I put it elsewhere. My belief is that this has been caused by years of carrying my phone around in my right pocket.
As a techie, I suspect newer phones are less damaging than their older brethren, so this is less likely than it used to be. Even if the risk is 1%, I'd say that it's worth being careful not to damage your swimmers DNA, because you won't know you've done it until years after exposure.
As for why the lack of science, well, I can't see many people queuing up for field trials, can you?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019