View Single Post
Old 09-27-2009, 06:01 AM   #45 (permalink)
blueflame
Master EcoModder
 
blueflame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 333
Thanks: 7
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
The depth of this division is apparent to the general public and has led to a sharp d

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
You know, this really puzzles me. Here you have people worried about the remote possibility of health hazards from EMFs, even though there are plenty of studies showing that if there's any effect at all, it's undetectably small. At the same time, they're apparently not the least little bit bothered by the fact that they're sitting just a few feet from a tank full of a poisonous and highly flammable chemical, which they must refill at frequent intervals, exposing themselves to this extremely hazardous substance while potentially allowing substantial amounts of it to be released into the environment...
I think the above statement is untrue. And its a faulty syllogism

Fuel hermetically sealed from me in double auto skins, doesnt worry me. And it shouldnt. Unsealed in my home and I'd be freaken. I dont walk/cycle main roads. My heart sinks when I see kids walk to school along main roads during rush hour traffic. I wear a gas mask on my scooter. No ****. I only drive traffic with car windows up, vents closed, and a/c in summer. Only opening windows when clean air is possible. I drive a lot. My exposure to exhaust gases in minimal. I seek to do the same with EMF's.

As of 2007, 76% of Euros think that cell phones are harmful. They could all be a bunch of drongoes in Europe, but I dont think so

Health problems from EMF pollution are well documented. It is just in its infancy, and you will get the knockers like those who say 'my dad smoked all his life and lived till 90!'.

Health problems from exposure to petrochemicals is well documented. 13% of people in the USA die from respiratory ailments. Few people worry about their lungs. And exposure to dusts and fumes needs better policing. Thats my thing, cause it made me sick some years back.

Some animal farmers have stock deaths beyond their neighbors with little explanation why, even today with scientific farming methods, and we are pretty good at that in NZ. Observing trees too, sickness and genetic mutations usually occur around pollutants. EMF's are a pollutant. We have many things we dont understand yet. My grandmother went mad working as a pharmacist (lead poisoning). I think it runs in the family

I quickly grabbed the rest online.

The investigation of the health effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) is unusual among most areas of scientific study in generating a distinct polarisation in attitudes among scientists. The depth of this division is apparent to the general public and has led to a sharp decline in the publics confidence in many scientific studies and related government pronouncements. For instance, according to research of 2007 in Europe, 76% of 27,000 people surveyed believe there are health dangers associated with mobile phones.1 In contrast, the 2007 UK government MTHR report declared that there was no health danger for the first 10 years use of a mobile phone, although admitting a risk of cancer and neurological illnesses thereafter. This degradation in the status of both the science and the scientists is becoming increasingly serious as human health is exposed to ever-greater threats from irradiation by non-thermal EMFs. Too often the absence of any proof of harm is wrongly assumed to show the proof of the absence of harm.

Government agencies admitting health risks from EMF's are prolific. Leukemia and power lines are common knowledge I thought?

You say "Here you have people worried about the remote possibility of health hazards from EMFs, even though there are plenty of studies showing that if there's any effect at all, it's undetectably small"

'Remote possibility', 'undetectably small' -really?
__________________

Last edited by blueflame; 09-27-2009 at 09:06 AM..
  Reply With Quote