Elizabeth May and her anti-WiFi crusade

[sammykp]

An Elizabeth May tweet about the dangers associated with exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) from cell phones and WiFi generated some heated debate this week...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/elizabeth-may-creates-twitter-firestorm-over-tweet-wi-194529099.html

Edited July 29, 2011 by sammykp

[Wild Bill]

An Elizabeth May tweet about the dangers associated with exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) from cell phones and WiFi generated some heated debate this week...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/elizabeth-may-creates-twitter-firestorm-over-tweet-wi-194529099.html

You know, I heard that May really wanted to be a scientist in school but unfortunately in science class her beans, stuffed in a jar of wet toilet paper, died almost immediately after sprouting. This derailed her scientific education and she was never able to get it back on track.

[Sandy MacNab]

You know, I heard that May really wanted to be a scientist in school but unfortunately in science class her beans, stuffed in a jar of wet toilet paper, died almost immediately after sprouting. This derailed her scientific education and she was never able to get it back on track.

Now she has a toilet paper mind - every time she uses it it comes up full of s**t.

[TimG]

You know, I heard that May really wanted to be a scientist in school but unfortunately in science class...

I find it incredibly ironic that many environmentalists lecture people about the 'scientific consensus' when it comes to AGW but ignore their own advice when it comes to many other topics including EMF, GMOs, Nuclear Power et. al. Edited July 29, 2011 by TimG

[Shwa]

An Elizabeth May tweet about the dangers associated with exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) from cell phones and WiFi generated some heated debate this week...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/elizabeth-may-creates-twitter-firestorm-over-tweet-wi-194529099.html

On what device did she "tweet" from?

[Wild Bill]

I find it incredibly ironic that many environmentalists lecture people about the 'scientific consensus' when it comes to AGW but ignore their own advice when it comes to many other topics including EMF, GMOs, Nuclear Power et. al.

That's because so many "environmentalists" have no actual scientific background. They're poly-sci or Arts students!

"Environmentalism" has become a church. Being a member allows you to call yourself one. With no background to help you understand any of the science involved you are free to spout your opinions AND BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE with no need to actually prove your beliefs.

If challenged, any reasonably bright "environmentalist" can defend himself with ad hominem replies, stating that their opponent doesn't "care" enough about the planet or when pressed to the wall they can say that those who argue against them are in the pay of evil rich polluting companies.

If the debate gets truly scientific there are lots of actual science types they can drag out but they don't usually do this unless it is a public enough debate or one of sufficient PR importance.

I'm NOT claiming that you have to have a string of university degrees IN SPECIFIC SCIENCES PERTAINING TO CLIMATOLOGY or whatever. I'm simply saying that you must have studied at least high school level "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, meaning "soft" sciences like botany or don't measure up.

Those people who dropped sciences as soon as they entered high school simply can't understand enough of the concepts to make an informed opinion. They will not be able to grasp all the answers but they should at least be able to get an impression of who and what seems credible.

Screeches about "evil polluting oil companies paying scientists to lie" should be a good clue.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

All those who tweet are twits - reminds me of a bunch of insects wiggling their antena..and letting off a scent...they all communicate and all stay the same - dumb.

[Boges]

I think we can safely disregard everything else she says from now on.

[Moonlight Graham]

I have to say i rarely ever use my cellphone, i carry it mostly for emergencies. It will be interesting to see in twenty years if all my friends are dying from brain tumours and get away scot-free!

[punked]

Not only is the science wrong, it is the same claim for why we shouldn't build windmills. Windmills put a certian frequency which can be "Harmful" to the brain and eyes. BTW that "science" is wrong as well but seriously she can't really support one pseudo-Science and not the other. Typical green party, eyes off the prize.

[Shwa]

LOFL! Fish, meet barrel.

That's because so many "environmentalists" have no actual scientific background. They're poly-sci or Arts students!

Do you have some hard, statisical data to back this statement?

"Environmentalism" has become a church. Being a member allows you to call yourself one. With no background to help you understand any of the science involved you are free to spout your opinions AND BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE with no need to actually prove your beliefs.

Since this statement is an advancement of your first, unproven, statement, I will assume you are trying to imitate a conclusion, rather than actually trying to "prove your beliefs."

If challenged, any reasonably bright "environmentalist" can defend himself with ad hominem replies, stating that their opponent doesn't "care" enough about the planet or when pressed to the wall they can say that those who argue against them are in the pay of evil rich polluting companies.

Are you in possession of any studies, research or hard, statistical data that can support your claim about how "reasonably bright environmentalist" can defend" themselves?

If the debate gets truly scientific there are lots of actual science types they can drag out but they don't usually do this unless it is a public enough debate or one of sufficient PR importance.

So, in other words, the environmentalist "science types" can "drag out" the debate, but their scientific credentials, knowledge, insight, etc. is not of sufficient utility to be important?

I'm NOT claiming that you have to have a string of university degrees IN SPECIFIC SCIENCES PERTAINING TO CLIMATOLOGY or whatever. I'm simply saying that you must have studied at least high school level "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, meaning "soft" sciences like botany or don't measure up.

Botany is a hard science, like all of the natural sciences. Also, you are forgetting that someone can be quite an expert in a limited scientific field, even IF they don't have ANY science degree or were not exposed to hard sciences in "high school." Some of these amatuer scientists are very useful to science. Thomas Edison comes to mind. You may have heard of him?

Those people who dropped sciences as soon as they entered high school simply can't understand enough of the concepts to make an informed opinion. They will not be able to grasp all the answers but they should at least be able to get an impression of who and what seems credible.

Are you in possession of studies or research that definitively proves that those who dropped high school sciences are incapable of learning them later in life or even understanding the implications of calculated conclusions?

Screeches about "evil polluting oil companies paying scientists to lie" should be a good clue.

Screeches about "enviromentalism" is an even BIGGER "clue."

Gawd Bill, seriously man, do you ever read what you post with anything like an objective perspective? Is that even possible with you?

Edited July 29, 2011 by Shwa

[Remiel]

That's because so many "environmentalists" have no actual scientific background. They're poly-sci or Arts students!

Are you next going to suggest that science students are robots with no understanding of humanity?

If we are going to rely on the technocratic argument, then in makes perfect sense that political science students should be the most ardent enviromentalists, because they are the ones that understand how colossaly screwed civilization could be by climate change.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Remiel

[Wild Bill]

LOFL! Fish, meet barrel.

Do you have some hard, statisical data to back this statement?

Since this statement is an advancement of your first, unproven, statement, I will assume you are trying to imitate a conclusion, rather than actually trying to "prove your beliefs."

Are you in possession of any studies, research or hard, statistical data that can support your claim about how "reasonably bright environmentalist" can defend" themselves?

So, in other words, the environmentalist "science types" can "drag out" the debate, but their scientific credentials, knowledge, insight, etc. is not of sufficient utility to be important?

Botany is a hard science, like all of the natural sciences. Also, you are forgetting that someone can be quite an expert in a limited scientific field, even IF they don't have ANY science degree or were not exposed to hard sciences in "high school." Some of these amatuer scientists are very useful to science. Thomas Edison comes to mind. You may have heard of him?

Are you in possession of studies or research that definitively proves that those who dropped high school sciences are incapable of learning them later in life or even understanding the implications of calculated conclusions?

Screeches about "enviromentalism" is an even BIGGER "clue."

Gawd Bill, seriously man, do you ever read what you post with anything like an objective perspective? Is that even possible with you?

I form my opinions from my own experience. All my life I have refused to swallow someone else's opinions unless they made sense to me. I seem to have been born incapable of simply bowing to authority. Authority has usually proven to be undeserved, again in my own experience.

For me, that is as objective as is necessary! It's my life and no one but me is responsible for my actions, so it's up to me accept or reject what I believe.

The reason why I don't include botany as a "hard" science as it doesn't really need much math. Again, I have formed the conclusion that while you don't need a minimum facility in math to be a good person, a musician, beautician or telephone sanitizer I've never found very many of these people to be very good at cause and effect arguments.

I feel even less shame in not being "objective" with environmentalists because virtually every one I have ever met, read or listened to fit my description to a "T". Again, I put my stock in my own experience. That of someone else may come from a mistaken impression or at worst a hidden agenda. If I know the individual well enough I may and often do put much more confidence in his or her experience but again, I have to know them well enough to establish a track record.

Frankly, that's one of the reasons why I consider so many of YOUR positions to be invalid! You tend to use the club of authority far too much for my tastes, such as "if you were as well informed as I AM you would know better!" This is also the reason why I stated previously that well I would certainly consider you a ferocious advocate for either the Crown or the Defense I would have very little confidence in your performance as a judge.

Anyhow, objective or not by your standards, I have my own opinions and I operate by them. I will never change them simply because someone else tells me to, without giving me a convincing argument first. As to who sets the definition of "convincing" why, I do, of course! Again, it's my life. If I simply swallowed every argument someone (like you, perhaps) gave me and you were wrong, who would suffer? If I bear the consequences then I should have the right to question the argument.

If my attitude bothers you so much, you could always put me on 'ignore'. I don't really think you are prone to do that, as the sarcastic tone of so many of your posts implies that you look at this board as simply a source for your amusement anyway.

Believe it or not, I'm here in a search for truth and with many of the posters I learn something and often change a belief or two. However, the reason why I so rarely agree with you is that it has always seemed to me that you care nothing for finding out what's true! You simply want an opportunity to insult someone, perhaps to make yourself feel superior.

That's just my humble, unobjective opinion, based solely on my own direct experience. As you have already explained to me how my direct experience is merely anecdotal and therefore never happened I'm sure you won't take exception to it.

[Remiel]

The reason why I don't include botany as a "hard" science as it doesn't really need much math. Again, I have formed the conclusion that while you don't need a minimum facility in math to be a good person, a musician, beautician or telephone sanitizer I've never found very many of these people to be very good at cause and effect arguments.

I am sorry but you are really putting the cart before the horse here. The core of " science " is not mathematics. Mathematics is merely a means of describing what has happened. But mathematics itself, being abstract, is very " soft " in a sense. Ptolemy had a very beautiful mathematical system of the solar system. It was not hard science. In fact, it just sucked.

[Wild Bill]

I am sorry but you are really putting the cart before the horse here. The core of " science " is not mathematics. Mathematics is merely a means of describing what has happened. But mathematics itself, being abstract, is very " soft " in a sense. Ptolemy had a very beautiful mathematical system of the solar system. It was not hard science. In fact, it just sucked.

You misunderstand me. Math is indeed abstract but it can very accurately describe the physical world. You don't need much math to be a botanist but if you did you'd likely have become a physicist or an engineer instead,.

Let's describe your "cart before the horse" example a bit differently. While A may equal B, B doesn't have to equal A.

Or more specifically, a physicist could also be a botanist but a botanist could never be a physicist, unless he had fair proficiency in math.

[TimG]

You misunderstand me. Math is indeed abstract but it can very accurately describe the physical world. You don't need much math to be a botanist but if you did you'd likely have become a physicist or an engineer instead.

The fact is a lot of science is based on this type of math called 'statistics'. This is a slippery form of math that allows anyone to fool themselves into believing any number of untrue things. I have seen many examples of physicists peddling dubious claims which they believe to be true because they have abused statistics.

IOW, following the scientific method requires discipline and you cannot seperate the good scientists from the bad by merely looking at their degrees.

Edited July 29, 2011 by TimG

[August1991]

"Environmentalism" has become a church.

WB, you may sadly be right.

I happen to think that we face serious environmental problems. And yet "environmentalism" (as you phrase it) is now defended by people like Elizabeth May.

May is worried about cell phones... when we should take a more practical approach to conservation.

[pegasus]

Here's a basic overview of the electromagnetic spectrum.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg

As is well known, cell phones and WiFi emit radiation in lower ranges of the microwave part of the spectrum. i.e. Visible light gives off more radiation than cell phones and WiFi.

Butterflies emit more radiation that cell phones or WiFi

[William Ashley]

An Elizabeth May tweet about the dangers associated with exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) from cell phones and WiFi generated some heated debate this week...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/elizabeth-may-creates-twitter-firestorm-over-tweet-wi-194529099.html

It is good to see someone who is profiled raise the issue.

Oddly I've had a lots of flowers grow this year and it is reassuring to see tons of bees every day in my yard.

Perhaps some plant some flowers or let the daisies and vetch grow campaign can be started.

------

It doesn't take a genious to realize that the more radiation (wifi waves are radiation) we have... the more effected by radiation we are.. radiation causes cellular decay/ cell abberance, and cellular DNA damage that can lead to cancer.It is not the sole cause nutrition / chemical interaction also plays a role.

It all has an effect although radiowaves are relatively low level.

http://enenews.com/cancer-risk-increases-with-any-radiation-exposure-says-experts-no-safe-threshold-for-radiation

“According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24147

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/20114219250664111.html

http://dcoda.amplify.com/2011/04/05/no-safe-levels-of-radiation-science/

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual’s risk for the development of cancer.

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/03/31/no-safe-level-for-ionising-radiation-as-cancer-cause/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/basics/glossary.cfm#e5

The process of emitting energy as waves or particles. The energy thus radiated. Frequently used for ionizing radiation except when it is necessary to avoid confusion with non-ionizing radiation.

Now answer the if an electron is a wave or a particle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

radionuclide /ra·dio·nu·clide/ (-noo´klīd) a nuclide that disintegrates with the emission of corpuscular or electromagnetic radiations. ~Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers

http://www.dorlands.com/aboutd.jsp

Radioactivity = The property of radionuclides of spontaneously emitting ionizing radiation. More detailed information is available on the radioactivity web page

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/radioactive-cell-phone.html

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation.

Energy is energy. The idea of particles leading to higher state particles even if not directly those particals that is non ionizing energy creating an increase in ionized energy is very much possible.

Also the dual nature of energy is that it also exhibits the capacity to act like a particle.

"The portion where the wavelength is smaller than the body, and heating via induced currents can occur (MW and higher-frequency RF)" So what if the energy hits when it is in particle form? whamo you can have a collision and energy increase leading to ionization. Heat equates excitation of particles. Excitation of particals leads to release of energy, which can mean release of ionizing radiation, esecially if weak/polar molecular bonds are broken by the heat itself as some composites may be effected or degrade due to a few degrees change of temperature. The human body only have a 4 or so degree variable level.. and heat can occur at a very small scale at very high temperatures without raising the global entity temperature. This means that yes it can effect things... especially if it interferes with smaller energy levels. or slightly higher energy levels. It can cause a chain reaction in emitting higher level energy. It took x amount of energy to blow up a hydrogen atom to create a very powerful release of energy. While the chances of spontaneous combustion or Akira effect happening are limited smaller scale things happen more often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion

http://www.google.ca/search?q=spontaneous+combustion+-human&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mCczTrKgJtK2tge15KGVDQ&ved=0CBkQsAQ&biw=800&bih=466

While the picture above may not be real... energy is energy, lower levels of energy do effect higher levels of energy.

Note this is measured in moles not particles...

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/ies.html

also we can't account for particles we don't know exist yet. (and they have to)

Just remember to eat some salt when you use your phone to save yourself. just to help a bit I suppose.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/03/18/china-deals-with-salt-panic-hangover-after-japan-radiation-fear/

Edited July 29, 2011 by William Ashley