Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like some more data on those charts. The source does not appear very unbiased, and the person who made the chart is a lecturer on nuclear policy, what are his qualifications?
I'm also curious why smart meters would need to use so much more power than a cell phone... I'm also curious why certain types of radiowaves are apparently fine (solar radiation), whereas man made radiowaves are bad. I ask this, because we get nailed 24/7 with high levels of solar radiation, and yet people are worried about smart meters.
I provided links. No one is unbiased. Though time consuming good to read the data, how it is captured and implemented and who pays for it. That is why I included different kind of links.
I suggest you read up on both the organization who did the study and the individual that corrected the report. His point is however obvious. Compare apples to apples. They simply appeared to copy brochure data for that w/ such a blatant anomaly.
Is the power company still responsible for maintaining the lines?
nope, only if I call them or they call me 1st. I own the line from the outside pole right up to my home. the line came down last year after we got straight line winds, i didnt call the company, they came by 3 weeks later after they called me to say when they would be over. until then it just stayed on the ground.
nope, only if I call them or they call me 1st. I own the line from the outside pole right up to my home. the line came down last year after we got straight line winds, i didnt call the company, they came by 3 weeks later after they called me to say when they would be over. until then it just stayed on the ground.
If they came out and repaired the line, I can all but guarantee you the easement exists.
That's not a peer reviewed study. It's a blog post that analyzes the results of other studies, all of which appear to be meta-analysis, which has it's own problems.
The WHO and others recognize it as a carcinogen, like lead.
Only the one study was peer reviewed. No it wasn't a direct link to the peer reviewed study. I didn't claim the others were. The "theory" is hardly outdated. All things are biased including science. That is a given. Yes it should be considered.
You seem all to willing to make health choices for others. Not everyone agrees. Wireless is actually fairly new and so are studies on its effects which is why I said relatively new.
- Generally speaking, information on the authors is available for any legitimate study.
- Hirsch has either not submitted his findings for peer review, or it was not accepted. I checked EBSCO, PubMed and MedLine.
Did you even look at what the report was referencing and who did it? Peer review wasn't even an issue w/ this. Pretty black and white. I in fact did read the report. There are issues with it. Why I posted both links.
This is a corporate council report not a peer reviewed study. One that was mixing different units of measurement to present a graph. Only peer review needed for that is an elementary education. All he did was go through the report and point out these areas.
There are all kind of studies, peer reviewed or not. Science and people do not agree on safety. Therefore they should have some choices. You may think it is all settled, but plenty do not agree with you.
There are plenty of studies like this that show just short term effects, never mind long term. Safety simply is assumed for things that people will be exposed to long term.
Here's one with significant findings. They are all over.
Did you even look at what the report was referencing and who did it? Peer review isn't even an issue w/ this. Pretty black and white.
This is a corporate council report not a peer reviewed study. One that was comparing different units of measurement. Only peer review needed for that is an elementary education.
Where do you see a comparison on a graph using different units of measurement? What exact units of measure were used (and which were different) for each of the 6 different devices: Cell Phone, Microwave, Smartmeter 3, Smartmeter 10, WiFi, Radio?
Oh, and skimming through the report your linked blog links to, the supposedly wrong chart he looks at and "corrects" isn't even found in there.
Last edited by hammertime33; 09-18-2012 at 12:40 PM..
Only the one study was peer reviewed. No it wasn't a direct link to the peer reviewed study. I didn't claim the others were. The "theory" is hardly outdated. All things are biased including science. That is a given. Yes it should be considered.
When some of these studies start standing up under legitimate peer review, then we can talk.
Quote:
You seem all to willing to make health choices for others. Not everyone agrees. Wireless is actually fairly new and so are studies on its effects which is why I said relatively new.
Actually, I'm just pointing out that the science here shows there is no verifiable health risk. Trust me, I've been down similar roads regarding things like aspartame and vaccines. There are lots of people out there who are, to put it kindly....quacks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
