Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2011, 06:30 PM
 
23,534 posts, read 69,968,609 times
Reputation: 48962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijai View Post
I was being silly.


Harry Chickpea, to compare California to Nazi Germany is offensive, ridiculous and informed by attitude and ignorance.
You may think that California (a huge, diverse [culturally and naturally, ie; it's ecosysems] besieged / overly impacted by people, and chaotic state) is crazy but the intentions of Californian's and California law makers (very misguided as they may often be) have nothing to do with the annihilation of their fellow human beings and is not born of ill will, hatred and evil. Duh!
The vitriolic attitude people have about California is fascinating.

Though i call myself a "science dummy" i have, over the years, come to appreciate those scientists (that i listen to and read) who are not only objective, intelligent and articulate, but who are free of attitude and despite their extreme intellectualism, have good hearts and genuinely care about their given field of expertise and how their knowledge may best serve our human and planetary plight.

All i was asking for was a scientifically informed answer to the question about lead as a barrier of protection against the potential health risk of the smart meter ... not all of this ridiculous and arrogant and juvenile attitude.
Sweetie, I was being silly too, although I do get upset at the "State of California". Apparently you missed that.

As for California lawmakers... You do not want to know the words that come out of my mouth when, in Alabama, if I buy a box of bolts, there is a paper inside informing me "The STATE OF CALIFORNIA has determined that this product..." BS. Total friggin BS..

The state of California is a limited political system with a defined boundary. Last time I checked, states were not sentient, nor did they have the power of discrimination to determine what common items may be used with relative safety in every situation. Nor did they get the power reserved for the Federal government, to determine what people in other states can or cannot do. California legislators, who are so busy passing nanny-state laws that they can't balance their checkbook, seem to think differently. I say sig hiel because they do act like storm troopers, stomping on the rights of citizens. Don't even try to give me that "comparison to Hitler" crap. I know more about WWII, WWI, and the various issues than 95% of people in the U.S. What was done in WWII was relatively blatant. What is being done with "good intentions" in California is far more dangerous and insidious for the bulk of the population. That is a different topic for a different time and forum.

As for your original condescending question, ("boys and girls" indeed), if you want to use the Quaker lower case first person, fine, but understand the purpose and attitude required to pull it off.

You stated that you are a science dummy. OK. A lot of people do not know much along those lines. Better to admit it and learn, than make false claims. You then continue, quoting an electrical engineer who hasn't figured out that the Faraday cage in a microwave prevents microwave radiation, and become frightened when he claims that smart meters pose a risk (mind you, not a great one in his mind, but a moderate one).

Here we get to the point where I can show you how such nonsense works against you and your health.

Can we agree that stress and worry are not good for your health? There is a tremendous amount of literature, both in mainstream and alternative medicine to that effect. I don't take things at face value, but over the years, I've come to agree that negative stress is bad. I also think that minimizing stress is a positive thing you can do for yourself and I can do for myself.

When someone comes along and says "You should be frightened of..." there are a couple of possibilities. There could be a real and imminent danger. There might be a drunk driver this person is warning you about. Knowing about that driver will increase your stress level slightly, but make you more likely to avoid a major pileup. That is a decent warning. Then there are people that see danger where there is none, or the danger is so infinitesimal as to be non-existent. You Ken Jenkins is giving that type of warning. Literally, you are damaging your health more by fixating on such minutia, than you are by ignoring it entirely.

What posts like Jenkin' promote is free-floating anxiety. That same type of free-floating anxiety is promoted with constant TSA warnings, the old air raid drills we used to have, the fear California legislators have about traces of metal in bolts, and so on. None of that anxiety is healthy.

You obviously do not understand how the radio spectrum works at different frequencies. I've no problem with that. It can be complex. What bothers me more is that there are people out there like Jenkins, who should know better, who make pronouncements about safety, while indicating to those of us with even basic knowledge that they fit the "science dummy" definition better than you.

You made a decision to take a quote from someone with an extreme point of view, a rabble-rouser, and post it in a forum where such stuff is not appreciated. The outcome was foreordained.

I did check the link. I did read his post. I did note that some of what he was saying had some truth in electronic theory, but that the bulk of his conclusions were overblown. BTW, I used to help my father build radio stations. I know a teeny bit myself.

So, if California wants to tell me what type of bolts I can use, and the fellow you quoted wants to tell me to be frightened, jaijai, I'm going to express my own views. I might not have the power of a bankrupt state behind me, or the certainty afforded by junk science, but I have something more powerful on my side of the debate table - those who try to tear down or legislate reason and common sense will always ultimately run up against the laws of nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2011, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,190 posts, read 6,831,675 times
Reputation: 2076
I think, as i may have misunderstood you, you misunderstand me.
And i didn't quote the guy that wrote that article.
I only provided a link to what i thought was a fairly balanced take on the smart meter issue as a point of reference because i thought that his explanations seemed sound but i wasn't using him to make any case.
I have no case to make! I just asked a simple question.
And i purposely used his article, which seemed to me to be balanced, as a way of showing that i'm not one of those hysterical people who are "afraid of their own shadow".
But i am sensitive and i do care about my health and the health of my dog (who just survived a bout with cancer) and i try to follow both my intuition and any sound information that is out there.

Now i will quote him:
(my underlines)

"If the meter happens to be directly on the other side of a wall from one's bed, or any other place where one spends hours a day, then some concern is warranted. But such close proximity is not a common configuration in most houses, apartments or businesses.

Thus PG&E's estimate of a Smart Meter being 1/6000th of a cell phone is likely in the right ballpark, primarily due to the profound difference in proximity. The Smart Meters are simply too far away from most humans most of the time to be a risk to anyone but the most sensitive of people.

All that said, we should have the right to choose. A cell phone (or cordless home phone) is a choice, but electricity has become a necessity. Choosing to opt out, however, should come with a willingness on the part of the customer to pay the extra cost of the manual checking of old-style meters, a time-consuming labor with high transportation expenses.

It saddens me to see so much activism energy dissipated on a relatively minor problem, based on little understanding of EMR risks in general, and of this Smart Meter radiation risk in particular. Thus I am taking the time to share this information. What is needed is not a major crusade limited to this one minor contributor to electro-smog, what is needed is more education about the principles of radiation risk briefly outlined here, and about the full range of risk factors. With such education, relative risks can be evaluated, and actions taken to reduce them.

We live in a sea of electromagnetic radiation from many sources. The relative risks and contributions of each radiation emitter can be evaluated with the relatively simple method and formula explained here, so we can personally manage and minimize health risks."

It seems pretty obvious to me that the guy isn't fear mongering but rather sharing some information in order to alleviate paranoia and any over-reaction to this issue.
Did we read the same article?
Or did you just assume that, because i have some concern, i posted an article to support my fear and therefore read it with attitude and presumptions?

Since i and my dog live in a one room cabin and spend a great deal of time at home and, needless to say, sleep in the space, i simply wanted to find out if i could hang one of those lead aprons on the wall opposite the smart meter in the case that there is some EMR that is harmful.
What is the problem with a simple and functional solution to a potential health risk?
I haven't read the links that the other poster provided (i'm hoping there's something in one of the links that directly answers my question) but i still haven't received an answer from any poster but instead, a lot of energy has been expended on these posts challenging the notion that these smart meters may pose some health risks.
I'm not freaking out or fretting or stressing about it but rather just trying to be skillful as i'd rather be on the safe side.
I've openly admitted that i am not educated about the science involved in this issue and made no false claims as i didn't (and don't) make any claims.
I simply asked a question about lead as a protective barrier.
And good lord, the "boys and girls" was the 16 year old high schooler in me that was addressing a group of people that i thought were students of science regardless of their age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 10:11 PM
 
28,803 posts, read 47,514,684 times
Reputation: 37905
Now that all the supposedly level-headed science forum posters I used to respect have beat the crap out of this poster, can any of you be a decent person and answer the question? Will a lead shield like those used by dentists and doctors shield him from the radiation (or not) from one of these meters?

It doesn't matter if the radiation is harmful or not. If the OP has a concern about it and wants a way to possibly protect themselves who are we to act as a "nanny state" and try to protect him from buying the lead shield if it would give them peace of mind?

Jeez, Louise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 10:15 PM
 
15,913 posts, read 20,125,686 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
Now that all the supposedly level-headed science forum posters I used to respect have beat the crap out of this poster, can any of you be a decent person and answer the question? Will a lead shield like those used by dentists and doctors shield him from the radiation (or not) from one of these meters?
Did you see the link I posted back in #5?

How can I shield my Smart meter?

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding of Smart Meters

Also in Post #5 there is another link:

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding

And in this link it has a section:

Why can't I just use lead or copper or aluminum foil for magnetic shielding?

So to answer your question, yes the OP has already had his question answered.

Last edited by plwhit; 07-03-2011 at 10:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 11:11 PM
 
28,803 posts, read 47,514,684 times
Reputation: 37905
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Did you see the link I posted back in #5?

How can I shield my Smart meter?

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding of Smart Meters

Also in Post #5 there is another link:

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding

And in this link it has a section:

Why can't I just use lead or copper or aluminum foil for magnetic shielding?

So to answer your question, yes the OP has already had his question answered.
And I feel silly because I missed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,190 posts, read 6,831,675 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
Now that all the supposedly level-headed science forum posters I used to respect have beat the crap out of this poster, can any of you be a decent person and answer the question? Will a lead shield like those used by dentists and doctors shield him from the radiation (or not) from one of these meters?

It doesn't matter if the radiation is harmful or not. If the OP has a concern about it and wants a way to possibly protect themselves who are we to act as a "nanny state" and try to protect him from buying the lead shield if it would give them peace of mind?

Jeez, Louise.
Thank you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2011, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
2,190 posts, read 6,831,675 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Did you see the link I posted back in #5?

How can I shield my Smart meter?

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding of Smart Meters

Also in Post #5 there is another link:

Frequently Asked Questions: EMF Shielding

And in this link it has a section:

Why can't I just use lead or copper or aluminum foil for magnetic shielding?

So to answer your question, yes the OP has already had his question answered.
I will read the page again but i did not see anything about using lead but i will go and read it again.
(i'm a her)
I didn't even know that there were such things as shields so i was trying to come up with my own solution and was wanting to know about lead as a barrier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2011, 12:45 AM
 
23,534 posts, read 69,968,609 times
Reputation: 48962
Au contraire, Tek_

My railing against the issues with California (the state government - NOT the people) and my railings against fearmongerers are probably the most caring thing jaijai has received here. I really don't give a rattus rattus derriere as to how well that information is received.

I did read the post by Jenkins (I believe it was the same one the poster cited), as I mentioned previously. I did note serious problems with the position and facts. I did point out a much more real possibility. I did all of that while castigating the theories and eco-nut positions that supported it and NOT castigating the poster. The one issue I had with the poster was the initial tone of the first post, and I only had an issue with that after the direct response to me seemed to be going in a direction that I will not tolerate.

Tek, I address this to you directly. It is an example. You read somewhere that according to an unknown engineer of unknown credentials "You need to be concerned that the radon radiation from water in your plumbing and hot water tank could be dangerous." You then come to this forum and ask, because you simply do not know better, "Will a shield of pecan shells protect me?" Should I then have to accept the premise that the radon in your water pipes will harm you, even though you use and drink the water? Should I say the that "The shield of pecan shells will protect you." to alleviate your fears within your narrow sensibilities? Or should I say "No, the shield will NOT protect you, because there is no real radiation" and have you dismiss my response out of hand because I have not agreed with your flawed initial premise? Or should I instead attempt to educate you that the risk from radon in water (and there IS a minute amount) is simply not a valid concern? I think my responses through. I'm aware how people deflect to continue to save face or hold cherished fairy tale ideas.

If you were a simpleton, an uneducatable imbecile, I might say, "Yes, it will protect you." I would do that to relieve you of the stress you might otherwise cause yourself. I hold you and jaijai in higher regard than that. I believe in the possibility of learning. I do NOT believe that idiocy deserves ANY serious regard, especially when it is presented concurrent with a resistive and combative attitude in an attempt to bully agreement with erroneous premises.

As I said, it matters not to me how I am regarded. The laws of nature will hold forth. If you find my response callous, and my example to you even more so, then the disservice you do is not to me, but to yourself. Sometimes challenges can be unpleasant. Sometimes that is what is required to reach beyond a mental barrier.

Now, so no one misquotes me - Yes, there is naturally occurring radon that can be in drinking water. Where I grew up in Vermont, where granite was commonplace, those of us who passed junior high earth science knew that granite has natural radioactivity (the type of radiation that CAN be mitigated with lead shielding). Our water came from formations that contained granite. It was NOT worth worrying about.

BTW, I fully understand that I may have so alienated jaijai that I will be disregarded (for now at least) anyway. Be aware that I never write public responses only for the person posting. Sometimes the lurkers can be more important.

My best to you, my best to jaijai.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2011, 06:35 AM
 
15,913 posts, read 20,125,686 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijai View Post
I will read the page again but i did not see anything about using lead but i will go and read it again.
(i'm a her)
I didn't even know that there were such things as shields so i was trying to come up with my own solution and was wanting to know about lead as a barrier.
The article explicitly tells the reader exactly what to use to shield yourself from the RF emissions of a smart meter and you STILL insist on lead

In the How can I shield my smart meter is tells you the best materials to use for the shielding:

Quote:
Which materials do you recommend?
Reflectors:
Fabrics such as RipStop Silver and Ni/Cu Ripstop are good choices.

Absorbers:
Laminated MW Absorber is a convenient, 48 inch wide film that is very low cost and easy to install.
Quote:
So where should I put the shield? And how much area do I need to cover? First, the shield must be positioned BETWEEN you and the source of the radiation. Generally, this means that the shield will be placed on the interior surface of the wall adjacent to the Smart meter. Think about the Smart meter emissions as coming from a light bulb located at the meter, and the shield casting a shadow. Cover enough wall so that the people would be in the protective "shadow" cast by the shield.




Quote:
So which one is right for your situation? In a hypothetical world where your Smart meter is the only source of RF radiation, either type of shield would work well. However, in the real world, there will be multiple sources of RF radiation. Some of them might be right inside your own home. Some might be coming from other directions. In such a situation, if you use a reflecting material, it will reflect on BOTH sides, and you could end up increasing the amount of RF in your living space. On the other hand, if you use an absorber, it will absorb on BOTH on both sides, so you cannot increase your exposure. If, you use both materials, a reflector on the side closest to the RF source, and an absorber on the side closest to the living space, you get the best of both materials... and the absolute lowest RF transmission. Any small amount of Smart meter signal penetrating the reflector will be absorbed by the absorber. Any signal coming from the opposite direction will have to paSS through the absorber, then reflect off the reflector, and finally pass through the absorber again before it re-enters the living space. This would be a very small amount indeed.




I'm outta here...........

Last edited by plwhit; 07-04-2011 at 06:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2011, 07:08 AM
 
15,913 posts, read 20,125,686 times
Reputation: 7693
Follow-up/FYI

Spent the last half hour or so looking around the web on the dangers of the RF emissions from smart meters and came up with this:



Radio Frequency Exposure from Smart Meters Very Low, Says Study - EBN: 20:4

I also found other web sites that say the emissions from a smart meter is dangerous.... Some of those web sites also claim CFS light bulbs, laptops, cellphones, microwaves, bluetooth devices, in fact ALL wireless devices are also dangerous to one's health.

Oh well, I remember other experts telling me exposure to a computers CRT caused sterility, was in front of them daily for 20 years and had 4 kids......

Last edited by plwhit; 07-04-2011 at 07:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top