[DoctorBeaver]

That article is concerned with transmission of signals across synapses, not mutation of DNA.

What I said about twins is that you can't compare them as they will not be subjected to the same environmental factors. That article says nothing to contradict my statement, so why the "Surprise, surprise"? Are you practising to be a Cilla Black impersonator?

[blaze]

Okay, then surprise surprise - here's your DNA damage...Section 6...

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

So the environmental factors involved in nicotine addiction are likely these exposures (and parasites) that are shared within the same households growing up.

[BenV]

I think the main contributing environmental factor is parents who smoke.

If EM radiation was as responsible for everything as you feel it is, why do so few people claim to be electro-sensitive?  If, as you claim, exposure to radiation is more important than genetic factors, why hasn't it been picked up in epidemiological studies?  It certainly would have, if it were true.  I'm not saying that radiation has zero effect on the body, just that you are over-stating it's effects, and it will be minor compared to the influence of genetics.

[blaze]

I love how all the non-smoker's have all the answers about what causes nicotine addiction. Does it really matter anyway? Smokers pay extra high taxes on every pack they smoke, whereas those who choose to kill themselves with booz or wireless technology get to do so rather cheaply. In fact, if you have a few neighbors who use wireless, they're not bothered by your smoke, but they still can share their radiation with you through the walls, ceilings, etc...

And half the earth is electrosensitive - most just don't realize it. And more women are sensitive than men, probably because women metabolize iron differently than men do. Only these people are diagnosed as suffering from depression or anxiety or panic attacks - or that they have ADHD or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue - and then they accept a drug that might correct a few chemical imbalances, eventually cause others, and the radiation continues unabated.

I spent several years running around like a nut trying to figure out what was causing my symptoms. You don't just wake up one day and realize your cell phone is zapping you or that the tower up the road is zapping you - you don't feel the same sensation as what you'd feel if you stuck your finger in an electrical outlet. So when the symptoms of electrosensitivity begin, you are likely to overlook them or explain them away since you can't see these fields!

I had my plasma metanephrines tested because this radiation is supposed to be especially hard on the adrenals. Mine was high, as expected. Now if I end up with an adrenal tumor down the road here, are you going to blame it on the tumor and discount all this radiation that I'm telling you is making me ill?

[BenV]

I love how all the non-smoker's have all the answers about what causes nicotine addiction. Does it really matter anyway?

It's the only reason this thread exists.  Someone asked if there is a genetic component to nicotine addiction.

And half the earth is electrosensitive - most just don't realize it. And more women are sensitive than men, probably because women metabolize iron differently than men do. Only these people are diagnosed as suffering from depression or anxiety or panic attacks - or that they have ADHD or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue - and then they accept a drug that might correct a few chemical imbalances, eventually cause others, and the radiation continues unabated.

I don't believe you.  I am healthier now than I was prior to the wireless boom.  Neither my wife nor I have suffered as a result of installing a wireless router.  I did not feel any healthier when living in an area of Indonesia with no electricity, and certainly no wifi or mobile phone reception.  I know several people who have suffered depression, and as a result of anti-depressants and therapy, have beaten it.

I spent several years running around like a nut trying to figure out what was causing my symptoms. You don't just wake up one day and realize your cell phone is zapping you or that the tower up the road is zapping you - you don't feel the same sensation as what you'd feel if you stuck your finger in an electrical outlet. So when the symptoms of electrosensitivity begin, you are likely to overlook them or explain them away since you can't see these fields!

I had my plasma metanephrines tested because this radiation is supposed to be especially hard on the adrenals. Mine was high, as expected. Now if I end up with an adrenal tumor down the road here, are you going to blame it on the tumor and discount all this radiation that I'm telling you is making me ill?

Clearly, your experience is different to mine.  I'm afraid that, as a smoker, should you ever be unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer, it will be the cigarettes that people blame.

You must bear in mind that there is no reason that anyone here should agree with you.  The scientific evidence thus far shows no physical basis to electrosensitivity, and there is nothing in my anecdotal experience that would suggest to me that it exists.  You should be expending your energy trying to convince other 'electrosensitives' to get involved with research, rather than telling us that EM fields will give you cancer.

[DoctorBeaver]

Okay, then surprise surprise - here's your DNA damage...Section 6...

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

So the environmental factors involved in nicotine addiction are likely these exposures (and parasites) that are shared within the same households growing up.

It doesn't explain why some babies are born with a heroin addiction, though, does it. Face it, genetic damage happens that is nothing whatsoever to do with EMF. There are quite a few reports from centuries ago that, in hindsight, we can recognise as Down's Syndrome, ASD, or other genetic disorders. There was no EMF (apart from cosmic rays) centuries ago so it cannot have been EMF that caused it.

[blaze]

If the 2000+ studies in the Bioinitiative Report aren't enough 'scientific evidence' to convince you that these fields do have biological effects (which would explain every one of my symptoms, by the way), then you are not scientists.

For one thing, you're asking me to prove something personally that I'm not in a position to prove financially - I don't have money to do my own experiments on myself and prove that I'm not psycho and that I really can feel these fields, and that they really are affecting the various organ systems in my body, etc..., killed my pets, etc...

So then you say it hasn't been proven. Well, duh.

I was reading a thread about how people in the UK view Americans though (and I actually agree with much of what was said). But then I realized that you are probably being exposed to less EMF/RF there than we are here because your government at least cares about you a little. The American government isn't doing anything to protect us - so how will I ever prove anything to you or anybody? - I'll be dead before that happens, so heck, I sure hope cigarettes do cause lung cancer.

At least you have Mast Sanity over there, don't you?

[DoctorBeaver]

blaze - please stop trying to twist people's words in an attempt to belittle their opinions. I have not said that EMF does not cause genetic problems. You have consistently in this thread refused to accept the fact that not all diseases and genetic disorders are caused by EMF radiation.

I have tried to point out that there are records of symptoms from before radio was invented that with modern knowledge we can identify as being due to genetic disorders. I have personal experience of a sufferer of a genetic disorder living in the r-send of the Serengeti where, at the time, there was little or no EMF radiation. I opinted out that Down's Syndrome was identified before radio was invented - you questioned whether it was, in fact, Down's Syndrome that Down recorded (as I stated earlier, that last was an absolutely absurd argument on your part).

It is not we who refuse to accept that EMF radiation can cause genetic damage. It is you who is refusing to accept that there are other causes. It is you who is being unscientific, not us.

[blaze]

Little EMF does not equal zero EMF.

And if you believe the accounts of Down Syndrome described prior to the invention of radio, I'm assuming these were written accounts?

Then why don't you believe the Bible? Were the prophets less believable than an account of Down Syndrome described in great detail prior to radio?

[DoctorBeaver]

What on Earth is wrong with you? Down's Syndrome was Down's Syndrome before and after the invention of radio. It is the same syndrome. It has not changed. Down saw that some people had certain specific facial features, a particular body shape and reduced mental functioning that were not described in any previous medical literature. What he observed and recorded is unique to the syndrome that he described and which bears his name.

How can you compare what prophets allegedly said to a scientific description of something? The first are probably little more than the rantings of drug-crazed loonies whereas the second is the result of careful study of something tangible.
To be honest, I think you are deliberately trying to wind us up. No-one could really believe the kind of rubbish you come out with.