[Bored chemist]

Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water

No
You stick your hand in a pot that you think is full of hot water.
It hurts.
Ten thousand other people put their hands in the same pot.

Only the three people say it hurts.
They are the three people to whom you said "beware of the pot of boiling water".

Psychological stress is self-imposed

That's more or less exactly wrong.
People do not typically choose to have a relationship end in divorce or to have an ****hole as a boss or to have a sick relative.
One of the dominant risk factors for stress is a lack of control of the situation.

[Bored chemist]

. I do a variety of tests to reduce the radiation and each one results in relief - repeatedly. Just because I have not conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study does not mean I cannot make the obvious conclusion between cause and effect.

The obvious conclusion there is that you have found an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem.
I don't think anyone asked for a peer review (so that's  another straw man from you, btw).

I have asked for a blind trial.
That's different- not least, it typically excludes psychosomatic effects.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:41:07

    Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water


No
You stick your hand in a pot that you think is full of hot water.
It hurts.
Ten thousand other people put their hands in the same pot.

Only the three people say it hurts.
They are the three people to whom you said "beware of the pot of boiling water".

Now this is a strawman fallacy.

You take a straightforward example of cause and effect, distort it and then criticize your own scenario

You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hot (and you throw in "boiling water" for good measure) because in your scenario the water is not too hot.

Clearly I was talking about water that is so hot it almost scalds, and will do so if one keeps their hand in there too long. It is possible that 3 out of ten thousand might say they feel nothing. They would probably have medical condition or just being ornery.

Clear cause and effect - the same clear cause and effect I get with EMF radiation.

Instead of debating the subject, you are debating semantics. Skipping round the edges.

[CliveG]

. I do a variety of tests to reduce the radiation and each one results in relief - repeatedly. Just because I have not conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study does not mean I cannot make the obvious conclusion between cause and effect.

The obvious conclusion there is that you have found an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem.
I don't think anyone asked for a peer review (so that's  another straw man from you, btw).

I have asked for a blind trial.
That's different- not least, it typically excludes psychosomatic effects.

Why is it so obvious that I have an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem?

Point out the reasons you come to that conclusion? (Aside from the one which is that YOU have an absolute faith that cell tower radiation cannot cause problems or harm.)

I would be more than happy to take part in a double blind test. I would not be happy about exposing myself to more damage but I am willing to do so in the interests of science. Can you detail how it should be done?

You do realize that you have to account for the delay in effects. One day radiation = one day sick the next day. The  dream disturbance is quicker. Two hours of sleep with monitoring for REM and then waking me while in REM. The headache is reasonably reliable - usually an hour to two of exposure. All at the high levels (3,000 uW/sqm) with added reflections and standing waves found in our house.

Just an aside. I have had vivid dreams where I know I am dreaming. I dream in color and can see my hands. I have even pinched myself and felt pain. The only way I could tell I was dreaming was to concentrate on the clouds turning to cauliflower which they did.

I also used have extreme sensitivity. I was 35 when I got fitted for contact lenses. The doctor dropped the lens and began searching for it. Although I was teary eyed and looking forward and very short sighted I pointed to a spot on my jeans and said "There it is". I could not feel it there, but I could feel the impact. The doctor said he had to see it to believe it. You really do not appreciate how incredible our senses are and how delicate our nervous systems are. We are not chucks of meat that react only to heat.

[CliveG]

uote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:31:42

    Psychological stress is self-imposed

That's more or less exactly wrong.
People do not typically choose to have a relationship end in divorce or to have an ****hole as a boss or to have a sick relative.
One of the dominant risk factors for stress is a lack of control of the situation.

You are right that many people are not able to deal with bad situations. The problem is compounded because people still have choices in such situations - and they are nearly all bad. Quitting your job with a bad boss. I did that. Divorce - I have been a couple of really bad ones. In one case, I had multiple factors that put me off the chart for stress factors - yet I was able deal with them. I do admit that sometimes one's subconscious takes decisions and actions that relieve stress but not in a rational way. Just an immediate (and bad) fix.

I saw the stress in my wife with the radiation. She blamed it on too much pressure. I went over her situation a year ago and pointed out that her situation was no different. Her memory and her cognitive functions were degraded by the tower and she was forgetting to pay bills and forgetting key tasks to be done. Her hands started shaking. A lot of this eased up during the 3 months the tower was powered off.

These are difficult to measure in a person in a scientific and objective test. But the science of cellular molecular biology shows the mechanism of how it WILL happen.

[Bored chemist]

Her memory and her cognitive functions were degraded by the tower

Or age, or some other condition, but you refuse to see those possibilities.

Why is it so obvious that I have an imaginary cure for a psychosomatic problem?

Do you not remember?
I pointed out that, in every case that has been studied, "electrosensitive" effect turns out not to be real.

"Most blinded conscious provocation studies have failed to show a correlation between exposure and symptoms, leading to the suggestion that psychological mechanisms play a role in causing or exacerbating EHS symptoms. In 2010, Rubin et al. published a follow-up to their 2005 review, bringing the totals to 46 double-blind experiments and 1175 individuals with self-diagnosed hypersensitivity.[15][16] Both reviews found no robust evidence to support the hypothesis that electromagnetic exposure causes EHS, as have other studies.[4][5] They also concluded that the studies supported the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in those with EHS.[3]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Causes

Quote from: CliveG on Yesterday at 19:41:07

    Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water


No
You stick your hand in a pot that you think is full of hot water.
It hurts.
Ten thousand other people put their hands in the same pot.

Only the three people say it hurts.
They are the three people to whom you said "beware of the pot of boiling water".

Now this is a strawman fallacy.

You take a straightforward example of cause and effect, distort it and then criticize your own scenario

You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hot (and you throw in "boiling water" for good measure) because in your scenario the water is not too hot.

Clearly I was talking about water that is so hot it almost scalds, and will do so if one keeps their hand in there too long. It is possible that 3 out of ten thousand might say they feel nothing. They would probably have medical condition or just being ornery.

Clear cause and effect - the same clear cause and effect I get with EMF radiation.

Instead of debating the subject, you are debating semantics. Skipping round the edges.

Boiling/ very hot.So what?

You still need to address a simple fact.
Nobody has been found to really have these "hypersensitivities".

It's not me being hung up on semantics that's a problem here.

It is you failing to put forward any explanation that you and your wife are affected when so many others are not.

Of course, it doesn't help that you raise "scientific" papers that talk nonsense about 1200 x-rays.

You are saying that 9,997 people may possibly not feel that the water is too hot

No.
I'm saying they don't even think it's wet.
Most people don't "feel" anything from phone masts.
We are not talking about you sensing fields that are a little subtler than those sensed by others.
We are talking about you being made ill by fields that are far too small for most people to be aware of.

Now, even if by some fluke that's true, it's not a sound basis to criticise the phone industry because, for most people a phone is likely to improve their health.
I don't know how many people have been saved by being able to make a phone call for an ambulance or whatever, but it's certainly a lot more than have been killed by phone signals, for the simple reason that the latter number is zero.
(If you don't agree, post the coroner's report or local equivalent).

[evan_au]

Her hands started shaking.

Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

[alancalverd]

A warning to all: beware of confusing units in radiology.

The physical unit of absorbed dose D is the gray, 1 joule per kilogram of absorbing matter. This is what we can actually measure (in principle, though it's very difficult for diagnostic x-rays)

The unit of effective dose E  is the sievert, 1 gray multiplied by the radiation weighting factor w_r (1 for diagnostic x-rays) and summed over the doses received by the individual irradiated organs multiplied by the organ weighting factors w_t

E =  w_r.Σw_t.D_t

Σw_t = 1 for the whole body, so E is always numerically less than D for diagnostic x-rays.

E= 0.1 mSv is a good estimate for a single chest x-ray.

E = 5000 mSv is the dose that will kill 50% of the population in 30 days from acute effects.

E < 100 mSv/yr has no epidemiological evidence of reduced life expectancy

The probability of inducing a fatal cancer from a single exposure is 5% per sievert.

[Bored chemist]

Her hands started shaking.

Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

Or other conditions.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/tremor-or-shaking-hands/

What concerns me is that you might be so convinced that a symptom is cause by the mast that you don't go to the Dr and find out what is really causing it (and possibly getting treatment before the underlying condition gets worse)

[syhprum]

To diverge a little we are often lectured on the terrible carnage wrought on our roads from the 30 million vehicles (1700 deaths a  year) using them I wonder how many more deaths there would be if there were not vehicles available to get quick medical aid if needed

[alancalverd]

Ah, but emergency service vehicles are powered by diesel which, according to Official Sources is responsible for more deaths every year than actually occur!

[Bored chemist]

Ah, but emergency service vehicles are powered by diesel which, according to Official Sources is responsible for more deaths every year than actually occur!

Why do you post dross like that?

[alancalverd]

Something of an overstatement, I'll admit.

But what interests me is that the annual number of deaths actually recorded from respiratory disease (lung cancer, pneumonia and chronic lower respiratory tract disease) has decreased steadily in the UK since 2001, whilst Public Health England estimate that deaths attributable to air pollution have risen. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-2-major-causes-of-death-and-how-they-have-changed  Fig 2

I appeal for wise  counsel on this matter. What actual recorded causes of death (a) have increased and (b) are logically attributable to poor air quality?

Which statistic should we believe: PHE estimates of attributability, or doctors' death certificates?

[Bored chemist]

Is it credible that other causes of respiratory ill health have declined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban_in_England

[CliveG]

Her hands started shaking.

Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

Such an easy one. Her hands started shaking quite noticeably about 3 months after the mast was powered up. About 3 weeks after the mast was powered down, the shaking stopped. So did her headaches.

The mast was again powered up but I put  shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiation. Her hands are steady. We have the stress of having to sell our home after realizing that the judiciary is not only just and fair but actively working to bankrupt us if we continue in court. Hence I am going it alone without my wife so only I am exposed. That stress is not causing any hand shaking.

Your explanations as to why it is not radiation are only limited by your imagination.

[CliveG]

Her hands started shaking.

Have you seen a doctor to rule out Parkinson's Disease?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

Or other conditions.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/tremor-or-shaking-hands/

What concerns me is that you might be so convinced that a symptom is cause by the mast that you don't go to the Dr and find out what is really causing it (and possibly getting treatment before the underlying condition gets worse)

I have never had so many consultations and medical tests before. The docs all say that I am a healthy individual going by the tests. More than most. But the neurologist says she is seeing cases that she attributes to microwave EMF - particularly in children. She thinks EMF sickness is real - and I chose a competent well-respected one.

The docs also admit to more cancers, autism, ADHD, epilepsy. Not just more reporting. A primary school teacher is seeing serious problems like these. One six-year only dies of a heart attack and one dies of cancer.

So now I live in an apartment away from home. I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".

[CliveG]

A warning to all: beware of confusing units in radiology.

The physical unit of absorbed dose D is the gray, 1 joule per kilogram of absorbing matter. This is what we can actually measure (in principle, though it's very difficult for diagnostic x-rays)

The unit of effective dose E  is the sievert, 1 gray multiplied by the radiation weighting factor w_r (1 for diagnostic x-rays) and summed over the doses received by the individual irradiated organs multiplied by the organ weighting factors w_t

E =  w_r.Σw_t.D_t

Σw_t = 1 for the whole body, so E is always numerically less than D for diagnostic x-rays.

E= 0.1 mSv is a good estimate for a single chest x-ray.

E = 5000 mSv is the dose that will kill 50% of the population in 30 days from acute effects.

E < 100 mSv/yr has no epidemiological evidence of reduced life expectancy

The probability of inducing a fatal cancer from a single exposure is 5% per sievert.

We are pretty much in agreement, and nothing you have said contradicts anything in my post.

The Q factor (your radiation weighting factor w_r) also has an factor that is different for different types of radioactivity. Apha particles are particularly damaging per unit of energy. Which is why I said that we do not know what the Q factor for microwaves is just yet with regarding to tissue damage.

[Bored chemist]

So now I live in an apartment away from home. I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".

OK, there are apparently two (major) hypotheses here.
Both follow the rules of cause and effect.
One is that your problems are caused by some physical effects of EMF in your house.
The other is that the effect is psychosomatic.
Just for the sake of discussion and explanation, I would like us to consider two other possible  hypotheses.
One is that there is a physical cause in your home that is nothing to do with the mast. As an outlandish example, I'm going to suggest that your neighbour is intermittently pumping poison gas into your home (remember, this is just an illustrative idea- it doesn't have to be sensible, just possible). The important factor is that it's at your home, physical, and not EMF. Fungal spores might be a less imaginative example.
And the 4th hypothesis is that you have some other health condition which is variable  and undiagnosed. I understand that people with MS often present with an unusual collection of symptoms which causes confusion.

OK, to summarise, we have 4 hypotheses.
1 EMF sensitivity
2 Psychosomatic illness
3 Some other factor at home
4 Some other factor not related to your home.

Now, you have made an observation

I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.

It's a fundamental part of the scientific method that science never shows anything to be true, but it's very good at showing when things are false.
We can, by experiment, reject hypotheses and narrow down the options that might explain  a phenomenon.

Now, you have made an observation

I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.

Which of the 4 hypotheses does that observation actually rule out?

[evan_au]

I put  shielding in the roof and the level is about 1/00th of the unshielded radiation

Can you please clarify the reduction in radiation that you measured?
1/10th?  1/100th?  1/1000th?

[CliveG]

So now I live in an apartment away from home. I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours. I cannot shake the mantra of "cause and effect".

OK, there are apparently two (major) hypotheses here.
Both follow the rules of cause and effect.
One is that your problems are caused by some physical effects of EMF in your house.
The other is that the effect is psychosomatic.
Just for the sake of discussion and explanation, I would like us to consider two other possible  hypotheses.
One is that there is a physical cause in your home that is nothing to do with the mast. As an outlandish example, I'm going to suggest that your neighbour is intermittently pumping poison gas into your home (remember, this is just an illustrative idea- it doesn't have to be sensible, just possible). The important factor is that it's at your home, physical, and not EMF. Fungal spores might be a less imaginative example.
And the 4th hypothesis is that you have some other health condition which is variable  and undiagnosed. I understand that people with MS often present with an unusual collection of symptoms which causes confusion.

OK, to summarise, we have 4 hypotheses.
1 EMF sensitivity
2 Psychosomatic illness
3 Some other factor at home
4 Some other factor not related to your home.

Now, you have made an observation

I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.

It's a fundamental part of the scientific method that science never shows anything to be true, but it's very good at showing when things are false.
We can, by experiment, reject hypotheses and narrow down the options that might explain  a phenomenon.

Now, you have made an observation

I only have problems if I visit my home for more than a few hours.

Which of the 4 hypotheses does that observation actually rule out?

Using strict logic, it rules out none of them. Some would even say that aliens and poltergeists could be a possibility.

So we are down to assigning probability to each of hypothesis.
1) - 98%
2) - 1.5%
3) - 0.4%
4) - 0.1%

And I think I am being generous with 2), 3) and 4).
My wife felt the effects. Facial cancer is not psychosomatic. The inability to walk on my replacement knee was hardly psychosomatic. Three weeks of diarrhea is unlikely to be a state of mind. Four whole body convulsions would be hard to assign to imagination. Likewise with the scrambled dreams and tiredness.

On a number of occasions in my life I have been told that "it was all in my mind". Guess what. It never was. As a 12 year old I complained of severe stomach pains after dinner. All in your mind said my Mom. Doctor said my tonsils were so rotten the toxins were being brushed into my stomach at dinner.

Histoplasmosis - grief said my doctor from the death of my late wife. Then it got so bad he wanted to admit me to intensive care for tests. Had no idea what it could be. I learned from a caver about bat fungus. Got the medicine from someone who was taking it and 50% of my symptoms went away in 1 day. 95% cure in one week. Doctor admitted that it was histoplasmosis.

I agree with the multiple confusing symptoms. When my pains started I thought it was the fungus, then the fluoroquinolones. Now the timing and the clinical history are indicating that those two are possibly sensitizing agents, and the pain tracks the increase in cell phone radiation in our suburb.

What the probabilities demonstrate is that you might assign 1% to 1) - based on your lack of research, personal biases and not wanting to accept the possible danger. Like many other. As one journalist told me "Tough luck you are having - I like my phone and do not want know about possible problems."

There are different standards of proof. Friend tells you something happened and you have no reason to disbelieve. You tell a doctor you have back pain and after a series of questions he gives you medication. A civil law suit uses the balance of probabilities. A criminal law suit is much stricter - as is an insurance claim. Science usually lags well behind in terms of explanations. This time the science is clear - and the science it is being suppressed.