[CliveG]

Only when heat is forced on a child could there be problems - such as being left in a hot car in the sun.

... or a hot room.

And febrile epilepsy which the neurologist says may be tower related.

The word "febrile" tells you exactly what it's due to.

Hot room for kids with a fever is not good. Use common sense. But a warm room with loose clothing allows the body to regulate it's temperature while providing the benefit of allowing the fever to do its work efficiently. Some people panic and cool the body then have problems with swings and possible over-temperature as the body tries to compensate.

Febrile (meaning fever) tells us that convulsions can accompany fevers. But there is still an underlying cause. If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures. And only some kids get seizures with fevers. So think. Why does a seizure happen? The brains are somehow being disturbed, or have a tendency to be disturbed. If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent". The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.

You have taken an inflexible position that EMFs are totally harmless (unless exposed to beams so powerful they would fry anything) and you argue everything from that stand-point. Your arguments are discredited by the science. Don't you have any doubts? You would have been a "Flat-Earther" in earlier times.

[alancalverd]

The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.

Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.

You have taken an inflexible position that EMFs are totally harmless (unless exposed to beams so powerful they would fry anything) and you argue everything from that stand-point.

and you have taken an equally inflexible position. Your arguments are not supported by the science. Don't you have any doubts? Doubt is the permanent standpoint of scientific enquiry.

[CliveG]

The question you need to ask is why the numbers are rising.

Two probable causes: increasing life expectancy, broadening diagnostic spectrum.

You have taken an inflexible position that EMFs are totally harmless (unless exposed to beams so powerful they would fry anything) and you argue everything from that stand-point.

and you have taken an equally inflexible position. Your arguments are not supported by the science. Don't you have any doubts? Doubt is the permanent standpoint of scientific enquiry.

Do those probables mean that EMFs are excluded from a possible cause?

Inflexible position and doubt. Is there an echo in here? Did you just copy and paste my comments?

There is doubt and then there is acceptance of facts. I have no doubt that the Earth is NOT flat. I find it hard to believe that some actually think it is. On EMFs I find it hard to accept that people are so sure there is no harm at the levels the public is exposed to by phones and towers.

Next post I will do a list of questions to show who of us may be inflexible and blind to the science.

[alancalverd]

Probables do not exclude possibles, but they do tend to push then to the margins.

Anyway, it's good to see that you have some means of measuring something. Now all you need do is carry out a double blind experiment: get someone else to measure whatever it is that you think is causing you problems, and see if their measurements correlate retrospectively with your diary of events. A little science can go a long way to convincing people that your hypothesis has merit.

[Bored chemist]

If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures.

Yes they do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698702/

Now, please stop posting dangerous nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent".

And, once again,
Stop begging the question.

[CliveG]

If one takes a kid and raises their temperature they do not get seizures.

Yes they do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698702/

Now, please stop posting dangerous nonsense.

My first reaction is that you are the one who should stop posting nonsense that endangers just about everybody - namely the notion that cel phones and cell towers pose no risk.

But to your link. One needs to use a good dose of common sense. Do not take every article at face value.

The first point. Febrile seizures in children are not dangerous as you claim. From your link : "The overwhelming evidence from human and animal models suggest that the outcome of short febrile seizures is benign. " Show me an article that suggests that my post is both nonsense and dangerous.

The second point. Use common sense. Loose clothing and a warm room for kids. Only lightly pat their heads with a wet cloth for comfort. Putting them in a ridiculously hot room is what you imagine I suggest that your imagination to that effect is nonsense.

Read the article carefully. They say "Remarkably, hyperthermia provoked by medication overdose or hot baths often provoke seizures in young children, indicating that increase in brain temperature may suffice to generate seizures." Where are the scientific articles to support this statement? Did they do a study where they gave hot baths to children and observed seizures? More likely it is "reported" - a synonym for "anecdotal" is it not. How old were the children? How many reports were there? How high did their core temperature get? How hot were the baths anyway? Did they have a "silent" illness?

Now to the rats. Did you not notice how they got to increase the core temperature of the rats? 45 to 50 degree C hot water for 30 minutes. There is a scale of water temperature versus effect. See news.jm.com/blog/too-hot-handle.  45 degC is the start of the threshold of pain. 50 degC is the start of the threshold of severe pain. While reversible, the tissue contents are inactivated, and the human skin goes from light red to bright red.

Goodness gracious. Talk about boiling a rat. No wonder they have a seizure. Imagine the cellular enzymes given off by the skin of those rats.

Check out any article on hot tubs. They recommend that 42 deg C be the maximum. I find that 43 is too hot for me for longer than 5 minutes. And that 35 deg C be used to kids and that they do not stay in longer than 10-20 minutes. Remember that smaller mass gives a greater surface to volume ratio so those rats would be really hot very quickly. I do not believe that their core temperature only went to 39 deg C.

Now check out sauna temperatures (for the hot room safety for adults like me). I cannot take an ordinary sauna (65 degC to 120 degC) for longer than 10 minutes as much as I like the heat. Who can get their room to sauna temperatures. I have to use three heaters for the 24 hours. And I struggle to get it to the temperature that I can lie on top of the bed with only my shorts and feel pleasantly hot while I sleep. I also do not pour water onto the heaters to increase the heating effect.

Lastly is "normal body temperature". It use to be 96.8 deg F but is now taken to be 98.2 deg F. Typical adults can vary from 97 to 99 deg F. Babies and children range from 97.9 F to 100.4 F. Some healthy older patients range from 94 deg F to 99.6 deg F.

Perhaps you should stop scaring people with your imagination of what you think I am saying. You will have them afraid to bathe their children.

Just as an aside. I went to a popular beach just after winter ended. The ocean temperature was about 4 deg C. People were just getting their feet wet. I walked in and swam for a good 20 minutes. I came out a bright purple - and some teenage boy muttered "Show-off" as I walked by. Do I care about what they think? I have never been one to try ot impress people. I went in because I enjoy swimming.

I did Basic Army training in South Africa. It was the middle of winter and I could not get enough to eat. Our group complained bitterly about the small portions. And they ran and ran us. After two weeks I stopped going to the toilet and  week later I reported sick. They asked me what was wrong. I said I was cold. They sent me outside to clean up leaves while I waited for the doctor. A colonel came by and asked me why I was sitting. I got up and got dizzy. He got two guys to take me to the infirmary. A nurse said I complained I was cold. They took my temperature. It does not register on the thermometer she said. The doctor said "Impossible. He should be dead." They plotted my temperature as they surrounded me with heaters. It stayed on the base line for 6 hours.

[CliveG]

If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent".

And, once again,
Stop begging the question.

You need to explain your comment with regard to my post. Take the formal definition of "begging the question", and explain the parts and the logic as it applies to my post. Just want to see where you went wrong, and whether you truly understand the logical fallacy (or are just trying your luck).

[Bored chemist]

OK,
The question in contention is essentially, "Does EM radiation from phone masts cause (measureable) harm in humans exposed to it?"
We can look into the details. One factor you have cited is that it allegedly causes you difficulties with thinking and memory.
And here's a definition of bagging the question  form here
https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

There are other pages that say much the same thing.
That page cites a few examples- here's one.
"Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely."

My view is that your statement
"If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent""
is of essentially the same type.


Now, let's analyse it
"If [Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)], then [EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent"]"
and look at each part in turn
"Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)"
There's no actual evidence (at least, in this thread) that the condition is true.
That, of itself isn't a problem. It's a conditional clause.
Now, you have said that the EM exposure harms your ability to think and remember.
That's dementia.
So you are, as part of the meaning of the whole tread, claiming the truth of first clause
"Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)".

Now, let's look at the second clause:
"EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent"  "
Well, I guess we have to clarify- causative of what?
However the context is such that it must mean "causing the sort of health issues that the whole thread is about".
It can't for example, refer to causation of bad poetry or causing undercooked beans.

So, what you have said can be re-written as
" If EMFs cause dementia then EMFs are a causative agent for dementia."
Now, that statement is true- but useless.
If you want to argue that, sensu stricto, it's actually a tautology, rather than begging the question, that might be a valid technical distinction. I'd argue that your statement can be  summarised as "if [the thread's premise is true], then [the thread's premise is true]. That's an example of begging the question.

It hardly matters. My underlying point stands.


You keep trying to use logical fallacies to make a point.
Well, it's not going to work, so please stop it.

[CliveG]

"If [Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)], then [EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent"]"
and look at each part in turn

You did what I thought you were doing (erroneously). You are taking a proposition or hypothesis and turning it into a series of logical statements to prove an argument.

You do this by parsing.

[If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people)]
is a proposition (a hypothesis) and not a statement of fact.

The second part [then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent]
is an extension of the hypothesis.

One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.

I am not sure that this is begging the question either.

But I conditioned it in this way.
IF....EMFs can (read MAY because of the IF) cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs MAY cause febrile seizures. (I phrased it with the word "possibility").

We are still debating the question of whether the evidence and the science studies show that EMFs cause brain problems. Just expanding the scope by linking the two issues, and I think that is justified in science.

[alancalverd]

Let's simplify the discussion. You have said "If A then A". Nobody doubts that, but it doesn't prove anything. 

You have quoted several sources of in vitro tests of B, which might be related to A in extreme cases, and is all very interesting but irrelevant.

You have declined (or at least not reported) the simple test of whether your actual mast induces your actual symptoms. Don't expect much sympathy  from scientists.

[Bored chemist]

One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.

That's just a different logical fallacy.

Pollen can cause respiratory problems
Colds are a respiratory problem.
Therefore pollen can cause colds.

Well, clearly, it doesn't. So the "logic" of your argument fails

Also, by definition, the thing that causes febrile seizures is hyperthermia.
Seizures caused by anything else- including any that might be caused by (non thermal) EMFs are, by definition, not febrile seizures.

Why do you post nonsense like that?

[CliveG]

Let's simplify the discussion. You have said "If A then A". Nobody doubts that, but it doesn't prove anything. 

You have quoted several sources of in vitro tests of B, which might be related to A in extreme cases, and is all very interesting but irrelevant.

You have declined (or at least not reported) the simple test of whether your actual mast induces your actual symptoms. Don't expect much sympathy  from scientists.

I think you meant to say:    If A then B.
What I said is :   If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).
Because of the linkage, it works two ways. If B is proved true then A might be true.
This means that trying to prove B gives us more information and increases the chances that A might be true.

You are asking for scientific testing for my experiences. That to me is a cop-out. It was like the judge saying I have two people saying opposite things and I believe B because they are a corporate and you are a private citizen. He ignored my argument that what B was saying was physically impossible. Why? Because I did not hire a science "expert" with 30 years of electrical experience and 10 years of testifying in court to say that what B said was impossible. He took the position that he did not have to make a personal judgment based on common sense.

I will be going to court to get a declaratory judgment that the corporate knowingly made a false statement under oath. And yes, I will be looking for the science experts to give affidavits because some judges have no common sense. This was such a key issue that the judge should have called for oral testimony from both of us and allowed cross-examination. He did not, because his mandate was to get rid of me. I will try appealing through the usual channels.

You are saying the same. "I do not believe you because you have not scientifically verified your statements. Until you do, to me they are just anecdotes and anecdotes are no proof". So it takes takes money and power to get to be believed - and who has the money and power... the cell phone industry.

Until, of course, people start have more and more problems and finally people start connecting tower and cell phones to their problems. And saying "Gee, maybe CliveG was right." Too late then.

Readers here have choices.
1) To believe you that, because there is no scientific proof that I am telling the truth about being harmed, that towers cause no harm.
2) To believe you that the many studies I cited are not credible and are flawed despite being peer-review scientific studies (because Bored Chemist says they are flawed).
OR
3) To believe that I am a credible person whose symptoms only manifest in the presence of tower radiation and that they should take precautions.
4) That the science articles I have quoted, together with the review of the amount of studies showing harm, is sufficient evidence for them to worry about the harm, and to give more credibility to 3).

[CliveG]

One could say I said:
EMFs can cause brain problems
Febrile seizures are a brain problem.
Therefore EMFs can cause febrile seizures.

That's just a different logical fallacy.

Pollen can cause respiratory problems
Colds are a respiratory problem.
Therefore pollen can cause colds.

Well, clearly, it doesn't. So the "logic" of your argument fails

Also, by definition, the thing that causes febrile seizures is hyperthermia.
Seizures caused by anything else- including any that might be caused by (non thermal) EMFs are, by definition, not febrile seizures.

Why do you post nonsense like that?

Febrile seizure are a combination of hyperthermia AND other factors. If the other factors are not present then NO febrile seizure. This is evident because some kids get hyperthermia and no seizure.

I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.

And there are two type of febrile seizure. Short ones that do not repeat, and long ones that do repeat. The latter are indicative of an underlying epileptic condition. And once more I say that the neurologist said she is seeing more epilepsy - some of which is uncovered with febrile seizures.

Who is the one with no logical sense?

[Bored chemist]

I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.

Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any  artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.

Who is the one with no logical sense?

The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.

Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?

[Bored chemist]

I think you meant to say:    If A then B.

I'm fairly sure that Alan intended to say "if A then A".
It makes sense in the context, and it's a fair summary of what you actually said.

[Bored chemist]

So it takes takes money and power to get to be believed - and who has the money and power... the cell phone industry.

The phone companies have exactly the money we give them. We can stop.

[alancalverd]

What I said is :   If A is a possibility then B might also be a possibility (because of the linkage).

But you have no evidence for "the linkage".4

I have not said I don't believe you. I am perfectly willing to accept that you live next to a transmitter tower and that you have all sorts of weird symptoms. What you have not done is demonstrate a causal relationship by making a blind correlation. If you can do that, it would be difficult for anyone to argue against you. "Proof by assertion" died when Galileo was born.

[CliveG]

I am suggesting (based on extrapolations and interpretation of cellular studies) that one OTHER factor might be cell radiation causing a child to become predisposed to a febrile seizure. Simply put. No radiation - no seizure.

Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any  artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)
So you are plainly wrong.

Who is the one with no logical sense?

The one who didn't realist that the effect can not precede the existence of the cause. That would be you in this case.

Did you read through your post and thinking about how easy it would be for someone like me to point out the error?
If so, how did you miss it?
If not, why not? - do you like being shown for a fool?

Let us try an analogy that is more relevant. Smoking.

Here is my original statement
"If Emf can cause cellular disruption to a growing brain as well as autism (and dementia in older people), then EMFs have the possibility of being a "causative agent" (for febrile seizures). "
Let me change it:
"If smoking can cause cellular disruption/inflammation to lungs, then smoking has the possibility of being a "causative agent" (for lung cancer)."

Parsing this as I did before:
IF....smoking can (read MAY because of the IF) cause lung cell disruption/inflammation.
[Lung cancer stems from disruption in lung cells.]
Therefore smoking MAY cause lung cancer.

And we know that smoking causes SOME lung cancer. That SOME is now alarge portion. The increase in cases that began to show grew to be the major part of the "causative agents".

So febrile seizures have multiple causes. When there were no EMFs, then obviously EMFs could not be a causative agent. When febrile seizures started increasing, then the increase might be attributed to EMFs.

EMFs are a new technology akin to smoking. The massive increase in radiation appears to be causing medical problems. Those medical problems (such as cancer and heart attacks as well as epilepsy and febrile seizures) are increasing. The cell companies would have you believe that EMFs are NOT among the causative agents.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Simply because you (Oh Wise One) says so. A fool such as I, thinks that there might just be a delay of decades before the harm becomes very apparent to all fools (not you, of course).

[Hayseed]

This might be old info, but the last time I checked, the majority of deaths from lung cancer were never smokers.

Does that mean that second hand smoke kills more than smoking?