[CliveG]

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.

You are right that there is no conclusive proof of the linkage. We do not know conclusively the details of exactly what causes febrile seizures. We have some clues, like brain dysfunction. The science is showing that brain cells can be disrupted and altered by EMFs - even low level EMFs. That disruption or change may make some children predisposed to febrile seizures. Because we cannot take the same child (or even a twin or clone) and compare it to a child that has had considerable exposure to emf radiation then we cannot do your double blind trial.

Some science is derived from simple observation, then expanded to epidemiological studies and when there is sufficient correlation that stands out from the other causative agents, then the linkage is assumed or agreed to. Science then has the task of trying to detail the mechanism. That did not die with the birth of Galileo. Smoking was linked and then science tried to catch up. In the case of EMFs, science has done a good job of detailing the mechanisms - such as calcium channel disruption.

Galileo used observation and tied it to logic. People did not understand his linkage and the underlying science. People have not changed. They still believe the authorities and at the moment the authorities are the governments who are being paid and lobbied by the cell industry. People do not understand the underlying science. You seem capable of understanding it, but are rejecting it.

A local activist said that even the cell companies agree that cell EMFs are dangerous because they post warnings on cell phones. The issue is the level and the dosage (time exposure). Cell companies use 10,000,000uW/sqm without any dosage whereas the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.

[CliveG]

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?

For a minute I thought I had got it wrong. But no...

lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/resource-library/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html
....Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.
...Between 2005 and 2010, an average of 130,659 Americans (74,300 men and 56,359 women) died of smoking-attributable lung cancer each year. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 7,330 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers every year.
...Nonsmokers have a 20 to 30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer if they are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work.

cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. Tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Many are poisons. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals.

[Hayseed]

I stand corrected, thank you.

[Bored chemist]

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.

No
Because, by definition a febrile seizure is exclusively caused by hyperthermia but lung cancer is not (by definition) exclusively caused by smoking- there are other causes such as asbestos.
So, it's a bad analogy.

Also, you forgot to answer this post; please do so.

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?

[CliveG]

I stand corrected, thank you.

No problem. I had to look it up to confirm. When you challenged me, I did think I may have got it wrong.

I had read some articles and focused on the smoking linkage and did not really focus on what percentage. Your post has the benefit of educating all of us just how bad a particular carcinogen might get. Worse still was the industry getting doctors to promote smoking as healthy.

[CliveG]

No
Because, by definition a febrile seizure is exclusively caused by hyperthermia but lung cancer is not (by definition) exclusively caused by smoking- there are other causes such as asbestos.
So, it's a bad analogy.
(snip)

Sigh. You just do not get the difference between a "triggering agent" (the fever) and an underlying predisposition.

Large portions of the population are subjected to carcinogens daily for extended periods and yet do not get cancer.

Many children have fevers and do not get seizures.

In both cases, there are other factors. Smoking IS a causative agent for those who would not otherwise have a predisposition, and EMFs MAY be a causative agent for children who would not otherwise have a predisposition.

If one's immune system goes down, a person can get all sorts of diseases and illnesses. My immune system may have been compromised by the fluoroquinolone antibiotic prescribed for what was now clearly a fungal infection. The medicine probably also caused the lung to allow the fungus in. All the doctors and even the specialists in fungal medicine said I absolutely could not have histoplasmosis because it was only seen in terminal HIV cases. I had to get medicine from some-one else at first because the doctors would not give me a prescription. That was 8 years ago. Now they are changing and grudgingly accepting that a few immuno-competent people can get it but they do not know how. And yet  it seems you think the doctors and scientists know it all and are demi-gods.

[CliveG]

Also, you forgot to answer this post; please do so.

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?

Go back one page and see my post # 378

[alancalverd]

the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.

But you have shown nothing to support the assertion that your exposure is  causing your symptoms, which is presumably what this is all about.

Some science is derived from simple observation, then expanded to epidemiological studies and when there is sufficient correlation that stands out from the other causative agents,then the linkage is assumed or agreed to.

Ipsi dixit

Galileo used observation and tied it to logic.

Interestingly, there is no evidence that he ever made his most famous experiment! He did however make a supremely incisive logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:

1. The little rock slows the big one. So if I attach a grain of sand to a boulder, it will float gently to the ground. Maybe not one grain. How about a sack of sand grains? What is a rock but a whole bunch of sand grains tied closely together?

2. The big rock speeds up the little one. By pulling harder on the string? Whence comes this new force?

I digress. But at least it's science.

[Bored chemist]

Sigh. You just do not get the difference between a "triggering agent" (the fever) and an underlying predisposition.

No
You refuse to accept the meaning of the word "Febrile".
If the problem isn't caused by a fever (for example if it was caused by something else like an EMF)  then it's not a febrile effect.
What you are saying is that "seizures that are caused by fever may not be caused by fever."
That view is plainly absurd.
No matter what you say, this will remain true, so you should stop wasting time and accept it.


There are, of course, other causes- just as smoking isn't the only cause of lung cancer.
But, if the cause isn't fever, then the effect is definitively, not febrile. That's what the word means.

Go back one page and see my post # 378

Thanks for confirming my point.
I asked this

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?

At the time I was referring to your silly claim that febrile convulsions are caused by mobile phones,even though the convulsions were well documented centuries before the phone was invented.

And your initial reply was to ignore the question- so I prompted you again.
This time you said

Go back one page and see my post # 378

Well, I can go back a page, or I can see post 378.
I can't do both, beaus the reply is on this page.

And, if I look at reply 378 I see that it doesn't answer the question.

Nowhere in that post do you address the fact that you're obviously wrong- febrile convulsions don't time travel.
Nor did you answer the question about whether or not you considered how easy it is for me to point out your foolishness, nor did you answer the question about why you keep posting stuff that makes you look silly.

So, once again, in respect of the convulsions caused by something that hasn't been invented, and your suggestion that I look at something on this page, by going to another page,

Did you read through your post and think 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]

OK, let's see if I can get this through to you with an analogy.
Plenty of animals sting people.
But only bees cause bee-stings.
So, playing football with a wasp nest may well result in stings.
But it will not result in bee stings.

Plenty of things cause seizures
But only fevers cause febrile seizures.
Strychnine will cause seizures.
But it will not cause febrile seizures.

It's hypothetically possible that EMF will take the same role as strychnine. (Though you have provided no real evidence for this  at levels relevant to phone masts).
It's hypothetically possible that they may cause seizures (Though you have provided no real evidence for this  at levels relevant to phone masts).

But they can't cause febrile seizures.

Do you see the analogy there?

[CliveG]

Bored Chemist,

I think it is time to let the reader judge for himself.

Your wordplay is twisting you into knots. You just cannot give up. Must be Compulsive Obsessive Ego Disorder.

Time for me to move on. You can carry on playing with yourself.

[CliveG]

logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:

the science (and people like me) are indicating that prolonged exposure at anything above 30uW/sqm is biologically harmful.

But you have shown nothing to support the assertion that your exposure is  causing your symptoms, which is presumably what this is all about.

Some science is derived from simple observation, then expanded to epidemiological studies and when there is sufficient correlation that stands out from the other causative agents,then the linkage is assumed or agreed to.

Ipsi dixit

Galileo used observation and tied it to logic.

Interestingly, there is no evidence that he ever made his most famous experiment! He did however make a supremely incisive logical reductio ad absurdam by asking what would happen if you tied the little rock to the big one:

1. The little rock slows the big one. So if I attach a grain of sand to a boulder, it will float gently to the ground. Maybe not one grain. How about a sack of sand grains? What is a rock but a whole bunch of sand grains tied closely together?

2. The big rock speeds up the little one. By pulling harder on the string? Whence comes this new force?

I digress. But at least it's science.

Galileo observed phenomena in nature. He then applied logical thinking to explain them. One can have a thought experiment or a real experiment or both. Einsteins bending of light took many years to get the right conditions to conduct an actual experiment. Galileo observed the tides and applied his knowledge of physics and mathematics to a mental model.

I have no problem with reductio ad absurdam. It works.

The thalidomide disaster was a lesson in testing for problems before global release. We have forgotten that lesson with EMFs. Note the observations without evidence but with suspicion due to "linkage".

wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
...Although the Australian obstetrician William McBride took credit for raising the alarm about thalidomide, it was a midwife called Sister Pat Sparrow who first suspected the drug was causing birth defects in the babies of patients under his (William McBride's) care at Crown Street Women's Hospital in Sydney.
...In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co. She subsequently was given a distinguished service award by President John F. Kennedy.

I have the same linkage. When exposed to the neighbouring tower I get (consistently) either headaches or stomach pains and /or diarrhea. You want me to be the worlds proof. Or your proof. I want the world to wake up to the possible danger. But then, the world needs depopulating and so nature (God?) weans out the weakest.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist,

I think it is time to let the reader judge for himself.

Your wordplay is twisting you into knots. You just cannot give up. Must be Compulsive Obsessive Ego Disorder.

Time for me to move on. You can carry on playing with yourself.

It's a discussion forum.
You are expected to answer reasonable questions.

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?

[alancalverd]

You want me to be the worlds proof.

I rather thought that you wanted to be the world's proof, since nobody else seems to be interested in what you claim is a very serious problem. All you have to do is to keep a diary of symptoms and compare it with instrumental measurements made automatically or by someone else, that you have not seen. Since you are exposed anyway, and have the instrumentation, it's hardly a great burden, with a massive potential gain.

But you know all this. Your persistent refusal to carry out the critical experiment suggests that you are scared of possible failure. A reasonable response from an engineer who has just designed a bridge, but not from a scientist whose job is to test the strength of materials. 

I'll leave this thread for now as we have  exhausted the argument, but if you do conduct the simple experiment and report the result here, I'll be the first to applaud. 

[CliveG]

You want me to be the worlds proof.

I rather thought that you wanted to be the world's proof, since nobody else seems to be interested in what you claim is a very serious problem. All you have to do is to keep a diary of symptoms and compare it with instrumental measurements made automatically or by someone else, that you have not seen. Since you are exposed anyway, and have the instrumentation, it's hardly a great burden, with a massive potential gain.

But you know all this. Your persistent refusal to carry out the critical experiment suggests that you are scared of possible failure. A reasonable response from an engineer who has just designed a bridge, but not from a scientist whose job is to test the strength of materials. 

I'll leave this thread for now as we have  exhausted the argument, but if you do conduct the simple experiment and report the result here, I'll be the first to applaud.

I am in agreement. I will get hold of people that could be credible at conducting such a study. I want my own witnesses there that I can rely on.

My reticence is understandable. I will have to spend about 3 hours in high radiation which I am fairly certain does permanent brain damage. I would have to do this a number of times to eliminate coincidence and increase the confidence factor. I have to eat the same food every day, and take the same medication and do the same amount of exercise. I will need a recovery period of two days after each time in the box. How many times do you think I have to do this? What score would you accept? If I did it ten times (a 30 day period) with 5 exposed and 5 unexposed with a random sequence unknown all until the start of each (take white and black marbles out a bag after I am in my box). If I get a 100% score would you accept that I am affected by radiation?

It has to be done under the tower in the same spot. So I would have make a box to sit in and the box would have to have two coverings. One transparent to emfs and one opaque and I should not be able to tell the difference. I suggest I be blind folded and with ear coverings so I do not pick up slight differences.

I am on holiday next week. No postings. I also have to get more legal work done since I am going to challenge the cell companies and the judicial system. My test results will help my case. I will buy another meter (I already have two) to check the frequencies as well.

I am not exposed anyway as you claim. When I visit the house I usually take precautions to shield myself. The problems have happened when I did not shield myself because I thought the time exposure would be minimal, or that I was out of the bad zones. When I had problems I realized I was underestimating the exposure - both duration and level.

[alancalverd]

You don't need a lot of witnesses. You just need someone to compare your diary of effect with an independent measure of whatever you consider to be the cause. You must not have access to those measurements or any other clue as to the presence or intensity of the alleged cause, during the experimental period. If you have to be present anyway, there's no additional burden on you.

If you carry a portable recorder of whatever the cause may be, you can just live your normal life and then get someone  to compare the recording with your diary. You may need to find an expert to set up a recorder that doesn't give you any clues, but this sort of thing is fairly common in medical research. You can take as long as you like (or as long as the recorder can manage) over the experiment.  You will then have incontrovertible proof of your case.

[CliveG]

Once more. The radiation from the tower next door causes the symptoms, especially if it is at places where it is about 2,000uW/sqm. That radiation has the type of pulsing that is harmful. I will try to determine the frequencies and the pulsation. I have a relative who teaches radio at the university. Hopefully I can persuade him to bring some equipment.

So I have to be exposed to that radiation. When I am driving past the many mini-towers in the road they expose me to levels that are high for short periods. Only about 10 to 20 seconds at a time. I will take care to avoid those during the month. People I know who are sensitive say they plan their driving to avoid such towers. Perhaps I could even get one of them to take part. At other times of the day my exposure is about 2-4 uW/sqm which is what one would find in many houses.

The witnesses are necessary to make sure that I do not know which covering is being put on, and that I do not have access to a mini-meter to know whether the radiation in the box is present or not. The people outside can just check that the tower is radiating as usual and has not been switched off for some reason. I do not want anyone casting doubt on the procedure. I also want independent people to monitor and testify that the experiment was properly conducted.

I have realized that when there is radiation in the box I should be able to know it within an hour by the headache I anticipate I will get. There will be no need to stay the full 3 hours then. I would be prepared to do a couple of full three hours if I wear protective headgear and am in a prone position. This is when I anticipate getting stomach pains a couple of hours afterward and possibly diarrhea that night.

There must be no way of signalling me what covering is on. That is the tricky bit. I should perhaps make an insulated soundproof box as an inner box and then the covering put over (transparent or opaque to radiation). The covering should look and feel the same to onlookers and just have a label for the person choosing based on the marble they pick once I am in the inner box. Complicated but magicians work by getting that information. They cheat. I want no accusations of cheating.

I figure that maybe we should choose 3 black and 3 white marbles and then randomly pick from a mixed bag so we do not know the exact ratio of black to white in the trials. That way I would not be able to do 5 of black or white and declare the rest.

Please feel free to comment. I do not want you to start picking holes in the procedure because you do not like the result.

[alancalverd]

I'm baffled by "box" and "covering". My suggestion was that you just go about your daily life and record your symptoms, whilst a machine records your exposure. If you involve other people who will know in some way whether a particular tower is transmitting, you damage the credibility of the experiment. The essence of a blind correlation trial is that nobody and nothing apart from the dumb recording machine knows about the cause, and you record the effect. Don't avoid other towers (there may be some you can't see), just record your symptoms as they occur and let the machine do the work.

Good luck.

[Bored chemist]

I agree with Alan; it's a perfectly simple experiment.
I also think you should answer my questions.

[CliveG]

I'm baffled by "box" and "covering". My suggestion was that you just go about your daily life and record your symptoms, whilst a machine records your exposure. If you involve other people who will know in some way whether a particular tower is transmitting, you damage the credibility of the experiment. The essence of a blind correlation trial is that nobody and nothing apart from the dumb recording machine knows about the cause, and you record the effect. Don't avoid other towers (there may be some you can't see), just record your symptoms as they occur and let the machine do the work.

Good luck.

I am even more baffled that you do not seem to have grasped the problems I am having and how they are occurring.

What you are proposing is not a blind experiment at all. No matter what the recorder/meter says.

I do NOT have symptoms:
a) when I am not at our house OR
b) when I am at our house and shield myself or stay in the low radiation areas OR
c) when I am at our house, am unshielded, and am in the high radiation area for less than 20 minutes.

I ONLY have symptoms (and I have them every time ie consistently):
a) when I am at our house. AND
b) do not shield myself AND
c) am in the high radiation area for more than 20 minutes.

So if I go to the house and follow the above rules I will know when I would be getting symptoms. I do not need to look at the meter. How is this a blind experiment?
 
It would be a blind experiment if I spent time in the garden without shielding in the high radiation area for more than an hour and did not know if the tower was transmitting because the Telcons would be participating in the experiment and turning it on or off. I have said before that they will not participate in such a test because they KNOW it will prove me right. How do you think we knew they turned the tower on against the orders of the Court? First my wife got a tower headache. Not a nocebo effect because we both thought the tower was off. THEN I checked with the meter.

I have to be in a high radiation area close to the tower to get an effect. So I have to be either shielded or not shielded and not know whether the shield is in place or not. The inner box prevents me from knowing whether the outer shielding box is in place or the non-shielded box.

Tell me you now finally understand.