From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:15:01 +0100
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:50:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Michael Williams
wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org
ogle.com>) about 'Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?', on
Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
>I agree with what I think is your search for valid data, but there
>is not reason to believe that some small group of "peers" will
>be better than anyone else in revealing it.
The Schoen scandal supports your point. But do we have anything better
than peer review to distinguish reliable reports form imagination?
> If anything,
>peer groups turn into the very special-interest groups that you
>seem to shun. Keeping doubt and fear in the air is good for
Ah! That's the explanation New 2020 is actually a research scientist
whipping up controversy so as to support his research grant application!
>You should seek TRUTHFUL research, not "peer-reviewed"
>research. They sometimes are the same, but not necessarily.
Please explain how to distinguish truthful research from other kinds.
>Who are the "peers" who know what they are talking about?
We might think it reasonable that other researchers in the field might
know a little more about it than, say, a ship's captain.
>Test them against my first posting in this thread!
I don't have it.
>As for references, there are too many to cite here in entirety,
>and I'm not going to write a literature review for you.
>Here are a couple on HARMFUL effects of low-power microwaves:
>Hocking & Westerman, 2001, Occupational Medicine (Lond),
>v. 51(6), 410 - 413. Hocking has lots of examples of damage by RF.
>He makes his living treating these cases (he is a licensed MD
No doubt this is a very good living, too. Not an impartial person.
>Lu, et al, 1999, Physiology & Behavior, v. 65(4/5 Jan), 753 - 761.
>de Pomerai, et al, 2000, Nature, v. 405, 417 - 418. Shows an effect
>assumed to indicate harm. The effect has been extrapolated to
>indicate a risk of cancer. See French, et al, 2001, Differentiation,
>v. 67, 93 - 97.
'Assumed', 'extrapolated'. One can 'prove' anything that way.
>Sanders & Joines (U. S. EPA), 1984, Bioelectromagnetics, v. 5,
>63 - 70.
>By the way, I own shares in some high-tech,
>microwave-oriented companies: They would lose value (more) if
>they were forced to confront reality on the danger of
>selling microwave transmitters without knowing whether they were
>harmful or not. But, I'd rather lose the money than become
>a mouthpiece for a gang of thieves or bozoes.
Here we go! What evidence do you have that I am a mouthpiece for a gang
of thieves or bozoes? It's very easy to fling insults around, but it
doesn't reinforce your argument, it invalidates it.
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!