References: <%_wk9.52964$1C2.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><7vOrdMA0+9m9EwpL@jmwa.demon.co.uk><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com> <7RPLCIA1$Tn9EwiJ@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:20:38 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:20:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
I have already stated that I have no axe to grind. This is towards public
service mixed with personal safety.
"John Woodgate" wrote in message
> 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
> >research funding.
> 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.
> Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
> PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!