From: jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams)
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
Date: 4 Oct 2002 10:30:48 -0700
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>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2002 17:30:48 GMT
John Woodgate wrote in message news:<7RPLCIA1$Tn9EwiJ@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...
> 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?
I have no idea what "the Schoen scandal" is. One proper
comparison would be Enron, I think. That was the big
energy trading company which relied on conspiracies of
corporate executives to conceal debt.
This was a group of peers who collaborated too much
to their own advantage.
> > 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!
It is worrisome that we see a pseudonym rather than a real name.
> >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.
Then go back and read it! You seem to be just writing stuff
> >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.
Yes. If he were a "peer", he would have to be partial, right?
A peer is someone with a vested interest, and experience, in a field,
right? So, you ask whether to view him as a proper person to be
a peer reviewer?
The difference between him and a biologist, physicist, or engineer,
is that he must try to cure sick people. He DOESN'T make his living
writing papers actively in a field. Most of the peer review of the
harmfulness of RF are researchers who profit from papers explaining
why it is such a mystery (they even have rules about not publishing
So, maybe he is not a peer, but an objective critic. He wants to
know why so many patients are complaining of RF-caused sickness.
He earns money and practice by a reputation for CURING, not treating
fecklessly or experimenting.
> >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.
This is really funny! I wasn't making ANY reference to you.
I don't have any idea who you are or what you do for a living.
Why would you suddenly feel so guilty?
Also, I'm not insulting anyone; I'm ACCUSING them of
recklessness and foolish greed. Profits made from
harmful products STEAL the health and well-being of
the users and those around them. They steal under false
pretenses the purchase price of the product. People recklessly
marketing RF devices without knowing how or why
they might be harmful therefore are thieves. This
is my opinion, and it doesn't need any evidence,
as such. I would like nothing better than to have
the evidence against them, to weed them out and jail
them, those that actually fit the label.
Either that, or they are simple-minded fools, which I
represent as "bozoes", after that famous peer among his
coworkers, Bozo, The Clown.