"Smart" Meters

[masen]

Amplitude is -20dB range in the smart meters, thats 100,000 times what is in the analog meters.

[Nebula]

Amplitude is -20dB range in the smart meters, thats 100,000 times what is in the analog meters.

It's quite clear you keep throwing out statistics that you know nothing about. And you don't acknowledge that previous numbers you've thrown out are shown to be completely benign and/or irrelevant by other posters.

[Omnitheo]

These short pulses, according to thousands of accredited scientists have the ability to break up brain proteins, DNA and can interfere with many processes in the human body.

Wrong. Real scientists know that the wavelength of radiation from wifi is far too long to break DNA or any proteins for that matter. If Wireless radiation could change dna, then so to would the entire light spectrum, Infra Red Remotes, and cordless phones.

The wavelength of radiation in Wifi: 12.5 Centimeters. (that's 125 million nano-meters) That means that all the energy of this signal is spread over that area.
The wavelength of light is anywhere between 750-380. With Infra-red being larger than 750nm.

So while decimeter long wifi waves pass by things and are absorbed by your body, your body is also absorbing radiation at thousands of times greater frequencies than the wireless waves.

EMR with wavelengths shorter than 300nm (Ultra-Violet, X-rays, Gamma Rays etc) are small enough that the entire wavelength, and thus all the energy being transmitted can be focused within a single cell, and thus breaking bonds between molecules, such as DNA and proteins. This is how radiation can cause cancer, but only at these frequencies.

Think on this next time you walk outside in the sun.

[masen]

The 2007 Bioinitiative Working Group has a list of over 2000 research reports by 'real scientists' on the dangers of RF and EMF radiation. When is a published report not done by real scientists. How do we know when someone is real? I think real means when the money paid to do the research is in no way influenced by large communication companies wanting to prove that there are no dangers. Take the case of Georges Carlo who was hired and paid millions of dollars and found very significant dangers and was immediately fired. Take Michael Repacholi and Sverdlow whose researvh money comes from these companies who stand to benefit from proving there are no dangers. This is tainted money and puts a bad light on all research done.

[Omnitheo]

The 2007 Bioinitiative Working Group has a list of over 2000 research reports by 'real scientists' on the dangers of RF and EMF radiation.

The "bionititive report" is not helping your argument at all. This is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:

The BioInitiative Report is a report on the relationship between the electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with powerlines and wireless devices and health. It was self-published online, without peer review, on 31 August 2007, by a group "of 14 scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals"

This page on wikipedia also has one of the longest "criticism" sections I've seen in an article. It's a great read.

Also, 14 scientists or health professionals may seem like a valid enough number, but not when compared to the thousands of scientists who say otherwise.

I've known "health professionals" who believe in things like reincarnation and telepathy. I know biologists who believe in creative design. Out of the millions of scientists out there, you are bound to get a few crackpots who will put their name behind something to get attention.

[masen]

I see you believe in Wikipedia. It is a belief similar to a religion where anyone can post without backing it up with science. You say there are millions of scientist who disagree with the Bioinitiative study. Back it up with proof. The most lucrative business in the world is the telecommunications industry, it has just recently gone ahead of the pharmaceutical industry for that award. So, is it surprising to find so many criticisms of this report when so much money is at stake? You say anyone can put their name to a peer reviewed scientific report. Which ones have you proof of that aren't valid? Please name the specific names, so that I can contact them, as I would like to know too, who is a fraud.

[Fancy]

I see you believe in Wikipedia. It is a belief similar to a religion where anyone can post without backing it up with science.

A lot of what is stated on Wikipedia can be backed up when you read the footnotes and references provided.

[Omnitheo]

I see you believe in Wikipedia. It is a belief similar to a religion where anyone can post without backing it up with science.

Unlike most other religions, information on wikipedia is backed up by references, and unverified information is often deleted.

You want real names?
Rodney Croft, Michael Abramson, Irena Cosic ,John Finnie, Ray McKenzie, Andrew Wood
of the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR), who in their own report stated:

"Overall we think that the BioInitiative Report does not progress science, and would agree with the Health Council of the Netherlands that the BioInitiative Report is “not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge”

This is one of numerous reports by real scientists who study this exact technology (as scientists, not businessmen) who reject the bionititive report.

[masen]

I am glad you brought up ACRBR as an example. This Australian research group was being funded by a telecommunications company called Telstra. Because it was so closely tied and the conflict of interest it caused, the government of Australia shut it down nearly 2 years ago. This precisely proves the points that if researchers are being paid by cell phone companies and other companies producing rf radiation devices they can't be trusted. Their research shouldn't be trusted either and the government was smart enough to see through the corruption.

[nextimeround]

*try again without the personal attacks/Jo*

[concernie]

Live Blood Analysis - Observable Effects of RF/MW Radiation via Smart Meters

[Jo]

This thread is slipping, with quite a few personal remarks that should be removed. However, since there are several posts containing them, I am going to suggest instead that you simply STOP with the negative personal remarks.

Further, the thread is teetering on going into the conspiracy forum. If I think enough posts justify it, I'll move it.

[concernie]

Some food for thought:

[cfriedemann]

Well, my mom just received notification that her smart meter will be installed in 2014 or 2015.

Those who still want to use analog meters will have to pay extra for them.

We initially signed a contract with West Kootney Power way back in the 70's. That contract stipulated the agreement as to what your responsibilities were as a homeowner and what West Kootney Power's responsibilities was and what they owned and what work they could and would carry out for free. One is changing the meters as they do wear out.

That has never changed.

I could care less.
...................................................................................
For the person who has the sick child in OCTOBER(around about FLU season), she could also have gotten seizures because of the flu. Childhood Epilepsy is also something that "COULD" have happened.

Also, we live an area ripe with RADON gas that comes through the concrete into the home. Asbestos has been out of the system of home insulation for quite awhile. Lead based paints still surface. Mainly from Asia. So does Mercury paints, the old Latex paints had small amounts of Mercury as a mold inhibitor on water based paints. Once dry the mercury was on the wall in trace amounts.

Gee, I handled all that stuff for a quarter century and I ain't sick yet.

Those are the facts...no emotion involved.

[concernie]