Electromagnetic Radiation: Some time last year as I researched the topics for my Kindle book, Sweet Land of Liberty I made myself a promise never again to dismiss what have been called Conspiracy Theories by critics and society in general without a thorough investigation of sources of information. Of course, that meant that I had to decide what are reputable sources of information. That is not always easy. A court of law for instance demands that jury members in a trial have no conflict of interest which could affect the fair outcome of a trial. Often I can judge by observation or research that a source of information has an axe to grind. But if several independent and unbiased sources give the same information, then it can reasonably be determined to be correct. That is a sensible simplistic approach. I recognize that there is a lot of difference of opinion on the topic of electromagnetic radiation. And a lot of ignorance. I was ignorant and had a mild antagonism to the subject and those who suggested dangers until very recently. I guess I did not believe that those in authority would ignore evidence of danger. They would not allow the people of America to suffer adverse consequences. They would regulate and protect. That was what I believed before I started taking an in-depth look. Before I realized fully the stranglehold corruption of money has not only in this country but most of the world. Recently Ive been exploring the subject from the perspective of personal safety, and from the viewpoint of what politics is doing to the earth and her peoples, with to a large extent, the peoples consent. Every day it seems we add more of these sources of EMR to the world. More devices, and also more of them. Cell towers, cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi everywhere and for everything, wireless computer hardware and routers, microwave ovens, FM radio and digital TV broadcasting. Many so-called experts will say there is no danger from electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Are these experts independent and unbiased? They say there is no proof of danger. But there is something interesting about proof. It means something different according to ones perspective. To physicists and chemists and engineers who work in the physical world, the burden of proof is close to 100%. In law, more than 50% is a reasonable indication of proof. In a biological system, 30% means that something needs to be done. The difference in biological systems is because no organism is exactly the same as another. Even identical twins differ from each other. That is why diagnosing a complaint can be a daunting task sometimes. Doctors first put together a differential diagnosis and gradually work on that to narrow down the actual diagnosis with further examinations and tests of increasing complexity. So in the world of biological systems, a strong indication of a problem (but not a 100% indication of a problem) means that decisions have to be made about a reasonable course of protective action. When should protective courses of action be taken? When should something be outlawed altogether? The honest answers will be different in each circumstance. The initial decisions on EMR were made entirely from the physical world perspective and not at all from the biological perspective. The military machine was responsible for the initial 10mW/cm2 standard in microwave frequencies, based solely on the thermal concept. That means that if it didnt cause heating it was not harmful. This was extended to all military and civilian electromagnetic energy. Scientific data to the contrary were ignored and ridiculed, and misinformation was disseminated. Scientists who publicized information on harmful effects were discredited and grants were taken from them. Evidence for effects which were non-thermal was considered a threat to national security as the military body required unlimited use of electromagnetic energy. So here we are years after the inception of the 10mW/cm2 standard still arguing the matter despite huge quantities of evidence that that standard is far too high. Despite the increasing evidence that there are biological effects at a much lower intensity than that which produces heat. Despite the opinion of experts in biological systems of one kind or another. I have a lot more research to do. The subject is enormous. The following are just some of the sources of information I have used to write this. I encourage everyone to do your own research, pass on the information and protect yourself. Feel free to pass on this very short description of our EMR status. References: 1. Cross Currents: The perils of Electropollution; The Promise of Electromedicine. by Robert O. Becker, M.D. (author also of The Body Electric). This was published in 1990. An amazing book by a brilliant scientist. He was twice nominated for a Nobel prize. 2. The Bioinitiative report: bioinitiative.org This is a huge body of work, updated in 2012, and prepared by 29 authors from ten countries. 10 hold medical degrees, 21 are PhDs, 3 are MScs, MAs or MPHs. Several of these authors are persons of distinction. It is impossible to read this all in one session. It requires study. Its great value is that it specifically notes the bioeffects whilst relying on tools and approaches across the physical, biological and engineering sciences. 3. Michael R. Neuert, MA, BSME emfcenter Expert in the subject. 4. The EMF Safety Superstore lessemf A marvelous source of measuring meters, protective devices and shielding materials. These sites are only a fraction of what information and help is available by surfing the Internet.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:46:35 +0000