Essex study thoroughly debunked

http://www.mastsanity.org/

---

› See More: Essex study thoroughly debunked

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.mastsanity.org/

Hmm - a truly non-biased, independent, scientifically-based organisation who
are likely to listen to and be influenced by all sides of the debate...
;-(

George

In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

> http://www.mastsanity.org/
>

Why do you keep peddling this nonsense?

Even if it were true that such EM radiation can cause harm to some
people, most people appear to be prepared to take the risk rather than
give up the convenience of mobile phones, wifi, etc.

Most people are prepared to accept some risk in their lives. Every day
we take risks because of the benefits. There is a risk of slipping and
falling in the shower, but most people prefer to take that risk in
order to be clean.

There are proven and large risks associated with smoking, driving a
car, drinking alcohol,etc etc etc... Even crossing roads is not
risk-free. Yet most people are still prepared to travel in cars and
cross roads and many people continue to smoke and drink alcohol.

Some people, maybe including you, are paranoid about risks and want to
try to achieve the impossible and live in a risk-free environment.
Fine. They can stay in their safe little caves rather than go out
exploring and risk being stomped on by a mammoth. But don't expect the
rest of us to care.

BTW - despite several requests I note you have not backed up your claim
to have worked in research (whatever that means). It's probably
pointless for those who better qualified than you are to mention their
qualifications because no doubt people like you will say that
researchers with PhDs in mainstream studies are part of the
'establishment' and therefore biased in their research.

Anyway, FWIW, I have a BSc in Human Physiology, A PhD in
Neurotoxicology and over 20 years of research experience in various
universities in the UK and USA. However, no doubt you will still claim
that you are better qualified than I am to assess the research report
that you quote.

Kit

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:14:12 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

This is obviously a new and innovative use of the words "thoroughly"
and "debunked".

Apparently Mastinsanity think its all down to organo phosphorous
poisoning and the Gulf War.

They also trot out the old "The Essex University Study was initiated
by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme
(MTHR)[2] and was funded half by the Mobile Phone Industry and half
by the Government.... This fact makes the Study very much open to
undue 'influence'"

How lucky it was that Lenny posted a link to another study yesterday
showing clearly that dual funded research produces the highest
quality results. He should send a copy to Mastinsanity to put their
minds at rest.

"With the help of experts we have now examined the Essex study" they
say but fail to say which experts. The two who appear on the same
page are George Carlo whose powers of prescience should not be
underestimated -

"Dr George Carlo has released the following comments as his reaction
to the Essex EHS study in absence of the results findings"

Dr Carlo is the founder, owner and Chairman of a "Science and Public
Policy Institute" (There appear to be several, one claiming global
warming doesn't exist.

Trained as a lawyer and pathologist he also runs the spin off "Safe
Wireless Initiative (SWI)" which has a "strategic alliance" with
Biopro Technology.

"One of the key reasons for the SWI having entered into a strategic
alliance with BIOPRO Technology is because BIOPRO offers a wide
spectrum of products and programs that are effective intervention
tools, satisfying the public health paradigm."

Biopro Technology don't want to frighten anyone with their claim that
"by the year 2010 three hundred million deaths will occur as a direct
correlation to cell phone usage" but would like you to buy one of
their "new generation of wellness solutions" using patented MRET
(Molecular Resonance Effect Technology) and proprietary ERT (Energy
Resonance Technology). "Powered by a hi-tech polymer, the particles
within the MRET compound - once stimulated by EMF/EMR - oscillate,
emitting a low frequency noise-field that superimposes itself over
the harmful high-frequency microwave radiation. Studies have shown
that this process creates an incoherent, bio-friendly wave, thereby
dramatically reducing the otherwise inappropriately triggered
protective responses by the body’s key systems."

"ERT is BIOPRO’s proprietary subtle energy technology. It is
substantiated by Independent Researchers, Peer-reviewed studies, etc.
ERT powers BIOPRO’s various subtle energy carriers. While the
presence of EMF/EMR disrupts communication across a person’s
biofield, ERT-charged carriers emit a subtle energy field, restoring
vital communication across the biofield by assisting the transmission
of signals that improve resistance"

For only $US240 you can buy a six pack of BioPro Universal chips to
stick on devices to render them safe. For only another $US927 you
can get an iWater Activator system and for a mere $US69 a BioPro
Smartcard "For the ultimate optimization of nutrient delivery, BIOPRO
created the BIOPRO SmartCard, a true revolution in bioenergetics.
Through the power of ERT, the Smart Card transfers superior energy
boosting properties to any liquid placed on it, greatly enhancing its
flavor and taste and in the process, preparing your Biofield for its
maximum enhancement. BIOPRO recommends using the SmartCard to enhance
water or healthy fruit or vegetable juices you use when following
your regimen to receive optimal nutrient delivery."

Apparently it makes coffee taste better as well.

I can see how Carlos is well placed to give "independent" comment.


The second "expert" is

"Dr Grahame Blackwell, Independent consultant on wireless telecoms
health issues"

Blackwell is a bit coy about his background but is apparently a
software engineer whose PhD thesis was on "An Expert System Approach
to Collision Avoidance". Obviously a well qualified "expert" in RF
engineering. He is however "Actively pursuing personal research in
Relativity and Quantum Physics".

He has also published a book called "Tapestry of Light A Scientific
Insight Into the Nature of Material Reality [NOTE: This book contains
NO maths]" where he "Develops the energy-flow description of
particles ..., presenting compelling evidence that matter is composed
of light. Shows how this explains - for the very first time - why
the speed of light measures the same for all observers, no matter
what speed they are moving at."

"Matter IS composed of light - PROVED (beyond reasonable doubt) by
Dr Grahame Blackwell, 2006"

Rather unusually for a work of such staggering importance he wrote
the popular book first and doesn't appear to have got around to any
scientific paper on the subject as yet.

I realise Lenny doesn't actually debate anything, relying instead on
the dictum "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" and
posting endless meaningless links to further this cause but perhaps
the following is appropriate:-

"They laughed at Galileo but he turned out to be right. They're
laughing at me, therefore I must be right!"

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.mastsanity.org/
>

What no cut & paste !

Adam

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:49 +0100, Kit wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.mastsanity.org/
>>
>>
> Why do you keep peddling this nonsense?

If you think it is nonsense then ignore it. You know what they tell you
to do in usenet faqs. Take their advice.

> Even if it were true that such EM radiation can cause harm to some people,
> most people appear to be prepared to take the risk rather than give up the
> convenience of mobile phones, wifi, etc.
>
> Most people are prepared to accept some risk in their lives. Every day we
> take risks because of the benefits. There is a risk of slipping and
> falling in the shower, but most people prefer to take that risk in order
> to be clean.
>
> There are proven and large risks associated with smoking, driving a car,
> drinking alcohol,etc etc etc... Even crossing roads is not risk-free. Yet
> most people are still prepared to travel in cars and cross roads and many
> people continue to smoke and drink alcohol.
>
> Some people, maybe including you, are paranoid about risks and want to try
> to achieve the impossible and live in a risk-free environment. Fine. They
> can stay in their safe little caves rather than go out exploring and risk
> being stomped on by a mammoth. But don't expect the rest of us to care.

You may be reckless but I am not paranoid. I have a mobile phone. I am a
licensed radio ham but I believe these things should be used responsibly.

> BTW - despite several requests I note you have not backed up your claim to
> have worked in research (whatever that means). It's probably pointless
> for those who better qualified than you are to mention their
> qualifications because no doubt people like you will say that researchers
> with PhDs in mainstream studies are part of the 'establishment' and
> therefore biased in their research.

Don't put words in my mouth.

> Anyway, FWIW, I have a BSc in Human Physiology, A PhD in Neurotoxicology
> and over 20 years of research experience in various universities in the
> UK and USA. However, no doubt you will still claim that you are better
> qualified than I am to assess the research report that you quote.

I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.

> Kit

In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.
>

1) Just because you say something is a fact doesn't actually make it a
fact.

2) Just because two items of information may actually be facts does not
mean they are causally related.

Kit

> I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.

And the fact remains that despite your claim to have worked in research, you
have not provided any proof. Those same Usenet FAQs to which you refer also
suggest that if you make a claim and are challenged, it is for you to either
substantiate or withdraw.

Which would you care to do?

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:57:40 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.

The facts do, but you are not posting facts but the ramblings of
various ill informed pressure groups.

There is a marked difference between a pressure group and a
scientist. The pressure group starts with a belief and a mission and
hangs on to that belief by any means possible. It is blind to
anything which contradicts or disproves their hypothesis, for
contradiction is failure. The classic recent example are the "MMR
causes autism" groups who are hanging on to a thoroughly discredited
idea in the face of all the evidence. Nothing will convince them
they are wrong although it is blindingly obvious to any outside
observer.

Similarly the electrosmogists refuse to consider they could be
possibly be wrong and resort to disparaging anything which
contradicts their semi-religious beliefs. As they usually can't
counter the science they resort to conspiracy theories of increasing
improbability and "personal anecdotes".

The illiterate fantasy "press release" on the mastsanity website
"Essex University have MISREPRESENTED - 'SPUN' - their Press Release
regarding the data and results contained in their study - presumably
to please their Industry and Governmental pay masters" is about the
best level of debate they can rise to. They are simply a crude
propaganda organisation.

A good scientist on the other hand will propose a theory and yet
happily discard it if evidence to the contrary comes along. In
science it isn't failure to be proven wrong but progress. _If_ there
was any evidence of harm the scientific community would embrace it.
This approach is fundamentally irreconcilable with that of the single
issue propagandists for whom there is only one truth and facts will
not deflect them from it. As long as the smogologists believe only
they can ever be right and refuse to consider anything disproving
them rational discussion cannot take place.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:49 +0100, Kit <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> http://www.mastsanity.org/
>>
>
>Why do you keep peddling this nonsense?

Probably because idiots like you are seemingly obsessed with debunking
it.

The simple fact is we do need to be very wary of anything that may
harm us, and there is definite proof that *waves* can. So on that
basis, if you don't like his free advice, sod off!

Some of us appreciate anyone concerned enough to give us free advice,
what we do with it is up to us, that includes you.

What we don't want are the more obsessive stalkers who follow people
like Lenny around heckling for the sake of it.

**** off and get a life, and leave us alone.

No offence.

In article <[email protected]>, Paul
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:49 +0100, Kit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.mastsanity.org/
> >>
> >
> >Why do you keep peddling this nonsense?
>
> Probably because idiots like you are seemingly obsessed with debunking
> it.
>
> The simple fact is we do need to be very wary of anything that may
> harm us, and there is definite proof that *waves* can. So on that
> basis, if you don't like his free advice, sod off!

There is virtually no evidence and certainly no proof, otherwise Lenny,
you and his other sockpuppets would have shown us that proof, not
pointed us at vague and inaccurate reports.

WAVE!!

There, I've just WAVED at you...
Do you feel harmed by it??

Or do you mean we should avoid coastal regions?

> Some of us appreciate anyone concerned enough to give us free advice,
> what we do with it is up to us, that includes you.

Just because advice is free does not make it accurate and/or useful

> What we don't want are the more obsessive stalkers who follow people
> like Lenny around heckling for the sake of it.
>
Correcting misleading information and challenging inaccuracy is not
'heckling'. However, no doubt people like you with fixed beliefs will
assume that and disagreement with those beliefs is 'heckling'.

> **** off and get a life, and leave us alone.

That's what people have been trying to tell Lenny, but he doesn't take
any notice, so why should I?

Kit

"Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:52:49 +0100, Kit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lenny <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.mastsanity.org/
>>>
>>
>>Why do you keep peddling this nonsense?
>
> Probably because idiots like you are seemingly obsessed with debunking
> it.

"Idiot":
"Idiot" was originally created to refer to people who were overly concerned
with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community.
Now who do you think might be considered to be an idiot, the majority of
contributors to this group or Lenny?

> The simple fact is we do need to be very wary of anything that may
> harm us, and there is definite proof that *waves* can. So on that
> basis, if you don't like his free advice, sod off!

"Definite proof":
Check out Google for "definite proof".
The highest-scoring entry is:
"I have definite proof aliens are real"
Enough said?

>
> Some of us appreciate anyone concerned enough to give us free advice,
> what we do with it is up to us, that includes you.

If you consider Lenny's rantings and cutting-and-pasting to be "free
advice", as opposed to those in here who have scientific qualifications, I
am sorry for you.

> What we don't want are the more obsessive stalkers who follow people
> like Lenny around heckling for the sake of it.

Stalkers?
Rational, educated people more like.

>
> **** off and get a life, and leave us alone.

Thanks for the polite rejoinder - we will. (By the way, who is this "us" of
whom you speak? Lenny, you and who else?)

>
> No offence.

No? You could have fooled me...

George

In message <[email protected]>
Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.

I don't think /anybody/ has yet established what the facts are.

Dave

"Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.
>
> I don't think /anybody/ has yet established what the facts are.

ITYM no one has any proof that WiFi is dangerous.
It is impossible to prove its safe.. no real scientist can provide proof
that it is safe.. which is why people like Lenny exist.. they don't
understand science and probably never will.

"dennis@home" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>
>> Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care what you have done. The facts stand on their own merit.
>>
>> I don't think /anybody/ has yet established what the facts are.
>
> ITYM no one has any proof that WiFi is dangerous.
> It is impossible to prove its safe.. no real scientist can provide proof
> that it is safe.. which is why people like Lenny exist.. they don't
> understand science and probably never will.

Absolutely.
There is nothing in this world that is absolutely safe.
Example - part of my job involves tree inspections. No arboriculturalist
will ever give a statement that a tree is safe - he'd be daft to do so, as
there might be, for instance, a freak wind the next day which could cause
the tree to fall). Instead, in such circumstances, we write that "no defects
or causes for concern were found at the time of my inspection".
Using the twisted logic of Lenny and others and his ilk, the absurd logical
conclusion in the above example would be to fell all trees, as none could be
pronounced absolutely safe.
The world is full of risks, some of which have an infinitesimal probability
of occurring, or of causing damage to persons. That's where risk assessment
comes in and any manufacturer, government, etc. would be daft not to carry
out exhaustive assessments when suspicions arise that a new product might be
dangerous. The fact that such assessments have been made, with no conclusive
proof of harm being likely to occur within normal use of such a product,
satisfies everyone, except, of course, the "flat-earthers" such as Lenny,
who won't believe anything that conflicts with their misguided beliefs and
put their fingers in their ears and shout "can't hear you!" when someone
tries to point out the errors of their ways with scientific evidence.

George