IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Flawed studies.

Critiques of both of those studies and others are included.

tl;dr: Insufficient sample sizes, statistically insignificant findings, cherry-picking of data, and absurd conclusions (eg. a cell tower in service for only one year caused cancers with typical gestations of several years). Each study looked only at a single tower, and as the WHO says: "Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.....Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance."

More details and other studies on the same site.
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Thanks.
What gets me about these studies on claimed causation is that it's really really hard to do them well and there's usually no evidence that they tried to do them well.


1) Every real distribution has weird outliers out at 4, 5, 6 sigma. Just from the random nature of life and from the fact that a study cannot control every single variable.

2) Things that are known carcinogens or disease causing agents - radon, lead in the air and the ground and the water, stuff picked up in food, viruses, genetic factors, etc. - are extremely difficult to control for. But they are much much more likely to cause these "clusters of cancers" than the tiny amount of scary "EMF" coming from radios and towers.

3) What is the physical, chemical, and biological basis for these claimed increased cancers? The radiated power and energy density is too low to cause these scary effects based on what we know about how the world actually works. What do experts who dedicate their lives to these fields say, as opposed to people outside the fields who are selling stuff on a blog?

4) Why are these scary claims never "marked to market"? I'm old enough to remember that everyone was going to get brain cancer from their cell phones. What happened there?? (Part of it is that digital cell phones are much more sensitive now so they don't need to broadcast as much power as in the analog days. But if there were an actual danger, we would still expect to see huge numbers of case of cell-phone-caused brain cancer because over half of the planet is using them now...)



New On the one hand ...
It's possible that increased incidence of cancer is masked by increased mortality due to other unrelated factors.

On the other hand, that suggests that maybe we should work on those factors first.

Oh the other other hand ... unless we're building infrastructure that has cumulative effects that we won't recognize until it's too difficult / expensive to swap it out for something else.

New I'm glad you found something so specific.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
     Would you put a cell tower on your land? - (crazy) - (19)
         On average, you would expect 23.3 more years. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             I'm not average - (crazy)
         I'd put one on my fuckin' roof. - (pwhysall) - (3)
             Re: I'd put one on my fuckin' roof. - (crazy) - (2)
                 How big's your property? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                     Point 4 acres - (crazy)
         If it’s within a quarter mile, cancer risk triples. - (a6l6e6x) - (11)
             Citation, please. That sounds like a nonsense study to me. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (9)
                 These are about the cell phone towers. Here's a link. - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                     Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                     She's selling stuff. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                         Re: "no-one's talking about them. At all." - (drook) - (1)
                             Oh shit. Am I... - (pwhysall)
                     Flawed studies. - (malraux) - (3)
                         Thanks. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             On the one hand ... - (drook)
                         I'm glad you found something so specific. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             Re: If it’s within a quarter mile, cancer risk triples. - (pwhysall)
         Thank you all. - (crazy)

Aim towards the Enemy.
101 ms