Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization
This topic is about Dirty Electricity
213 views
FUTURISTIC TECH > How valid are health concerns about the dangers of EMFs and WI-FI?

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1736 comments The short answer, according to many respected experts is: yes. http://www.safeschool.ca/Swisscom__Wi...

And here's a great article about WiFi's radiation being provably harmful to trees:
http://consciouslifenews.com/study-fi...

The other short answer, according to many respected experts is: no.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology...

(James and Lance, you'll like the picture in this article of an actual tin foil hat wearer!)

Like the harmful effects from mobile phones, microwaves, phone masts, chemtrails and fluoridisation, WiFi is one of those subjects that always has two opinions. Personally, I think the fact that the issue is always presented as black and white, coupled with mainstream media usually taking the side of 'oh, it's all fine!' means I trust the flipside more.
(And what can we do anyway? How would we live now without WiFi... which is slowly being available in open public spaces everywhere- Argentina being the first country to adopt the practice).

This is why I make my case for being a smoker. Everyone uses and enjoys things that are harmful to their health all the time, even if unwittingly, in my own stubborn opinion.


message 2: by Lance, Group Founder (new)

Lance Morcan | 1985 comments Harry wrote: "The short answer, according to many respected experts is: yes. http://www.safeschool.ca/Swisscom__Wi...

And here's a great article about WiFi's radiation being provably harmful to trees:..."


Yep love the hat...but not as good as the hat that appears in our blog from time to time!


message 4: by Feliks (new)

Feliks (Dzerzhinsky) I can name a horde of disturbing articles and reports. The calamity is vastly underrated and under-reported. Certainly our newsmedia will never stand up against a multi-billion dollar telecom industry.

So who else ever will? No one. Sales simply roll. Phone companies have vast marketing budgets...if you are a naysayer against this technology, what is your budget to get your message out? Zilch.

Cell phones are certainly dangerous in a purely physical sense (radiation, etc). I did not think this was even in question. The fact that so many dipshits are cell phone owners does not detract from the slightest, in the danger they represent. If a million people purchase a defective technology, does that make it safe? No, it just means that a million asshats obeyed a stupid commercial impulse and followed the 'instructions-on-a-box'.

Reactionary, you say? Oh, really? Well, why shouldn't we be suspicious? Was it ever "on us" to prove that cellphones are not harmful? If all you can show is that there is no 'direct evidence; of harm, YOU LOSE. If you introduce a completely new technology to society, it is on *you* to prove that there is not just 'MILD HARM" ...you should prove that there is no harm at all. No POSSIBLE harm.

And, have they? Have cell phone manufacturers done any patient, painstaking analysis at all? In advance of the sales of their product? No way. Only cursory safety checks have ever been carried out. And they hardly even care about spin-off factors. In short: they have barely answered concerns about 'direct harm'...they have NO ANSWER for all the associated and attendant harms their products bring.

Meanwhile, the military-industrial establishment could not be more delighted. It means that no one will ever again 'examine their activities'. In effect, they now have a free pass to do whatever they want. All political 'consciousness' is vanished. There is no 'past'. No 'history'.

After all, when you have the internet, it is hard to even remember that government or oppression even exists anymore, right? Exactly.

Has a corporation ever killed anybody? No. Has a military ever killed an entire population? No, of course not! Now just go back to your handheld game. Correct answer! Now just go surf the net.
When there's no political zeitgeist, no one even talks to each other anymore, isn't that so? If someone is talking to you about 'duty' or 'responsibility'...isn't it easier to just look back down at the screen in your palm, since it obeys your slightest whim?

This is a state of zombification people can conceivably spent their 'entire lives' in. Really, are they even alive anymore? Can a cellphone do your thinking for you? Can it have a baby for you? Can it fall in love for you? Can it it smell a fresh spring morning for you? Can it comfort your dying father for you? What is this mania for 'convenience' people espouse lately?

And actually, can people even remember what 'death' is anymore? When you are 'zoned-out' with a completely entrancing, absorbing toy such as this, can you even bear in mind that human life is terminal? It's pretty hard, isn't it. When a toy literally never turns itself off, what does it mean in human terms?

The internet and all related leisure technology are a DISASTER for human rights, for progress, for solidarity, for unity...for culture, for community, for spirituality and for idealism of any kind. Do you own a cell phone? Do you pay a monthly bill? Then, I congratulate you on abandoning your brain.


message 5: by Feliks (new)

Feliks (Dzerzhinsky) There is no way that cellphone masts should be installed anywhere around elementary schools or daycare centers, or hospitals. Can I be blunt here? I guess I have to. Let me speak plainly:

Scumbag building owners will SUCK THE BALLS of any cellphone company sales rep who shows up at their door with the offer of free monthly income for antennae placement. No questions asked. In a New York minute!!!!

So, do we trust public health to building landlords? Place antennaes anywhere that a company wants, even though heir health research is so scanty? Its astounding that people are not more up in arms over this.

This technology is simply too new. It absolutely can not be proven in the slightest, that it is completely safe. It is not proven over time. Yet, antennaes are endemic, now. Why? Ass-headed capitalism, nothing more.

Hello, Ford Pinto?! Hello, THREE MILE ISLAND? Hello, Dark Circle? Hello, Toxic Shock syndrome? Hello, Ring of Fire gun companies? Since when do tech companies ever give a shit about unwary citizens? Feck--in New York, they trucked nuclear material right through city streets when "no one was looking"!

Since when does our typical, lazy American lust for convenience blind us to health hazards? Apparently, this is the golden age for such inattention.


message 6: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments Wi-Fi: A Silent Killer That Kills Us Slowly http://www.healthy-holistic-living.co...


message 7: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments Do you feel EMFs (Electromagnetic Fields) and WI-FI are a serious health risk to populations at large?

Here's an article from the Australian govt which says studies are inconclusive...

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health issues https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/h...

Here's a book written by a scientist, Dr. Milham, that says EMFs are very harmful...

Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization

Dirty Electricity Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization by Samuel Milham

"Dr. Milham warns that because of the recent proliferation of radio frequency radiation from cell phones and towers, terrestrial antennas, Wi-Fi and Wi-max systems, broadband internet over power lines, and personal electronic equipment, we may be facing a looming epidemic of morbidity and mortality."

So what's the verdict???


message 8: by Vanessa (new)

Vanessa It’s not even a question- the EPA has known the epigenetic effects of wireless technologies on children for a long time:

“The wide array of pathophysiological effects of EMF and RFR exposures from wireless sources do not require “the breaking of molecular bonds” as done by ionizing radiation in order for physiologically damaging effects to occur. Epigenetic mechanisms alone can change fetal development in profound ways, disrupting health by causing changes in gene activation and expression without change in gene sequences. Environmental epigenetic influences in the fetal and neonatal development (i.e., epigenetic regulation of genes rather than direct genetic effects by gene mutation) have been plausibly established to cause pathophysiological changes that can result in altered neurological development. Symptoms of neurodevelopmental problems in children like retarded memory, impaired learning, cognition, attention, and behavioral aberrations that are similarly expressed in autism and ADHD have been reported in numerous scientific studies to occur as a result of EMF and RFR exposures. Epigenetic drivers are the most likely causes, and persistent exposures contribute to chronic dysfunction and addiction that can overwhelm adaptive biological responses. [CJF emphasis added]”

http://www.bioinitiative.org/how-wire...

In addition to the toxic pesticides, flame retardant chemicals, injected antifreeze, formaldehyde, ethylmercury, aluminum, and other known neurotoxins given to our infant children (and developing fetuses via their mother), now we can add wireless device technology and radiation to the list of known developmental distruptors that contribute to neurological disorders.

Is it any wonder why developmental disorders have skyrocketed and neurological disorders like Parkinson’s have increased 30% in the last 20 years?


message 9: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments I think the problem here is locating the cause of an effect. The usual effect of absorbing RF frequency is to generate heat. The problem might be that it is very localised at first, and so there may be a problem for some processes, however there is nowhere near enough energy to break any chemical bond that is stable enough to be useful for life. Even if it broke a hydrogen bond, which it would struggle to do, that would reform almost instantly. On the other hand perhaps we can't be sure that in that brief instant, something weird might have happened.

On the other hand, how do you separate the variables? Modern living is so different from even a hundred years ago. How do you know effect A was caused by Wifi when there are thousands of other things that might have caused it?


message 10: by John (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments I you live in a city, consider your relationship to the Moon. Personally, I can hardly feel it is there. One thought was that "city vibes" (including radio frequency radiation) fuck up my chances of tuning in to nature. (A crackpot suggestion, I know, but it fits in with the Romantics.)

(If you think I am indulging in too much topic shift, tell me to shut up and I will !)


message 11: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments What's your gut feeling on EMFs, Ian?
Not being scientific like you, I'm confused and on the fence here...


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments My gut feeling is they aren't anything to worry about, but you probably shouldn't be on a cellphone all day. If there were to be a problem, I think it would be in the brain chemistry.


message 13: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments Okay, thanks...
So nothing to worry about (except we might be frying our brains?!)
:)


message 14: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments And by the time your brains are fried, how do you worry??


message 15: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments Ian wrote: "And by the time your brains are fried, how do you worry??"
well that's the thing mate, I've been finding myself worrying less and less...
Which must be a sign my brains are slowly but surely being fried!!

I blame you scientists for not doing enough research...


message 16: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments What?? It's all my fault??? Whaaaa!


message 17: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 7753 comments Some positive EMFs!

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_...

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), also known as low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS), and tumor treating fields (TTF) uses electromagnetic fields in an attempt to heal non-union fractures, glioblastomas (brain tumors) [1] and depression.[2] By 2007 the FDA had cleared several such stimulation devices.[3]

In 2013 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned a manufacturer for promoting the device for unapproved uses such as cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury.[4]


message 18: by Iain (new)

Iain McKenzie (Iain_mckenzie) | 1578 comments Why not? Seems to have a broad application from killing spots on your face to cancerous cells

https://www.byrdie.com/high-frequency...


message 19: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments The link says it is an electrode that fixes acne, by generating oxygen radicals by the sound of it. It is electrolysis, not wifi.


message 20: by Iain (last edited Apr 06, 2019 10:45PM) (new)

Iain McKenzie (Iain_mckenzie) | 1578 comments Ian wrote: "The link says it is an electrode that fixes acne, by generating oxygen radicals by the sound of it. It is electrolysis, not wifi."

Wrong post, Ian. Got it mixed up with another discussing frequencies


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments OK. I just commented on what I read, rather hurriedly. A mistake.


message 22: by Iain (new)

Iain McKenzie (Iain_mckenzie) | 1578 comments Ian wrote: "OK. I just commented on what I read, rather hurriedly. A mistake."

I meant the mistake was mine. I posted it in response to James's last post.


message 23: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 534 comments Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "OK. I just commented on what I read, rather hurriedly. A mistake."

I meant the mistake was mine. I posted it in response to James's last post."


Hey, no sweat. I picked that, but I was trying to be polite :-)


message 24: by Iain (new)

Iain McKenzie (Iain_mckenzie) | 1578 comments Ian wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "OK. I just commented on what I read, rather hurriedly. A mistake."

I meant the mistake was mine. I posted it in response to James's last post."

Hey, no sweat. I picked th..."


No offence meant Ian, from my side either. :)


back to top