A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby justdrew » Fri May 24, 2013 5:51 am

another one of the creepy spambots... This one reads like a nam shub (snow crash ref)

renaebaldini » 24 May 2013 01:28 wrote:The activity of the animal beings has become acutely active everywhere on this earth. Bodies do not get time to booty a blow for a while. With the accretion use of altered gadgets of Gps Jammer, the possibilities of accepting the aboriginal of blow accept absolutely finished. The adaptable phones or the corpuscle phones are some of these accessories that accumulate the bodies consistently in blow with the alfresco world. The adaptable building are additionally accessible about everywhere these canicule and due to this the accessibility of the Cell Phone Jammer has become alike added quick and authentic. Today, you cannot break out of ability of these adaptable building as their signals can bolt your about anywhere. The bearings of bodies who accord to altered business professions has become actual analytical of wifi jammer as their authorities bolt them anywhere any moment.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby Elihu » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:21 pm

this is a cross-post and sorry to quote myself but i saw something interesting yesterday on my local "news". it stated, while showing someone plugging in an electric vehicle, that the per gallon equivalent cost of operating an electric vehicle is $1.09 compared with about $3.49 i pump today. i wrote:
i think the blatantly telegraphed effort by the oil and coal majors (how many are there, 6-12?) to fund "denier" groups is all part of the ruse. "protect our profits through greed the planet be damned" generates a visceral reaction in the target audience and indirectly reenforces belief in ACC. these entities are so far beyond "business supplying customer with product". profits ceased to thrill a long time ago. all the regulations in the world are no threat to their business. they're into social engineering in concert now. the global regulatory pall of "individual, low and monitored energy consumption" is not going to affect them at all. if anything, it's going to dry like cement around their entrenched positions as global energy suppliers.
so now i see how the world will be converted to electric: concerted political and financial leverage. bailed out auto majors will produce these by fiat and they will be plugged into the grid panopticon (smart everything - tvs, cars, blenders, toasters, irons, phones, radios, computers, tools, clothes, hvacs, ski-lifts, diving boards, etc.) "surveillance" if it is not quaint already which i believe it is, will simply fade out as a concept because of ubiquity. literally. how else could the oil majors see their annual rake fall from 5 trillion (or whatever it is) to one without squaking if it was really money they cared about? money's been conquered. it's the power hard-on from here on out. hence the messy daily war for ubiquity of perception and opinion. gimme fifty on the empire....
Stupid Evil vs Regular Evil....
Don't know who to root for in that war.
vince :
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:23 pm

not to mention that the electro-radiation pollution from these types of "green" energies is worse for us than the chemical pollution ever was or could be.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby Mythic Time » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:45 am

My daughter died of brain cancer - glioblastoma - in 2009. The tumors erupted within 1/2" of the microphone edge of her phone . She was on it all the time. I agree with the above poster's speculation of a future tsunami of brain cancer. But it will never be blamed on cell phones. It's bad enough to diss a single brand. But diss an entire distuptive industry? Never happen.
"The self is fundamentally an illusion arising as a reflection of the soul in matter, much as a clear lake at midnight reflects the moon."

Fred Alan Wolf
User avatar
Mythic Time
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby elfismiles » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Mythic Time » 09 Feb 2015 11:45 wrote:My daughter died of brain cancer - glioblastoma - in 2009. The tumors erupted within 1/2" of the microphone edge of her phone . She was on it all the time. I agree with the above poster's speculation of a future tsunami of brain cancer. But it will never be blamed on cell phones. It's bad enough to diss a single brand. But diss an entire distuptive industry? Never happen.


Sorry for your loss MT.

I also wonder if there will be a tidal wave of cancers caused by cellphone, wifi, and other EMF related devices.

We are awash in electro-pollution.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:38 pm

Oh, Mythic Time, how sad it is to lose your child. I am profoundly sorry.

Dr. David Carpenter has done quite a bit of research on the dangers of smart appliances and cellular telephones, and he's anything but a quack.

Google: Dr. David Carpenter: Cell phone dangers
This is my result, which may not work in your browser:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+David+Carpenter%3B+Cell+phone+dangers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Just today Samsung issued a warning to the owners of its Smart TVs, advising them not to talk too loudly near their televisions as others in remote places could hear their conversation. But that's a different issue.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby elfismiles » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:10 am

At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk
By DANNY HAKIMJAN. 1, 2016

A 2010 study found no overall increase in health risk from cellphone use, but monthly usage time was much shorter then. Credit Zoran Milich/Reuters

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published new guidelines 18 months ago regarding the radiation risk from cellphones, it used unusually bold language on the topic for the American health agency: “We recommend caution in cellphone use.”

The agency’s website previously had said that any risks “likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

Within weeks, though, the C.D.C. reversed course. It no longer recommended caution, and deleted a passage specifically addressing potential risks for children.

Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems; rather, behaviors like texting while driving are seen as the real health concerns. Nevertheless, more than 500 pages of internal records obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets.

Although the initial C.D.C. changes, which were released in June 2014, had been three years in the making, officials quickly realized they had taken a step they were not prepared for. Health officials and advocates began asking if the new language represented a policy change. One state official raised the question of potential liabilities for allowing cellphones in schools.

C.D.C. officials began debating how to back away from their recommendation of caution, internal emails show. One official proposed saying instead that other countries — “specifically the United Kingdom and Canadian governments” — recommended caution. Others suggested pointing to determinations by agencies in Finland, Israel and Austria. Ultimately, though, no other country was mentioned.

Bernadette Burden, a C.D.C. spokeswoman, said in a statement that the original changes made in June 2014 stemmed from “a C.D.C.-wide effort to make health information for the public easier to understand” but led to confusion that the agency was making a new policy statement.

“To correct that misperception and to confirm that C.D.C. had not changed its policy or recommendations, C.D.C. posted a clarification statement,” she said, adding that the cellphone industry did not weigh in before changes were made.

Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the C.D.C. division that made the changes, disagreed with the decision to pull back the revised version. “I would not have removed it,” he said in an interview. “I would have been in support of a recommendation that parents look carefully at whether their children need cellphones or not.”

Mr. Portier, who led the center when the revision process was initiated, said he believed parents should have been presented “with enough information to say caution isn’t ill advised, because we really don’t know, and there are enough indicators to say we should be cautious.”

Mr. Portier also served on the International Agency for Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that in May 2011 called low-frequency radiation from cellphones and other devices a possible carcinogen, a designation that has also been used for coffee and pickled vegetables. He said the I.A.R.C. declaration led him to seek a review of the C.D.C. guidelines.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2 ... r208_E.pdf

Mr. Portier’s view is not shared by many other experts. While sporadic claims about cellphones and cancer go back several decades, most American organizations echo the Federal Communications Commission, which says radio-frequency energy is not “effectively linked” with “any known health problems.”

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-dev ... h-concerns

Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful. Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors and countless other devices.

John D. Boice Jr., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said his own research had found “no evidence for associations with brain tumors or any other cancers.”

The European Environment Agency, like some others in Europe, strikes a more cautious tone than American agencies. “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,” the European agency says. It advocates “a precautionary approach to policy making in this area.”

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/hea ... bile-phone

Regarding children, the European agency says, “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.”

Given the state of the research, the industry has rejected health concerns. When Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance last spring requiring retailers to warn customers that radiation emitted by cellphones could be hazardous, CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group, sued. It called the ordinance “scientifically baseless and alarmist,” adding that the federal government had determined that “cellphones approved for sale in the United States, however worn, are safe for everyone.” The lawsuit is pending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/ce ... ebate.html
http://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/ ... 91_1_0.pdf

The study cited most often is Interphone, a multination review published by the I.A.R.C. in 2010. CTIA, in a statement, noted that Interphone found “over all, no increase in risk.” But Interphone did find “some indications of an increased risk of glioma,” a type of brain tumor, among the heaviest 10 percent of cellphone users, though “the researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.”

https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/ ... r200_E.pdf

Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, Interphone’s principal investigator, said in an interview, “I can’t say for sure there’s an effect, but I can’t say for sure there’s no effect.”

However, the usage rates studied were far lower than those seen now, she said. The median call time in the study was two to two and a half hours per month. A Nielsen study in 2014 found that Americans used smartphones more than 34 hours a month, on average, though more often for games or social media than for communications.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/n ... globe.html

Dr. Cardis is now conducting a large government-funded study in Europe of the potential risks of cellphone use among children. Nevertheless, she uses a mobile phone herself, as do her children — though she said it was prudent to use headsets or speakerphone, or to text, instead of holding the device next to your ear.

<snip>

“Some organizations recommend caution in cellphone use,” the agency’s guidelines now say. But the C.D.C. is not one of them.



A version of this article appears in print on January 2, 2016, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: At C.D.C., Evolution of Advice on Phones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/techn ... -risk.html
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: A Thread About Smart Meters And Smart Electricity Grid

Postby elfismiles » Fri May 27, 2016 10:41 am

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
It's the moment we've all been dreading.
Josh Harkinson, May 27, 2016 1:41 AM
It's the moment we've all been dreading. Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency (RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ion-cancer


http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/earl ... 9.full.pdf

Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures)
Draft 5-19-2016

Table
of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 4
Study Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 5
Description of the NTP Cell Phone RFR Program .................................................................... 6
Study Design .................................................................................................................................. 7
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Brain................................................................................................................................... 9
Heart................................................................................................................................. 10
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 15
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A – Contributors ........................................................................................................ 17
Appendix B – Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................. 18
Appendix C - Pathology .............................................................................................................. 21
Appendix D – Historical Controls ............................................................................................. 26
Appendix E – Time on Study to Appearance of Tumors ........................................................ 27
Appendix F – Reviewer’s Comments ........................................................................................ 29
Appendix G – NIH
Reviewer’s Comments .............................................................................. 32
Appendix
G1: Reviewer’s
Comments ........................................................................... 3
3
Appendix G2: NTP’s Responses to NIH Reviewer’s Comments
............................... 6
5

1
.
CC-BY 4.0 International license
peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a
The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699
doi:
bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016;

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/earl ... 9.full.pdf
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests