Shiver me testes, is there a botnet writing his long winded posts for him or does he really have too much time on his hands?
Shiver me testes, is there a botnet writing his long winded posts for him or does he really have too much time on his hands?
Last edited by j4ck455; 24-07-2012 at 09:29 PM.
Yet you seem to be unable to publish a SINGLE bit of all this evidence you've collected.Originally Posted by Karl Muller
You clearly did not read this study. I strongly suggest you read the stuff you like to link to so as not to come across uninformed. Like in this case.
Any unbiased person can see the exact quotes I have used from this scientific paper. Anyone can see that Jannie van Zyl has absolutely no answer to this, or all the scientific papers showing severe damage to sperm.
So he does what he always does: attacks the man. Pathetic. Let us see some evidence that YOU have read this paper and understand what it means. Otherwise, all you display is your cowardice. What is your answer to all the scientific papers showing sperm damage? Dead silence.
As for my long-winded posts: if any of you really understood how little time I have for this, how I have to make a special journey to town to get on the internet cafe to make any posts, you would be really surprised.
I was intending to be a ship's radio officer after school. I learned Morse code to 40 words per minute (requirement was 12wpm), learned all the technical skills I needed (like building my own transmitter) and then saw that touch-typing was a requirement. So at age 15, I taught myself to touch type. After more than a decade as a sub-editor, I can type extremely fast, while watching the screen.
I do not have time to edit as well as I would like, so along with Charles Dickens (I think it was) I can say -- sorry for the long letter, I didn't have time to make it shorter.
What lies ahead is --
More lies ahead.
Living off the grid, how do you keep in touch and do all your research on the latest developments and findings in this industry? At the internet café when you can get there?
If the evidence in your favour is so overwhelming/convincing please take the perpetrators (all the cellular networks) to court and let a judge close them down. Or does it bother you that the other side has as much, if not more, evidence to the contrary? What is stopping all these highly regarded experts on your side to take this matter through a judicial process to stop humanity from being abused in this experiment (as you put it)? We're not going to go anywhere on this forum to solve the problem so you should rather use the trips to the internet café to go see lawyers willing to take the networks on.
There is only one way to avoid criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing. ~ Aristotle
You did not quote from the paper. You quoted from a web site that put their own spin on it. And you just made up your own conclusions.
For example, please show where in the paper it states:
Suggest you read the actual paper.
I did.
Last edited by jannievanzyl; 25-07-2012 at 02:42 PM.
The problem our man face is that in a court of law EVIDENCE is actually important. Not how fast you can type of if you own a camera or not or how many people you know or how many web sites you've read.
The fact that you are/were a teacher/professional musician/lecturer/journalist/radio ham/researcher/author/presenter/(insert all the other jobs our man have claimed on this forum I've missed) is irrelevant.
Present the evidence.
Last edited by jannievanzyl; 25-07-2012 at 02:43 PM.
Xegactly.
There is only one way to avoid criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing. ~ Aristotle
Thirty-six words from Jannie van Zyl. Let us unpack them.You did not quote from the paper. You quoted from a web site that put their own spin on it. And you just made up your own conclusions.
Suggest you read the actual paper.
I did.
Now, I begin with a direct quote from the study. That is why I put it in quote marks, to show that I am quoting the study. To repeat, the study says of itself:You did not quote from the paper.
"Thus this study demonstrates for the first time a detailed molecular mechanism by which electromagnetic irradiation from mobile phones induces the activation of the ERK cascade and thereby induces transcription and other cellular processes."
I included the website material because this is a complex paper, and the site gave a clear explanation of some of the terms involved. The “spin” from New Scientist just points out the facts: non-ionising radiation by definition does not break DNA bonds directly; these effects are being reported at non-thermal levels. (The Friedman study goes to great lengths to show that the observed effects are not from heating.)
Then I make a link to the study itself, just in case anyone wants to read it. And I say:
“The study states:”
Thus production of ROS [reactive oxygen species] by mobile phone irradiation, a process that has already been demonstrated in previous studies, is suggested in the present study to be induced by the activation of NADH oxidase, which appears to be an early acceptor of mobile phone irradiation. These events appear to occur within seconds and initiate the subsequent activation of the pathway that leads to the phosphorylation of ERKs.
The bit in quotation marks is what I said, this time. I said: this is what the study states, and then I put a colon, to indicate that what follows is what the study states. And then I cut and paste exactly what the study states.
And Van Zyl's comment on this is:I rest my case.You did not quote from the paper.
As to my conclusions: first, understand exactly what the study is doing. It is saying: the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in response to cellphone radiation is a known process. One of the researchers quoted is Dariusz Leszczynski (try typing that fast), of the Finnish radiation protection bureau STUK. He has shown production of heat shock proteins at levels well below thermal, using ordinary cellphones to radiate human skin. I met him at the SABS/STUK conference in Johannesburg in 2007, listened to his presentation on this very topic, and no one there questioned his results.
Now, reactive oxygen species are free radicals, a known cancer risk. This is classic cancer aetiology. Other processes are also affected, including apoptosis or cell death. Cells possess a natural self-destruct mechanism. Anything that affects this crucial system is a severe hazard to the organism.
So to repeat: production of ROS in response to mobile phone radiation is a known fact at non-thermal levels. But no one is sure exactly HOW this happens. Now, I am no expert on molecular biology. But by any standards, the forensic investigation by Friedman et al is a tour de force. They systematically work through the chain of reactions to identify the initiator. As they suggest, and as I quoted, the production of reactive oxygen species is induced by the activation of NADH oxidase, which appears to be an early acceptor of mobile phone irradiation.
The study also looked at the production of certain stress proteins. Their levels were not increased. This only means one thing: it VALIDATES the fact that these effects were non-thermal. If there were heating effects, these stress mechanisms would certainly have been activated. The researchers are clear that radiation levels were at all times well below accepted mobile phone “non-thermal” levels, and that careful checks showed no temperature increases in the cell cultures with a tolerance of 0.05 degrees C.
Headline-writers picked up on the fact that cancer-causing chemicals started building up in cells within ten minutes. They did not read the study properly. The build-up in toxic chemicals peaked at 12 minutes, but as the study states:
Another indication for the mechanism of the phosphorylation of ERKs in response to mobile phone irradiation came from our finding that irradiation for 2 min was enough to exert the full effect on the phosphorylation of ERKs ... Peak activity was detected 12 min after activation, but similar or even higher phosphorylation levels were obtained when the cells were irradiated for 2 min and then left in the incubator unirradiated for an additional 10 min. These results indicate that the initial event induced by irradiation is completed within 2 min.
What this is saying is: the real damage is done within the first two minutes. After this, other cellular mechanisms kick in that may actually be protective.
That is what I see when I read this paper, and I trust you can see that I have read it rather thoroughly.
As to my conclusions: much of the radiation from your cellphone goes into your brain, where it is absorbed. Forget the grey tissue -- just the blood flow through your head is vastly more than through any other part of the body. That's a lot of cellular material sloshing in your skull. Cellphone radiation is known to increase the production of known carcinogens, reactive oxygen species, in the cytoplasm. This paper explains the exact chain of events by which this happens, and shows definitively just how QUICKLY it happens.
So my conclusion: that this study constitutes full scientific evidence that within seconds of putting a cellphone against your head, carcinogenic processes will start happening in your brain is a no-brainer. To repeat: the production of ROS is not in question. The new things being demonstrated are the speed at which this happens, which helps explicate the mechanism. The latter is important because organisations like ICNIRP demand a mechanism for any posited health effect. Cancer mechanisms have been demonstrated before, but never in this detail. If this doesn't constitute a fully worked out mechanism, what does?
Now, we get a classic “Yup, been there, done that” from Jannie van Zyl:
Let me translate this. It means Van Zyl skimmed the paper, desperately looking for the bit where it says “No conclusions can be drawn from a single study” or “This is not intended to imply anything about cellphones and health”. I also looked for this. There is no such statement. This is a very bald scientific document, but I can assure you the authors have no doubt about its explosive nature. This is why they are so careful.Suggest you read the actual paper.
I did.
Now: you may say, well, “No conclusions can be drawn from a single study”. But you would be wrong. Dead wrong.
There is something called the Precautionary Principle, a deep part of common law, and a foundation of any notion of good corporate governance or duty of care. It says: where there is an indication of risk, even if there is no full proof, note should be taken, precautions should be implemented, warnings should be given, exposure should be minimised.
Here we see a landmark paper in the field, and we can see exactly how a corporate official like Jannie van Zyl approaches it. Not one thought ever in his head that one should actually take note of something like this, or even pretend to act with due care and diligence. Just defame the messenger, is all he can do.
So this one paper proves all kinds of things. Van Zyl is talking about what evidence will be presented in court. Well, this very thread is a perfect example. Van Zyl asks for evidence. Evidence is presented to Van Zyl. I say: let us consider just this one paper.
His response is: “You didn't quote from the paper.” Go back and look. I did quote straight from the original paper.
His response is: “You didn't read it, and I did.” Not a word about what he saw there. You can be sure if there was one single crumb of comfort for his troops to be eked out there, he would have seized on it.
So he resorts to personal attacks, backed up by his cronies.
On this thread, I put up several references to studies showing sperm being severely damaged by cellphone radiation. This is apart from a peer-reviewed study showing sperm being damaged in men living near cellphone masts. There is a long history to this. Sterility was one of the first symptoms ever noted in microwave radiation, back in the 1940s.
Van Zyl says: give us EVIDENCE. So I put up a few of the peer-reviewed sperm damage studies. Dead silence from Van Zyl. Here is clear evidence that cellphone radiation is severely damaging the genetics of the human species. Yet the corporates will say, “There is absolutely no evidence of any harm from this radiation”. And here you see a senior corporate spokesperson studiously avoiding clear evidence of harm, while saying over and again, “Show me the evidence”.
What are the possible effects of severely damaged and deformed sperm? That deformed chicks are born from eggs radiated with microwaves was shown in the 1950s. This is another no-brainer, but let me not draw any conclusions here, except to say: There is clear evidence of serious hazard. It is being deliberately ignored by the corporates. The only "duty of care" they know is to dissemble, and attack anyone who points out the evidence. This very thread will show any awake judge exactly how the industry operates.
I thank you for your attention.
What lies ahead is --
More lies ahead.
Not sure if one can always 100% rely on Wikipedia as the gospel, but the following statement does concur with sentiments in this and other threads "… Some countries however (such as South Africa for example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations."
I think once you have watched The Yes Men, Thank you for not smoking and Food Inc, I am not quite sure if one should purely rely on corporate governance and legislation maintained by our dear government (which is incapable of fulfilling the most basic services for their citizens). I would rather question previous statements made, just because someone said so or declines to comment and just trolls the forum - you go and figure who I mean by that
Wikipedia gives one a quick "democratic" overview of things ... not the gospel for sure but a quick way of knowing where things stand. If overwhelming evidence has been uncovered (one way or another) it will stand out.
If Karl was so off and was such a liar, why have the people he accuses of all these things not taken action against him?
Not saying they must but it seems to me he may be on to something, maybe not all is correct but some possibly
Trust in God and keep your powder dry.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
You're absolutely right. Once I saw the Flash Gordon documentary series, I realised that putting your hand in obscure holes could be bad for you. It's a good thing you've seen those other undramatised documentaries. Thank god for people like you who keep movie theatres safe. Er....wait...Hang on...Not sure if one can always 100% rely on Wikipedia as the gospel, but the following statement does concur with sentiments in this and other threads "… Some countries however (such as South Africa for example) have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations."
I think once you have watched The Yes Men, Thank you for not smoking and Food Inc, I am not quite sure if one should purely rely on corporate governance and legislation maintained by our dear government (which is incapable of fulfilling the most basic services for their citizens). I would rather question previous statements made, just because someone said so or declines to comment and just trolls the forum - you go and figure who I mean by that
Last edited by DJ...; 27-07-2012 at 12:39 AM.
Because we're not in high school any more?
Karl proves himself to be a tinfoil hat nutjob with every post he makes. Come now marine1 - do you honestly believe this killadoob-esque tripe he spouts? Really now?
I am not saying he is completely right but I am also not saying he is completely wrong.
I still believe cellphones and their towers are damaging our health
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks