[Opinion] Cell masts - the slow, silent killers

[Lupus]

I have said numerous times in this thread that there are many sources of EMF and that what we need to be doing is limiting our exposure to EMF - not flooding our environments with it. That is just plain stupid.

As for the benefits outweighing the negatives, how would you know? Any science that shows the harms of EMF is not widely distributed. Research (bought and paid for by the cell industry) is widely distributed because they have the means. Which is exactly why I say we should have a panel of independent experts go through all the available research so we can come to an informed decision as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Should that be shown to be the case, I'll concede but let's at least see all the evidence.

Please for the sake of your neighbours pack up and move to somewhere else, like maybe Antarctica, or the surface of the sun I really don't care, but stop being selfish and thinking that you're little bubble is the be all and end all. Or shut up and just live your life, you aren't being irradiated by cellphone towers, big pharma isn't trying to make you sick and GMO is not killing you (in fact you've probably hardly had anything GMO).

 

[DarthCat]

I wear the "conspiracy theorist" badge with pride - to me that translates to "critical thinker" rather than "sheep". That label is only used when the labeler is unable to argue the issue at hand. You can put your head back in the sand now.

To me conspiracy theorist = raving lunatic

 

[Lupus]

To me conspiracy theorist = raving lunatic

No but he's woke, everyone is out to get us, we aren't safe. We must go back to living off the land and dying from a cut finger.

 

[Cius]

I have said numerous times in this thread that there are many sources of EMF and that what we need to be doing is limiting our exposure to EMF - not flooding our environments with it. That is just plain stupid.

As for the benefits outweighing the negatives, how would you know? Any science that shows the harms of EMF is not widely distributed. Research (bought and paid for by the cell industry) is widely distributed because they have the means. Which is exactly why I say we should have a panel of independent experts go through all the available research so we can come to an informed decision as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Should that be shown to be the case, I'll concede but let's at least see all the evidence.

There are a lot of bodies doing this already. Governments have a job of keeping their citizens safe and they have experts and scientists that do what you are proposing and publish safety standards and the like. So far they are allowing cell towers to go up. I realize they have been late to the party in the past (such as with smoking laws etc) but honestly for this one I doubt there will ever be that kind of big reveal about the harmful effects of Cell radiation.

What you are perhaps discounting is the fact that researchers get very little attention or "points" in their industry for studies that confirm stuff is all good. You get famous as a researcher for finding something new and bonus fame points are awarded if you reveal a big bad guy to the human race. Hence there is a constant pressure on researchers to find terrible stuff that could kill everyone. Then there are the researchers in the pocket of big business. Figuring out who is willing to bend the rules or falsify data for money, or fame, is very hard. There are honest scientists in the middle but how do you tell? Anyways, I have done some reading and am 95% sure cell phone and wifi radiation is not harmful, or at the least not much more harmful or risky than eating at my workplace cafeteria.

If you had been a bit more balanced in all your posts and acknowledged that a lot of the scientists publish false data for the fame I would perhaps be more interested in taking you seriously, but all you have managed to do is put the spotlight on those scientists that are in the back pockets of the corporate. Hence you show your own bias with every post and have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are incredibly biased yourself, even blindly so in your faith filled crusade. You never once pointed out or even acknowledged that your "studies" could even potentially be false, while at the same time saying any that disagree with you have to be 100% biased. Think about that a bit perhaps. You are part of a cult of belief in essence. Go recruit somewhere else perhaps. Come back when you can think critically, and most importantly are willing to start a discussion from a point where you are willing to have your mind changed by new ideas and data.

 

[mak2000]

We will evolve dont worry !!

 

[Trompie67]

To me conspiracy theorist = raving lunatic

No but he's woke, everyone is out to get us, we aren't safe. We must go back to living off the land and dying from a cut finger.

Do not forget - he's thinking critically about all these folks lying to us and out to get us. Not just following the flock of conspiracy theorists & their misguided thoughts. This one is thinking critically before joining the conspiracy brigade. Because, you know, BAAAAAA.

 

[DerekMain]

(in fact you've probably hardly had anything GMO).

Your response tells me you are incredibly naive. SA is one of the few countries on earth that have allowed our food staples to be almost entirely GMO - you can't not be eating them. Don't take my word for it - do some research.

So you're quite happy not to know all the facts and to plough ahead regardless? No wonder the world is where it's at.

 

[DerekMain]

Do not forget - he's thinking critically about all these folks lying to us and out to get us. Not just following the flock of conspiracy theorists & their misguided thoughts. This one is thinking critically before joining the conspiracy brigade. Because, you know, BAAAAAA.

It's known as an ad hominem attack - when you can't win the debate on the issue at hand, personally attack the opponent. That's a fail in my book and that's when I know I've got the upper hand.

 

[Trompie67]

It's known as an ad hominem attack - when you can't win the debate on the issue at hand, personally attack the opponent. That's a fail in my book and that's when I know I've got the upper hand.

I know exactly what it is. Point being, there is no point in debating with a conspiracy theorist. In order to have any sort of meaningful discourse there needs to logic and meaning. Neither of which are evident in conspiracy theorists. Ergo, no point in entering into debate.

 

[DerekMain]

There are a lot of bodies doing this already. Governments have a job of keeping their citizens safe and they have experts and scientists that do what you are proposing and publish safety standards and the like. So far they are allowing cell towers to go up. I realize they have been late to the party in the past (such as with smoking laws etc) but honestly for this one I doubt there will ever be that kind of big reveal about the harmful effects of Cell radiation.

We don't really have governments any more - we have corporatocracies. Corporates control governments either by funding, bribing or coercion. So if any policy will hurt corporate profits, it'll be changed to suit them. In fact, corporates write their own policies which the governments then rubberstamp.

What you are perhaps discounting is the fact that researchers get very little attention or "points" in their industry for studies that confirm stuff is all good. You get famous as a researcher for finding something new and bonus fame points are awarded if you reveal a big bad guy to the human race. Hence there is a constant pressure on researchers to find terrible stuff that could kill everyone. Then there are the researchers in the pocket of big business. Figuring out who is willing to bend the rules or falsify data for money, or fame, is very hard. There are honest scientists in the middle but how do you tell? Anyways, I have done some reading and am 95% sure cell phone and wifi radiation is not harmful, or at the least not much more harmful or risky than eating at my workplace cafeteria.

I find it hard to believe that scientists who show the harms of EMF do so for the "fame". What person in their right mind would do that when they know full well that their lives will change for the worse. They will be villified, ridiculed, harassed and threatened. Their funding will dry up and they'll struggle to have any research published. I feel the only reason they would publish this research is out of a principled stand that the information is too important to our health not to be published. They have nothing else to gain by this. On the other hand, scientists who publish research that favours the industry will be rewarded financially very handsomely.

If you had been a bit more balanced in all your posts and acknowledged that a lot of the scientists publish false data for the fame I would perhaps be more interested in taking you seriously, but all you have managed to do is put the spotlight on those scientists that are in the back pockets of the corporate. Hence you show your own bias with every post and have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are incredibly biased yourself, even blindly so in your faith filled crusade. You never once pointed out or even acknowledged that your "studies" could even potentially be false, while at the same time saying any that disagree with you have to be 100% biased. Think about that a bit perhaps. You are part of a cult of belief in essence. Go recruit somewhere else perhaps. Come back when you can think critically, and most importantly are willing to start a discussion from a point where you are willing to have your mind changed by new ideas and data.

Please show me any research / articles you have of EMF scientists publishing false research for "fame". If any study is funded by the cell industry, I treat it with a massive amount of skepticism. They're not about to publicise anything that will hurt their profits.

 

[DerekMain]

I know exactly what it is. Point being, there is no point in debating with a conspiracy theorist. In order to have any sort of meaningful discourse there needs to logic and meaning. Neither of which are evident in conspiracy theorists. Ergo, no point in entering into debate.

That's a very convenient out for you isn't it. I'll take it as a win.

 

[Lupus]

Your response tells me you are incredibly naive. SA is one of the few countries on earth that have allowed our food staples to be almost entirely GMO - you can't not be eating them. Don't take my word for it - do some research.

So you're quite happy not to know all the facts and to plough ahead regardless? No wonder the world is where it's at.

No the difference is I know what foods are actually GMO, which have been for a very long time and I honestly don't care. Your nutjob brigade thing anything related to science is bad, I'm guessing you're also an Anti-vaxxer, you've just got that feels about you.
You're basically the type of person even the Amish would tell you take a jump off a cliff. You're arrogant, not really intelligent, love to call people sheep but is really one himself and to blind to see it. Doesn't also get the hint that you should rather leave your neighbours and find a nice isolated place where you can die alone of nothing.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Your response tells me you are incredibly naive. SA is one of the few countries on earth that have allowed our food staples to be almost entirely GMO - you can't not be eating them. Don't take my word for it - do some research.

So you're quite happy not to know all the facts and to plough ahead regardless? No wonder the world is where it's at.

Last I checked all the GMO produced locally....is for export.

So not our food staples at all and by request of the market. Not going GMO means not having any work.

And that's of course if you accept that GMO is bad in the first place.

 

[SauRoNZA]

No the difference is I know what foods are actually GMO, which have been for a very long time and I honestly don't care. Your nutjob brigade thing anything related to science is bad, I'm guessing you're also an Anti-vaxxer, you've just got that feels about you.
You're basically the type of person even the Amish would tell you take a jump off a cliff. You're arrogant, not really intelligent, love to call people sheep but is really one himself and to blind to see it. Doesn't also get the hint that you should rather leave your neighbours and find a nice isolated place where you can die alone of nothing.

I'll put money on it.

 

[Lupus]

Last I checked all the GMO produced locally....is for export.

So not our food staples at all and by request of the market. Not going GMO means not having any work.

And that's of course if you accept that GMO is bad in the first place.

Nope we consume it as well, it's only maize and soyabeans. Don't think your skin will care about if the cotton is gmo or not

 

[DerekMain]

No but he's woke, everyone is out to get us, we aren't safe. We must go back to living off the land and dying from a cut finger.

Judging by your outlook, you probably believed the fire pool story at Nkandla.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Nope we consume it as well, it's only maize and soyabeans. Don't think your skin will care about if the cotton is gmo or not

Okay cool.

I know a lot of the tropical and citrus produce in Mpumalanga is GMO, but it's all exported.

 

[SauRoNZA]

I feel sorry for the people of Kirstenhof needing to deal with this ****.

I'm ashamed of the media taking the tinfoil hat seriously.

 

[Trompie67]

That's a very convenient out for you isn't it. I'll take it as a win.

Of course you will!

Debate requires logic & in this instance science. Conspiracy theorists do not work like this. They work from (often erroneous) beliefs & emotion, and even when science proves them wrong they then attack the institution/scientists as being part of your conspiracy.
So round in circles they go.
That does not mean they sound or act "crazy", it means that they operate from emotion rather than logic. As such, they see others as blindly following assumptions whereas they view themselves as the critical thinker, when in fact if they were to really exercise critical thinking instead of emotional responses they would see that they are in fact most often completely wrong.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Of course you will!

Debate requires logic & in this instance science. Conspiracy theorists do not work like this. They work from (often erroneous) beliefs & emotion, and even when science proves them wrong they then attack the institution/scientists as being part of your conspiracy.
So round in circles they go.
That does not mean they sound or act "crazy", it means that they operate from emotion rather than logic. As such, they see others as blindly following assumptions whereas they view themselves as the critical thinker, when in fact if they were to really exercise critical thinking instead of emotional responses they would see that they are in fact most often completely wrong.

At least we can rest assured that if he can't even get his message across logically around these parts then nobody from government, telecoms or law is going to take him seriously.

That will require real substantiated evidence to convince anyone.