I'd rather be a woo-woo anytime!

[Allo Allo]

I thought a Skeptic was one who acknowledged their own ignorance and who set about investigating their deficiency through inquiry and reason so they could form an opinion based on the facts rather than on emotion. When they had reached their conclusion, it became temporary and subject to alteration if disproved. Without such proper skepticism there is no progress.

I wish UK Skeptics Forum was as vibrant as the JREF but without the vicious!

I see there are many folk on the JREF forum list who have never ever posted a message. Being unused to verbal bullying, verbal violence, arrogance, self righteousness, witch hunting and lynching, as I would expect even the most basically civilised person to be, I don’t blame them! I would expect that they, like me, just watch the pack who consider themselves critical thinkers and "skeptics". Ha! Any interlopers who might have interesting ideas are simply savaged off.

A thing I have noticed is the ignorance. Complementary Medicine is called “Alternative” medicine – alternative to what? Psychics suck – very eloquent and displaying real vocabulary- suck what? Homeopathy is “hated”? Did they try it? Do they know anything about it? Are they just citing by rote because “scientists” say it doesn’t work? People must think it does! Drug companies need to prove it doesn't work. “Anecdotal” evidence is despised – yet Jenner listened to anecdotes. Drug companies investigate anecdotes attributed to healing plants so they can be re-organised into something more profitable. Even “side effects” are peoples’ anecdotes. When enough anecdotes are collected – they lead to discovery.

Woo woo is slung about as if it is a category of despicable humans whose thought processes need a “final solution”!

Mmmm

If that is what being a skeptics is – I’d rather be a woo-woo anytime!

[chillzero]

I thought a Skeptic was one who acknowledged their own ignorance and who set about investigating their deficiency through inquiry and reason so they could form an opinion based on the facts rather than on emotion. When they had reached their conclusion, it became temporary and subject to alteration if disproved. Without such proper skepticism there is no progress.

I totally agree - this is my perception of skepticism too.



I wish UK Skeptics Forum was as vibrant as the JREF but without the vicious!

I think that the real difference is the amount of members. Should this site grow to contain as many members as JREF, then more people will be available to post more frequently, and the conversation will naturally become more diverse. Unfortunately, people being what they are, this will probably bring a degree of friction also. It's inevitable.



I see there are many folk on the JREF forum list who have never ever posted a message. Being unused to verbal bullying, verbal violence, arrogance, self righteousness, witch hunting and lynching, as I would expect even the most basically civilised person to be, I don’t blame them! I would expect that they, like me, just watch the pack who consider themselves critical thinkers and "skeptics". Ha! Any interlopers who might have interesting ideas are simply savaged off.

A thing I have noticed is the ignorance. Complementary Medicine is called “Alternative” medicine – alternative to what? Psychics suck – very eloquent and displaying real vocabulary- suck what? Homeopathy is “hated”? Did they try it? Do they know anything about it? Are they just citing by rote because “scientists” say it doesn’t work? People must think it does! Drug companies need to prove it doesn't work. “Anecdotal” evidence is despised – yet Jenner listened to anecdotes. Drug companies investigate anecdotes attributed to healing plants so they can be re-organised into something more profitable. Even “side effects” are peoples’ anecdotes. When enough anecdotes are collected – they lead to discovery.

Woo woo is slung about as if it is a category of despicable humans whose thought processes need a “final solution”!

Mmmm

I think there are plenty of threads on the JREF forum itself already discussing this. And I also think that you seemed to have missed that the worst offenders not only appear to be in the minority, but they also have very strong motivations behind their treatment of 'woos'. (I really hate that term.)



If that is what being a skeptics is – I’d rather be a woo-woo anytime!



I think that it would be a shame to have the poor attitude of a few people so affect your view of things.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I thought a Skeptic was one who acknowledged their own ignorance and who set about investigating their deficiency through inquiry and reason so they could form an opinion based on the facts rather than on emotion. When they had reached their conclusion, it became temporary and subject to alteration if disproved. Without such proper skepticism there is no progress.

I wish UK Skeptics Forum was as vibrant as the JREF but without the vicious!


Allo Allo,

Let me offer a belated welcome to the forum.

And let me say that I quite see your point about JREF being a sometimes brutal place. UKS, by contrast, is fairly gentle. However, just as one would expect, they have features in common: respect for the burden of proof in particular, and a general dislike of fallacies formal and informal. These features, in my opinion, distinguish courtesy in debate, which matters a lot, from mere good manners, which matter a bit, but not really very much.

Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you will enjoy contributing to UKS. :)

Regards

[Admin]

I thought a Skeptic was one who acknowledged their own ignorance and who set about investigating their deficiency through inquiry and reason so they could form an opinion based on the facts rather than on emotion. When they had reached their conclusion, it became temporary and subject to alteration if disproved. Without such proper skepticism there is no progress.

I'd say that's a good assessment although I'd say a Skeptic will form a provisional conclusion rather than a temporary one. A provisional conclusion is not necessarily wrong - it's just that we're willing to change opinion if the evidence changes.


I wish UK Skeptics Forum was as vibrant as the JREF but without the vicious!

We're still young but we're doing particularly well for a skeptics' forum in the UK. Most others are either very quiet or virtually inactive.


I see there are many folk on the JREF forum list who have never ever posted a message. Being unused to verbal bullying, verbal violence, arrogance, self righteousness, witch hunting and lynching, as I would expect even the most basically civilised person to be, I don’t blame them! I would expect that they, like me, just watch the pack who consider themselves critical thinkers and "skeptics". Ha! Any interlopers who might have interesting ideas are simply savaged off.

At the moment there seems to be a handful of misguided posters on the JREF forum who behave exactly like you've stated. They're damaging the image of skeptics, they're harming the JREF forum's image and reputation, but they're massaging their own egos. They think they're right, most of us don't.


A thing I have noticed is the ignorance. Complementary Medicine is called “Alternative” medicine – alternative to what?

Alternative medicine is an alternative to medicine. Complementary medicine is the use of alternative medicine as an adjunct to conventional medicine. The nomenclature changes to suit; it's now also called 'integrative medicine' by those who wish to see it incorporated into the NHS. No matter what it's called, the treatments are the same.


Psychics suck – very eloquent and displaying real vocabulary- suck what? Homeopathy is “hated”? Did they try it? Do they know anything about it? Are they just citing by rote because “scientists” say it doesn’t work? People must think it does! Drug companies need to prove it doesn't work. “Anecdotal” evidence is despised – yet Jenner listened to anecdotes. Drug companies investigate anecdotes attributed to healing plants so they can be re-organised into something more profitable. Even “side effects” are peoples’ anecdotes. When enough anecdotes are collected – they lead to discovery.

By our very nature we skeptics do look into these things so yes we do understand them, yes we do look at scientific evidence (as it's far more robust and trustworthy than anecdotes), we look at the evidence for and against, and we form a conclusion based on that. If there's no supporting evidence for something then we conclude it doesn't work.

One key issue here. We also tend not to have an emotional attachment to some of these things. I will state that Homeopathy doesn't work. The theory behind it is ludicrous every step of the way. Why do I state this? Because that's what I found when I looked into it. I'd never even heard of homeopathy until I became a skeptic. In other words - it makes no difference to me whether it works or not; I simply found a system of healthcare that was theoretically completely untenable and that had no reliable evidence to support it.

Anecdotes are not dismisses or "despised" by skeptics - we just need to understand that they are not robust enough to count as proof.


Woo woo is slung about as if it is a category of despicable humans whose thought processes need a “final solution”!

Ah! The Nazi Gambit. If you don't agree with someone liken them to Hitler or the Nazis. I'm afraid that's a rather cheap shot and is reminiscent of those JREF posters you were (rightfully) deriding earlier.


Mmmm

If that is what being a skeptics is – I’d rather be a woo-woo anytime!

Ah! The Straw Man Fallacy. Essentially this involves creating a caricature (the straw man) of your opponents and attacking that instead of them.

You'll find that you can put any argument forward you like on this forum and we'll gladly, politely, but honestly, debate the facts. O0

Oh, and welcome by the way!! ;D

[Allo Allo]

Re - Ah! The Nazi Gambit. If you don't agree with someone liken them to Hitler or the Nazis. I'm afraid that's a rather cheap shot and is reminiscent of those JREF posters you were (rightfully) deriding earlier.

I apologise that I wasn’t offering facts. I don’t have statistics about how many sceptics wish to eradicate woo-woo thought – I have feelings – “final solution” were the words I used to be succinct about those feelings. A strong desire to eradicate woo-woo thought makes me uncomfortable just as much as if woo woos’ mission was to eradicate logical thinking! “Final solution” is a modern example of the idea of being exclusively right. Exclusively right cannot be part of a true skeptics’ thought process! Circa 1200 you might have jumped on me re Inquisition gambit linked to “witch hunt”. But that's not "raw" anymore! >:D

Ah yes - A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Mmmm – ok. I thought I was attacking sceptics directly! I’ll learn to do without a straw man in future.

Thank you for your welcome! (and others who welcomed me) I did see this was a young forum – I thought I too might help in keeping it alive. It lacks tension I suppose – needs a bit of that to get the adrenalin going as Chillzero suggested – “a degree of friction". In another year it will be great! Really pumping! Believe me – I’m psychic! I only hope it’s members will make it a safe place for bashing EVERYONES’ ideas about.

Re - “You'll find that you can put any argument forward you like on this forum and we'll gladly, politely, but honestly, debate the facts. ”

I don’t know whether I have arguments – but I have QUESTIONS, which is the reason I joined!

Thanks John.

[Admin]

I don’t know whether I have arguments – but I have QUESTIONS, which is the reason I joined!

I meant arguments as in the debating sense. (Just to be clear, as I've used that term before and been accused of expecting a shouting match ;D).

You have questions? ^-^ Ask away.

[Allo Allo]

You have questions? ^-^ Ask away.


Well, what is the science or the myth about emissions from (particularly) wireless broadband? I had someone in our village accost me a while back clutching a shrieking machine that told her my wireless telephone was sending out dangerous and health harming emissions She spooked me enough for me to go back to ordinary telephones. NOW, it must be even worse as I have a Netgear Router and as I am on computers here in my office a LOT because computers are my work tool, (and entertainment) I wonder what I am doing to my health.

What is REALLY disturbing me is that my daughter brought me a whole lot of seedlings of begonia plants in May this year. I put one right next to the router, which is next to the filing cabinet here. And the other I put on top of the filing cabinet. This is a lovely sunny room and they both get the same sun and water/food etc. The begonia on the floor next to the router is looking miserable while the one on top of the filing cabinet is beautiful! Is this just an accident or have any tests been done for the effect of wireless on tissue?

I am going to devise my own tests using bean seeds – how, I’m not sure!

I have browsed the ‘net but can’t make out what to believe or what not to believe…..can I upload photos in a post?

[Admin]

There's a Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

Note that the output power of a router is typically less than one tenth of a Watt. That's very low power (around 1/20th the output of a mobile phone).

This radiation is the same as used by TV stations, Radio, Satellite TV, etc. It's only the frequency that changes.

There are different types of radiation too. The radiation used in these devices is called non-ionising radiation, the type of radiation that comes from radioactivity is called ionising radiation.

The difference between the two is in the ability to affect atoms and molecues. Ionising radiation can knock electrons from an atom or split molecules into fragments. Obviously of the molecule is DNA then a lot of damage can be done!!

Non-ionising radiation, at the low frequencies used in mobile devices etc., does not have this ability so that inherent risk is not there.

There are some other, highly controversial, studies which look at the effects of non-ionising radiation on living tissue (notably the ability for it to enhance tumour growth). There are also heating effects from the radiation but again, although there are possible links with damage to DNA etc., nothing is proved.

This is why it's recommended not to use mobile phones too frequently. There's no proven link to short-term use damage but there's no data for long-term usage.

Something like a very low power device such as a broadband router will not likely raise much cause for concern. The power is very low and they're not pressed up against our heads!

Doing your own tests will lead to a false conclusion unless you know exactly what you're doing (!)

In fact, it's one major reason why people believe in things that aren't true: they do their own tests and draw their own conclusions whilst not understanding how to conduct a proper test!! (Think of Dowsers as a prime example).

[Mojo]

“Anecdotal” evidence is despised – yet Jenner listened to anecdotes. Drug companies investigate anecdotes attributed to healing plants so they can be re-organised into something more profitable. Even “side effects” are peoples’ anecdotes. When enough anecdotes are collected – they lead to discovery.

Anecdotes are not dismisses or "despised" by skeptics - we just need to understand that they are not robust enough to count as proof.

To amplify on what John has said here: anecdotes are not dismissed out of hand; as Allo Allo says, they can lead to discoveries. But you only know whether you've discovered something real when you carry out proper tests.

Anecdotes are prone to all sorts of unconscious bias. If we're talking about a therapy, the anecdotes are only likely to report the successes, for example. It is unlikely that any data will be available about how many patients received the same treatment but didn't show the same improvement. We can't eliminate the placebo effect from anecdotes. Cases referred to in anecdotes do not have controls: there is no way of knowing whether it is the treatment in question that caused the recovery, or some other treatment the patient received at the same time, or whether the patient would just have got better without any treatment at all.

If the effect reported in the anecdotes disappears when properly controlled tests are carried out, then the anecdotes can, and should, be dismissed.

Homoeopathy was mentioned in the OP; this is the stage we have reached with homoeopathy. There are a vast number of anecdotes of successful treatments, many of them reporting quite spectacular effects (in particular, accounts of homoeopathic remedies being used in "first aid" situations where there isn't time to carry out individualisation - there are reports of patients visibly recovering as soon as the remedy is administered). But when we control for the placebo effect, observer bias etc. the effects disappear. Even in the few double blind tests claimed as successful, we don't see the sort of effects reported in the anecdotes; we only see very slight improvements.

[Mojo]

There's a Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

Note that the output power of a router is typically less than one tenth of a Watt. That's very low power (around 1/20th the output of a mobile phone).

You've got me worried now. As I type this, I'm sitting only a couple of feet from an electrical device putting out about 100W of electromagnetic radiation of a shorter wavelength, and therefore of a higher energy.

;)

[Allo Allo]

But when we control for the placebo effect, observer bias etc. the effects disappear. Even in the few double blind tests claimed as successful, we don't see the sort of effects reported in the anecdotes; we only see very slight improvements.


How do "you" who? control for placebo effect? ???

[wollery]

By use of a control group. This group are given plain water or sugar pills (a placebo), as opposed of course to homeopathic water or sugar pills!

The proportion of people in the control group who report "feeling better" gives you a baseline which should be subtracted from the number of people in the sample group who report "feeling better". The most important part of such a test is that nobody, not even the prescribing physician, should know who's getting the placebo and who's getting the supposed medicine.

The placebo rates for clinical trials are generally very similar, so it's possible to take a rough account for it in poorly conducted trials.

[Allo Allo]

There's a Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

AND re:-

Doing your own tests will lead to a false conclusion unless you know exactly what you're doing (!)

Yes – I have read the entire Wikipedia entry and its links on your link

And my mind – logical or not tells me that we (mankind) actually don’t know!

Where are these studies? To me, simply saying something “has been extensively studied” makes me ask immediately “By Whom?” “How did they set up the study?” “Where is the data that leads to the conclusion?”

Now, that is the problem – I am not scientific – how do I KNOW? By simply accepting something that I personally have no proof of is blind acceptance.

I was not “testing” my begonia plants – I simply placed them where I did for visual effect – I thought that a nice begonia hiding my router would be visually more pleasant than looking at a router! It was with a shock that I realised this begonia was never going to hide the router for it is stunted – I asked why – and wondered.

Furthermore paragraphs like the following make me uneasy - whether Microwave radiation or EMF...

From the Wikipedia link….

The total background power of EM fields in the microwave range only can vary from zero to more 3 milliwatts per m2 in some areas. Long time effects of these EM fields on human and animal health are still unknown, and most of the studies available are only short-term studies which have shown no effect. However, as longer-term studies become available, health effects may possibly be found. Also, some people report electrical sensitivity, feeling ill effects at exposure levels much less than standard acceptable levels.

There is also a limited body of evidence which may indicate complex biological effects of weaker non-thermal electromagnetic fields (see Bioelectromagnetics), including weak ELF magnetic fields and modulated RF and microwave fields. The theoretical mechanism of action of non-thermal electromagnetic fields is not understood since none of the known interactions could support a biological effect. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain this interaction but none has significant supporting evidence. Non-thermal effects, if they exist, may be beneficial or harmful depending on the specific parameters of the field. A common position presented by believers in these effects is that, since they are not well understood, a precautionary principle approach would suggest minimizing exposure whenever possible.

Also at the bottom of just about every page are "less comforting" links eg. http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm and others too...


So, just for my own fun, I SHALL set up my OWN test – anyone can join me if they would enjoy it. I know we all have different circumstances – for instance maybe my begonia is stunted because the metal from the filing cabinets is reacting with the router – or the photocopy paper next to the router is emitting noxious chemicals – or whatever! What would a good test be? Simple please! :D

[Allo Allo]

By use of a control group. This group are given plain water or sugar pills (a placebo), as opposed of course to homeopathic water or sugar pills!


Gee! - that was a SPEEDY reply! I'm impressed.

[wollery]

I aim to please.


(That's the second time today I've posted that sentence!)

[Dr B]

Hello there (and welcome)

Listen very carefully...I shall say this only once.... (;D ;D - for those who dont know...a pun from allo allo)....more seriously,



I thought a Skeptic was one who acknowledged their own ignorance and who set about investigating their deficiency through inquiry and reason so they could form an opinion based on the facts rather than on emotion. When they had reached their conclusion, it became temporary and subject to alteration if disproved. Without such proper skepticism there is no progress.

All very true - those descriptions would also apply to a scientist as well as a skeptic. In a way you describe a central aspect of the empirical method embedded within the scientific method (a way to 'get at' things in a reasoned and logical manner that stands up to tests of validity and reliability). Ultimately we need to ask "to what extent could i be deluded about this issue?". Obviously we need to reduce the extent and probability as much as possible.



I wish UK Skeptics Forum was as vibrant as the JREF but without the vicious!


I totally agree - and I think it will be. Here at UKS a kind of neo-skepticism seems to be emerging (I really do not like that term but it will do for now :D). It is actually the form of skepticism most scientists apply - that is in reality a degree of constructional doubt (the emphasis being on the constructional). I think most people confuse skepticism for cynicism - the two are not the same. True skepticism has always been with us and is inherent in the scientific method - it just gets a bad press and comes over incorrectly at times. Of course, there are some bad practitioners of skepticism as well O0

We try hard here not to 'shout people down' or anything like that (though it often only succeeds if all parties accept the ground rules). We are trying to be helpful, functional, and constructional. We also all learn from this interaction - my views constantly change with the evidence - is that the case for everyone in this field?

Here, we encourage debate and argument (argument meaning a scientific debate - not meaning a fight or quarrel).

I do generally agree with the end point of the skeptics position you talk about (i.e., psychics suck) - however, I would like to think we could all put together a far more elegant argument for that position than the one you mention. Thus, it is the process of arriving at decisions where true skeptics differ from cynics and other wannabe skeptics.


A thing I have noticed is the ignorance. Complementary Medicine is called “Alternative” medicine – alternative to what? Psychics suck – very eloquent and displaying real vocabulary- suck what? Homeopathy is “hated”? Did they try it? Do they know anything about it? Are they just citing by rote because “scientists” say it doesn’t work? People must think it does! Drug companies need to prove it doesn't work. “Anecdotal” evidence is despised – yet Jenner listened to anecdotes. Drug companies investigate anecdotes attributed to healing plants so they can be re-organised into something more profitable. Even “side effects” are peoples’ anecdotes. When enough anecdotes are collected – they lead to discovery.

Actually, many scientific studies have been done that speak to all your points here. Mojo and others above have provided some info on this so I will not repeat it here. Skeptics and scientists do not just sit there and denounce things.....their views are often the result of a long and considered process - this is often overlooked. It is important to characterise skeptics correctly I think in a debate like this. As for anecdotes, no one says anecdotal evidence is despised at all - just limited. It informs more systematic forms of investigation and is important in that regard. It is however, the worse form of evidence with which to solely base ones views on. Side effects can be predicted to some degree and expected due to known chemical interactions. These are not just based on anecdotes - but of course they play a part.


Woo woo is slung about as if it is a category of despicable humans whose thought processes need a “final solution”!

Yes its not a very nice term - but for the electronic communication of ideas and complex concepts it is often useful. I basically use 'woo' for a shorthand of 'pseudoscientist' or the profond presence of irrational illogical thinking in some people. Again, its not a nice term but it is practical when trying to discuss things in this environment.



If that is what being a skeptics is – I’d rather be a woo-woo anytime!



But this is not what being a skeptic is all about, you are describing a cynic, and there are none I know of here.... O0

[Mojo]

So, just for my own fun, I SHALL set up my OWN test – anyone can join me if they would enjoy it. I know we all have different circumstances – for instance maybe my begonia is stunted because the metal from the filing cabinets is reacting with the router – or the photocopy paper next to the router is emitting noxious chemicals – or whatever! What would a good test be? Simple please! :D

A couple of points:

First, you need a reasonable sample size; one or two plants isn't enough.

Then you need to make sure that both sets of plants are under exactly the same conditions apart from whatever you're testing, in this case the presence of the emissions from the router. As you point out, the difference could be to do with something else that was nearer to one of the plants. Quite small differences in conditions can result in considerable differences in the growth of seedlings; for example, you had one plant on top of a filing cabinet and the other next to the router (on the floor?). If there is even a small difference in the amount of sun the two plants received, it would result in one drying out more than the other between waterings. Over time this could lead to differences in the growth. Ideally you would have an identical router present for both sets of plants, but with only one of them actually connected to a power supply (this eliminates the possibility that there is something chemical coming from the router that is affecting the plants, and also allows for blinding; see below).

You also need to make sure that both sets of plants are treated in exactly the same way, and for this it is a good idea that the trial is blinded. You have expressed unease about the effects of the emissions from the router; this could lead to you unconsciously treating the two groups differently, for example watering one group slightly more, or taking a more positive view of one group when you come to assess how much they've grown. Note: I am not implying that you would do this deliberately; we are talking about unconscious bias here. People have a tendency to see what they're expecting to see, whether it is actually there or not. To eliminate this, the person who is caring for the plants and the person who is assessing their condition should not know which set of plants are exposed to the emissions and which set are the controls. If you have a router present for each set of plants, this can be achieved by making sure that the people who are watering the plants and recording their growth cannot find out which router is switched on.

[Dr B]

Where are these studies? To me, simply saying something “has been extensively studied” makes me ask immediately “By Whom?” “How did they set up the study?” “Where is the data that leads to the conclusion?”

Now, that is the problem – I am not scientific – how do I KNOW? By simply accepting something that I personally have no proof of is blind acceptance.

These studies are no less relevant because you may not be aware of them - so it is not blind acceptance in that sense. You need to get hold of journals and high-quality science magazines. All this research is published and can be accessed. I totally agree that you should not blindly accept what people say - you should read for yourself and arrive at your own informed conclusions. However, that argument only works providing you set about trying to get the information (as I am sure you do O0). If you use that argument and then refuse to engage with the literature - then it becomes circular reasoning and somthing of a fallacy.

When someone says 'it has been studied' hopfully they are not lying (though when I challenge many woo's for evidence this is exactly what you find) - and hopfully they can provide a reference for you. We may disagree with the studies once we read them - but that is a different argument to perhaps assuming they do not exist.

Try getting hold of the "Trends" series of journals like "Trends in Neurosciences" or "Trends in Cognitive Sciences" (there are many depending on your interests) then try Nature and Nature neuroscience. The New Scientist is sometimes good but I do find they sensationalise at times and can be one-sided. Anyway, thats one way to get up to date information. I hope this helps

O0

[Mongrel]

Then you need to make sure that both sets of plants are under exactly the same conditions apart from whatever you're testing, in this case the presence of the emissions from the router. As you point out, the difference could be to do with something else that was nearer to one of the plants. Quite small differences in conditions can result in considerable differences in the growth of seedlings; for example, you had one plant on top of a filing cabinet and the other next to the router (on the floor?). If there is even a small difference in the amount of sun the two plants received, it would result in one drying out more than the other between waterings. Over time this could lead to differences in the growth. Ideally you would have an identical router present for both sets of plants, but with only one of them actually connected to a power supply (this eliminates the possibility that there is something chemical coming from the router that is affecting the plants, and also allows for blinding; see below).


Couple of other points regarding routers;
1)they get warm, that as Mojo pointed out could lead to dryer conditions for one of the plants.
2) Depending on the model it may have a fan for cooling purposes, warm air is even worse than warm.

What would probably make a better test is to have identical routers, wire one in place with goold old CAT5 cable and disable it's wireless capability. Use duct tape to cover the appropriate status LEDs. With the wireless router, connect it with a non working CAT5 cable and duct tape the status lights.

As a quick test connecting another PC to the network and either drag and drop multi Gb files, or set up a ping command to loop endlessly.

[Allo Allo]

Couple of other points regarding routers;
1)they get warm, that as Mojo pointed out could lead to dryer conditions for one of the plants.
2) Depending on the model it may have a fan for cooling purposes, warm air is even worse than warm.

YES - That IS a point - I will investigate!


What would probably make a better test is to have identical routers, wire one in place with goold old CAT5 cable and disable it's wireless capability. Use duct tape to cover the appropriate status LEDs. With the wireless router, connect it with a non working CAT5 cable and duct tape the status lights.
As a quick test connecting another PC to the network and either drag and drop multi Gb files, or set up a ping command to loop endlessly.

;D ;D ;D ;D :o I understand completely!

[Allo Allo]

Try getting hold of the "Trends" series of journals like "Trends in Neurosciences" or "Trends in Cognitive Sciences" (there are many depending on your interests) then try Nature and Nature neuroscience. The New Scientist is sometimes good but I do find they sensationalise at times and can be one-sided. Anyway, thats one way to get up to date information. I hope this helps

O0

Answer – Yes – I do read – but get a bit lost – I am too old to “retrain”. I need a magazine or website called “Science for Clots”! I find school science lesson internet sites useful – I am the problem actually :-\ mmmm.

[Allo Allo]

A couple of points:

First, you need a reasonable sample size; one or two plants isn't enough.

How many?

Question – Re - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect - Isn’t this AND placebo effect AMAZING! Or rather I find it amazing – wonderful really – I understand the moral principles against using it with purpose (eg a doctor prescribing an ineffective pill – but they know they do that anyway!!!!) How could we USE it if it works?

Re – Plant Experiment – second netgear router + £80 – I'm not Rockefeller!

Question - Would a metal filing cabinet (full of files) block microwaves?

Question – Did wireless operators in WW11 develop any illnesses?

[Mojo]

Question – Did wireless operators in WW11 develop any illnesses? For that matter, do we see clusters of particular illnesses around the locations of radio and TV transmitters? We should have over fifty years worth of data for the one at Crystal Palace, for example.

[Mongrel]

How many?
Re – Plant Experiment – second netgear router + £80 – I'm not Rockefeller!
Unfortunately "How many?" is often "A lot", purely to differentiate between any actual effect and other factors (heat, draught, fractionally more shade\light, cat likes to chew this plant as no climbing required). And yes, it's unlikely any of us could personally afford the kit to test this as individuals.


Question - Would a metal filing cabinet (full of files) block microwaves?
A metal filing cabinet would block a lot of direct signals but as most signals are happy to bounce around a bit it's a bit of a moot point. Easiest check - pocket sized WiFi 'sniffers' can be had for £10 which give an easy way to monitor signal strength. Next easiest is a Wireless laptop as the wireless drivers will give an indication of strength. Either way a simple checking of signal strength from various points around the room (including 'blocked' by the filing cabinet) will answer the question

Question – Did wireless operators in WW11 develop any illnesses?
Barring the "stepping in front of a radar dish" type accidents, I don't believe any of the operators suffered any ill effects from their equipment.

[Allo Allo]

For that matter, do we see clusters of particular illnesses around the locations of radio and TV transmitters? We should have over fifty years worth of data for the one at Crystal Palace, for example.

I couldn't find any study on this - but I’ve had a fascinating day reading World Health Organisation reports on Radio, Microwave and Magnetic Fields, Electromagnetic Sensitivity and other investigations not to mention the smoking files!!!! – the WORST being “The Smoker’s Body”. I’ve browsed “Bad Science” iddd.de/umtsno/emfkrebs/rubin2005emf.pdf and read loads of postings…Mmmm – I’ve come to the conclusion I’m in big trouble! I sit in front of my computer monitor most of the day, my knees are being “nuked” by the computer tower next to them. If I move to my laptop the wireless light shines straight into my solar plexus. My Begonia has stunted growth; so god knows what is happening to ME. I live in a radon area of the UK. And I smoke. I would think the black spots in front of my eyes are stress related. Funny, I felt really healthy this morning… is this nocebo at work?

I think I’ll take a walk past our local electrical station and look at the mobile phone mast on the hill. When I have recovered myself, I shall tell you what I have just remembered about the day one of our daughters opened her mouth to say something at the breakfast table and shocked us all by broadcasting the local radio station loud and clear from a filling in her tooth.

But that can wait for another day – if I live that long! :-\

[median]

Whilst most of us succumb to the numbers of probability always remember those people that used to say they had a grandfather who lived to 95, smoke and drunk like a trooper etc etc. ??? :D

Well cheer up. It could be you! ;D ;D


Ermm...then again?

:ponder:

[Allo Allo]

Whilst most of us succumb to the numbers of probability always remember those people that used to say they had a grandfather who lived to 95, smoke and drunk like a trooper etc etc. ??? :D

Well cheer up. It could be you! ;D ;D


Ermm...then again?

:ponder:


You laugh - there is a woman in our village who wanders around with a fag in her mouth ETERNALY - she walks up to town and back daily in a sort of sprightly shuffle - when I ask people how old she is - they tell me she's EIGHTY! I don't know if she drinks too...."Smoking Kills?" What a shockingly negative subliminal. One would expect every modern smoker who daily ingests this criminal affirmation to get sicker more quickly than his grandfather for instance....mmmm..

[Allo Allo]

For that matter, do we see clusters of particular illnesses around the locations of radio and TV transmitters? We should have over fifty years worth of data for the one at Crystal Palace, for example.


Is there any such study?

Having read every word (possibly missed a few) of
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/related/SSI_report_2005.pdf

And

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/bangkok04_proceedings.pdf

And various links pertaining thereto, I can’t understand why there is this fear about Wireless and all the radiation therefrom. We are told this stuff is safe and experiments seem to indicate it is but there is still the idea of uncertainty as in this quote in answer to a posting by you in May on Bad Science. It suggests we are more subtle in ways we do not understand yet and that we might be mucking ourselves up long-term.
This is the quote “It might help to realize that every cell in the body, and that of every other living organism, functions and communicates using minute electric currents. Organs too, like the heart and brain. In addition brainwaves work at frequencies similar to the pulsing frequency of phone masts. Once you accept this, the idea that such technology could influence biology is plausible. In fact, it’s a dead cert that there are some effects – for example its now accepted that mobile phone microwaves damage brain cells and human DNA. “
Well – isn’t this a POINT?! Mmmm…
For those who are not scientifically trained, HOW do people know? There has been a movement away from organised religion. People need to “know” not simply believe. We are “told” what to believe by the “experts” - not priests anymore, but scientists – people doubt, people question, people explain their own “concepts” in pseudoscience.

The doubting of science is quite understandable. – WHO says? people ask. Who funds the research? What are the researchers’ BIAS? One of papers above was from combined Air Forces – would they REALLY dismantle their systems if Magnetic fields were found to harm us? COULD society dismantle its modern technology? No bad effects from any kind of magnetic pollution can DARE be found! Imagine the mess!

I think we simply have to live with it. Do you think we will simply “mutate” into living in a magnetic fog? Survival of the fittest so to speak…

I am conducting my own very complex experiment on my Begonias. I have put one teaspoonful of water into a drinking glass next to the stunted Begonia behind the router and the same amount of water in another (same kind of) drinking glass on top of the filing cabinet next to the lush Begonia. Aim of this intricate test? To see if the water evaporates faster next to the stunted Begonia which will indicate the heat from the router is drying out the soil in the pot…..or will my “expectations” affect evaporation?

[Allo Allo]

I am conducting my own very complex experiment on my Begonias. I have put one teaspoonful of water into a drinking glass next to the stunted Begonia behind the router and the same amount of water in another (same kind of) drinking glass on top of the filing cabinet next to the lush Begonia. Aim of this intricate test? To see if the water evaporates faster next to the stunted Begonia which will indicate the heat from the router is drying out the soil in the pot…..or will my “expectations” affect evaporation?



ABORT! ABORT! Experiment CANCELLED! We'll have to set it up again - the dog just drank the water!!!! ;D ;D ;D

[Oleron]

Welcome to the forum, Allo Allo.

An interesting topic arose on the JREF about a year or so ago. It was started by a guy calling himself Cogreslab (in reality it was a chap called Roger Coghill). I don't know whether the thread is still available and I can't check right now (damn firewalls!) but it was called Bioelectromagnetics.

Coghill runs a research lab that makes some claims regarding the hazardous effects of mobile phones, electricity pylons and various other things. The thread grew to be a monster but most of Roger's claims were shown to be bunk. Indeed his research came in for heavy criticism for lack of controls. The whole thread was a textbook case of how to use critical analysis to dismantle spurious claims. Coghill never reckoned on certain JREF members being experts in the field of electromagnetism and had his arguments destroyed. (MRC Hans and Pragmatist being 2 of the main protagonists)

I think MRC Hans went on to write about the incident on Claus's Skepticreport site - check it out. Bottom line is that there is no evidence to suggest that electric pylons cause health issues and almost no evidence for mobile phones. Routers don't even register on the scale of potential risk.

(Just found the summary here - http://www.skepticreport.com/health/rogerandme.htm )

[Allo Allo]

Welcome to the forum, Allo Allo.

(Just found the summary here - http://www.skepticreport.com/health/rogerandme.htm )


Hi Oleron,

Thanks for the welcome,

I'll check this out!

Michelle :)

[Mojo]

the JREF thread is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=22595

All 2,526 posts of it!

[Allo Allo]

Mojo - ;D ;D I think I'll just read the summary! http://www.skepticreport.com/health/rogerandme.htm )

Thanks anyway.

Michelle :)

[Allo Allo]

Hi Oleron,

Thanks for the welcome,

I'll check this out!

Michelle :)




Yes - well I have read this but of course it's unintelligible to me...I can see why semi scientific theory is all worked into "healing" gizmo's - what ORDINARY person would actually understand and who could question?

M

[Allo Allo]

Well, what is the science or the myth about emissions from (particularly) wireless broadband? I had someone in our village accost me a while back clutching a shrieking machine that told her my wireless telephone was sending out dangerous and health harming emissions She spooked me enough for me to go back to ordinary telephones. NOW, it must be even worse as I have a Netgear Router and as I am on computers here in my office a LOT because computers are my work tool, (and entertainment) I wonder what I am doing to my health.

What is REALLY disturbing me is that my daughter brought me a whole lot of seedlings of begonia plants in May this year. I put one right next to the router, which is next to the filing cabinet here. And the other I put on top of the filing cabinet. This is a lovely sunny room and they both get the same sun and water/food etc. The begonia on the floor next to the router is looking miserable while the one on top of the filing cabinet is beautiful! Is this just an accident or have any tests been done for the effect of wireless on tissue?

I am going to devise my own tests using bean seeds – how, I’m not sure!



I posted this on August 13th two years ago.


Here's an ironic little anecdote in which I unwittingly became my own 'test'! After two years of sitting next to this same router, I developed a strange feeling in my feet, right arm (nearest the router), right thigh, right cheek and right calf. My skin felt tight as if covered by a sock or stocking. The feeling developed gradually and culminated in visits to the doctor with me terrified I was developing MS or something horrible. The doctor re-assured me that it might be peripheral neuropathy and that I needed to be tested for diabetes first. I have noticed that almost everyone I know is a diabetic – very fashionable nowadays!


By accident, whilst looking up my 'symptoms' on the internet, I discovered this feeling over my skin as a reported symptom of EMS. Having satisfied myself two years ago that my router had nothing to do with the death of my begonia, I was surprised to think it might be affecting me! I disabled the wireless and am using it on cable – and my symptoms have disappeared!


So I have gone round in a full circle – woos are right. Skeptics actively attacking ideas they feel are wrong because 'science has proved it' is not good enough - I have been pontificating it myself, but I am not going to any more. Science is wrong. Science tests EMS incorrectly by double blinded investigation. Obviously EMS is a cumulative thing and those reports that reassure us are suspect. EMS is not 'imagination' as is usually concluded. That my router could have any effect on me has been the furthest thing from my mind.

Maybe the mobile phone mast that dominates our valley is causing all the diabetes surrounding me – not to mention the twenty odd MS sufferers in our area alone!? I am having a big re-think. I think we are being falsley informed by the scientific method we use to test things.


The error in science is the idea that there is only one way to test anything. Well that's my current opinion. So, in revolt, I am going to try homoeopathy because until it is tested on outcomes, there is no way of knowing whether it works or not. Then I might dabble with spiritualism and see if I can get a message from my mother – something that only she and I could possibly know, even if it seems superficially silly, which will prove to me that conciousness survives death.. I already know that my dog can read my mind – it disappears at any time I think “I'm going to bath the dog” - no clever Hans involved - so I don't need Sheldrake or Wisemans tests to prove it to me. I might believe in UFOs and go and sit in a crop circle or two and investigate becoming a Shaman. I am definitely going to believe 9/11 was an inside job. If I do that, I won't be so totally surprised to have my ideas overturned.


I think in a hundred years our science is going to look pretty primitive – and woos might be more right than wrong.^-^

;D

Well, thats me stirring the pot for now.....

[Mongrel]

By accident, whilst looking up my 'symptoms' on the internet, I discovered this feeling over my skin as a reported symptom of EMS. Having satisfied myself two years ago that my router had nothing to do with the death of my begonia, I was surprised to think it might be affecting me! I disabled the wireless and am using it on cable – and my symptoms have disappeared!

You may also wish to check (again) Double Blinding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_study#Double-blind_trials) in trials

[Allo Allo]

You may also wish to check (again) Double Blinding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_study#Double-blind_trials) in trials


Hi Mongrel,

Your point being? :smiley:

[Mongrel]

Hi Mongrel,

Your point being? :smiley:

If you knew when the router was connected and when it wasn't, especially when you have a predisposition to one of the conclusions, it's not a reliable test.

By the way, do you use a mobile phone?

[Mojo]

You might want to investigate provocation studies (http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/67/2/224) of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

[Cuddles]

So I have gone round in a full circle – woos are right.

I fail to see how any circles are involved, this is exactly what you've been saying all along.


Skeptics actively attacking ideas they feel are wrong because 'science has proved it' is not good enough - I have been pontificating it myself, but I am not going to any more. Science is wrong. Science tests EMS incorrectly by double blinded investigation. Obviously EMS is a cumulative thing and those reports that reassure us are suspect. EMS is not 'imagination' as is usually concluded. That my router could have any effect on me has been the furthest thing from my mind.

Wow. One little anecdote overrules many double blind trials? And you're still trying to pretend that you're anything other than a raving woo with no interest in reality?

Maybe the mobile phone mast that dominates our valley is causing all the diabetes surrounding me – not to mention the twenty odd MS sufferers in our area alone!? I am having a big re-think. I think we are being falsley informed by the scientific method we use to test things.


The error in science is the idea that there is only one way to test anything. Well that's my current opinion.

As usual, your opinion is wrong.


So, in revolt, I am going to try homoeopathy because until it is tested on outcomes, there is no way of knowing whether it works or not.

It is tested on outcomes. Idiot.


I think in a hundred years our science is going to look pretty primitive

Of course it will, just as the science from 100 years ago looks primitive now. Oddly enough, woo and quackery still looks just as ridiculous as it did back then.



and woos might be more right than wrong.

Nope.

[Dr B]

but the right side of your brain controls the left side of your body - so your symptoms do not match your suggestion :smiley:

They do however, match your expectation - which i think is the real explanation here.....

[Mongrel]

Or (unconsciously) sitting awkwardly too get away from the "evil radiation!".

[Allo Allo]

Thanks for the link Mojo -


You would see by the study objective 'The objectives of this study were to assess whetherpeople who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields(EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blindconditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whetherthey respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting'. that this study is not anything to do with my anecdote. I am not sensitive in any kind of field. I couldn't tell you if my router was on or off unless I looked at it.


To Mongrel – I have had no fragment of a moment where I thought of my router as producing 'evil radiation' – my posture has been what it usually is – pretty bad! And I do use a mobile – not much though – not through fear, but because its more expensive.:smiley: It was a post two years ago on this forum from someone who lived near the Crystal Palace wifi hotspot that laid my mind to rest about 'evil radiation'. It's not been a topic on my mind since.


And Dr B – I am wondering about the logic of your comments. If I burnt myself with my iron on my right hand – should the blister appear on my left hand? Do you think I would have diligently sat in 'evil radiation' for two whole years waiting for a 'a symptom' because I expected one? So therefore I got one? ??? And because I expected a symptom to develop I went backwards and forwards having blood tests and doctor's appointments to try and find the problem???? From my behaviour, if you are really thinking logically, you should perceive that I never thought for one minute that my router was affecting me - otherwise I would have attended to that aspect first!

Hi Cuddles! :wavey:

[Matt]

Thanks for the link Mojo -


You would see by the study objective 'The objectives of this study were to assess whetherpeople who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields(EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blindconditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whetherthey respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting'. that this study is not anything to do with my anecdote. I am not sensitive in any kind of field. I couldn't tell you if my router was on or off unless I looked at it.

And yet the test subject claimed that they could. They were proven wrong. You have a condition which you attribute to RF. The relavence of the study quoted is that it shows a strong psychosomatic componenet to EMS.

That you attribute a conditions to EMS, remove the source of the RF and experience remission could be explained in one of two ways.

1) It could be some post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning falsely attributed a self limiting condition to the router. If this were reinforced by psychosomatic symptoms then the appearance of the condition could persist, knowing that the wireless was switched off might lead to a loss of the remaining psychosomatic symptoms and the further post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning that this was the cause. In this case the post ho reasoning would have identified the cause of the recovery but not the mechanism. That is to say that if the symptoms were psychosomoatic then they were caused by knowing that the wireless was switched on and they went away when you knew that the wireless was switched off.

2) It could also plausibly be that there is some as yet unknown material interaction between lower power radio waves and human physiology.

You're asserting the second possibility without doing anything to falsify the first. At the same time you're ignoring wide scale studies that demosntrate that long term exposure to these radio waves poses no threat to health.
[/quote]

[Admin]

Science is wrong. Science tests EMS incorrectly by double blinded investigation.

Well, thats me stirring the pot for now.....

Well I'm not sure whether you're being serious or just being mischievous - perhaps a bit of both.

All you're saying is that we can 'know' things simply by 'seeing for ourselves'. Unfortunately there's no surer way of reaching false conclusions than going by your own subjective experiences that have no controls in place - you'll just find whatever you want to find.

Is it your daughter who's doing the psychology degree?

If so, ask her about hypothesis testing and what 'confounding factors' are and why they need to be eliminated to avoid false conclusions.

It's all about removing sources of possible error in testing (and one of the biggest sources of error is human biases) so that we can have more confidence in the results.

If you can accept that this idea (removing confounding factors) is a good and necessary one then you're on the right track to adopting the correct approach. This approach is known as the scientific method: the very method you say is wrong!

If you don't agree that removing or controlling for confounding factors is a good idea then how do you know your conclusion is correct? It could just as well be down to your biases (like prior belief) than anything real.

All your position boils down to is the following argument:


I believe in X;
Scientific tests do not show that X is true;
Therefore science/the scientific method is wrong.

Of course, the conclusion that you're ignoring is that you could be wrong - and that is far more probable than science being wrong.

So it's not a very convincing argument all in all.

And finally...

What if two people who believe that the scientific method is wrong (i.e. there are 'other ways of knowing') look at an issue and disagree on it (both believing different things), how could either (or both) of their positions be evaluated (without employing the scientific method)?

Think about that one!

[Allo Allo]

1) It could be some post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning falsely attributed a self limiting condition to the router. If this were reinforced by psychosomatic symptoms then the appearance of the condition could persist, knowing that the wireless was switched off might lead to a loss of the remaining psychosomatic symptoms and the further post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning that this was the cause. In this case the post ho reasoning would have identified the cause of the recovery but not the mechanism. That is to say that if the symptoms were psychosomoatic then they were caused by knowing that the wireless was switched on and they went away when you knew that the wireless was switched off.

2) It could also plausibly be that there is some as yet unknown material interaction between lower power radio waves and human physiology.

You're asserting the second possibility without doing anything to falsify the first. At the same time you're ignoring wide scale studies that demosntrate that long term exposure to these radio waves poses no threat to health.


Interesting thoughts Matt,


Not impossible my symptoms to be psychosomatic – I'm not usually a symptom producer though. I'm usually in rude health as a matter of habit. That's why it is frightening to feel 'not usual'. The feeling came on so gradually that, in the beginning, I put it down to my imagination. Then it intensified – over months- until I could not simply brush it away like that. Of course, one could think, that after my first 'imaginings' I focused on that – and then it grew to psychsomatic as a matter of panic – but not to do with the router, but with the fear of what 'disease' I might have.


I am booked to go in for more tests. So in the meantime, having read that 'my' feeling has been reported as being caused by microwave wireless, I thought I would immobilise the wireless and just use the cable instead to test that possibility. I had no expectations.


I felt no change immediately either. The feeling took several days to a week to go away – not just when I turned the wireless on or off. If more than two years of accumulated daily doses of wireless 'evil rays' have affected my skin sensation, if it CAN, then I am willing to accept that. Then, if I do, it is possible we are being affected long term as the fear mongers suggest.


Have you links to show that wireless microwaves have no effect on health? To equal my experience – they would have to have tested over a time of at least two and a half years of reasonably close irradiation on human tissue of the frequencies used on modern routers.


Currently, it is not officially expedient to find that electromagnetic radiation has any kind of ill effect on us. Imagine the mayhem! Unofficially, I find there is a completely different opinion – complete woo of course. Or is it?


If I do have something horrible and somehow coincidently have gone into a temporary remission, the skin sensations will come back. :sad:

[Allo Allo]

Oh, I find another wireless radiation symptom is Tinnitus. Is Bindeweed working off a wireless router? :smiley:

To me, turning of the wireless is worth trying - even if it is considered 'woo'.

Who REALLY knows?

[bindeweede]

Hello Allo Allo,

YES! I do use a wireless router!

However, I checked on dates. I went to see my GP about the tinnitus in February 2006. Got the router in April of 2006.

If you have decided to go down the homeopathic route , do watch out for...



Aqua-Pura Bottled Water

This remedy is available in the potencies 3X - 30C Please choose the potency you require and the appropriate size and form for that potency. If you are unsure click the 'Potencies' button above. If you do not see what you want please contact us through the free format order entry (http://www.helios.co.uk/openformat.htmltarget=new)
We can only supply X (D) potencies up to 12X
All other potencies are centessimal (C) unless otherwise statedPowerful stuff.
https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=AQUA-PbW&uid=10732


[Sorry. Harmless tease. No offence intended.]

[Allo Allo]

Hello Allo Allo,

YES! I do use a wireless router!

However, I checked on dates. I went to see my GP about the tinnitus in February 2006. Got the router in April of 2006.

If you have decided to go down the homeopathic route , do watch out for...

Powerful stuff.
https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=AQUA-PbW&uid=10732


[Sorry. Harmless tease. No offence intended.]




;D Hi Bindeweed,

Just checking that your router might be causing the tinnitus.....any luck with getting rid of it yet (the tinnitus - not the router!) ^-^ ?

The trouble with the homeopathy thing is that I don't use it (for obvious reasons) but I have friends - intelligent, sensible friends, who do. They are emphatic that I am wrong about homeopathy and that I must not have an opinion about it because I haven't tried it. I am usually healthy - I don't even get colds - but I AM going to try it when a suitable illness crops up for me.

While I am waiting, perhaps you could choose a Flower Essence for me to help me with the fear I have of 'serious illness' - I don't think the remedy you suggest will help me in that way - it HAS to be a joke yes?!

[bindeweede]

;D Hi Bindeweed,

Just checking that your router might be causing the tinnitus.....any luck with getting rid of it yet (the tinnitus - not the router!) ^-^ ?

The trouble with the homeopathy thing is that I don't use it (for obvious reasons) but I have friends - intelligent, sensible friends, who do. They are emphatic that I am wrong about homeopathy and that I must not have an opinion about it because I haven't tried it. I am usually healthy - I don't even get colds - but I AM going to try it when a suitable illness crops up for me.

While I am waiting, perhaps you could choose a Flower Essence for me to help me with the fear I have of 'serious illness' - I don't think the remedy you suggest will help me in that way - it HAS to be a joke yes?!

Allo x2

Well, I have found this....



Damascus Rose

This remedy is available in the potencies 6X - 10M Please choose the potency you require and the appropriate size and form for that potency. If you are unsure click the 'Potencies' button above. If you do not see what you want please contact us through the free format order entry (http://www.helios.co.uk/openformat.htmltarget=new)
We can only supply X (D) potencies up to 12X
All other potencies are centessimal (C) unless otherwise stated

but I have no idea what it is used for.

https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=Dama&uid=10732


If you go to the Helios site, you will find all sorts of strange potions.

Also there is this....
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum//showthread.php?t=2837

[bindeweede]

Allo Allo

I recently finished reading "Snake Oil Science", by R. Barker Bausell. I was impressed at the way he explains the numerous elements of placebo effect, and how easy it is for people to be persuaded that the effects they see from alternative therapies are more than the placebo effect, when they have been proved not to be.

Sorry - clumsy expression, but it really is worth reading if you can be bothered.

[Allo Allo]

Allo Allo

I recently finished reading "Snake Oil Science", by R. Barker Bausell. I was impressed at the way he explains the numerous elements of placebo effect, and how easy it is for people to be persuaded that the effects they see from alternative therapies are more than the placebo effect, when they have been proved not to be.

Sorry - clumsy expression, but it really is worth reading if you can be bothered.

Yes - I have read great portions of it - I personally find placebo effect fascinating. Strange phenomenon.

However I am not happy with the Damascus Rose essence you have prescribed for me as I can't see what the hell it does! If you feel it will really help my 'fear of serious illness', I suppose the number 10 potency is the correct one? Or should that be 6x??? ;D But, then, it probably makes no difference.....

[bindeweede]

Yes - I have read great portions of it - I personally find placebo effect fascinating. Strange phenomenon.

However I am not happy with the Damascus Rose essence you have prescribed for me as I can't see what the hell it does! If you feel it will really help my 'fear of serious illness', I suppose the number 10 potency is the correct one? Or should that be 6x??? ;D But, then, it probably makes no difference.....

Not trying to be funny or anything, but is your "fear of serious illness" actually
hypochondriasis?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3022101

[seren]

I recently finished reading "Snake Oil Science", by R. Barker Bausell.


Oooo I'll swap you for a Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh!

[bindeweede]

Oooo I'll swap you for a Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh!

Seren,

I found that very interesting too, but very different.

I can do a lendy if ya want!

[seren]

Hmm. I have "Suckers" by Rose Shapiro, or Derren Brown's Trick of the Mind, both on offer for swapsies too. But if yer offerin'!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hmm. I have "Suckers" by Rose Shapiro, or Derren Brown's Trick of the Mind, both on offer for swapsies too. But if yer offerin'!

I wonder if we need a swap thread? It might go against the UKSkeptics bookshop though...

[bindeweede]

Hmm. I have "Suckers" by Rose Shapiro, or Derren Brown's Trick of the Mind, both on offer for swapsies too. But if yer offerin'!

Seren,

I've not read anything by Derren. Let's do some PM-ing!

HQB.

[Pebble]

Allo Allo,

Amuzing post, but you are right scientific methodology evolves, and debates of the type you mention continue:
Biomed Pharmacother. 2008 Feb;62(2):104-9. Epub 2007 Dec 31. Links
Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards.

Hardell L, Sage C.
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden. lennart.hardell@orebroll.se
During recent years there has been increasing public concern on potential health risks from power-frequency fields (extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields; ELF) and from radiofrequency/microwave radiation emissions (RF) from wireless communications. Non-thermal (low-intensity) biological effects have not been considered for regulation of microwave exposure, although numerous scientific reports indicate such effects. The BioInitiative Report is based on an international research and public policy initiative to give an overview of what is known of biological effects that occur at low-intensity electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exposure. Health endpoints reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF include childhood leukaemia, brain tumours, genotoxic effects, neurological effects and neurodegenerative diseases, immune system deregulation, allergic and inflammatory responses, breast cancer, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. The BioInitiative Report concluded that a reasonable suspicion of risk exists based on clear evidence of bioeffects at environmentally relevant levels, which, with prolonged exposures may reasonably be presumed to result in health impacts. Regarding ELF a new lower public safety limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or upgraded power lines and for all other new constructions should be applied. A new lower limit should also be used for existing habitable space for children and/or women who are pregnant. A precautionary limit should be adopted for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure and for cumulative indoor RF fields with considerably lower limits than existing guidelines, see the BioInitiative Report. The current guidelines for the US and European microwave exposure from mobile phones, for the brain are 1.6 W/Kg and 2 W/Kg, respectively. Since use of mobile phones is associated with an increased risk for brain tumour after 10 years, a new biologically based guideline is warranted. Other health impacts associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields not summarized here may be found in the BioInitiative Report at www.bioinitiative.org.


The woo's generally thrive on such debates. It is their 'faith' in the gaps that represent the real problem. Science recognises the gaps and tries to resolve them - there-in hopefully lies the difference.

[Allo Allo]

Allo Allo,

Amuzing post,

Oh, thank goodness someone sees the fun! I find 'Tongue in Cheek' is not picked up quickly here. Everything is taken seriously!


BioInitiative Report at www.bioinitiative.org (http://www.bioinitiative.org).

The woo's generally thrive on such debates. It is their 'faith' in the gaps that represent the real problem. Science recognises the gaps and tries to resolve them - there-in hopefully lies the difference.

Well, I do my homework and I know that there is unease about EM frequencies that is not generally shared. And, of course, cannot be. The long-term effects of personal exposure in one's private residence are very different to public safety levels. I am relying on science to fill the gaps. It will too.


The funny feelings in my arm, leg and feet can be symptoms of some quite nasty neurological disorders, and being a most independent person who would hate being a burden on my husband and children, the idea that something might be going wrong with me IS frightening. I laughed at Bindeweeds link to Hypochondria – it would be lovely if it were as simple as that. Thanks Bindeweed!


This is a smashing link – thanks – I shall read it when I have time. O0

[brianp]

So, just for my own fun, I SHALL set up my OWN test – anyone can join me if they would enjoy it. I know we all have different circumstances – for instance maybe my begonia is stunted because the metal from the filing cabinets is reacting with the router – or the photocopy paper next to the router is emitting noxious chemicals – or whatever! What would a good test be? Simple please! :D

It would be very difficult for one person to do a double-blind test, so let us assume you have a friend who will help you out.

Take two tables separated by several feet but having identical lighting and heating. Take several begonia seedlings and place half on each table - if you want to be thorough you could spin a coin to decide which table each goes on. Then you place a router on each table with its indicator lights covered in black tape - then you go away and you get your friend to switch one router on. Of course he doesn't tell you which router is on. Then you look after all the plants equally - same watering etc. And when they are mature you judge the two sets of plants and note the results. If there is any difference in quality between the two sets, you can look to see whether the better ones are next to the active or inactive router and thus bolster or negate the "radio waves are bad for begonias" hypothesis.

[Allo Allo]

It would be very difficult for one person to do a double-blind test, so let us assume you have a friend who will help you out.
.................................................. ........................................
.................................................. .......................................
and thus bolster or negate the "radio waves are bad for begonias" hypothesis.

Hi Brianp

You know I am very sorry that my begonia story happened to be on a thread called 'I'd rather be a Woo-Woo any time' – which was taken from the end of my first post on UK Skeptics. I remember the horror/distress I felt at reading all the posts on the then 'new' UK Skeptics site – I was member 92 or something – and the JRF Forum. If you are naïve and been brought up with manners and consideration for others, you are surprised to find that, instead of discussion, viewpoints were allocated categories. 'Woo' was a category I'd never heard of!


I don't mind if things are woo – or people have woo ideas, or practise woo...in fact lots of woo ideas are intriguing to me. So are scientific ideas. I am one of those pains in the butt that are eternally enthusiastic and excited with life. I assume that all humans would be interested in ALL ideas – but, of course, that is not true – it's naïve.


So to find 'woo' considered disgusting, filthy, evil, vilified and called downright dangerous was a huge culture shock – hence the title of my thread.


Since then, I have investigated scientific. I think scientific method is a fantastic tool for studying. Models that explain the how and why are terrific. Maths is awesome. I am converted! And because I like the 'mystery' in woo, I was delighted to find that even science contains unicorns and fairies! (Of course they are not actually called that - they have scientific names!)


This begonia story came to mind when I discovered that a symptom of EMR that the scare mongers relate - could be a similar feeling that I had developed on my skin. I never did do any test with Begonias – but I remember writing a post about it. So I found the relevant post which was dated. I then knew that, since we are in August 2008, and my Begonia post was August 2006 and I had had the router a good six months before that, that I must have had my daily dose of EMR for about two and a half years – sometimes for perhaps fourteen hours a day.


I thought I would simply reply to my own post on the irony and humour of how I unwittingly became my own 'test'. To my horror the whole blasted 'I'd rather be a woo woo any time' thread came up again! I remember someone accused me of trolling – I thought trolls lived under bridges and were found in fairy tales – but I learned otherwise - and so my education went on. I belong to other forums too, but UK Skeptics has always been my favourite because it was here I grew up.


I don't think I have ever been completely accepted here – viewed with suspicion and my humour invisible – but what the hell – trying to compose a piece of writing to attempt to communicate an idea, is good practise. I think many woos lurk here. I think it is our duty to present skepticism as a beneficial tool for everyone to use in their lives. It has certainly changed the way I think.


The world is changed by words that carry an idea in a velvet glove. The more attractive the glove, the better the punch!


Thanks for your Begonia test. I think it would measure an effect well. If, say, the Begonias next to the active wireless router, withered and died, it would confirm my present suspicion that the feeling in my skin might be caused by my wireless router. The results would just become an 'anecdote' and useful to no-one because I am not a qualified person from an institution. If, on the other hand the Begonias near the active router thrived, I would be no nearer to answering my question because I would then wonder if human tissue is different because of the fact I am not a Begonia! :-[ Ah well...


I thought the better thing was to post my anecdote on UK Skeptics Forum where some people know I am a woo-hybrid-scientist. A qualified person reading here might then actually think about it and supply me with some scientific and useful information.

[Pebble]

Allo Allo

The sensationwe are talking about, I presume 'pins & needles' ? Peripheral neuropathy does not fit. this should affect a 'glove & stocking' distribution or something similar. Mono-neuritis multiplex (also associated with diabetes) also does not fit - one or two distinct nerve territories.

If it was just the arm and leg one would think of a cervical disc or other problems located in the neck.

The problem comes when one tries to include the face. Syringomyelia is very rare, but would produce progressive symptoms, that would not remit.

In any event, my suggestion would be that if these symptoms have lasted longer than a month, then a neurologist is the person to see. If your GP is reluctant, ask him/her what he thinks of syringomyelia as a differential (symptoms are almost always bilateral, but he/she won't know that).

[Allo Allo]

Allo Allo

The sensationwe are talking about, I presume 'pins & needles' ? Peripheral neuropathy does not fit. this should affect a 'glove & stocking' distribution or something similar. Mono-neuritis multiplex (also associated with diabetes) also does not fit - one or two distinct nerve territories.

If it was just the arm and leg one would think of a cervical disc or other problems located in the neck.

The problem comes when one tries to include the face. Syringomyelia is very rare, but would produce progressive symptoms, that would not remit.

In any event, my suggestion would be that if these symptoms have lasted longer than a month, then a neurologist is the person to see. If your GP is reluctant, ask him/her what he thinks of syringomyelia as a differential (symptoms are almost always bilateral, but he/she won't know that).

Hi Pebble,

The feeling is very hard to describe - its not pins and needles but more a stockinged sensation - a numbing - something covering the skin. I went to the doctor first - it never occured to me it might be my router. It was only when I found this symptom described on the Mastwatch site or something similar when I was trying to find a medical cause on the Internet that it suddenly dawned on me that the feeling was on my right side - the side nearest the router about 18" away. As I explained in a previous post, several days to a week into not exposing myself to wireless but working with the computers on cable, the sensation went away. If this is a sort of placebo effect from somewhere deeply unconscious, the sensation will eventually come back I think. I am not canceling my doctor's appointment. I am just wondering if I have been suffering from EMR effect somehow - that maybe woo's are right in this aspect. I don't know. I'm trying to find out. It's no good asking them!!! And its no good asking the doctor or neurologist because they, like me, know that science has 'proved' the stuff safe.

[Pebble]

Allo Allo

Good to see that the problem was transient. All I was trying to get at is that there are many causes of apparently baffling symptoms. Without a proper assessment of the known causes, then associative links, such as your router, tend to lead to false conclusions more often than valid hypotheses.

[Allo Allo]

This is a smashing link – thanks – I shall read it when I have time. O0

Ok Pebble, I read it - this is from the PDF file on the opening page....but the actual research is mind boggling!

"Wireless technologies that rely on microwave radiation to send emails and voice communication are thousands of times stronger than levels reported to cause some health impacts. Prolonged exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless technologies have linked to physical symptoms including headache, fatigue, sleeplessness, dizziness, changes in brainwave activity, and impairment of concentration and memory. Scientists report that these effects can occur with even very small levels of exposure, if it occurs on a daily basis. Children in particular are vulnerable to harm from environmental exposures of all kinds.

Co-editor of the report, Cindy Sage of Sage Associates says “public health and EMF policy experts have now given their opinion of the weight of evidence. The existing FCC and international limits for public and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation are not protective of public health. New biologically-based public and occupational exposure are recommended to address bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure. These effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international limits.”

Biologically-based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of
normal body processes. Effects are reported for DNA damage (genotoxicity that is directly linked to integrity of the human genome), cellular communication, cellular metabolism and repair, cancer surveillance within the body; and for protection against cancer and neurological diseases. Also reported are neurological effects including changes in brainwave activity during cell phone calls, impairment of memory, attention and cognitive function; sleep disorders, cardiac effects; and changes in immune function (allergic and inflammatory responses).

Sage says “the Working Group recommends a biologically-based exposure limit that is protective against extremely-low frequency (power line) and radio frequency fields which, with chronic exposure, can reasonably be presumed to result in significant impacts to health and well-being”.

Contributing author Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University professor and researcher in bioelectromagnetics says “cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to powerlines, cell phones and the like.”



Too late mate! Bugger the Begonias. I wonder what I've done to myself? Think I'll just light up another fag! :undecided:

[Pebble]

Too late mate! Bugger the Begonias. I wonder what I've done to myself? Think I'll just light up another fag! :undecided:

I wouldn't do that, any college kid will tell you that hash is much kinder to the lungs and a far better way of easing the pain of a screwed up future.

[Allo Allo]

I wouldn't do that, any college kid will tell you that hash is much kinder to the lungs and a far better way of easing the pain of a screwed up future.


;D

[Tim the Mage]

;D

Is that corned beef hash?

[filippo lippi]

So, how'd the experiment go?

[Allo Allo]

So, how'd the experiment go?

Oh god, I hate the title of this thread! You've resurrected it from the dead - again.....>:-)

However, I see I was complaining about the horrible sensations on the skin of my right side on 7th August this year - I switched off the wireless then and within about a week - or in a week, the tingling went away. The sensation has not returned. Thats all I can report.

The doctor said I had peripheral neuropathy as my sugar was slightly elevated - which surprised me - but I think I might have discovered a reason for that too - I have a liquidiser! (see article) (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/07july/pages/fruitjuiceandtype2diabetes.aspx)

Occasionally, I have had to use the wireless to get an unused computer onto the Internet (it only connects via wireless) for a short while - but I cannot say that I 'feel' any wireless rays in any way. If I sit on my usual seat, I couldn't tell whether the router was emitting wireless or not.

I have not done any tests on begonias.

And I remain a woo-hybrid-scientist.....O0

[filippo lippi]

You've resurrected it from the dead

Mainly for the benefit of new readers.