Negative expectations can make your body reactions more severe.
If for example, every time I made a phone call from my house, a tower across the street blew tobacco smoke into your house....
You might get angrier and angrier every time I made a phone call.
If I could prove that there was a causal relationship between you making the call and the smoke being blown, then I would be well above anything that's been proven with EHS.
Anyway, it must be a bit*h for someone with your supposed condition to go out into the sun, as visible light and UV light is much more energetic than cell phone frequencies. I bet your head would pop like a balloon if sunlight touched it.
Luvapottamus Registered User User ID: 372884 06-14-2019 02:43 AM
Posts: 21,815
Negative expectations can make your body reactions more severe.
If for example, every time I made a phone call from my house, a tower across the street blew tobacco smoke into your house....
You might get angrier and angrier every time I made a phone call.
If I could prove that there was a causal relationship between you making the call and the smoke being blown, then I would be well above anything that's been proven with EHS.
Anyway, it must be a bit*h for someone with your supposed condition to go out into the sun, as visible light and UV light is much more energetic than cell phone frequencies. I bet your head would pop like a balloon if sunlight touched it.
You obviously haven't read any of the evidence I provided.
But it's okay.
Somebody else might.
Thanks for trolling.
Agent Stoneheart Have a nice day User ID: 479165 06-14-2019 02:46 AM
Posts: 12,671
If I could prove that there was a causal relationship between you making the call and the smoke being blown, then I would be well above anything that's been proven with EHS.
Anyway, it must be a bit*h for someone with your supposed condition to go out into the sun, as visible light and UV light is much more energetic than cell phone frequencies. I bet your head would pop like a balloon if sunlight touched it.
You obviously haven't read any of the evidence I provided.
But it's okay.
Somebody else might.
Thanks for trolling.
Nor will you read or watch anything I post. So we're even. Such as:
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NMSA 1978 § 3-21-1(A) (2007))
THE CITY HAS ABDICATED ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AS A ZONING AUTHORITY
82. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
83. Cities have traditionally regulated utilities that occupy their rights-ofway in two ways: either by site-specific leases, by which the city retains control over
the location of proposed facilities, or by franchises, by which cities give up that
control.
84. In amending Chapter 27 by Ordinances 2016-42 and 2017-18, the City
of Santa Fe not only has chosen franchises over leases, but has effectively
eliminated all other land use regulations, such that an application for a franchise is the only requirement before a telecommunications company can begin erecting unlimited numbers of telecommunications facilities in the City’s public rights-ofway. The City has enacted an all-or-nothing ordinance. If the City grants a franchise, the applicant can erect unlimited numbers of antennas and towers without further interference. If the City denies a franchise, the applicant cannot operate in the City.
86. State law provides that the City “is a zoning authority” for the purpose
of “promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare.” NMSA 1978, § 3-21-1(A) (2007). Furthermore, the City Code states as follows: “The purposes of Chapter 14 are to: (A) implement the purposes of the general plan, including guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of Santa Fe that will best promote health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare ….” Santa Fe City Code § 14-1.3(A) (2011).
In addition, the City Code provides that “[t]he provisions of Chapter 14 apply to all land, buildings and other structures, and their uses, located within the corporate limits of Santa Fe, including land owned by local, county, state or federal agencies to the extent allowed by law.” Santa Fe City Code § 14-1.6 (2011). ....
So tell us the dangers oh sage of non-ionizing radiation that flies in the face of physics and biology.
It flies in the face of neither.
Your old outdated radiation chart doesn't account for the electrical induction caused by RF waves.
Chart claims only ionizing radiation causes cancer.
Nonionizing radiation breaks DNA strands too. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields cause DNA strand breaks in normal cells
Quote:Results
Exposed samples presented an increase of the number of cells with high damaged DNA as compared with non-exposed cells. Quantitative evaluation of the comet assay showed a significantly (<0.001) increase of the tail lengths, of the quantity of DNA in tail and of Olive tail moments, respectively. Cell cycle analysis showed an increase of the frequency of the cells in S phase, proving the occurrence of single strand breaks. The most probable mechanism of induction of the registered effects is the production of different types of reactive oxygen species.
Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate effect of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from mobile phones on DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. The study was carried out on 56 men (age range: 30-60 years old)in four treatment groups with n = 14 in each group. The groups were defined as follows: people who did not use a mobile phone (Control), people use mobile phones for 0-30 min/day (second group), people use mobile phones for 30-60 min/day (third group) and people use mobile phones for more than 60 min/day (fourth group). Ear canal hair follicle cells taken from the subjects were analyzed by the Comet Assay to determine DNA damages. The Comet Assay parameters measured were head length, tail length, comet length, percentage of head DNA, tail DNA percentage, tail moment, and Olive tail moment. Results of the study showed that DNA damage indicators were higher in the RFR exposure groups than in the control subjects. In addition, DNA damage increased with the daily duration of exposure. In conclusion, RFR emitted from mobile phones has a potential to produce DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. Therefore, mobile phone users have to pay more attention when using wireless phones.
For every study I post you can find an industry funded study that says the opposite.
That's why CONSENSUS isn't science.
You never get consensus.
What matters is the EXPERIMENTAL METHOD and REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS.
And thousands of experiments have had reproducable results showing harm from nonionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields.
There are multiple vectors and physiological effects, and many aren't FATAL.
Some are only FATAL when combined with other disease conditions.
Like diabetes:
Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes.
Abstract
Transient electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels among diabetics and pre-diabetics. By closely following plasma glucose levels in four Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics, we find that they responded directly to the amount of dirty electricity in their environment. In an electromagnetically clean environment, Type 1 diabetics require less insulin and Type 2 diabetics have lower levels of plasma glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equipment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produces dirty electricity, increases plasma glucose. These findings may explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty regulating blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (3-35%), as many as 5-60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected. Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and may contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic pollution by avoidance or with specially designed GS filters may enable some diabetics to better regulate their blood sugar with less medication and borderline or pre-diabetics to remain non diabetic longer.....
Another problem is misdiagnosis. If my GP hadn't known I had EHS, when her WIFI router elevated my blood pressure she would have prescribed blood pressure medications.
But she knew I took my BP before I sat by her router, and after I left her office I took it again, and after about an hour it was normal again.
The next time I went, I showed up right on time, instead of 30 minutes early(they want you there 15 minutes early, then you have to sit next to their router.)
When I showed up on time, BP was normal.
So she knew not to prescribe blood pressure medication.
If I had taken BP meds I could have had LOW BLOOD pressure which also can be deadly.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2019 06:43 PM by Luvapottamus.)
Luvapottamus Registered User User ID: 372884 06-14-2019 06:56 PM
Posts: 21,815
Voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), also known as voltage-dependent calcium channels (VDCCs), are a group of voltage-gated ion channels found in the membrane of excitable cells (e.g., muscle, glial cells, neurons, etc.) with a permeability to the calcium ion Ca2+.[1][2]
These channels are slightly permeable to sodium ions, so they are also called Ca2+-Na+ channels, but their permeability to calcium is about 1000-fold greater than to sodium under normal physiological conditions.[3] At physiologic or resting membrane potential, VGCCs are normally closed.
They are activated (i.e., opened) at depolarized membrane potentials and this is the source of the "voltage-gated" epithet. The concentration of calcium (Ca2+ ions) is normally several thousand times higher outside the cell than inside.
Activation of particular VGCCs allows a Ca2+ influx into the cell, which, depending on the cell type, results in activation of calcium-sensitive potassium channels, muscular contraction,[4] excitation of neurons, up-regulation of gene expression, or release of hormones or neurotransmitters.
VGCCs have been immunolocalized in the zona glomerulosa of normal and hyperplastic human adrenal, as well as in aldosterone-producing adenomas (APA), and in the latter T-type VGCCs correlated with plasma aldosterone levels of patients.[5]
Excessive activation of VGCCs is a major component of excitotoxicity, as severely elevated levels of intracellular calcium activates enzymes which, at high enough levels, can degrade essential cellular structures.
So tell us the dangers oh sage of non-ionizing radiation that flies in the face of physics and biology.
It flies in the face of neither.
Your old outdated radiation chart doesn't account for the electrical induction caused by RF waves.
Chart claims only ionizing radiation causes cancer.
Nonionizing radiation breaks DNA strands too. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields cause DNA strand breaks in normal cells
Quote:Results
Exposed samples presented an increase of the number of cells with high damaged DNA as compared with non-exposed cells. Quantitative evaluation of the comet assay showed a significantly (<0.001) increase of the tail lengths, of the quantity of DNA in tail and of Olive tail moments, respectively. Cell cycle analysis showed an increase of the frequency of the cells in S phase, proving the occurrence of single strand breaks. The most probable mechanism of induction of the registered effects is the production of different types of reactive oxygen species.
Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate effect of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from mobile phones on DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. The study was carried out on 56 men (age range: 30-60 years old)in four treatment groups with n = 14 in each group. The groups were defined as follows: people who did not use a mobile phone (Control), people use mobile phones for 0-30 min/day (second group), people use mobile phones for 30-60 min/day (third group) and people use mobile phones for more than 60 min/day (fourth group). Ear canal hair follicle cells taken from the subjects were analyzed by the Comet Assay to determine DNA damages. The Comet Assay parameters measured were head length, tail length, comet length, percentage of head DNA, tail DNA percentage, tail moment, and Olive tail moment. Results of the study showed that DNA damage indicators were higher in the RFR exposure groups than in the control subjects. In addition, DNA damage increased with the daily duration of exposure. In conclusion, RFR emitted from mobile phones has a potential to produce DNA damage in follicle cells of hair in the ear canal. Therefore, mobile phone users have to pay more attention when using wireless phones.
For every study I post you can find an industry funded study that says the opposite.
That's why CONSENSUS isn't science.
You never get consensus.
What matters is the EXPERIMENTAL METHOD and REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS.
And thousands of experiments have had reproducable results showing harm from nonionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields.
There are multiple vectors and physiological effects, and many aren't FATAL.
Some are only FATAL when combined with other disease conditions.
Like diabetes:
Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes.
Abstract
Transient electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels among diabetics and pre-diabetics. By closely following plasma glucose levels in four Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics, we find that they responded directly to the amount of dirty electricity in their environment. In an electromagnetically clean environment, Type 1 diabetics require less insulin and Type 2 diabetics have lower levels of plasma glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equipment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produces dirty electricity, increases plasma glucose. These findings may explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty regulating blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (3-35%), as many as 5-60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected. Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and may contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic pollution by avoidance or with specially designed GS filters may enable some diabetics to better regulate their blood sugar with less medication and borderline or pre-diabetics to remain non diabetic longer.....
Another problem is misdiagnosis. If my GP hadn't known I had EHS, when her WIFI router elevated my blood pressure she would have prescribed blood pressure medications.
But she knew I took my BP before I sat by her router, and after I left her office I took it again, and after about an hour it was normal again.
The next time I went, I showed up right on time, instead of 30 minutes early(they want you there 15 minutes early, then you have to sit next to their router.)
When I showed up on time, BP was normal.
So she knew not to prescribe blood pressure medication.
If I had taken BP meds I could have had LOW BLOOD pressure which also can be deadly.
Science is a consensus. The evidence just isn't there to convince the scientific community That's why your mental illness conditions will remain in the pseudoscience list of conditions right along with Morgellons disease and Adrenal Fatigue.
Luvapottamus Registered User User ID: 372884 06-15-2019 04:42 PM
Posts: 21,815
Science is a consensus. The evidence just isn't there to convince the scientific community That's why your mental illness conditions will remain in the pseudoscience list of conditions right along with Morgellons disease and Adrenal Fatigue.
Science is not consensus.
Science is a methodology. There is such thing as "scientific consensus" where you poll a lot of scientists and find out what they generally agree on. Sometimes this is correct, sometimes it isn't.
Before and during Galileo's life the scientific consensus was the sun revolved around the Earth.
The scientific method eventually changed that consensus.
But there is some consensus on this....so you have BOTH types or argument.
Science is a consensus. The evidence just isn't there to convince the scientific community That's why your mental illness conditions will remain in the pseudoscience list of conditions right along with Morgellons disease and Adrenal Fatigue.
Science is not consensus.
Science is a methodology. There is such thing as "scientific consensus" where you poll a lot of scientists and find out what they generally agree on. Sometimes this is correct, sometimes it isn't.
Before and during Galileo's life the scientific consensus was the sun revolved around the Earth.
The scientific method eventually changed that consensus.
But there is some consensus on this....so you have BOTH types or argument.
Full Video of Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing (October 4th, 2018)
The Doctors' objections begin at around 32 minutes....
There is scientific consensus. Then there is scientific fringe. Guess where you are? Yup, you're right there with the "astronomers" who believe in flat earther and the "biologists" who believe in creationism.
Agent Stoneheart Have a nice day User ID: 479165 06-15-2019 06:18 PM
Posts: 12,671
I hope that not only does 5G become commonplace (which is definite certainty) but that they build a tower 50' from your house. Then I'll bide my time for a few years until I can wait for you to bit*h and complain about 6G
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2019 06:20 PM by Agent Stoneheart.)
Luvapottamus Registered User User ID: 372884 06-15-2019 06:18 PM
Posts: 21,815
Science is not consensus.
Science is a methodology. There is such thing as "scientific consensus" where you poll a lot of scientists and find out what they generally agree on. Sometimes this is correct, sometimes it isn't.
Before and during Galileo's life the scientific consensus was the sun revolved around the Earth.
The scientific method eventually changed that consensus.
But there is some consensus on this....so you have BOTH types or argument.
Full Video of Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing (October 4th, 2018)
The Doctors' objections begin at around 32 minutes....
There is scientific consensus. Then there is scientific fringe. Guess where you are? Yup, you're right there with the "astronomers" who believe in flat earther and the "biologists" who believe in creationism.
You admitted you don't read any of the evidence I present.
Do you also not read any of my posts?
Another question:
Is the reason you won't read the pdfs because you can't open them on your dunce fone?
Agent Stoneheart Have a nice day User ID: 479165 06-15-2019 06:20 PM
Posts: 12,671
There is scientific consensus. Then there is scientific fringe. Guess where you are? Yup, you're right there with the "astronomers" who believe in flat earther and the "biologists" who believe in creationism.
You admitted you don't read any of the evidence I present.
Do you also not read any of my posts?
Another question:
Is the reason you won't read the pdfs because you can't open them on your dunce fone?
You are correct that I don't read any of your "evidence".
Lunaticoutpost.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program , an
affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to
earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
Amazon, the Amazon logo, MYHABIT, and the MYHABIT logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Terms of Service :
Don't be a pest to the forum.
No profanity in thread-titles or usernames
No excessive profanity in posts
No Racism, Antisemitism + Hate
No calls for violence against anyone..
Disclaimer:
This website exists for fun and discussion only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events.
The content of posts on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites,
are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way
representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this
website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific
author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual
information on behalf of the owner or administration of
LunaticOutPost.Com. The owners or administration of this website can't
be hold responsible for content hosted on sites that posters link to
in; including, but not limited to, posts, signatures, private messages and such.
This site may contain content not suitable for minors and if you feel
you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use
of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance
awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights,
economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science
& technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material. The
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users
limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant
portions of the article you wish to discuss (no more than 50% of the
source material) provide a link back to the original article and provide
your original comments / criticism in your post with the article. If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and
you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "Fair
Use" and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright please contact [email protected]
Privacy Policy:
This website is owned by :
Marco Zwaneveld
Drijfriemstraat 52
2516 XR The Hague
Netherlands.
I will not rent, sell, share or otherwise disclose your personal information to any third party.
We might contact you from time to time
regarding your purchases or the services (like forums and announcement
lists) you have subscribed to.
Some of the 3rd party advertisers on lunaticoutpost.com may use cookies
to track peformance and/or to serve relevant ads.
If you wish to read more and/or opt out of such cookies, please visit: http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/
New biometric database can identify people through scars, tattoos and even their voice
the Verison stooge decides not to testify after the first doctor...