greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
4 edits | Monetized Science vs. The Precautionary Principle
Hey, I've got my tinfoil helmet on... But seriously though:
The 21st century scientific community entirely disregards the precautionary principle. The mantra is: "No studies prove 'X' is detrimental in any way." It's a sound bite that monetized scientists use to publicly bless something that hasn't been thoroughly researched in order to make a quick buck. So, if no studies have yet proven conclusively that something is unhealthy, it's okay to do anything. Build a virus. Create chemicals and processes that are easily monetized for short-term gain regardless of the long-term unstudied consequences. But that's only half the story. The other half of the mantra should be: "No studies prove 'X' will not be detrimental in any way."
Theories are all we have. But they're still just theories - not truth. In three years, we'll discover 'smart threads' as a sub-theory of string-theory. Next year, butter will be bad for you again and margarine will be healthy, or vice versa. But these are just theories. Before humans can create a valid theory they have to formulate a hypothesis. Hypotheses that are based on immediate monetary gain will be vastly different from those based on long-term effects on people and environment. Direct corporate funding of scientific research should be illegal - just like political campaign funding. Corporate funding skews our hypotheses to the former and to the detriment of the latter. Our research route is therefore not truly scientific. It's mad science. All scientific research should pass through an unimpeachable science-for-the-sake-of-truth test before actually being funded. In the same way we have a judicial branch of government, universities should have a judicial branch of education that decides what would ethically serve the long-term sustainability of life.
Regardless of what you believe, humans have been on this earth far longer without synthetic concentrated frequency emitters than with. We have no idea what the long-term effects may be because - you guessed it - no studies have been done. All we have is a few people hypothesizing from personal experience and perspective. We laugh and label them kooks because we are afraid they might make us face the possibility that we are dreadfully wrong for not accepting as truth that the modern conveniences to which we have startlingly grown so accustomed - in less than a generation's time - may be slowly harming us.
Here's an example hypothesis I'm just making up: I'll posit that Autism is rising in direct proportion to the increasing number of cell towers and wifi hotspots. I posit that we are frying our childrens' brains in the womb - during the most formative months. (Don't worry - I won't further complicate this theory with additional considerations suggesting the existing levels of bisphenol-a and other toxins in the breast milk of the general population may actually have a threshold effect that makes the brain changes irreversible.) I could be wrong. Maybe, I don't care. Noone can doubt that Autism is rising. Noone can doubt that cell tower and hotspot numbers are increasing. Maybe nobody else has made the connection. By 2012, instead of a few long-distance transmitters for our current band of television frequencies, we'll have millions of devices that transmit those frequencies...right next to our bodies. We have no long-term studies to show whether there is a threshold effect for soaking our bodies in so thick a soup in that bandwidth. You don't know. I don't know. We haven't researched. I'm just hypothesizing. But before I laugh at those 'sensitive and wacky wifi wierdos', I'm going to consider whether we may be literally throwing the baby out with the bath-water. We won't be laughing when our sons and daughters start going bald and sterile in grade school because - oh yeah - we fried their little bodies for years in a sea of synthetically concentrated frequencies at levels never experienced on the face of the earth before because some of us got used to text messaging when we were in grade school, and just because we never thought it was important enough to do the long-term testing.
No studies are done on the long-term effects of microwave radiation in children because it costs too much and takes too long. No studies are done on possible long-term threshold effects of tv bandwidth radiation at levels expected to be seen in 2020. The fed won't pay for it. Corporate interests certainly won't pay for it because it reduces short-term return on investment for shareholders - who really don't care as long as they get their profit. In some cases, they actually bury results that are bad for business. Look at tobacco. Look at modern pharmaceuticals.
For modern monetized science, if we don't 'know' a hypothesis is detrimental, we can make money on it before enough people have died for us to admit that maybe it should be illegal. The precautionary principle would suggest scientists should prove first conclusively that long-term negative effects don't exist.
We don't do the real long-term research because we cannot ethically monetize what we know is wrong.
I have to ask myself - who is really crazy here? |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa | b i n g o |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to greenman
Of course, what eventually happens under your principle is that any new kind of technology, building, method, whatever, would first have to prove that it could never have a detrimental effect on ANYTHING.
Never mind that such proof is impossible, I guess.
There is NO WAY to conclusively prove an absence of possible harm. None. It can't be done. It has nothing to do with monetization - such proof as your 'precautionary principle' demands is simply impossible.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
3 edits | Sure - you can take it to extremes. I suppose my statement was extreme. But fire can kill. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use fire. You're right, it's not a proof. It's a principle - a generalized method of conduct or a basic 'truth' that is different from the current ethics-free principle in which profit trumps wisdom.
And it has everything to do with money. |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| But you are ASKING for proof that can't be produced - and incidentally distorting the state of affairs with such statements as "We have no idea what the long-term effects [of exposure to microwave radiation] may be because - you guessed it - no studies have been done." That is an untrue statement. Many studies have been done. The effects of microwave radiation on animal tissue and nervous systems are quite well known.
There are NO studies to indicate that what these 'allergic' people are claiming does occur, and frankly I can't think of a good reason to suppose that exposure to extremely low power sources such as wireless points would suddenly manifest in physical effects when long-term exposure to more powerful sources has not.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
2 edits | said by Dipsomaniac :
I can't think of a good reason to suppose that exposure to extremely low power sources such as wireless points would suddenly manifest in physical effects when long-term exposure to more powerful sources has not.
So just because you cannot think of a good reason, does that mean it shouldn't be studied? Again - there's that mantra: "There are NO studies..." I'm not saying that I agree with them. I'm just saying that we haven't made the effort to disprove it. We should. To say they're wrong because there are no studies is insufficient data. As you say there are no studies - one way or the other. How can that statement be held as scientifically valid? Do the studies.
As you know, signal intensity increases exponentially the closer you get to it. Microwaves cook - I'm sure we can both agree with that. Again, not that I agree with your proposed methods, but do we have studies of long-term expected-dose exposure to cell, wifi and tv band broadcast from pocket-sized emitters held close to the bodies of test animals? And what happens when you throw other considerations into the mix? What if we should be looking for synergistic effects brought on by threshold exposures to known toxins like bpa, endocrine disrupters or heavy metals that are already found to be at dangerous levels in the general US population?
I know of no such studies. And you're right. They probably won't be done. But if scientists had executed the precautionary principle from the beginning of this century, we might not have a gyre of plastic the size of Texas (and growing) in the Pacific Ocean today. We might not have people you've never met in other countries slowly dying of kidney failure or mouth cancer as they live in piles of US electronic waste dumpage. Cigarette factories would have been phased out the day data actually showed the detrimental effects of long-term exposure. And Dow Chemical would never have monetized polystyrene as 'Styrofoam.'
Yeah it's about the money. |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | So just because you cannot think of a good reason, does that mean it shouldn't be studied?
That's not what I said. Did you not read what I wrote?
I'm just saying that we haven't made the effort to disprove it.
Study after study after study has been done on the effects of microwave exposure, and yet nothing has been found to demonstrate that such exposure can cause effects like these people claim. You're asking for impossible proof.
I didn't say it shouldn't be studied. I said it HAS been studied. It's been studied exhaustively, by many teams. These claimed effects have never been observed in clinical trials. Never. Huge studies have been done on exposure to cellphone radiation. Equally huge studies have been done concerning exposure to high-tension power lines. These claimed 'ill-effects' haven't shown up. It's quite telling that the groups claiming ill-effects from microwave-spectrum radiation can't show the mechanism or a study that corroborates their claims, and the individuals claiming to know when they're being exposed to such radiation fail to demonstrate such knowledge when proper testing is done.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | I have to say Points are being made here but in the end its something that never should stopped being asked. A question and a wonder will always be bountiful..Good points on both ends but, I agree with greenman on constant study. Such anxiety from you tech nerds only makes people wonder more instead of making any clear statements on what they claim could be a problem. |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Such anxiety from you tech nerds...
I notice that you aren't questioning those who make untested claims; it seems you're asking instead that the wireless industry disprove claims that have no supporting evidence to begin with. I have not said that there shouldn't be study.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa
·AT&T DSL Service
| Yes, its called bonus to the defense and since this tech is being shoved in everyones face if questions arise its a DUTY to answer till calmed or the situation removed. For reference I like to point to this as ammo »www.mastsanity.org which goes against the grain of almost everyone thats posted in this thread. I just don't understand why people always want to claim they know everything?
I see that as the biggest problem. But for reference lets just say wi-fi is fine  ..I still don't want it around me and I won't be using it for my data. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
| reply to Dipsomaniac
said by Dipsomaniac  :I didn't say it shouldn't be studied. I said it HAS been studied. It's been studied exhaustively, by many teams. I'm glad you were able to find them. I could not. Could you please PM me with the relevant links? Peer-reviewed journal articles from reliable resources like EBSCOhost would suit me the best. I'll be able to download them from the university.
Thanks for the fantastic discussion. |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to DMNTD
I looked at the mastsanity page, but gave up on it as soon as they quoted research and events from over 40 years ago as relevant. Their reference to juries is specious and irrelevant in a scientific discussion, as is their dismissal of the vast amount of radio emission coming from the sun. The attempt at a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy isn't too impressive either.
The scientific community has no duty whatsoever to 'calm' people who don't understand the research. The groups claiming that they have evidence of these effects have one recourse - produce a refereed, properly done study. So far, I haven't seen one.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON | reply to greenman
A good starting point would be (believe it or not) the references at the bottom of this page.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
| reply to Dipsomaniac
said by Dipsomaniac :I'm just saying that we haven't made the effort to disprove it. Actually that is not what you said. That's what I said. You said the first half of the mantra:
said by Dipsomaniac :There are NO studies to indicate that what these 'allergic' people are claiming does occur, and frankly I can't think of a good reason to suppose that exposure to extremely low power sources such as wireless points would suddenly manifest in physical effects when long-term exposure to more powerful sources has not. I responded with what should be the other half of the mantra: No one has made the effort to disprove the claims of those wearing the tinfoil hats. It's entirely because we loath the possibility that we'll have to up the conveniences to which we have become accustomed. We have become accustomed to these conveniences because we've been 'advertised at' that we cannot afford live in the modern world without them.
Hypothesis one: Our DNA is slowly frying. We have surpassed the exposure threshold over which the human body is able to automatically repair its own DNA. There are no studies to prove or disprove this hypothesis, so it's still not even a theory. It's just a guess. It won't matter to adults born before the 1980's much because we were already formed before the immersion began. But today's children were not.
Hypothesis two: Muscle tissue consists mostly of an amazing organic piezo-electric crystalline substance. Exposure to certain frequencies are known to excite energy states in piezo-electric substances. Think solar cells. Think infra-red sensors. The energy must be released somehow. Perhaps genetic variance in some people causes them to sense the damage that is being done to their bodies when most of us cannot. Again - not a theory - just a hypothesis.
Hypotheses are were we begin to really question the universe. Remaining loyal to existing theories simply because nothing yet proves them wrong and because they are convenient is dogmatic and ultimately unscientific.
So prove me right or wrong. I frankly don't care. Just don't dismiss my hypothesis without proof one way or another.
said by Dipsomaniac :A good starting point would be (believe it or not) the references at the bottom of this page. Wikipedia is generally self-referencing. While there are some peer-reviewed studies at the bottom of the page, these generally conclude with this statement: "Double blind studies are inconclusive." They factually disprove nothing. "No studies prove" is not equivalent to "No studies disprove". Conclusive proof for or against would suffice in the realm of science to quiet the disbelievers on the opposite side. Relying on 'No studies prove" alone is mad science. The study is incomplete. The perspective is incomplete and illogical. If you can't prove it, find a way to disprove it.
Just because something is hard to measure in the lab environment doesn't mean results aren't happening in the wild. Stifling dissent for immediate profit will only occlude reliable results. We aren't practicing science here.
I ask again I have to ask: who's really crazy here? |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | Okay, I'll explain this AGAIN - theories are NEVER proven, only supported. Theories may be invalidated through further research. So far, any hypothesis that WiFi causes so-called 'allergic' effects is unsupported by research or evidence. It is incumbent on those making the claims to show that there's some evidence to back them up, not on the greater community to respond to every contrary hypothesis.
Those references I gave you aren't 'self-referencing'. You don't like them, fine. But they are valid, refereed, and published, and they support what I say. If you want people to accept your hypothesis, produce something to back it up besides demands that people prove you wrong. Lack of evidence to support your claims is what you have now.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to greenman
said by greenman :If you can't prove it, find a way to disprove it. Uh, if you've done every experiment you can think of and have not found any evidence that X causes problems, what further experiment can you do to 'prove' that X does not cause problems?
I quite agree that 'no proof of Y' is not the same thing as 'proof of not Y'. Nevertheless, that's of no practical help in proving not-Y. Generally speaking, we take sufficient incidence of Y not happening as an indication that Y is not going to happen.
I am here assuming that the researchers have honest intent. Yes, there are industry shills. Not all such research has been done by their ilk. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
1 edit | reply to Dipsomaniac
Dipsomaniac, Dave,
Eh. Maybe we're disagreeing about politics or semantics or something else. Look - it doesn't matter to me whether wifi allergies are real or not. I know this much: there is a hole in the logic of the current methodology for vetting scientific conclusions. I only seem to be able to peck at the edges of the problem. I may not be able to show you the problem directly, but it shows most evidently in the way we prepare statements about scientific conclusions for the press and media.
The refereed examples on wikipedia say 'studies are inconclusive'. Doesn't that mean that they don't have sufficient data to espouse a predictable theory in any direction? "No studies indicate wifi allergies" is just as valid in this case as "No studies negate wifi allergies". If you can validly conclude both from the study - you are in essence saying "We still don't know." Espousing one understanding without admitting the other is blindness.
Vetted science-business proponents never say in their fifteen second segments on TV "We still don't know if the allergy is real." But reporting, "We still don't know," is not newsworthy, so scientists say, "No studies indicate wifi allergies are real." That gets loosely posed by the press as "Wifi allergies may be bogus." It appears above the fold - easily digestible. But that's a half truth, because they could just as validly have reported, "Wifi allergies may not be bogus". The well-credentialed scientist who vetted this left the full understanding hanging because he has mouths to feed at home and a mortgage to pay, and he wants to continue to be paid by the mega-corporation that's paying him for his 'research' grant. So he presents a half truth to scribes who translate their understanding poorly into the common tongue. In the end, it's entirely likely that the press will simply drop 'may not' and say, "Wifi Allergies are Bogus!" Public celebration of the novelty is interpreted by corporate lawyers as a license to pursue monetization of a new and half-understood convenience. Convenience is a drug. Quo plus habient eo plus cupiunt. "The more they have, the more they want."
Not enough of the unitiated, unschooled masses are whining or dying to make it economically valid to cease selling a product that has been very heavily promoted. We have to wait until enough people die, as in the case of several heavily promoted pharmaceuticals. Class action law suits seem to be what drive the other half of truth into the light of discovery.
We bury half the truth to quickly monetize such startlingly addictive convenience. That's not real science. It's about money. But even after the money is made, the conclusion is still, "We don't know." |
|
Dipsomaniac
Oh My, Yes.
join:2001-12-12
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| ...it doesn't matter to me whether wifi allergies are real or not.
Then you're calling for research to be done regardless of the reality of the situation? What? And where do you keep seeing that all those studies have been pronounced 'non-conclusive'?
You keep saying that a lack of evidence to support a position is an equal lack to contradict it. That's not true. Saying that there is no evidence to support a wifi allergy is NOT that same as saying that such allergies may not be bogus, since there have been dozens of studies and every one turns up no evidence, even those designed to test for such a thing. When you look through your chest of drawers for the keys that could be there and fail to find them, that doesn't mean there's still a 50% chance that the keys are in there.
Every test has been negative. In this case, no evidence means there is no support for those claiming that these wifi allergies exist. These tests also show that people are not affected in the way that they claim they are by the presence of wireless access points.
--
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is free. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
| reply to dave
said by dave :I am here assuming that the researchers have honest intent. Yes, there are industry shills. Not all such research has been done by their ilk. I suspect that research scientists aren't necessarily guilty of the problem in themselves. Corporations are so compartmentalized, it's likely that the guy who implements the convenience is not the guy who discovered it. Everywhere along the chain of custody, there are chinks in the armor of perspective. Mouths to feed and mortgages to pay are excellent motivators to produce results. No one person is culpable within the system, but as a whole, the system fails to produce long-term sustainable and ethical conveniences. What drives the science is not pure research. What drives research today is development of monetizable convenience. |
|
greenman
join:2002-06-18
Athens, GA
2 edits | reply to Dipsomaniac
said by Dipsomaniac :Then you're calling for research to be done regardless of the reality of the situation? What? I'll clarify. I don't care whether the results support or negate ES. I only care that it is somehow resolved using scientific method unhampered by myopic concerns for quickly monetizing something that might be questionable for the benefit of shareholders and to the detriment of patients.
Further:
I've listed below my summary understanding (sometimes quoted from the text) of the external references for the url below.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity
In order to be TRUE it must be peer reviewed and state a reproduceable result supporting ES.
In order to be INCONCLUSIVE, it must be either not be peer-reviewed, experimentally flawed or anything else.
In order to be FALSE, it must be peer-reviewed and plainly dispense with any correlation between ES and EMF.
All research in the form of questionairres, especially phone questionnaires are automatically INCONCLUSIVE because they are generally don't involve randomized double-blind studies but rather discuss symptoms and suggest further study.
References can fall into one of these categories: support ES, negate ES, uncertain.
"Uncertain" includes "neither supports nor negates ES" and "Both supports and negates ES"
These are the results as I see them:
TRUE - 2
INCONCLUSIVE - 15
FALSE - 1
Type of reference:
Appeal - 1
Media - 3
Opinion - 2
Peer-Reviewed 10
Publication - 2
Reference support:
Support ES - (+) - 8
Negate ES - (-) - 5
Uncertain - (?) - 5
To my eye, most of the references are useless for real study. Of the valid references that remain, more support ES than negate it. I'm still waiting for those piles of valid research that support your defense that ES isn't caused by EMF. I still don't see it.
My estimation of each reference follows.
1. "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies."
Difficult to show a relationship in blind studies. "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" may be unrelated to the presence of EMF, but more study is required. I'm satisfied. But "more study is required." FALSE (-)
2. A list of support groups for EMF sufferers. INCONCLUSIVE (+)
3. WHO website stance - "Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." I'm not sure I trust WHO, since it is sponsored by corporate shills. I believe them like I believed the Tobacco Industry. Just because they have it on their website doesn't mean the greater understanding of the phenomenon won't change tomorrow. I question the validity of this source. INCONCLUSIVE
4. A list of behaviors derived from a questionnaire - no conclusions made as to the validity of ES. INCONCLUSIVE (?)
5. A Monograph about study and remediative paths. INCONCLUSIVE (+)
6. "Prevalence of annoyance attributed to electrical equipment and smells in a Swedish population, and relationship with subjective health and daily functioning." This one is mostly about chemical sensitivity - and mostly supports a connection between environmental annoyances and well-being. Not much here about ES, but what is seems generally to support a connection. TRUE (+)
7. "We concluded that this study gives strong evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity exists, and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions." That's a clear statement. They expect reproducible results. Enough said. TRUE (+)
8. Electrical Hypersensitivity - A book about how to survive ES. True but not a peer-reviewed article. INCONCLUSIVE (+)
9. "The results should be interpreted with caution. But they suggest that there is widespread concern among the general population about risks to health posed by electric and magnetic fields. More research is warranted to explore ill health among people reporting hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields." Another questionnaire. The statements neither support nor negate ES. It just reports more study should be done because people are concerned about it. INCONCLUSIVE (?)
10. "Risk perception was not sufficient to explain the characteristics of people reporting this disorder." Their data didn't match what they expected. Yet another (phone) questionnaire. Insufficient data to make an assessment. INCONCLUSIVE (-)
11. "Because of the inability to clearly describe the syndrome and causation of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity", further scientific research is warranted." Insufficient data. INCONCLUSIVE (?)
12. A list of pros and cons. Seems to consist of a diary of someone's personal research about why they feel bad. This is from the wayback archives of electrosensitivity.co.uk. INCONCLUSIVE (+)
13. "No conclusions can be drawn regarding short-term effects of cell phone exposure or the effects of long-term base station-like exposure on human health." Insufficient data. INCONCLUSIVE (?)
14. "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study" a. Rooms were not shielded against outside electromagnetic fields. (-)
a. Rooms were not shielded.
b. They didn't measure ambient signal strengths in similar spectra during the placebo phases of the experiment.
There conclusions: "psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition."
The experiment is flawed for reasons a and b. That is not so in experiment 1 at the top of this. INCONCLUSIVE
15. Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms. (-)
They suggest that 'case' were sick regardless of what they were exposed to.
a. Room not shielded
b. No measurement of ambient spectra
This experiment, like 14, is flawed. INCONCLUSIVE
16. "Not peer-reviewed" - right at the top of the article. This is correspondence between professionals that basically disagree about the merits of certain peer-reviewed articles, but all warrant that more study is necessary. INCONCLUSIVE (?)
17. An appeal by a vast representation of city doctors and health professionals to Freiburg city council members to force businesses and agencies to reduce EMF emmissions in all parts of the city due to the number of complaints from their patients. INCONCLUSIVE (+)
18. BBC News - a news blurb about peer-reviewed experiments, but: "So whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that a small minority are truly sensitive, the proportions of any truly sensitive people are likely to be far lower than the 3-35% that has been quoted." Apparently a very small population can faithfully sense EMF, but most only think so, and those only match what would be seen by chance. INCONCLUSIVE (?) |
|
