The politics of wireless research in relation to health risks

There are a lot of powerful statements and comments that get straight to the heart of the issue of research and politics. Comments from Dr George Carlo in particular stand out, and we thought is worthwhile sharing them with you all because they give a clear indication of what the problem is in relation to the research that is presently being conducted to investigate potential implications wireless technology has on the health of the general public.

“There is a distinction between research aimed at cause and effect, and research aimed at surveillance, screening and intervention that is important but often overlooked.

Most of the public has been tricked by the industry and government agencies into believing that the answers to all of the question lie in more research on cause and effect. That is perhaps that biggest ruse of all. Cause/effect research done today, helps no one today, and it may not even help anyone tomorrow. In my view, what we need to help people exposed today is surveillance related research aimed at identifying high risk groups for intervention. It is simply too late in the game to rely only on basic cause/effect research to help public health.

Wireless technology contributes a pervasive exposure that now impacts billions of people around the globe. We have never, in history, had such a large ‘population at risk’ from any consumer related technology. But, the elephant sitting in the room, so to speak, is that this problem is ‘post-market’. The horse is already out of the barn. The exposures are already occurring every day. And, to make matters more complicated, the technologies evolve and change within every year – so the exposure characteristics are continually morphing. Therefore, causation research studies per se, no matter who funds them or who conducts them, are only marginally relevant to public health protection.

While scientists are arguing over parochial nuances – including funding sources, locations of tumors, whose research is better than whose – millions who could be helped with surveillance are not being helped.

The industry likes the concept of causation research because it delays the day of reckoning. Government agency officials like causation research because it allows bureaucrats to cover their behinds. The media likes causation research because it gives them something dramatic to talk about. But it doesn’t help anyone else.

A basic tenet of public health has always been to understand enough about a disease process to be able to prevent or control it. We are there with our mechanism-based understanding of the effects of EMR in all the known effect windows. So, if we are serious about protecting public health, we should be focusing our efforts on the development of tools to help identify early stage symptoms so that corrective interventions can be applied early enough to work.”

Dr George Carlo

Source: h.e.s.e project

Dr George Carlo, Ph.D, M.S., J.D is public health scientist and epidemiologist and is considered to be one of the world’s leading experts on Electromagnetic Radiation. From 1993-1999, Dr. Carlo headed a $28.5 millions project, funded by the telecommunications industry, to study cellphone’s health effects. He discovered that the risk of acoustic neuroma (a form of brain tumour) was 50 percent higher in long-term cellphone users, also that the amount of cellphone use and this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve. In recent years, Dr. Carlo has been alerting the public about the adverse health effects of mobile phones and wireless radiation. He is especially concerned about the promotion of wireless technology targeted at children and youth.  Click  here for more information.

This entry was posted in Smart Meter and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The politics of wireless research in relation to health risks

  1. Rob guy says:

    Research aimed at surveillance,screening and intervention always relies on statistical analysis derived from qualitative testing and is therefore easily disputed by the commercial and political interests arraigned against it. More is required. This website provides useful dissemination of research but is limited to its readership. Social media needs to play its part in driving the message home to a wider audience.
    For example, Twitter,YouTube and the like could set up a dialogue about the risks arising from the government-authorised installation of LED down lights. Some people have found flicker and EMI interference from the above-ceiling switching transformers unsettling. I have received no solid assurances about fire safety of these transformers from those hawkers offering free installation.

    (Before commencement of any work, readers should protect their house insurance by verifying the validity and currency of both the installers’ qualifications and the fire safety ratings of the transformers.)

  2. dana says:

    While more studies that show increased risk would be great, we should not underestimate the importance of studies like the recent rat study that DO show causation. An experimental study where the rats were fed the same food and water, kept in the same environment, with controlled accurately measured exposures makes a very strong case indeed that the RF radiation caused cancer in those rats.. It is important not to let such a significant study to be swept away in the general flow of things but to make sure doctors and the general public appreciate the significance of it. This study is the most important piece of research on mobile phones so far. I think that the mobile phone industry realises what an important study this is because there was a concerted campaign to downplay it.
    I understand that many people with electrosensitivity would like to see more research done on electrosensitivity but if cancer doesn’t scare the hell out of the general public then they probably won’t care about electrosensitivity. I think the biggest problem is that the media is trying to block information getting out to the public so we need to find a way around this. Maybe it is important to work more at getting info to doctors or getting info out through facebook to compensate for this.

  3. Dr Carlo needs to step back somewhat. If the cause and effect is not known then how can it be justified that the symptoms observed are being caused by the effects?
    Dr Carlo is giving the impression the cause and effects are known to him and others but they are not and therefore survelliance of symptoms can be attributted by the bureaucrats etc. to anything they damn well like and hey presto no answers are forthcoming.
    As for a basic tenet of understanding enough about the symptoms of disease to control it or cure it then how about cancer? What an absolute mess this is and it can be all attributed to the doctors, not the bureaucrats, because they do not understand the basic physics tenets that all “effects have a cause” and living cells cannot and do not function spontaneously.
    Once this is sorted out it becomes relatively easy to treat cancer and then no more necessity for the development of tools to identify early stage symptoms.
    Yes,sorry it is all about cause and effect and once this is sorted out then identification of symptoms plays little part in combatting the issues and as far as EMF radiations are concerned “cause and effect” once understood show how all the other illnesses attributted to them occur.
    In short it is the “doctors” who are contributting to the meaningless mess we are in because they are not familiar with scientific factors, not normally taught too or understood by them because they are, erroneously believed, not to be involved with biology/genetics.
    In short the fact that science has no boundaries is not accepted by them and this results in the effect of the causes not being understood in genetic complaints, not just cancer.
    Yes I do know how the effect of the problem of cancer develops, when as we all know asbestos particles, industrial chemicals ,smoking, viruses and radiation both (LF and EHF) etc. cause them. How to best effectively treat them then is not a matter of all the dangerous chemotherapy and radiographic methods being practiced.

  4. mrs boyd says:

    we have a smart metre installed but its not turned on..
    we just had a person ring to tell us they wont to come out to turn it on.
    what are our rights to say no?

    i recently brought a fitbit (health watch)
    to which l had very bad reactions to the WiFi. .

    i dont wont this smart metre turned on. my family are sick enough as ut is.

    • Martin Jenkins says:

      There is no law that obliges you to have a smart meter Mrs. Boyd and I don’t believe there is any law that obliges you to allow it to be turned on. If they need to come out to turn the meter on, I would lock my meter box quick smart. Yes you will be bullied but that’s OK. We have all been bullied. Bullying is a criminal act. The Electricity Distribution companies are just a bunch of thugs who think that they can do whatever they like with impunity. I would record their every move. Mrs Boyd, you have rights and despite their behaviour suggesting otherwise, your Electricity Distribution company has no rights as far as acting outside the law. Lock up madam, lock up and stand your ground. Stand your ground and the shoe will soon be on the other foot. Don’t cave in to them and remember that their greatest weapon is lies. Excuse the French but the only thing that you’ll see happening is their P1$$ and Wind intensifying into Bull$+1T and Bluster. Much of a muchness really. Anything other than that (and they are brasen) I would go down on them with the full force of the law no mercy on any of them.

    • Jillian says:

      Mrs Boyd, you determine your own rights. Do not allow anybody to tell you what your rights are or are not.

  5. Andrew J says:

    OK, I’m new to all of this. Last week we had a power failure, which I reported to Jemena. Even though the problem was clearly at the power pole in the street (a gum tree branch had fallen onto a supply line), Jemena said that it was to do with our analogue meter and wanted to change it for a smart meter. I told them no, as other houses with smart meters had also been effected.

    After reading countless comments over the past few months, what I want to know is why are these meters being put into widespread usage and why are governments at all levels pushing for their acceptance? Is there some kind of agenda that we don’t know about?

    There is clear evidence as to the adverse effects of EMR but it seems that they are being rolled out everywhere by either unsympathetic or uncaring authorities. Can someone please explain the reasons for this rollout and for the ever-increasing microwave usage.

    • John L says:

      Because they can!
      Government and private organisations who scratch each other’s backs have everything to gain and nothing to lose by forcing (or even mandating) a roll-out of an approved (by whom?) smart meter.
      They have nothing to lose, even if a few hundred (or even thousands) of people provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
      The needs of many, far out weigh the needs of a few (so they say),
      I tend to agree with what Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying…“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
      It never ceases to amaze me how they can choose to ignore the effects smart meters and similar technologies have on people.
      Their homes probably still have analogue meters or shielded accordingly.
      It’s an uphill battle for us who would rather go without a SM, but our stance and push can only do so much…I think!

    • Diedrie Porter says:

      Jemena are pure filth.

    • Anonymous says:

      Andrew after reading your post I couldn’t help but think of that great toilet can on Ferntree Gully Road. The stinking smell of Mount Waverley and the stinking smell on Keilor Park Drive.

    • Anonymous says:

      Andrew you need to warn them straight away that they will not mention smart meters or you may consider it whatever crime you want to look up. Look up coercion and the penalties and tell them to stop, only give them one warning. They can’t break the law, but you have to learn these things first. Get full name and get them to put everything in an affidavit, if they aren’t lying then they have nothing to worry about, if they are they have committed perjury.

    • Anonymous says:

      Andrew, you have to set your own terms and conditions. They are not your superiors and they don’t have authority. But if you don’t tell them straight away to stop then they won’t. if you ever have to talk to them again just give them a warning straight away, if they continue they are in the wrong not you.
      People were using too much power years ago this has now stopped and it was probably putting stress on their grid, air conditioners are the biggest problem, you also now have people with solar panels as well. Smart meters are about control and money, we paid for them and are still paying for them, they can control and monitor your electricity consumption.
      As for the health aspect one will blame the other. This is why the Department of health referred me to ACMA and then ACMA referred me to ARPANSA and then back to the Department of health. They hear no evil or see no evil therefore they think they are not responsible but they are.
      Look up ARPANSA’s disclaimer. To have a disclaimer means that you can’t guarantee any of your information is factual or even true and this means that the we then have to decide for ourselves if the information provided is factual.
      They can have all the disclaimers they want they are still responsible.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s