Addition to my "Required Reading for the Entire Planet": _Electromagnetic Fields_

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's
    Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves_. San
    Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1995. "The Best
    guidelines at present appear to be those recommended by
    the National Council on Radiation Protection and
    Measurements (NCRP) in its Report No. 86, titled
    'Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
    Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields'. ... The phone
    number is 800-229-2652." p.31.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
    Tags:


  2. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Guest

    1995! can't you find some more recent material? That's like
    recommending a book from the 50's that says asbestos is the
    next best thing.

    Michael

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's
    > Guide to the
    Issues and
    > How to Protect Ourselves_. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
    > and Company,
    1995.
    > "The Best guidelines at present appear to be those
    > recommended by the National Council on Radiation
    > Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in its
    Report
    > No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects and Exposure
    > Criteria for
    Radiofrequency
    > Electromagnetic Fields'. ... The phone number is 800-229-
    > 2652." p.31.
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-
    > limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent
    > the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    > construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  3. On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:52:49 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    .1995! can't you find some more recent material? That's like
    recommending a .book from the 50's that says asbestos is the
    next best thing.

    My dictionary was published in 1981. Should I throw it
    out? Why don't you READ it, before complaining about
    something you know nothing about. Oh, I forgot: mountain
    bikers CAN'T read.

    .Michael . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message .news:[email protected]...
    .> B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's
    Guide to the .Issues and .> How to Protect Ourselves_. San
    Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace and Company, .1995. .> "The Best
    guidelines at present appear to be those recommended by the
    .> National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
    (NCRP) in its .Report .> No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects
    and Exposure Criteria for .Radiofrequency .> Electromagnetic
    Fields'. ... The phone number is 800-229-2652." p.31. .> ===
    .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-
    limits to .> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent
    the previous 8 .> years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.) .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  4. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:52:49 GMT, "Michael Paul"
    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > .1995! can't you find some more recent material?
    > That's like
    recommending a
    > .book from the 50's that says asbestos is the next
    > best thing.
    >
    > My dictionary was published in 1981. Should I throw it
    > out? Why don't you
    READ
    > it, before complaining about something you know nothing
    > about. Oh, I
    forgot:
    > mountain bikers CAN'T read.
    >
    Would you want a surgeon operating on you using only 1981
    knowledge and technology? Things change. what was once
    viewed as bad is now good and vice versa. Didn't people once
    think the world was flat and the earth was the cetner of
    universe? I'm sure that "knowledge" was passed on as law
    too. the world evolves and learns more. I'm not saying the
    information is necessarily wrong but any person of science
    would demand updated material before formulating an opinon.
    Those are studies and not scientific law (F=MA). Hell, even
    Einsteins' theory of relativity is just that, a theory and
    can be proven wrong.

    did your advisor let you use literature that was all 10
    years old or more in your dissertation? Well, probably
    since you apparently passed but most other universities
    actually require current and up to date materail to support
    one's claims

    when trying to make your point, using old data dosn't help.
    just a bit of advice.
     
  5. S O R N I

    S O R N I Guest

    Michael Paul wrote:
    > Didn't people once think the world was flat and the earth
    > was the cetner of universe?

    Still true in Florida.

    Bill "sorry, Dan" S.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's
    > Guide to the
    Issues and
    > How to Protect Ourselves_. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
    > and Company,
    1995.
    > "The Best guidelines at present appear to be those
    > recommended by the National Council on Radiation
    > Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in its
    Report
    > No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects and Exposure
    > Criteria for
    Radiofrequency
    > Electromagnetic Fields'. ... The phone number is 800-229-
    > 2652." p.31.
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-
    > limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent
    > the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    > construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    Mikey, as long as you are wearing your tinfoil hat that
    pesky RF will just bounce right off.
     
  7. Slacker

    Slacker Guest

    S o r n i wrote:

    > Michael Paul wrote:
    >
    >>Didn't people once think the world was flat and the earth
    >>was the cetner of universe?
    >
    >
    > Still true in Florida.
    >
    > Bill "sorry, Dan" S.
    >
    >
    Hehehe, you actually (finally!) got a funny in.
    --
    Slacker
     
  8. Steve Petree

    Steve Petree Guest

    I feel I am qualified to express an opinion about the
    article sited, as I've actually did read that report, some
    years ago, I'll admit, but read it I did.

    It boils down to risk management, we all trade off various
    risks to living for various conveniences, e.g. pollution
    from automobiles, for the transportation convenience, etc.

    There has been numerous complaints, & lawsuits, asking some
    vendor or agency to remove a microwave tower/radar/cell
    tower & even wireless LANs, etc. citing radio wave effects
    as detrimental to health and well being, although there as
    never been any proof that non-thermal effects do anything.

    Usually, to me anyway, the complainant has another agenda,
    NIMBY, and uses a health issue, or the potential for one, to
    further their goal.

    IMHO, the media doesn't discuss Electromagnetic waves
    enough to adequately educate the public on the the effects
    of such waves, so, no matter your opinion of Mr. Vandeman,
    I second his suggestion that you read the cited article, so
    that you may make up your own mind about radio waves, and
    whether your cat will get microwaved, sitting on the
    backyard fence. (no worries about people, as we all wear
    the tin foil caps, right?).

    Critic wrote:
    > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's
    >> Guide to the
    >
    > Issues and
    >
    >>How to Protect Ourselves_. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
    >>and Company,
    >
    > 1995.
    >
    >>"The Best guidelines at present appear to be those
    >>recommended by the National Council on Radiation
    >>Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in its
    >
    > Report
    >
    >>No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects and Exposure
    >>Criteria for
    >
    > Radiofrequency
    >
    >>Electromagnetic Fields'. ... The phone number is 800-229-
    >>2652." p.31.
    >>===
    >>I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-
    >>limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent
    >>the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    >>construction.)
    >>
    >>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
    >
    >
    > Mikey, as long as you are wearing your tinfoil hat that
    > pesky RF will just bounce right off.
     
  9. R.White

    R.White Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields

    We rode the Electromatic Fields just last Saturday. Killer
    ride! Thanks for recommending them to others.
     
  10. On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:51:03 -0700, Steve Petree <[email protected]> wrote:

    .I feel I am qualified to express an opinion about the
    article sited, as I've .actually did read that report, some
    years ago, I'll admit, but read it I did. . .It boils down
    to risk management, we all trade off various risks to living
    for .various conveniences, e.g. pollution from automobiles,
    for the transportation .convenience, etc.

    That is nothing but gobbledygook. You either get cancer or
    you don't. No one ever dies from "risk".

    .There has been numerous complaints, & lawsuits, asking some
    vendor or agency to .remove a microwave tower/radar/cell
    tower & even wireless LANs, etc. citing .radio wave effects
    as detrimental to health and well being, although there as
    .never been any proof that non-thermal effects do anything.

    Science doesn't "prove" things. But if you were honest, you
    would have to admit that the book cites a lot of evidence of
    non-thermal harm, like leukemia, lymphoma, & brain cancer.
    Deny it at your peril.

    .Usually, to me anyway, the complainant has another agenda,
    NIMBY, and uses a .health issue, or the potential for one,
    to further their goal.

    Irrelevant.

    .IMHO, the media doesn't discuss Electromagnetic waves
    enough to adequately .educate the public on the the effects
    of such waves, so, no matter your opinion .of Mr. Vandeman,
    I second his suggestion that you read the cited article, so
    .that you may make up your own mind about radio waves, and
    whether your cat will .get microwaved, sitting on the
    backyard fence. (no worries about people, as we .all wear
    the tin foil caps, right?).

    Laugh all you want, but you can't guarantee your safety, or
    anyone else's.

    .Critic wrote: .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message .>
    news:[email protected]... .> .>>B.
    Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A Consumer's Guide
    to the .> .> Issues and .> .>>How to Protect Ourselves_. San
    Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace and Company, .> .> 1995. .>
    .>>"The Best guidelines at present appear to be those
    recommended by the .>>National Council on Radiation
    Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in its .> .> Report .>
    .>>No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria
    for .> .> Radiofrequency .> .>>Electromagnetic Fields'. ...
    The phone number is 800-229-2652." p.31. .>>=== .>>I am
    working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    .>>humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 .>>years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.) .>> .>>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .> .>
    .> Mikey, as long as you are wearing your tinfoil hat that
    pesky RF will just .> bounce right off. .> .>

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  11. On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:34:27 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> On
    Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:52:49 GMT, "Michael Paul"
    .<[email protected]> .> wrote: .> .> .1995! can't
    you find some more recent material? That's like
    .recommending a .> .book from the 50's that says asbestos
    is the next best thing. .> .> My dictionary was published
    in 1981. Should I throw it out? Why don't you .READ .> it,
    before complaining about something you know nothing about.
    Oh, I .forgot: .> mountain bikers CAN'T read. .> .Would you
    want a surgeon operating on you using only 1981 knowledge
    and .technology? Things change. what was once viewed as bad
    is now good and .vice versa. Didn't people once think the
    world was flat and the earth was .the cetner of universe?
    I'm sure that "knowledge" was passed on as law too. .the
    world evolves and learns more. I'm not saying the
    information is .necessarily wrong

    I'm sure most of it is accurate. It is also very well
    presented. Even mountain bikers might be able to read it, if
    they sound out the words.

    but any person of science would demand updated material
    .before formulating an opinon. Those are studies and not
    scientific law .(F=MA). Hell, even Einsteins' theory of
    relativity is just that, a theory .and can be proven wrong.
    . .did your advisor let you use literature that was all 10
    years old or more in .your dissertation?

    Yes, when it was relevant. You prejudice is just that. Most
    science is never superceded. Newton is still adequate, up to
    near the speed of light. So is the Pythagorean Theorem.

    Well, probably since you apparently passed but most .other
    universities actually require current and up to date
    materail to .support one's claims

    That's just prejudice, nothing more.

    .when trying to make your point, using old data dosn't help.
    just a bit of .advice.

    What is "old"? Last week? It is relative. Euclid is
    still valid....
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  12. On 23 Apr 2004 13:13:36 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... .> B.
    Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields . .We rode the
    Electromatic Fields just last Saturday. Killer ride!

    I know. Thanks for helping lessen the risk to the Earth.

    .Thanks for recommending them to others.

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  13. Steve Petree

    Steve Petree Guest

    Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:51:03 -0700, Steve Petree
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .I feel I am qualified to express an opinion about the
    > article sited, as I've .actually did read that report,
    > some years ago, I'll admit, but read it I did. . .It boils
    > down to risk management, we all trade off various risks to
    > living for .various conveniences, e.g. pollution from
    > automobiles, for the transportation .convenience, etc.
    >
    > That is nothing but gobbledygook. You either get cancer or
    > you don't. No one ever dies from "risk".

    No, but such assesments are part of life; should I or
    shouldn't I. My point was that we should all make informed
    decisions, not react to emotional responses.

    >
    > .There has been numerous complaints, & lawsuits, asking
    > some vendor or agency to .remove a microwave
    > tower/radar/cell tower & even wireless LANs, etc. citing
    > .radio wave effects as detrimental to health and well
    > being, although there as .never been any proof that non-
    > thermal effects do anything.
    >
    > Science doesn't "prove" things. But if you were honest,
    > you would have to admit that the book cites a lot of
    > evidence of non-thermal harm, like leukemia, lymphoma, &
    > brain cancer. Deny it at your peril.

    Yes, the "evidence" put forth in the book was compelling,
    (it has been some time), but as I recall, not conclusive.
    The citations were anecdotal, not clinical, so I couldn't
    assign any real value to them.

    >
    > .Usually, to me anyway, the complainant has another
    > agenda, NIMBY, and uses a .health issue, or the potential
    > for one, to further their goal.
    >
    > Irrelevant.

    Possibly, but I distrust those arguments that are specious
    and self-serving, and would rather respond to cogent, well
    thought out points.

    >
    > .IMHO, the media doesn't discuss Electromagnetic waves
    > enough to adequately .educate the public on the the
    > effects of such waves, so, no matter your opinion .of Mr.
    > Vandeman, I second his suggestion that you read the cited
    > article, so .that you may make up your own mind about
    > radio waves, and whether your cat will .get microwaved,
    > sitting on the backyard fence. (no worries about people,
    > as we .all wear the tin foil caps, right?).
    >
    > Laugh all you want, but you can't guarantee your safety,
    > or anyone else's.

    No, but laugning about such things make them less bitter.

    >
    > .Critic wrote: .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]>
    > wrote in message .>
    > news:[email protected]... .>
    > .>>B. Blake Levitt, _Electromagnetic Fields -- A
    > Consumer's Guide to the .> .> Issues and .> .>>How to
    > Protect Ourselves_. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace and
    > Company, .> .> 1995. .> .>>"The Best guidelines at present
    > appear to be those recommended by the .>>National Council
    > on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in its .>
    > .> Report .> .>>No. 86, titled 'Biological Effects and
    > Exposure Criteria for .> .> Radiofrequency .>
    > .>>Electromagnetic Fields'. ... The phone number is 800-229-
    > 2652." p.31. .>>=== .>>I am working on creating wildlife
    > habitat that is off-limits to .>>humans ("pure habitat").
    > Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .>>years fighting
    > auto dependence and road construction.) .>>
    > .>>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .> .> .> Mikey, as long
    > as you are wearing your tinfoil hat that pesky RF will
    > just .> bounce right off. .> .>
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-
    > limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent
    > the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    > construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  14. Loomer

    Loomer Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > My dictionary was published in 1981. Should I throw it
    > out? Why don't you
    READ
    > it, before complaining about something you know nothing
    > about. Oh, I
    forgot:
    > mountain bikers CAN'T read.

    Then how the heck do you get responses???

    You are not a gadfly you are a VANDERMANIAC!

    LOL ;-0

    Cheers and take care you really make me laugh.... lol lol
    lol..
     
  15. On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 03:11:27 GMT, Steve Petree <[email protected]> wrote:

    . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:51:03 -
    0700, Steve Petree <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .I
    feel I am qualified to express an opinion about the article
    sited, as I've .> .actually did read that report, some years
    ago, I'll admit, but read it I did. .> . .> .It boils down
    to risk management, we all trade off various risks to living
    for .> .various conveniences, e.g. pollution from
    automobiles, for the transportation .> .convenience, etc. .>
    .> That is nothing but gobbledygook. You either get cancer
    or you don't. No one .> ever dies from "risk". . .No, but
    such assesments are part of life; should I or shouldn't I.
    My .point was that we should all make informed decisions,
    not react to .emotional responses.

    Where do you see "emotional responses"?

    .> .There has been numerous complaints, & lawsuits, asking
    some vendor or agency to .> .remove a microwave
    tower/radar/cell tower & even wireless LANs, etc. citing .>
    .radio wave effects as detrimental to health and well being,
    although there as .> .never been any proof that non-thermal
    effects do anything. .> .> Science doesn't "prove" things.
    But if you were honest, you would have to admit .> that the
    book cites a lot of evidence of non-thermal harm, like
    leukemia, .> lymphoma, & brain cancer. Deny it at your
    peril. . .Yes, the "evidence" put forth in the book was
    compelling, (it has been .some time), but as I recall, not
    conclusive. The citations were .anecdotal, not clinical, so
    I couldn't assign any real value to them.

    Sounds like you didn't read it, or don't know the difference
    between anecdotal and epidemiological.

    .> .Usually, to me anyway, the complainant has another
    agenda, NIMBY, and uses a .> .health issue, or the potential
    for one, to further their goal. .> .> Irrelevant. .
    .Possibly, but I distrust those arguments that are specious
    and .self-serving, and would rather respond to cogent, well
    thought out points.

    First you have to READ them.

    .> .IMHO, the media doesn't discuss Electromagnetic waves
    enough to adequately .> .educate the public on the the
    effects of such waves, so, no matter your opinion .> .of
    Mr. Vandeman, I second his suggestion that you read the
    cited article, so .> .that you may make up your own mind
    about radio waves, and whether your cat will .> .get
    microwaved, sitting on the backyard fence. (no worries
    about people, as we .> .all wear the tin foil caps,
    right?). .> .> Laugh all you want, but you can't guarantee
    your safety, or anyone else's. . .No, but laugning about
    such things make them less bitter.

    Hmmm. Bitter leukemia. I don't follow you.

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
    to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
    previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
    construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
Loading...
Loading...