Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    Posted By: davidfreeborough
    Posted By: fostertom
    Posted By: GBP-KeithI thought cancers were on the increase not decrease?
    five-fold - now why could that be?

    "The number of global cancer deaths is projected to increase 45% from 2007 to 2030 (from 7.9 million to 11.5 million deaths), influenced in part by an increasing and aging global population"

    http://www.who.int/features/qa/15/en/index.html

    The rate of population growth over this period is similar:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

    David


    If you fancy a good read about cancers and health look at "The China Study by T C and T M Campbell" available from amazon (no mention of radio waves)

    I have been researching Cancer for the last 10 months, my wife is one of those statistics.
  1.  
    The human body incorporates complex electrical communication systems so are we correct in dismissing possible interference however low the energy level? Have we compared cancer rates in Countries embracing modern technology against those without?
    I suspect that in the UK we should be looking at the impact of air and water quality. Many of us are drinking water that has passed through the human body at least once. Air pollution is a growing problem in the UK with increasing support for a dirty energy policy incorporating complex chemical content in emissions. The HPA has commissioned Imperial College to carry out research into impact of energy from waste!
    I worked on the development of microwave ovens and became aware radiation leakage from ovens presented impact fears across a spectrum including radio telescope performance and serious health consequences.
    Are we adopting theā€ prove it causes health problemsā€ rather than face the possibility that our decisions to embrace the fact that cutting edge technology may have consequences?
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    Posted By: BrianwilsonHave we compared cancer rates in Countries embracing modern technology against those without?


    Cancer rates in developed countries are higher than those in less developed countries. Mostly because people in less developed countries die of other stuff before they have time to get cancer:

    http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper13.pdf

    Cancer was estimated to account for about 7 million deaths (12% of all deaths) worldwide in 2000 (1), only preceded by cardiovascular diseases (30 % of all deaths), and by infectious and parasitic diseases (19%). Cancer was also estimated to account for almost 6% of the entire global burden of disease in that same year (1). More than 70% of all cancer deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries and, although the risk of developing/dying from it is still higher in the developed regions of the world, the control of communicable diseases as well as the ageing of the population in developing countries, point to an increasing burden of cancer worldwide. In fact, Pisani et al (2) have projected a 30% increase in the number of cancer deaths in developed countries, and more than twice this amount (71%), in developing countries, between 1990 and 2010, due to demographic changes alone. Rising incidence will only add to this burden.


    You choose.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    So no one has tripped over a wire then.

    My favourite correlation is below:
      Mars2.jpg
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>So no one has tripped over a wire then.

    My favourite correlation is below:</blockquote>

    Shades of Marianne Faithful at Redlands?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    Now that is an image I will not get rid of all night :cool:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    Marianne Faithful worked in a brick works? :shocked:
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012 edited
     
    Joiner wrote: "Marianne Faithful worked in a brick works?"

    http://www.wikimapia.org/7568418/Keith-Richards-Redlands-Estate-in-West-Wittering
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: DamonHDmore likely to be pertinent to cancer death figures per capita is that we're living long enough to be affected by them ... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fostertom
    Not so extraordinary - commonplace, common knowledge, many peoples' experience. How about this:

    "... extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago ... yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers."

    from:

    "We also know quite convincingly, and all nonsensical prehistoric arguments aside, that the incidence of cancer has increased dramatically over the last century. The numbers are there. The data is there. Certainly, doctors can better diagnose tumors now than 50 or 100 years ago, but that's diagnosis before death. After death when the body is opened up, any pathologist in the last century would recognize a grapefruit sized mass in the colon as cancer. The death would be recorded as cancer. Is it 100% certain? No. It's certainly possible that doctors as recently as the 1940's and 50's were totally incompetent and never noticed tumors when they performed autopsies or treated battlefield wounds when soldiers' insides lay exposed before them. It's also possible that the extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago have made a difference. And yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers. Perhaps the risk of cancer really does increase fivefold in that small handful of extra years "adults" now live versus 100 years ago. Yes, these things are possibleā€¦but not very likely. They can only be argued because as unlikely as they are, you can't prove that they're not true -- like perpetual motion.

    And finally, we absolutely know that the dietary and lifestyle choices we make and our exposure to toxins affect our chances of getting cancer. Again, arguments to the contrary are like arguments for perpetual motion. How do we know this? Quite simply, cigarettes! We know for a fact that in any sample population, cigarette smokers have a far higher incidence of numerous cancers as opposed to non-smokers. Can you absolutely prove the connection (perpetual motion) between cigarettes and cancer? Nope. You can always find someone who's smoked two packs a day for 50 years and never got cancer. But any rational person knows that if you smoke heavily, your "odds" of getting cancer are dramatically higher.

    And likewise, we know that certain dietary choices, chlorinated water, radon gas in our homes, and exposure to numerous toxins and xenoestrogens in our environment significantly increase our risk of cancer."

    Lots more like that (and not even mentioning EMFs). And lots of things that can be done about it other than submitting completely to the National Disease Service's devoted selfless (no irony intended) delivery of profits to big biz.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2012
     
    Jeremy!! :cry:
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    In May 2011 the WHO "raised" the cancer risk status of Radio Frequency devices to 2B, mainly due to limited evidence that mobile phones may cause cancer. Other things also in class 2B include Coffee and according to this web page..

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4273

    "the crafts of carpentry and joinery. Pickled vegetables, coconut oil, and even the Earth's magnetic field"
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    And the stress of worrying about all the things that scaremongering puts about.

    It was 'nbwilding' (over on another thread) who recommended a read of Dan Gardner's 'Risk'...

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan-Gardner/dp/0753515539/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

    ... and it's a salutary lesson in pausing for thought. A good read, no matter how clued-up you think you are. Thanks for the heads-up Nigel.

    Anyone else got the guts to put their fallability to the test? :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorDamonHD
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    I certainly would not recommend smoking pickled vegetables nor holding them close to your ear for extended periods.

    Rgds

    Damon
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Jeremy!!</blockquote>

    There's no point in arguing about an individuals beliefs, even if those beliefs are erroneously presented as proven fact. One may as well argue about the existence or otherwise of a god or gods; if an individual believes something to be an incontrovertible truth, no matter how much their belief may be misguided, or even completely in error, a debate over it is usually futile.........
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    But despite the strong evidence, from your own pukka research
    Posted By: JSHarrisit seems reasonable to conclude that any such effects are small and don't present a significant health risk
    nevertheless
    Posted By: JSHarrisI too take a precautionary approach to RF emissions, I tend to avoid using my mobile phone, try to use it hands free when possible (which keeps the field strength right down around me)


    Posted By: JSHarrisLike pretty much any radiation (or medicine or poison, come to that), any effect of non-ionising radiation is probably dose-specific
    Unacknowledged is
    Posted By: fostertomWhat if it's not, in fact sometimes, smaller the dose bigger the effect e.g. by the mechanism I outlined? Wd that change anything?
      u-curve1.jpg
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    Not "strong evidence", just an observation that, under certain conditions, it *may* be possible for a mobile phone held close to the skull for extended periods of time, whilst transmitting data at maximum power, to slightly exceed the established safe exposure limit for a small part of the skull adjacent to the ear. Enough for me to avoid using a mobile phone like this, that's all.

    The graph looks meaningless to me, and isn't supported by any peer-reviewed work on RF exposure that I'm familiar with.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    I don't have to have peer review before allowing myself to consider a 'what if'. I'm poking at a fundamental assumption of your research. Just like Dr Feist's assumptions 25yrs back (as mentioned above) seemed obvious and acceptable then but are now in question, and it changes everything in PH.

    I have explained, above, but if it still seems meaningless, can I help clarify?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    "What ifs" are fine, helpful even, but if dressed up as proven they become misleading. Some things we can prove beyond any reasonable doubt - for example the carcinogenic properties of some compounds, some things we might believe may be harmful, but cannot absolutely prove (drinking coffee, perhaps) and some things we can put in a category where we don't know if they are harmful or not.

    What we can never do, is prove anything is absolutely safe, unfortunately, as it's beyond any sort of experimental process to prove absolute safety. We can get pretty close, close enough to say with certainty that the risk posed by something is very small, and that's generally accepted to be good enough.

    What we (the human race) are absolutely lousy at is assessing risk in a balanced way. For example, the risk of death, injury or illness from something like radioactive material is vanishingly tiny for the general population of the UK, but there is a widespread perception that the stuff presents a high risk. A quick comparison shows that obtaining, processing and burning oil, gas, coal, even wood, all present much higher risks to the population than nuclear power, yet very few people would be prepared to accept this. The same goes for things like flying - many people have a fear of it and believe it's intrinsically unsafe, yet compared to risks they may well take without a second thought, like crossing the road or getting in a car the risk from flying is very small indeed.

    We're not very rational when it comes to risk, and seem easily swayed by anyone who seems to make an argument that sounds attractive to us. Sometimes these arguments will be harmful, and result in a higher rates of death and illness, like the appalling fiasco over the false link between vaccination and autism, that directly caused the death of a lot of children.

    I'd be the first to say that maintaining a balanced view is not easy, if you read my posts I rarely come out with an absolute statement about something; I'm more likely to phrase things a little more circumspectly, to allow for the lack of absolute proof of something.
  2.  
    ''Marianne Faithful worked in a brick works? ''

    No, she'd just spent a night on the tiles.
  3.  
    At present there's a massive experiment going on with respect to EM exposure from Mobile phones. There are millions (billions?) of the things, and people are starting to look hard for evidence of ill effects. I guess there is now more than 15 years of data. As far as I know, nobody has yet found any significant results - i.e there's nothing yet that stands up.

    Given the sheer number of person-years exposure, if there were serious effects, we would have seen something by now. There might be very minor issues which come up in the future, but for now, I'd say there are no real issues with EM from mobile phones or WiFi for the general public.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    Nick - :bigsmile::bigsmile::rolling:

    Thank god you got it at least! :wink:
  4.  
    Yeah, sorry I was so slow!
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    Slighty off topic but have you heard about the growing numer of people who are building home made tDCS machines? These are electronic devices designed to pass electricity through your head to stimulate the brain! New Scientist had a story back in February.
    • CommentAuthorRobur
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    Hmmm... I'm more concerned about the side effects of FaceBook.... might have a much greater and more direct effect on health, for some folk, than EMF ?
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    Colin, instead of building their own, why don't they go on ebay and pick up an old ECT machine! :shocked:
  5.  
    By Tom's logic we should all be extremely sick due to the microwave background radiation (left over from the Big Bang) that we've been bathed in for time immemorial. This is a weak signal and there's all sorts of other modulated weak sources (from PULSARs for example) that would also be well to the left hand side of his effect/intensity curve.

    Cellphones have been in use for over 30 years now so if the fear mongers (and tin-foil hat snake-oil merchants are to be believe) we should be witnessing deaths that would make a genocide look like a picnic.

    Paul in Montreal.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    Posted By: JSHarris"What ifs" are fine, helpful even, but if dressed up as proven they become misleading
    Any 'what if' is by definition far from proven. Perhaps my style looks like I think I'm presenting facts, but actually just inviting engagement and debate. None of that in this thread, just scorn and kindly reproof, which I find unconvincing. So, till next time .... (unless someone says something interesting).
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    Posted By: Paul in MontrealBy Tom's logic we should all be extremely sick due to the microwave background radiation (left over from the Big Bang) that we've been bathed in for time immemorial ... and there's all sorts of other modulated weak sources ... that would also be well to the left hand side of his effect/intensity curve.
    Hi mate, wondered when you'd show up, and thanks for understanding the meaning of my graph.

    Naturally I have an answer (invitation to debate), as stated earlier:
    Posted By: fostertomThere are factors at work, which Science may admit exist (indeed are pervasive), but aren't 'scientifcally' quantifiable, therefore true scientists must ignore or risk ridicule from their peers. The first is Intentionality (which is the v first thing that Scientific Method eliminates as 'bias') but is actually what makes human existence function. You can be bathed in background radiation and your homeostatic system either ignores it, adapts to it or works hard to counteract. But when you add a bit more of the same more or less consciously, then the whole body system is alert to that bit. At that point, the weaker the signal, the more potent, as the body goes into resonance/matching mode in order to identify this signal it's detecting. As the signal gets too weak for 'passive' identification, then the body has to postulate signals from its own experience, until a resonance-amplified match is obtained. Being forced into such active participation with the signal, the body is v open to its effects, compared to vastly greater quantities of the same signal washing through un-noticed. This is the basis of homeopathic potentisation by dilution. And homeopathy can be just as readily administered as an electromagnetic signal, as it can by a minute dose of a substance
    I'm not saying this is 'true' but I'm trying out explanations for phenomena and experiences that people do have, but which modern science can't stand hearing about without going into Rotweiller mode.
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012
     
    We're scornful Tom, because you appear to be talking complete bollocks with a distinctly 'homeopathy' bent. I haven't got much time for anyone who thinks that double-blind tests are a bad thing, or posits that our immune systems resonate with infinitesmally small EM radiation levels. There is enough crap and nonsense in the world with out making up more of it and then asking people to disprove it.

    Stick to building design - you seem quite good at that. And your ideas there are only somewhat radical, not nutcase-grade.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2012 edited
     
    I still remember Cherie Blair falling for the magic pendant scam. I bet Tony felt a right berk when someone put him straight. I noticed it dissapeared pretty quick after it made the press.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/135844.stm

    As scams go it's a pretty good one because nobody can prove it doesn't work. To do that you would first have to prove that what they claim it cures or protects you from exists.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press