Another study suggest that there is not a problem with radio waves:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17843953

Not helpful that this report and accompanying video...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mobile-phones-may-not-harm-health-010626800.html

...says 'Mobile Phones May Not Harm Your Health'

It's the "may" that isn't helpful, being not exactly what you'd call "scientific", unless you've taken on board warnings elsewhere on the forum that, in science, there is no such thing as certainty.

Posted By: SteamyTeaAnother study suggest that there is not a problem with radio waves:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17843953" >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17843953

"because of TV and radio broadcasting, Wi-Fi, and other technological developments, the study said exposure to low-level radio frequency fields was almost universal and continuous."
and this phenomenon has grown steadily from about 1900, prob gathering serious momentum from 1960 (?) on. Before that, nothing but the age-old 'natural' EM radiation regime. If audible, we (all the earth's living things) would have heard a quiet old favourite melodious tune transform into a an ugly cacophony - a deafening discord of major notes; if those could be filtered out, beneath it white noise of all power levels, from deep deep to unimaginably shrill; beneath that the old tune still plugging away.

It's preposterous to imagine that the body/mind is blithely unaffected by all this, just because it doesn't impinge on any of our conscious 5 senses. If this din was readily detectable as, say, smell, it would be completely intolerable, to be eliminated as a public health matter, just as actual bad smells are today without recourse to reams of peer-reviewed science before taking action.

Who's to say that the electromagnetic howl that we've created isn't all-too-detectable to many other living things? To ones we need - bees? - things we eat? How much of their (and our) at-birth stock of homeostatic immune capability has to be devoted to holding off this assault, and how much capability is therefore left to handle the body's more traditional immune tasks? At what shortening age does the immune capability become exhausted?

"concluded that people who were not exposed above UK guideline levels did not experience any detectable symptoms."
During the same period (1900 on, especially 1960 on) cancer incidence has quintupled worldwide and similar for many other health and wellbeing indices. Correlation maybe - but definitely no cause-and-effect? Bugger off - they would say that, wouldn't they, till completely caught out, like the tobacco industry. And that's just the gross effects, let alone the all-pervasive and potent 'subtle' effects (including both the experimental subjects' and the experimenters' Intentionality) that are systematically eliminated as noise by 'scientific/experimental method'.

"very little was known about risks beyond five years, because most people did not use mobile phones until the late 1990s."
Compare with first quote above - this has been going on for decades, a century, and so have major trend-deteriorations in health and wellbeing indices, which far outweigh the counter-trends caused by increased health care in some countries.

Why not worry about both the wifi and the wheel? If fact see the whole unholy pattern, rather than ignoring that fundamental by concentrating on isolated bits which, with a bit of massaging don't look too bad individually?

Just see it, then be in a position to re-shape it.

That would abs not mean a return to a low-world-population peasant-and-warlord past. We humans are capable of so much when clear-sighted, but only create havoc when self-blinded and defended by fear and vested interest, especially when dressed up as scientific rationalism.

Affected/unaffected by said billions of neutrinos? Who knows - maybe couldn't live without them. Anyway the body/mind evolved to deal happily with them, otherwise we wouldn't be here. No one asked the body/mind if it wd be equally happy with all extra the junk it's been flooded with during the last fragment of time. Can growth in human craziness incl pop explosion and violent capabilities be correlated with that? Or with e.g. nerve/brain poison mercury in western teeth over same period.

Are we 100% sure these are all just unrelated coincidences, no cause-and-effect? Vast vested interests ride on a 'yes' to that last question. Is Science immune to those vested interests?

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

Prof. Svensmark looked back through 500 million years of geological and astronomical data and considered the proximity of the Sun to supernovae as it moves around our Galaxy, the Milky Way. In particular, when the Sun is passing through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, it encounters newly forming clusters of stars. These so-called open clusters, which disperse over time, have a range of ages and sizes and will have started with a small proportion of stars massive enough to explode as supernovae. From the data on open clusters, Prof. Svensmark was able to deduce how the rate at which supernovae exploded near the Solar System varied over time.
Comparing this with the geological record, he found that the changing frequency of nearby supernovae seems to have strongly shaped the conditions for life on Earth. Whenever the Sun and its planets have visited regions of enhanced star formation in the Milky Way Galaxy, where exploding stars are most common, life has prospered. Prof. Svensmark remarks in the paper, "The biosphere seems to contain a reflection of the sky, in that the evolution of life mirrors the evolution of the Galaxy."

I think the hypothesis proposed is that cosmic rays/space particles affect the amount of cloud formation. Cloud cover then affects the amount of heat retention and precipitation, resulting in changes in climate. Water vapour is by far the biggest determinant as a green house gas. CO2 levels follow temperature changes.

The last of Atlantis! The Spanish wiped out the last Altanteans, tall white skinned Guanches in 1600s, except they were related to the Berbers (Amazigt - recent heroes of Libya) next door in N Africa.

As I pointed out elsewhere, proving something is absolutely safe and poses no risk at all is, as near as dammit, impossible.

All science can ever do is prove something is a risk, or try to provide some evidence as to the level of risk something might pose. It's up to others to interpret that evidence and set safe limits, but even then there are no guarantees that those limits will be truly safe.

Unfortunately (again as I mentioned previously) human beings are totally rubbish as making balanced risk assessments, and more often than not massively overestimate the riskiness of relatively safe things (flying, nuclear power, for example) to health, and underestimate the riskiness of things that pose significant risk to health (horse riding, for example).

We accept that driving kills and injures lots of people every single day, yet if a new power generation technology was to come along and proclaim that it would result in one death a year we'd be up in arms about it.

'London bus found on Moon' (pic)

M25 orbital?

Ah but this is a Harry Potter bus with infinite height.

'You can check out but you can never leave ....'

Flying against the evidence, esp scientific evidence, is a long-standing and valuable tradition.
Yes, it can be nothing but superstition and ignorance.
It can also point to something that the establishment, however high-principled (as scientists see themselves) has blinded itself to by its adopted filters and blinkers (which, like Scientific/experimental method, may itself have apparently impeccable reason behind it).

Science has gradually adopted the principle that if it's not measurable with repeatability, it may happen, may even have major effect, but it's 'subjective' i.e. not scientific l.e. something that Scientists risk peer-ridicule if they give the time of day to. Even if such subjectivity is major in their everyday life as humans.

Popular flying-against-the-evidence may just be an unformed 'knowing' that less-constrained non-Scientists can feel in their bones, and keep on feeling, whatever Scientists loftily say.

Everyone should keep an open mind, watch and wait. Unfortunately Scientists have this habit of implying that all is known and anyone who speaks against the current 'all' is a fool. That's one reason why people are cynical about Science's high self-regard, and about priesthoods in general.

Paradigms change - and Scientists usually manage to jump ship just in time so they never experience humility resulting from having to own up. So the orthodoxy continues, modified.

Posted By: fostertom
Popular flying-against-the-evidence may just be an unformed 'knowing' that less-constrained non-Scientists can feel in their bones, and keep on feeling, whatever Scientists loftily say.

There's a word for belief in spite of evidence: faith.

Everyone should keep an open mind, watch and wait.

Sure, but at what point do you make your mind up? If you're choosing to ignore the evidence then your opinion will never change, which is hardly what I'd call open-minded.