We tend to think of poisons as having some threshold, some level below which they are harmless. I know now opinion has changed on this, ionizing radiation is now thought to have deleterious effects even at minute levels, and that even natural “background” exposures present in nature probably do slightly increase the possibility of cancers in the future. All it takes is ONE stray gamma ray to knock out a chemical bond in a DNA strand and initiate a deadly mutation. Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean it has to be harmless.

Toxicologists usually assess the toxicity of a substance by dosing test subjects (animals) with massive doses of the poison and noting the percentage of resulting deaths. They then lower the dosage and note the decreasing levels of mortality. There comes a point when the mortality vanishes, they simply can’t kill enough lab rats to assess the probability of risk. But they CAN extrapolate the curve they’ve been plotting to make estimates of the toxicity at extremely low exposures. This approach is certainly suspect, but it really is all we have.

I personally don’t believe EM radiation is dangerous. The wattages involved are so tiny that it is hard to come up with any potential mechanism to explain how it could possibly cause tissue damage. But neither can it be ruled out, either. Maybe there is a mechanism, up to now unidentified, that might be operating. After all, the nervous system is a sensitive electrochemical system, if our crude radio receivers can pick up and decipher a signal, perhaps our brains can be affected too. And anything affecting the neurological system can easily cause accidental changes in the rest of the organism.

Remember, we originally thought DDT was harmless to mammals because it only affected the nervous systems of insects. We could “drink a glass of it” and not get sick. But we learned that even in minute quantities DDT was potentially lethal to humans and birds for different reasons that had nothing to do with its effect on mammalian and avian nervous systems. These people may be crackpots but they are right about one thing, whenever you introduce anything into nature that wasn’t there before, that nothing has evolved a defense for, you are taking a risk, perhaps a tiny one, but a risk nonetheless. The explosion in the use of industrial chemicals is almost certainly related to the cancer epidemic. Most of our synthetic compounds are certainly harmless, but it is difficult to believe they all are. And if the deleterious effect is subtle and complex, delayed or intermittent, we may not even realize it is killing us.

And when you factor in how benign substances can interact synergistically in combination with others, and how natural cycles and biological processes can disperse and concentrate chemicals, and how perfectly safe compounds can break down or interact catalytically with others to form potential dangers; perhaps we should be a bit more careful about just what we are releasing into the biosphere. We really don’t know what the hell we’re doing.

Of course its complete hogwash, and people claiming to be ‘sensitive’ to EM ‘pollution’ have failed every attempt to verify it… but people have given up their lives to move to places ‘free of EM radiation’…

Fox’s position on the dangers of radio frequency seems to make sense at first glance. “It’s completely artificial, we’ve invented it, and it’s never been on this planet before, so nothing—not animals or humans—is adapted to it,” she told me. Of course, this kind of thinking (that a natural state is inherently better than an unnatural one) is a logical fallacy, and can’t replace actual evidence in proving the existence of EHS. Nevertheless, Fox and others who believe they suffer from it often compare wireless devices to tobacco—a dangerous addiction that many of us sign up for before fully understanding the risks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/04/green_bank_w_v_where_the_electrosensitive_can_escape_the_modern_world.2.html

We ‘invented’ the radio spectrum… ? The universe owes us a hell of a lot in royalties…

The primary way of testing is a provocation study, in which a purported EHS-sufferer is exposed to either an electromagnetic field or a sham field and asked to identify which is which. James Rubin, a psychologist at King’s College London who studies psychogenic illnesses, has analyzed the literature on provocation studies and conducted some at his own lab. His most recent meta-analysis—which covered 1,175 participants in 46 studies—found no rigorous, replicable experiment in which radio frequencies were identified at rates greater than chance.

BTW, have you seen the ads for the copper bandages that are supposed to banish all joint and muscle pain? Or the “Willow Curve” device that does the same thing with computerized rays? Or the erectile dysfunction pills for sale at gas stations and convenience stores?

And a certain percentage of the people who use these things will actually claim they work. There appears to be no end to the stupidity of the American consumer, or to the evil of those who sell to them.

Its almost as if the guiding philosophy is “If they’re stupid enough to buy this stuff, then they deserve to be cheated by smart folks like me. I have every right to do so.”