The Daily Blog Open Mic Monday 30th March 2015

15
0

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

15 COMMENTS

    • It’s an electronic radiation detector. So what? Why do all the sheeples accept a youtube clip as proof that these bulbs are dangerous. Do some of your own research ffs!!

      • BRIGID – “None so dumb as those who wont listen and learn.”?

        Your response was insulting to someone who has been in the electronic/electrical industry for 55 yrs with an electrical & electronic engineering accreditation both NZ and Canada.

        You had better do your own research on SMPS, (switch mode power supplies) inside all these electronic devices else you may wind up with a Tumour in your brain earlier then you thought.

        It would be wise to limit your exposure to them instead of closing your mind to the possible dangers having to many SMPS floating around your brain space.

        Reference Google “Switched mode power supplies cause dirty electricity.” Many references exist . Try Dr Samuel Milham

        Electromagnetic Field | How Dirty Electricity Causes Diseases

        articles.mercola.com/sites/…/how-dirty-electricity-causes-diseases.aspx

        Aug 31, 2010 – Dr. Samuel Milham has published an important new book, “Dirty … Items such as CFL bulbs, cell phone transmission antennas, power supplies for portable … dimmer switches, variable speed fans and many other electronic devices … buildings, green electronics, green IT and new energy technologies that

        Search Results

        How to deal with Dirty Electricity – EMFields

        http://www.emfields-solutions.com/howto/what-to-do-about-dirty-electricity.asp

        How to tell if you have Dirty Electricity and what to do if you have. … This is important since it is the current flowing inside the body and where it is … Any device that has a “switched mode power supply” will naturally create a lot of … Also switch off all lights as energy saving CFLs and some LED lamps cause considerable DE.

        Dirty Electricity – Create Healthy Homes

        http://www.createhealthyhomes.com/dirty_electricity.php

        Dec 23, 2014 – These can include dimmer switches, compact fluorescent lamps and … as well as low-voltage, energy-efficient light bulbs, do not operate at … These electronic appliances therefore need a transformer to change … You also find dirty electricity from switched mode power supplies in computers and printers.

        [PDF]Dirty Electricity (DE) – Powerwatch

        http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/downloads/dirty-electricity-2013-02.pdf

        transients are largely by-products of modern energy-efficient electronics and … light bulbs (CFLs) and dimmer switches, which tamp down the electricity … The repeated interruption can also be caused, especially in rural areas, … Two of its biggest creators are switch mode power supplies (AC adaptors) and energy efficient.

        [PDF]Dirty Electricity (DE) – Powerwatch

        powerwatch.org.uk/library/…/low-emf-home-2-dirty-elec-2015-02.pdf

        Feb 9, 2015 – the supply that can cause high magnetic fields; Wiring in homes – SAGE … levels of DE; DE coming into the house; DE generated within the house; dLAN caution. 3. Lighting and EMFs; Bulbs, incandescent, energy-saving, fluorescent, … are switch mode power supplies (AC adaptors) and energy efficient.

        Electricity, ‘dirty’ electricity and low energy light bulbs

        http://www.foodsmatter.com/…/electricity_dirty…/elec_dirtyelec_lightbulbs.ht...

        Any electrical wire that has the potential to carry electricity because it is attached … into it (dimmer switches and energy efficient electronic devices are especially to … It uses a switched- mode power supply (bad for electro sensitives) to alter the … the lamps do not flash, but the rapidly alternating pulses are reported to cause …

        • I apologise that I underestimated your knowledge of electrical engineering. However the jury is still out as to the damage caused by
          exposure to electromagnetic fields. The youtube demonstration has the detector very close to the bulb. How often are any of us so close to any emitter as is demonstrated? It seems that here is one more thing we all need to be in fear of. Keeping the people scared is a good way to control them.

          • I doubt if cleangreen has any expertise in electrical engineering at all. Just saying.
            Switch mode power supplies are in many, if not most, modern devices.
            Rather than any health risk, one of their biggest draw backs is noise (harmonics they contribute to the main grid) and their poor power factor. But gains in their efficiency over passive power supplies more than compensate.

            • See my response to your pathetic excuse for SMPS using “efficiency” as the way to hide the dangers within.

              • No thanks.

                I go with the science, not with anonymous youtube clips and spooky konspiracy theory blogs.

                You have concerns about alleged health effects from smps? by all means provide links to credible research supporting your claims and I’ll read and consider them. I suggest others interested in these issues be just as discerning about the quality of information they consider – go with the science, not with supposition and fear from nobodies and activist sites on the web. Especially not some kook with a meter he has no clue about.

                I actually don’t fully support CFL devices, but not for bogus health scare reasons, I suspect that in balance; considering their toxicity of some components, the resources expended on the manufacture of the components, short lifespan (c/f LEDs) and noise/power factor issues; that they are far from the “green” devices they pretend to be.

                As for my pathetic judgement on the efficiency issues, my viewpoint is coloured by several years tertiary study of electrical engineering at University, but of course, readers may prefer to defer to your obvious expertise.

  1. One of the biggest political reversals in a by election in living memory and it doesn’t rate a mention in the NZ Herald until page 7.

    The first 6 pages are instead dedicated to fact that a professional sports team lost a game.

    Both teams that the NZ Herald pimps for lost, but they rather that you not think too hard about one of the results.

    • Had to wait till page 34 of the Sunday Herald to find the by election result and the phrasing was “Winston comes first “.
      Not ‘ National loses by election’.
      Key was nowhere to be seen as they don’t want his image associated with a loss .
      What a bunch of wankers !!!

  2. I noticed the same Richard -I put a comment on their Facebook page, as to if there was any other news besides cricket? It is unbelievable how bad the Herald and our so called television media have become. Shame on them all.

  3. Yes all, the Joyce/Goebbels propaganda machinery is forcing the MSM to infill the media with anything else in a vain attempt to downplay Winston’s absolute shock wave election result.
    Typical Crosby Textor change the focus and use diversion to limit the collateral damage so we do need a independent media for the truth to get out as the Key/Joyce embargoed MSM is stifling the truth even today.

  4. Richard Christie, – Perhaps you may be wrong also. The industry is also repeating Big Tobacco policy of Plausible deniability.
    No passive filter can cope.
    I don’t think your explanation is valid without references as we have provided, and add some real concrete evidence below from NIOSH Government of USA Document. 21/4/2005.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields.

    I certainly don’t have to justify my credentials but I have been engaged in electronics for 40 yrs, and have credentials as stated before from NZ & Canada.

    No matter so I consider your self wrong here, as you are mistaken on several counts.

    Harmonic distortion created by many electronic devices in factories such as variable speed control devices ec’t.

    These system’s are playing havoc with parts of our grid systems globally.

    We received the following, intriguing answer from Hugh Hinskens, a Canadian Electronics Engineering Technologist with a B.Sc. in physics and a background in microwave circuit engineering.

    According to experts, the switch mode power supply (SMPS) contained in millions of ‘smart’ meters (but not their analogue predecessors) has essentially ‘polluted’ the electricity coming into our homes with high frequency transients. Which means at the end of the day, there is no “opt out” when the “smart grid” is being deployed in your area. Even with no RF microwave wireless antennas, a “smart” grid of SMPS-equipped meters can still threaten your health.

    “Why more so than other electronic devices?”, we asked…

    Hugh:

    It’s not that each individual power supply is more powerful, but rather because every smart meter is of exactly the same design and construction, each SMPS is emitting the same spectrum of harmonics, which are all in phase with the 60 Hz of the power grid and therefore in phase with each other.

    For consumer electronics, including desk top computers, which have SMPS’s that are higher power, the variety of manufacturers, designs and components in their construction prevents the constructive interference (due to phase coherence) of identical harmonics which manifests with the identical smart meters.

    Also, consumer electronics are plugged into a single branch of a house’s wiring system, so the distance to other branches is longer, allowing more dissipation of the energy from the single branch before it reaches the other branches in the same house, or back into the main grid. The meter is at the root of the branches in the house, so each branch acts like a separate antenna for the harmonics, causing a more well distributed field throughout the house. And because the meter is right where the grid is connected to the house, it’s closer to its peers on other houses, allowing a shorter path for the coherent pulses to combine with other meters’ pulses.

    This now require constant recodifications of the tuned tank filtering systems placed to filter out Harmonic Distortion levels near Grid hot spots such as factories that send excessive amounts of Harmonic Distortion onto those areas of the grid and many more qualified persons than you are now voicing deep concern’s as to what we are to do with this destabilisation of our grid supply.

    Indeed this may interest you that now this High level activity of inadequate Tuned tank filtering to remove harmonic distortion in our power supplies may be causing revenue metering to be reading inaccurately also which may cost consumers if these electronic meters are used widely now rather than the older Electromechanical meters which are not seriously affected by high levels at POC of the grid system.

    NIOSH Government of USA Document. 21/4/2005.
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields
    Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer: Questions and Answers
    Key Points
    Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are areas of energy that surround any electrical device. EMFs are produced by power lines, electrical wiring, and appliances (see Question 1).
    Electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields are not. Since magnetic fields are more likely to penetrate the body, they are the component of EMFs that are usually studied in relation to cancer (see Question 1).
    Overall, there is limited evidence that magnetic fields cause childhood leukemia, and there is inadequate evidence that these magnetic fields cause other cancers in children (see Question 2).
    Studies of magnetic field exposure from power lines and electric blankets in adults show little evidence of an association with leukemia, brain tumors, or breast cancer (see Question 3).
    Past studies of occupational magnetic field exposure in adults showed very small increases in leukemia and brain tumors. However, more recent, well-conducted studies have shown inconsistent associations with leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer (see Question 4).
    What are electric and magnetic fields?
    Electricity is the movement of electrons, or current, through a wire. The type of electricity that runs through power lines and in houses is alternating current (AC). AC power produces two types of fields (areas of energy)—an electric field and a magnetic field. An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases in strength. A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases. These two fields together are referred to as electric and magnetic fields, or EMFs.

    Both electric and magnetic fields are present around appliances and power lines. However, electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields can pass through buildings, humans, and most other materials. Since magnetic fields are most likely to penetrate the body, they are the component of EMFs that are usually studied in relation to cancer.

    The focus of this fact sheet is on extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. Examples of devices that emit these fields include power lines and electrical appliances, such as electric shavers, hair dryers, computers, televisions, electric blankets, and heated waterbeds. Most electrical appliances have to be turned on to produce a magnetic field. The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increased distance from the source.

    Is there a link between magnetic field exposure at home and cancer in children?
    Numerous epidemiological (population) studies and comprehensive reviews have evaluated magnetic field exposure and risk of cancer in children (1, 2). Since the two most common cancers in children are leukemia and brain tumors, most of the research has focused on these two types. A study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (3). Among more recent studies, findings have been mixed. Some have found an association; others have not. These studies are discussed in the following paragraphs. Currently, researchers conclude that there is limited evidence that magnetic fields from power lines cause childhood leukemia, and that there is inadequate evidence that these magnetic fields cause other cancers in children (2). Researchers have not found a consistent relationship between magnetic fields from power lines or appliances and childhood brain tumors.

    In one large study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Children’s Oncology Group, researchers measured magnetic fields directly in homes (4). This study found that children living in homes with high magnetic field levels did not have an increased risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The one exception may have been children living in homes that had fields greater than 0.4 microtesla (µT), a very high level that occurs in few residences. Another study conducted by NCI researchers reported that children living close to overhead power lines based on distance measurements were not at greater risk of leukemia (5).

    To estimate more accurately the risks of leukemia in children from magnetic fields resulting from power lines, researchers pooled (combined) data from many studies. In one pooled study that combined nine well-conducted studies from several countries, including a study from the NCI, a twofold excess risk of childhood leukemia was associated with exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 µT (6). In another pooled study that combined 15 studies, a similar increased risk was seen above 0.3 µT (7). It is difficult to determine if this level of risk represents a real increase or if it results from study bias. Such study bias can be related to the selection of study subjects or possibly to other factors that relate to levels of magnetic field exposure. If magnetic fields caused childhood leukemia, certain patterns would have been found such as increasing risk with increasing levels of magnetic field exposure.

    Another way that people can be exposed to magnetic fields is from household electrical appliances. Several studies have investigated this relationship (2). Although magnetic fields near many electrical appliances are higher than near power lines, appliances contribute less to a person’s total exposure to magnetic fields. This is because most appliances are used only for short periods of time, and most are not used close to the body, whereas power lines are always emitting magnetic fields.

    In a detailed evaluation, investigators from NCI and the Children’s Oncology Group examined whether the use of household electrical appliances by the mother while pregnant and later by the child increased the risk of childhood leukemia. Although some appliances were associated with childhood leukemia, researchers did not find any consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing years of use or how often the appliance was used (8). A few other studies have reported mostly inconsistencies or no relation between appliances and risk of childhood cancer.

    Occupational exposure of mothers to high levels of magnetic fields during pregnancy has been associated with childhood leukemia in a Canadian study (9). Similar studies need to be done in other populations to see if this is indeed the case.

    Is there a link between magnetic field exposure in the home and cancer in adults?
    Although several studies have looked into the relationship of leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer in adults exposed to magnetic fields in the home, there are only a few large studies with long-term, magnetic field measurements. No consistent association between magnetic fields and leukemia or brain tumors has been established.

    The majority of epidemiological studies have shown no relationship between breast cancer in women and magnetic fields from electrical appliances. Recent studies of breast cancer and magnetic fields in the home have included direct and indirect magnetic field measurements. These studies mostly found no association between breast cancer in females and magnetic fields from power lines or electric blankets (10, 11, 12, 13). A Norwegian study found a risk for exposure to magnetic fields in the home (14), and a study in African-American women found that use of electric bedding devices may increase breast cancer risk (15).

    Is there a link between magnetic field exposure at work and cancer in adults?
    Several studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s reported that people who worked in some electrical occupations (such as power station operators and phone line workers) had higher than expected rates of some types of cancer, particularly leukemia, brain tumors, and male breast cancer (2). Some occupational studies showed very small increases in risk for leukemia and brain cancer, but these results were based on job titles and not actual measurements. More recently conducted studies that have included both job titles and individual exposure measurements have no consistent finding of an increasing risk of leukemia, brain tumors, or female breast cancer with increasing exposure to magnetic fields at work (14, 16, 17, 18).

    What have scientists learned from animal experiments about the relationship between magnetic field exposure and cancer?
    Animal studies have not found that magnetic field exposure is associated with increased risk of cancer (2). The absence of animal data supporting carcinogenicity makes it biologically less likely that magnetic field exposures in humans, at home or at work, are linked to increased cancer risk.

    Where can people find additional information on EMFs?
    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Web site has information about EMFs and cancer, as well as information and publications related to the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) Program. NIEHS can be contacted at:

    Address:
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    Post Office Box 12233
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

    Telephone:
    919–541–3345
    TTY: 919–541–0731

    E-mail:
    webcenter@niehs.nih.gov

    Internet Web site:
    http://www.niehs.nih.gov

    Note: Information about cancer risk and EMFs emitted from hand-held cellular phones (i.e., microwave frequencies) can be found in the NCI fact sheet Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer, which is available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones on the Internet.
    Selected References

    1. Ahlbom A, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and health. Environmental Health Perspectives 2001; 109(6): 911–933.

    2. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Volume 80: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1, Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2002: Lyon, France.

    3. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 1979; 109(3): 273–284.

    4. Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, et al. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 337(1): 1–7.

    5. Kleinerman RA, Kaune WT, Hatch EE, et al. Are children living near high voltage power lines at increased risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia? American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 15: 512–515.

    6. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer 2000; 83(5): 692–698.

    7. Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology 2000; 11(6): 624–634.

    8. Hatch EE, Linet MS, Kleinerman RA, et al. Association between childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and use of electrical appliances during pregnancy and childhood. Epidemiology 1998; 9(3): 234–245.

    9. Infante-Rivard C, Deadman JE. Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields during pregnancy and childhood leukemia. Epidemiology 2003; 14: 437–441.

    10. Schoenfeld ER, O’Leary ES, Henderson K, et al. Electromagnetic fields and breast cancer on Long Island: A case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 47–58.

    11. London SJ, Pagoda JM, Hwang KL et al. Residential magnetic field exposure and breast cancer risk: A nested case-control study from a multi-ethnic cohort in Los Angeles, California. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 969–980.

    12. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Residential magnetic fields and the risk of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 155: 446–454.

    13. Kabat GC, O’Leary ES, Schoenfeld ER, et al. Electric blanket use and breast cancer on Long Island. Epidemiology 2003; 14(5): 514–520.

    14. Kliukiene J, Tynes T, Andersen A. Residential and occupational exposures to 50-Hz magnetic fields and breast cancer in women: A population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(9): 852–861.

    15. Zhu K, Hunter S, Payne-Wilks K, et al. Use of electric bedding devices and risk of breast cancer in African-American women. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 798–806.

    16. Tynes T, Haldorsen T. Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and hematological cancers in Norway. Cancer Causes & Control 2003; 14: 715–720.

    17. Labreche F, Goldberg MS, Valois M-F, et al. Occupational exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and postmenopausal breast cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2003; 44: 643–652.

    18. Willett E, McKinney PA, Fear NT, et al. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and acute leukaemia: Analysis of a case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003; 60: 577–583.

    Related NCI materials and Web pages:

    National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 3.72, Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk
    (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones)
    How can we help?

    We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.

    Call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
    Visit us at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol
    Chat using LiveHelp, NCI’s instant messaging service, at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp
    E-mail us at cancergovstaff@mail.nih.gov
    Order publications at http://www.cancer.gov/publications or by calling 1–800–4–CANCER
    Get help with quitting smoking at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848)
    This text may be reproduced or reused freely. Please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source. Any graphics may be owned by the artist or publisher who created them, and permission may be needed for their reuse.

    • Firstly, a slow handclap for the screed cut and pastes. On the internet we have links, please use them.

      The two cancer.gov links you provided are unequivocal (from key points) :

      Several early epidemiologic studies raised the possibility of an association between certain cancers, especially childhood cancers, and ELF-EMFs. Most subsequent studies have not shown such an association , but scientists continue to investigate the possibility that one exists.
      Studies of animals exposed to ELF-EMFs have not provided any indications that ELF-EMF exposure is associated with cancer, and no mechanism has been identified by which such fields could cause cancer.

      In science, results need to be conclusive and repeatable in order to justify any shift in consensus. There is good reason for this. Anomalies do not constitute a new trend nor justify shifts in conclusion, they merely suggest further study of the apparent anomaly may be justified. So far, there is no credible evidence to conclude that emfs from household electrical devices are harmful to health.

      You are grasping at anomalies. You are behaving in the same manner as climate change deniers, anti evolutionists, anti vaxers, anti fluoridationists, moon landing denialists and chem-trail freaks. They all point at anomalies in the overwhelming weight and volume of scientific evidence and scream that proves or justifies their respective position.

      It doesn’t.

      • Just keep your foolish ignorance and we hope you don’t eventually get cancer or a tumour as Kids are now showing after repeated cellphome use constantly after several years.

        The science is in but as I said you belong to the Tobacco side where Plausible Deniability are their key preferences, and I am a certified electronic engineer what are you?

Comments are closed.