Birds dying in Italy too...

[ComradeMan]

Uccelli morti anche in Italia, pioggia di tortore a Faenza

Mistero in Emilia Romagna, dopo l'Arkansas e la Svezia. Analisi dell'Istituto zoooprofilattico di Lugo: avvelenamento o epidemia?


http://notizie.virgilio.it/cronaca/uccelli-morti-anche-in-italia-pioggia-di-tortore-a-faenza_142561.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Italy_location_map.svg/250px-Italy_location_map.svg.png (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Italy_location_map.svg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Erioll_world.svg/18px-Erioll_world.svg.png44°17′N 11°53′E (http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Faenza&params=44_17_N_11_53_E_)

Location of Faenza in Italy

[brigadista]

what are they using in Iraq and Afghanistan??

[Pierre.Laporte]

I've started to hear some reports that these are generally quite common, and now it's getting much more media attention to create a sensation.

[Havet]

what are they using in Iraq and Afghanistan??

Do you have any sort of evidence that can connect the two events?

[ComradeMan]

I've started to hear some reports that these are generally quite common, and now it's getting much more media attention to create a sensation.

I don't know- but I've never heard of this personally before.... do we have any ornithologists here?

But all the same... poor birds.

[brigadista]

Do you have any sort of evidence that can connect the two events?

no its not like that would be publicised ,but when you think of the effects of agent orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium in eastern europe and iraq it would not be unusual for the bird situation to be a result of something like this-
if anyone else has any evidence of this would be interesting to read it.

are the birds migratory ? if so what is their flight path?

[ComradeMan]

I'm watching the TG2 News and they don't know what's going on. About 500 of the birds, turtle doves, appear to have dropped out of the sky dead in one place at the same time.
:crying:

[Havet]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_dead_birds_fish_around_world_spark_flood_of_con spiracy_theories_from_end_of_day.html

Im very disapointed at the huge amount of hysterical and nonsensical people who are quick to atribute this to either God, some sort of government conspiracy or corporate gm foods. Come on people, don't be so gullible! Search for knowledge, not for sensation! Demand facts, not opinions!

[Havet]

no its not like that would be publicised ,

:confused:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[brigadista]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_dead_birds_fish_around_world_spark_flood_of_con spiracy_theories_from_end_of_day.html

Im very disapointed at the huge amount of hysterical and nonsensical people who are quick to atribute this to either God, some sort of government conspiracy or corporate gm foods. Come on people, don't be so gullible! Search for knowledge, not for sensation! Demand facts, not opinions!

i agree but i just asked about the possible weapon issue in case anyone had any info about it - i don't neccessarily believe it to be the cause and i certainly hadn't read much about this before i posted my question which was intended to seek some facts.-

[ComradeMan]

Im very disapointed at the huge amount of hysterical and nonsensical people who are quick to atribute this to either God, some sort of government conspiracy or corporate gm foods. Come on people, don't be so gullible! Search for knowledge, not for sensation! Demand facts, not opinions!

No one here is attributing this to God, but at the same time when otherwise healthy birds start dropping dead out of the sky in large numbers and no one can explain why, fish are washing up dead in lakes and no one seems to know why, and considering we are all part of the greater "organism" in biological terms- well, hell, there might just be some cause for concern.

As a cultural curiosity in Italian terms, both the Etruscans and Romans would have considered this a very ominous omen indeed.

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/b40a4a9fc991a170 (http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2xTcydNhnIALBdWBQx./SIG=13cn2k54d/EXP=1294459859/**http%3a//www.eternalidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/365px-augur_nordisk_familjebok.png)

[Pierre.Laporte]

Im very disapointed at the huge amount of hysterical and nonsensical people who are quick to atribute this to either God, some sort of government conspiracy or corporate gm foods. Come on people, don't be so gullible! Search for knowledge, not for sensation! Demand facts, not opinions!

I, for one, am attributing this to 2012. One more year after all! Can't wait to put my Y2K shelter to good use again.

[brigadista]

:confused:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

the depleted uranium issue was not publicised until some time after the actual use of the weapons

[Havet]

i agree but i just asked about the possible weapon issue in case anyone had any info about it - i don't neccessarily believe it to be the cause and i certainly hadn't read much about this before i posted my question which was intended to seek some facts.-

Oh right, well sorry for the misunderstanding. I did found something interest. More animals are dying, but there seem to be plausible explanations out there:


CLEVELAND - UPDATE 7: If you enjoy eating Red Talapia fish, then, chances are, your dinner was farm raised in Vietnam. Millions of these fast-growing, low-mercury fish are raised on aquiculture farms there. During the last week of December, officials report more than 150-tons of Talapia died on 41 separate river farms. The cost? A full 35-billion Vietnamese Dollars. The cause? Low oxygen in the water, too many fish in each pen...

UPDATE 6: In New Zealand, dead penguins had been washing up on northern beaches for several weeks now. The country's Conservation Department said penguins, petrels and other seabirds were already dying in large numbers. Autopsies show they all starved to death. The current La Nina weather pattern has reduced the fish population in the area. The fish have moved. So, now the birds can't find enough food to feed themselves and their young...

UPDATE 5: First birds, then fish...now bats. 70 bats were found dead in Tuscon, Arizona last week. A man walking his dog found the dead Mexican Free-tailed bats on a walking path under a bridge on December 28th. The bat carcasses have been sent off to the Arizona Department of health Services for testing. Officials surmise that unseaseonably warm weather may have caused the bat deaths. These bats, according to wildlife experts, should have migrated to Mexico two months ago...

UPDATE 4: This one is closer to home...Wildlife officers in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada report a large fish kill in the St. Clair River just across the border from Detroit this week. Hundreds of shad that washed up on shore supposedly died from temperature shock. The Ministry of Natural Resources in Sarnia says that the warm weather around New Years Day followed by a quick cold spell doomed the fish. This is not an usual occurance, say officials. But, it usually happens in spring.

UPDATE 3: First birds and fish...now its CRABS! Reports today say that more than 40,000 Velvet Swimming Crabs have been found dead on UK beaches. And, on top of that, among the dead crabs, there's dead lobster, starfish, anemone, & sponges. The cause of this mysterious mass death? Officials believe its the extreme cold weather. According to wildlife advocates from the Thanet Coast Project, the sea creatures began washing up when snow and cold blasted Europe right around Christmas. Crabs and starfish like warm water. They usually come closer to shore in the winter to feast in the seaweed colonies. They were caught in the rapidly-arriving cold and snow over the passed few weeks.

UPDATE 2: Now its New Zealand! Local newspapers near the Coromandel beaches on the North Island of New Zealand report hundreds of dead snapper fish washing ashore this week. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the fish line the shore as far as the eye can see. Officials surmise the fish starved to death due to adverse weather conditions. But, local residents contend many of the snapper looked fat and healthy. The Fisheries Ministry is currently investigating the situation.

UPDATE 1: Two more reports of bird deaths just in! Swedish authorities are investigating the deaths of 100 crows in the town of Falkoping, a city near Skovde. No cause can be ascertained yet.

Word out of Kentucky today that several hundred blackbirds, grackles and starlings were found dead last week near Murray, in the western portion of the state. A spokesman for the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources confirmed the deaths and said that several of the dead birds have been analyzed. The tests performed on the birds ruled out diseases or poisons. That leaves the probable cause of death as weather or some other natural event. ######

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/reports-of-dead-birds-and-fish-still-coming-in-from-around-the-world

[Havet]

No one here is attributing this to Go

Nowhere have I stated people HERE were attributing this to god. I was talking of the people mentioned in the article i linked to


there might just be some cause for concern.

There IS always a cause for concern. Just because there might not be any logical explanation yet doesnt mean we should abandon our best tools (aka scientific method) for determining the cause

[brigadista]

fjj32CavzU0

[Havet]

Can't wait to put my Y2K shelter to good use again.

Fallout shelter ftw

AhMQOb0tEmI

[ComradeMan]

Fuck guys---- this could be a slightly more serious issue and the thread is being spammed like it were chit chat.

I think these warning signs from nature should be taken more seriously. I wonder if radio waves don't interfere with these animals, as they do with people and for which cancer has been attributed.

[Havet]

as they do with people and for which cancer has been attributed.

You mean, of course, that radio waves help 'cure' cancer (http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/radio-waves-and-the-search-for-a-cancer-cure/article26497.html), not the opposite.

If you were talking about cellphones, you're wrong too (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones)


Interphone researchers reported that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor―glioma and meningioma. In addition, they found no evidence of increasing risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or years since beginning cell phone use. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls, there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive. The study was published online May 17, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology (5).

[#FF0000]

I've started to hear some reports that these are generally quite common, and now it's getting much more media attention to create a sensation.

Yeah this is what I believe. Bird deaths like this aren't really uncommon. We just hear about them a lot more.

[ComradeMan]

You mean, of course, that radio waves help cure cancer, not the opposite.

And if you weren't ill they would make you ill, any "medicine" is also a potential threat too.


If you were talking about cellphones, you're wrong too

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/cellphone-radio-waves-help-cancer-to-grow-1.96480

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2959

http://www.salzburg.gv.at/bf/Proceedings_(13)_Marinelli_without_figures.pdf

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

This is also interesting

http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-cancer-risk-debated.html

http://www.whale.to/b/tetra_cancer.html

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20040809_spain.asp

http://www.whale.to/b/tower.pdf

[Che a chara]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_dead_birds_fish_around_world_spark_flood_of_con spiracy_theories_from_end_of_day.html

Im very disapointed at the huge amount of hysterical and nonsensical people who are quick to atribute this to either God, some sort of government conspiracy or corporate gm foods. Come on people, don't be so gullible! Search for knowledge, not for sensation! Demand facts, not opinions!

Glenn Beck's radio boot must have had some effect on his mental state. he'd be the first one you'd think to blame it on the Obama administration or as an act of God, but he thinks it was a natural cause, for once i agree with him.

It's still sad all the same. Other conspiracies I have heard was chemtrails polluting the atmosphere.

[Ele'ill]

Good reference thread from the main section covering the original events. Birds don't fly at night because they can't see- if spooked- they would fly into each other and into the ground. Fireworks are likely as is a nearby airforce base.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/flocks-birds-louisiaana-t147572/index.html

[Havet]

And if you weren't ill they would make you ill, any "medicine" is also a potential threat too.

Source:- (http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/cellphone-radio-waves-help-cancer-to-grow-1.96480)

'Cellphone radio waves help cancer to grow'

October 23 2002 at 01:04pm

London - Italian scientists have raised new health concerns about the safety of using cellphones, with research showing radio waves from the handsets makes cancerous cells grow more aggressively.
When Fiorenzo Marinelli and his colleagues at the National Research Council in Bologna exposed leukaemia cells in the laboratory to 48 hours of continuous radio waves they initially killed the cancer cells but then made the surviving tumour cells replicate more rapidly.
"We don't know what the effects would be on healthy human cells," Marinelli told New Scientist magazine on Wednesday.
Cancer develops when control signals in a normal cell go wrong and an abnormal cell results. Instead of destroying itself the mutant cell keeps on dividing and forms a lump or tumour.
In the Italian study, after 24 hours 20 percent more leukaemia cells died than healthy cells but longer exposure to the radio waves triggered genes in the surviving cancer cells, in a type of defence mechanism, to divide aggressively.
The results of the study do not show any direct threat to human health but they support the belief of some scientists who say radiation can damage DNA and destroy the cell repair system which can make tumours more deadly.
But animal studies, including recent research by Australian scientists at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, have shown that radiation from cellphones does not trigger the growth of tumours.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for more research into the potential health hazards of cellphones and has urged people to limit their use of them.
A British government inquiry, which concluded that there was no evidence that mobile phones are a danger to health, has advised parents to discourage their children, whose brains are still developing, from using cellphones excessively
------

Cancer cell study revives cellphone safety fears
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2959

Cell Membrane and Electromagnetic Fields
http://www.salzburg.gv.at/bf/Proceedings_(13)_Marinelli_without_figures.pdf

And from the article you quoted (Havet)

There are very few studies of the possible relationship between cell phone use and tumors other than those of the brain and central nervous system (22 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r22)–25 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r25)).


Additional studies have investigated the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cell phone use and the risk of brain cancer (6 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r6)–11 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r11)); however, some, but not all, studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (12 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r12), 13 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r13)).

Two reports published in November 2004 by researchers from individual countries that participated in the Interphone study described the results of assessments of cell phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. One report described a Danish case-control study that showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cell phone users compared with short-term users, and there was no increase in the incidence (http://www.cancer.gov/Common/PopUps/popDefinition.aspx?id=CDR0000046145&version=Patient&language=English) of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (14 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r14)). The other report described a Swedish study that examined similar populations and found a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cell phone users but not in short-term users (15 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r15)).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

This extract is also interesting

http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-cancer-risk-debated.html

Well, maybe not all of it. Dr. Sam Milham, a retired Washington state epidemiologist who has for many years studied the health effects of electromagnetic radiation, continues to pursue this question on his own time. Milham, Lai and other international scientists have formed the BioInitiative Working Group dedicated to improving safety standards for exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Milham has long believed that even household or office exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be dangerous. But it remains a hard sell, and a hard case to make scientifically. "Look, people love their cell phones and microwave ovens," Milham said. "Nobody wants to hear this. And even though the corporations have cut off all the research money for this in the U.S., there's plenty of new data supporting this coming out of Europe."

Lai, however, emphasized that scientists still can't say with any certainty that using cell phones causes cancer. But he won't use a cell phone or a wireless headset, which he said puts out just as much radiation. What the professor said he does know for certain, from personal experience, is the cell phone industry has worked hard to prevent science from resolving the uncertainty.


Check this link out too

http://www.whale.to/b/tetra_cancer.html (http://www.whale.to/b/tetra_cancer.html)

And this report:-
Journal articles
Cell Phone Masts---Tenfold Cancer Increase -

A 2004 study in Israel (see study (http://www.whale.to/b/tower.pdf)), published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, found an increased risk of women developing cancer was 10 times higher in the group of 622 people who lived within 350 metres of a 10 metre high GSM mobile phone mast, compared with 1222 similar people who lived further away from the mast (with similar housing, lifestyles, etc). Other effects have also been reported, for example see here (http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20040809_spain.asp).


http://www.whale.to/b/tower.pdf



So you think that scientific studies from 2002 and 2004 counter the research made in 2010, which already takes those studies into account, except its done with better equipment and knowledge?

[Rooster]

I will be in that exact area next month. I will report back.

[ComradeMan]

So you think that scientific studies from 2002 and 2004 counter the research made in 2010, which already takes those studies into account, except its done with better equipment and knowledge?

And a vested interest...

Come on there are plenty of studies that show significant increases around those radio masts etc, why were radar rooms also risky in the military?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://uservideos.smashits.com/video/jcmMtUb0mh8/The-Military-s-Mystery-Machine-Haarp-Weather-Modification-Technology-in-Alaska.html

[ComradeMan]

I will be in that exact area next month. I will report back.

With a name like "rooster" are you sure that's a good place to go?

[Havet]

And a vested interest...

What is that supposed to mean?


Come on there are plenty of studies that show significant increases around those radio masts etc

We're not talking about radio masts, we were talking about cellphones, dont confuse the two. And those "plenty of studies" have all been surpassed by newer ones. Science is not dogmatic, you know...


why were radar rooms also risky in the military?

Maybe because there's a war going on?


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Neither it is evidence of non-absence


http://uservideos.smashits.com/video/jcmMtUb0mh8/The-Military-s-Mystery-Machine-Haarp-Weather-Modification-Technology-in-Alaska.html

Interesting, though far from having a level of development as exposed by conspiracy theorists

[ComradeMan]

What is that supposed to mean?

See quote by Lai in links.


We're not talking about radio masts, we were talking about cellphones, dont confuse the two. And those "plenty of studies" have all been surpassed by newer ones. Science is not dogmatic, you know...

Well I was originally talking about radio waves, you brought cellphones into the argument.


Maybe because there's a war going on?

Err... no, try again.



Neither it is evidence of non-absence

Edvidence of non-absence would thus be evidence of presence... logical problem here I think.


Interesting, though far from having a level of development as exposed by conspiracy theorists

Being sceptical doesn't mean ignoring the data you don't like because they challenge a position you hold.

Did you read all of those links, medical doctors, scientists and research from respected bodies? The HAARP thing was just an extra.

I'm not saying that this is the cause, but given that many migratory animals, including a large number of birds, are high up in the atmosphere, use geomagnetic navigation systems we may not fully understand and given the this recent spate of bird deaths (whales, dolphins, bats etc also use sophisticated and sensitive navigation) there might be a plausable link to the amount of microwave/radio pollution going on.

This is not a conspiracy theory.

[ComradeMan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8246678/More-than-1000-turtle-doves-fall-from-the-sky-in-Italy-in-latest-mass-bird-death-case.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh Yawn. Not yet another hysterical subculture that quivers in fear of what it refuses to understand, in this case, electromagnetic radiation. I'll just quote a post I made on a similar subject:


It's a non-issue. There's no evidence that radiation from mobile phones (or cell sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site)) is of sufficient energy to cause damage:

"For example, measurement data obtained from various sources have consistently indicated that "worst-case" ground-level power densities near typical cellular towers are on the order of 1 µW/cm2 or less (usually significantly less)." (LINK (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html))

That's about 0.01 Watt per square metre. That's tiny; most domestic light bulbs are more powerful.

We have been using far more powerful radio transmitters and radar stations for years (and a sufficiently powerful radar will cook you if you stand too close), yet cancer rates are not statistically greater near such facilities.

Furthermore, photons of the microwave bands used by mobile phones have insufficient energy (1.24 milli-electron Volt, compared to a hard gamma photon - AKA nuclear radiation - 1.24 mega-electron Volt) to directly damage DNA - microwaves damage tissues through dielectric heating, and it's fairly obvious that cell sites are not cooking people to death in large numbers. Look at a scientifically-annotated electromagnetic spectrum diagram, and you will see that microwave photons pack less punch than those of visible light, yet nobody is calling for lighting to be banned.

Stuff like this is just another symptom of a public that has been ill-served by the education system, especially on scientific subjects. It's yet more FUD ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) brought on by technology that is at once ubiquitous and mysterious, and shamefully people tend to fear what they don't understand.

Similar concerns about Wi-Fi and the like are also groundless. It's pitiful that some people are getting worked up about cell sites when there are far more pressing issues they could be devoting their time and effort to - and stuff that is proven to damage health and the environment to boot.

[ComradeMan]

Oh Yawn. Not yet another hysterical subculture that quivers in fear of what it refuses to understand, in this case, electromagnetic radiation. I'll just quote a post I made on a similar subject:

Yawn, it's pitiful that people don't check out all the evidence either and consider possibilities.

[hatzel]

Yawn, what does this have to do with dead birds?

:rolleyes:

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Just today I remember reading a post written by a person who had some evidence to back up his claims that the animal deaths may be related to the increase in solar activity.

[Nolan]

Yawn, what does this have to do with dead birds?

:rolleyes:

Maybe cell phones are killing birds? :unsure:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yawn, it's pitiful that people don't check out all the evidence either and consider possibilities.



INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL-PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION.
[LEFT]
RONNI WOLF MD
DANNY WOLF MD

Really? Then why do you go on to contradict yourself by effectively stating that there is no known mechanism for the people exposed to the microwaves to contract cancer? I've already pointed out that the radiation is of insufficient energy to damage DNA (and therefore cause cancer), and the fact your "study" says nothing to address this point indicates it's junk.

[ComradeMan]

Really? Then why do you go on to contradict yourself by effectively stating that there is no known mechanism for the people exposed to the microwaves to contract cancer? I've already pointed out that the radiation is of insufficient energy to damage DNA (and therefore cause cancer), and the fact your "study" says nothing to address this point indicates it's junk.

What are you talking about Dr Magneto?

It was Havet who came on making absolute statements and there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument to make it all inconclusive. You haven't pointed out anything and you've ignored some of the indications of the various studies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are you talking about Dr Magneto?

It was Havet who came on making absolute statements and there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument to make it all inconclusive. You haven't pointed out anything and you've ignored some of the indications of the various studies.

If there is no plausible mechanism for damage, then the balance of probability swings towards there being other causes for the increased cancers, if they even exist and aren't simply the result of a flawed or biased study.

[gorillafuck]

I will be in that exact area next month. I will report back.
You're not going to find anything weird or out of the ordinary. It's not like this is a real life version of The Tommyknockers.

[ComradeMan]

If there is no plausible mechanism for damage, then the balance of probability swings towards there being other causes for the increased cancers, if they even exist and aren't simply the result of a flawed or biased study.

I refer you to these articles in which the "safe cellphone" studies methodologies are also questioned:-

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080104_cellphone_propaganda.asp

[hatzel]

Anybody seen the film Birdemic? It's shit, really, but it does make the point of human activity causing problems for bird populations, which might link in here. Ecology for the win!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316037/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I refer you to these articles in which the "safe cellphone" studies methodologies are also questioned:-

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080104_cellphone_propaganda.asp

The cellphone industry maintains that while ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays) does cause DNA damage, cellphones' non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cellular damage except when the power of microwave radiation is at a level to heat the body's cells. This view assumes the only possibility of cellular damage is due to heating. And, it assumes that the cause of any kind of cellular damage is already known. Such a view is fundamentally anti-scientific, but it makes a good sound bite.

Without a doubt, ionizing radiation causes cell damage. Yet what is not generally understood is that 85% of cell damage is indirect damage. Yes, 15% of ionizing radiation directly breaks DNA bounds. However, ionizing radiation also creates free radicals within the cell's cytoplasm. These free radicals, very close to DNA, cause 85% of the damage. Cellphone radiation has been shown to create free radicals and/or lengthen the lifetime of free radicals.

and more interestingly

Studies, independent of cellphone industry funding, with 10 or more years of exposure time have consistently found higher risks of brain tumors than the Interphone studies have. Why higher risks? It is because the Interphone study protocol has at least 6 flaws, each of which results in an underestimation of brain tumor risk. Yet, in spite of the 6 design flaws that underestimate the risk of brain tumors, the Interphone studies still find a risk of brain tumors. Perhaps if these flaws did not exist they would find the same elevated risks as the industry independent studies have found? Or, could it be that the Interphone protocol was designed to not find any risk?

Unless a plausible mechanism is provided, nobody has any reason to take any such "studies" seriously. Correlation does not equal causation, you should know that.

[ComradeMan]

Unless a plausible mechanism is provided, nobody has any reason to take any such "studies" seriously. Correlation does not equal causation, you should know that.

Indeed correlation does not equal causation but it may be a strong indicator. When many of the studies that seem to prove there is no risk also seem to be sponsored/funded by those for whom there is a vested interest in not finding any risk there is at least reason for some honest scepticism.

Perhaps we remember those tobacco studies years ago... all the ones that "proved" for years there was no link between passive smoking and lung problems.... :rolleyes:.

An individual cell phone in itself may not be a problem, but the amount of radio waves/wi fi and general microwave energy we are bombarded with on a daily basis without choice may be a cause for concern. There is also some evidence that this does have an environmental impact.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed correlation does not equal causation but it may be a strong indicator. When many of the studies that seem to prove there is no risk also seem to be sponsored/funded by those for whom there is a vested interest in not finding any risk there is at least reason for some honest scepticism.

The FCC doesn't have a vested interest. They get paid no matter what the studies say. In fact, they have a vested interest in exaggerating the risk because more risk means more regulation and therefore more funding for them.


Perhaps we remember those tobacco studies years ago... all the ones that "proved" for years there was no link between passive smoking and lung problems.... :rolleyes:.

Difference is, there was a plausible mechanism for tobacco smoke to cause cancer - smoking involves inhaling burnt plant matter. The comparison just doesn't work unless it's just to make your paranoia politically correct.


An individual cell phone in itself may not be a problem, but the amount of radio waves/wi fi and general microwave energy we are bombarded with on a daily basis without choice may be a cause for concern. There is also some evidence that this does have an environmental impact.

We've been using radio for over a century, and we haven't found any good reason to believe there is a risk of serious harm. I mean, don't you understand basic physics? Radio and microwave photons are less energetic than gamma rays or visible light. Less than infra red, even. If a photon has insufficient energy to damage a molecule or its bonds, then there is no damage unless the source is close and/or intense enough for dielectric heating to occur.

So far you have given no reason to believe lower-energy microwave and radio photons are any more dangerous than visible light photons.

[ComradeMan]

...

a) I don't trust "official" studies- especially when other experts are hinting at other things.
.
http://www.cellphonesafety.org/health/radio.htm


b) It's early to tell yet- but there are strong indications that "radio-pollution" does have a negative effect on the environment.

Why won't you consider the other studies?
-----

Anyway, returning to the issue of the birds.

A sudden hypoxia? Over 1000 birds in the space of a couple of days?

Very strange.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

a) I don't trust "official" studies- especially when other experts are hinting at other things.

Hey, scientists need to eat too. Nobody would object to funding studies to look for "risks" unless they had something to hide, right?


Health Controversy

The root of the cell phone controversy—are RFs from cell phones safe?—stems from what is known already about the “biological effects” of large amounts of RFs on the human body. In large doses, RFs can break down tissue in the body and wreak havoc with DNA.

Yes, large doses of anything can injure and kill. But how much are the vast majority of people exposed to? Also, what kind of people if any typically live near phone masts? I don't imagine a towering steel pylon does much for property prices.


But the emissions from cell phones are reportedly minimal and pose no danger, so says the FCC, which has been responsible for dissemination of this data for years.

Anyone would be able to check their figures with cheap detector equipment and some simple experiments. For example, try boiling an egg by holding it between two mobile phones. You'll see it won't work.


[I][SIZE=1]Most troubling to many people is a statement like this, also from the FCC: “It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine what effects actually occur and whether they are dangerous to people.” So one might imply that the FCC really has no idea of the “actual” effect of RFs on people.
http://www.cellphonesafety.org/health/radio.htm

Erm, that just proves my point. Like typical bureaucrats they're being overly cautious.


b) It's early to tell yet- but there are strong indications that "radio-pollution" does have a negative effect on the environment.

Why won't you consider the other studies?

I've said it more than once now; plausible mechanism. Considering not only the energy of the emissions under question, but also a little thing called the inverse square law; as distance from an emission source doubles, intensity drops to a quarter.

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/www.projectrho.com/rocket/images/spacegunconvent/inverseSquare.jpg


Anyway, returning to the issue of the birds.

A sudden hypoxia? Over 1000 birds in the space of a couple of days?

Very strange.

I didn't know radio emissions could destroy oxygen! http://www.emoticons.online.fr/smileys/Default/innocent.gif

[ComradeMan]

Hey, scientists need to eat too. Nobody would object to funding studies to look for "risks" unless they had something to hide, right?

Not so fast... it's easy to look for something in particular and conveniently underplay or ignore other things to give an inconclusive result. ;)



Yes, large doses of anything can injure and kill. But how much are the vast majority of people exposed to? Also, what kind of people if any typically live near phone masts? I don't imagine a towering steel pylon does much for property prices.

Actually there is one not far from where I live. The local residents have complained too. They are all over the place anyway- just think if you live in a city how much you are bombarded by waves all the time. I hear my neighbours sms messages arriving via my hi-fi. :lol:dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit...


Anyone would be able to check their figures with cheap detector equipment and some simple experiments. For example, try boiling an egg by holding it between two mobile phones. You'll see it won't work.

No one is saying that, they are suggesting cumulative effects. Plus there was an experiment that showed DNA alterations on nemetode worms or something.


Erm, that just proves my point. Like typical bureaucrats they're being overly cautious..

Or they are worried about the potential lawsuits in 20 years time....;)


I've said it more than once now; plausible mechanism. Considering not only the energy of the emissions under question, but also a little thing called the inverse square law; as distance from an emission source doubles, intensity drops to a quarter. ..

Yes you are right- as far as we know.

On the other hand you should also value some observational "fieldwork" and frequently people do complain of adverse effects near large sources of radio energy. Amateur radio users also take precautions for the cumulative effects.

I'm just keeping an open mind on this subject.



I didn't know radio emissions could destroy oxygen! http://www.emoticons.online.fr/smileys/Default/innocent.gif

:confused:I didn't say they did. That was the latest reason for the bird deaths. The radio waves interference with migration was what I was wondering about before the hypoxia theory was published.

[ComradeMan]

Hypoxia- the bird deaths occurred not far from an industrial area.

I was thinking, what could cause a sudden and concentrated deprivation of oxygen that would lead to the deaths?

Perhaps a rogue gas cloud?

[Havet]

Here's a funny look into the event

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-disaster-movie-explanations-all-these-dead-birds/

[ComradeMan]

Here's a funny look into the event

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-disaster-movie-explanations-all-these-dead-birds/

I don't think it's funny to be honest.

[Havet]

I don't think it's funny to be honest.

You always gotta spoil the fun...

[Che a chara]

Mystery solved everyone. let's all go home.

V17WGTvPHGg

apparently sunflower seed gluttony is being blamed for the Italian bird deaths by several scientists.

[ComradeMan]

That's seem like a lot of rubbish!

As far as I know the sunflowers at this time of year in northern-central Italy don't have seeds to start with if they are even growing- secondly, how does sunflower gluttony equate with hypoxia? The Huffington article quotes someone mentioning a nearby sunflower oil factory- I can't speak for the factory but if this were the case, where did 1000 turtles doves arrive and suddenly eat all of these stored seeds? Yeah, like if I have a factory producing oil there is going to be a mechanism for 1000s of birds to come and eat my raw materials. If they mean the shells, well I'm not sure the birds would eat them once the seed part has been crushed and the oil extracted- in that case the discarded materials would be very low in proteins.

Either way, the initial reports suggested symptoms of hypoxia, now this.

I'm not sure I believe this one...

[Scary Monster]

I think this is sensationalism also. Ive always thought animals suddenly dropping dead has been goin on for quite a while. Earliest i can remember is how dolphins or whales in the pacific were killed by sonar emissions from U.S. navy ships or submarines a few years ago. I think this might just be a result of military activity like sonar and radar waves, and human activity in general.

[Ele'ill]

The logical explanation is an invisible war being waged between US and ally forces (invisible women and men) and invisible alien repto-men/women news interviewees and reporters (they're always interviewees or reporters- always). Their invisible weapons did it.

Perhaps a sudden front pushed the flock of birds up and up and up and they got careless and didn't bring their high altitude oxygen systems with them because they were drunk from eating the fermented fruit that they raided from the repto-people which is why the US and ally forces are losing because the repto-peeps would otherwise be drunk and losing. Maybe they weren't birds at all but servants of Mordor and we all know what you can't do into Mordor.


Who's high? OUR high!

[Scary Monster]

The logical explanation is an invisible war being waged between US and ally forces (invisible women and men) and invisible alien repto-men/women news interviewees and reporters (they're always interviewees or reporters- always). Their invisible weapons did it.

Perhaps a sudden front pushed the flock of birds up and up and up and they got careless and didn't bring their high altitude oxygen systems with them because they were drunk from eating the fermented fruit that they raided from the repto-people which is why the US and ally forces are losing because the repto-peeps would otherwise be drunk and losing. Maybe they weren't birds at all but servants of Mordor and we all know what you can't do into Mordor.


Who's high? OUR high!

Lol. Youre definitely smokin that good stuff rite now. I could use some! :lol::lol:;):lol:

[Rooster]

Well, I've been speaking to a friend who's there right now about it. Apparently people have "heard" of it, but no one's actually seen any evidence of flocks of dead birds.