disable smart key system?

And I can have a nap either time here in Australia.

 

And I saw it messed up at 3AM Eastern time. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping.

 

Next you'll be saying it's me keeping you awake!

 

You are not my type

 

See edit above,. #43 Roflmao!!

 

I wouldn't like to be in a washing machine either. Water can be very dangerous. People drown. Yet I still drink it.

Whether something is safe or not can depend greatly on the type and degree of exposure to it.

Xrays are used in the UK National Health Service and patients are referred for them by GPs who have no financial interest in xray technology and who take an oath to act in their patients' best interest.

There is a measurable risk involved- but the benefit of the diagnostic function is judged, on a case by case basis, to outweigh the risk.

Likewise people judge that they will take the risk of flying and the associated xray exposure- for the sake of the benefits.

See air travel - To how much radiation are you exposed on a transcontinental flight? - Travel Stack Exchange

On the more general topic of the safety of exposure to electromagnetic fields, I would recommend reading this:

Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports: "Shock Journalism — The Junk Reporting Behind the Power Line-Cancer Connection."

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Interesting choice of a supposedly safe situation.

Flight Crews Have Higher Cancer Risk

"We found that those who have been flying for five or more years have double the risk of breast cancer compared to those flying shorter periods,"​

 

I rather agree with that article. It says that there is evidence, but it's not all that strong. Fumento makes a much larger deal of it than the scientists that he quotes.

Reluctant Sources

The scientific debate about possible EMF risk is ongoing. But it is those on whom Brodeur depends for scientific backing who are most critical of his writing, presumably because they feel their work is being misappropriated.​

To read Brodeur, you would think Sam Milham has provided the smoking gun linking worker exposure to EMF and cancer. Yet the Worcester (Mass.) Sunday Telegram cited Milham as saying, "My mind is still open on whether the general public has a significant risk." But, he said, "to put things in perspective, I don’t think the risk is an inordinate one. In other words, a whole lot of cancer can’t be related to electric fields and power lines."

David Savitz is probably the best-known EMF epidemiologist. He authored a Denver study linking power lines to childhood leukemia and is cited repeatedly in The New Yorker and Currents of Death. Brodeur writes, "Far and away the greatest blow to the effort of the utility industry to deny that 60-hertz electric and magnetic fields could pose a health hazard came on November 20, 1986, when Savitz and his colleagues announced the results of their long-awaited...study."

But Savitz panned Currents of Death in his review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, writing:​

If held to the standard of a balanced, scientific review of the evidence, Currents of Death simply fails. There is little evident attempt to separate legitimate criticism of the scientific evidence suggesting health harm from irrational resistance based on the implications of that evidence. Personal or institutional bias is invoked as the only possible reason for failure to accept what the author (but few others) considers irrefutable evidence. Deficiencies in some studies are not mentioned, while contradictory evidence receives strong criticism.Indeed, in response to the Brodeur EMF scare, Savitz felt compelled to issue an open letter to "Persons concerned about reports of electromagnetic fields and childhood cancer." In it, he stressed the inconclusive results of his study and stated that "interest or concern may be justified, but our study is not sufficiently convincing to warrant drastic action by homeowners."
​

I found Milham to be a careful scientist dedicated to unraveling the truth in a controversial area. I'm not familiar with Savitz, but he appears to be equally dedicated to the truth. Fumento doesn't help the cause of truth with his selective sensationalism.

My take on EMF and cancer is that there is a connection that I'll rate at under 1%. Cancer is condition of attrition between promotion and clearing. There are studies that indicate a 70% reduction in breast cancer risk in people with moderate vitamin D levels versus those with low levels. Wow! Take 5,000 IU of D3 a day (I take 20,000 IU for a blood level of 99 ng/ml, plus K2 & no extra calcium).

I'll avoid EMF where I can, take lots of D3, and watch for any new science that points to doing something different.

 

So far as air crew are concerned this makes my point perfectly. The degree of exposure of air crew is vastly more than the degree of exposure for ordinary passengers because of the frequency of the aircrew flying. So their risk is far greater.

So my point again is that the degree of risk depends on the type and degree of exposure, for many things, including electromagnetic forces.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

The flight crews double their risk of cancer with 5 years of exposure. Crews don't fly for 60 years, but passengers do. The risk is real and documented. And how many airlines inform their crews about the risk? Anybody ever hear anything from an airline about a risk?

I for one would like to see the results of a study that includes vitamin D levels in those flight crews who did/did not actually get cancer. My guess is that D is protective, but more (any?) data would be useful.

 

In almost no cases do passengers spend as much time in the air over their lifetimes than aircrews do. To avoid the very small radiation risk, drive to your destination and expose yourself to the tenfold greater risk of death by accident in the car. The choice is yours. No one is hiding anything from anyone that cares enough to do the research.

 

Actually, it's 112 times greater risk in a car than a commercial aircraft per: Transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking, cycling - Journalist's Resource Journalist's Resource

 

We rarely get younger over time.

Loss of hair MAY be related to aging.
(smiling, as I run my fingers through my full, thick mane ...)

 

Hair today, gone tomorrow!


iPhone ?

 

After adding up all the "insignificant" exposures we get today, we end up with a significantly higher cancer rate than before all those "insignificant" exposures.

I'm reminded of a friend's dad who was diagnosed with prostate cancer. With radiation treatment, he lived another 2 miserable years. Without the treatment, he'd probably have lived another 10 years. They've backed off a bit on treating prostate cancer (they call "watchful waiting" a treatment) since then. Nobody mentioned vitamin D, diet, or god forbid, IPT (insulin potentiated treatment). These days, I'd add ozone treatment like we're slowly learning about from Cuba.

We have a society that is driven by selling products. Dangers of products are ignored if possible, then scoffed at if ignoring doesn't work. Eventually when a danger is too noticeable to ignore, an expensive treatment is introduced. When warning are issued, they are overloaded with so many other warnings that nobody pays attention to any of them (try counting the warning stickers on a ladder).

With regard to the Prius, all the indications I've seen have been that the Prius is actually lower on EMF exposure than other vehicles. It would appear that Toyota took the potential dangers seriously, and actively controlled the EMF level.

 

Here's one you didn't see coming...

One of the sources of EMF is the switching power supplies driving the transmitting equipment at cell towers. The power supplies back feed the power lines with switching noise. The switching noise fed through the power lines could be more of a problem than the RF transmission from the tower.

 

When I was really young, I fell over often, talked rubbish, wrote scribble and had indisciplined bladder control.
I think I may be getting younger again!

 

Why do you think I wouldn't see that coming. EMF is EVERYwhere. Get used to that. It is inescapable. And, as far as has ever been shown in epidemiological studies, unimportant. There simply isn't enough energy in those photons to damage DNA, unlike ionizing radiation.

 

The one place in the US where EMF is (almost) eliminated is the quiet zone. See post 14 for more information.

 

Forgive me. I should have said with the exception of special exclusion zones...