<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 8/5/2011 1:05 PM, Ocean Swells wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABrDd29rCmniWb9p60C3yPPy8qaC7XUE6w2W_=DBO6iLttL_Mg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I concur with Sacie, that your response was measured, well written,
and thoughtful, however, like many well respected scientists, you have
made the following assumptions, and by assumptions, I mean assumptions
that have not been proven:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is useful to keep in mind that the actual risk posed by a potential
danger is a function of:
1.) peak dose
2.) cumulative dose for things that accumulate
3.) repair rate/damage tolerance
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I don't have the time to look up the studies, however, there have been
studies, and theories, that suggest that amplitude (peak dosage,
cumulative dosage) are not the only possible risks. Studies have
suggested that wave form and frequency (even in very small amplitudes)
have caused biological effects, both positive and negative.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It would be more complete to list the dosing as a "dosing profile".
That encompasses the actual dosing seen, peaks, cumulative,
intervals, etc. It is analogous to the chart you would get by
graphing river flow rates and water levels, or personal food
consumption, or electrical energy usage of a home) over time. The
locations of the various events on the profile can be used to
determine whether flooding, starving/overstuffing, or
brownouts/circuit failures occur (or whether a dose is too high).<br>
<br>
More below.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/5/2011 1:13 PM, Ocean Swells wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABrDd29xj6JmUem4d=giCMPjEQ952JToyQd+6=JmfK_tBam7eA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" style="font-family:
-moz-fixed; font-size: 13px;" lang="x-unicode">
<pre wrap="">Let me rephrase that: high dosage has been proved to be harmful. The
assumption that has not been proven is that high dosage is the only
harmful effect of EMF on biological systems.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>made the following assumptions, and by assumptions, I mean assumptions
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>that have not been proven:
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">>> </span>It is useful to keep in mind that the actual risk posed by a potential
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">>> </span>danger is a function of:
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">>> </span>1.) peak dose
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">>> </span>2.) cumulative dose for things that accumulate
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">>> </span>3.) repair rate/damage tolerance
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
One must be careful about the conclusions one draws about the
exposure risks other species face vs the risks humans face. We use
other organisms as test subjects to check on the danger that might
be posed by a new medicine or other suspected threat. Not
everything that affects them affects us in the same way.<br>
<br>
A short list of some items we have all around us, and some of which
we eat, that are known to be bad news for other species we keep as
pets and farm animals:<br>
Chocolate for cats, dogs, birds<br>
Caffeine for birds<br>
Onions for cats, dogs, horses, sheep and cattle<br>
Wilted red maple leaves and yew parts for horses<br>
Buckthorn for sheep<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Another thing...everything is a chemical or composition of
chemicals...water, salt, wine, vinegar, sugar, olive oil, steak,
etc. Just because something is natural does not mean it is
safe...arsenic and cyanide and scorpion/rattlesnake poison are all
very natural. The general term for fear of chemicals is
chemophobia, and fear of technology is technophobia.<br>
<br>
Chemical names:<br>
water = dihydrogen monoxide (hydrogen + oxygen)<br>
salt = sodium chloride (sodium + chlorine)<br>
wine = water + ethanol + traces of other chemicals<br>
drinkable alcohol = ethane alcohol = ethanol (hydrogen + carbon)<br>
white salad vinegar = water + acetic acid (5%)<br>
white sugar = saccharose;
β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside;
β-(2S,3S,4S,5R)-fructofuranosyl-α-(1R,2R,3S,4S,5R)-glucopyranoside<br>
olive oil = mostly oleic acid and palmitic acid<br>
steak = water + multiple amino acids + multiple fatty acids + traces
of other chemicals<br>
<br>
I am not saying that all fears are unfounded; some fears are well
founded and are backed by good, reproducible, demonstrable, and
predictable science. Some fears are based on intuitions that until
given a solid basis remain unfounded fears. It takes significant
research to bridge the gaps.<br>
<br>
I am saying that choosing moderation tends to result in better
outcomes than choosing excess, whatever the item or topic of concern
is. Moderation and balance, not excess and intolerance, is at the
solution to many challenges. Life can usually overcome innumerable
small challenges; huge obstacles can overload the mechanisms that
enable us to overcome obstacles in general and leave us stranded and
permanently injured. That applies to many poisons as well...in low
dosages nothing happens, in higher dosages problems occur, and very
high dosages they are fatal. Apple seeds and cassava root (tapioca)
contain a small amount of cyanide precursors, yet do not poison us
when ingested in small quantities. Water can also be toxic when
drank in large quantities.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>