Birds on the wire
http://www.sirc.org/articles/birds_on_the_wire.shtml
From Karen Barratt
FYI Re: Bird on a Wire James Harkin - an Adam Burgess clone ! Maybe there is a mad scientist (in the pay of the telecoms) somewhere creating these "replicants."
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.sirc.org/about/james.shtml
--------
Hear hear! Just sent him this:
Dear Mr Harkin,
It comes as no surprise to me that the aforementioned article does not mention the effect of masts on homing pigeons, who lose their sense of direction and fly to the wrong places, often going missing never to be seen again. Perhaps you have evidence that these pigeons are acting this way because they merely perceive masts to be dangerous?
What does surprise me is that Demos, (erroneously, obviously) referred to by some as a 'left wing think tank', should publish a misinformed article that serves the interests of the industry over the general population, when there is more than enough scientific evidence already available to anyone with a knowledge of scientific studies and research. The MOA use terms like 'review after review' when they are citing their 'reasssurances' about the safety of masts. Anyone with a Bsc knows that a review is exactly what it says, it is NOT based on new research. Someone looks at the research, picks out the bits that support their argument, compiles them into a group of studies, and viola! -they have a review of the literature! Someone else with the same interests comes along and does the same, and then there are two reviews, of the SAME literature, saying the same as the previous one. And so it goes.
Meanwhile, genuine research by independent scientists is starved of funding, and the studies identifying effects that the Industry and Government do not want us to know about are brushed aside. The usual strategy is to claim that science finding adverse effects is 'inconclusive' or unreplicated. Well, guess what! So is the 'science' the government use!
Do you not find it strange that the Government's 'science' is accepted without question, despite its flaws? Or that Professors of Sociology, such as Adam Burgess, are encouraged to put forward erroneous views on the subject as though he were an actual scientist with more knowledge than eminent scientists around the world? Or that the late Richard Doll, extolled by the Government and Industry as one of the scientists to be relied upon for information, was the same man who deemed x-rays safe for pregnant women?
Amanda Wesley (Bsc)
--------
Omega see "Pulsed microwave radiation and wildlife" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/926007/
From Karen Barratt
FYI Re: Bird on a Wire James Harkin - an Adam Burgess clone ! Maybe there is a mad scientist (in the pay of the telecoms) somewhere creating these "replicants."
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.sirc.org/about/james.shtml
--------
Hear hear! Just sent him this:
Dear Mr Harkin,
It comes as no surprise to me that the aforementioned article does not mention the effect of masts on homing pigeons, who lose their sense of direction and fly to the wrong places, often going missing never to be seen again. Perhaps you have evidence that these pigeons are acting this way because they merely perceive masts to be dangerous?
What does surprise me is that Demos, (erroneously, obviously) referred to by some as a 'left wing think tank', should publish a misinformed article that serves the interests of the industry over the general population, when there is more than enough scientific evidence already available to anyone with a knowledge of scientific studies and research. The MOA use terms like 'review after review' when they are citing their 'reasssurances' about the safety of masts. Anyone with a Bsc knows that a review is exactly what it says, it is NOT based on new research. Someone looks at the research, picks out the bits that support their argument, compiles them into a group of studies, and viola! -they have a review of the literature! Someone else with the same interests comes along and does the same, and then there are two reviews, of the SAME literature, saying the same as the previous one. And so it goes.
Meanwhile, genuine research by independent scientists is starved of funding, and the studies identifying effects that the Industry and Government do not want us to know about are brushed aside. The usual strategy is to claim that science finding adverse effects is 'inconclusive' or unreplicated. Well, guess what! So is the 'science' the government use!
Do you not find it strange that the Government's 'science' is accepted without question, despite its flaws? Or that Professors of Sociology, such as Adam Burgess, are encouraged to put forward erroneous views on the subject as though he were an actual scientist with more knowledge than eminent scientists around the world? Or that the late Richard Doll, extolled by the Government and Industry as one of the scientists to be relied upon for information, was the same man who deemed x-rays safe for pregnant women?
Amanda Wesley (Bsc)
--------
Omega see "Pulsed microwave radiation and wildlife" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/926007/
Starmail - 7. Sep, 10:35
