+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

  1. Link to Post #61
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,410
    Thanks
    74,439
    Thanked 269,468 times in 19,895 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge


  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    BMJ (31st August 2019), boja (5th November 2018), Dennis Leahy (5th November 2018), greybeard (11th November 2018), Hervé (5th November 2018), Ivanhoe (23rd August 2019), Mercedes (23rd August 2019), peterpam (5th November 2018), RunningDeer (5th November 2018), Satori (28th August 2019), Spellbound (5th November 2018), Valerie Villars (5th November 2018), Yoda (5th November 2018)

  3. Link to Post #62
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,085
    Thanks
    26,981
    Thanked 47,468 times in 9,656 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Government Study Finds ‘Clear Evidence’ for Heart Tumors From Cellphone Radiation
    Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    11/8/18
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=465195496

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” in 2011. Since then, evidence of harm has only grown stronger
    Two major studies published in 2018 link cellphone radiation to DNA damage and cancer
    Research by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” for heart tumors in male rats. These tumors started developing around week 70, and are similar to human acoustic neuromas that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
    NTP also found “some evidence” of brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors in male rats, as well as “equivocal” or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders
    Corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute also shows clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors, but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP, and below the U.S. safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission
    Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold-standard for the classification of toxins.

    This classification was based on evidence showing that non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

    Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

    The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

    Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors
    The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest), “some evidence,” “equivocal evidence,” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTPs final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

    • Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

    • Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

    (Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

    • Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

    • Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

    The studies also found evidence of:

    • Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

    • DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

    • Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

    Are Humans at Risk?
    According to The New York Times:9

    “‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

    But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

    The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

    While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

    Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs.

    Tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors and smart meters, just to name a few, are also sources of similarly harmful radiation, and an even stronger EMF exposure at about the same 5 GHz frequency are Wi-Fi routers that virtually everyone is exposed to 24/7. So, my guess is that the RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

    Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health
    As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:10

    “Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

    Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

    The brain has no Schwann cells —the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

    While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

    Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation
    In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,11,12,13,14 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low−frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)15 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

    Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

    For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.16 Peroxynitrites in turn:

    Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.17 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease18
    Can cause single-strand DNA breaks19
    This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low−frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,20 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

    Download Interview Transcript

    Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure
    While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,21 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.22 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

    Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,23 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent, even if brain cancer cases are lagging. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

    Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.24

    According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,25 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

    According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.26,27,28,29,30 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

    Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.31,32 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.33

    US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety
    NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

    This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

    In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:34

    “The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

    We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

    In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

    NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

    Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambigious) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

    Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

    NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits
    While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

    The Ramazzini study35 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)36,37,38 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

    While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones (near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter39 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

    To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

    As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

    The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.

    Telling Trend: Silicon Valley Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids to Use the Technology They Created
    The good news is that after more than a decade of mounting warnings, many are finally starting to take cellphone exposure seriously — at least as it pertains to their kids. Adults still struggle to curb their own cellphone and computer use, but at least minimizing exposure to children is a step in the right direction, and in my view a really crucial one.

    The New York Times recently reported on the trend among Silicon Valley parents to forbid the use of tablets, computers, cellphones and TV’s by their young children, and nannies are increasingly having to sign contracts to that end. New York Times contributor Nellie Bowles writes:40

    “Even a little screen time can be so deeply addictive, some parents believe, that it’s best if a child neither touches nor sees any of these glittering rectangles. These particular parents, after all, deeply understand their allure … Enter the Silicon Valley nanny, who each day returns to the time before screens.

    ‘Usually a day consists of me being allowed to take them to the park, introduce them to card games,’ said Jordin Altmann, 24, a nanny in San Jose, of her charges. ‘Board games are huge. Almost every parent I work for is very strong about the child not having any technical experience at all … In the last two years, it’s become a very big deal’ …

    The fear of screens has reached the level of panic in Silicon Valley. Vigilantes now post photos to parenting message boards of possible nannies using cellphones near children. Which is to say, the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them …

    ‘The people who are closest to tech are the most strict about it at home,’ said Lynn Perkins, the C.E.O. of UrbanSitter, which she says has 500,000 sitters in the network throughout the United States. ‘We see that trend with our nannies very clearly.’”

    Take Safety Precautions to Lower Your Family’s EMF Exposure
    cellphone radiation
    There’s no doubt in my mind that RF-EMF exposure is a significant health hazard that will damage your DNA and contribute to premature death. It needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, and that of your family. To learn more about the special risks RF-EMF pose to your little ones, see “Children’s Health Expert Panel on Cellphones and Wi-Fi.”

    To protect yourself and your family from cellphone radiation and other sources of harmful EMF’s, consider taking the following precautions:

    Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.41

    When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. I typically use my cellphone less than 30 minutes a month, and mostly when traveling. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

    Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

    If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

    Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

    Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.42

    If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

    Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

    Refuse smart meters as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98 to 99 percent.43

    Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

    Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (30th May 2019), BMJ (31st August 2019), greybeard (11th November 2018), RunningDeer (9th November 2018), Valerie Villars (8th November 2018)

  5. Link to Post #63
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,085
    Thanks
    26,981
    Thanked 47,468 times in 9,656 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Clear Evidence Of Cancer” From Cell Phone Radiation:
    U.S. National Toxicology Program Releases Final Report On Animal Study
    https://ehtrust.org/clear-evidence-o...-animal-study/

    "The final peer reviewed NIH reports confirm evidence of an association between cell phone radiation and both heart and brain cancers in large-scale animal study.

    U.S. National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program (NTP) concludes that there is “clear evidence” that male rats developed cancerous heart tumors from exposure to cell phone radio frequency radiation according to final reports on Rats and Mice released today. In addition, they conclude the increased tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats were “some evidence” of cancer from the cell phone radiation exposure. According to NIH, the final reports on rats and mice represent “the consensus of NTP” and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the study data in March and voted to strengthen the conclusion that cell phone radiation caused health effects. Scientists are now calling for federal action – a quantitative risk assessment and protective policies to reduce wireless exposure.

    John Bucher, PhD, NTP senior scientist, stated in the NIH press release, “We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed.”

    The NIH/NTP Website has released final reports from the rat and mouse studies, a press release and new fact sheet.

    “This animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the U.S., conclusively confirms that radio frequency radiation is a Category 1 human carcinogen,” explains Anthony Miller MD, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus, author of 600 scientific publications medical advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT), who has served as an advisor to the World Health Organization and co-authored a review paper of the scientific evidence in the journal Environmental Research presenting these conclusions.

    EHT has launched a public awareness campaign to raise awareness about how to reduce exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation. The campaign includes printable posters, postcards and shareable videos.

    “More than a decade since it was first proposed, and after unprecedented reviews, the NTP has finally released a report confirming what hundreds of other studies have shown—namely that cell phone radiation levels we all encounter every day significantly increase malignant rare tumors of the brain and nerves as well as cause damage to the heart and DNA. Were this any other modern agent, the appropriate regulatory agencies would be taking immediate action to reduce exposures. It is unconscionable that we continue to give millions (of children) the capacity to keep these cancer-increasing devices on their bodies all day or night. People have a right to know that phones are two-way, microwave-radiating radios that should be used with caution. United States owes its citizens better,“ stated Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Professor of Medicine at Hebrew University and President of Environmental Health Trust. “We would not give children cigarettes and alcohol. Why are we giving them devices that increase their risk of cancer years later?”

    “Cell phones expose us to levels 2 to 10 times higher than FCC according to cell phone radiation tests conducted by the French National Frequencies Agency on hundreds of cell phones. This is because cell phones are not tested in the way they are used—touching the body. When phones are radiation tested at body contact, they exceed limits,“ stated Davis, referring to the Phonegate Scandal that resulted in phones being removed from the market in Europe.

    “An important lesson that should be learned from this is we can no longer assume any current or future wireless technology is safe.” Ronald Melnick, PhD, who led the design of the NTP study in his 28-year career as a scientist at the National Toxicology Program and is currently senior advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT), stated, “The NTP studies in experimental animals were designed to test the long held assumption that radio frequency radiation at seemingly ‘low’ non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause harmful health effects. It failed the test. Cell phone radiation clearly caused cancer in these animals.” Read Dr. Melnick’s full statement here.

    “What should happen now is the FDA should be immediately working on developing a quantitative risk assessment from this data and in the meantime the FDA, FCC and other agencies should promote cautionary measures for the population—especially for children,” said Melnick who recently published an article in the journal Environmental Research debunking widely circulated criticisms of the NTP study.

    “Based on these and other peer-reviewed findings, if radiofrequency radiation were a drug, it would have been pulled off the market. Peer-reviewed studies have found effects on brain development, memory, sleep and fertility and other biologically important endpoints from oxidative stress to headaches to hearing and vision problems, especially in children,” Davis added.”Over 236 scientists from 41 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on this issue are appealing to the United Nations for stronger regulations to reduce public exposure.”

    “Considering the widespread exposure among our children and the proliferation of cell towers to prepare for 5G, these findings should not be minimized. Effects were found at non-thermal levels, which means that FCC limits are not protective. Until research tells us otherwise, we can no longer assume wireless devices are safe,” said Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT. “The rollout of 5G small cells must be halted. Schools need to install wired Internet networks and use cords to connect devices. Landlines should be maintained throughout communities. Practical solutions exist such as ethernet and fiber optic networks. Let’s use them.

    “It is time for the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control to update their websites with concise recommendations that the public should reduce exposure. Public Health Departments need to launch ongoing public awareness campaigns to educate the public about how to reduce emissions and exposures. Everyone needs to understand just how easy it is to use safe wired technologies, especially at home. Employers need to prioritize this issue and make changes in the workplace to limit and minimize emissions and exposures in the workplace. So far, they have been given no choice. We have a responsibility to living and future generations to take action on this issue now.”



    Environmental Health Trust Recommendations

    In light of the NTP study EHT recommends:

    The FDA prioritize and perform a quantitative risk assessment to determine the levels of risk to humans.
    The private sector launch a research and development program that will ensure consumers have safe technology choices available in the marketplace—meaning devices that have wired connection capability with the ability to quick-disconnect all wireless/bluetooth functions.
    The EPA along with relevant health agencies launch a full systematic and independent review of all scientific evidence.
    The CDC, NCI and FDA issue clear comprehensive public health recommendations to the public about how to reduce personal firsthand and secondhand exposures to radiation emitted by cell phones, tablets and all wireless devices, accessories and appliances via well-funded ongoing public awareness campaigns.
    Policy that will eliminate and reduce exposure from cell towers, indoor and outdoor base stations and Wi-Fi in neighborhoods, community centers, healthcare facilities, places of worship and schools.
    Informational labeling on all cell phones and wireless devices that are capable of emitting radio frequency radiation.
    An immediate full halt to 5G and small cell deployment.
    Background Summary

    In 1999, the FDA nominated cell phone radiation to the NTP for large-scale animal studies, stating, “the existing exposure guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures.”

    On November 1, 2018 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released their final reports on rats and mice exposed to long term radiofrequency radiation.

    The final reports concurred with the March peer review panel that the malignant schwannoma tumors found in the heart of male rats be scientifically categorized as “clear evidence of carcinogenicity” and that the malignant gliomas found in the brain of male rats be categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity.” In addition, the increased tumors of the adrenal medulla in male rats exposed to the GSM type of cell phone radiation were categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity,” adding a new type of tumor thought to be caused by the exposure. Thus, NIH accepted all of the expert peer reviewer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions regarding several effects from the exposure. The report also documents statistically significant increases in an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats.

    In addition to the heart and brain cancers, statistically significant increased numbers of tumors were found in other organs at one or more of the exposure levels studied, including the prostate gland, pituitary gland, adrenal gland, liver and pancreas.

    Environmental Health Recommends Reducing Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Exposure by

    Used a corded phone whenever possible to minimize cell phone use.
    Keep the cell phone away from your head and body.
    When talking on the cell phone, use speakerphone or wired airtube headset to reduce exposure to your brain.
    Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, bra or spandex pants.
    Laptops and tablets should always be placed on a table, not on your lap.
    Be aware of how close children are to you when you are using a cell phone or wireless device and minimize their exposure. For example do not rest a cell phone on your baby or hold a transmitting device near their bodies.
    Choose wired Internet (ethernet cable modems) at home/office instead of wireless systems. Use ethernet wired (not wireless) computers to do as much of your internet connection and social media and streaming videos.
    Choose non-wireless options instead of wireless for tech and accessories such as computers, laptops, printers, gaming consoles and handsets, security, mouse, keyboard, video cameras, HVAC, speakers, headphones, microphones and other accessories.
    Avoid sleeping next to your cell phone or wireless device. Cell phones should be powered off at night. If you use your cell phone as an alarm clock, turn the phone to airplane mode.
    Do not charge cell phones or electronics near your bed at night.
    Turn your phone off or on airplane mode with Wi-Fi/Bluetooth OFF more. Even in standby mode, your phone emits RF energy because it is constantly searching for service or new messages. If you do not need your cell phone, simply turn it off. This also applies to all other wireless devices whereby the Wi-Fi antennas can be powered off. Wifi laptops tablets and other devices such as gaming devices are always transmitting even if you are not using them so remember to power them off.
    EHT’s new public awareness posters and public service videos can be found at https://ehtrust.org/yes-cell-phones-...tion-exposure/ "

    About Environmental Health Trust

    EHT is a virtual scientific thinktank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers, and developing pilot public educational programs in Jackson, Wyoming. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently, EHT is addressing health effects of emissions caused by use of cell phones and other wireless devices and networks and recommends reducing exposure to reduce risk. The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies on cell phone radiation as more than a dozen countries officially recommend reducing wireless exposure to children and have policies in place to reduce public exposure."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (30th May 2019), BMJ (31st August 2019)

  7. Link to Post #64
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,870
    Thanks
    23,105
    Thanked 50,757 times in 8,575 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Thanks onawah et all.
    I have forwarded the report to my whole family and friends.
    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    BMJ (31st August 2019), onawah (11th November 2018)

  9. Link to Post #65
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,085
    Thanks
    26,981
    Thanked 47,468 times in 9,656 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Government Study Finds ‘Clear Evidence’ for Heart Tumors From Cellphone Radiation
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    November 14, 2018
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=470317950

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” in 2011. Since then, evidence of harm has only grown stronger
    Two major studies published in 2018 link cellphone radiation to DNA damage and cancer
    Research by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” for heart tumors in male rats. These tumors started developing around week 70, and are similar to human acoustic neuromas that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
    NTP also found “some evidence” of brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors in male rats, as well as “equivocal” or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders
    Corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute also shows a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors, but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP, and below the U.S. safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission
    Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold standard for the classification of toxins.

    This classification was based on evidence showing that nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

    Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

    The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

    Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors
    The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest); “some evidence;” “equivocal evidence;” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTP’s final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

    • Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

    • Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

    (Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

    • Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

    • Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

    The studies also found evidence of:

    • Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

    • DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

    • Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

    Are Humans at Risk?
    According to The New York Times:9

    “‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

    But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

    The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

    While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

    Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, smart appliances, smart meters and nearby cellular phone basestations are sources of similarly harmful radiation, and most of us are exposed 24/7. So, my guess is that the duration of RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

    Did NTP Minimize Press Coverage of Their Report?
    According to Microwave News, the NTP may have purposely minimized press coverage of its final report, which upgraded the risks. “Reporters were given very little notice to join the NTP teleconference on the release of the report. Nor was there much time to prepare a story for publication,” Microwave News reports,10 adding they were not informed of the teleconference via email until 10:45 a.m. October 31.

    The conference was held at 2 p.m. that same day. While NTP refused to state how many reporters were on the call, the transcript reveals only eight reporters asked questions, giving the impression that many likely missed the advisory. Editors also had precious little time to assign a reporter to cover the story. Microwave News adds:

    “The news that the NTP now believes the cancer link is “real” was under embargo until the next day, November 1. That gave the news media less than 24 hours to prepare their stories, an unusually short time for a technically complex subject. The main reason for embargoes is to give reporters time to do their homework and prepare a clear and accurate write-up …

    Even the fact that the report was coming out in less than a day was embargoed by the NTP. It apparently wanted no advance notice of any kind … There was one exception among major media outlets: The New York Times … As it happened, [William] Broad, a long-time member of the science desk, was already working on the story. He was making background calls a week earlier …

    There’s a long history of New York Times science reporters — Broad included — downplaying, if not outright dismissing, news of electromagnetic health effects. Anyone wanting to conceal the fact that NTP had found ‘clear evidence’ that cellphone radiation could lead to cancer would likely leak the story to the Times. And the Times delivered.

    Here’s the headline from its web site: ‘Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats’ … [T]here is the obvious error in the headline: NTP found more than ‘some evidence’ — it saw ‘clear evidence’ … The subhead … ‘Many Caveats Apply, and the Results Involve Radio Frequencies Long Out of Routine Use,’ offers additional — unjustifiable — reasons to discount the NTP finding.”

    The New York Times also claims the results are out of date due to the fact they used 2G, which is no longer in widespread use, and that 3G, 4G and 5G are “far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans” due to the higher frequencies. However, there’s no evidence to suggest the newer technologies are safer. Quite the contrary. As noted by Microwave News:

    “Two different German labs have exposed mice to 3G. Cancer promotion was found in each case. The lead author of the second study, Alex Lerchl, concluded that 3G signals ‘obviously enhance the growth of tumors’ … The fact is that we don’t know whether the higher G’s are any safer than 2G. Believing so is simply wishful thinking.”

    The NTP also downplayed the risks by stressing that “high exposure” was associated with cancer in male rats, when in fact the results in some instances revealed a greater effect at a lower dose.

    Such nonlinear dose response was also found in Lerchl’s study, in which a dose 50 times lower than the highest dose resulted in a greater response. “At this point, one can only guess where the threshold for RF effects may be. It could be lower than now commonly believed, possibly much lower,” Microwave News notes.

    Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health
    As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:11

    “Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

    Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

    The brain has no Schwann cells — the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

    While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

    Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation
    In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,12,13,14,15 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)16 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

    Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

    For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.17 Peroxynitrites in turn:

    Can cause single-strand DNA breaks18
    Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.19 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease20
    This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low-frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,21 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

    Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure
    While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,22 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.23 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

    Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,24 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

    Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.25

    According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,26 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

    According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.27,28,29,30,31 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

    Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.32,33 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.34

    US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety
    NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

    This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

    In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:35

    “The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

    We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

    In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

    NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

    Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambiguous) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

    Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

    NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits
    While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

    The Ramazzini study36 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)37,38,39 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

    While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones (near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter40 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

    To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

    As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

    The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.

    Telling Trend: Silicon Valley Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids to Use the Technology They Created
    The good news is that after more than a decade of mounting warnings, many are finally starting to take cellphone exposure seriously — at least as it pertains to their kids. Adults still struggle to curb their own cellphone and computer use, but at least minimizing exposure to children is a step in the right direction, and in my view a really crucial one.

    The New York Times recently reported on the trend among Silicon Valley parents to forbid the use of tablets, computers, cellphones and TVs by their young children, and nannies are increasingly having to sign contracts to that end. New York Times contributor Nellie Bowles writes:41

    “Even a little screen time can be so deeply addictive, some parents believe, that it’s best if a child neither touches nor sees any of these glittering rectangles. These particular parents, after all, deeply understand their allure … Enter the Silicon Valley nanny, who each day returns to the time before screens.

    ‘Usually a day consists of me being allowed to take them to the park, introduce them to card games,’ said Jordin Altmann, 24, a nanny in San Jose, of her charges. ‘Board games are huge. Almost every parent I work for is very strong about the child not having any technical experience at all … In the last two years, it’s become a very big deal’ …

    The fear of screens has reached the level of panic in Silicon Valley. Vigilantes now post photos to parenting message boards of possible nannies using cellphones near children. Which is to say, the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them …

    ‘The people who are closest to tech are the most strict about it at home,’ said Lynn Perkins, the CEO of UrbanSitter, which she says has 500,000 sitters in the network throughout the United States. ‘We see that trend with our nannies very clearly.’” "

    More at the link: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=470317950
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (29th August 2019), Bill Ryan (30th May 2019), BMJ (31st August 2019), Satori (28th August 2019)

  11. Link to Post #66
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,027 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Forget this article: Mass amnesia and the internet

    Ewan Morrison Psychology Today
    Tue, 20 Aug 2019 06:54 UTC



    We have entered a new era of mass Historical Amnesia, and oddly enough, we really seem to be enjoying it. To force a metaphor, it's like we're burning the entire library of history so we can toast marshmallows on the flames.

    The main reason for this new period of forgetting is the internet. And this is ironic because the internet was supposed to be the great engine of eternal remembering, the infinite library of Jorge Luis Borges brought to life. Once information entered the net it was supposed to remain there, fixed and saved forever, or so the pioneering seers of the internet proclaimed back in the 90s. However, without us realizing it, the internet has unleashed a spate of unintended consequences — as all unmonitored mass psycho-social experiments tend to, and all are connected to different aspects of amnesia; from brain function to historical erasure.

    The first form of the New Amnesia is the shrinkage of concentration spans caused by mobile phone usage. A Microsoft Corp study of 2015 revealed that the attention spans decreased from 12 seconds on average in 2000 to just 8.25 seconds in 2015. That's a human attention span which is shorter than that of a goldfish (9 seconds). This is going on while we rewire our brains to skim and flick, with the average phone user picking up their phone 1,500 times per week, or 214 times a day. That's a lot of distraction.

    In "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains," journalist Nicholas Carr claimed that the internet is teaching our brains, through neuroplasticity, to inhabit a distracted mode, more and more of the time. We're fooling ourselves into thinking we're multi-tasking when all we are doing is learning how to skim, forget and move on. This habit prevents people from retaining content because so much information is being presented at the same time. We're overloaded and we're forgetting even as we watch.

    In our increasingly tech-dependent society exposure to cell phone radiation may also negatively affect the brains of adolescents, causing potentially harmful effects to their memory performance, according to a research team at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute. We're also becoming dependent on the internet to 'be our memory for us'. Rather than trawl our minds for facts, we jump on Google. How many times have you done this yourself, when stuck for a word or fact while in company with friends? "Wait," you say 'I'll Google it". As a result, we're letting natural personal brain memory atrophy and 'digital dementia' is occurring, according to German neuroscientist Manfred Spitzer.

    We're also scrambling the historical record through a plague of misattribution. It may not seem that important but, for example, the philosophers Epictetus (55-135AD) and Epicurus (341-270 BC) are now hopelessly confused with each other on internet quote-memes. Tragic really as Epictetus wrote at length on the dangers of Epicureanism. On a more trivial level — unless you're in the music business — the pop song "My Sharona" (1979) by "The Knack" is misattributed to The Ramones, across millions of views with dozens of social media and music sites duplicating the attribution error.

    Politicians are also increasingly credited with things they didn't say. There's "9 popular quotes commonly misattributed to Abe Lincoln." Hillary Clinton has had to fight off quotes attributed to her that she never uttered, while Donald Trump used the saying, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win," during his 2016 presidential campaign, attributing it, as many others have done, to Mahatma Ghandi; but there is no record of Ghandi ever having said this. Misattribution online only gets compounded over time. It acts like a palimpsest; erasing the truth that lay beneath it.


    Maya Angelou reading at Clinton inauguration (1993) © Wikipedia

    In 2015, a Maya Angelou commemorative stamp featured a quote she didn't write:
    "A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song."
    The quote actually comes from Joan Walsh Anglund, a children's book author, from her poetry collection "A Cup of Sun" in 1967. The misattribution originated from internet memes and no one noticed the mistake until it was already too late. The commemorative stamp with the epic misquote was endorsed at a large opening ceremony attended by Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, so the misattribution entered history with a fanfare.

    It's rather disturbing, given that the stamp was originally commissioned as a result of a political petition to the United States Postal Service. A petition which included the argument: "Stamps have featured people for their notable accomplishments in the arts. They have included American heroes, but one is missing." Ironically, and sadly, the stamp ended up embodying just how little factual history matters to us today.

    Witness also the current internet debate as to whether Stalin did in fact say that famous horrific quote attributed to him on many internet sites: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic." Or whether it was, in fact, said by Oliver Cromwell, as The Independent argues or even an unnamed Frenchman in a 1948 edition of the Atlantic Magazine. And of course this confusion has knock-on effects on how we perceive Stalin, who is currently becoming popular again, as is Mao Zedong, thanks to the historical revisionism and historical amnesia. This is greatly facilitated by the internet with its websites and memes that claim that real communism has never been attempted or that the genocides, purges and man-made famines of Mao and Stalin, which collectively amount to between 60 and 120 million unnatural deaths, have been greatly exaggerated.

    The internet is particularly good at creating historical confusion around the issue of just how many deaths the communists were guilty of in the 20th century (as I explored in another essay). It is as if the internet was a machine that was invented to perpetuate and multiply the cynical postmodern mantra that there is no such thing as singular truth, only conflicting narratives of the truth. But wait, who even said that — was it Michel Foucault or Mao Zedong? Or both?

    Then there is the phenomenon of pranking on Wikipedia, one that exposes just how easy it is to tamper with history within the online encyclopedia and get away with it. In one noticeable, and light-hearted, incident, British journalist Hugo Rifkind on the day of the announcement of the royal wedding of Prince William went to the Wikipedia page for "29 April" and added some text to it. He inserted fictitious information about Queen Victoria — injuring her toe during a fly-fishing trip in Scotland in 1872. The information was then duly repeated by two of the top national newspapers in the UK — which ironically, were then later used to verify Rifkind's Wikipedia entry in a kind of informational ouroboros. Other Wikipedia pranks are not so light and extend to historical hoaxes and defamation. The gold standard for Wikipedia entries is, after all, not some notion of objective truth but that of "verifiability."


    Part 2
    There are places on the net with less exacting standards, and they can be used by people with toxic political agendas to create verification of their political beliefs through false attribution to historical figures. For example, there is the much-cited quotation attributed to Voltaire
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    Bust of Voltaire (1694-1778)

    The quote became a trending "quote of the day" in 2012, but is now believed to have originated not with Voltaire, but with White Supremacists in the same year. This "Voltaire quote" has circulated widely and has been used by both liberals and people on the right: for example by Donald Trump Jr in a tweet. Some variations of the meme design later introduced the Star of David, and in this way, anti-Semites managed to make it appear that they had the historical backing of Voltaire and the Enlightenment.

    History becomes deliberately distorted through such processes, and there are no real safeguards to stop this happening on the net.

    Then there is erasure through "Cyber-Mobbing"; this is when accusations or false accusations are made on social media that then lead to accused people being disgraced in their public and private lives, their social media accounts being suspended or shut down, their reputations and careers destroyed, and the history of their lives rewritten.

    Many innocent people have been destroyed by this process, as was illustrated by the tragic tale of "Ana Meyer," who had her personal, sexual, and medical histories rewritten online by as many as 100 trolls who wrote posts that were "explicitly designed to make her unemployable."

    Deliberate erasure extends beyond people that we do not agree with into facts we don't like, as when a group of activists decided to "erase a scientist from history" on Wikipedia. Respected German paleontologist Günter Bechly (specializing in fossil dragonflies) was an atheist who then converted to Catholicism and became an outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design. His Wikipedia page was erased for a period of time, due to pressure from "editors," downgrading the value of his scientific work.

    Certain activist types now build entire internet identities around silencing individuals that they hate online. And this rush to erase, this fear of letting enemies speak, leads to a reduction of the spaces in which history can debate. The internet has given disproportionate power to small but organized single-issue political groups intent on wiping people they target from digital history.

    Then there is sensitivity censorship by social media, as when a post or account is deemed "too shocking, disrespectful, or sensational" for Facebook. As when Facebook blocked a fundraising video for The Wounded Blue, a charity for wounded police officers, from its platform. This sensitivity-censorship phenomenon has its offline equivalent in university and high school classrooms with trigger warnings — to protect sensitive students.

    However, the idea that trigger warnings are an effective way to prevent sensitive or traumatized students from being disturbed has been thrown into doubt by a recent study from Harvard psychologists Payton Jones, Richard McNally, and Benjamin Bellet. In it, they found "substantial evidence that trigger warnings counter-therapeutically reinforce survivors' view of their trauma as central to their identity." Trigger warnings and sensitivity censorship actually have the capacity to make trauma survivors more self-conscious and fearful.

    The parts of history that some people might find distressing also can't be separated from historical facts that people might find distressing because they clash with their own political bias. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facebook is complicit in working with foreign governments in censoring online content for political reasons, such as in the case of censorship of an unflattering image of the King of Thailand shopping with a mistress. So, facts and images get written out of history.

    History itself is subject to the problem of Algorithmic bias and this leads to the state of "Eternal-Nowness" that we live with every day online. This is the biasing of internet algorithmic search results to what is new and what is popular in the now. What is trending? Since young people use the internet more, and young people have less historical knowledge, the algorithms consider The Kardashians and The Great British Bake Off to be of greater significance than the Great British debate between 20th-century economists Keynes and Hayek.

    There is also nowness-bias due to the fact that the greatest thinkers in history were peer-reviewed in learned papers, not reviewed on vlogs and blogs, not liked or clicked; so, according to the algorithms, Beyonce is millions of times more important than Henri Bergson.

    Thus, thinkers whose work has never been turned into a free-to-download digital file are simply getting lost from history, and news stories that predate digitization are getting lost, forgotten, or simply can't be accessed online. Unless the work of an author, philosopher, artist, or scientist is suddenly popularized and makes it into the digital world, then they are in danger of being lost from the internet.

    Filter Bubbles on the net, caused by the "personalization" of our searches, and the suggestions we're fed by algorithms that track our internet lives, also make sure that we only ever get the same picture of history and politics over and over again. The same view that our filter-bubble-buddies share.

    It used to be that we believed the internet was a portal to everyone in the world; now, since personalization, everything you post or share is only seen by the group of about 10 of the filter-bubble-buddies with whom you are most regularly in contact. This tiny group of online friends is your "organic reach" — what Wired calls our "hyper-personalized tribes."

    The shrinking of the organic reach and the shrinking size of our filter bubbles are a direct result of internet platforms attempting to monetize our content. If you want to reach a wider audience, break out of your filter bubble, and speak to more than 10 people, you now have to pay to "boost your post."

    Objective history fragments under the force of internet personalization; we end up with historical narratives pre-selected for us, histories that make us and our top-10 filter-bubble-buddies feel good about ourselves. If I and my nine friends are interested in the radical politics of the 60s, that's pretty much all we'll be spoon-fed by the personalized net. We also receive history and politics info with pre-selected enemies whom we can hate with one click and share with our filter-bubble-buddies.

    Even Bill Gates warned us about this. Our view of the world goes from being a glasshouse to a mirrored cube. Our view of history becomes that which backs up the attitudes we and our filter-bubble-buddies already have.

    In this restricted historical worldview, we get fed news stories and opinions that are created to make us click more, so we get horror, controversy, and fear-mongering along the lines of exactly the same news subjects that we and our friends reacted to before. It's not hard to see how political polarization and fear of people with different views from us can grow from this, and how filter-bubble personalized history leads to exaggerated, simplified, and biased views of history.

    Sadly, this is the unintended result of the rather more trivial project, run by Internet monopolies, to personalize your feed to get you to buy more stuff. A recent study showed that 93 percent of companies see an uplift in sales as a result of personalization, while 88 percent of modern consumers now expect that their online activity will be personalized to their own tastes.

    So personalisation won't be going away anytime soon. It's like we're saying, "We trashed the entire system of political debate and messed up our knowledge of history, but hey, no worries, I just got recommended a great new pair of sneakers."

    With all these factors, we're witnessing the slow demise of historical learning not by one single vast conspiracy but by a process of a thousand small deletions, omissions, and shrugs of the shoulders, as we move on to the next exciting thing.

    But never mind, you can forget this too.

    Now, what's next?


    Related:
    Last edited by Hervé; 23rd August 2019 at 15:36.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ayt (23rd August 2019), Bill Ryan (23rd August 2019), BMJ (31st August 2019), Cara (23rd August 2019), Carmody (23rd August 2019), Ivanhoe (23rd August 2019), Satori (28th August 2019), shaberon (28th August 2019), Tintin (23rd August 2019)

  13. Link to Post #67
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,379
    Thanks
    17,589
    Thanked 82,040 times in 10,210 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    The quote that was attributed to Voltaire is considered in some research, to have come from Robespierre, or the people connected to Robespierre. It is easy to see the conflation problem, as they were contemporaries in the idea of circles of influence re their time on the planet and location. Possibly during secret meetings involving Robespierre, within that group.

    Re personalization of the web.

    I don't want the internet to be personalized for me in any way, shape, or form.

    I do research by querying the web, or I used to be able to do it that way.

    With any form of filtering or personalization, comes the utter destruction of the new and the utter destruction of the concept and execution of query itself.
    Last edited by Carmody; 23rd August 2019 at 16:07.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    BMJ (31st August 2019), Caliban (24th August 2019), East Sun (28th August 2019), Keyholder (24th August 2019), shaberon (28th August 2019), Tintin (23rd August 2019)

  15. Link to Post #68
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,507
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,853 times in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    Back when the first 300 or so websites hit, and the net was still "above and beyond" the humble consumer, we were told, well, when this gets more resources, then everyone will have their own show and the result will be nothing but a pile of garbage.

    True enough.

    The net is still glorious for preserving the "real stuff", much like the de jure United States where we are free is still here, covered under the pile of de facto citizenship subjugation. So in many cases, the "good as gold" is still there, the problem is really in the manufacture of people and their mis-development.

    With the phones, we have gotten to the point where someone will come in to do a manual labor job under a written "no phones" policy, and try to work with one hand while using the phone in the other.

    As to how the mess started, Robespierre is a massive clue since this "Terrorist" was himself terrified of something he refused to name. At the time, it was mostly English, but by 1931 you could say English-French-German as one large plantation, gladly joined by those in New York.

    Phone use approaching anywhere near 241 times a day is a serious mental disease. I have never done it yet, and would prefer to smash them with a hammer. Although I would be happier if someone just decided to let go. When I was about twelve, we got some of the early cable tv and video game console and in about a year I realized I was an addict, that it's definitely not the way to live, and escaped it. Now, I suppose, if one were to suggest something about a phone might be a little excessive, you would receive nothing but sheer fury. I don't think anyone is looking for anything else or is aware there might be anything.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    Ayt (29th August 2019), BMJ (31st August 2019)

  17. Link to Post #69
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,369
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 3,854 times in 1,120 posts

    Default Re: "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge

    It's great to see you on Avalon again Foxie Loxie. I hope you are feeling better. As to that illustration by Herve. That is so true. I have an acquaintance who maintains constant contact on her cell phone which the few people she knows. I suppose they do also. I will have none of it. Possibly I am preparing to inhabit the endless void of space/time when my body expires; anything but mind control by TV, which I have not watched for years, or the cell phone or chip in hand with which they are plotting to robotize us all, and rob us of our immortal souls.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to amor For This Post:

    BMJ (31st August 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts