Talk:Barrie Trower

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Topic[edit]

"Barrie Trower" doesn't come up in searches, except in fringe sites. He's probably not who he says he is. The microwave effects are well-known however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophonic_hearing — Unsigned, by: 12.163.76.42 / talk

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tone argument (also vague wording such as "the left")[edit]

I was looking for scientific evidence or at least rational argument to disprove what Dr. Barrie Trower was saying about the harmful effects of microwaves. All this article had was personal attacks against him and name calling. You just gave me my answer about him and RationalWiki.... This is the propaganda of the Left. You are dismissed. 99.129.145.29 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Credentials[edit]

Simply claiming someone is a pseudoscientist without presenting evidence doesn't prove your claim. Isn't it interesting that Dr. Trower has been invited to lecture at the University of Toronto as an expert on the dangers of WiFi Technology, and he has been termed a "U.K. expert" on microwave radiation by The Star (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/08/26/uk_expert_warns_against_wifi.html)? You would think these institutions vetted Dr. Trower's credentials, wouldn't you? And has the author of this page made any effort to search research papers on the effects of microwave radiation? Here's a link to a search on Google Scholar for "effects of microwave radiation on dna": https://tinyurl.com/yyzysd5j. Perhaps it's the author of this page who is wearing the tinfoil hat to protect their mind from reality. — Unsigned, by: Serenit / talk / contribs

@Serenit So he's been invited to give a talk. Milo used to give those too, doesn't make his claims correct. Further, so what if he got a puff piece back in 2010? Richard Spencer got one of those back in 2016-2017, so fucking what? Seriously, it'll take more than a bunch of antiquated links to prove this guy's claims correct. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol, let's excerpt some quotes from your own article to find that he's fucking nuts.

Children are physiologically and neurologically immature. It takes years for the blood-brain barrier to form, leaving children more prone to cell-leakage from microwave radiation.

Ooooh boy. Fractal wrongness there.
  1. newborn infants and adults share similar levels of blood-brain barrier permeability and the last time mainstream science thought there was any post-birth development to it was the 19-fucking-70s. So let's set aside whether he's just spouting bullshit about the basic biology.
  2. WiFi has no effect at all on a lipid layer like the blood brain barrier. It'd be like your skin melting because you were next to a router. You'd fucking notice.
  3. The relationship from there to "cell leakage", something that has never once been associated with electromagnetics(and has a lot to do with chemical processes) is pure non sequitur
  4. He cites anecdotal evidence of "fatigue, headaches, nausea, chest pain, vision problems" like every other fringe quack.
Pure crankery. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow! There's so many things wrong with what you stated, in reply to this guy's statement, it's hard knowing where to start? Well let's start at your claim: That the symptoms of WiFi sensitivity are based on "medical quackery" shall we? What you have stated there is either based on little, to no actual research; or an assumption that you don't believe it's real, so therefore because you don't believe it and you class yourself as smarter than this person questioning you, then it can't be true! I'm making an assumption myself, with regards to your opinion (and that's all it is, an opinion, when based on a lack of knowledge of the facts) There is a paper by Dr. Federica Lamech phd who has a doctorate in oncological medicine, detailing the symptoms of numerous patients with WiFi sensitivity. These symptoms are, as of yet; untreatable, with the only option available being to move away from areas with high levels of WiFi networks and have as little contact, with any technology utilising wifi, as possible. These symptoms range from heat rashes in mild cases, to severe depression in severe cases. It has even been linked to spikes in suicides situated around WiFi towers. All this is detailed in her paper (link below) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25478801/ As for the rest of your argument, it's so misguided and misinformed, with a severe lack of competent research I'll just direct you to the following sites and scientific paper pdf directories: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/wireless-radiation-stop-the-5g-network-on-earth-and-in-space-devastating-impacts-on-health-and-the-environment/5665066/amp

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

https://www.jrseco.com/european-union-5g-appeal-scientists-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

http://www.5gappeal.eu/

https://www.change.org/p/5g-network-can-cause-serious-health-issues-must-be-stopped-asap

https://www.c-span.org/video/?460706-1/state-department-official-raises-concerns-reliance-chinese-vendors-5g-networks

Letters from members of the scientific community, to the FCC

https://ehtrust.org/letter-fcc-dr-yael-stein-md-opposition-5g-spectrum-frontiers/

https://ehtrust.org/small-cells-mini-cell-towers-health-letters-scientists-health-risk-5g/

Link to PDF containing several different studies:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298533689_International_Appeal_Scientists_call_for_protection_from_non-ionizing_electromagnetic_field_exposure

Other information:

https://www.defendershield.com/5g-technology-safe-emf-radiation-emissions

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-radiation-dangers/

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Effects-of-5G-Radiation-on-the-Human-Body-Iyer/6ed85194fc6e3500fdef00b19f5ea13741133124

https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-dangers-5th-generation-wireless-technology-health-and-environmental-impacts/5663264

I think that should suffice to debunk and factually correct, your claims in this reply and your entire article on Dr Trower too?

Thank you Sam Fisher 86.13.102.89 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Sam Fisher86.13.102.89 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your claims lose most of their credibility when you cite the crank magnet Globalresearch, an unscientific blog (radiationhealthrisks.com), and a commercial site selling "EMF protection" (defendershield.com), to name just a few. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention the study in question is, ultimately, a family doctor (Dr. Federica Lamech has an MBBS from Monash University, not a PhD) taking 92 out of a grand total of 142 self-reported reports of symptoms from residents of Victoria, Australia (which I might add, is a population of 6.359 Million) and putting them into categories. That's it. It even says so in the abstract:
The author used her medical experience and judgment to group symptoms into clinically relevant clusters (eg, pain in the head was grouped with headache, tinnitus was grouped with ringing in the ears). The author stayed quite close to the wording used in the original entries. She then calculated total numbers and percentages for each symptom cluster. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number.
On top of that, it was published in "Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine" no less. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)