Best friend

Hawkster · Apr 11, 2023

Heads up, some of those fancy training collars must not be taking in consideration for the dogs health, it's like hanging a microwave on thier neck.
This one with GPS and fence parameter setting failed. ****ing retards
It sends out signal every 2 or 3 seconds.
One is like 223 V/m and the one showing in the pic the third one I couldn't get a reading besides a red flash which could mean minimal value detected and then it repeats the sequence.
Those numbers are a long ways off from 40V/m

This below is a cheaper trainer, no bells just a transmitter and collar. Quite a difference, nothing transmitting.

The reason why I dialed into this is because I wanted to keep track of Kaiser in town for many reasons
I put that new fancy collar on him and his personality completely shut down. He was actually hanging his head just a little, enough to be noticeable to me. He's an 80# dog, that collar is no different than a wet coat.
I put the basic collar on and he was back to normal. Did it two different times then finally realized there's something wrong.

Hawkster · Apr 11, 2023

Compare the decimal points from below and above.

What have studies shown about possible associations between non-ionizing EMFs and cancer in children?

Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (13–15). (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.
Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (16), more recent studies have had mixed findings (17–25). Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences.
Several studies have analyzed the combined data from multiple studies of power line exposure and childhood leukemia:

A pooled analysis of nine studies reported a twofold increase in risk of childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.4 μT or higher. Less than 1% of the children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (26).
A meta-analysis of 15 studies observed a 1.7-fold increase in childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.3 μT or higher. A little more than 3% of children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (27).
More recently, a pooled analysis of seven studies published after 2000 reported a 1.4-fold increase in childhood leukemia among children with exposures of 0.3 μT or higher. However, less than one half of 1% of the children in the studies experienced this level of exposure (28).

For the two pooled studies and the meta-analysis, the number of highly exposed children was too small to provide stable estimates of the dose–response relationship. This means that the findings could be interpreted to reflect linear increases in risk, a threshold effect at 0.3 or 0.4 μT, or no significant increase.
The interpretation of the finding of increased childhood leukemia risk among children with the highest exposures (at least 0.3 μT) is unclear.