anti-EMF references

[Jay Reynolds]

The doctor in this video is opposed to microwaves, cell phones, wifi, and smart electric meters.
Pay attention to his call for proof of a negative ie. that emf's at these levels can do no harm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA

The Doctor isn't directly involved with any EMF research, and the place he works doesn't research EMF's either.

This fellow Dr. David O. Carpenter, MD, co-authored this document along with a woman named Carol Sage:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeacc...tors/index.htm

references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioInitiative_Report

A critical website on EMF issues:
http://www.emfandhealth.com/Criticis...titiative.html

An interesting 2 page thread from Victoria, BC Canada where Dr. Carpenter tried to stop wifi installation in schools. His testimony by skype(I assume using a wifi connection!) was rejected, with some interesting citizen reactions :
http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/...ead.php?t=5047
page 2:
http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/...?t=5047&page=2

It looks to me like this stuff is gaining traction in alliance with other CT's such as chemtrails, 911, etc.

FYI

[Mick]

It's one of those things that's kind of taken for granted by many in the conspiracy culture. Anything artificial that was invented in the last 50 years (or more, in some cases), is de facto harmful.

[Unregistered]

“It's one of those things that's kind of taken for granted by many in the conspiracy culture. Anything artificial that was invented in the last 50 years (or more, in some cases), is de facto harmful.”

This generalization is pretty much a mirror image of much of the skeptic community, where many adherents seem to love the intellectual airs and will blindly follow the corporate pontifications of certain front groups.

“It looks to me like this stuff is gaining traction in alliance with other CT's such as chemtrails, 911, etc.”

Such is life, right? Republicans/Tories/rightists takes sides against Democrats/Liberals/lefties and vice versa, and they tend to fall in lockstep. There are a lot of factors that lead people to all of these positions and none of these positions should be treated dismissively by those who have a genuine interest in truth, or likelihood.

There are many reasons why EMR needs to be treated seriously whether you believe there is something there or not because we already know that a) we are to some degree electrical beings with systems that respond to very small voltage differentials, b) because we already have scientific proof that EMR affects us in many ways, and c) our ignorance about the human body and complex electromagnetic waveforms is great.

The medical field has been using EMR for its biological effects since at least 1926, whether it's the original electrosurgery units, or ultrasound to detect images, ultrasound to destroy tissues, laser heat or pulses to destroy tissues, etc. I'll stick with one paper that's not only interesting, but it illustrates the complex nature of the interrelationships that we will have to try to understand, but will probably take many decades to learn. It's a USAF paper published in 1986 by the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education. At the beginning it mentions a few things we already know that EMR can be used for:

1. Stimulation of bone regeneration in fractures
2. Healing of normal fractures
3. Treatment of congenital pseudarthrosis
4. Healing of wounds
5. Electroanesthesia
6. Electroconvulsive therapy
7. Behavior modification in animals
8. Altered EEGs in animals and humans
9. Altered brain morphology in animals
10. Effects of acupuncture

The document covers a lot of ground, but this sentence is worth pulling out:

“[U]sing relatively low-level RFR [radiofrequency radiation], it may be possible to sensitize large military groups to extremely dispersed amounts of biological or chemical agents to which the unirradiated population would be immune.”

One of the other interesting points about the document is how wrong classical theory was about the expected biological effects of EMR. This is a good example of how informed scientific assumptions can be proven wrong by our advancing ability to research them. Scientists came to the conclusion that the interaction of electromagnetic fields and biological systems must use nonlinear wave mechanics and “some researchers have even incorporated the mathematics of chaos dynamics,” as opposed to the linear wave mechanics presumed previously.

“The result of this rethinking has been the acceptance by many scientists that intrinsic electromagnetic fields play a key role in a wide range of biological functions.”
http://www.icomw.org/documents/tyler.pdf

The conundrum is this: some people want to wait until concrete scientific proof is found, but these proofs are a long time coming due to the increased complexity of the systems we're talking about, the sometimes long incubatory periods, along with other unknown complicating factors.

I'll link to one more article. This is an English language explanation of a study performed on an electrosensitive Frenchman. Regardless of whether or not one believes this is a physiological problem, it illustrates the type of environment researchers need to use. In this case they performed an EEG on him in a 'normal' environment, then put him in a natural environment without artificial EMR. The EEG in that environment was different. Within the article are links to the original paper as well as links to related researchers.
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS_a_wor...29_08_2010.pdf

[Mick]

Unregistered, your posts will show up faster if you register, you will also be able to get email notifications of replies.

Ultrasound is not radiation. It's just sound.

The term EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) encompasses a large spectrum of different types of radiation. Many of these we get a steady stream of naturally from the sun, and from our natural environment. Saying things like lasers can me used for medical purposes is irrelevant. That EMR can be harmful is well known to pretty much everyone - microwaves ovens kill anything put inside them, x-rays cause cancer, and the sun burns if you stay out in it.

The question here is if low level doses - such as from cell phones - are harmful. Everything we know seems to indicate they are not. Nothing indicates that they are.

Sure, there are things we don't understand about how the body works. There are things we don't understand about EMR. But there's no actual evidence they are doing anything bad. You list ONE paper, which boldly claims a "world's first". But all it shows are two brain scans of one man taken three months apart. Any number of things could have caused this result.

I'm a little unsure as to what the test is exactly. It's described as an "encephaloscan", but searching for that only turns up Star Wars reference. I also can't find the "Centre d'Exploration de la Fonction Cérébrale", where is that?

I'd be totally open to the idea that there might be something going on. But the evidence so far is simply anecdotal. I don't want proof, I just want some kind of indication that there is a problem.

[Unregistered]

"Unregistered, your posts will show up faster if you register, you will also be able to get email notifications of replies."

Okay. I'll do it next time around as I'm about to hit the sack.

"Ultrasound is not radiation. It's just sound."

Given a medium to propagate through it transmits waveforms with biologic effects.

"The term EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) encompasses a large spectrum of different types of radiation. Many of these we get a steady stream of naturally from the sun, and from our natural environment."

Right. It is a source of energy and life. Its characteristics cannot be understated.

"Saying things like lasers can me used for medical purposes is irrelevant."

Not at all. If you read the report you would understand why I used lasers as an example. Some medical procedures use lasers as just a glorified slash and burn device, while others use more sophisticated waveforms to achieve more tailored results. The use of lasers and ultrasound waveforms to effect biologic results is indicative of the extremes of EMR. The subtleties will show in much less overt ways.

"That EMR can be harmful is well known to pretty much everyone - microwaves ovens kill anything put inside them, x-rays cause cancer, and the sun burns if you stay out in it.

The question here is if low level doses - such as from cell phones - are harmful."

The is the entire point: we know that high level doses can be harmful or beneficial if used in directed ways.

"Everything we know seems to indicate they are not. Nothing indicates that they are."

This is one of the reasons why I didn't register with the site. "NOTHING indicates that they are"? There are studies that show no harm (funding sources are relevant here) and other studies that show there is harm. One review of this is found in one of the links from the link I provided:
http://next-up.org/pdf/MicrowaveSyndrome012007Uk.pdf

Note that within that review are biological effects that are exactly as stated in the USAF paper I referenced.

Here is another that wasn't difficult to find: http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/...wave_paper.pdf

Read them. That's the entire point here, isn't it?

"Sure, there are things we don't understand about how the body works. There are things we don't understand about EMR. But there's no actual evidence they are doing anything bad.""

In the 19th century we didn't understand how the body works and we didn't understand anything about germs. That didn't stop Ignaz Semmelweis from discovering that not washing hands between deliveries caused women to get ill and die. In the 20th century we didn't understand allergies, asthma, MS, etc, etc, yet they still manifested themselves to us. Many "scientists" denied these conditions were physiological as a result. REAL scientists understood that plausibility did not require complete knowledge and researched these conditions. We should learn from that.

"You list ONE paper, which boldly claims a "world's first". But all it shows are two brain scans of one man taken three months apart. Any number of things could have caused this result."

Any number of things including the very reaction they were looking for.

"I'm a little unsure as to what the test is exactly. It's described as an "encephaloscan", but searching for that only turns up Star Wars reference."

It's an EEG: electroencephalogram, or brain scan. This is how science works. Researchers have tried to understand the reports of people who claim to be affected by EMR, and these researchers may have found a way to test it. Conclusive testing is not really commonplace on the first try, is it?

"I also can't find the "Centre d'Exploration de la Fonction Cérébrale", where is that?"

An article about the chief researcher along with other information about EMR studies can be found here:
http://weepnews.blogspot.com/2011/06...-belpomme.html

"I'd be totally open to the idea that there might be something going on. But the evidence so far is simply anecdotal. I don't want proof, I just want some kind of indication that there is a problem."

How about the fact that your cell phone manual tells you not to hold your phone to your ear?

[Jay Reynolds]

There is a complete disclaimer at the WEEP website, but the site uses an appeal to authority- Dr. Belpomme.
Belpomme both diagnoses and treats people he says are affected b emf's, so he has a vested interest.
He uses his Presidency of ARTAC as a position of authority, yet their declaration s not about emf's at all, it is about chemicals.
The Declaration begins with this statement: "* ban all products which are recognised as dangerous for human beings by the scientific authorities"
That sounds a little bit overboard to me.

Most of my life I have been exposed to emf's far exceeding anything these people can even imagine.
The exposure started at the age of 16, when I became a certified welder, it continued as a ship's engineer and power plant engineer, where I was in close proximity to high voltages ~100,000 volts and tens of thousands of amperes from generators, cables and transformers.
Imagine the rotating magnetic field produced by a generator like this:

The inductive force around transformers like these:

I actually used to get quite a good nap lying around in a cool substation basement near conducting cables like these:


Though I should be a complete wreck, according to these people, throughout the years I never noticed anything,
though my wife says I have developed an inflated ego..................

[Mick]

In the 19th century we didn't understand how the body works and we didn't understand anything about germs. That didn't stop Ignaz Semmelweis from discovering that not washing hands between deliveries caused women to get ill and die. In the 20th century we didn't understand allergies, asthma, MS, etc, etc, yet they still manifested themselves to us. Many "scientists" denied these conditions were physiological as a result. REAL scientists understood that plausibility did not require complete knowledge and researched these conditions. We should learn from that.

You talk as if we are still in the dark ages of science. There has been a LOT of research into the subjects you mention, decades in some cases. Most notably there have been many epidemiological studies in supposed "hot spots", such as power lines and cell-phone towers. None of them found any statistically significant correlation.

The cell phone warning you mention is for a different type of thing. The only possible health problem that such warnings are about are from thermal effects. You are concerned with non-thermal effects. Again there has been a vast amount of research into this and similar issues. There's only very limited statistics that even hint at any health problems from extended cell-phone use from thermal-effects, and none from non-thermal effects.

Not entirely related, but consider that at many gas stations there are warning labels telling you not to use your cell phone. This warning is entirely without foundation. Warning labels are not necessarily indicative of a problem, sometimes it's just an abundance of caution in today's litigious environment.

[Mick]

More on Belpomme.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/201...cil-of-europe/

[Unregistered]

“There is a complete disclaimer at the WEEP website, but the site uses an appeal to authority- Dr. Belpomme.”

There is a difference between an appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority.

“Belpomme both diagnoses and treats people he says are affected b emf's, so he has a vested interest.”

We ALL look to leaders in their fields for information. If I was told I had a malignancy you're damn right I'm going to listen to the people who both diagnose and treat people with malignancies!

“He uses his Presidency of ARTAC as a position of authority, yet their declaration s not about emf's at all, it is about chemicals.”

It's a related field. This means nothing.

“The Declaration begins with this statement: "* ban all products which are recognised as dangerous for human beings by the scientific authorities"*
That sounds a little bit overboard to me.”

Same here. It doesn't make his research wrong. It only shows that you're taking cost/benefit into account, though without knowing what the real cost is.

“Most of my life I have been exposed to emf's far exceeding anything these people can even imagine.”

It isn't the “amount” of EMFs, but the types. As I said previously: Scientists came to the conclusion that the interaction of electromagnetic fields and biological systems must use nonlinear wave mechanics and “some researchers have even incorporated the mathematics of chaos dynamics,” as opposed to the linear wave mechanics presumed previously.

The fact that smoking causes lung cancer is better stated as smoking CAN cause lung cancer. The fact that some life-long smokers do not get lung cancer isn't proof that smoking is okay. If you're going to hit me with claims of logical fallacies then please watch your own.

“You talk as if we are still in the dark ages of science.”

No I don't. I used those examples as parallels to what we are doing today: denying the existence of illnesses because we do not yet understand them. That's what they did in those examples and that's what we're doing today. The medical field didn't even admit that ulcers had physiological etiologies until a few years ago.

“There has been a LOT of research into the subjects you mention, decades in some cases. Most notably there have been many epidemiological studies in supposed "hot spots", such as power lines and cell-phone towers. None of them found any statistically significant correlation.”

“None of them”? Firstly, how many long-term epidemiological studies could have been focused on cell phone use when it's still a recent phenomenon? It also ignores much of my other points: the complexity and our inability to understand these complex signals in a still poorly understood physiology, and also the difficulty of study design and interpretation.

“Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., says, “In one Interphone study, by Lahkola et al (2008), which included results from the U.K. and four Scandinavian countries, the published Interphone results found virtually no increased risk of meningiomas. But when our correction factor was applied, using the mean value of the original odds ratios, not only was risk of meningioma found, but for every year of cell phone use, a person’s risk of meningioma increases by 24%. For every 100 hours of cell phone use there was a 26% increased risk of meningioma, a tumor of the lining of the brain, the meninges.”

“Morgan says, “What we have discovered indicates there is going to be one hell of a brain tumor pandemic unless people are warned and encouraged to change current cell phone use behaviors. Governments should not soft-peddle this critical public health issue but instead rapidly educate citizens on the risks. People should hear the message clearly that cell phones should be kept away from one’s head and body at all times.””
http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-..._6-10-10-1.pdf

That's just one study and that demonstrates why this cavalier attitude is dangerous.

“The cell phone warning you mention is for a different type of thing. The only possible health problem that such warnings are about are from thermal effects.”

This is not skepticism or debunking: it's denial and denying.

“Not entirely related, but consider that at many gas stations there are warning labels telling you not to use your cell phone.”

No, but it was prudent to be cautious with a new technology that they didn't yet understand.

“More on Belpomme.”

Unreferenced ad hominem, but it's very clear where you're coming from now. Search for something to support your position of denial and ignore information that supports the other side. Not only is it denialism: it's an example of a tightly closed mind. The mirror image of the chemtrail contingent.

[Mick]

“Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., says, “In one Interphone study, by Lahkola et al (2008), which included results from the U.K. and four Scandinavian countries, the published Interphone results found virtually no increased risk of meningiomas. But when our correction factor was applied, using the mean value of the original odds ratios, not only was risk of meningioma found, but for every year of cell phone use, a person’s risk of meningioma increases by 24%. For every 100 hours of cell phone use there was a 26% increased risk of meningioma, a tumor of the lining of the brain, the meninges.”

So he takes a study that showed no statistically significant risk, and then changed some numbers so it did show a risk.

http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-..._6-10-10-1.pdf

Now I'm no expert on statistics, but it seems like if this were correct, then it could easily be verified by someone who was. Not to ad hom, but Morgan has a bachelor's degree in electronics, so I think his work would benefit for being evaluated.

[Unregistered]

Okay, I think I've misidentified you. I thought you were Uncinus from the Chemtrail site, but your answers here demonstrate a complete disinterest in the subject or in being objective.

"So he takes a study that showed no statistically significant risk, and then changed some numbers so it did show a risk."

Really? They just decided to arbitrarily change some numbers? "The re-evaluation applies a correction factor to Interphone study results, calculated using the geometric mean value of the published odds ratios for less than five years of cell phone use." Do spend half a minute reading the document. Or if you prefer to not read actual studies, perhaps you'd like to read the descriptions and reasoning for it. But if you actually read the study instead of dismissing it out of hand, you would see that the original study itself included four pages which spoke of potential underestimations of risk.
http://electromagnetichealth.org/ele...nderestimated/

Or perhaps you'd like to just stick with the PubMed abstract?:

"This paper reviews the results of early cellphone studies, where exposure duration was too short to expect tumorigenesis, as well as two sets of more recent studies with longer exposure duration: the Interphone studies and the Swedish studies led by Dr. Lennart Hardell. The recent studies reach very different conclusions. With four exceptions the industry-funded Interphone studies found no increased risk of brain tumors from cellphone use, while the Swedish studies, independent of industry funding, reported numerous findings of significant increased brain tumor risk from cellphone and cordless phone use. An analysis of the data from the Interphone studies suggests that either the use of a cellphone protects the user from a brain tumor, or the studies had serious design flaws. Eleven flaws are identified: (1) selection bias, (2) insufficient latency time, (3) definition of 'regular' cellphone user, (4) exclusion of young adults and children, (5) brain tumor risk from cellphones radiating higher power levels in rural areas were not investigated, (6) exposure to other transmitting sources are excluded, (7) exclusion of brain tumor types, (8) tumors outside the cellphone radiation plume are treated as exposed, (9) exclusion of brain tumor cases because of death or illness, (10) recall accuracy of cellphone use, and (11) funding bias. The Interphone studies have all 11 flaws, and the Swedish studies have 3 flaws (8, 9 and 10). The data from the Swedish studies are consistent with what would be expected if cellphone use were a risk for brain tumors, while the Interphone studies data are incredulous. If a risk does exist, the public health cost will be large. These are the circumstances where application of the Precautionary Principle is indicated, especially if low-cost options could reduce the absorbed cellphone radiation by several orders of magnitude."

Now color me skeptical, but if the correction factors these guys are applying are just matters of fudging with the data, as your post implies, then cell phones have a protective effect AGAINST brain tumors, which I have trouble believing.

"Now I'm no expert on statistics, but it seems like if this were correct, then it could easily be verified by someone who was. Not to ad hom, but Morgan has a bachelor's degree in electronics, so I think his work would benefit for being evaluated."

Why name Morgan and not the others? "Michael Kundi, Professor of Occupational Health and Epidemiology and head of the Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Michael Carlberg, M.Sc. of the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden."

[Mick]

I am Uncinus from ContrailScience.com

All I said was that someone should check the "correction factor". I named Morgan because that was who you quoted.

[Jay Reynolds]

More on Belpomme.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/201...cil-of-europe/

I didn't find this ad hominem or unreferenced. It had references which demonstrated who what why and how Belpomme is running his show.

That is why you didn't have any substantive response to what was said in the link.

But let me ask about just one claim of Belpomme that I noticed on the link you gave, which was brought up at the Ministryoftruth link.

Q:Why is an oncologist looking at the problems of electrosensitivity and electromagnetic fields?

ABelpomme)Because there is a proven link between electromagnetic fields cancer and leukemia

Where exactly is the paper and on which page will I find the word "proven" ?

I'll not hold my breath......though I'm evidently impermeable to massive emf exposure which would completely incapacitate lesser mortals,
I am sensitive to a lack of oxygen and the BS is getting strong around this subject.

I see that Belpomme is writing "get out of work" excuses for guys that he diagnoses with 'electrosensitivity':
see page 2 at bottom:
http://www.es-uk.info/news/20100601_main_newsletter.pdf

Now some guy can get a disability and mooch off of others by claiming that Belpomme certifies he has been made a suffering victim of electrosmog.

I see that in French it is called SICEM. I like the sound of that acronym in English......

[Jazzy]

I like the sound of that acronym in English.

Normally followed by FANG...

Unregistered and Mick are sailing rather close to the wind, I believe. I'd rather believe cellphones are dangerous than not. But Life itself is dangerous, and were it not so, wouldn't be worth much.

More should be known about the energies involved. More should be understood about what is already known to exist. (That's enough - ed.)

[HappyMonday]

I remember these being an interesting couple of lectures on this subject from TUC Radio -

http://www.tucradio.org/EMF_ONE.mp3

http://www.tucradio.org/EMF_TWO.mp3

Both are from the dangerous side of the coin, if I recall, and if you've never heard TUC Radio...Excuse the intros.

[StayHungry]

Prolonged exposure to EMF's from wifi tends to make it harder for me to focus. I call that brainfog.

An interesting study on emf hypersensitivity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18366821

[Jazzy]

Prolonged exposure to EMF's from wifi tends to make it harder for me to focus. I call that brainfog.

I've lived (with my wife and other animals) in a wifi'd environment for years. We're all totally dead, now.

Keep out of the sunlight. That's a blast...

And throw away your lighter. Get rid of the kitchen knives, etc.

[StayHungry]

I've lived (with my wife and other animals) in a wifi'd environment for years. We're all totally dead, now.

Keep out of the sunlight. That's a blast...

And throw away your lighter. Get rid of the kitchen knives, etc.

A lot of things in life aren't either evil or blissful. The study suggests some people are more sentive to EMF's than others and do experience non-leathal disturbances.

[Jazzy]

and do experience non-leathal disturbances.

LIFE is a non-lethal disturbance. No?

I mean, exactly how often is everything perfectly right for you? It never is for me. I'm perpetually non-lethally disturbed.

How can some be susceptible to EMFs and others not? We all share the same basic physiological design to a remarkable degree even when compared with other mammals. Even compared with great apes we are genetically more homogenous. There's only differing psychology to consider...

[Stupid]

A rather "fair" look, at the cell phone scare...
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/04/3...cancer-review/

This news has been circulating the net recently....
http://www.naturalnews.com/037729_mo...#ixzz2AeOvEhwp
....the above is considered a "victory" among fear-filled cellphone users.
I looked up the IRAC Class 2B list of "possibly carcinogenic to humans", and began checking that list...coffee is on it, so are commonly found cosmetic products, fermented pickles.....as well as some genuinely scary stuff. Of course it is an issue of amounts and exposure.
Ironically there are several substances on that "possibly carcinogenic" list....that are used to treat cancer.

Cancers can appear anywhere on the body. Claims are that such tumors appear on the side of the head where a phone is used. I wonder if it is statistically likely that such problems also appear on the opposite side of the head in other people, but a cellphone is not blamed ?
If I develop a tumor on my right foot, can I blame the acceleration pedal on my car ? What if I get a tumor on the hand I hold the TV remote ?
Speaking of hands....where is the damage of the hand holding the cellphone ?

BTW....I have a rather tepid view of Italian Courts.........http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

[Trigger Hippie]

Speaking of hands....where is the damage of the hand holding the cellphone ?

I'm not very proficient on the subject, but while studying for my amateur radio operators license, I covered a section on exposure to radio waves. I seems the danger is with the heating of body tissues. Your eyes are the most sensitive and therefore most easily damaged. I think brain tissue is next. I suppose the tissues making up the hands are more resistant.

That thing with the Italian courts is unbelievable. They were supposed to appeal their sentence but I couldn't find any current information of their plight.

[Alcor]

It's one of those things that's kind of taken for granted by many in the conspiracy culture. Anything artificial that was invented in the last 50 years (or more, in some cases), is de facto harmful.

Hi,

I came by chance ito this post
Here you can find some schema of well established physiological mechanism which can account for the onset of some diseases, where EMF radiation is very likely to play a major role
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworl...isms_Emf.php#1

Personally I have some parameters wrong in the above schema, and I have symptoms compatible with MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Many major researchers have pointed out that MCS, EHS, and other major conditions as Fibromyalgia, and ME/CFS share some common points and symptoms, so that some researchers have proposed the term of Central Sensitivity Syndrome
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworl...isms_Emf.php#1

[Cairenn]

First Who is Dr Richard Gautier? What are his qualifications? What peer reviewed journal published this?

[Pete]

As someone who is trained in science and engineering, it is perfectly plausible that as the electro-magnetic spectrum is much 'busier' these days (in populated areas) that some of the radiation in it will have some effect.

Not even a debunker can deny the possibility. The problem is detailing the risks, and the non-risks.

Its also true that cancer can appear anywhere on the body due to natural mutation in cells, but this mutation rate will dramatically increase through exposure to various types of radiation, this is known fact.

Edit: I've just realized I may have missed the point here! lol...