Follow, retweet @dailypinster




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:50 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 26, 2012
Posts: 2972
Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
werpen wrote:
The EMF from computers is definitely affecting a few here. For any real conclusion to be drawn it requires replicable emidemiology studies, in vitro testing etc and some reasonable scientific mechanism. Epidemology studies with no replicable results are not evidence. Any clown can do a test to get a significant p values by not screening correctly. Quoting singular open source data is crazy, you have to look at the overall data. WHO and IARC are the reasonable authorities. Andrew Gelmans statistical blog is good on what is and what isnt good research.

In fairness, even the WHO/IARC recommendations include elements based on epidemiology with no causal mechanism. Because of possible weak cancer causation they have the no/low cost exposure reduction recommendation.

Even if the science isn't finished, that doesn't mean that the incimplete reaults it can't be used to inform policy and engineering design constraints: we build today with the beat we've got (in fact I think the science mostly is done in this case, but you get my point).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:26 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
yoganmahew wrote:
werpen wrote:
The EMF from computers is definitely affecting a few here.

I think EMF from computers definitely fries brains. Look at the effects on here.
Yeah I think EMF from computers causes comprehension issues. Just look at the effect on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:32 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 9772
Coles2 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

Image

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of Image when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be Image. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be Image at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

Interesting post. Could you estimate the scale of the exposure to EMF now compared to the pre modern age? A factor? Thanks.

Nope, I wouldn't be qualified. If we're talking about radio frequencies, it seems to me that both pre-modern and modern values are close to zero. The energies are incredibly low. It's certainly worth considering that fluxes are a lot higher when you put even a low power device within centimetres of your brain -- inverse square law and all that. Also, some of the scary papers reference varying magnetic fields, not just EM far fields. But personally I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. (If I did I wouldn't have a WiFi extender about 3 inches from my left ear in bed every night :D).

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:37 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Apr 4, 2010
Posts: 4543
ps200306 wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

Image

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of Image when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be Image. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be Image at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

Interesting post. Could you estimate the scale of the exposure to EMF now compared to the pre modern age? A factor? Thanks.

Nope, I wouldn't be qualified. If we're talking about radio frequencies, it seems to me that both pre-modern and modern values are close to zero. The energies are incredibly low. It's certainly worth considering that fluxes are a lot higher when you put even a low power device within centimetres of your brain -- inverse square law and all that. Also, some of the scary papers reference varying magnetic fields, not just EM far fields. But personally I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. (If I did I wouldn't have a WiFi extender about 3 inches from my left ear in bed every night :D).


He doesn't mention that it's simultaneously 3 inches from his right ear. Image :wink:

_________________
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.


Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter X, Part II,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:38 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
pishwish wrote:
Quote:
Firstly, I don't expose my children to chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, or petrol. You shouldn't either.
You seem incapable of conceding a point. The point being that things in the same IARC category do not necessarily present the same risk and that the IARC categories are easily misused. For example: According to the IARC, red meat is a Class 2A probable carcinogen. Do you feed your child red meat? That must be worse that feeding your child DDT or diesel, since these are only Class 2B possible carcinogens!
I feed my children very little red meat for that very reason. I don't feed my children DDT and diesel not because of a fear of cancer but because they cause other, more immediate health impacts, such as death from poisoning. I don't let my kids use DDT insecticides or douse themselves in diesel because those substances are possibly carcinogenic. What point should I conceed again?

pishwish wrote:
coles2 wrote:
...a child's parents are indeed mammals but they are not in the same class as Bengal tigers they literally are. Class Mammalia because they don't do as much harm to children as Bengal tigers do.
I was assuming you were classifying these various mammals as being dangerous to children? A subclass perhaps?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:44 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
ps200306 wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

Image

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of Image when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be Image. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be Image at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

Interesting post. Could you estimate the scale of the exposure to EMF now compared to the pre modern age? A factor? Thanks.

Nope, I wouldn't be qualified.
I think you're more than qualified but you're just unwilling because the answer might undermine the argument. :nin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:58 pm 
Offline
Neo Landlord

Joined: Jul 8, 2010
Posts: 204
Coles2 wrote:
pishwish wrote:
Quote:
Firstly, I don't expose my children to chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, or petrol. You shouldn't either.
You seem incapable of conceding a point. The point being that things in the same IARC category do not necessarily present the same risk and that the IARC categories are easily misused. For example: According to the IARC, red meat is a Class 2A probable carcinogen. Do you feed your child red meat? That must be worse that feeding your child DDT or diesel, since these are only Class 2B possible carcinogens!
I feed my children very little red meat for that very reason. I don't feed my children DDT and diesel not because of a fear of cancer but because they cause other, more immediate health impacts, such as death from poisoning. I don't let my kids use DDT insecticides or douse themselves in diesel because those substances are possibly carcinogenic. What point should I conceed again?


A recap. You posted a paper. I said it was weak, and had amusingly bad arguments. Like:
Quote:
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation
Now you seem to have grasped that these agents are scary for non-cancer reasons, which is why the authors mentioned these agents and not aloe vera or pickled vegetables. I also tried to explain the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy using an analogy, but clearly I failed. Here is a definition
Quote:
An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.


Of course, if you still think that this argument:
Quote:
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation
is logically rigourous, then just say so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:33 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 9772
Coles2 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

Image

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of Image when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be Image. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be Image at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.

Interesting post. Could you estimate the scale of the exposure to EMF now compared to the pre modern age? A factor? Thanks.


Coles2 wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
Nope, I wouldn't be qualified.

I think you're more than qualified but you're just unwilling because the answer might undermine the argument. :nin


No really -- I endeavour to make sure my knowledge is of as little practical use as possible. :D

Thus I can tell you that the mobile phone, were it brought to a distance of 3 cm from your brain instead of 1 km would, by the inverse square law, have a flux density of:

Image

But since I have no idea of the bandwidth of a mobile phone, all I can say is that even if the power was integrated over a half gigahertz bandwith it looks to me like it would be three orders of magnitude too low for the stated total power of 0.5 W. And I'd expect mobile phone radio energy to be much more narrowband than a continuum source like the Sun. So I don't know how to reconcile that.

In any case, your question isn't really very well framed. Your brain dissipates something on the order of 30 W of power. I suspect an extra 0.5 W is unlikely to have much effect, even ignoring that: a) a mobile phone is designed to communicate wirelessly, not to intentionally fry your brain, b) only specific microwave frequencies interact with molecular bonds to produce heat.

And in any case we have no idea if the heating effect is at the root of any alleged negative effects. Cancer risks are usually associated with ionising radiation at the shorter end of the spectrum. One thing's for sure -- if you're going to fret about the ill effects of even radio frequency radiation, you should certainly never ever go out in sunlight again without maximum UV protection. If we're gonna be consistent and let the Jill Stein's of the world get hysterical about WiFi in kindergartens, then we should have roving bands of enforcers on the beaches locking up parents who allow an inch of their kids' skins to be exposed.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:08 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
@pishwish, You seem to have gotten yourself bogged down in something that isn't really very relevant or important? It's not up to me to defend any argument except my own.

@ps, Good post.

The point I was getting towards is that life evolves within the confines of it's environment. Our skin cells and our eyes have evolved to be able to handle a maximum amount of certain parts of the spectrum with a minimal amount of harm being caused. Our skin burns with excess amounts of UV; melanoma's develop. With excess sunlight we can damage the retinas of our eyes. Sure, if we change our environment by moving to a different latitude over time our offspring can evolve to protect themselves (darker skin pigments, etc), but this takes dozens of generations.

So, if we have evolved over millions of years in an electromagnetic fog why would you expect that our cells have not evolved to that limit? Why should we assume that they have excess capacity to deal with one particular part of the spectrum, when they don't have that capacity in other parts of the spectrum? We are exposing ourselves to electromagnetic fields that are typically many multiples of times (zillions?) stronger than anything that we experienced during our evolution. This was precisely the argument that jmc was making, so I expect he will support me on it (!).

Dr Jill Stein isn't getting hysterical about Wifi in kindergartens, but rather arguing from a position of caution. It makes good sense to me that EMF is limited around babies and young children. The scientific data supports that position like it or not.

I appreciate the effort you put into your reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:22 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Coles2 wrote:
I appreciate the effort you put into your reply.


Do you understand it?

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:14 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 9772
Coles2 wrote:
The point I was getting towards is that life evolves within the confines of it's environment. Our skin cells and our eyes have evolved to be able to handle a maximum amount of certain parts of the spectrum with a minimal amount of harm being caused. Our skin burns with excess amounts of UV; melanoma's develop. With excess sunlight we can damage the retinas of our eyes. Sure, if we change our environment by moving to a different latitude over time our offspring can evolve to protect themselves (darker skin pigments, etc), but this takes dozens of generations. So, if we have evolved over millions of years in an electromagnetic fog why would you expect that our cells have not evolved to that limit? Why should we assume that they have excess capacity to deal with one particular part of the spectrum, when they don't have that capacity in other parts of the spectrum?

You've mentioned a number of different things that you characterise as having "evolved to the limit". But that doesn't really mean anything without consideration of the microscopic processes involved.

Without going into boring detail -- and in any event I'm sure you're familiar with this -- it comes down to the quantum nature of the microscopic world. In the Sun we see a continuum of electromagnetic energy, that is, a continuous range of photon energies. This is possible because the Sun is a plasma consisting of free particles which can scatter light, changing the frequency (and thus energy) of the scattered photons, and recoiling with a corresponding amount of kinetic energy.

The electrons in atoms and molecules are very different. They can only exist at certain energy levels determined by standing wave solutions to the three-dimensional Schrodinger wave equation. It's not possible for such bound electrons to have energies other than the permitted ones, and when they change they can only do it by discrete amounts corresponding to differences between permitted energy levels.

The upshot of this is that microwaves and radio waves are not just different in wavelength and energy from, say, extreme ultraviolet -- they are involved in fundamentally different processes. That's why EUV is called ionising radiation. It's capable of liberating tightly bound electrons and therefore chemically altering a material. It has about a hundred billion times the energy of WiFi-frequency photons, but that is not what makes it so different. The weird and wonderful thing is that a hundred billion WiFi photons can't get together to achieve the same effect. With bound electrons it's all or nothing. Either one photon must deliver all the required energy, or nothing happens, even if you bombard it with intense longer wavelength radiation from now until kingdom come. This explanation was what won Einstein his only Nobel prize, so it's gotta be true, right? :D

Coles2 wrote:
We are exposing ourselves to electromagnetic fields that are typically many multiples of times (zillions?) stronger than anything that we experienced during our evolution.

That is the crux of the matter. You need to define "strength" in this context. Yes these fields are more intense at radio wavelengths than many found in nature, which is to say there are more photons and more total energy. But they are completely incapable of ionising atoms to directly damage our DNA or create free radicals within our cells which could do the same thing. They don't have the individual photon energies to do that. They do have energies corresponding to certain vibrational frequencies of molecular bonds, which is why they can heat water and some other substances. That's why we'd like to know what sort of causal mechanisms are at play if there is any link between RF energy and disease.

Coles2 wrote:
This was precisely the argument that jmc was making, so I expect he will support me on it (!).

I believe jmc was making exactly the opposite argument -- that extra-terrestrial RF sources were wildly larger than terrestrial ones, so we have been exposed to them throughout our evolutionary history. But I believe he is wrong.

Coles2 wrote:
Dr Jill Stein isn't getting hysterical about Wifi in kindergartens, but rather arguing from a position of caution. It makes good sense to me that EMF is limited around babies and young children. The scientific data supports that position like it or not.

I don't accept that the scientific data supports the position. From browsing various papers and books it seems to me that there is a hypothetical link between RF and magnetic field exposure and very specific cancers such as childhood leukemia. But the link is so tenuous that methodological problems with the studies threaten to swamp any real statistical connection. In any event the issue is orders of magnitude less important than exposure to cosmic rays, the sun, and radon, to name a few real radiological hazards.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:23 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 9772
And as if right on cue in this morning's Grauniad:

English man spends 11 hours trying to make cup of tea with Wi-Fi kettle

(* may not actually have used WiFi for heating).

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:59 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11438
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
I appreciate your contribution but you appear to be assuming that the only harm that can be caused to cells by electro magnetic fields is through ionization on the atomic level and the creation of free radicals. You have reached that assumption because that is the mechanism that is understood, but we have already establishd that there are observed health impacts where the mechanism is not known.

There is so much that we don't understand, and to try to present it as a closed case is 'flat earth science'. The exploration has barely started. Of course some of it will be proven to be wrong, but you really should keep an open mind. Link1. Link2
jmc wrote:
Basically we evolved in a sea of electromagnetic muck and the bodys cells have developed multiple mechanisms to deal with it.
ps200307 wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
This was precisely the argument that jmc was making, so I expect he will support me on it (!).
I believe jmc was making exactly the opposite argument -- that extra-terrestrial RF sources were wildly larger than terrestrial ones, so we have been exposed to them throughout our evolutionary history.
Now that's just disengenuous. Jmc made the point that we have evolved within an electromagnetic fog and consequently biologically we are able to deal with it. I fully agree with that point. But he made the mistake in assuming that modern day intensities were less than those we evolved under when we have already established that they are zillions of times greater. If the EMF is now suddenly zillions of times greater then obviously we can't have evolved a mechanism to handle it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2016 US Presidential race - Making Threads Great Again.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:18 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Posts: 4206
ps200306 wrote:
jmc wrote:
Radio astronomers are a good source of war stories on sporadic very high pulses of narrow band UHF and SHF RFI interference. The VU meters will pin on red for hours. We are talking very serious amounts of energy. Not quite head in a microwave oven levels but not that many orders of magnitude off. But far far greater levels than any of the man made background radio radiation levels that been touted as a health risk for many decades.

I think you're confused on this. Radio astronomers measure radio flux density in Janskys. The very size of the unit tells you that astronomical radio sources are ultra low power:

Image

Even on the broadest radio spectrum that would be more than a dozen orders of magnitude lower power than the red line on a standard VU meter. A bright extra-galactic radio source like 3C273, the optically brightest radio-loud quasar, is given as 79 Jy at 159 MHz in the Cambridge catalogue. In fact, astronomical radio sources are dominated by a) the Milky Way galaxy, b) the Sun. These are both on the order of Image when the Sun is quiescent. An active Sun may be Image. A mobile phone transmitting 0.5 W at 1800 MHz would be Image at a distance of a kilometre. I don't give any credence to the scare stories, but terrestrial sources of radio energy do far outshine any astronomical sources.


I was not talking about extra solar astronomical sources I was talking about background radiation from near orbit terrestrial sources. From the Van Allen Belt on in. Those very high energy electrons (Mev plus) can produce some very very high power RFI.

In the old days before fully digital receivers and very powerful dsp racks there was a lot of knob twiddling on analogue receivers and large arrays of bandpass, notch filters and gates before you could extract the extra-terrestrial signal you were interested in. And at certain parts of the solar cycle and certain time of the year or day the control board operator spent a frustrating amount of time trying to tune out the all the non man made (near) terrestrial background noise. The manmade stuff was a lot more predicable. Sometimes background noise was so strong they just gave up and moved on to a more tractable source in a less noisy part of the spectrum.

As for VU's. The scale is relative . And fully adjustable on high end equipment. Which is why the VU meters have to be calibrated. A lot. Plus VU value scaling depends on the signal source and characteristics. For example, there are at least five main VU db scales used in professional audio recording alone. And they are not really equivalent.

Given that the EMF levels from cell phones and wifi we are talking about are at the pico/femto watt level a good sized coronal mass ejection event by the time it sets the ionosphere a ringing should be generating the same sort of flux levels in the relevant bands at surface level. I am working from 30 year old memory here but if I remember correctly its the same sort of magnitudes and sometime a quite a bit higher in certain bands. It think its water vapor absorption/ emission that is the key factor in surface transmission levels. I dont think the CO2 maser effect adds much if any.

Anyway, the body deals with background EMF the same way as it deals with background radiation. As just one of those environmental factors it has evolved mechanisms to handle. Usually at the cell level. The skin and the subcutaneous layer is a pretty good barrier for most bands.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Radiation issues - Split from US Election thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:58 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Posts: 4206
Coles2 wrote:
I appreciate your contribution but you appear to be assuming that the only harm that can be caused to cells by electro magnetic fields is through ionization on the atomic level and the creation of free radicals. You have reached that assumption because that is the mechanism that is understood, but we have already establishd that there are observed health impacts where the mechanism is not known.

There is so much that we don't understand, and to try to present it as a closed case is 'flat earth science'. The exploration has barely started. Of course some of it will be proven to be wrong, but you really should keep an open mind. Link1. Link2
jmc wrote:
Basically we evolved in a sea of electromagnetic muck and the bodys cells have developed multiple mechanisms to deal with it.
ps200307 wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
This was precisely the argument that jmc was making, so I expect he will support me on it (!).
I believe jmc was making exactly the opposite argument -- that extra-terrestrial RF sources were wildly larger than terrestrial ones, so we have been exposed to them throughout our evolutionary history.
Now that's just disengenuous. Jmc made the point that we have evolved within an electromagnetic fog and consequently biologically we are able to deal with it. I fully agree with that point. But he made the mistake in assuming that modern day intensities were less than those we evolved under when we have already established that they are zillions of times greater. If the EMF is now suddenly zillions of times greater then obviously we can't have evolved a mechanism to handle it.


First. The subject of causality mechanism can be reduced to very simple chemistry. How is the EMF energy as it traverses a cell transferred to some molecular bond to a high enough level to disrupt the molecular bond. From that disruption all else flows. We are not talking just ionization, although that is the simplest. The most interesting ones are changing the local energy distribution on a protein so as to change its local geometry. Which can have some very interesting local effects. None of them good.

Now given that we are talking low frequency events and we are talking about long term exposure to man made EMF what are the likely ratios of events that are caused by natural radiation sources versus those from man made ones. And given that the cell has evolved multiple layered mechanisms to deal with molecular bond disruptions of the various cell contents, some going all the way back to the primordial ooze, what is the probability the man made EMF energy adds enough disruption events to overwhelm the cell repair mechanism to such a degree that it produces verifiable clinical effects.

Thats where my skepticism comes from. I can well imagine single intense exposure producing clinical effects. I can imagine work related repeated exposure to high energy EMF sources producing measurable effects. But general very low level exposure to exceptionally low energy very high frequency radio waves is a real stretch. Given that you have to get up to UV light frequency energy levels before you can start really punching through the skin into cells.

In the end its just a matter of how much energy one of these man made EMF photons could actually deliver to a molecular bond in a cell and just how often this would happen. When compared to the usual background events. And given that it is orders of magnitude less just how likely is that one is going to be a prove a verifiable clinical effect. I think that a nil.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Skippy 3 and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com