NLBS #34: EMF Sensitivity Syndrome Is Nothing But Junk Science and Misinformation

Just a feeling but the man who talks in the video looks very full about himself. They are not the kind of guys I like to talk with.
One thing I know: everyone is different. Electromagnetic waves could do harm to some and do good to others.
But talking about long term effects of cell phones on human bodies is impossible. We just have to wait another twenty years and in the meantime hope that there is indeed nothing to be afraid of.

originally posted by: zandra
Electromagnetic waves could do harm to some and do good to others.
But talking about long term effects of cell phones on human bodies is impossible. We just have to wait another twenty years and in the meantime hope that there is indeed nothing to be afraid of.

You DO realize that cell phones are just radios, right? And that we've not only had radio transmitters for quite some time now, but we've had them all up and down the spectrum that cell phones operate in. And you've been exposed to them your entire life.

It's not like radio sprang into being with the cell phone or wifi router. Lacking mounds of the dead around airports, microwave relay towers, UHF TV stations and the like, I'd say that you've already got SOME long term data.

originally posted by: Bedlam
You need something like an LC circuit, and you have none. Alternatively, you can resonate by fitting the wave function in some geometry - a tuned cavity or waveguide - and you're flat out of those as well.

So your saying there is no capacitance in the human body... I totally disagree!
Your saying the human body has no ionic fluid properties that coil up in the body... I totally disagree! I would go so far as to say there is duplexer like cavities in the body that can couple EMF energy.... of course it's all much more complicated than that.

originally posted by: Bedlam
The problem is I DO understand - and you don't have the L or the C, all you got is R. And that's why you don't look at the ocean and go "Hey, look at that big tank circuit" because, you know, it ain't one.

See now, you sound like my science teacher.... I'm going to bet your the text book type with no hands on experience.... when was the last time you built a ionic fluidic generator by hand? Besides the ocean is a very big place, I'm very sure somewhere in the ocean there is naturally occurring tank circuits... probably right there in Devils Triangle..... it would be foolish to believe the ocean has no mineral like coils of water or capacitve earth like layers etc.... yeah.... I could google bomb you with info showing how wrong you are on that too.... but I don't have the time to play around.

originally posted by: Bedlam
but you can't use it to receive radio broadcasts.

Again I totally disagree..... in fact I think it might be simple to build.... then lets just go with nanofluidic technology... or would that be 90's technology? size doesn't matter lol Anyway one could build a ionic fluid antenna very easily..... great for QRP..... no telling how many ionic fluid receptors the human body has.... can you not hear voices in your head? lol

originally posted by: Bedlam
You saw "resonant" and ran with it, admit it.

Nope, you took it out of context, go back reread what I said.... you was hoping I would take it to new age consciousness and quantum resonance.... wasn't you yeah.... that would be fun!
But you was wrong on that too!

(originally posted by: [post=18911327]SkepticOverlord:

"I was a Ham radio operator for a long time… even built my own power amps and antennas… never had any concerns for that.")

Then you were not following FCC regulations in the operation of your station, if you were transmitting at a power level over 50 watts. When transmitting over 50 watts PEP, a routine study of your station's RF emissions is required by the FCC, to determine if any humans will come in contact with your radiated signal. Several factors are taken into account: height mounted, and radiation pattern and angle of the antenna(s) in use, SWR (standing wave ratio) of the antenna(s) and its/their feed line(s), transmitter power, and probably others I'm forgetting at the moment.

I'm a ham radio operator, and hold a Technician-class operator's license (have been licenced since 10/7/14), and am currently studying for my General-class license. I've not had to conduct an RF study of my station yet, as I'm only operating on 2m(VHF) and 70cm(UHF) at less than 50 watts. However, in anticipation of obtaining my General license, I've purchased an HF/6m radio (1.8 MHz to 54 MHz) and will soon design my antenna system for the radio, which is capable of 100 watts transmitting power. Should I decide to not transmit over 50 watts power (unlikely), no study of RF exposure is required. I do intend to, if necessary, make full use of my transceiver's power, so I will be required to conduct the RF study.

[EDIT]: After having consulted 47 CFR Part 97 (FCC regulations for Amateur Radio), it looks like I'll only have to conduct an RF impact study if I want to transmit above 50 Watts on the 6m and 10m bands, or more than 75 watts on the 12m band. All of the lower-frequency bands have a maximum permissible PEP wattage that exceeds the capabilities of my transceiver.

I happen to believe different radio, cell phone, electronic waves etc can impact a person in different ways, and it'd be tough to prove otherwise...

So, we've been able to fully understand the effects of EMF, different radio frequencies, and electricity and how they impact people compared to no exposure to these things? - Something that is nearly impossible in the world we live in today?

Sometimes I think your videos are rather short-sighted, definitely on topics that cannot be fully investigated over a lifetime comparing things like GMO to NON gmo eaters, and different waves in the air compared to people that are completely free of those ( Which would be nearly impossible, therefor your "study" is in itself next level bull #.)

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I happen to believe different radio, cell phone, electronic waves etc can impact a person in different ways, and it'd be tough to prove otherwise...

True, because then you'd be asking for proof of a negative. What you have to do instead is, prove it DOES. That's proof of a positive. Any time you're asking "prove something doesn't do x" that's a question that often can't be answered that way. You can't prove I don't have a magic invisible unicorn living in my armpit, for example. See also: Russell's Teapot.

So, we've been able to fully understand the effects of EMF, different radio frequencies, and electricity and how they impact people compared to no exposure to these things? - Something that is nearly impossible in the world we live in today?

No, but we've been able to prove that so far studies do not show a clear cut problem. The results are often ambiguous and unrepeatable. And we've been able to show that people who think they can tell when they're being bombarded with EMF really can't. That doesn't mean nothing will ever be found, or that we ought not look. But we understand that non-ionizing radiation can't tear apart chemicals in cells. Could there be other mechanisms for doing damage? Sure. We haven't found one though, and there have been "different radio frequencies" since the universe was formed. The Sun puts out radio, the Earth puts out radio, YOU put out microwaves yourself, albeit at a low level. Every lightning bolt that ever hit put out radio waves. The background of the universe puts out radio waves. And every transmitter since Tesla used a spark gap has put out radio waves. It's not new.

a reply to: Bedlam

... used to use it on missiles in the 50's.

LOL !!! Anyone knowing that missiles tech of the 50s were based on hydraulic actuator is sure to know a "little" on other technical fields...
And probably know a place called White Sand...

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Bedlam

... used to use it on missiles in the 50's.

LOL !!! Anyone knowing that missiles tech of the 50s were based on hydraulic actuator is sure to know a "little" on other technical fields...
And probably know a place called White Sand...

Fluidics is one of those fields you have to know a LITTLE about.

I'd have been real happy for integrated ballistic electronics to have taken off. Nothing like tube amp ICs in your stereo!

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, I do as well, 40 years of experience, patents, copyrights, so I calls it as I sees it. IMHO, it's a parroted OP with no foundation in reality based on hype from a series of opinion pieces.

Cheers - Dave

In part I agree with you...I don't believe in fibromyalgia. But as far as low level non-ionizing radiation causing some sort of health issue, the science doesn't agree with you. The studies always come back ambiguous, non repeatable. If it was a big hairy deal, you'd expect the bad things to show right up and be obvious. They're not.

In a society where junk science like AGC is bought and paid for, for political or corporate purposes, how can you confirm that any of the articles written against EMF causing a problem can be true unless you have done the research yourself? How much DOESN'T the government tell you about what is bad for you, for the sake of corporate sponsors and lobbyists? Take it one step further, the FDA and EPA actually weigh in against proven methods and go so far as to label harmless plants schedule 1 narcotics, simply because prisons need to be filled. The government allows pollution credit trading and they will do the same with these BS carbon taxes. It doesn't reduce pollution or carbon dioxide, it just moves around the credits so that businesses that produce a lot of pollution or carbon dioxide pay more. It's stupid, everything is driven by a legalized criminal organization called government.

So, I don't believe much of anything unless I have done it myself. I have personally researched EMF effects, designed and built microwave weapon systems and countermeasures, researched how EMF effects the body at a cellular level and how those cells emit their own low level EMF, and how that relates to the indication of disease in organs. I did it all with NRC blessing and funding ;-)

Not a big hairy deal, not showing up, look around? If some highly respectable group with good media play came out tomorrow and stated that EMF in say the 1ghz to 10ghz range caused cancer and auto-immune disease and it was killing the bees, how long do you think the 100 billion dollar WiFi industry and all those jobs and profit would last? Especially if the EPA, AMA and FDA did their jobs, you know the jobs they are actually paid to do, but don't?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: theNLBS

I am sure it has been pointed out but emf can kill you and sensitivity levels for everything differs among humans.

I think this is not so much the case that a few are being effected by elf but that we are all being effected and do not know it.

It is possible to shape emf in ways that represent information and in ways that block other signals.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
In a society where junk science like AGC is bought and paid for, for political or corporate purposes, how can you confirm that any of the articles written against EMF causing a problem can be true unless you have done the research yourself?

Cheers - Dave

Performed lots of double blinded studies on humans in a lab setting, have you, Dave? Must have cost you a mint.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

It is possible to shape emf in ways that represent information...

In my world, we call that...modulation.

...and in ways that block other signals.

Citation needed. Or clarification. What does "block" mean to you in this context?

a reply to: Bedlam

True, because then you'd be asking for proof of a negative. What you have to do instead is, prove it DOES. That's proof of a positive.

Proving something does not make it true nor does disproving something make it false. It is a matter of existance.

It is like saying a watt is not a measurment of time. The existance of gravity shows us that time is figured in.

Studies do nothing but prove a point and hardly ever speak to the existance of something happening.

The reality that emf can effect our bodies opens the door for manipulation of our bodies and skewing any data gathering task.

The question then becomes will they ever tell what all can be done by something as invisible as the wind.

a reply to: Bedlam

block/negate
the source is i am telling you

I am not saying that in any way you do not know very much what you are saying but that what has been presented to the world is not the reality of existance but it is a good enough description of it for humans to get by as their minds are being manipulated by unseen forces.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Proving something does not make it true nor does disproving something make it false. It is a matter of existance.

If it's not true, it doesn't exist. Nothing unreal exists, you know.

It is like saying a watt is not a measurment of time. The existance of gravity shows us that time is figured in.

That's not what my unicorn says.

Studies do nothing but prove a point

My point exactly.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Bedlam

block/negate
the source is i am telling you

Well, no it doesn't. EM passes through other EM with no interaction except in the overlap. One wave doesn't eliminate the other. And you can't even get decent superposition with non-coherent sources, which you won't have.

a reply to: Bedlam

that has been noted in test after test but there is still more to uncover. always more to the story. tell your unicorn hi. it has been a while since i seen flutter. That is the key to keeping the book closed. much like how soo many think much of what we are exposed to is harmless. Just by reading my post you are being exposed to not only emf but a truth that we do not know everything but except what we do know as being complete.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
In a society where junk science like AGC is bought and paid for, for political or corporate purposes, how can you confirm that any of the articles written against EMF causing a problem can be true unless you have done the research yourself?

Cheers - Dave

Performed lots of double blinded studies on humans in a lab setting, have you, Dave? Must have cost you a mint.

Double blind studies I think you mean. The testing was non-invasive using surface probes (much like non-invasive EEG probes using conductive gel) on 104 test cases by tech's and myself, so no the cost wasn't too bad. Everybody volunteered for the scanning, I wasn't paying test subjects. As far as my hard costs over time on research, I've scared myself with the amount I've spent on some occasions and lost on others. Research costs money, most of the time it produce results ;-)

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Double blind studies I think you mean.

It's used both ways...

Double-blinded study: A medical study in which both the subjects participating and the researchers are unaware of when the experimental medication or procedure has been given. Double-blinded studies are often used when initial studies shows particular promise.

The testing was non-invasive using surface probes (much like non-invasive EEG probes using conductive gel) on 104 test cases by tech's and myself, so no the cost wasn't too bad.

Cheers - Dave

Right.

a reply to: theNLBS

Consider this before you dismiss the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology: the way bone increases mass in areas that are being stressed is to first put out an electromagnetic field that attracts calcium ions. If you think that the presence of competing magnetic fields does not affect this process, think again.