I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band.
You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it?
> What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values
I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic.
Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power.
If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork.
It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses.
EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels.
All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening.
With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception?
Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health.
And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :)
Those seem to be wildly different phenomena. The “hearing radar” mentioned frequencies of 1, 3, and 10 GHz(!?!?), while “The Hum” is between 32 Hz and 80 Hz, modulated from 0.5 to 2 Hz.
My including the link was not suggesting the thing reported was true, rather, it was the only thing I quickly found suggesting anyone hearing electromagnetic frequencies of any kind.
In the hum, most thinking is either physical noise, or resonance. That said, one paper linked from Wikipedia does have this:
“Analysis of the largely anecdotal data that are available at the present time suggests that the most probable explanation is that some people have the capability to interpret radio transmissions at certain wavelengths as sound. It is well established in the scientific literature that people can hear electromagnetic energy at certain frequencies and peak power levels.” — https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51...
However, while this could validate both phenomena as being perceivable by some, I do not think this is why Pop-Sci made their chart as they did. I stand by my objection.
> Especially their kind-of claim that even 60 Hz EMF can influence DNA in damaging way is still very... let's say, suspicious, to me.
Yeah, I really don't understand why these kinds of people always mumble about 60Hz. That's the biggest red flag for bogosity. We have had so much extremely high intensity 60Hz flying around for so long that the effects should be obvious.
If you just simply don't mention 60Hz at all, your claims get a lot harder to refute.
what follows is speculation, so you can grab your pitchforks if you want but it will be a hollow victory.
I've always been suspicious of the claim that EM fields have zero effect on human beings, especially near high-volts lines. It doesnt seem possible. Our bodies function based on electrical signals and many cellular mechanisms are mediated with ions.
do we have a list of all electrically-sensitive bodily processes? could we guess what would happen if their simultaneous activation changed by 5%? what about 45% or more? So much of the human body is not exhaustively understood in the general case, and certainly not in the individual case.
idk, i dont wanna go all tinfoil hat here. it just seems like circumstances are aligned for there to be large holes in our public understanding (accidentally or otherwise).
note: for whatever its worth, ive spent some time around the 8MW generators on Nimitz-class aircraft carriers[0].
> The observed effects include ptosis of the eyelids, relaxation, drowziness, the feeling of pressure at a centered spot on the lower edge of the brow, seeing moving patterns of dark purple and greenish yellow with the eyes closed, a tonic smile, a tense feeling in the stomach, __sudden loose stool__, and sexual excitement, depending on the precise frequency used, and the skin area to which the field is applied. The sharp frequency dependence suggests involvement of a __resonance mechanism__.
> In their experiments, researchers demonstrated that the magnetic communication link works well on the body, but they did not test the technique’s power consumption.
Isn't total power/bit transmitted the most interesting point? Magnetic path loss in biological tissue is very well understood, see MRI. I don't understand how this is Ph.D. level work.
I'd love to know the process by which they think a 30khz radio wave could induce a current in your nervous system that you would perceive as a low frequency sound. The whole piece seems technically illiterate.
yes, resonance can be significant, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that the energies here are significant, nor that the frequencies applied are the right frequencies, and resonant enough, for damage.
the underlying point is that unless we're capable of doing the relevant experiments ourselves, we need to trust that people in the field are cognizant enough to realize these obvious issues, test them, and report their findings. it's unlikely that lay people like us are going to find and gotcha the researchers in the field.
that's not to say that, in aggregate, we can't give researchers ideas about what to be researching. that, we can--and should--do, via conversations like this.
> and the same type voltage gated calcium ion channel is also affected by electromagnetic fields?
This is the kind of broad brush statement that makes people face-palm. A "voltage gated" anything is necessarily affected by electromagnetic fields, because that's what those words mean…
…but the character of that effect depends almost entirely on the specifics. Specifically, your brain cells do things at about 100-1000 Hz, whereas most of the new RF noise is about 6 orders of magnitude higher frequency. To understand why 6 orders of magnitude matters, if you go up a further 6 orders of magnitude you get slightly more than the entire range of visible light (red light is ~500e12 Hz, violet is ~800e12).
What might genuinely affect our brain chemistry is the 50-60 Hz range of the mains grid… except we've had that all over the place since electricity was introduced, so this trend wouldn't be new in developed nations, it would be a thing that shows up in the statistics from the interwar era when we got electricity, and the only places that would get this trend now would be places that are finally getting electricity for the first time ever.
If there is a signal for this, I've never heard of it. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but that's what you actually need to look for, not a statement that's technically so general it can be said about literally everything in the universe including spacetime itself, but even with more generous interpretations is still general to the point of trivially applying to basically everything you ever experience.
>As far as I can tell, the results could equally well indicate that flickery lights discombobulate the brain, harming learning, unless done at a precise frequency.
You mean like the 50-60 hz AC powers main frequency of florescent light bulbs? I wonder if one day we will look back on that as the next lead pipes
> Induction stoves are the highest EMF polluting device in a typical household. In particular they emit a large magnetic field.
And? You say this like the problem with this is obvious / self-evident.
(Feel free to get technical: I have an EE.)
The author of your source:
> My interest in the topic of EMF radiation is two-fold:
> I have studied Information Science and worked with router communication, Wi-Fi network, and fiber optics communication during the last 5 years. So I consider myself well-educated on parts of the technical aspects of the problem.
> I am married to a wonderful girl who is hyper-sensitive. She can literally feel high levels of EMF radiation on her skin when she is near strong Wi-Fi signals or other sources of electromagnetic fields like induction stoves.
> Apparently enough people think electromagnetic radiation in the ears is a problem
Even Andrew Huberman, one of the most popular health science podcasters, has dabbled into anti-EMF quackery. On one podcast he claimed that his Bluetooth headphones produced notable "heat effects", implying that the electromagnetic energy was enough to produce palpable heat in his body.
It's obviously placebo effect to the extreme (physically impossible given the amount of RF energy) but nevertheless he made the claim. Millions of people listen to that podcast.
Of course, people are catching on that Andrew Huberman isn't really a good source of scientific information (nor really a good person, given recent revelations) but the damage is done.
> What type of sonic weapon could engender that kind of harm?
> Although low-frequency infrasound systems can “silently” cause a wide range of symptoms in human targets – including fairly severe inner ear and even hair cell damage – the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) doesn’t suggest that any brain damage can be caused.
> High-frequency microwaves, however, could certainly cause brain damage without making a sound. If targeted at a person, small bursts could induce “shockwaves” in brain tissue, as well as the inner ear. Prolonged exposures could cause permanent damage.
I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed by this article which is thinly sourced.
However, it is true that _ultrasonic_ waves can change brain activity. It is typically difficult to couple ultrasonic waves to the head. We hear up to 20kHz. 100kHz is marginally attenuated by air. 1Mhz and above are highly attenuated by air, and that's why ultrasound imaging requires a gel to couple the ultrasound generator to your skin.
IF the article is correct that some kind of sonic weapon caused low-grade brain injury, perhaps it was a super-high-amplitude ultrasound in the 50-300kHz range?
> Why did you pick this one paper, rather than from a multitude of others that exist suggesting low-level non-ionizing radiation exposure at low MW frequencies is safe?
Has anyone studied low-level non-ionizing radiation in an environment that has a high level of other things that are carcinogenic?
DNA can conduct current and this appears to play a role in the mechanism of DNA replication and the finding and repairing of damage during replication [1].
I wonder if it would be possible for low energy fields to interfere with that mechanism? That would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from avoiding a cancer from some other mechanism that it otherwise would have avoided.
There have been some studies that claim DNA can act as a fractal antenna, responding well to wavelengths much longer than you would expect a conventional antenna so small to react to. However I think all of those studies are from just one research team, and I haven't seen anyone trying to reproduce them.
> This is the kind of broad brush statement that makes people face-palm. A "voltage gated" anything is necessarily affected by electromagnetic fields, because that's what those words mean…
It’s not a broadbrush statement, it’s a very specific statement. It’s a statement that this is how EMFs can affect our neurology and our biology. I don’t understand you’re complained about this at all.
> Specifically, your brain cells do things at about 100-1000 Hz, whereas most of the new RF noise is about 6 orders of magnitude higher frequency.
Why are you assuming there has to be some residence between the EMFs and the speed of the fire neurons for the voltage gated ion channels to be triggered or disrupted? This makes no sense.
There’s plenty of signal, you just don’t have the antennas to receive it.
There is considerable evidence that exposure to RF-EMF could cause various types of genotoxic effects in cells (Lai and Singh, 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2009; Ruediger, 2009; Xu et al., 2010). Exposure to RF-EMFs (1,800 MHz, SAR 2 W/kg) caused DNA oxidative damage in the mitochondria, DNA fragmentation and DNA strand breaks in neurons (Xu et al., 2010). This have been reported in lymphocytes exposed to various ranges of RF-EMFs (Phillips et al., 2009). In addition, RF-EMF exposure has been reported to cause chromosomal instability, alteration of gene expression and gene mutations. Such genetic toxic effects have been reported in, but are not limited to, neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow (Magras and Xenos, 1997; Mashevich et al., 2003; Demsia et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2007; Baan et al., 2011). It has also been found that exposure to electromagnetic radiation, a type of RF-EMF, increases the incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy (Mashevich et al., 2003). Genetic toxic effects, including aneuploidy, can lead to genetic disorders with abnormal gene formation, and can even lead to cancer (Hoeijmakers, 2009).
> I highly doubt that, you must be talking about non-invasive electrodes such as EEG. When the electrodes are inside the brain and thus in the cranium, they are effectively protected from outside EM activity since they're in an effective Faraday cage, so your signal has much higher fidelity.
Yeah, I am speaking through non-invasive experience, however, unless your grounding is LIGO level sensitive, sticking a 3 ft metal pole into your mouth takes some significant processing to get a good ground, especially if it comes into contact with the earth and then you change your connectivity with opening and closing your mouth.
Again, low probability, but that just looks like it's asking for problems.
Empirically, we'd want data on how corresponding electromagnetic pulses would affect brain activity -- there should be resonance effects, once the amplitude is high enough.
I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band.
You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it?
> What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values
I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic.
Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power.
If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork.
It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses.
EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels.
All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening.
With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception?
Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health.
And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :)
[1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie...
[2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/
[3] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/
reply