International EMF Scientist Appeal - 250 scientists sign petition warning against cancer from wireless tech...

submitted by useless_aether from (emfscientist.org)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No. Heat does not matter for the harm in many cases. The heat-effect is the only type of harm that is studied by many of the involved scientists. With that they ignore the electrochemistry in biology, and antenna technology.

The CIA docs show DNA damage and how ions (Na, Ca) are pushed through the membranes. My research shows that the DNA and nerves are conductors, so they act as a spark antennas.

So it is very easy to find many other causes of harm besides heat. But because those causes are systematically ignored, the harm that is found in studies are never understood by the scientists that did the research. For many of those peer-reviewed studies look at: http://www.microwavenews.com
About 50% show some kind of harm related to exposure. Some medical studies even show epidemic problems. But the way it causes harm is not understood. That is because you need to know how biology+ electrochemistry+ antenna-technology can combine. I don't think many of the involved scientists know even 2 of these things.

(edited for clarity)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's very interesting and you bring up some good points, tbh. You obviously have studied this and know what you're talking about.

I have to say though, the antenna thing... that's what heat is. That's the very mechanism by which non-ionzing radiation is absorbed in the first place. There is no way by which molecules absorb EMF other than by acting as antennas that react to certain frequencies. That's the entire mechanism of non-ionizing radiation heat absorption, there is no other parts to it.

Then that excited vibrating molecule once heated, hits all the other molecules, and the kinetic energy gets distributed across all the modes of vibrations of all the molecules due the Equipartition Theorem and conductive heating.

The only way you could say the antenna stuff is different from the heating stuff, is if you can demonstrate that one type of molecule is picking up heat far more than other molecules (because of the antenna affect of it being "tuned" to the one specific frequency that is being emitted) AND that that heated molecule is unable to get rid of the heat faster than it absorbs it through conductive heat loss, AND that the molecule is permanently damaged by the excess heat that it absorbs (like a protein denatures, or something like that).

If those all 3 could be proven definitively, then that'd be some super solid research imo.

But short of that we're still just talking about the effects of heat when we talk about the effects of non-ionizing radiation, imo. My 2 cents.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Of course there can be localized heat due to antenna resonance of certain biological components.
But it certainly is NOT the only way this radiation can cause harm.

But I would suggest you check the CIA documents, as they show very different means of harm. They report direct harm of DNA. So much that it only causes cancer with weak radiation. If the radiation gets more, the cells are simply killed before they can become cancer. They also list the problems with the membranes. These are certainly studies that should be replicated.

My own model: Your mobile phone translate very weak radiation to an electrical signal. This needs a conductor, which biological systems clearly have.

This conductor can create voltage-changes and even sparks at very localized places. These places can be "ionized" or harmed directly. This can directly damage DNA, or DNA replication. Which could be a cause for cancer. Cancer and DNA damage is what we see in certain peer-reviewed studies. Ear cancer has gone up immensely.

Also there are many "amplifiers" in our biological systems. These are the nerves and certain cell-components that react to very small voltage changes. These nerves and components trigger bigger processes in the biological system. In its weakest form it will cause stress. And this is indeed what we see in the peer-reviewed tests.

These tests are all replicated in other studies, so it is clear that there is such harm. Studies that do not see problems are less focussed and have a lot of statistical noise. If you look only at all cancer cases, you do not see the problems with ear-cancer.
Again, most peer reviewed studies are at: http://www.microwavenews.com

The only thing that they are uncertain of is how the damage is inflicted. That is because they think exactly like you in your post: "problem is heat". And based on that idea, their studies can not determine the exact problem. It is like a fatal car accident, when you are looking for a problem with the car's steering. When in the real problem was a bee inside. If you don't notice the bee, or think about that possibility, you can not find the problem.

And that is where the CIA studies and other studies come in: the harm is not the heat. The problem is at the membranes (CIA) and the ionizing effect of spark-gap antennas (Hertz).

I think that the harm has been hidden by the military, due to the health problems with radar systems.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the explanation, you've given me quite a bit to think about. I'll have to mull this over some more.

As for the DNA, that could still be non-ionzing heating damage that causes the DNA proteins to denature (change in to the wrong shape) so they don't work anymore. Basically all you'd have to do is find the resonant frequency of an amino acid pair, or DNA itself, or something like that, and then pump it with heat until it melts.

What you say about sparks is interesting. It's basically a sharp electrical gradient in a conductive material. I think in most cases the gradient would balance out, but if you hit one of the resonant frequencies of a molecule, there's a potential it wouldn't dissipate between subsequent wavefronts and instead would at like a an antenna connected to a capacitor, where it would just store more and more electrical charge as each wave comes in, potentially leading to a sparking situation which may itself cause ionizing radiation. That makes sense, I really hadn't considered that before.