Wifi Hurts Trees? Somehow I doubt it
November 20th, 2010
|
| Share |
A rather interesting contention made by a new Dutch study is that trees are being harmed by wifi and mobile phone radiation. Apparently these trees all did fine with CB radios, VHF dispatch radios, analog mobile phones, television broadcasting, AM and FM radio, air traffic control radar and all the other RF emissions that have been around for many decades.
I should add, I have not yet been able to track down the text of the actual study itself, only the news reports.
Via PC World:
Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees, causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark, according to a recent study in the Netherlands.Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees, causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark, according to a recent study in the Netherlands.
The Department of Redundancy Department would like to inform the author that they have used a phrase twice and also that the same phrase was used two times.
All deciduous trees in the Western world are affected, according to the study by Wageningen University. The city of Alphen aan den Rijn ordered the study five years ago after officials found unexplained abnormalities on trees that couldn’t be ascribed to a virus or bacterial infection.
Additional testing found the disease to occur throughout the Western world. In the Netherlands, about 70 percent of all trees in urban areas show the same symptoms, compared with only 10 percent five years ago. Trees in densely forested areas are hardly affected.
Hmm.. well, that seems like quite a conclusion they have there, but then we have this…
Besides the electromagnetic fields created by mobile-phone networks and wireless LANs, ultrafine particles emitted by cars and trucks may also be to blame. These particles are so small they are able to enter the organisms.
Excuse me for asking, but is it the fine particles emitted by cars and trucks or the mobile phone radiation or both? If it actually is particulate pollution from vehicles then I can’t exactly say I’m shocked. It’s well known that the particulates emitted by vehicles and other fossil fuel uses can be harmful to plant life. This is hardly a new revelation.
And finally…
The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a “lead-like shine” on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit the growth of corn cobs.
The researchers urged that further studies were needed to confirm the current results and determine long-term effects of wireless radiation on trees.
20 ash trees? How exactly do we get from that to all the all deciduous trees in the Western world? And for that matter, why the Western world? Are the trees in Japan all immune to this? Also, does Australia count? In other words, are we talking about the geographic western world or the cultural one?
And what is a “lead like shine”? Is that the only symptom? Hell, lead isn’t even really all that shiny.
I think I might see some unfounded conclusions here.
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 20th, 2010 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, inverse square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
January 7th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Theology claims to be the study of the nature of God and religious truth and rational inquiry into religious questions.
The volume of literature published in this field in the last 1500 years is staggering. The history of the study of theology in institutions of higher education is as old as the history of such institutions themselves, and in many cases was the reason these schools were formed.
However as Thomas Paine, wrote, in The Age of Reason:,
“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”
Exactly the same applies to the tripe written in the area under discussion in this thread.
Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Neglecting to take this into account makes many findings look far more significant than they really are. In the past, the general acceptance of the dogma of Christian faith, gave weight to the findings and opinions of theology. Today, a belief system, just as arbitrary, and just as founded on ignorance, gives weight to the pronouncements of pseudoscience.
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
andreu said:
Thank you for your comment. I was always puzzled why the best pictures of this structure were ’spoiled’ by this intrusive greenery. It is also a mystery why, having built the tallest structure in history, the powers that be did not see fit to publish any really good pictures of it. Perhaps the thing is just too tall and thin to be photographed.
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Anon:
“Well we are mostly made up of water”
- So I guess that’s all that matters then eh? Since we are mostly water should be only be concerned with things that affect water. Once again this shows how your arguments are over simplified.
Anon:
“A microwave oven can do that, a mobile phone or Wi-Fi antenna can’t emit power levels anywhere near high enough for that to happen.”
- We don’t need to be exposed to anywhere near those levels for damage to occur anyway. Do you at least see how if energy has no place to go it can build up? Because that was my point. I wasn’t suggesting cell phones could melt the glass in our brains
Anon:
“A harmonic is an integer multiple so how could it be lower?”
- 60 Hz power can interfere with communication lines running at much higher frequencies.
Anon:
“Cordless phones operate in frequency bands that don’t require a license which usually means the ISM bands (and at low power as well).”
- Once again quoting regulations is quite irrelevant. I fail to see the point you are making here.
Anon:
“Practically any frequency would’ve worked just as well though (a lot of industrial microwave ovens use 915 MHz).”
- No. Not according to the information I found in researching my earlier response. It was picked for it’s particular qualities. Yes, some other specific frequencies will also work (like 915MHz if you are trying to kill insects in lumber) but these frequencies are also specific which once again leads back to my point.
DV8:
“Understand that there is no one here with a shred of scientific education believes that you have any yourself, at all.”
- I’m sorry but I had to laugh at this. I was thinking similar thoughts of you but, rather than jump to the conclusion that you are lying about your history, I chose to believe your information is just too narrow and you are perhaps a little naive. I know my background and how long I have been interested in this particular subject. And I know it is factual. Which leads me to the conclusion that you must be very unscientific indeed to have come to the wrong conclusion on something that is a fact. Or perhaps you are so heavily biased by your pride that you are merely lashing out in the only way left.
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
[...] The claim made by a commenter in a previous post amounts to this: A Norway Maple tree existed in a location and was always very healthy, until a mobile tower was built approximately 180 meters away. After this, the tree appeared to be less healthy on the side facing the tower. The commenter claims that this is proof that it is the tower that caused this apparent problem with the tree. [...]
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
fixx said:
If you’re talking about the electromagnetic effects of a human body, water is always going to dominate it.
fixx said:
Build up? thats *not even wrong* Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The energy is all converted to heat, which is going to disperse through radiation, convection or conduction. That’s not even considering most passes through. There’s no way you could let the RF energy into a substance then capture it and contain it in some manner that it would “build up” – that’s not how it works.
And lest this argument even come up: No, it does not matter if a quarter of a watt or less of thermal energy is deposited in the body somewhere. The internal temperature of the body is not always a rock-solid 98.6 ferinheight. Tissue temperatures can easly vary by a degree or two based on what you’re doing, the enviornment etc. Heating up an area by a fraction of a degree (which is all RF from a mobile phone would do) does not amount to a hill of beans compared to the energy cell respiration already produces.
fixx said:
Again, no idea what you’re talking about. That’s generally caused by the receiver not having enough filtering to remove unwanted frequencies or the demodulated signal not being properly shielded. It may also occur if the mains current has other unwanted, higher, frequencies on it, which can be the result of certain equipment.
fixx said:
Your information is wrong. You should really do some more research into how microwave heating actually works. Any frequency will work. It’s simply an issue of higher frequencies penitrating less deeply into dense materials, and thus depositing more energy at the surface but not necessarily heating the center signifficantly. Lower frequencies, on the other hand, pass through more easily but have the down side of possibly passing through completely without depositing all their energy, thus not heating as well.
It’s exactly the same as infrared heat lamps, which, being a higher frequency, only warm the surface directly.
Industrial microwaves would use a lower frequency because this allows them to better heat larger objects.
Quote Comment
January 9th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
DrBuzz:
“If you’re talking about the electromagnetic effects of a human body, water is always going to dominate it.”
- I am quite certain that any polar molecule will be affected, WRT heating effects. Water certainly being the most abundant one in our bodies – but by no means the only one.
- WRT non heating effects EMFs have the potential to affect the body in a multitude of ways. Heat is not the only possible outcome of an EMF. Current flow can caused through induction and magnetic fields can be created. (made me wonder if all those birds died on new years from everyone getting on their cell to say or text “Happy New Year”)
DrBuzz:
“Build up? thats *not even wrong* Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The energy is all converted to heat, which is going to disperse through radiation, convection or conduction.”
- Hmmm. So how do we cook food if we are not raising the internal temperature? According to you the rate of heat loss will always be equal to or greater than the rate of absorption. In fact, these rate are controlled by the specific R values (thermal resistance) of the substance and those substances surrounding it. Also a fact is that the R values can change with temperature.
- Also, the use of the word “all” is incorrect. Microwave heating is a conversion process since one frequency is entering the system (Microwaves) and being converted within the substance being heated into a different frequency (Infrared). Since conversions of energy are never 100% efficient, some of the energy is “lost” by being converted to undesirable forms (if only entropy). Due to the mechanism of microwave heating there are 2 conversions that I can see: microwave EMF to mechanical motion and mechanical motion to IR EMF (and internal heat of course).
DrBuzz:
“It’s exactly the same as infrared heat lamps, which, being a higher frequency, only warm the surface directly.”
- Which is wrong because of the reasons I have stated above. While there is similarity, the two processes are far from identical. The IR energy is simply transferred.
DrBuzz:
“Again, no idea what you’re talking about.”
- Does that in itself make me wrong? I myself was recently unaware that fractions of frequencies could also cause harmonic effects but it does make some sense. If someone can show me how I am wrong (as opposed to just stating it) then I will gladly stand corrected.
DrBuzz:
“Industrial microwaves would use a lower frequency because this allows them to better heat larger objects”
- Which is a selection of a frequency for it’s desirable qualities. The degree of penetration would obviously be indirectly proportional to the degree of absorption. So a higher frequency is more readily absorbed (ie less of it will pass through our skull without effect).
On the subject of knowledge: Because we are dealing with various disciplines within science here (physics, biology, chemistry) I think it is safe to say that no one here is the Albert Einstein of this subject. Also, I suspect that some are falling prey to the oversimplification used to save time, brain power, and money. In engineering factors of an equation are often negated because the effects are considered negligible. But the complexity of the relationships still exists. As any example: localized high temperatures in microwaved food are not relevant to overall temperature of the food (the engineers goal) but may provide the activation energy required for chemical reactions that would not occur during other cooking methods. When ingested by a complex living thing these reactions may become relevant.
Quote Comment
January 9th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
fixx said:
Perhaps not, but some of us are at least competent.
I think that it is safe to say that some people here have some serious misunderstandings of the basic concepts. Example:
No! Energy cannot be “converted” to entropy, nor can any of it be “lost” through inefficiencies. Energy (or the combination of energy and mass) is always conserved. What can happen is that energy can be transfered from low entropy to high entropy states, but that is more commonly known as energy being converted to heat, which is what Steve was talking about.
Infrared radiation appears only because that is the frequency at which bodies at room temperature (or near room temperature) tend to radiate. First, the energy is converted to heat, then the energy is radiated to the surrounding environment, but if the environment is at the same temperature, the amount of energy radiated out is equal to the amount of energy radiated in.
Please do yourself a favor and take a introductory undergraduate-level course in thermodynamics or heat transfer. Your current understanding of these topics is dismal, and you’re only embarrassing yourself by rattling on, making such basic mistakes.
Quote Comment
January 9th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
fixx said:
Energy of mobile phone transmissions isn’t going to be inducing anywhere near enough current to have an effect that way (even if the human body were a good antenna which it isn’t).
fixx said:
LOL.
fixx said:
Because we pump a lot of energy into it and don’t let that energy out of the microwave oven (at least not easily).
Quote Comment
January 9th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
fixx said:
No…
WE ARE RAISING THE INTERNAL TEMPERATURE!
It’s all about the intensity of the energy you’re putting into it. You can stand near a small lightbulb all day and night and it won’t burn you because the energy coming off of it is too little. Your body is going to dispose of the heat it creates faster than it can radiate more heat onto you. Stand next to a large amount of molten iron and it will char your skin.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
It’s just the intensity. A cell phone will never make a popcorn kernel pop because it’s about a half a watt at the most. Not enough to cause much heating. A microwave oven will.
Yes, RF radiation can injur or even kill you IF the intensity is high enough. IF the heating is significant and greater than what your body can dispose of, then it can cause a lot of damage. Technicians were injured by high power radar during the 1940’s and 1950’s in this manner,
fixx said:
no no no no
Infrared is not the same as heat. Infrared is a type of electromagnetic radiation. It has nothing to do with heat. All electromagnetic radiation is produced by incandescence (heating things) and all radiation will heat things when it hits them.
Infrared is only associated with heat because it happens to be the black body frequency for the temperatures we experience here on earth in our enviornment. There’s nothing uniquely heat-related about infrared energy.
Also, heat is NOT infrared energy. Temperature is a property of matter (which is why in a perfect vacuum there is no ambient temperature). it’s not related to infrared.
fixx said:
No. It’s not “simply transferred” You clearly have a hard time understanding what heat and infrared energy are. It’s a case of electromagnetic energy imparting energy to matter and causing the molecules to vibrate. This is heat, by definition, but it’s not the same as IR radiation.
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2011 at 9:39 am
If any of the skeptocrackpots (and unfortunate guests), extruding at their worst what resembles foul B-owel-M-ovement-S, care to get back to the host blogger’s topic, see what has been leading to the tree study:
http://www.alphenaandenrijn.nl/INTERNET/Inrichting%20openbare%20ruimte/Documenten/Boomaantastingen%20Versie%20Engels.pdf
I have been informed that more interesting than the striking defoliation we’ve noted all over our region, are bark abnormalities, extremely unusual and unaccounted for. I am told there is a February conference addressing the mass tree stress, die-back & die-off. I hope to see conference proceedings as soon as available.
http://www.puls-schlag.org/download/CherryTreeHut200705.pdf is another demo of comparative tree damage related to masts, here cherry.
On pg 97 of http://www.puls-schlag.org/download/Schorpp-StPeter-20070929-online200dpi.pdf there is an eleboration of the three-lindens link I posted above at #106.
For more evidence of mass affliction — I know, skeptos, stuff just happens — see many items throughout this blogger’s site, http://witsendnj.blogspot.com ,
although she is too into ozone explanation to regard EM insult well. I do wonder though about RF abetting ozone creation, not just UV. Anyone know about this possibility?
Now it does not seem here like your prevalent types care much about the more physically weak & vulnerable, but do consider that what holds for people & animals, they get stricken based on existing patterns of vulnerabilities, so with vegetation.
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Ozone is created by UV radiation (i.e. much higher frequency than any mobile phone tower or Wi-Fi cantenna will put out) or by high voltage electrical discharges (which antennas don’t produce).
Still, it’s not any less likely than the suggestion that the scary, evil radiation (that isn’t even ionising nor contains much energy) did it.
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2011 at 10:44 am
From Canadian authors whose study I referred to at post #256 at http://depletedcranium.com/?p=8741&cp=all#comments , BENEFICIAL AND HARMFUL ACCELERATED GROWTH INDUCED BY THE ACTION OF NONIONIZING RADIATION, in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 238, Issue 1 (1974)
………….
The effects of microwaves on plants were explored initially in terms of the gross
effects. The various physiological changes that have been found to occur in continuous-
wave shf (10 GHz) fields of intensity range 10 pW/cm2 to 190 mW/cm2
were examined. An important finding was that specific physiological changes are unpredictable
because of the many interacting parameters.
A second experiment conducted with a very rigid control of plant environment
revealed that exposures of 10-30 min at a field strength of approximately 190 mW/
cm2 were sufficient to produce permanent wilting in most of the plants used. With
exposures of 5-10 min/plant at a field intensity of 140-190 mW/cm2, the primary
leaves displayed the greatest sensitivity and reacted by wilting. During the recovery
period following radiation, the plant’s trifoliate leaf curiously wilted and died. This
reaction suggests that microwaves influence water metabolism, which mainly affects
the primary leaves. These leaves, however, react and compensate for the dehydration
by imposing demands on the trifoliate.
The sensitive Mimosa plant exposed to field intensities of 120 mW/cm2 for approximately
2 min responded with a sudden wilting reaction similar to the way in
which wilting occurs when a leaf is touched. The plant died without reopening. At
low levels in the intensity range 10-10,000 pW/cm2, deterioration was observed, but
its occurrence was unpredictable.
……………………..
Should be of interest to non-skeptos, brought to show directions research could have taken, with an eye to complexity & impartiality (see their comments below). They worked with the National Research Council here. Shortly after, i discovered from reading Kane, ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/21783803/Cellular-Telephone-Russian-Roulette , must-read), that the Radiation Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada seemed to work closely with Motorola. And why do you think Blackman’s work was curtailed at the EPA in the US? (Skeptos need not answer; I know they won’t think about these things. See http://www.microwavenews.com/RR.html for more of the kind of thing that a skepto has no interest in, certain peculiarities in radiation research. I recognize from the lists there a certain “Health” (Death) Canada scientist, on the wrong side of suspicion, of course. But, well, they don’t deal in trees anyway.)
A bit more ten from the short article:
…………..
In more detailed terms, our research has shown that electromagnetic field
intensity per se is a meaningless quantity without also defining the parameters that
relate to the biological effects of the field. Not only do external parameters, such as
temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure, play an important role, but also
the set of such parameters as stage of digestion, temperature of animal, metabolic
rate, blood circulation condition, type of animal, type of tissue, and others that
define the biological state of the organism have importance. The establishment of an
index of biological effectiveness is a highly complex problem, which is compounded
by the complexities of measuring the appropriate electromagnetic field parameters.
This does not mean, however, that man will not be able to master the various interrelationships
but rather that he has many obligations to fulfill.
…………..
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
http://studien.diagnose-funk.org/downloads/df_studienliste_referenzen.pdf
A useful list of 108 studies from last decade all I think, for those healthily skeptical of skeptics’ depleted crania.
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Daryl Vernon said:
You don’t really have a good grasp of what constitutes a high exposure to RF energy versus what kind of numbers we’re actually talking about in normal circumstances, do you?
Nobody is going to deny RF energy can be damaging at a high enough level. 140-190 mW/cm2 is EXTREMELY high. it’s at least thousands of times what you’d experience at the base of a transmission tower.
Acute thermal effects are observable at 35 mW/cm2. The limit for human exposure normally is something like 1-5 mW/cm2, depending on the circumstances and frequency.
Hell, I could have told you if you cook it with enough energy it’ll die. Christ, this ain’t a revelation.
Quote Comment
January 11th, 2011 at 9:57 am
“You don’t really have a good grasp of what” patience in study is, or how cumulative effects are what does it for most, how the “(mis)-informational” content counts more than crude power density, …I myself, when feeling weaker, can “hear” at around TWO microwatts/m^2 (yes, micro) the regular output at intervals of the wireless electricity meter attached to our house. An “EHS” I know can sense the MW insult in the nanoW range, sometimes after seconds of exposure. Long ago I brought you the Swedish engineer’s story. There is something about a body’s own field that gets distorted and finally breached with cumulative EM insult from “low” power like from cell masts. The result is akin to electrocution, something French Dr. Maschi realized in the 60s (but re ELF, or involving “transients” over power lines as Milham et al are warning about). Even Bioninitiative-Report-suggested test levels of maximum exposures (as are being testing in some French localities right now; anglo-heads wait for the heads to fall off, I know, before they will go against financial & corporate masters) are too high. There is zero real study of cumulative effect in the West. A six-minute standard (a convenient hour x 10^-1), or a half-hour one, all tracing back to the Schwannian heat dissipation thing, with at the time mostly military aggression in the background (I’ve referred you to very much historical writing, “you really don’t have a good grasp”…). Utter idiocy, when E. Euro. counterparts have known forever about long-term effects. That is why I keep bringing the older study stuff. To compare, to provide cultural criticism. I am well aware that by far most Western studies used to involve higher power levels than I would want for making the case. But even in the West there have been studies at astonishing low levels of power that have shown deleterious effect. You choose to believe what you choose to believe. This is not the transcendental rationality you skeptos you strive for. Go through just that list of more recent material at the link I just provided. That’s the tip of the iceberg.
Quote Comment
January 11th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Daryl Vernon said:
No, you don’t hear the damn electromagnetic fields from the meter. Those meters have electromechanical relays that click closed and oscillators and inverters, all of which can make sounds. You’re hearing the sound it makes, idiot.
And as far as “feeling weaker” – that’s why we have placebo controlled studies, because what you feel is often what you think you feel or expect to feel.
if two microwatts per m2 were really effecting you, you couldn’t go anywhere near a computer, with a wireless connection or now.
Daryl Vernon said:
If that were the case, the very electrical impulses created by their muscles would be a problem. Hell, the energy created by things like electrostatic discharges on the other side of the room would have them in agony.
Daryl Vernon said:
What you say shows very clearly that you don’t understand these things. You talk about high power exposure that causes thermal effects and act like this is a revelation. You talk about electrical fields, magnetic fields and RF fields like you don’t know the inference. You have a very poor understanding of what dialectic heating is. You repeatedly say completely nonsensical things about ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation. You don’t even understand how ozone is formed or why RF radiation can’t contribute to ozone formation. You go back and forth on unrelated subjects.
It’s very apparent to anyone who knows even the most basic fundamentals of RF radiation, physics and biology that you lack all understanding of these things.
By the way – even if you refuse to learn anything else, for christ sake, learn how to use the quote feature on this website. It ain’t hard.
Also, paragraphs are your friend
Quote Comment
January 12th, 2011 at 12:19 am
drbuzz says:
“There’s nothing uniquely heat-related about infrared energy.
Also, heat is NOT infrared energy. Temperature is a property of matter (which is why in a perfect vacuum there is no ambient temperature). it’s not related to infrared.”
- I never said heat was IR. But, the uniqueness of IR as it pertains to heat is the frequency (you said it yourself). Even though higher temperatures will produce higher frequencies the vast majority of the radiation is still in the infrared range.
- Explain why a heated object emits IR if it is unrelated to heat.
- Explain how an object heated with microwaves emits IR instead of microwaves.
drbuzz says:
“All electromagnetic radiation is produced by incandescence (heating things)”
- Look up the meaning of the word incandescence. It does not mean “heating things”, it means the production of visible light by “heating things”.
- Look up how AM and FM band EM radiation is produced – no incandescence or heating there.
- Nuclear reactions also produce EM radiation.
drbuzz says:
so even if this statement were true it doesn’t help your case.
“Infrared is only associated with heat because it happens to be the black body frequency for the temperatures we experience here on earth in our enviornment.”
- Earth is the planet most of us are on
- Black bodies are theoretical and the term “black body frequency” appears to be fictitious. If you are referring to the frequency of the radiation emitted by a black body then have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation and you will see how you are wrong. Notice that even at 5500 Kelvin approximately half the energy radiated (area under the curve) is in the IR range.
drbuzz says:
“WE ARE RAISING THE INTERNAL TEMPERATURE!
It’s all about the intensity of the energy you’re putting into it. You can stand near a small lightbulb all day and night and it won’t burn you because the energy coming off of it is too little. Your body is going to dispose of the heat it creates faster than it can radiate more heat onto you. Stand next to a large amount of molten iron and it will char your skin.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?”
- My comment was in response to your comment about energy not building up. And the above is actually the point I was making. So, enough said I guess.
- Stand in a very well insulated room with a small heat source and you will also get charred.
BMS says:
“No! Energy cannot be “converted” to entropy, nor can any of it be “lost” through inefficiencies. Energy (or the combination of energy and mass) is always conserved. What can happen is that energy can be transfered from low entropy to high entropy states, but that is more commonly known as energy being converted to heat, which is what Steve was talking about.”
- “lost” was in quotes for a reason. I am familiar with the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Loses are forms of energy that are other than those desired. My point was that heat is probably not the only thing being generated here. I will try to be more elementary in my communications in the future.
- WRT to the definition of entropy, I will have to look into this further since both the definitions on the web and your explanation do not jive with what I was taught (or perhaps how I understood it). They also do not make sense given what entropy represents.
BMS says:
“Infrared radiation appears only because that is the frequency at which bodies at room temperature (or near room temperature) tend to radiate. First, the energy is converted to heat, then the energy is radiated to the surrounding environment, but if the environment is at the same temperature, the amount of energy radiated out is equal to the amount of energy radiated in.”
- Your statement is mostly correct here except that bodies at much higher temperatures also radiate mostly infrared. Also “environment” has to be taken into the radiation context. Under clear skies a body is radiating to space not the air. Not to mention, the amount radiated is also a function of the material the surface of the body is made of (unless you are using the theoretical black body used to simplify calculations). Maybe mostly correct was being to generous. Oversimplified would be a better description.
BMS says:
“Please do yourself a favor and take a introductory undergraduate-level course in thermodynamics or heat transfer. Your current understanding of these topics is dismal, and you’re only embarrassing yourself by rattling on, making such basic mistakes.”
- I took both up to 3rd year. Do not let your misunderstandings of what I am sayings cloud your assessment of my knowledge.
- You are arguing semantics while not addressing the core truths of what I am saying. We should all try to stay on topic here – which is not my level of education.
- Your attempts to insult do nothing for your argument. In fact a true skeptic would question your motives in doing so. Which I suspect is to drive me away from the discussion. I will not succumb to your aggression.
Anon says:
“LOL.”
- You wouldn’t laugh if you were a bird
- http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/953/
Anyone suggesting that infrared and microwave heating are identical because they are both EM heating may as well suggest cats are identical to dogs because they are both animals.
Anyone suggesting that A+B=C is unaware that in the real world A+B=C and D and E and even a little bit of F. Most of the relationships being referred to here are vastly over simplified especially considering the complexity of living organisms.
Anyone suggesting that trees can’t be hurt by radiation from microwave towers yet concedes that technicians were getting fried (closer but much shorter time) is clearly heavily biased. To close your mind to even the possibility of damage is intentional ignorance.
Anyone who thinks that things have really changed since the Radium Girls is woefully ignorant of human history and our tendency to repeat it. Not to mention which qualities are rewarded in our modern society.
I looked up the meaning of the word skeptic (because I consider myself one) and drbuzz you are not it. Are there any EMFs are safe studies on this blog that have been deemed bad science? Because bad science is everywhere. It doesn’t pick sides and is very subjective. Anyone can read a study and find fault with it. The assertion that no evidence of harm is made continually but any study showing evidence is ignored or discredited rather weakly (see post 164). Supporting the ideas of entrenched institutions is not something a skeptic would even think of doing. I finally decided to browse this site and noticed a distinct and consistent flavour.
Quote Comment
January 12th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
fixx said:
Black body radiation. It emits IR in a certain temperature range.
fixx said:
IT DOES EMIT MICROWAVES, IDIOT!
Anything with a temperature above absolute zero emits radiation. The frequency of this is dependent on temperature. The warmer it gets, the shorter the wavelength, but it will continue to emit some radiation at lower wavelengths. Just as a visible lightbulb also emits some infrared, an object that is warm enough to emit infrared will also emit some microwaves. The proportion of which is dependent on the material and the temperature.
Look, this is physics 101. The fact that you’re stumbling over this is making a fool of you.
fixx said:
It is not limited to visible light. All electromagnetic radiation is, in effect, the same as light. Idiot.
fixx said:
It’s not the only way to produce electromagnetic waves, idiot.
fixx said:
no.. You miss the context. IR is considered “thermal” only because it corresponds to the thermal range which is commonly encountered.
fixx said:
What the **** is your point? Do you even understand what you’re talking about? This is the exact same reason all things in the IR temperature range also emit microwaves.
And are you so stupid as to dismiss black body radiation on the basis that a perfect black body does not exist? Look, stupid, this is what is done very commonly in physics: Perfect voltage source, ideal gas, perfect elastic collision, frictionless surface – none of these things really exist. However they come very very very close in real life. I’m not going to start going off on a sidetrack debating the merits of the black body model.
fixx said:
Ah, but there’s no such thing as “perfect” insulation! What’s your point anyway? That if you take a cell phone into a room that is insulated by several feet of vacuum insulation paneling and aerogel that you’ll get very hot? Yeah, that’s true, but it’s also true without the cell phone.
fixx said:
no. no, not quite.
fixx said:
You should demand a refund.
Quote Comment
January 12th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
I will no longer respond to quoted comments that do not use the quote feature. It could not be simpler. You put the open quote tag at the begining of each item you want to quote and the end quote tag at the end. You can split up quotes as many times as you want. it indents them and links back. Easy to read and keeps it organized.
To not use the quote feature or not be able to figure it out would take an uncommonly simple-minded idiot. it ain’t complicated
Quote Comment
January 12th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Indeed. I love how this joker looks up something on Wikipedia, spouts a slew of irrelevant factoids found there, and then complains that I’ve “oversimplified,” when all I have done is appropriately correct his/her/its fundamentally flawed drivel.
fixx said:
And you accuse me of “arguing semantics”?! Sheesh!
fixx said:
Apparently, you will not succumb to knowledge, reason, or common sense either.
Quote Comment
January 12th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
fixx said:
A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don’t to be more open-minded.
Both of our current resident nutbags would profit from watching this. (although I doubt anything could penetrate their thick sculls)
Quote Comment
January 13th, 2011 at 12:49 am
I have had no problem following the discussion or my own train of thought. I’m sorry that you need a computer to do that for you but I don’t keep javascript on (esp. on a site such as this) so the quote feature doesn’t work for me (see there is a reason). So, I will no long quote any of you drbuzz. I will, however, use paragraphs since it seems so important to you.
Another reason I will refrain from quoting your responses is that there is no need. It’s all there for anyone with the time and patience to read it. Especially in your last tirade. Anyone who wishes to follow the links or go to a library will see that drbuzz’s arguments are omissive, misleading, and in some cases out and out wrong. I am not suggesting that everything I have stated is 100% right. Nobody’s perfect but I am constantly reassessing my knowledge to ensure that I have a perspective that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. I will also concede that at times my comments may not have been clear or concise enough since they seemed to illicit irrelevant responses. As an example, I was quite aware that heated bodies emit lower frequencies (like microwaves) as well as infrared. My point was the energy is put in at microwave frequencies, absorbed, then released mostly as infrared. I guess I’ll never be sure if I was unclear or you were being deliberately obtuse.
Hopefully anyone reading this thread will follow it back far enough to see how drbuzz and DV8 (or should I say deviate) even contradict themselves in the singular drive to prove their point. Only proving themselves to be the “idiots” they accuse others of being or the corporate shills that Daryl thinks they are. I’m leaning more towards Daryl’s assessment now because they demonstrate enough knowledge to suggest they are not ignorant but use techniques that a politician would use (or a bully in a schoolyard). Of course things like excessive pride and inferiority complexes could also cause this type of behavior.
I wonder if drbuzz will ever realize he effectively called himself an idiot
Read comments 159 and 168 carefully. That’s what happens when you let your computer do your thinking for you drbuzz. It also demonstrates some of the convenient contradictions etc. that I have been referring to. I’ll be archiving this.
Also, I hope anyone looking for information here only uses this as a source of what information to look up. Be your own skeptic !!! Never use only one source for your information.
Well, I’m leaving because I’m done. Bye Daryl, good luck in your travels. DV8, grow up. drbuzz, remove the dr from your name it’s misleading. Also consider changing your blog description to: A blog of my opinions. Let science speak for itself.
Quote Comment
January 13th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Such breathtaking conceit and arrogance I have only seen rarely before…
Quote Comment
January 13th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Nick P. said:
Both of these people, Daryl Vernon, and fixx are suffering from serious chronic Cluster B personality disorders of the Histrionic/Narcissistic type. These are pervasive personality disorders characterized by odd, eccentric thinking or behavior, and life long chronic coping problems.
I doubt that he will stay away, although his screen name may change. In general, having a personality disorder means having a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking and behaving no matter what the situation. This leads to significant problems and limitations in relationships, social encounters, but doesn’t stop the need for them. In short being abused here for these two is better than the alternative – being alone with themselves.
Quote Comment
January 13th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
drbuzz0 said:
We went through this quote thing before. If you stupidly prefer inefficiency, I guess I can cater to that. So there’s your redundant page-filling quote of your silliness.
I am hearing clicks, eh. That’s maybe the funniest excursus yet here. What provokes the tinnitus when near cell masts — they click, too? How about wifi, same?
As usual, you completely missed what was mentioned earlier about appropriateness of some “controls”, esp. for biological study.
I avoid wireless connexions for computer. I don’t know what you mean by, “or now”. What’s coming off my computer screen is an irritant to me. It provokes occasional vertigo, but always pain in one eye, which I sometimes shield. 1mHz – 8 gHz is the range I’ve tested it for, and to not much lower than around 500 nanoW. It does not register. But i am a very mild sufferer. I just use my own case to show how it’s going that way for everyone at this rate. Didn’t I bring here a giant Japanese study about harm from long-term screen-staring? Although that wasn’t referring to symptoms I am here.
Some severe sufferers cannot even use a wired telephone. You guys are so intransigently closed-minded. I have learned since last posting here that a major organization of international significance is apt to soon favourably revise its stand on EHS. You guys won’t believe it regardless. All the insurance companies in the world, all the high courts, millions or billions of people harmed by RF, some of you guys will go to the last not believing or admitting it. But I’ve said this kind of thing already. There is almost nothing at all learned from you fellows, sad to say, except what I learned early on, and it was not directly about the topic.
You’ve got strange interpretation of what I wrote. Sad that you cannot follow the thematic connexions either.
Fixx spoke of my figuring you’re shills. Not exactly my view, although there might be something of that.
If this is your childish fun-house, i am sorry for having intruded at the outset and disturbed your fun.
Quote Comment
January 14th, 2011 at 1:41 am
Daryl Vernon said:
It’s psychological. If it isn’t, you have a case that has never been documented in human history and which demonstrates some as yet unknown biological mechanism. Possibly this could even be Nobel prize caliber.
By the way, I offer one thousand dollars to anyone who can demonstrate the ability to detect wireless transmitters being on or off under controlled conditions. I’d offer more, but that’s what I can come up with on my own on short notice. I have a few others willing to kick in a few hundred.
And yes, I can make a formal contract if you are serious about it.
As usual, you completely missed what was mentioned earlier about appropriateness of some “controls”, esp. for biological study.
Daryl Vernon said:
If cell towers bother you at all, your computer will bother you far far more – damn inverse square law getting you there. The computer can be orders of magnitude smaller a transmitter, but being very close, it will produce higher levels than a cell tower at a few hundred feet.
It does not matter if it has a wireless connection or not.
A computer has a memory controller that is operating at between 100 mhz and 1 ghz. It has a cpu with a main clock at multiple gigahertz. The USB controler and all USB devices are operating at anywhere up to a few megahertz depending on what it is doing.
All these oscillators, controllers and buses produce RF energy that is radiated out. They don’t produce much, but they produce a hell of a lot more exposure than a cell tower does when you’re a few hundred feet from it. A few nanowatts per cm3 is more than a smart meter on the side of your house will produce as well.
Daryl Vernon said:
Once again trying to confuse things by throwing in unrelated and irrelevant subject matter. Yes, screen staring can have detrimental effects. It’s not at all related to any radiation or RF energy. It’s a simple issue of eye strain from looking at the screen, especially in low ambient light conditions. This is even worse with old CRT screens. It can strain eyes and cause problems with focusing.
This has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Your desperation is showing more and more.
Daryl Vernon said:
Yeah, I’m not surprised. Hypochondriacs are really annoying to talk to. I’d imagine it would not take long before they run out of people willing to talk to them on the phone – wireless or otherwise.
Daryl Vernon said:
You don’t have to quote the whole damn comment. Notice that above I edited it down to what I wanted to quote. See? easy. even you can likely figure it out.
It’s a hell of a lot easier than your insistence of using inline quotes in one massive rambling paragraph.
Some of us actually understand what causes eye strain – lack of visual breaks does not help. Maybe you should consider that before blaming it on those evil rf rays.
Quote Comment
January 14th, 2011 at 6:53 am
drbuzz0 said:
They’re also pretty damn annoying to converse with online, as Daryl has demonstrated.
Quote Comment
January 14th, 2011 at 8:47 am
BMS has conversed not at all online that i can see on these threads, only dropped excrement, in line with his initials, as already indicated.
eyestrain? i have been doing daily yoga-style eye exercises for decades, wear no seeing aids as a result, there is no pain when the eye is covered in front of the screen, and again when i am feeling in a stronger state (you seem a lot younger than me) the eye bothers less or not at all, but when it hurts it can endure for hours
as Dr Belpomme puts it (leading edge mainstream physisican treating ehs in France, as a result of your impossibly low exposures, he is seeing 20 new patients a week) , ES seems to have a first stage of reactivity to a particular type of rf, doubtless what one has been hit with most, which then passes a tipping point where all such insult is not tolerated; Dr Klinghardt (German-US leading edge physician successful treater of severe autism &c) explains that without isolation from Em insult, the therapy does not take, same for his colleague in Netherlands; so the computer screen effect might be specifically harmful after prolonged exposure, at a power level &/or frequency not registering on one of our meters; away from computer for a day or so after affliction sets in again, pain abates
as for the processor etc, i have always kept all that on the other side of the wall from the screen, until i figured on trying putting aluminum insect screen over the the “tower”, seems to work
the Japanese thing is not from staring, i should not have put it that way, it must be from many factors together, not the least of which is radiative exposures
your $ are tempting not so much for the $ but for the public demo, but there’s a lot more $ to had from court judgement; of course, all the damage already done, as with all the perverse modernist madness, is not even close to payable , of course why insurance companies are out ( but you’re still in…), so whoever gets there early will get what awards to be had — of course i have already told you about sensible anti-cell-mast court judgements all over the place
the 200,000 nanowatts from the source can reduce by 100,000x and still register ill effect if that is how a body reacts, all you guys & other such skeptos ever talk about is power levels, it’s so stupid already
the subject matter was all related, again you miss the bigger picture…but have fun doing it
Quote Comment
January 14th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Well, they’re annoying to listen to, but fun to provoke.
Oh Daryl … admit it. You’re just jealous because I can do a better “Daryl Vernon” than you do.
All it takes is the right mixture of paranoia, hypochondriasis, chutzpah, bad grammar, Münchausen by Internet, and excessive free time.
You won’t go away, because as DV82XL has explained, you are suffering from a personality disorder that leads you to require attention from this forum to compensate for your shortcomings in developing real interpersonal relationships.
Have fun with that.
Quote Comment
January 14th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Notice that Vernon has not said a thing about the whole post about his supposedly rf-injured maple tree. He challenged anyone to debunk it and then when it happened, he seems to be afraid to go near the subject, Maybe he does believe in math.
Quote Comment
January 20th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Someone mentioned to me that I should say something in response to the other blog item, which I figured was not worth the bother, but does allow for maybe some clarification. Arithmetic is simple enough. Boneheads here don’t believe in geometry? It is possible, and this should be the clarification when I can get to it, that the most directly offending emitter has a significant obstruction between it and the part of the Norway apparently not harmed (ie if not the harmed part of the tree itself somehow an obstruction, and apart from there maybe being significance to the timing, and other factors usually too complex for people around here to entertain when it comes to some things). There is a two-storey building between the emitter and the tree & yard, interposing about 25m from the tree.There is a billboard that might be affecting things from atop the two-storey in line with where the mast is. The pear & grape & rose abnormalities are in pretty close line with the affected tree section and the emitter. But the fir with browned out sections peeking from behind its shelter is at a different angle. I should get to mapping it all out.
If all this matters and the tree sections are not getting similar doses, then perhaps I should not have made some rhetorical use that I did in describing that tree. But the collection of observations stand as does the most probable attribution. Somewhere I found a good illustration of how “plumes” of radiation can come off and down from an emitter, but can’t find it. Much depends on local conditions surely, esp. the exact positioning of the antenna, which i can get more precise info on as well later.
Last summer I did try to see if I could measure power density at some height off the ground where the damage was being done, but it got too clumsy, unaided as I was, using meters strapped to long sticks. If it becomes worth it again, I should get help with the simultaneous measurements as well.
Quote Comment
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:59 am
“Try as they may, the cell phone operators cannot claim that these effects are on trees are psychosomatic.”
“using Faraday cages with WiFi access points as the source of radiation. The work is still ongoing but the initial results show definite detrimental effects of WiFi radiation on the physiology of the trees under test”
From the author of http://mcs-america.org/march2011pg67891011.pdf .
If you can be bothered to care. Care? A skepto?
“We are now finding out not just what the radiation is doing to plants and trees but also the mechanisms by which it does it. At least some of these mechanisms may also apply to humans. “
Quote Comment