Live data from Hacker News

DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

#11
This is pretty interesting, because I have radiofrequency ablation treatments every 6-12 months, where they stick wires near the nerve roots in my neck and run RF through the wire until it heats to 100C, thereby killing the nerves that transmit pain to my spinal chord.

Wonder what an internal radiosource that powerful does to the rest of me?

There's another, less invasive version called pulsed radiofrequency ablation that doesn't cook the nerves - it uses the RF signal to confuse/fuck up the nerves without killing them. Doesn't work as well, but less risk. I wonder if DNA/radio is part of how pulsed RF works?

Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

#13
post #6

Here is an open review which is also more thorough: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10762-011-9794-5

Although this also covers non-ionizing radiation, this is a very different frequency range.

True, and if someone has a link handy for a similar review covering >1mm wavelengths it would undeniably be more pertinent. Still, the original link rubs me wrong in two ways:

1. It's paywalled. Many of us can't even RTFP.

2. It's clearly trying to prove a pet model.

There's nothing inherently wrong with #2, but #2 makes this article a bad place to start a discussion among non-experts who aren't in a position to judge the model in comparison to others that answer similar questions. This problem is exacerbated by #1.

Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

#14
post #3

In what cases does modern technology produce stronger, as opposed to more ordered, EMF than naturally occurs?

Radiation follows the inverse square law, while you're cellphone does not produce EM radiation which comes even close to natural high energy radiation sources you don't really put pulsars to your ear.

Additionally "natural" radiation is something you've evolved to coexist with. Take for example Uranium vs Plutonium, both are alpha emitters and they emit particles at nearly the same energy levels however that tiny energy difference results in very big difference in their effects on living tissue. The difference however cannot be explained by the power level difference alone, as both higher level alpha particles from natural sources as well as lower level alpha emissions from artificial sources showed a lower and higher amount of damage to nuclear material and cellular tissue general respectively.

And yes I am very well aware that alpha radiation isn't part of the EM spectrum as it's electron free helium nucleus, however it just shows that life evolved to be resilient to environmental sources of radiation be it high level particles like the nuclear decay of natural (existing since the 1st self replicating proteins occurred or even earlier if those had a replicating precursor) or high energy protons form the sun, or terrestrial and extra terrestrial sources of EM radiation.

Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

#17
post #3

In what cases does modern technology produce stronger, as opposed to more ordered, EMF than naturally occurs?

Radiation follows the inverse square law, while you're cellphone does not produce EM radiation which comes even close to natural high energy radiation sources you don't really put pulsars to your ear. Additionally "natural" radiation is something you've evolved to coexist with. Take for example Uranium vs Plutonium, both are alpha emitters and they emit particles at nearly the same energy levels however that tiny ene…

> while your cellphone does not produce EM radiation which comes even close to natural high energy radiation sources you don't really put pulsars to your ear.

Or worse, right next to your reproductive material.

Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)

#20
post #11

This is pretty interesting, because I have radiofrequency ablation treatments every 6-12 months, where they stick wires near the nerve roots in my neck and run RF through the wire until it heats to 100C, thereby killing the nerves that transmit pain to my spinal chord. Wonder what an internal radiosource that powerful does to the rest of me? There's another, less invasive version called pulsed radiofrequency ablation…

That sounds pretty harsh which probably translates into the alternative being even harsher. Wow. I have a small RF burn in one of my fingers, about 3 mm across and as deep as the bone, it never healed properly (I got it when I was 17, a long time ago from a Tronser trimmer that I touched by accident in a 1KW FM transmitter). I hope that your treatment does not leave such marks.

Apparently the 'pulsed' version of your treatment is to keep the temperature down while still having the same effect on the nerve.

Post reply on HN