31–40 of 48 posts
In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.
The ocean blocks radio waves because it is much much larger than them. A small (very small) ocean would act like an antenna, not an insulator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence trumps theory. A theory can be as clever as you like, but if it disagrees with the evidence, the theory is wrong.
And what is the actual evidence of the visible increase of cancer from EM radiation? Is there a real "signal" or a kind of "noise"? I've also stumbled to this: http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6...
I'm sure you mean the lower frequency stuff though, and yeah, that's probably pretty safe.
Perhaps we should use spread spectrum techniques instead of a single prominent carrier frequency. That way, the signal will look mostly like noise and will not trigger any biological mechanisms that resonate at certain frequencies.
In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.
That's not completely accurate. If you consider the water to also be the antenna things are much more complicated. The ocean blocks radio waves because it is much much larger than them. A small (very small) ocean would act like an antenna, not an insulator.
One reason this is interesting is because of the possible role of charge transfer in the DNA repair mechanism. See the work of Jacqueline Barton's group at Caltech [1] for more information. Here was how it was described when she was awarded the National Medal of Science: "For discovery of a new property of the DNA helix, long-range electron transfer, and for showing that electron transfer depends upon stacking of the…
The frequency allocations for 2G cellular communications networks do allow the ME to transmit up to 5W. That figure was inherited from the very first brick phones and still holds up, because, you know, there could be still some brick phones in use :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what is the actual evidence of the visible increase of cancer from EM radiation? Is there a real "signal" or a kind of "noise"? I've also stumbled to this: http://www.febsletters.org/article/S0014-5793%2800%2901822-6...
Well, X-rays of course. There's a pretty strong case to be made that exposure to uv increases skin cancer rates. I'm sure you mean the lower frequency stuff though, and yeah, that's probably pretty safe.
See also the related document the study's author submitted to the FCC: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937
In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.
In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.
"a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is"!!? Wow. It always amazes me how physicists manage to reduce the extremely complex and beautiful world of biology for their own computational comfort. Is your brain simply a "bag full of bags of saltwater"? The SAR test rationale assumes it is.
Also, sugar.