Re: Good Microsoft TV ad!

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:43:54 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

Sermo Malifer wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:24:55 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <_5WdnWwC5ZLjtHfUnZ2dnUVZ_ghi4p2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <EoydnTj555OKZXXUnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <s-mdnT_XLse67HrUnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <7a-dnf8qZoOHgnvUnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course you'll always have someone saying that their is no
conclusive evidence. But then you have to consider that there
is an increase in brain tumors. Google is loaded with such
studies.
What you have here is a general scientific consensus saying
there's no substantial evidence despite numerous large-scale
long-lasting studies, and a few whackos attempting to create
doubt.

Your perception of others being whackos is rather amusing.
Here's how this works. Most people use cell phones. Occasionally,
someone gets a brain tumor. Most of these tumors will be on one
side of the brain or the other, since there's no mechanism that
would encourage them to emerge precisely in the center. So in
about half of these cases, the tumor will be on the side of the
head the individual usually holds the cell phone to.

You now have tens of thousands of people who, because they don't
really understand statistics, are absolutely convinced their cell
phones caused their brain tumors. And the usual conspiracy theory
types come out of the woodwork to support them, make money from
them, or advance their anti-corporate or anti-government agendas.
But it is all too obvious how corporations work. They work for
profit. Anything that gets in the way of profits is fought off. If
you don't believe this, you should read the book about Corporate
Jackels.
This conspiracy would have to extend over dozens of governments and
tens of thousands of individuals, with no leaks whatsoever. It
would have had to carry out fake studies with thousands of
participants, and falsify massive amounts of epidemiological data
stored in hundreds of independent repositories.

This conspiracy doesn't exist.

Are you really willing to take that risk?
Yes, I am. And so, apparently, are billions of other people.

That is why the medical community is expecting a large increase in
brain tumors and gearing up for it.
Please provide a citation for this claim or stop repeating it.

[snip]

Gawd man, don't you ever read the news? Or are you still living in a
cave?
Please provide a citation.


I already did, but you refuse to read them.

RF can induce an electric current and the body has a nervous system.
The heart can be monitored as well as the brain for electrical
energy and yet you think that RF induced currents are not a
problem??
RF radiation tens or hundreds of thousands of times as powerful as
that from a cell phone seems to be apparently unable to induce enough
current to stop someone's heart -- which is something that can be
done by nearly trivial amounts of current applied directly to the
body. You appear to be proposing that vastly lower power RF fields
create tiny electrical fields that have no immediate effect and
cannot be felt, but over time cause conditions like cancer. This is
not something as intuitively obvious as you seem to think it is,
particularly when one considers that there are substantially more
powerful sources of electrical flows through the body which nobody
has ever claimed lead to cancer -- ever touched a doorknob and gotten
a shock?

So, yes. You're going to have to provide evidence for this theory.


Do you know that you can get killed on as little as 5ma of current
from a DC battery?
So how much current does the neural networks of the brain produce?
Not much.
RF induction can cause problems to the brain. But that is up to you
to take the risks.
I do not take those risks.
And yes there is evidence. But from my readings here in this
newsgroup, you won't read them.

Nerves don't really produce any current if I remember my biology
lessons correctly.

It does. Otherwise the EKG sensors wouldn't have anything to sense and
amplify for the strip chart recorder.

The charge on the ions can influence the electric fields of the sensors,
but there is no current flow in nerves. Current flow means electron
flow, and that doesn't happen in nerve fibers.

You can see a moving charge, if you measure for it, and
current will disrupt and stimulate nerves, sure enough, but current is
the movement of electrons. Nerves work on shifting the position of
ions, not electrons.
Would you like some salt for your hat?

No, why would I want that?

Well, that part to many beginning electrical students get confused on.
Batteries use ions as well, yet they produce quite a bit of current to
power cell phones.

Nerves are not like the copper conductors of an electrical circuit. They
do not normally conduct electricity.

There are negatively charged ions on one side of the nerve membrane,
and positively charge ions on the other side, and they switch position,
so the charge flip-flops as it travels down the nerve fiber. At the
junction of two nerve fibers are chemical emitters to carry the message
across the minute gap to the receptors on the other nerve fiber, not as
an electrical spark, but as the movement of chemical molecules.

Which is the definition of current flow in batteries and electronics.

No, current flow is the movement of electrons.

A
neurologist will use current probes to actually drive a small amount of
current to see if there is
any nerve damage.

Nerves can be stimulated by electricity, and the charge of the ions can
be measured, but nerves are not electrical circuits.

They can monitor this on a scope. Apparently, nerve
damage shows up as no response.
Pretty much like an open wire acts.

That's only an analogy. Nerves are not wires.

Now suppose you overload the nerve
with too much energy.
5MA with no resistance will stop the heart. Add some resistance and
that won't happen.

Electricity can stimulate and disrupt nerves, but even so, nerves are not
electrical conductors in their normal operation.

RF energy is a bit different here, especially when you get up into the
megaherz range, in that the current
doesnt' flow thru a conductor but rather on the surface of the
conductor. Waveguides aren't insulated at all, but insulated only at
the null or crossover point measured in centimeters of the wavelength of
the frequency used. At that crossover point, there is no electrical
potential due to the surface phenomena of the RF energy. The higher the
frequencies get the more strange things get.

This is true, but not relevant to what I wrote.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Good Microsoft TV ad!
    ... is an increase in brain tumors. ... there's no substantial evidence despite numerous large-scale ... The charge on the ions can influence the electric fields of the sensors, but there is no current flow in nerves. ... the movement of electrons. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: BSG thoughts(spoilers for the most recent episode)
    ... a connection to just the spinal cord is not enough. ... > Is there a better path to the brain? ... It would hijack nerves and use them as conduits in and out of the brain. ... somehow the cylon networking device needs to tap into Baltar's sight and vision centers. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... the physical universe I know of is created by the behavior ... But in that virtual creation of my brain, ... The only things that actually exist to us is the electrical activity in our ... activity is the physical movement of electrons. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... Questions about whether cwints "should" count as integers, ... the physical universe I know of is created by the behavior ... But in that virtual creation of my brain, ... >activity is the physical movement of electrons. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hugs for Barb Re: Some Info Barb Re: AMF Archive Trivia
    ... Thank you, Lynn. ... Evoked responses indicate the brain's response to specific stimuli. ... between the retina and the brain by presenting alternating ... between the peripheral nerves through the spine to the brain by ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)