Jump to content

We are dropping like flies after 50s - Pilots concerned with non-ionizing radiation


Worrazen
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/08/former-u-s-naval-fighter-pilots-blame-radiation-exposure-for-causing-cancer-and-deaths.html

 

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/08/we-are-dropping-like-flies-ex-fighter-pilots-push-for-earlier-cancer-screenings/

 

navy-pixabay-1024x501.jpg

 

Former Air Force and Navy fighter pilots are calling on the military to begin cancer screenings for aviators as young as 30 because of an increase in deaths from the disease that they suspect may be tied to radiation emitted in the cockpit.

 

“We are dropping like flies in our 50s from aggressive cancers,” said retired Air Force Col. Eric Nelson, a former F-15E Strike Eagle weapons officer. He cited prostate and esophageal cancers, lymphoma, and glioblastomas that have struck fellow pilots he knew, commanded or flew with.

 

Nelson’s prostate cancer was first detected at age 48, just three months after he retired from the Air Force. In his career he has more than 2,600 flying hours, including commanding the 455th Air Expeditionary Group in Bagram, Afghanistan, and as commander of six squadrons of F-15E fighter jets at the 4th Operations Group at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina.

 

Last month McClatchy reported on a new Air Force study that reviewed the risk for prostate cancers among its fighter pilots and new Veterans Health Administration data showing that the rate of reported cases of prostate cancers per year among veterans using the VA health care system across all services has risen almost 16% since fiscal year 2000.

 

The Air Force study also looked at cockpit exposure, finding that “pilots have greater environmental exposure to ultraviolet and ionizing radiation … (fighter pilots) have unique intra-cockpit exposures to non-ionizing radiation.”

 

[…]

 

Retired Navy Cmdr. Thomas Hill was a career F-4 and F-14 pilot and squadron commanding officer with more than 3,600 flight hours and more than 960 aircraft carrier landings. Hill was 52 when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. In December 2011, at age 60, he learned he also had esophageal cancer.

 

Hill has spent the last two years tracking premature deaths or cancers among former commanding officers of F-14 squadrons. So far he’s found more than a dozen who have either been diagnosed or have died from the disease.

 

DEES-Wi-Fi-Kids-1.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of the pilots who spoke with McClatchy said a greater risk of cancer would have kept them from flying. They said the military should acknowledge the risk and put additional protections in place for the next generation of military aviators.

 

Hill said he’s also worried about the enlisted crew who manned the flight decks of the aircraft carriers.

 

“The kids that worked the flight line and the flight deck were exposed eight hours a day to that stuff,” Hill said.

 

For future protections for pilots, Crosby said it would be unlikely that the services would retrofit aircraft to add protections against the sources of cockpit radiation, which may be difficult to isolate and would likely add unwanted weight or otherwise affect the performance of the aircraft.

 

“If we can’t change it, we need to be responsible and send an alert that people being exposed need to be screened earlier,” Crosby said. “If it’s caught early enough, there’s a lot of procedures that can not just treat (prostate cancer) but cure it.”

 

 

Center For Safer Wireless on Dr. Oz show: MP4 Direct Link

 

s1lRo7E.png

 

My comment: Probably not a good idea to keep connected phones/tablets as a kneeboard replacement while flying.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Law firm may file a Class Action lawsuit due to revelations by Chicago Tribune finding levels over 5 times the limit in their tests.

 

https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2019/08/a-law-firm-eyes-a-class-action-against-apple-and-others-triggered-by-a-chicago-tribune-report-on-radiation-levels-on-smartpho.html

 

-----------------

 

From earlier this year:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been no conclusive study showing a causality between cancer and cellphone radiation. Long distance flights are a completely different thing because cosmic radiation is ionizing.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

This, even if cell phones are a negative (yet unproven) it has little relevance to pilots routinely exposed to high altitudes and military grade radar. I am 100% certain cell phones and an F-16's radar are in compleeeeetely different exposure categories :p

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been no conclusive study showing a causality between cancer and cellphone radiation. Long distance flights are a completely different thing because cosmic radiation is ionizing.

 

Does it have to be ionizing to be unhealthy? Can you disprove that?

 

This is a huge subject, so I'll just mention bits, let's take a walk over to the ToxicDocs.org and let's see if we can find anything interesting from the old industry docs.

 

I entered the term "Microwave" into the search box:

 

We get a study from the University of Zagreb from ... oh lovely, from 1992.

 

The website has OCRed all the documents in text, but the PDFs are, some typos may be present:

This architecture of the action of ultrasound overlaps with the picture given by the

micronucleus assay for genetic damage caused by microwaves. According to our research, mi crowaves have a dual effect on genetic material. As can be seen in Fig. lb, the distribution of surface areas shows the characteristics both of a chemical agent (Fig. lc) and of ionizing radiation (Fig. la). There is a large number of small and middle-sized micronuclei and a small number of large micronuclei. This is also the case with re gard to ionizing radiation. The fact that there is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of micronucleus surface areas caused by microwaves (Fig. 2b) and vinyl chloride monomer (Fig. 2c) suggests the existence of a chemical effect of microwaves.

 

dD7zz779b9jyMRVwpD9ZdRV5-000007.png

 

 

The summary of the study: Microwaves possess some mutagenic characteristics typical of chemical mutagens.

 

So if you take this with the basics of a biological organism which requires many types of chemicals to sustain life, these chemicals are not directly used but go through various chemical processes (conversion, transport, binding, signaling), we can by common sense probably conclude that these chemical processes need to happen in a certain way as they were designed to operate in specific circumstances, any effect or change in cirumstances that disrupts these chemical processes is therefore going to be "unhealthy", because what we call health is just referring to a particular condition these chemical processes are in.

 

The intensity and type of the disruption depends on the type of the frequency and it's strength, some frequencies can produce a more damaging effect than others, depending on which bio-chemical process they are affecting, as different frequencies affect different molecules and atoms in different ways such as magnetic effects, mehanical effect (vibration) and disrupting the body's electric signals between in the nervous system, so it gets very complicated. If you affect something crucial and/or using a frequency that is highly resonant with a certain target process, then it can be quickly immobilizing, stunning, or fatal.

 

What is resonance, resonance is like a sweet spot, if some crucial bio-chemical process or a component of it (atom) is hit by this type of frequency the resonance will greately enhance the effect, so even a small (low power) exposure would be dangerous. The disruption effect is relative to both power and frequency at the same time and a sweet-spot frequency can amplify the disruption heavily even if the power (W) stays the same or even decreases in comparison with a non-resonating effect.

 

WIKIPEDIA: In mechanical systems, resonance is a phenomenon that only occurs when the frequency at which a force is periodically applied is equal or nearly equal to one of the natural frequencies of the system on which it acts. This causes the system to oscillate with larger amplitude than when the force is applied at other frequencies.

 

Ionizing radiation simply kills you more quickly as a higher frequency is required to damage DNA, but a lower frequency affecting the chemistry reduces your health slowly and if chronic enough it will kill you passively in a way, through various diseases which will shorten your life, we should equate a shorter lifespan equal to slow murder, or via cancer, as cancer is simply a result the cell being in constant bad circumstances, the cells are being fed what they should not be, they don't like the environment they're in, so they adapt by mutating, the body has to remove mutated cells and cleanup all the time but as more and more cells mutate the body, if it does not have enough resources (nutrition) cannot clean up all the mutated cells in time, the mutated cells left to live longer then build a form with other mutated cells and there you go, cancer.

 

The human body is extremely complicated as theres thousands of chemical processes and it has a cascading effect ofcourse if one thing doesn't work well it'll affect other processes, or at least a group.

 

Given that you are in a sea of various types of RF signals, each of the sources adds a bit of a burden to your body so it's the total sum that is also important, a whole set of frequency specific effects, many processes are disrupted by varying amounts on a daily basis. And this is just RF, what about all the other contaminants from food, water, air, sound, light.

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How often did that study get quoted in serious journals, how big was its impact? Did somebody repeat the experiments and arrive at the same conclusions?

 

From where I'm standing, you are mixing up valid and proven concerns with pseudo-scientific stuff.

 

 

Ionizing radiation simply kills you more quickly as a higher frequency is required to damage DNA, but a lower frequency affecting the chemistry reduces your health slowly and if chronic enough it will kill you

 

 

This is precisely not how radiation works. There is only one way known to us in which microwaves can be harmful to human tissue, and that is by such high intensities that the tissue will take thermal damage. If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 100% certain cell phones and an F-16's radar are in compleeeeetely different exposure categories :p

 

Radiation coming into the cockpit or originating in the cockpit, while radar is focused and aimed away from the cockpit is true, but the other stuff such as the

  • screens
  • electronic circuitry
  • electric generators
  • electric converters
  • comm radio transmitters
  • datalink transmitter
  • ECM
  • IFF transmitter (?)
  • ILS transmitter
  • TACAN transmitter

that most likely affect the cockpit, additionally the cockpit is an enclosed space which means anything that's inside would also bounce inside of it before going outside, depending on the opening and the properties of the glass and the rest of the materials.

 

SJA8iRm.jpg

 

 

RF(EMF) just one thing, then there are magnetic and electric fields produced by electrical circuitry, where AC is involved it's a lot more dirty in terms of electrosmog than in cases of DC, the A/C generator and the APU in A-10C most likely produce more magnetic and electric fields than RF but if you're sitting close by them it's still a burden on the body, the breaker box is quite close on that pic, just behind the seat, for example, althought magnetic and electric fields drop a lot more with distance so it may not be that huge reason to worry, but I'm speculating with this one.

 

 

 

 

Anyway Apple and Samsung already got hit by a lawsuit. https://www.scribd.com/document/422976960/RF-Exposure-Class-Action

 

qlaAlAy.png

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/467274-apple-samsung-cancer-lawsuit/

 

 

ZVlk4SQ.png

 

4IKBREL.png

 

5dgQlsq.png

 

v9UWSCp.png

 

fWIApqo.png

 

O8sRrlz.png

 

https://www.ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

 

One key study, describing calcium being affected:

microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to

induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for

microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action.

 

 

This is precisely not how radiation works. There is only one way known to us in which microwaves can be harmful to human tissue, and that is by such high intensities that the tissue will take thermal damage. If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.

 

That's literally telecom PR word for word. So you think that makes any sense, that the reality is digital and not analog, like that it works according to some artificial threshold, that's the same as saying that if you go outside and you'd only feel cold if it's 10 degrees below zero, otherwise you won't, as if you won't freeze if it's -9, that's the logic that's being used, oh it's below the threshold it must be safe.

 

 

If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.

 

That's very scientific thinking. Kindergarden stuff. Please.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's literally telecom PR word for word. So you think that makes any sense, that the reality is digital and not analog, like that it works according to some artificial threshold, that's the same as saying that if you go outside and you'd only feel cold if it's 10 degrees below zero, otherwise you won't, as if you won't freeze if it's -9, that's the logic that's being used, oh it's below the threshold it must be safe.

 

I'm an electrical engineer, i don't do PR.

 

The real world is almost universally nonlinear, certainly with ionizing radiation, this is the case, there is a very clear distinction. The probability of microwaves ionizing an atom are so low that it literally just does not happen. If you would stop quoting papers with exclamation marks in their titles and read some actual scientific research, you would see that the scientific consensus is that there is a very low chance of non ionizing radiation having anything to do with cancer.

 

There are a lot of other factors including our lifestyle and exposure to things ranging from artificial softeners to pesticides that have an actually measurable impact on cancer rates.

 

 

RF(EMF) just one thing, then there are magnetic and electric fields produced by electrical circuitry, where AC is involved it's a lot more dirty in terms of electrosmog than in cases of DC, the A/C generator and the APU in A-10C most likely produce more magnetic and electric fields than RF but if you're sitting close by them it's still a burden on the body, the breaker box is quite close on that pic, just behind the seat, for example, althought magnetic and electric fields drop a lot more with distance so it may not be that huge reason to worry

 

Oh boy. Several points for you to consider:

 

  • What we are talking about are electromagnetic waves. Those are not generated by DC. DC generates a static magnetic field, but no electromagnetic waves. They are only emitted if there is a change in current, hence alternating current. Also static fields are harmless (if not, earth's magnetic field would be the first to blame for cancer).
  • Saying that electric and magnetic fields drop off more with distance is nonsense, electromagnetic waves are based on the principles of both these fields and the same laws apply.
  • You completely disregard the effect of different frequency bands of electromagnetic radiation by just calling it "electrosmog". Once again, please read up on the difference between ionizing and non ionizing radiation (and not just papers that share your belief system).

I'm speculating with this one

 

You don't say. ;)


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aircraft itself blocks microwaves (radar) otherwise two fighters couldn't fly in formation without the trailing aircraft frying the guy in front with his radar. An AWACS will not sterilise the surrounding aircraft, sorry. And if it did anything it would kill them, not just ''cause mild harm''.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with that.

 

You can bet the gov will pull all it can to fight it off.

 

This is not the only case of cancer in question.

 

I cant tell w/o putting someone I know in a bad situation, but this is not the only case.

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL16 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 3x 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@4x180mm fans - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Win11 Pro - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm an electrical engineer, i don't do PR.

 

They don't teach this in any field as it should be a field on it's own and it's a combination of knowledge from multiple one, and knowing only one ingredient of the pie is not enough.

 

 

There is a very clear distinction.

 

So just because human senses can't detect it, it means it doesn't exist?

 

 

The probability of microwaves ionizing an atom are so low

 

Nobody's talking about that. You started your investigation with pre-concieved conclusion that a RF signal has to ionize an atom for it to have any effect on human health. Again incredibly unscientific.

 

If you would stop quoting papers with exclamation marks in their titles and read some actual scientific research

 

So if it doesn't fit into your idea it's not a proper scientific paper? The full open letter PDF is 80 pages long, yes it's not a study in it self but it references a lot of studies below.

 

with exclamation marks in their titles

 

That's a classic avoidance of the content, switching focus to something insignificant.

 

scientific consensus is that there is a very low chance of non ionizing radiation having anything to do with cancer.

 

They aren't qualified as you can see there is no proper field, they're just seeing it like you do, reading a few things, and then saying before really thinking, secondly the consensus you're quoting is the consensus you formed from the material you have come across across with as well as others who have came across with the same consensus that is the favorable one that the governments use, they supress everything else on purpose, there are studies it's just that you didn't came across them because it obviously takes a bit more than a few minutes. Secondly there is no funding from major countries on this, and thirdy, that consensus has shifted mostly about "unproven" not "it's safe" as the govts/officials are avoiding to say "it's safe" anymore and have and switched to "yet unproven, inconclusive, no studies", that's lawyers at work, so we know they're preparing in case the public figures it out they can always diminish/damage control.

 

You are making a big mistake by equating "No studies" and "not proven" to "it's not true".

 

There are a lot of other factors including our lifestyle and exposure to things ranging from artificial softeners to pesticides that have an actually measurable impact on cancer rates.

 

 

Those are not generated by DC. DC generates a static magnetic field, but no electromagnetic waves.

 

Didn't I said the same thing? Well, I kept myself safer and didn't outright deny DC doesn't do any EMF as I wasn't sure tho and unless I can a whole lot more into this. But as per DC wiring goes it may be more healthy but gasoline engines's spark plugs and other electronic devices such as computers run on DC too but still produce various EMIs as they'll called in those fields, USB3 signaling has been known to mess with Wi-Fi at 2.4GHz, therefore USB3 produces EMI's that can affect WiFi and WiFi it self can be an interference (EMI) to the health of an USB3 signal, plugs generate EMFs and it's also all DC inside a car isn't it, that is per antenna dish operators from the US National Radio Quiet Zone saying that, but I found the video I watched way back, it's official policy on street poles actually, says diesel only.

 

 

XTsLZP8.png

 

fzaIFzF.png

 

 

Saying that electric and magnetic fields drop off more with distance is nonsense

 

WHAT??? :doh:

 

 

You completely disregard the effect of different frequency bands of electromagnetic radiation by just calling it "electrosmog".

 

Where did I disregard that, didn't I talked specifically about how it's different depending on frequency? But all of them together make a soup which is what your body receives, so why it's wrong calling it electrosmog, it's gets to the point of the end result.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also static fields are harmless (if not, earth's magnetic field would be the first to blame for cancer).

Gravity is not equal to magnetism :doh:

 

 

Who said anything aboud gravity? It seems like you just proved your technical illiteracy by not knowing about the earth's magnetic field...


Edited by drPhibes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy mother of Moses, this is starting to get interesting.

 

 

You can believe whatever you want, since that's what you're doing anyway. Yet here you are, sitting in front of your computer that emits a bunch of bad bad electrosmog, writing about how bad that is for our bodies. Shouldn't you be spending the majority of your days in a faraday cage? God forbid you develop electrosensitivity.


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCs are all DC and other electronics and they still have various low-power EMIs

 

 

Ok, so you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. DC, as in a stable regulated voltage, does not generate EMI. The major part of all EMI emmitted from a PC is switching noise from high speed clocks and switch mode power supplies.

 

 

 

 

And out of curiosity: what are your qualifications in this field, other than watching scaremongering videos on youtube?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aircraft itself blocks microwaves (radar) otherwise two fighters couldn't fly in formation without the trailing aircraft frying the guy in front with his radar. An AWACS will not sterilise the surrounding aircraft, sorry. And if it did anything it would kill them, not just ''cause mild harm''.

 

Only to some degree, stealth only attenuates the signal not blocking it completely, and you're mentioning a case where a friendly is flying behind his wingman, infact for pilots this encounter could be more dangerous than anything, if they don't turn off the radar, all such aircraft should have adjustable radar settings for just such occassions and some other formation navigation system that works like a collision avoidance (which I think is already the case), including AWACS, other aircraft that are not made for stealth are even less of an reassurance because it's not going to cover the whole spectrum, you can't just make a box out of metal and expect it to work like a perfect faraday cage, unless the aircraft has shielding put on additionally, the barebone aluminum frame shouldn't be your thing you should bet your life on.

 

As long as we don't have frequencies and power available we can only speculate what can AWACS do, but most likely the power for military type things is very high given the range of detection, and AWACS probably can operate in many types of microwave frequencies, it's probably a bad idea to be sitting on the antenna.

 

 

Do you mean like this? 6c07c1def736eeed7e12e2c203bd17ed.jpg

 

Let's hope they had it turned off.

 

Who said anything aboud gravity? It seems like you just proved your technical illiteracy by not knowing about the earth's magnetic field...

 

Allright I misread that, or he edited the post, magnetic field is not the same as the gravitational field, just clearing that up. I removed the response.

 

 

 

DC, as in a stable regulated voltage, does not generate EMI. The major part of all EMI emmitted from a PC is switching noise from high speed clocks and switch mode power supplies.

 

What's your point? Who cares if DC it self doesn't generate EMI, if the devices that run on DC do, but they do it less than AC I would assume.

 

 

And out of curiosity: what are your qualifications in this field, other than watching scaremongering videos on youtube?

 

So if a RF weapons expert says that the WiFi frequency is a known weapons frequency you'll just disregard that?

 

He's just one particular guy and of his caliber there are not that many or almost none that talk as much that I know.

 

There's one other thing called TETRA which the USA does not have, it's an EU voice communication thing for emergency and law enforcement services, it's working around 390 MHz and many don't have good things to say about it.

 

TETRA uses high power base stations installed at facilities such as hospitals, police offices, and firehouses, as well as repeater stations spread throughout the city and other areas, that pulsate at a particular pulse rate of 17.6 Hz which is close to human brain betawave frequency, exactly the kind of area is responsible for decision making in stressful situations, anyone sitting in those facilities all day is also sitting practically on the base station antenna. Then the users carry the portable TETRA walkie-talkies around their waist or chest, and you know, those things are very busy as there's almost always someone talking on the channel, they are beamed for the whole working shift every day.

 

 

There are far less riskier alternatives to TETRA, that already exist.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, if you trust that with your life, that's your choice. It's obviously too extensive for me to respond to that piece by piece, even for those who are way more familiar with this topic to do in a short amount of time, I don't want to make a cheap comment. It's rather more practical for us and everyone in this thread to just exchange viewpoints and arguments without having to go head to head knocking down each other's arguments directly. One thing I can comment on is that I see the studies referenced that seem to be lasting quite short, 10 minutes is one. The danger that critics are saying is the prolonged low-level exposure many many hours per day and especially the totally pointless exposure at night when you're not using any of these services, why does everyone have to be irradiated then when almost nobody's using it? And longterm chronic exposure through years and a whole lifetime and through many generations, who gave you the right to experiment with a whole civilization what will happen in a few generations, only then the effect may start to become noticable, by then it'll be too late for some IMO, is there any kind of compensation that's equal of worth to the damage caused? Some people will resign and some companies may go bankrupt, wait, that's it?

 

The precautionary rule, if something's not proven safe then rather not use it, seems to be very selectively applied and not respected, or weakly defined.

 

There appears to be a natural RF protection response in the body, but it only gets properly activated at certain conditions, and it's common sense that staying healthy will ofcourse also protect from damage, or assits in recovery, he claims that a long-term low-power exposure is more dangerous than a short-term high-power exposure.

 

So you can also take a look at this:

 

From: Confidential Report on TETRA Strictly for the Police Federation of England and Wales - B TROWER

 

http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf

 

THE ABSOLUTE PARADOX

 

Since the early 1960s this country, America and Russia have had what is called the

non-lethal weapons programme or synthetic telepathy programme. It is very well

documented now that in the early 1960s in Moscow the Russians beamed

continuous low level radiation (microwaves) down onto the American Embassy

causing miscarriages, leukaemia's and other illnesses to the Embassy staff. Since

then the non-lethal weapons programme has become very sophisticated indeed. It

is used a) as a long-term low level radiation weapon to cause populations illness

and b) at higher intensities to cause blindness, heart attacks or confusion. Details of

all of the intensities are unknown to me but knowing that microwave radiation is

accumulative, any effect can only be a matter of time. In quoting this research I refer

to documents listed under Reference 15. So sophisticated is this research, and I

refer to Operation Pandora Joint CIA/MI6 Operation since the 1960s, Operation

Woodpecker USSR 1976, Operation HAARP still running in USA; they are able to

define specific pulse frequencies to cause specific brain malfunctions or illnesses.

For instance:

 

  • Frequency ----- Illness Caused
  • 4.5 pps ---- Paranoia
  • 6.6 pps ---- Depression/Suicide
  • 11 pps ---- Manic behaviour/Anger
  • 25 pps ---- Blindness if aimed at the head/Heart attack if aimed at the chest

WORRAZEN COMMENT:I added the moniker "pps" as in pulse per second to be more clear, that's not the actual frequency of the signal, same when he's talking about TETRA below where the "pulse" prefix isn't included many times.

 

Other consequences of frequencies used but not listed here are hysteria, trauma,

lust, murder and cancer, and may all be induced.

 

The TETRA frequency is 17.6 Hz (waves per second) so as a scientist looking at

this data which is well publicised I ask myself, if the illnesses moving up the

frequency range are progressive and TETRA is between the frequency of 11 and 25

on this table, what will be the effect of TETRA's 17.6 waves per second on the

brains of the police force? This phenomena cannot be denied by the NRPB; it is

listed in their own document which I will refer to later in this paper, where on page

26 they have described how at 8 waves per second animals can be made to fall

asleep and at different frequencies behave differently in various parts of their brains.

As this phenomena is written about by the NRPB for 8 waves per second I would

like to know what other research they have for other frequencies in and around the

TETRA range.

 

HAARP, which is being researched by a nun, Dr Rosalie Bertell, who is concerned

about what it represents along with other scientists knows that HAARP is capable of

bouncing low level continuous microwave radiation pulsed off the ionosphere to any

community in the world and may cause cataracts, leukaemia, changes in blood

brain chemistry, changes in blood sugar levels, blood pressure and heart rates.

 

The paradox of course is how can one system of pulsed microwaved radiation be

used as a weapon to cause illness or death and at the same frequency and unless

close range, a similar low intensity be used as a safe communications instrument.

Following this research I fail to see how TETRA can possibly be safe for the officers

which use it.

 

--------------------

And more from

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4905022/Evidence-Cuba-launched-sci-fi-sonic-weapon-America.html

 

One diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonising sound hit him again — as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room.

 

Whether they heard anything or not, the consequences have been unmistakable — symptoms ranging from nose bleeds, nausea, dizziness and severe headaches to mild brain damage and permanent hearing or memory loss. Oddly, as soon as some of the victims left Cuba, they stopped hearing noises.

 

5uPXNDu.jpg

 

Hearing system

United States Patent 4877027

 

8. The method of irradiating a person's head to produce sound in the head of the person comprising

(a) irridiating the head of a person with microwaves in the range of 100 Mhz to 10,000 Mhz;

 

(b) pulsing said microwaves with pulses in the range of 10 nanoseconds to 1 microsecond; and

 

© frequency modulating groups of pulses called bursts by audio waves wherein the modulation extends from 1 Khz to 100 Khz.

 

 

irPcI0c.png

 

 

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-06/americans-evacuate-us-consulate-china-after-debilitating-sonic-attacks

 

Here's a good summary of my opinion on all of this:

 

Now, that report on TETRA was confidential for a good reason, the biggest reason is that you don't want specifics of a weapon system out in the public where a random street thug with some radio supplies could start killing people, sure we can all agree that's reasonable, same way nuclear material is transported securely by authorized personnell, and militaries want to protect their secrets that's understandable as with everything else, that's understandable, but here's the main counter-argument, my health is my primary concern over anything else, this is what every living being should have as their primary concern, however many do not, to a human body it's considered a threat, who ever uses it for whatever purpose, if it's bad for one's health it's a threat, same as a virus or bacteria. Just because some people want to use this wireless tech doesn't mean they should be able to force it's side-effects on others that do not wish to participate, it's the same thing as someone using your toothbrush, or eating from the same plate, people generally don't tolerate that do you? I nor many citizens use TETRA so why do we all have to be forcefully irradiated? If someone wants to use the benefits of an invention they should be free to but as long as it's effects or side-effects only affect them, not others who don't believe it's worth it.

It's the same thing as someone would force apples down your throat when you only want bananas, that's not very democratic is it?

 

What's the point of having a military protecting a sea of sick people ??? So to resolve this huge conflict you'll need to struck the right balance between health of citizens and the effectiveness of it's military, currently it's heavily in favor of the military usage and intelligence agencies, makes no sense at all.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Update: Oh wait, actually I went back through some of the post and material I made, there is a whole chapter about the response to the document you linked above, it's in the PDF I linked on the first page.

 

 

Chapter 5: The Importance of the SCENIHR 2015 Document and the Many Omissions,

Flaws and Falsehoods in That Document

 

One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is an

important document. The reason for its importance is that previous industry-friendly documents,

and there have been many of them, have only reviewed very limited amounts of the literature on

EMF effects. Consequently all of these other documents are open to the criticism that they have

cherry picked what little data they have chosen to discuss. SCENIHR 2015 [73] has a reference

list of almost 48 pages in length, going from page 233 to 280. So it appears that SCENIHR 2015

may have done a much more thorough and defensible review of the literature. Our assessement

of SCENIHR 2015 [73] is important because of the confidence expressed in this document both

by Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas and also by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The question that

is being raised here is whether SCENIHR 2015 is thorough and defensible or not.

 

The Speit/Schwarz Controversy: How SCENIHR Has Put Out Seven Falsehoods in Support of

the Industry Progaganda Position

 

I am going to start by discussing a single particularly important issue from [73]. At the end of

Table 5 in [73]. there is a claim that a 2013 study by Speit et al [74] was unable to replicate the

findings of a 2008 study published by Schwarz et al [75]. In Table 5 they state further that Speit

el al found “No effect on DNA integrity (MN) and DNA migration (comet); Repetition study of

Schwarz et al, 2008.” What is called loss of DNA integrity here, measured by formation of

micronuclei (MN), is caused by the formation of double strand breaks in cellular DNA. The

comet assay measures single strand breaks in cellular DNA. Schwarz et al [75] found strong

evidence that there were large increases in both single strand and double strand breaks in cellular

DNA following very low intensity exposures to a cell phone-like pulsed radiation, but SCENIHR

claims that Speit et al [74] were unable to repeat the earlier study. Elsewhere (p.89, bottom)

SCENIHR states that “By using the same exposure system and the same experimental protocols

as the authors of the original study, they failed to confirm the results. They did not find any

explanation for these conflicting results (Speit et al, 2013).”

 

A careful examination of both [74] and [75] finds the following: 1. Speit et al [74] used a

lymphocytic cell line, HL-60; Schwarz et al [75] studied human fibroblasts. This is a big

difference because, as we have already said, different cell types behave differently. 2. Speit et al

[74] used 1800 MHz radiation; Schwarz et al [75] used 1950 MHz radiation (the frequency of

UMTS, also called 3G). Again we have a potentially important difference because effects are

influenced by the frequency used. 3. Speit et al [74] used a continuous wave EMF; Schwarz et al

[75] used a highly pulsed EMF, with high levels of both KHz and MHz pulsations to mimic the

pulsation pattern of 3G cell phones. This is expected to produce very large differences between

the two studies. 4. Speit et al [74] used a reverberation exposure chamber; Schwarz et al [75] did

not use any exposure chamber. This could be another very large difference between the two

studies, a difference that will be discussed toward the end of this chapter. 5. So where did the

claim come from that Speit was trying to repeat the Schwarz study? Speit et al [74] says in their

paper that they were trying to repeat another study (not Schwarz) that was described in a report

but was never published. 6. Speit et al [74] do not even cite the Schwarz et al [75] paper, so

obviously they did not intend to repeat Schwarz. We have then SCENIHR 2015 stating three

multifaceted falsehoods that Speit et al [74] tried to repeat the earlier studies of Schwarz et al

[75], that they were unable to repeat those Schwarz et al [75] studies and that they used identical

methodology to that used by Schwarz et al [75]. In addition to those three are four underlying

falsehoods – namely that the two studies used very different methodologies, notably differing in

the cell type studied, differing in the frequency used, differing widely in the in pulsations used

and differing in the use of an exposure chamber. Each of these falsehoods are SCENIHR’s not

Speit et al [74]’s, each of them can be easily seen to be false by even a superficial reading of

these two papers.

 

As you might guess, there is a major story behind all of this. The very low intensity exposure

used in the Schwarz et al [75] study produced large numbers of DNA breaks, larger than that

produced by 1600 chest X-rays. This conclusion can be made by comparing the results of

Schwarz et al [75] with the earlier study of Lutz and Adlkofer [76]. From this comparison, it

seems clear that non-ionizing radiation similar to 3G radiation can be much more dangerous to

the DNA of our cells than is a similar energy of ionizing radiation. When this was found, the

industry went into attack mode, attacking the two Professors who collaborated in [75], Prof.

Franz Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Hugo Rüdinger in Austria. The first couple of years of

these attacks have been described in some detail on pp 117-131 in Dr. Devra Davis’ book

Disconnect [77]. Before the SCENIHR 2015 document was drafted, it was clear that the

publishers who had published Adlkofer’s and Rüdinger’s work, not just the Schwarz et al [75]

study but other papers by the same research group, had long since rejected the industry

propaganda claims. In addition. Adlkofer had won a lawsuit in the German courts against his

main accuser. He has subsequently since won a second such lawsuit. The last paragraph on p.89

in SCENIHR 2015 is word for word industry propaganda. What is clear is that SCENIHR is

wittingly or unwittingly serving as a propagandist for the industry in and that process, SCENIHR

has no difficulty in putting forth seven obvious, individually important falsehoods.

 

One question that needs to be raised is how is it possible for microwave frequency EMFs to

produce much more cellular DNA damage than a comparable energy level of ionizing radiation?

Both ionizing radiation and microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via free radicals to attack the

DNA. If you examine Fig. 1, Chapter 2, you will see how low intensity microwave frequency

EMFs can act (p. 20). The free radicals that attack the DNA are breakdown products

peroxynitrite.. The sequence of events leading to those free radicals starts, of course with the

extraordinarily high sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the electrical forces of the EMFs

that open the VGCC calcium channels. Following that there are three steps in the process leading

to peroxynitrite elevation each of which have high levels of amplification. The first of these is

that when the VGCC channels are open, they allow the influx of about a million calcium ion per

second into the cell. The second amplification is that elevated intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i

activates the synthesis of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. The third amplification is that

the formation of peroxynitrite is proportional to the product of nitric oxide concentration times the

superoxide concentration. When you have three sequential amplification mechanisms, you can

get a very large response, in this case free radical attack on cellular DNA, from a very small

initial signal. That is where much of the existential crises are coming are from, with EMFs

threatening the survival of every technologically advanced country on earth.

 

Going back to falsehoods perpetrated by SCENIHR regarding Speit/Schwarz, here are two

possible interpretations for those seven falsehoods. One is that SCENIHR is simply an industry

propaganda organ. The second is that we have a group of scientists (SCENIHR) who are largely

incompetent and that it is just coincidence that these seven falsehoods serve the industry

propaganda case. Either of these interpretations completely destroy the claims of confidence in

SCENIHR that Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas made in the documents they wrote that were referred

to in the Preface of this document.

 

I have written here another 27 pages critiquing the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document. If you are

already convinced that the SCENIHR claims that there are no established non-thermal EMF

effects are false and that we have eight extremely well documented effects (Chapter 1) and that

we have detailed mechanisms of how these effects are produced (Chapter 2), then I suggest you

skip to the summary of Chapter 5 starting on p. 57 and then go on to the consider the U.S.

situation in Chapter 6 and 5G in Chapter 7. If, however, you are not so convinced, you need to

read the intervening 27 pages.

 

22 Reviews on EMF Effects, 20 of Which Are Ignored by SCENIHR, Two of Which Are

Discussed in [73] but Essentially Dismissed

 

Now let’s go on to consider how SCENIHR 2015 [73] considers the many independent reviews,

listed in Chapter 1, which disagree with them and also fall into the 2009 through 2013 period that

SCENIHR claims to have thoroughly considered. See Table 3.

 

Starts on page 28: https://www.ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are aware that Mr. Pall sells supplements that, according to their description, are supposed to help against the detrimental effects of non ionizing radiation? You don't think that might be a conflict of interest right there?

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are aware that Mr. Pall sells supplements that, according to their description, are supposed to help against the detrimental effects of non ionizing radiation? You don't think that might be a conflict of interest right there?

 

Oh what a coincidence indeed :music_whistling:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...