Re: Now that we know Cellphone radiation causes Cancer

That is not what he means. He is simply talking about the pervasive existe nce of RF compared to the relatively light RF background before man made RF existed.

Aggregation is describing an imagined effect where high levels or long time s of exposure to RF will result in the same effects as higher frequency/ene rgy photons, i.e. ionization and/or covalent bond breaking.

Proteins are very complex molecules. They are long chains of peptides (ana logous to DNA) where the location of functional groups determine how the ch ain folds up. The forces involved include van der Waals forces and hydroge n bonding. In some cases stronger covalent bonds operate.

The point is that the weaker van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds are br oken by thermal agitation but reform and continue to create a force that ho lds the protein in it's configuration. Non-ionizing RF energy has no signi ficant impact on this process. Any impact it does have would be similar to thermal agitation and in fact would result in temperature increases which could be measured.

The topic is complex. They seem to be talking about molecular resonances b ased on their testing. I'm not familiar enough with the technique they use d to evaluate their results. Most of the points mentioned in the paper are n't actually about their research. They are reviewing other's research. A s a body of work, this all seems to be very early stages with little or no corroboration. Far from anything that should be considered to be establish ed.

The point remains, if effects are seen at the molecular level, why are ther e no dose related effects noted by epidemiological studies? It's not like RF radiation exposure is rare...

Your whole discussion technique of lamely insulting everyone you disagree with like a 12 year old is the biggest failure in your argument.

Then there is the lame description of how microwaves are converted to heat which has nothing to do with reality.

You talk about atoms "toggling" as if that actually has some meaning. Then you apply your made up term to RF burns, more BS.

Why don't you read a reference and learn why microwave ovens are at the frequency they are at.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You said you were amused, yet FAILED to iterate at what.

So, you spout vieled insults and can't handle it when I calla spade a spade. You are lame. You asked me to explain the term and I did, and you came back with lameness. Fuck you, child.

It isn't lame. Learn to read. I stated the the action was by way of hysteresis.

That is the entire explanation, you stupid f*ck. If you can't get it, you need to go to school.

As to my casual discourse about it, using the term "toggle" to refer to electromagnetic energy being able to move physical media. That generates heat, and can damage nucleii of living tissue cells.

You are apparently the one with comprehension issues.

You piss and moan about it as if it doesn't.

You are apparently in the dark about how flesh is manipulated by higher power levels of EM radiation. 100% in the dark if all you do is piss and moan like a little bitch Chihuahua dog.

Why don't you f*ck off and die?

The word for today is hysteresis.

Your lack of grasp of that fact and the meaning of that word is what is amusing.

Even though I know it won't have any impact on you, I'll explain that hyste resis is just the view of the heating from the RF generator's perspective. Use of that term provides zero insight into the process that is creating t he hysteresis much as in capacitors. You can rant and rave that capacitors generate heat by hysteresis, but that only means you don't understand the molecular level events that create the hysteresis.

You are not on par with the otherwise raving lunatic, what's his name, Phil Allison maybe? But you are pretty off the rails. The inability to discus s something rationally without swearing is clearly extreme in your case and likely is a mental issue. But we won't get into that, it will only set yo u off with more swearing and ranting.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No, dipshit. Hysteresis is what causes the heat formation. It is at the molecular level.

Just like it causes heat in a transformer. The reluctance to "toggle" generates heat. It is just like friction at the molecular level.

That is why some mediums work and others do not.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I never said a goddamned thing about capacitors, dipshit.

EM radiation is a magnetic effect. Hysteresis is a term to describe a reluctance to manipulation. It generally results in heat as nothing is truly lost.

Hystersis in a capaictor is something else. Looks like your google hunt failed you...

Or more likely actually your lack of grasp of electronics, because any basic electronics idiot would know that the discussion was about magnetic domain hysteresis, not some capacitor thing you went and hunted up.

Ok, we are getting somewhere. Tell me how a molecule creates hysteresis.

Which mediums don't "work"? Work in what way???

Absorption of microwaves in the context being discussed is due to the frequ ency of the radiation matching one of the many vibratory modes of molecules . Sometimes these frequencies are very spread out due to the interaction o f different modes or in water where the otherwise sharp absorption peaks ar e spread by the interactions with surrounding water molecules, but in every case the RF is absorbed much like the photons of visible light are absorbe d.

If the absorption of RF by water is only a matter of "hysteresis", what asp ect of hysteresis gives rise to the absorption spectrum of water and water vapor?

You would do much better to only discuss issues within your own field of ex pertise and not try to stray too far.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Where have you been? Those studies were done decades ago, dumbass.

And you are the stupid bitch spouting off about some imaginary threshold I never said anything about.

Anecdotally I think there might be, but only for engineers who work on and close to seriously high power microwave links. A friend who used to work for Motorola died of an unusual brain tumour that might possibly have been induced by thermal effects of kW class transmitters. Early cataracts is a more common side effect of such microwave exposure.

I doubt there are enough people with such exposure to obtain any good statistics he could have just been very unlucky.

Anecdote is the opposite of "study". If you think there are no studies of exposure to high RF levels, then why would anyone ever consider looking for low dose effects??? Of course they look for high dose effects. Hell, the y use RF to treat people medically. But of course no one would ever think of looking for harm from medicine. It's not like medical treatment ever ha rms anyone.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

"If you try anything, we will shoot you and the man next to you, now move along in an orderly fashion!" -William Stranix, Under Siege

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

"creates"???

Dude, you do not even know what hysteresis is.

Here's a quick poiter for you. When a magnetic field is present, the atoms in many molecules align with said field. When said field alternates, said molecules' atoms flip hand in hand with such alternation. Above a certain frequency, some materials become resistant to said influence and that resistance is expressed in heat and the term for it is hysteresis loss.

That is as it relates to magnetics. With microwave ovens, we use high power to force said domain flips and the heat generated is what we use to "heat food".

It does not "create" hysteresis you aptitude lacking f*ck. It is influenced by the hysteresis its makeup possesses.

Oh, but it looks more like the parent of study to me. Two 737-heavy planes go down in similar ways, and now... everyone is studying what seems to be a real (though rare) operational flaw.

whit3rd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I find it amazing how so many apparently fail to notice just how low the incidence of failure with aircraft really is. That includes design level flaws.

Remember when the two Ospreys crashed and the military took the entire fleet offline?

They are back up now, and that plane is way more complex than these are.

Dude, when atoms flip their nuclear spin in a magnetic field there is no hy steresis. Nuclear spin is an atomic level property and does not enter into chemical bonding to form molecules. If there were hysteresis MRI scans wou ld heat up your body and do harm.

You don't know the first thing about molecular absorption of EM radiation. You have completely the wrong process. Do some reading. It will do you g ood.

That's why sunscreen blocks UV, not visible light. It's not tar, though zinc-oxide works well, apparently.

Indeed! What *have* you been. He's been making stuff up, here, for decades. AlwaysWrong never stops making stuff up.

...and physics has changed _so_ much since then.

Says the guy who doesn't even know that a 100W light bulb dissipates

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an idiot.

It takes power to flip those domains. That power is a loss we all know as hysteresis loss.

The FACT that you have zero clue about that means you cannot argue your case, because you have no case to argue.

Domain flips require power. Additionally as frequency increases, flipping domains get snapped back the other way faster than they "like" to be flipped.

Why do you think that there are no iron core high frequency transormers? Why do you think they switched over to fine grain, non-homogenous iron powder? It sure would have been easier to keep using small laminated stack versions... so why the switch, boy?

Use your brain boy. Go hunt up a "magnetization curve" and you will see what hysteresis loss is. That is, if you even have the aptitude to get it, as your current argument leaves me thinking you do not.

Magnetic domains do not flip for free, child. It is just that simple.

snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:4i7laed2fvdvot2hcrvvrk64tqq390vm93@

No, it in fact, has not, you stupid punk f*ck.

That was not the argument. You were wrong then, and you are still wrong.