Cal OSHA did exactly one controlled study of rats in a basket, one with radios one without, the ones with radios suffered neo-natally and post-natally and failed the swimming test.
You might know that it's disorienting to sit in front of a car with a loud horn, whether air horn or radar horn.
At least some of the automotive recalls the past years were for cars with unregulated radar horns.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned pseudo-science like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute, you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
Right. I have no desire to post to a physics group. Many physicists (or pretend physicists) are Not Nice People.
And I'm just an engineer.
John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book, often the researchers interviewed were self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex and myopic confirmation bias.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have various ways to interpret them, basically about the linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed in medical imaging and the like.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Probably you mean "The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA":
It is unlikely that you will be able to cite the original study because it is more likely that it is all a delusion.
Another likely possibility is that you have misunderstood or are misrepresenting the experiment.
In any case, humans are not rats. They are also not usually exposed to high-intensity electromagnetic radiation in close proximity to their source. There is no physical reason and no evidence whatsoever that radio waves as used in daily telecommunication caused bodily harm to any human.
The people who are claiming otherwise are not suffering from brain damage because of radio, but from paranoia which is indicative of a brain malfunction which could be caused by prior, unrelated brain damage. It is also indicative of the growing ignorance among the general public that I was talking about: It is human nature to substitute ignorance with conceits and conspiracy theories because that is more convenient than learning.
Yeah, it's like when somebody says "mirron neurons" or "microtubules" and it's like "yeah, good luck at your seance tonight, you spooky un-scientific freak".
It's sad when neuroscience concerns itself so much with the lizard/rat part of the brain, when higher thinking animals actually can separate their forebrain and the textual thinking from the usual carrot/stick. That operant conditioning and conditioned response is animal-on-animal violence.
After getting hit with a stick enough, anybody with a stick looks like meat.
Dead meat, ..., to animals.
Damnit, quit changing the followups.
Le 18/02/2026 à 20:13, Ross Finlayson a écrit : ..
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism than Roentgen rays.
Mathematically and in the theory also.
In duck typing if it essentially is a magnetic monopole then it is what it is. Now go look at skyrmions and spintronics.
It's like we were just talking about Einstein and the "Principle of Relativity" circa 1923 when basically he gives an account for Electrodynamics that exactly the polar opposite and an inaccessible singularity the "having it both ways".
Continuity and infinity are surely integral the mathematics, thus the mathematical physics, then here for accounts like space inversion and simply enough the convolutional setting and singular integrals and the like, and the hypergeometric, with the hypergeometric's regular singular points: zero, one, and infinity.
It's not just that super-symmetry isn't dead: also there are at least three kinds.
All one theory, where for example gravity itself is a giant violation of conservation of energy in the usual, premier theories.
Of course, "magnetic monopoles" are matters of singularity theory, that singularities in singularity theory are merely branches in multiplicity theory: there's though that "there are no closed time-like curves" since it's for a holographic setting that causality as it may be is inviolable.
If quantum mechanics is never wrong: if it's not a continuum mechanics you're doing it wrong.
Gosh, really? Never let a mere fact to stand in the way of your great theories!
Jan
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population are no worse than the rest of humanity.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976 to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to do).
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Don't bother. Neither of them has any practical use - beyond giving nitwits long words to play with.
This is a remarkably moronic assertion.
The mathematics of integer numbers is discontinuous and doesn't depend on any concept of infinity.
More assertions that are intended to be impressive, and fail, big-time.
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
They do tend to be unkind to pretentious nitwits.
And some of us are dubious about that claim.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen with some simple electronics, [1]
Jan
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
Now look. SED nutters may outdo even the SPR ones,
Jan
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required