Re: ionizing radiation
At 09:18 pm 20-01-05 -0500, Mick wrote: MC: In the case cited, grounding of the can is irrelevant. Small AM radios have a ferrite stick as the antenna, which responds to the magnetic portion of the EM fields and grounding is not needed. They also have automatic gain control circuits which try to make local, strong stations and distant weak stations sound equally loud. Thus if you were in a urban area with nearby transmitters, your box migt be a effective shield, giving, say 100 x attentuation of the incoming signal. The radio would just up its internal gain to make the output equally loud. Yes, the signal gets in through the gaps between the lid and the box, illustrating my earlier point that you have to think watertight and airtight when discussing shielding. Mike Carrell That's what I like about Vortex. Every day you learn something new. 8-) Cheers Grimer
Re: ionizing radiation
The Barron posted and Merlyn replied; I'm sorry Baron, but what!?! shielding of a cable from frequencies higher than ULF is easily accomplished by a metal conduit. How would the wire sheath that the Baron suggested work? Yes, they have engineered materials which have an effective index of refraction which is negative. What this has to do with shielding of fiber-optic cables is beyond me. Of course, I don't believe in Scalar waves either, so you can just consider me to be a hidebound reactionary Have you read Arahonhoff Bohm, Physical Review, 1959? Tom Valone has also written on the subject, Curl Free Magnetic Potential Vectors. Now if I can just figure what that means! Mike Carrell posted; MC: As far as getting the Tempest protocols, these are government classified documents and unless you have a real need to know and suitable clearances you will not get them. This is serious business. Given the seriousness of the potential of unblock radiation, I suppose that we're going to hire an engineer who does understand Tempest. I suppose that the first thing to do is place some X Ray film in the vicinity of the potential source and see if it fogs. Then Terry Blanton posted this URL http://cryptome.org/emp.htm Hum, this doesn't look very secret to me, just fax in a request and they'll send you a free copy.
Re: ionizing radiation
Frank, Ground it??? I didn't know you were supposed to ground it! 8-( [Curls up in embarrassment] You can see why I failed Applied Electricity in my first term at UCL . OK. You are indeed a specialist engineer. Essentially you just made a better antenna for it by enlarging the near field (at least for some frequencies). But there is an unexplained phenomenon related to this. There is a human antenna effect, especially for ELF. You may have noticed the effect in the early days of TV when adjusting the antenna for better reception, only to see the ghosts return when you let go of the dipole or 'rabbit ears'. If any of your kids were watching they were probably imploring you to stay there and hold-on while they finished watching the show. The human body has variable conductivity and has a near field which can even be more conductive when needed, often in a controlled way (google hyperpolariztion). Some people have claimed to be able to tune into to specific RF frequencies (but that could be more a function of their particular dentistry than any variable near-field ;-) Jones
Re: ionizing radiation
I was always told that cosmic rays were primarily alpha particles ejected from the sun, but when I looked up the EM spectrum there was a notation at the high end for cosmic rays. I'm going to guess that "cosmic rays" represents general background space radiation, and therefore contains both.thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the longer the wavelength, the greater the penetrating power. Cosmic rays penetrate because the are particles, not EM radiation. The shorter wavelengths have a stronger effect because they carry more energy. Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure that they are particles? I've always assumed that they were photons which behaved as both particles and waves, but you know what happens when you assume, Once I determine what frequencies I'm dealing with, I can get the Tempest protocols and read them.MerlynMagickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: ionizing radiation
Actually the longer the wavelength, the greater the penetrating power. Cosmic rays penetrate because the are particles, not EM radiation. The shorter wavelengths have a stronger effect because they carry more energy.Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom wrote again: Tom wrote: and Mike Carrel repliedI did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more. It was a thin layer of lead, would such a layer stop short X rays too?In general the shorter the wavelength, the greater the penetrating power.Cosmic rays go through everything. Electromagneitc radiation is a continuousspectrum from radio to cosmic rays. Attenuation is a matter of thickness andspecific properties; light will travel through miles of fiber optics, but bestopped by a sheet of aluminum.SnipMerlynMagickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: ionizing radiation
Title: Re: ionizing radiation Actually the longer the wavelength, the greater the penetrating power. Cosmic rays penetrate because the are particles, not EM radiation. The shorter wavelengths have a stronger effect because they carry more energy. Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure that they are particles? I've always assumed that they were photons which behaved as both particles and waves, but you know what happens when you assume, Once I determine what frequencies I'm dealing with, I can get the Tempest protocols and read them.
Re: ionizing radiation
Title: Re: ionizing radiation In terms of water waves, would a scalar wave be a ripple on the surface of swell wave. Harry Merlyn at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry Baron, but what!?! The EM spectrum is as follows: 3 - 30 Hz ELF 30 - 300 Hz ULF 3 - 30 kHz VLF 30 kHz - 30 GHz Radio This is a wavelength of 10km - 1cm Above Radio frequencies it is typically listed by wavelength rather than frequency. 30 - .76 micrometers Infrared and Heat .76 - .39 micrometers Visible Light .39 - .032 micrometers Ultra Violet 320 - .1 Angstroms X-Rays .01 - .006 Angstroms Gamma Rays shielding of a cable from frequencies higher than ULF is easily accomplished by a metal conduit. Yes, they have engineered materials which have an effective index of refraction which is negative. What this has to do with shielding of fiber-optic cables is beyond me. Of course, I don't believe in Scalar waves either, so you can just consider me to be a hidebound reactionary and a more or less conventional physicist who refuses to admit the validity of your position. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/18/05 10:45:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was talking to a physicist about photons. Fiber optic cables, which carry photons, may be shielded from high energy smaller than light wavelengths such as emf's, by using negative refractive nano materials which have been energized to create randomly oscillating from smaller than light wave to larger than light wave force field filters wrapped around the fiber optic cables. Some classified telephone lines that use fiber optics, have such wires wrapped around them from what I have been told to not only receive information that is smaller than light wave but to also ! jam it. [PDF] Optical Negative-Refraction Metamaterials, Nano-Layers and Nano ... http://emacademy.org/piers2k5zj/submit/get_testpdf.php?status=validamp;id=041216051853amp;pdffilename=041216051853.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:bqCGrg3vUPYJ:emacademy.org/piers2k5zj/submit/get_testpdf.php%3Fstatus%3Dvalid%26id%3D041216051853%26pdffilename%3D041216051853.pdf+negative+refraction+nano+amp;hl=enamp;ie=UTF-8 In the past few years, investigating various properties of left-handed (LH) or double-negative(DNG) media, in which both permittivity and permeability possess negative real parts in acertain frequency range, has become the subject of interest for many research groups worldwide.The first experimental demonstration of anomalous negative refraction in these engineeredmedia was conducted in the microwave regime [1]. In the near-infrared (IR) and visible regimes,however, constructing such negative-index materials encounters some challenges, mainly dueto the fact that in these frequency regimes the magnetic permeability due to the molecularcurrents in a material approaches to that of the free space, and therefore the simple scaling of! the metallic split-ring resonator SRR (which was used in the microwave regime) down to theoptical wavelength may face some related issues. Several ideas have been suggested by othersto overcome some of these challenges [2-5]. [PDF] Plasmon modes and negative refraction in metal nanowire composites http://www.physics.orst.edu/~vpodolsk/reprints.pdf/opt.exp.2003.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Your browser may not have a PDF reader
Re: ionizing radiation
At 03:26 pm 19-01-05 -0500, you wrote: MC: In my metaphor about regarding EM radiation as a liquid or gas getting out of a box, that was a simple way of saying that any discontinuity in the shielding of a Faraday cage can function as an antenna and allow some slight radiation to escape. It takes real know-how to control this if you are serious about it. That reminds me of a time I said to my son that if I put his small transistor radio in 12x6x6 inches soldered tin box the radio waves wouldn't get in. I put in the radio to demonstrate the Faraday Cage effect but to my disgust the radio sounded as loud as ever. In fact the 12x6 lid, which had folded edges soldered at the corners, was a close fit but not air tight. Presumably the long cracks were sufficient to allow penetration of the AM signal. Grimer
Re: ionizing radiation
I put in the radio to demonstrate the Faraday Cage effect but to my disgust the radio sounded as loud as ever. In fact the 12x6 lid, which had folded edges soldered at the corners, was a close fit but not air tight. Presumably the long cracks were sufficient to allow penetration of the AM signal. That doesn't sound right. How did you ground it?
Re: ionizing radiation
On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 01:00 AM, Mike Carrell wrote: ... If this were generally true, there would be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now. I think you will find that there is. A few years ago the increase in brain cancers in the US (and presumably other countries) was said to be of epidemic proportions but as far as I am aware that predates the use of mobile phones. dave
Re: ionizing radiation
In a message dated 1/16/05 6:22:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. I am interested in stopping EMF, in particular short wave X rays and possibly shorter wave EMF. If I put it into a grounded metal, or metal screen box, would that stop it? I assume that the holes in the screen would have to be smaller than the size of the waves? What if I had electrical conductors, coming out of the Faraday Cage, would the short wave EMF be conducted with them? Would a transformer stop them? There was a man who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. He talked about cell phones. Basically his message was don't use them. Even in stand by mode, they still hand shake with the nearest tower and in the process irradiate you. Then there are the towers, he said that you don't want to be within 500 feet of one. I used the ear jack when I made phone calls, but apparently the EMF follows the wires into the ear jack. If his story is correct, over population will not be a problem for much longer. Cell phones, and high frequency waves especially those that are mixed frequencies can sometimes penetrate faraday cages if the cages are not grounded well enough to sink the higher frequency and mixed energy waves quickly enough. The Tom Bearden website has an article on using phase conjugate mirrors to produce a time reversed wave in direct response to a received ordinary wave, and the mirror may be pumped with energy to produce a very large amplification of the time reversed wave, to completely jam the wave right back to its source, which is often used on missiles to protect them from beam weapons attacks. Placing powerful magnets and magnetic coils around a faraday cage, which creates a magnetic force field may jam high frequency energy waves. Also a holographic plasma force field created by sound waves in air and in other gases may also jam high frequency emf waves. A large vacuum of 7 inches or more, may jam emf waves but I am not sure. Emf waves and cell phones also produce scalar waves as a side effect, and scalar waves may be somewhat jammed by using a role of aluminum foil rolled up much like a tesla coil to slow them down and trap them as emf energy in the center of the role of foil. Many nuclear shelters use rolled up metal like tesla coils to catch nuclear energy and trap it in the rolled up metal. Creating several layers of rolled up metal foil, with several layers of a faraday cage walls energized with sound and plasma waves as phase conjugate mirrors, may also trap the secondary and ternary waves. Flowing water energized with sound waves to create a holographic water force field may jam both scalar and emf waves somewhat. Ultra sound beam carrier waves may be used to carry scalar waves, and to create a unique holographic antenna in the air to receive scalar waves, to make a scalar wave neutrino or ionic force field that may jam or reflect emf waves. Elf waves can be received by short waves coupled over water, so that it may be possible to jam Elf waves by combining short waves in series created over water. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh. Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com Making a difference one person at a time Get informed. Inform others.
Re: ionizing radiation
Note that the strength of EM radiation from a cell phone is highest when it connects to the tower, at the start of a call, incoming or outgoing. I don't recall the precise numbers, but I saw the experiment on 'Mythbusters' when they were dealing with the cell phone / gas station myth. So the highest level of radiation is produced when the phone rings, or when you hit call after dialing the number. In either case the phone is typically nowhere near your head. The reason your head may feel hot after continued cell use is due to the waste heat from the phone. Apples and oranges certainly, but you are comparing 2 apples to about 2000 oranges. AM towers transmit at a much higher power. The EM radiation from the cell transmitter shouldn't travel up the wires for your earpiece. As for cases of brain cancer, maybe you should look to your CRT monitor as the culprit?thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom wrote:and Mike Carrel replied I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them.Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more.It was a thin layer of lead, would such a layer stop short X rays too? I am interested in stopping EMF, in particular short wave X rays and possibly shorter wave EMF.Check your numbers. The only thing shorter than Xrays are gamma rays emittedby radioactive substances and accelerators.I've seen a chart like that, I'll have to visit the library and look at one. If I put it into a grounded metal, orAs a first rule of thumb, YES. But EM radiation will leak out of a box likewater or! a gas weakly. There is a whole discipline that goes under the codename TEMPESTThanks for that name. What if I had electrical conductors, coming out of the Faraday Cage, would the short wave EMF be conducted with them? Would a transformer stop them?You bet. They are antennas, as are any gaps in the shielding of the box.Transformers only stop DC and can be transparent to everything else.Is there some way to make a transformer that is opaque to them? There was a man who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. He talked about cell phones.The man is misguided. A cell phone when on and in stanby will listen to thenearest cell phoone tower, comparing its address with the last addressreceived. When you turn it on, it will transmit a burst, reporting in, sothe system knows where your phone is. Your phone then goes passive, justlistening until you take it to another tower's cell; it will transmitanother burst, reporting in, etc. Think logically. Your phone will not wastebattery power transmitting all the time, nor do the towers want hundreds ofphones all yacking at it needlessly.You don't seem to be concerned about these occasional bursts of radiation, Mike, he disagrees with youThen there are the towers, he said that you don't want to be within 500 feet of one.Utter nonsense. The individual transmitters have a power of about 7.5 watts,equal to a christmas tree light bulb. The are up high so they can be 'seen'froma distance and the antennas are designed to emit most of their energy asa narrow horizontal fan so as to reach as far as possible. Nearby at groundlevel you get only the feeble leakage from the antennas. They are so safethat the FCC does not require s! ite surveys or licensing in setting up celltowers.Hum, again the two of you are at variance over this matter. He claims that the side of your head will feel hot from continued cell phone use. IMHO, this not a good sign. He says that the number of brain cancers in the vicinity of the antenna continues to increase.I used the ear jack when I made phone calls, but apparently the EMF follows the wires into the ear jack. If his story is correct, over population will not be a problem for much longer.His story is not correct, it is grossly exaggerated and misleading. Thereare some allegations that holding a cell phone to your ear places theantenna next to your brain and its radiation may affect brain tissue. Yearsago there was a suit by a man (or his widow) alleging that the cell phoneinitiated a brain cancer at that spot. If this were generally true, therewould be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now.He says that the aforementioned epidemic is here, or rather that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.Think logically.People may choose to go hands-free, with a ear bud, and tiny microphone pod,and the cell phone in their pocket, and walk around talking to the air. Thecell phone antenna can then irradiate your leg instead of your brain.Hum, good point.With the above caveats, long term use of a transmitter next to your head isprobably not a great idea, but any bad effects are very hard to quantify.There were similar concerns about living near high voltage transmissionlines. There were some stories about clusters of disease, including cancers,near high voltage lines. The clusters were there, but evidence linking themto the high voltage fields and not some other environmental
Re: ionizing radiation
Title: Re: ionizing radiation Meryln posted; Note that the strength of EM radiation from a cell phone is highest when it connects to the tower, at the start of a call, incoming or outgoing. I don't recall the precise numbers, but I saw the experiment on 'Mythbusters' when they were dealing with the cell phone / gas station myth. I realize that, however that ducks the question about what the effects of the cell phone in transmit mode are. The reason your head may feel hot after continued cell use is due to the waste heat from the phone. Hum, possible, but I doubt it. According to the Interviewee, you can do some kind of brain scan of users and show changes in the area of the brain nearest to the antenna. One of my business associates was trying to make the case that microwave radiation is good, or at least benign, I think he's living in la la land. The biochemist Glen Rein showed that there is a characteristic signature of microwave radiation left on the water. Apples and oranges certainly, but you are comparing 2 apples to about 2000 oranges. AM towers transmit at a much higher power. Power isn't the issue, it's the frequency. The EM radiation from the cell transmitter shouldn't travel up the wires for your earpiece. I hope you're right about that. As for cases of brain cancer, maybe you should look to your CRT monitor as the culprit? good point Dave posted; ... If this were generally true, there would be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now. I think you will find that there is. A few years ago the increase in brain cancers in the US (and presumably other countries) was said to be of epidemic proportions but as far as I am aware that predates the use of mobile phones. According to the interviewee, we are seeing the beginnings of such an epidemic, we shall see. I'm sure that there we're trial lawyers in the C to C audience who were salivating at the prospect of investigating the matter!
Re: ionizing radiation
Title: Re: ionizing radiation I posted, and Then the Baron weighted in: I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Cell phones, and high frequency waves especially those that are mixed frequencies can sometimes penetrate faraday cages if the cages are not grounded well enough to sink the higher frequency and mixed energy waves quickly enough. The Tom Bearden website has an article on using phase conjugate mirrors to produce a time reversed wave in direct response to a received ordinary wave, and the mirror may be pumped with energy to produce a very large amplification of the time reversed wave, to completely jam the wave right back to its source, which is often used on missiles to protect them from beam weapons attacks. Hum, I wonder where I can get the plans for one of these beam weapons? I was talking to a physicist about photons. He was going on about time reversed waves. IMHO, this has a lot more potential than a FTL communication. Do any of you people have a schematic which will detail how I can build one of these phase conjugate mirrors, more importantly, is the design of the receiver? Placing powerful magnets and magnetic coils around a faraday cage, which creates a magnetic force field may jam high frequency energy waves. Also a holographic plasma force field created by sound waves in air and in other gases may also jam high frequency emf waves. A holographic plasma force field created by sound waves. You know, I'd dismiss this as the Barron's ravings if the aforementioned physicist hadn't talked about adding an additional dimension to a laser by the addition of sound waves, A large vacuum of 7 inches or more, may jam emf waves but I am not sure. Emf waves and cell phones also produce scalar waves as a side effect, and scalar waves may be somewhat jammed by using a role of aluminum foil rolled up much like a tesla coil to slow them down and trap them as emf energy in the center of the role of foil. Many nuclear shelters use rolled up metal like tesla coils to catch nuclear energy and trap it in the rolled up metal. This is the first time I've heard someone assert that EMF waves would be stopped by a vacuum, in any case it's rather difficult to maintain a vacuum here. It would seem to me that if nuclear energy could be trapped by a aluminium foil analog of a Tesla coil, have you seen a design? Creating several layers of rolled up metal foil, with several layers of a faraday cage walls energized with sound and plasma waves as phase conjugate mirrors, may also trap the secondary and ternary waves. Flowing water energized with sound waves to create a holographic water force field may jam both scalar and emf waves somewhat. Wow, several layers of metal foil and flowing water. Ultra sound beam carrier waves may be used to carry scalar waves, and to create a unique holographic antenna in the air to receive scalar waves, to make a scalar wave neutrino or ionic force field that may jam or reflect emf waves. Elf waves can be received by short waves coupled over water, so that it may be possible to jam Elf waves by combining short waves in series created over water. Hum, ultrasonic beam wave, is that like a maser? This is going to modify the atmosphere such that it becomes a scalar antenna? If we could just use it to capture the neutrinos which may be carrying away the unobserved energy from LENR's. Now if I can just figure out what water has got to do with it!
Re: ionizing radiation
This link sums up cell phone safety issues fairly well, the results are inconclusive. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/aug00/prad.html Spectrum is the magazine of IEEE, which is the professional association of electrical and electronics engineers.MerlynMagickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
Re: ionizing radiation
I thought this article recently on the BBC website may be of interest. Grimer === Child warning over mobile phones Many children use mobile phones Parents should ensure their children use mobile phones only when absolutely necessary because of the potential health risks, an expert is warning. The latest study by Sir William Stewart says there is still no proof mobile phones are unsafe, but warns precautionary steps should be taken. Sir William said children under eight should not use mobile phones at all. In light of the findings, a phone designed for this age group has been withdrawn from sale in the UK. The MyMo phone went on sale five months ago aimed at four to eight-year-olds to use in an emergency. Parents have a responsibility to their children not simply to throw a mobile phone to a young child Sir William Stewart Advice ignored Sir William, now of the National Radiological Protection Board, first warned five years ago that children should only use mobiles in emergencies. But he is now concerned that advice is being ignored. Mobile phone operators welcomed the fact that Sir William's report highlighted the lack of hard evidence linking handsets with adverse health effects. One in four seven to 10-year-olds now own a mobile phone - double the levels in 2001, according to latest figures... Last year a 750-people study by Sweden's Karolinska Institute suggested using a mobile phone for 10 years or more increases the risk of ear tumours by four times. A Dutch study has suggested mobile phone use can affect brain function, and further research from Europe indicated radiation from the phones can cause DNA damage. == At 08:21 pm 18-01-05 +1100, you wrote: On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 01:00 AM, Mike Carrell wrote: ... If this were generally true, there would be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now. I think you will find that there is. A few years ago the increase in brain cancers in the US (and presumably other countries) was said to be of epidemic proportions but as far as I am aware that predates the use of mobile phones. dave
Re: ionizing radiation
Tom wrote again: Tom wrote: and Mike Carrel replied I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more. It was a thin layer of lead, would such a layer stop short X rays too? In general the shorter the wavelength, the greater the penetrating power. Cosmic rays go through everything. Electromagneitc radiation is a continuous spectrum from radio to cosmic rays. Attenuation is a matter of thickness and specific properties; light will travel through miles of fiber optics, but be stopped by a sheet of aluminum. I am interested in stopping EMF, in particular short wave X rays and possibly shorter wave EMF. Check your numbers. The only thing shorter than Xrays are gamma rays emitted by radioactive substances and accelerators. I've seen a chart like that, I'll have to visit the library and look at one. Try Google. Ask the right questions, and it is al there for you. If I put it into a grounded metal, or As a first rule of thumb, YES. But EM radiation will leak out of a box like water or a gas weakly. There is a whole discipline that goes under the code name TEMPEST Thanks for that name. Tempest is an unclassified name referring to a classified subject. One does not advertise capability in reading radiation signatures. What if I had electrical conductors, coming out of the Faraday Cage, would the short wave EMF be conducted with them? Would a transformer stop them? You bet. They are antennas, as are any gaps in the shielding of the box. Transformers only stop DC and can be transparent to everything else. Is there some way to make a transformer that is opaque to them? The conventional way is to shiield the primary and secondary separately, and introduce a grounded electrostatic shield between the two, so there is only magnetic coupling. The whole puyrpose of transformers is to trasmit alternating current. If you want to suppress certain frequencies or frequency ranges, you use a filter designed for that purpose, but these do not produce total suppression. There was a man who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. He talked about cell phones. The man is misguided. A cell phone when on and in stanby will listen to the nearest cell phoone tower, comparing its address with the last address received. When you turn it on, it will transmit a burst, reporting in, so the system knows where your phone is. Your phone then goes passive, just listening until you take it to another tower's cell; it will transmit another burst, reporting in, etc. Think logically. Your phone will not waste battery power transmitting all the time, nor do the towers want hundreds of phones all yacking at it needlessly. You don't seem to be concerned about these occasional bursts of radiation, Mike, he disagrees with you I think him misguided. I turn the phone on, and the burst might last milliseconds. It will listen only until I take it to another cell area, where it might emit another millisecond burst. It probably won't be near my head. If I am talking, then it is transmitting continuously. One must distinguish between the passive mode and active transmission. There one may have a concern. I just had a long conversation with a man who is extremely knowledgeable; he was using a cell phone, and at the beginning of the conversation said he was putting it into speakerphone mode so he would not be holding it against his head. This supports the position of the man you are referring to. Then there are the towers, he said that you don't want to be within 500 feet of one. Utter nonsense. The individual transmitters have a power of about 7.5 watts, equal to a christmas tree light bulb. The are up high so they can be 'seen' froma distance and the antennas are designed to emit most of their energy as a narrow horizontal fan so as to reach as far as possible. Nearby at ground level you get only the feeble leakage from the antennas. They are so safe that the FCC does not require site surveys or licensing in setting up cell towers. Hum, again the two of you are at variance over this matter. He claims that the side of your head will feel hot from continued cell phone use. IMHO, this not a good sign. He says that the number of brain cancers in the vicinity of the antenna continues to increase. RF radiation will produce heating. While a cell phone is a weak transmitter, I cannot say that someone will not feet some warmth. I do not notice it when I use a cell phone. As far as cancers near antennas, he should cite statistics, not generalities. People have looked at this stuff carefully.Truly random events can include clusters of events, so if you look selectively enough you can find clusters of cancers associated with anything. I find it very difficult to believe that the equivalent of a christmas tree light 40 feet in the air
Re: ionizing radiation
In a message dated 1/18/05 10:45:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was talking to a physicist about photons. Fiber optic cables, which carry photons, may be shielded from high energy smaller than light wavelengths such as emf's, by using negative refractive nano materials which have been energized to create randomly oscillating from smaller than light wave to larger than light wave force field filters wrapped around the fiber optic cables. Some classified telephone lines that use fiber optics, have such wires wrapped around them from what I have been told to not only receive information that is smaller than light wave but to also jam it. [PDF] Optical Negative-Refraction Metamaterials, Nano-Layers and Nano ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML "In the past few years, investigating various properties of left-handed (LH) or double-negative(DNG) media, in which both permittivity and permeability possess negative real parts in acertain frequency range, has become the subject of interest for many research groups worldwide.The first experimental demonstration of anomalous negative refraction in these engineeredmedia was conducted in the microwave regime [1]. In the near-infrared (IR) and visible regimes,however, constructing such negative-index materials encounters some challenges, mainly dueto the fact that in these frequency regimes the magnetic permeability due to the molecularcurrents in a material approaches to that of the free space, and therefore the simple scaling ofthe metallic split-ring resonator SRR (which was used in the microwave regime) down to theoptical wavelength may face some related issues. Several ideas have been suggested by othersto overcome some of these challenges [2-5]." [PDF] Plasmon modes and negative refraction in metal nanowire composites File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Your browser may not have a PDF reader Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh. Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com Making a difference one person at a time Get informed. Inform others.
Re: ionizing radiation
Tom wrote: I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more. I am interested in stopping EMF, in particular short wave X rays and possibly shorter wave EMF. Check your numbers. The only thing shorter than Xrays are gamma rays emitted by radioactive substances and accelerators. If I put it into a grounded metal, or metal screen box, would that stop it? I assume that the holes in the screen would have to be smaller than the size of the waves? As a first rule of thumb, YES. But EM radiation will leak out of a box like water or a gas weakly. There is a whole discipline that goes under the code name TEMPEST concerning radiation security, preventing bad guys from reading what is going on in your little electronic box. What if I had electrical conductors, coming out of the Faraday Cage, would the short wave EMF be conducted with them? Would a transformer stop them? You bet. They are antennas, as are any gaps in the shielding of the box. Transformers only stop DC and can be transparent to everything else. There was a man who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. He talked about cell phones. Basically his message was don't use them. Even in stand by mode, they still hand shake with the nearest tower and in the process irradiate you. The man is misguided. A cell phone when on and in stanby will listen to the nearest cell phoone tower, comparing its address with the last address received. When you turn it on, it will transmit a burst, reporting in, so the system knows where your phone is. Your phone then goes passive, just listening until you take it to another tower's cell; it will transmit another burst, reporting in, etc. Think logically. Your phone will not waste battery power transmitting all the time, nor do the towers want hundreds of phones all yacking at it needlessly. Then there are the towers, he said that you don't want to be within 500 feet of one. Utter nonsense. The individual transmitters have a power of about 7.5 watts, equal to a christmas tree light bulb. The are up high so they can be 'seen' froma distance and the antennas are designed to emit most of their energy as a narrow horizontal fan so as to reach as far as possible. Nearby at ground level you get only the feeble leakage from the antennas. They are so safe that the FCC does not require site surveys or licensing in setting up cell towers. I used the ear jack when I made phone calls, but apparently the EMF follows the wires into the ear jack. If his story is correct, over population will not be a problem for much longer. His story is not correct, it is grossly exaggerated and misleading. There are some allegations that holding a cell phone to your ear places the antenna next to your brain and its radiation may affect brain tissue. Years ago there was a suit by a man (or his widow) alleging that the cell phone initiated a brain cancer at that spot. If this were generally true, there would be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now. Think logically. People may choose to go hands-free, with a ear bud, and tiny microphone pod, and the cell phone in their pocket, and walk around talking to the air. The cell phone antenna can then irradiate your leg instead of your brain. With the above caveats, long term use of a transmitter next to your head is probably not a great idea, but any bad effects are very hard to quantify. There were similar concerns about living near high voltage transmission lines. There were some stories about clusters of disease, including cancers, near high voltage lines. The clusters were there, but evidence linking them to the high voltage fields and not some other environmental cause was lacking. Some years ago, Verizon wnated to erect a cell tower at the local police station. I attended some of the meetings. A woman was all distressed about irradiation of her house because she had read one of the idiot books. She was oblivious to the antenna of a 50 kW AM radio station a mile or so away, which has houses all around it for decades. Its signal is so strong I had to put filters on the telephone lines and my computer modem to avoid inteference. I get 25 mV of that transmitter on any stub of wire in the house. Mike Carrell
Re: ionizing radiation
At 09:00 am 17-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Tom wrote: I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more. Can also be used for reducing sound transmission which depends upon mass. Lead's got plenty. 8-) Grimer
Re: ionizing radiation
Tom wrote: and Mike Carrel replied I did a remodeling project on what once was a medical clinic. When we cut into the walls, there were sheets of lead in them. Lead would be used to stop Xrays, nothing more. It was a thin layer of lead, would such a layer stop short X rays too? I am interested in stopping EMF, in particular short wave X rays and possibly shorter wave EMF. Check your numbers. The only thing shorter than Xrays are gamma rays emitted by radioactive substances and accelerators. I've seen a chart like that, I'll have to visit the library and look at one. If I put it into a grounded metal, or As a first rule of thumb, YES. But EM radiation will leak out of a box like water or a gas weakly. There is a whole discipline that goes under the code name TEMPEST Thanks for that name. What if I had electrical conductors, coming out of the Faraday Cage, would the short wave EMF be conducted with them? Would a transformer stop them? You bet. They are antennas, as are any gaps in the shielding of the box. Transformers only stop DC and can be transparent to everything else. Is there some way to make a transformer that is opaque to them? There was a man who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. He talked about cell phones. The man is misguided. A cell phone when on and in stanby will listen to the nearest cell phoone tower, comparing its address with the last address received. When you turn it on, it will transmit a burst, reporting in, so the system knows where your phone is. Your phone then goes passive, just listening until you take it to another tower's cell; it will transmit another burst, reporting in, etc. Think logically. Your phone will not waste battery power transmitting all the time, nor do the towers want hundreds of phones all yacking at it needlessly. You don't seem to be concerned about these occasional bursts of radiation, Mike, he disagrees with you Then there are the towers, he said that you don't want to be within 500 feet of one. Utter nonsense. The individual transmitters have a power of about 7.5 watts, equal to a christmas tree light bulb. The are up high so they can be 'seen' froma distance and the antennas are designed to emit most of their energy as a narrow horizontal fan so as to reach as far as possible. Nearby at ground level you get only the feeble leakage from the antennas. They are so safe that the FCC does not require site surveys or licensing in setting up cell towers. Hum, again the two of you are at variance over this matter. He claims that the side of your head will feel hot from continued cell phone use. IMHO, this not a good sign. He says that the number of brain cancers in the vicinity of the antenna continues to increase. I used the ear jack when I made phone calls, but apparently the EMF follows the wires into the ear jack. If his story is correct, over population will not be a problem for much longer. His story is not correct, it is grossly exaggerated and misleading. There are some allegations that holding a cell phone to your ear places the antenna next to your brain and its radiation may affect brain tissue. Years ago there was a suit by a man (or his widow) alleging that the cell phone initiated a brain cancer at that spot. If this were generally true, there would be a worldwide epidemic of brain cancer by now. He says that the aforementioned epidemic is here, or rather that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Think logically. People may choose to go hands-free, with a ear bud, and tiny microphone pod, and the cell phone in their pocket, and walk around talking to the air. The cell phone antenna can then irradiate your leg instead of your brain. Hum, good point. With the above caveats, long term use of a transmitter next to your head is probably not a great idea, but any bad effects are very hard to quantify. There were similar concerns about living near high voltage transmission lines. There were some stories about clusters of disease, including cancers, near high voltage lines. The clusters were there, but evidence linking them to the high voltage fields and not some other environmental cause was lacking. As I understand it, children living in the first house down from the transformer are at a higher risk than children in subsequent houses. Adults are at a lower risk than children, and fetuses at a higher risk. Some years ago, Verizon wnated to erect a cell tower at the local police station. I attended some of the meetings. A woman was all distressed about irradiation of her house because she had read one of the idiot books. She was oblivious to the antenna of a 50 kW AM radio station a mile or so away, which has houses all around it for decades. Its signal is so strong I had to put filters on the telephone lines and my computer modem to avoid inteference. I get 25 mV of that transmitter on any stub of wire in the house. I think that he would say apples and oranges. The wave length of the cell phone EMF is way
