3 ms·

Yes. The difference between man-made EMFs and natural EMFs are that man made are polarized and natural EMFs or unpolarized. Also, the wave lengths of man-made

Yes. The difference between man-made EMFs and natural EMFs are that man made are polarized and natural EMFs or unpolarized. Also, the wave lengths of man-made EMFs are nonexistent in the natural world, and for the majority of human evolution.

CamperBob2 3y ago
Never mind "not even wrong," that's not even right.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  I am tired of these comments. What is not right, this? https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    I'm genuinely poleaxed that Nature would publish that. What next, a horoscope column?
    - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
      You sound like the Catholic Church commenting about Copernicus.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Careful, irony at that level has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In science you start with observed effects, then look for causes that explain, predict, or model the effects. You don't start with tin-foil hat theories with no physical basis (Polarization at wavelengths a million times longer than the structures supposedly being affected? Really?) and cast about looking for effects that your pet theories might explain. These authors are looking for a smoking gun and they don't even have a corpse.
    - Enginerrrd 3y ago
      You have to be careful with Nature. The root journal is top quality, but there's some sort of ancillary pipeline within the "Nature" umbrella where articles look very superficially like a Nature article, but are NOT published in the root journal and are NOT held to the same standard at all. It can be a bit confusing. I'm not sure if the cited article falls into that category or not, because I can't quite recall how it works, but I just know I have been burned by that one in the past when I submitted something to be reviewed and it turned out one really surprising result was garbage tier.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Yeah, apparently I missed the mark when I predicted a horoscope column. It's phrenology that's the new hotness at Nature. Connectome, shemectome: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01495-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01495-y They are evidently running a cross-sectional, longitudinal, inter-dimensional study on how to hose a prestigious 150-year-old brand.

CamperBob2 3y ago

Never mind "not even wrong," that's not even right.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
I am tired of these comments. What is not right, this? https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I'm genuinely poleaxed that Nature would publish that. What next, a horoscope column?
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    You sound like the Catholic Church commenting about Copernicus.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Careful, irony at that level has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In science you start with observed effects, then look for causes that explain, predict, or model the effects. You don't start with tin-foil hat theories with no physical basis (Polarization at wavelengths a million times longer than the structures supposedly being affected? Really?) and cast about looking for effects that your pet theories might explain. These authors are looking for a smoking gun and they don't even have a corpse.
  - Enginerrrd 3y ago
    You have to be careful with Nature. The root journal is top quality, but there's some sort of ancillary pipeline within the "Nature" umbrella where articles look very superficially like a Nature article, but are NOT published in the root journal and are NOT held to the same standard at all. It can be a bit confusing. I'm not sure if the cited article falls into that category or not, because I can't quite recall how it works, but I just know I have been burned by that one in the past when I submitted something to be reviewed and it turned out one really surprising result was garbage tier.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Yeah, apparently I missed the mark when I predicted a horoscope column. It's phrenology that's the new hotness at Nature. Connectome, shemectome: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01495-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01495-y They are evidently running a cross-sectional, longitudinal, inter-dimensional study on how to hose a prestigious 150-year-old brand.