6 ms·

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that. All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk through every single day? Public transport, power lines, wifi etc. your own electric cable has a magnetic field. Weird that you actually connect ion channels/EMF with blood vessal issues at all. Feel free to read the wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivi... "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical diagnosis, although it is generally accepted that the experience of EHS symptoms is of psychosomatic origin."

Podgajski 3y ago
This is the second time I’ve read this Mr. interpretation of sunlight being polarized on hacker news. Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters. Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:text=Light%20arriving%20on%20Earth%20from,%2C%20at%20most%2C%20weakly%20polarized https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex.... Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized. There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam. https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/ https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/ Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said. And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.
- Hehohei 3y ago
  Wikipedia has all of its sources at the bottom of the article itself. If you could actually proof your claim, people would write an article about you.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    No one wants to work with me to prove it. Of there is anyone here that wants to help me I am open to it. I am homeless and on disability.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      If you can't prove it, why do you yourself believe it? You said you "know how science works" but you've been arguing that 0.1 watts of non ionizing radiation that can't penetrate the skin causes cancer and in a previous thread you were arguing that humans aren't smarter than mosquitos.
      - Podgajski 3y ago
        I can’t prove it to other people. I proved it to myself, but when other people want proof, they don’t sit down with me to investigate it. I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels. And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that they have different intelligence. You’re not even listening to me, so how can you learn anything?
        Ynottingten 3y ago
        [dead]
Podgajski 3y ago
Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
- qubitcoder 3y ago
  I don't mean to discount what you're experiencing. The article you linked to would set off alarm bells with anyone familiar with scientific publications, or even an undergraduate level of physics education. It's more like a blog post purporting mysticism. The cited author, Dr. George L. Carlo, is a "a world recognized medical scientist, best-selling author and attorney", as indicated here [0]--a pseudo-science website that earns money by exploiting EMF fears (and sells "WiFi blockers"). "At Tech Wellness, our goal is to be your trusted source for information about EMF and all things wireless energy. That’s no small feat, because when you start looking around you’ll see a lot of pretty crazy claims and contradicting information out there—and some of it is downright scary." The source you linked to isn't associated with Nature, despite the URL. [0] https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-emf-cellphone-radiation https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-em...
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    If you look closely at what Tech wellness sells, you’ll find that all of it is scientifically proven. It’s not like they’re selling crystals or pendants. Go ahead and show me one thing there that you think does not block electromagnetic radiation. And this is the main research scientist who wrote the paper. You do not know enough about electromagnetic radiation to keep commenting like you are. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_of_Wireless_Commu.html https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_... Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Electromagnetic Fields - Biophysicist, was born in Athens, Greece, where he lives and works. He has a Degree in Physics and a PhD in Biophysics both from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA). He completed his PhD on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in 2001, and two post-doctoral studies on the biological effects of microwaves (2004), and on cell death induction by Wireless Communication (WC) EMFs (2006). He worked as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, NKUA, (2002-2014), where he gave undergraduate and graduate lectures on Radiation- and EMF-Biophysics, and performed research on the effects of various types of EMFs in experimental animals. During 2014-2018 he worked as a research associate at the National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology and Cytogenetics, researching effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on human cells. Since 2018 he has been working as a researcher at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, NKUA. His experiments were among the first that showed damaging effects of man-made EMFs on DNA and reproduction. He has also shown beneficial effects on reproduction of EMFs mimicking natural ones. His theory on the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells is considered the most valid amongst all proposed theories and is cited by nearly 700 scientific publications. This theory has explained the sensing of upcoming earthquakes by animals and the sensing of upcoming thunderstorms by sensitive individuals through the action of the natural EMFs associated with these phenomena. The same theory has recently explained the induction of oxidative stress in cells by EMF-exposure. Dr. Panagopoulos has shown why the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a proper metric for non-thermal effects, why man-made (totally polarized) EMFs are damaging while natural EMFs are vital, and why highly varying real-life exposures from mobile phones and other WC devices are significantly more damaging than simulated exposures with invariable parameters. He has also shown that genetic damage caused by WC EMFs occurs similarly in human and animal cells. Dr. Panagopoulos has also argued that photons are strictly wave-packets, not particles of light, and that man-made electromagnetic radiation does not consist of photons but of continuous "classical" polarized waves, in contrast to what has been postulated by quantum physicists in the past 100 years. He is the first or sole author in more than 40 peer-reviewed highly influential scientific publications, which are referenced more than 1600 times by other scientific publications and has been included in the Top 10 cited authors by the Mutation Research journals.
Podgajski 3y ago
Why is it weird that I connect ion channels? They’ve been shown to be affected by EMFs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/ Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Podgajski 3y ago

This is the second time I’ve read this Mr. interpretation of sunlight being polarized on hacker news. Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters. Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:text=Light%20arriving%20on%20Earth%20from,%2C%20at%20most%2C%20weakly%20polarized https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex.... Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized. There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam. https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/ https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/ Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said. And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.

Hehohei 3y ago
Wikipedia has all of its sources at the bottom of the article itself. If you could actually proof your claim, people would write an article about you.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  No one wants to work with me to prove it. Of there is anyone here that wants to help me I am open to it. I am homeless and on disability.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    If you can't prove it, why do you yourself believe it? You said you "know how science works" but you've been arguing that 0.1 watts of non ionizing radiation that can't penetrate the skin causes cancer and in a previous thread you were arguing that humans aren't smarter than mosquitos.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      I can’t prove it to other people. I proved it to myself, but when other people want proof, they don’t sit down with me to investigate it. I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels. And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that they have different intelligence. You’re not even listening to me, so how can you learn anything?
      - Ynottingten 3y ago
        [dead]

Podgajski 3y ago

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

qubitcoder 3y ago
I don't mean to discount what you're experiencing. The article you linked to would set off alarm bells with anyone familiar with scientific publications, or even an undergraduate level of physics education. It's more like a blog post purporting mysticism. The cited author, Dr. George L. Carlo, is a "a world recognized medical scientist, best-selling author and attorney", as indicated here [0]--a pseudo-science website that earns money by exploiting EMF fears (and sells "WiFi blockers"). "At Tech Wellness, our goal is to be your trusted source for information about EMF and all things wireless energy. That’s no small feat, because when you start looking around you’ll see a lot of pretty crazy claims and contradicting information out there—and some of it is downright scary." The source you linked to isn't associated with Nature, despite the URL. [0] https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-emf-cellphone-radiation https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-em...
- Podgajski 3y ago
  If you look closely at what Tech wellness sells, you’ll find that all of it is scientifically proven. It’s not like they’re selling crystals or pendants. Go ahead and show me one thing there that you think does not block electromagnetic radiation. And this is the main research scientist who wrote the paper. You do not know enough about electromagnetic radiation to keep commenting like you are. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_of_Wireless_Commu.html https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_... Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Electromagnetic Fields - Biophysicist, was born in Athens, Greece, where he lives and works. He has a Degree in Physics and a PhD in Biophysics both from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA). He completed his PhD on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in 2001, and two post-doctoral studies on the biological effects of microwaves (2004), and on cell death induction by Wireless Communication (WC) EMFs (2006). He worked as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, NKUA, (2002-2014), where he gave undergraduate and graduate lectures on Radiation- and EMF-Biophysics, and performed research on the effects of various types of EMFs in experimental animals. During 2014-2018 he worked as a research associate at the National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology and Cytogenetics, researching effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on human cells. Since 2018 he has been working as a researcher at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, NKUA. His experiments were among the first that showed damaging effects of man-made EMFs on DNA and reproduction. He has also shown beneficial effects on reproduction of EMFs mimicking natural ones. His theory on the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells is considered the most valid amongst all proposed theories and is cited by nearly 700 scientific publications. This theory has explained the sensing of upcoming earthquakes by animals and the sensing of upcoming thunderstorms by sensitive individuals through the action of the natural EMFs associated with these phenomena. The same theory has recently explained the induction of oxidative stress in cells by EMF-exposure. Dr. Panagopoulos has shown why the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a proper metric for non-thermal effects, why man-made (totally polarized) EMFs are damaging while natural EMFs are vital, and why highly varying real-life exposures from mobile phones and other WC devices are significantly more damaging than simulated exposures with invariable parameters. He has also shown that genetic damage caused by WC EMFs occurs similarly in human and animal cells. Dr. Panagopoulos has also argued that photons are strictly wave-packets, not particles of light, and that man-made electromagnetic radiation does not consist of photons but of continuous "classical" polarized waves, in contrast to what has been postulated by quantum physicists in the past 100 years. He is the first or sole author in more than 40 peer-reviewed highly influential scientific publications, which are referenced more than 1600 times by other scientific publications and has been included in the Top 10 cited authors by the Mutation Research journals.

Podgajski 3y ago

Why is it weird that I connect ion channels? They’ve been shown to be affected by EMFs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/ Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]