3 ms·

>all it can do is oscillate matter in various ways That is not a trivial effect. A variety of hormones, enzymes etc. in the body are fine tuned to oscillate at

>all it can do is oscillate matter in various ways That is not a trivial effect. A variety of hormones, enzymes etc. in the body are fine tuned to oscillate at their optimum frequencies and that get disrupted by man made EM waves. Note that we are by virtue of evolution (somewhat but not always) immune to natural EM waves. ( sun, cosmic rays etc.). You will have to look into the work of Prof. Trevor Marshall for details. Not surprising, he is generally not takes seriously, so again depends on who you choose to trust.

arghwhat 2y ago
Note that RF does not make everything oscillate violently - the energy is dissipated by inducing spin in water molecules, leaving little energy to budge huge macro structures like enzymes. Enzymatic oscillations are also to my knowledge on the scale of minutes, not nanoseconds. Even if it could cause measurable motion, I see no reason to suspect that a weak gigahertz carrier wave would form any meaningful interference with a .001 Hz motion. There is a big difference between being unaffected by EM like us and having protection against it. It’s also very silly to classify things as “man made” here - what we work with is a small subset of what nature throws at us all the time (ever seen the RF spectrum of a lightning strike?). The main “concern” (pardon the quotes) would be exposure time, as neither energy nor frequency sticks out. Feel free to share a link to some of his work that you find relevant - even if I end up disagreeing with the conclusion or methodologies, reading different perspectives do not hurt.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Feel free to share a link to some of his work that you find relevant https://www.trevormarshall.com/ https://www.trevormarshall.com/ should be a good _starting_ point. (Side note: don't you think experimental evidence should override all speculation of how things should work or not work? I believe that Prof TM has done some of those experiments, and referencing a fair amount of literature on the subject)
  - arghwhat 2y ago
    > https://www.trevormarshall.com/ https://www.trevormarshall.com/ should be a good _starting_ point. That's not a starting point, that's just his web page. Works that were relevant would be e.g. specific papers on the topic that gained traction. > Side note: don't you think experimental evidence should override all speculation of how things should work or not work? Well, that depends. Once you have sufficient experiments from several parties that hold up to scrutiny and meta-analysis, then you have the basis for building a theory to describe it, and build further experiments to attempt to disprove it or its competing theories. At some point, the results and underlying theory becomes agreed upon knowledge - even if temporary. Before that, experiments are interesting anecdotes to pique interest and build further research on. Most results, however, fail to get that far as most experiments are based on flawed test methodologies with conclusions not following the data, often driven unintentionally by a selection bias for a theory one set out to prove. Science is chock full of non-reproducible work and wrong conclusions (remember the recent superconductor scandal? most of these never make the news), which is why the power of science (like all of human knowledge) must always be in numbers. Yes, this does sometimes lead to understudied subjects lacking conclusions as it requires extensive interest and funding from multiple parties. For example, the focus on "alternative medicine" has been to debunk its claims of resolving medical conditions (the majority being quackery predating even basic understanding of biology), but as a result alternative chronic pain management regimes within these fields which some individuals find temporary relief within lack any useful data - an area modern medicine handles poorly. But this cannot be used as argument to relax the requirement of numbers. So yeah, "depends". > Prof TM I can't help but read this as Prof™.

arghwhat 2y ago

Note that RF does not make everything oscillate violently - the energy is dissipated by inducing spin in water molecules, leaving little energy to budge huge macro structures like enzymes. Enzymatic oscillations are also to my knowledge on the scale of minutes, not nanoseconds. Even if it could cause measurable motion, I see no reason to suspect that a weak gigahertz carrier wave would form any meaningful interference with a .001 Hz motion. There is a big difference between being unaffected by EM like us and having protection against it. It’s also very silly to classify things as “man made” here - what we work with is a small subset of what nature throws at us all the time (ever seen the RF spectrum of a lightning strike?). The main “concern” (pardon the quotes) would be exposure time, as neither energy nor frequency sticks out. Feel free to share a link to some of his work that you find relevant - even if I end up disagreeing with the conclusion or methodologies, reading different perspectives do not hurt.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Feel free to share a link to some of his work that you find relevant https://www.trevormarshall.com/ https://www.trevormarshall.com/ should be a good _starting_ point. (Side note: don't you think experimental evidence should override all speculation of how things should work or not work? I believe that Prof TM has done some of those experiments, and referencing a fair amount of literature on the subject)
- arghwhat 2y ago
  > https://www.trevormarshall.com/ https://www.trevormarshall.com/ should be a good _starting_ point. That's not a starting point, that's just his web page. Works that were relevant would be e.g. specific papers on the topic that gained traction. > Side note: don't you think experimental evidence should override all speculation of how things should work or not work? Well, that depends. Once you have sufficient experiments from several parties that hold up to scrutiny and meta-analysis, then you have the basis for building a theory to describe it, and build further experiments to attempt to disprove it or its competing theories. At some point, the results and underlying theory becomes agreed upon knowledge - even if temporary. Before that, experiments are interesting anecdotes to pique interest and build further research on. Most results, however, fail to get that far as most experiments are based on flawed test methodologies with conclusions not following the data, often driven unintentionally by a selection bias for a theory one set out to prove. Science is chock full of non-reproducible work and wrong conclusions (remember the recent superconductor scandal? most of these never make the news), which is why the power of science (like all of human knowledge) must always be in numbers. Yes, this does sometimes lead to understudied subjects lacking conclusions as it requires extensive interest and funding from multiple parties. For example, the focus on "alternative medicine" has been to debunk its claims of resolving medical conditions (the majority being quackery predating even basic understanding of biology), but as a result alternative chronic pain management regimes within these fields which some individuals find temporary relief within lack any useful data - an area modern medicine handles poorly. But this cannot be used as argument to relax the requirement of numbers. So yeah, "depends". > Prof TM I can't help but read this as Prof™.