reminder; >Cell Phones, Microwaves And The Human Health

>>8733371
>theoretical biologist

>>8733382

yes, MIT trained, Berkeley PhD, working for Los Alamos

That book started off pretty good but got impressively stupid by the end.

>>8733404

the book is not the point

bamp

>>8733394
Oh, MIT. That changes everything.

I guess then the volumes of studies that were done before this are invalidated.

is that that same guy who swears that the photoelectric effect doesn't work the way it actually does, who swears that low-frequency radiation can be ionizing if you just have enough photons hanging out together?

>>8733461

just proves you didn't read the paper. hell, you didn't even read the OP

>an entirely new way

>>8733371
>1965
huh?

>theoretical biologist

>>8733371
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1107/1107.0086.pdf

Your second paper is utter pseudoscience garbage which only a deranged person could take seriously.

>>8735056

the second link is from 1965, yes

doesn't make it wrong. calculus is hundreds of years old and we still use it

>>8735067

not an argument

einstein was a theoretical physicist

a theoretical scientist is someone who can do more than just count beans

>>8735072

also not an argument. make a substantive claim, if you can. it's extensively sourced. you obviously haven't even begun to read it.

if it's bullshit why does the FCC have it on its website? why did the Ford Motor company commission it? why did a University of Michigan professor (PhD) agree to edit it? etc.

>deranged

no u

>>8735376
>also not an argument. make a substantive claim, if you can
Hmmm? I read your link, yet you won't read mine.

>if it's bullshit why does the FCC have it on its website?
What exactly is the connection between the two?

>why did the Ford Motor company commission it? why did a University of Michigan professor (PhD) agree to edit it?
Because such paranormal "research" was in vogue during the 60s.

Yes, you are clearly deranged if you think the paper is reputable.

>>8735409
>I read your link

I thought you were quoting; you didn't say anything about the first link. didn't even click on it. I will read it

the only criticism you made personally was about the second link, and you've still yet to make a single substantive argument

but you'd like us to believe you know better than the numerous sources cited in the paper, the Univ. of Michigan PhD who edited the paper, the Ford Motor Company, and the US Government (FCC). kek, moron

>>8735409
>>8735072

so far all I can find on your author are articles promoting atheism

dis gun be gud

>>8735422
Where is your argument? You just posted a link but demand that others do more than post a link thoroughly debunking what you posted.

Sorry, but I clearly do know better than the delusional individuals who believed the scam artist who wrote this pseudo scientific nonsense. Such scams are well documents and were very prevalent during the 50s and 60s, when government agencies and various institutions would fund just about anything. Sorry, but your tiny group of EM quacks with PhDs masturbating each other does not make reputability.

>>8735409
>>8735072

reading the paper now...

There's no experiment in the first paper. It barely counts as a paper. It's basically an opinion piece. Make a reproducible experiment like all the rest of the good scientists and come back with some substance. I'm not going to humor this faggot's shitposting

The second paper is just pop science bullshit

>measuring skin resistances of different people
>WOW they're different!
>figures of divining rods
>mentions of hypnosis
>90% of the paper is cobbling together 110 different studies

Very reputable

>>8735447

I'm reading. waiting. I actually read the arguments made by the other side.

here's my initial objection;

>Bruno points to the possibility of damaging effects arising from the modulation of the cell phone microwaves. This suggests that he, and the researchers he cites, have no idea about the modulation of cell phone signals.

this just shows your author misunderstands the nature of the threat. current modulation schemes are not the point. Dr. Bruno is a theoretical biologist. He's saying the signal could be modulated to be significantly bio-effective in a way it's not now

regarding "optical tweezers", the author again seems to misunderstand the mechanism involved. Dr. Bruno wrote of certain neuroelectric focusing effects. the author of your paper wrote "Bruno’s example of a non-thermal effect often comes with important thermal side effects."

and while that may be true for microwaves, it doesn't disprove the overall point. a side effect is not the main effect.

then there are also arguments relating to “average thermal energy, kbT, per cubic wavelength”; both men present significantly different figures. again, this may be your author's misunderstanding of the particular theoretical modulation scheme involved, along with the focusing effects, etc.

in any case, I'll go with the MIT trained US govt. lab scientist whose work corresponds with the FCC.gov link, over some corporate atheist hack, case closed

>>8735447

you say 50s and 60s but the FCC has the paper on its website today. and again, 0 substantive counter-argument.

you insisted I read your author's paper, I did, I wrote a refutation. you obviously haven't even begun to read the paper. it's also heavily referenced with supporting scientific studies, etc.

>>8735460

>what is theoretical

also, when this dude wrote the paper he worked for Los Alamos. to this day he works for a consortium partnered with Los Alamos. Guess what? Los Alamos does a lot of highly classified weapons research, and there are good reasons why these experiments, if they do exist, have not been publicized

the atomic bomb was unknown to virtually all scientists until it was actually dropped. think about that

>>8735502
Theory in this case doesn't mean anything if it can't be applied. If he or anybody else can't, or hasn't bothered to apply the theory to a practical situations by now it's a safe bet to say the theory is flawed

He can throw stones at walls and think about stuff all day long but nobody is going to believe it until some numbers show up. And it should be easy enough for him to design an experiment. His theory is all laid out. It's been 6 years what the fuck has he been doing


>you say 50s and 60s but the FCC has the paper on its website today. and again, 0 substantive counter-argument
The FCC archives old documents or it missed getting cleaned up. They're not exactly showcasing it right on their home page
>a reputable scientist can't make a shitty paper
You need to read the paper that one MD made about finding the area under a curve. It was cited a lot
>the atomic bomb was unknown to virtually all scientists until it was actually dropped. think about that
And when it dropped the world saw. And when we put up fucktons of cell towers everyone starting killing themselves, metabolisms completely out of whack, headaches and mood swings and general malaise. An epidemiological nightmare

The only thing cell towers harm is birds. They fly into them a lot at night

>>8735561
>Theory in this case doesn't mean anything if it can't be applied.

it can be applied. that's why he's warning about it, presumably

>If he or anybody else can't, or hasn't

or that work is classified

>It's been 6 years what the fuck has he been doing

working at Los Alamos. what do you think?

>And when it dropped the world saw.

sure, but this one isn't just going to drop on one city. do what you want. smart phones are fucking retarded. I'm also planning to move outside the city limits soon, because Dr. Bruno also warned of cell towers. they also have a lot more power

>And when we put up fucktons of cell towers everyone starting killing themselves, metabolisms completely out of whack, headaches and mood swings and general malaise. An epidemiological nightmare

there is plenty of science on the maleffects of passive cell radiation, but again, that is not the point of Dr. Bruno's paper

it's like comparing simple Uranium radiation exposure to the effects of an atomic bomb

<--- /x/

>>8735493
>this just shows your author misunderstands the nature of the threat. current modulation schemes are not the point. Dr. Bruno is a theoretical biologist. He's saying the signal could be modulated to be significantly bio-effective in a way it's not now
Nope, wrong. Bruno claims that current modulation makes wireless signals compatible with the brain. He also claims that the prevalence of wireless signals causes everything from cancer to autism. So your feeble attempt to backtrack fails. If current modulating schemes are not the point why are you fearmongering about them?

>regarding "optical tweezers", the author again seems to misunderstand the mechanism involved. Dr. Bruno wrote of certain neuroelectric focusing effects. the author of your paper wrote "Bruno’s example of a non-thermal effect often comes with important thermal side effects."
How did he misunderstand the mechanism? The point here is that microwaves are not similar to optical tweezers. Bruno's argument rests on the assumption that since optical tweezers have non-thermal effects so do microwaves. By the same logic, microwaves should have the sane thermal effects as optical tweezers, but they don't. Bruno selectively ignored this.

>again, this may be your author's misunderstanding of the particular theoretical modulation scheme involved, along with the focusing effects, etc.
No, the paper explains exactly how Bruno's calculations are wrong. If you can't dispute his analysis directly then admit they're wrong or that you don't know. Don't equivocate out of ignorance.

You have no argument, you lose. Go the your meds.

>>8735502
>you say 50s and 60s but the FCC has the paper on its website today. and again, 0 substantive counter-argument.
The paper was made in the 60s. The FCC keeping it on their website is a non-sequitur. Why do they keep it on their website? Because some quack cited it in a failed lawsuit to have cellphones banned from schools. That's it. Support your points with logic, not vague insinuation.

I thought /sci/ knew not to listen to cranks talking about things they have no training in. You wouldn't ask a geologist to show expertise in the nitty gritty details of evolutionary theory; why should we listen to a biologist expound on physics?

File: 1488427851086.jpg (74KB, 547x794px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 547x794px

>>8733371
Microwaves are even less energetic than thermal radiation (IR).

How about you make a mobile phone that is capable of remotely retrieving messages and recieving phonecalls with no radiation involved. And cables would produce electromagnectic radiation as well. Too bad.
>light is radiation
>heat can be transfered through radiation

>>8737885
Who are you quoting?

File: smirking-face.png (50KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 256x256px

>>8733371
>theoretical biologist

>>8733371
>>Cell Phones, Microwaves And The Human Health Threat
It's their drug. No one cares about the consequences of "their" drug of choice.
People who've put no effort into learning have no reason to care about their brain on waves. Cell-phone addiction is merely a physical presentation of stupid. The fourth year in a row that suicides and homicides by cell phone on highways have been the major cause of traffic fatalities. Look at a texting driver and see someone who doesn't care if they kill you. Killers everywhere looking normal to the oblivious and ignorant.