XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, by stupid people.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> F'up2 sci.physics   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity   
   >>>>>> radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological   
   >>>>>> effects,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.   
   >>>>> Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up   
   >>>>> enough to do observable damage   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> some have that for example the various post-natal   
   >>>>>> development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated   
   >>>>>> to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a   
   >>>>>> "Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"   
   >>>>>> was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely   
   >>>>>> be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So what.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves   
   >>>>>> in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of   
   >>>>>> resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts   
   >>>>>> of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,   
   >>>>>> make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms   
   >>>>>> are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the electrical   
   >>>>> activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have   
   >>>>> enormous wavelengths.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd be at   
   >>>>> frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to   
   >>>>> electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically   
   >>>>> conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues involved is   
   >>>>> going on is a silly as scientology.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the   
   >>>>> skull,   
   >>>>> and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's   
   >>>>> rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic   
   >>>>> density on the motorways.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced   
   >>>> in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that   
   >>>> modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies   
   >>>> like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned   
   >>>> pseudo-science   
   >>>> like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of   
   >>>> veracity or lack thereof are common.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,   
   >>>> you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos   
   >>>> about health related impacts of technology.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.   
   >>>   
   >>> That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,   
   >>> often the researchers interviewed were   
   >>> self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex   
   >>> and myopic confirmation bias.   
   >>   
   >> There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population   
   >> are no worse than the rest of humanity.   
   >>   
   >>> The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have   
   >>> various ways to interpret them, basically about the   
   >>> linear/non-linear and short/long wave.   
   >>   
   >> None of which seem to be remotely useful.   
   >>   
   >>> Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry   
   >>> and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed   
   >>> in medical imaging and the like.   
   >>   
   >> It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976   
   >> to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging   
   >> people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.   
   >>   
   >> Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole   
   >>   
   >> People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to   
   >> exist.   
   >>   
   >>> If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.   
   >>   
   >> Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct   
   >> current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power   
   >> supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the   
   >> LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to do).   
   >>   
   >   
   > LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".   
      
   Powerful ones do.   
      
   > They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.   
   >   
   > You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.   
      
   Never seen one. Domestic microwave ovens are well shielded.   
      
   > The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is   
   > "resonance theory's".   
      
   Only in the sense that some nuclei have a magnetic moment. If you bash   
   them at the right frequency in the right magnetic field you can get the   
   magnetic pole rotating at that frequency. There no fancy resonance   
   theory involved.   
      
   > "Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example   
   > involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,   
   > "resonant bonds".   
      
   I've got a Ph.D., in chemistry and while we got lectures on nuclear   
   magnetic resonance, there was no fancy resonance theory involved in that   
   either.   
      
   "Resonant bonds" are just a bizarre way of describing de-localised   
   electronic bonds. Benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a flat   
   hexagonal ring, with one hydrogen atom hanging off each carbon atom .   
   Traditional descriptions say that there are three double bonds and three   
   single bonds around the ring - but that would make the three double   
   bonds shorter than the three single bonds, and all six bonds are of   
   equal length. Lecturers who were stuck in the traditional mind set liked   
   to claim that the molecule resonated between two states where the double   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)