XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Bill Sloman  wrote:   
      
   > 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   
   > bonds and the single bonds swapped places rapidly. It was nonsense, but   
   > it kept them happy.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)