/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15321348
>there's nothing special about RMR, atleast not in the studies you've mentioned.
There's no reason to take this as a default position without consulting the literature on the topic.

>>12162128
Also pic related. Taken from nonlinear electrodynamics in biological systems, 1984.

>>12026747
See pic related. There was indication DNA histone breakages, despite the claim that low intensity RF is too weak to even marginally disturb a single hydrogen bond. The reason for this is likely that water in biological systems is not liquid H2O in the way we think about it, it's more like quasicrystalline domains which behave more like a gel. 2.45 GHz in particular is in a high dielectric loss range of water, so seemingly, it causes the DNA molecule to thrash around, breaking off the histones.

It's all in the document. At least, a lot is, certainly enough. Up to you whether you check it out.

>>12023331
Yep, that's basically why. You have tons of underlying presuppositions and without actually doing the research you're never going to see it.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

I really should be doing other things. Apparentoly my historical experience in this topic also has a name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Sorry man, I wish we could just talk about this but it's so emotionally charged and at such a scale that you just can't. I've provided some resources in the link above. People who will read it will read it. People who won't, won't. Most people don't understand, but I've basically wasted a lot of my life trying to inform people about things they don't actually care about. A blind spot, a flaw in my core design. No more.

>>11785145
In what sense though?

>>11763927
This goes back to Bechamp vs Pasteur. Large components of it are also probably true, particularly when it comes to viruses.

Look, you need to stop and think why so-called "conspiracy theory" actually takes root. Yes, I've heard it all, don't bother. We'll focus on the one aspect I am interested in: The shortcomings, holes, and disjointed aspects of the whole theory of disease in medicine. For example, you have viruses and micro-organisms which cause cancers. And yet, no no, cancer is caused only by genetic damage, cancer is uncontrolled cell growth! And yet in the 1930's it was known that many organisms, which live in all of our tissues (whether they be fungal, L-forms, or otherwise), including our brain, when stressed to the point of near death they emit a virus. Some experiments have found when "cancerous" daughter cells are carefully removed from the tumor environment and placed near normal cells, they also become normal.

It goes on and on. The notions put forward by modern medicine are not iron clad. The more you look into them, and their history, the more you realize it's illogical and frankly irrational swiss cheese that just got layered over repeatedly. Take bacterial monomorphism vs pleomorphism, for example. Rockefeller tried to shush up pleomorphism, and succeeded, though modern day it's well accepted.

You've never seen it all. There is always more to come.

>>11697231
That was an excerpt from "Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems", which was a symposium held in the US, 1984.

>>11677794
There's no more details in the paper. Relative to modern exposure scenarios it's quite high, but we have to bear in mind that originally the exposure limit for the general population in much of the west was 10mW/cm2 (averaged over any 6 minutes). The Soviet standard was 10 uW/cm2, and people were only allowed 15 minutes of exposure, per day with protective gear, to a maximum of 10 mW/cm2. The perception of the time for the Soviets would have been that they were testing high intensities, in the West it would have been seen as below the threshold where the animal begins to respond to heating (or in some ranges, induced currents).

>>11666316
You don't know what you're talking about, though of course I know why you think what you're saying is true and makes sense.

See:
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

>>11471031
>>11470554
M-M-MUH
MMMM
MMMUHHHHHH
Muh eV!!!
Muh
MUH
MUH NON-IONIZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>11462695
This is BS. Stop parroting standards which were derived in ways you don't even know about. Biological systems respond to fields as low 15uW/m2, and there are all kinds of other factors about signal characteristic which dictate response. Power density is the crudest measure possible and obscures the relevant features. (God why am I even typing this I have my own shit to do) Those features are wave shape, modulation, polarization, pulse rise time, pulse width, peak power, and general signal scheme.
>blah blah no ebbedance fir different effekt frome modoolatid then CW!!!!!
Bawin and Adey 16Hz AM Ca2+ efflux, who even WHO would not challenge in their EHC #16. The list is really endless. Fuck off.

Going to be so glad when I don't have to talk about this anymore.

>>11453152
I think you mean, you wish the world was how you thought it was. Now you mourn what used to be, and perhaps never really even was.

Join us. Help fix this world.

>>11448743