I do not like wireless

[moxie]

Yup. That is the kind of study you want. And you can note that these are studies of a transmitter being held against the brain as close as possible, that the radiation measured still is too low in energy to trigger normal cancer pathways (what is found is a slight increase in metabolic rate, i.e. the brain works a little bit harder at something), and that all involved stress that nothing that is found is harmful. And when a transmitter that is basically jammed straight into your cortex, with a signal strength that is strong enough to reach a cell tower a few miles away, can't effect more than possibly a slight increase in metabolism - How do you think your much weaker, much more distant WiFi AP can affect you?

 

[Eddie]

it is evidence that change is happening in the brain, and that is not made up. Maybe using a cell phone is like drinking a cup of coffee? Until they prove it I don't want that change in my brain

 

[moxie]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/22/study-cell-phones-cause-changes-in-brain-activity/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/?_r=0

Edit* So could it affect us indirectly if it kills our insects?

Uh...yes, it could. If it kills our insects, it will affect us by making us starve to death, since there are no insects around to pollinate our farm stuff. However, since the EM isn't killing our insects, that is kinda a moot point.

it is evidence that change is happening in the brain, and that is not made up. Maybe using a cell phone is like drinking a cup of coffee? Until they prove it I don't want that change in my brain

It is the same kind of change in the brain that happens when you look at something, or try to solve a maths puzzle, only a lot weaker. If this "change" in itself worries you, then I hope to God you close your eyes and never think of algebra.

 

[WizardStan]

I don't want that change in my brain

The lack of change you want to make has become sadly evident.

 

[Eddie]

 

[Binky]

One guy claims to make an element turn into a lower element simply with the power of shapes. He even says how he does it. If it repeatable then he was not lying although it may not be fully understood how and why it happend. I can not help but wonder, if this is possible can I make gold? Well after doing the resurch I can, but the materials are so high on the elemntal cart that they are more expensive then the gold they would make.

Is it repeatable? Has it been repeated? Have you repeated it?

Do you understand the chemistry behind atomic structure?

Last I heard was that the only way to turn one element into another way by setting up a nuclear reaction - which is both difficult, expensive and dangerous.

-----

http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/22/study-cell-phones-cause-changes-in-brain-activity/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/?_r=0

Edit* So could it affect us indirectly if it kills our insects?

At least that's real evidence

However, its extremely inconclusive, and quite obviously spun by a journalist.

The journalist is trying to say "phones mess with your brain", the researcher is saying "slightly more glucose is used in part of your brain temporarily while in very close proximity to a microwave transmitter maybe. More research needed"

----

I'd also like to bring these to your attention:

https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

 

[Mr_Loon]

@ Eddie : In your opinion why is it that wifi is not being used for pest control? Do you really think that if such a cheap and efficient way to control insects were available it would not be used?


In my opinion it's because it would not work because wifi has no measurable ability to repel insects.


The problem with the example you cited is one of confusing correlation with causation. Classic pseudoscience.

 

[Binky]

 

[Eddie]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/APvlD4-_uWw?feature=oembed

 

[Eddie]

@ Eddie : In your opinion why is it that wifi is not being used for pest control? Do you really think that if such a cheap and efficient way to control insects were available it would not be used?


In my opinion it's because it would not work because wifi has no measurable ability to repel insects.


The problem with the example you cited is one of confusing correlation with causation. Classic pseudoscience.

Because insects have order and regulate their own.

In the book one staw revolution that I posted they found that the insects help the plants.

 

[moxie]

What?

If the insects "have order and regulate their own", then it should not be a problem either way, or? And of course the insects "help" the plants, that is kinda their niche. What do you mean?

 

[Eddie]

I better not give out to much information. I have already said to much...

 No one would believe me anyways.

Def give one straw revoloution a read if you have time. The guy was a typical scientist, you know how they talk a lot but thown in some really cool stuff here and there

Sometimes I can't help but think "Shut up and give me the information straight"

 

[WizardStan]

No one would believe me anyways.

If no one would believe you then it means you don't have evidence. If you don't have evidence then it means it is not scientifically verifiable. If it is not scientifically verifiable then it is unnatural. If it is unnatural then it is either magic or false.

 

[Eddie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilidae

 

[WizardStan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Field

 

[Klumpen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silliness

 

[Eddie]

The radiation from fluorescent lighting couldnt have anything to do with the dead pile of insects... No it must be that they are attracted to the light...

 

[Binky]

I think what Stan and Klumpen are trying to say is "please could you point out which part of that wikipedia article you think is most worth reading".

 

[Binky]

The radiation from fluorescent lighting couldnt have anything to do with the dead pile of insects... No it must be that they are attracted to the light...

1. Insects are attracted to light. This is why those blue lamps you see in professional kitchens work as a means to attract (and kill) insects.
2. Florescent lights emit less non-visible EM radiation than conventional lighting. This is they are more efficient

You still haven't explained why farmers use chemical insecticides, but not radio antennas, when a radio transmitter next to each field would be cheaper and less work.

 

[Klumpen]

This thread has no rail at all.