10 Recommendations on Electromagnetic Fields

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Frank12345
Second as it states at the bottom, the board is impressive. The MD's must have valid reason for being on board...
Perhaps they are a tad bit more "spiritual" ...

If they are have knowingly joined the HeartMath board then the reason they are there is material [$$$] rather than spiritual.

BTW on close inspection the board isn't so "impressive" :-
Donald H. Singer, M.D. is in his eighties.
Dr Alabdulgader allegedly has DCH qualifications from the UK, but according to the GMC register he is not licensed to practice as specialist in the UK.

Elizabeth A. Rauscher, M.S., Ph.D, is a parapsychologist interested in quantum mysticism = quantum woo.

Linda Caviness, Ph.D., Bio says "Her research interests include brain-based learning," , as opposed to what ?, colon-based learning ?.

The website of the board member who allegedly has created a fusion reactor, has so few visitors it doesn't even have a WOT rating.

Other members of the board are retired so can't have their careers damaged by taking HeartMath money.

a reply to: Frank12345

Frank I have enjoyed our discussion, you bring an interesting view to the table and I am sure that you find mine to be interesting as well, naturally we can each make whichever claim we wish to make as decided by our own preconceived notions. You say financial, I say spiritual, truth is we will never know because we do not know any of those people.

Your last point about careers being damaged is the #1 way that science has been controlled for so long IMHO, which brings me to a great scientist I would like to hear your opinion on. That being Nikola Tesla.

Also you still never proved any form of fraud being done by the institute

originally posted by: Frank12345
Elizabeth A. Rauscher, M.S., Ph.D, is a parapsychologist interested in quantum mysticism = quantum woo.

Rauscher-Bise is also deeply into the power systems of the ancient Atlanteans, mind control rays, ghosts and EVP. She's sort of a full-range crank.

a reply to: Bedlam

Again, the "science" is not conclusive as of yet.
Studies are still being conducted.

I understand and respect that you are more versed in this tech
than I am, and have knocked me down a notch for
improper terminology, I should have said " waves beamed at particular frequencies",
rather than "frequency beams". Thank you for correcting me.
Over the years I have learned to be wary of those who appear to be over assured of themselves.

I am also on the fence regarding studies and statistics due to certain
past experiences. In particular, there are my associates who have discussed
with me the methods in which "studies" and "statistics" can be altered
to provide a desired outcome. These are people with PHD's by the way.

At any rate, here is a link to largest study of its kind in 2010
that supports your belief that there is no relation to brain tumors.
However, it is clearly stated that there is a need for further study
as there is much that is not understood.

www.cancer.gov...
Note the wording "possible outcomes are still unknown".

Please specify how atoms are not made up of magnetic charges,
and that radio frequencies cannot effect sub atomic particles.

education.jlab.org...

You may have read this already :
www.gov.uk...

2010 seems to be an interesting year regarding this subject.

www.popsci.com...

Here is the opinion of someone as versed as you , yet perpendicular
to your idealogy.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I guess I will just have to prove it to you.

All the same, Happy Holidays to you and yours Bedlam.

originally posted by: Wildmanimal

Please specify how atoms are not made up of magnetic charges,
and that radio frequencies cannot effect sub atomic particles.

I believe I already did. But if I need to say it again, no, atoms are not made up of magnetic charges. I'm not even sure, exactly, what you might mean by that. It's like 'frequency beam' but worse.

None of your links substantiates this, by the way, nor will you find one that does, because it's not true.

And no, radio frequencies do not affect sub-atomic particles, unless the EM is of such high frequency you start getting what is called nuclear photodissociation. You might get that sort of thing in a nova. But not from a cell phone.

The wavelength of EM really, really matters. That's why in the links you posted, you will see that radio is termed 'non-ionizing'. At the energy per photon of a cell phone, you can't so much as knock an electron off of a hydrogen atom. You most certainly won't be causing nuclear level effects. That level of energy causes what we know as 'heat'.

From your last link:

However, given modern technology, nonionizing radiation from power lines, personal wireless devices, cell phone towers and other sources is practically unavoidable. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) surround home appliances as well as high-voltage electrical transmission lines and transformers.

Evidence of health effects from EMF, including their influence on the brain, is inconclusive, and the probability that EMF exposure is a genuine health hazard is currently small.

That's what I've been saying. Right there. From your own link. And more from that link...

Some scientists claim that human tissue, including the brain, may be affected nonthermally. Regrettably, many exposure parameters, such as frequency, orientation, modulation, power density and duration, make it difficult to directly compare experiments and draw specific conclusions at nonthermal levels.

The effects that EM has on anything, from the antenna you're using to receive it to how you cook a weenie in a microwave, all depend on the length of the wave versus what it's interacting with. In order to interact with a sub-atomic particle (neutrons, protons, etc) the wavelength would have to be so small that it starts approaching the size of a nucleus. That's why only extremely hard gamma causes direct photodissociation. A big sloppy wave from a cell phone only causes a miniscule heating effect in your skin because water has an electric dipole moment that sticks way out. Even then, the coupling is poor. There's no way it's going to change nuclei. Ever.

a reply to: Bedlam

I must have missed that.
Please again specify that atoms are not made up
of magnetically charged particles.
For example : protons, neutrons, and electrons.
On a sub atomic level: at least partially charged elements.
Please enlighten me on what you Believe they
are composed of.

I would be delighted to read any articles that
support your theories. Links to such would be
appreciated.

Yes, from my last link, "the potential harmful effects from
cell phones is relatively small". That does not mean it is non existent.
One must consider the term "relatively small" as well.
Because it depends upon the perspective and parameters of those
performing the the study.

As far as the towers are concerned, now there , you have finally put
your finger on a matter of concern.

Somehow, I think you agree with me, but are restrained from doing so.
If that is the case, then maybe we should quit while we're ahead.
The available science reported to the public at this point is inconclusive.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
By the way, you might be interested in wave harmonic resonances and their implications.
For as you mentioned, there is so much EMF "pollution" out there that no one
bothers to consider the unanticipated.
Best, Wildmanimal

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: Bedlam

I must have missed that.
Please again specify that atoms are not made up
of magnetically charged particles.

What, for the third time?

For example : protons, neutrons, and electrons.
On a sub atomic level: at least partially charged elements.
Please enlighten me on what you Believe they
are composed of.

Hadrons are made of quarks. Leptons are elemental particles. There are no such things as 'magnetic charges', although maybe you're calling something else that.

I would be delighted to read any articles that
support your theories. Links to such would be
appreciated.

I have a better idea. Since no one seems to know what a magnetic charge is, I certainly don't, why don't YOU show us some reputable source that explains what you're thinking. Certainly none of the links you post as evidence have shown it so far.

Yes, from my last link, "the potential harmful effects from
cell phones is relatively small". That does not mean it is non existent.

In the context of your link, so small that it is not so far detectable in any tests they've done.

Somehow, I think you agree with me, but are restrained from doing so.
If that is the case, then maybe we should quit while we're ahead.

No, not really, it's more astonishment.

...wave harmonic resonances and their implications

Three words that don't really go well together, and all of them descriptive instead of concrete. Wave of what? Harmonic to what? Resonant with what?

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Please specify how atoms are not made up of magnetic charges, and that radio frequencies cannot effect sub atomic particles.

AFAIK there seem to exist quite a misunderstanding lately in this thread. The wording "magnetic charge" mean also "magnetic monopole", it is a hypothetical concept that probably does not exist at all. But that does not mean there is no magnetism involved in the atomic nucleus.

@Bedlam

And no, radio frequencies do not affect sub-atomic particles, unless the EM is of such high frequency you start getting what is called nuclear photodissociation.

Please explain to me how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) is possible then?

Nuclear magnetic resonance - Wikipedia

Earth's field NMR - Wikipedia

Nuclear magnetic moment - Wikipedia

But to be honest, NMR effect is so small that it is extremely difficult to detect. Many times I have tried without success to detect this resonnance using a spectrum analyser...

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Please explain to me how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) is possible then?

You're spinning the nuclei using their magnetic moments. But it doesn't *change* the nuclei, which is what is being claimed. You can't induce nuclear alterations with EM, unless it's God's own gamma rays.

Now, you can at times change the nuclear isomer level with EM. But even then, you're going to have the same chemical properties.

a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam, It all bowl down to the definition of "affect sub-atomic particles"; modification, influence, effect...

I"m quite sure we're on the same "wavelength" on this one.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam, It all bowl down to the definition of "affect sub-atomic particles"; modification, influence, effect...

Unless you're talking hydrogen, it's not really affecting sub-atomic particles, unless you want to consider the entire nucleus one.

a reply to: Bedlam
So, the question, does EM field in the radio range affect the atomic nucleus?

Yes or No?

If the response is no. How NMR work?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Bedlam
So, the question, does EM field in the radio range affect the atomic nucleus?

Yes or No?

If the response is no. How NMR work?

Does NMR "affect" the sub-atomic particles within the nucleus, or the entire nucleus? And by "affect", you're only changing spin axis.

Does NMR "affect" any chemical properties of the atoms affected? Yes or no?

Is NMR ionizing? Yes or no?

Does NMR, not changing any chemical properties, nor ionizing atoms, nor making any other changes outside the spin axis, then capable of causing health issues?

Has, in fact, NMR ever been clearly documented as causing health issues, other than 'whoops, I had metal I forgot about'?

In that case, how does altering spin axis cause problems in biological organisms?

Can you, in fact, actually see this effect at all outside a very strong H0 field? Does this exist for cell phone users?

Stop trying to hyperfocus on one word. You have to go back and read what's being posted, and posted about. Context.

a reply to: Bedlam

And no, radio frequencies do not affect sub-atomic particles

Affect definition: To have an influence on; to impress or to move...

It is quite clear that magnetic field and radio wave affect sub-atomic particles.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Bedlam

And no, radio frequencies do not affect sub-atomic particles

Affect definition: To have an influence on; to impress or to move..

The context:

The target is bombarded
with Electromagnetic Frequencies that not only "agitate" and
(create a thermal reaction) known to cause adverse health effects,
but electrically alter the atoms at a sub atomic level.

Remember that atoms are made up of magnetic charges.
At a Sub Atomic Level the effects of electrical/magnetics are
even more pronounced.

THOSE are the effects claimed. Not the reorientation of a spin axis that you can't even detect outside a whopping background H field. Context is all.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Thanks Peter!
I am delighted to have your involvement
on this difficult electromagnetic chess game.

I will check out your links momentarily.

Honest and Good Regards to You, Wildmanimal