- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Does the human body block or absorb RF energy?
Author Message
plopplop
# Posted: 16 Mar 2018 06:30
Reply 


Check out;

https://522bb370f5443d4fe5b9-f62de27af599bb6703e11b472beadbcc.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/upl oaded_file/upload/1098/Effect_Human_Body_Wireless_Mic_Transmission.pdf


Does the human body block or absorb RF energy?

I heard that the human body, by virtue of its water content, absorbs RF energy emitted by a bodypack transmitter. Since then I have found a definite pattern among customers complaining of inexplicable wireless problems which for no apparent reason seem confined to a particular user rather than a particular transmitter or receiver. Those users almost always turn out to be -- how shall I say -- corpulent, implying a more bountiful internal water reservoir. UHF systems seem to suffer more than VHF systems, I suppose because of the shorter wavelength of UHF signals.



Answer:

The human body is both a reflector and an absorber of RF energy. This is likely to be even more apparent at higher frequencies, e.g. 2.4 GHz. Try this experiment. If you have a portable FM radio, tune in a station and do a 360 degree spin. Note how the station fades as you turn your body.

Positioning a large human body between the transmitter's antenna and the receiver's antenna can cause a degradation in RF performance. The human body is made up primarily of "salt water." Salt water is an effective absorber of RF energy. (Submarines have to surface to send FM radio signals.) The more body fat a person has, the more RF is absorbed. Our tests show that a body pack transmitter can be 50 to 70% less effective than a handheld transmitter simply because of the antenna location being against the human body. Thus the reason RF antennas in theatres are often placed above the

SEE ALSO;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8106240

http://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/e/sys/ele/body/



The Effects Of Radio Waves On Human Body

CONCLUSIONS

We consider that radio waves, after these evidences, are dangerous (especially for long exposition) for human body because, even if they are not unhealthy in a short period, they can cause cells' death by apoptosis and necrosis and DNA damage. Thus they can cause organs failure and generalized problems to organism.

http://flipper.diff.org/app/items/5980

plopplop
# Posted: 19 Mar 2018 23:37
Reply 


http://essay.utwente.nl/66071/1/Dove_MA_TE.pdf


In this research the radio propagation inside a human body
has been analyzed by investigating the physical characteristics
of a new developed multilayer model.
A novel method of calculating the absolute losses and travel
times of the propagation path has been introduced. The per-
formed numerical analysis is independent of the measurement
environment, equipment or antenna mismatches. The propaga-
tion path is determined not by averaging tissue characteristics
but rather including the influences of all tissue layers from
in-body to on-body, based on a new multilayer model. The
benefits of the developed multilayer model are that it is easy
to adjust and to extend. This analysis takes the complex tissue
characteristics into account both for the travel time as for
signal strength analysis. New insights on the different types
of absorptions are gathered. The propagation loss and travel
time analysis is done for different human types and different
frequencies.
The losses due to the impedance differences between the
layers are of significant value and almost the same for all
frequencies. The signal attenuation inside fat layers is small
such that there are no big differences in the attenuation for
different thicknesses of fat layers. The attenuation due to
muscle tissue layer variation and SI tissue layer thickness
cause big attenuation differences for all frequency bands.
For the determination of the travel times the group velocity as
propagation speed is considered rather than the phase velocity.
Furthermore, the conductivity characteristics of human tissue
are included in these calculations. The resulting group velocity
in the lossy human body tissue material differs significantly
from the phase velocity calculations of lossless material as it
was assumed in literature. The SI and muscle tissue layers give
the most influence on the travel time for all frequency bands.

The propagation delay due to the fat layers are the same for
the different frequencies.
From the results it is investigated that the absorption and
delay are not that frequency dependent as is expected and
mentioned in literature. This can be due to the limited number
of effects which are analyzed or the other characteristics which
have been taken into account. An important conclusion is
that reflections on the boundaries have major impact on the
attenuation.
In future work the influence of oblique incidence on the
power attenuations and reflections have to be investigated
as well as other effects as multipath and diffraction. The
physical multilayer model should also be extended to a 2D/3D
model to gain more insight into the absorptions and travel
times changes. Attenuation due to reflections have to be
considered for a deeper location of the endoscopy capsule in
the small intestines. After that the possibility of implementing
localization could better be assessed. A statistical model has
to be developed to take different human types and effects into
account for the real localization of a sensor inside the human
body.
From the research it can be concluded that describing
and analyzing in-body radio propagation is challenging for
localization purposes

plopplop
# Posted: 21 Mar 2018 16:33
Reply 


How do radio waves get stopped?

In the human experience we were only exposed to light frequencies and these are very tiny. Our skin is very conductive and thick enough to short out light frequencies very effectively before their shorting voltage can get to vital organs. If we get hot we can get sweaty which adds to our skin conductivity. In extended sunshine we can upgrade our skin and produce more melanin and a tan.

When a radio wave hits us it needs to short out to be stopped. Some waves go right through us as we are not big enough to short them out totally. We can attenuate a portion of their energy in the ratio of their height to our height. Hence being banged into by radio waves is like a taser but these currents will penetrate skin and create internal currents or wattages. Not good for a bio-electrical body that is sensitive and fragile to have to cope with.

Using pythagorus;

peak to peak amplitude SQUARED + half the frequency SQUARED = Square of distance to short

So it can be calculated by taking the square root.

The problem with Micro Waves is they are much shorter at around 15cm which nicely fit inside our bodies and means ALL their energy will be shorted by our conductive salty biology.Because our skin is not 15cm thick we are bad at stopping them.
Because we move and sources can move the pattern of shorting can be very messy. They will penetrate every sector of our biology with watts of current as voltages. Not good news for our immune system which IDs everything electrically. 25% now have auto immune disease.

We cannot physically sense new frequencies of radiations that we did not evolve in. Light and heat no problem. We are naive and defenseless to their new dangers. Our skin is no longer an effective protection to the man made pollution radiations of this modern age. The lower the frequency the more penetrating they are.

I think any wise person would recognise this exposure to be a serious risk and try to protect him self from it. HOW? Snake oil? Best to find electrically conductive shielding.
How to test this? With a surface conductivity meter or EMR meter. Dont believe any thing until you have tested it. There is a whole industry waiting to rip you off if they can as they know you are vulnerable.


Is EHS an extra sense trying to protect us? If EMR does biological damage then it is a new super sense for our survival. Alternatively it could be a result of poor skin conductivity. Are Swedes more effected because of their white skins? Is this a factor in so many illnesses of modern civilisation? MS is strongly correlated to latitude. Does our indoor life style and lack of sunlight make us more vulnerable?

plopplop
# Posted: 25 Mar 2018 21:04
Reply 


Compilation of the Dielectric Properties of Body Tissues at RF and ...
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA303903

Compilation of the dielectric properties of body tissues at RF and microwave frequencies.
Camelia Gabriel

Knowledge of the dielectric properties of biological materials is of importance in solving electromagnetic interaction problems. There is, as yet, no consensus on such data among scientists dealing with these issues. This project is geared towards producing a database of dielectric data based on measurements using recently developed techniques. This has been achieved through measurement over a wide frequency range. The new data were evaluated by comparison with corresponding data from the literature where available. To facilitate the incorporation of the dielectric data in numerical solutions, their frequency dependence was modelled to a spectrum characterised by 4 dispersion regions. The conductivity of tissues below 100 Hz was estimated from the recent measurements mitigated by data from the literature and used to estimate the body and of various body parts.




COMPILATION OF THE DIELECTRIC PROPERTIES OF BODY TISSUES AT RF AND MICROWAVE FREQUENCIES
http://niremf.ifac.cnr.it/docs/DIELECTRIC/Report.html


VISIT for full info;https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/26912



The role of skin conductivity in a low frequency exposure assessment for peripheral nerve tissue according to the ICNIRP 2010 guidelines

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/58/13/4703/meta

General scientific summary Based on numerical computations the influence of skin conductivity on the induced electric field strength inside body tissues during exposure in homogeneous magnetic and electric fields was investigated. For electric field strengths induced inside CNS tissues, the impact of skin conductivity was found to be less than 15%. However, the results demonstrated that the use of skin conductivity values as obtainable from the most widely used data base of dielectric tissue properties are not suitable for exposure assessment with respect to peripheral nerve tissue according to the ICNIRP 2010 guidelines, in which the use of the induced electric field strengths inside the skin is suggested as a conservative surrogate for peripheral nerve exposure. This is due to the fact that the skin conductivity values derived from these databases mainly refer to the stratum corneum, which does not contain any nerve or receptor cells to be protected from stimulation effects.

plopplop
# Posted: 4 Apr 2018 15:28
Reply 


What is most obvious to me is that there does not seem to be a body of independent and objective research that has investigated to effects of RF and MW on human anatomy. I think this should exist and be verifiable and accessible on the Internet. The random splattering of available publications and their esoteric nature leads me to believe that something is very wrong.
If NI radiation is of no danger surely this should be clearly demonstrated by research and published as such and peer reviewed.

I feel that individual MW or RW are unlikely to act significantly differently high concentrations. How far does a wave penetrate into me? Why can I find this no where on the Internet? How much current V,A and Watts does it deposit inside me? How might this disrupt my biology? These seem very obvious questions and the they raise the question as to why the answers are so very hard to find. They leave only one answer. They dont want us to know. WHY? Does Relative permittivities concentrate their effects?

What raises this in my mind is a girl down the road using a microwave in a caravan food wagon had a broken microwave oven. It killed her. Once again Wikipedia seem to be showing very bias versions of the truth. Ignorance is the biggest killer as it makes us trust the untrustworthy.

Penetration of MWs into human flesh muscle fat and bones.

Microwave burns are burn injuries caused by thermal effects of microwave radiation absorbed in a living organism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

Microwave damage can manifest with a delay; pain or signs of skin damage can show some time after microwave exposure

Frequency vs depth


The depth of penetration depends on the frequency of the microwaves and the tissue type. The Active Denial System ("pain ray") is a less-lethal directed energy weapon that employs a microwave beam at 95 GHz; a two-second burst of the 95 GHz focused beam heats the skin to a temperature of 130 °F (54 °C) at a depth of 1/64th of an inch (0.4 mm) and is claimed to cause skin pain without lasting damage. Conversely, lower frequencies penetrate deeper; at 5.8 GHz the depth most of the energy is dissipated in the first millimeter of the skin; the 2.45 GHz frequency microwaves commonly used in microwave ovens can deliver energy deeper into the tissue; the generally accepted value is 17 mm for muscle tissue. (Me now...how do those chickens cook so well in the middle?)

As lower frequencies penetrate deeper into the tissue, and as there are fewer nerve endings in deeper-located parts of the body, the effects of the radio frequency waves (and the damage caused) may not be immediately noticeable. The lower frequencies at high power densities present a significant risk.

The microwave absorption is directed by the dielectric constant of the tissue. At 2.5 GHz, this ranges from about 5 for adipose tissue to about 56 for the cardiac muscle. As the speed of electromagnetic waves is proportional to the reciprocal of the square root of the dielectric constant, the resulting wavelength in the tissue can drop to a fraction of the wavelength in air; e.g. at 10 GHz the wavelength can drop from 3 cm to about 3.4 mm.[3]

(This is me now! 88, 80.1, 55.3, 34.5 (0, 20, 100, 200 °C)for visible light: 1.77. In effect the penetration slows down the light speed to something much lower especially in saline biology. This shortens the effective wave length. This makes the electrocution of our biology over a shorter distance. Does this mean that AM waves can be sufficiently shortened to discharge a larger current when shorted?)

The layers of the body can be approximated as a thin layer of epidermis, dermis, adipose tissue (subcutaneous fat), and muscle tissue. At dozens of gigahertz, the radiation is absorbed in the top fraction to top few millimeters of skin. Muscle tissue is a much more efficient absorber than fat, so at lower frequencies that can penetrate sufficiently deep, most energy gets deposited there. In a homogeneous medium, the energy/depth dependence is an exponential curve with the exponent depending on the frequency and tissue. For 2.5 GHz, the first millimeter of muscle tissue absorbs 11% of the heat energy, the first two millimeters together absorb 20%. For lower frequencies, the attenuation factors are much lower, the achievable heating depths are higher, and the temperature gradient within the tissue is lower.[2][4]
Tissue damage

The tissue damage depends primarily on the absorbed energy and the tissue sensitivity; it is a function of the microwave power density (which depends on the distance from the source and its power output), frequency, absorption rate in the given tissue, and the tissue sensitivity. Tissues with high water (resp. electrolyte) content show higher microwave absorption.

The degree of the tissue damage depends on both the achieved temperature and the length of exposure. For short times, higher temperatures can be tolerated.

The damage can be spread over a large area, when the source is a relatively distant energy radiator, or a very small (though possibly deep) area, when the body comes to a direct contact with the source (e.g. a wire or a connector pin).[5]

The epidermis has high electrical resistance for lower frequencies; at higher frequencies, the energy penetrates through by capacitive coupling. Damage to epidermis has low extent unless the epidermis is very moist. The characteristic depth for lower-frequency microwave injury is about 1 cm. The heating rate of adipose tissue is much slower than of muscle tissue. Frequencies in millimeter wave range are absorbed in the topmost layer of skin, rich in thermal sensors. At lower frequencies, between 1–10 GHz, most of the energy is however absorbed in deeper layers; the threshold for cellular injury there lies at 42 °C while the pain threshold is at 45 °C, so a subjective perception may not be a reliable indicator of a harmful level of exposure at those frequencies.[6]

Skin

Exposure to frequencies common in domestic and industrial sources rarely leads to significant skin damage; in such cases, the damage tends to be limited to upper limbs. Significant injury with erythema, blisters, pain, nerve damage and tissue necrosis can occur even with exposures as short as 2–3 seconds. Due to the deep penetration of these frequencies, the skin may be minimally affected and show no signs of damage, while muscles, nerves, and blood vessels may be significantly damaged. Sensory nerves are particularly sensitive to such damage; cases of persistent neuritis and compression neuropathy were reported after significant microwave exposures.[7]
Muscle and fat tissue

Microwave burns show some similarities with electrical burns, as the tissue damage is deep rather than superficial. Adipose tissue shows less degree of damage than muscles and other water-rich tissues. (In contrast, radiant heat, contact burns and chemical burns damage subcutaneous adipose tissue to higher extent than deeper muscle tissue.) Full-thickness biopsy of the area between burned and unburned skin shows layers of more and less damaged tissue ("tissue sparing"), layers of undamaged fat between damaged muscles; a pattern that is not present in conventional thermal or chemical burns. Cells subjected to electrical burns show microscopic nuclear streaming on histology examination; this feature is not present with microwave burns. Microwaves also deposit more energy to areas with low blood supply and to tissue interfaces.[1][8]

Hot spots may be formed in the tissue, with a consequent higher absorption of microwave energy and even higher temperature achieved, with localized necrosis of the affected tissue following.[9] Sometimes, the affected tissue can even be charred.[10]

Muscle tissue destruction can lead to myoglobinuria, with renal failure following in severe cases; this is similar to burns from electric current. Urinalysis and serum CPK, BUN and creatine tests are used to check for this condition.[11]
Nerves

Sensory nerves are particularly sensitive to microwave damage. Cases of persistent neuritis and compression neuropathy were reported after significant microwave exposures.[7]

When the temperature of the brain is raised to or above 42 °C, the blood–brain barrier permeability increases.[15]

A neuropathy due to peripheral nerve lesion, without visible external burns, can occur when the nerve is subjected to microwaves of sufficient power density. The damage mechanism is believed to be thermal. Radiofrequency waves and ultrasound can be used for temporary blocking of peripheral nerves during neurosurgical operations.[16]
Other tissues

The thermal effects of microwaves can cause testicular degeneration and lower sperm count.[14]

Pulmonary burn can be present when lungs are exposed; chest x-ray is used for diagnosing.[11]

Exposure of abdomen may lead to bowel obstruction due to stenosis of the affected bowel; flat and upright abdominal x-ray is used to check for this condition.



Relative permittivities of various human tissues from 0.8 to 1.2 GHz

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relative-permittivities-of-various-human-tissues- from-08-to-12GHz-using-the-model-in_fig9_256491425

Human proxy in testing microwave apparatus that have electromagnetic interaction with the human
body

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.05964.pdf

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/40870/InTech-The_age_dependence_of_microwave_dielectri c_parameters_of_biological_tissues.pdf

This shows the vulnerability of children.

plopplop
# Posted: 4 Apr 2018 17:28
Reply 


http://www.emraware.com/Documents/class_12.pdf


Interactions of Electromagnetic Waves with Biological Tissue

Biological effects of electroma
gnetic waves are critical for:
– Understanding potential health
and safety risks in order to set safe standards for:
• Cellular phones
•Radio waves
• Wireless networking
• TV / Radio broadcasting
• 60 Hz power lines
• X-ray imaging

plopplop
# Posted: 6 Apr 2018 15:19
Reply 


If you go to page 11 DOP of tissues the depth of penetration is closest to the depth of human anatomy in the region 10(6) - 10(7) which is the 10 - 100m range which is around the 100neV energy range.
These are the range of frequencies most often produced by household electronics. They recognised by EUROPEAM as inducing MS type symptoms. Being near a plasma TV will certainly do that to me.

It would appear that MiWs are much less penetrating ( aoround1/10) but typically higher energy (X 100). Around 10cms skin depth. . This would mean they are closer to nerve clusters rather than deep inside the body where there are far fewer. Maybe this is why far more people can spot MiWs and their effects. I had severe skin sensitivity amongst other things when in London and exposed to MiWs. They still effect my optic nerves making a silvering effect in my vision.

plopplop
# Posted: 6 Apr 2018 15:28
Reply 


These are the effects of the carrier waves and no the signal or modulated wave. Does any one know what the effects of these shorting out are? How well do they discharge energy into our bodies? All in all I am confused as this looks like a right mess inside us. High density housing in a city would not be good place. No wonder so many turn to drugs. The less you can have to do with reality he better. I can only imagine what radio waves hitting you from every direction laterally might have on our biology. Again the question that springs to mind is what happens when waves collide??? Does 2+2 make 2 or 4???? I find it hard to believe energies do not add up. The "science" says they do not. Any thought?

Anonymous
# Posted: 18 Oct 2018 20:37
Reply 


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239494/from-what-wavelength-can-radiation -go-through-a-human-body-without-very-much-cha

To better understand what does and does not go through us.

Anonymous
# Posted: 18 Oct 2018 20:39
Reply 


http://www.ursi.org/proceedings/procGA05/pdf/KP.45(0850).pdf?fbclid=IwAR2Qkl2LgGZlM4S kGRTEwqc2XAcxFtFcqKkcs8J2d8ZKdeqhI7N9dwJF6IY


Skin depth penetration of signals between 20-38Ghz.

plopplop
# Posted: 26 Oct 2018 11:24
Reply 


Penetration depth of radiofrequency fields in body tissues depending on frequency and tissue type

https://www.emf-portal.org/en/cms/page2/home/effects/radio-frequency

plopplop
# Posted: 2 Nov 2018 11:52
Reply 


http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/4676/7/gmthesis2_3.pdf

Electromagnetic Absorption by the Human Body from 1 to 15 GHz

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2018