- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Does the amount of radiation depend on the number of different sources or not?
Author Message
yiako
Member
# Posted: 20 Sep 2017 16:12
Reply 


Hi all,
I was talking to a friend of mine who is an IT engineer and he was claiming that radiation-wise it doesn't matter if you are being "bombarded" from multiple sources of wifi or just one (he said that at his job they have 50 routers enabled and that the amount of radiation your body will be exposed to will be the same when using just 1 router).

I am pretty sure that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and that he is biased because of his profession, but is there any chance that he is actually right?

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 20 Sep 2017 16:33
Reply 


In the RF engineering world the accepted standard is to measure the average power density of the dominant frequency. Assuming that the power density of the dominant frequency does not change you can add an unlimited number of further radiation sources with no change in your power density measurement.

Such measurements are valuable in RF-engineering, as your primary concern is average transmitted (or received) power.

Such measurements does not, however, have any validity for measuring potential bioreactivity of the signal. Bioreactivity depends on several further parameters.

So the question of who is right is actually a matter of perspective. In standard RF-engineering your friends answer is the correct "textbook" answer. For evaluating potential bioreactivity of a signal the answer could hardly be further from the truth...

---

This misunderstanding is actually the cornerstone in the ongoing struggle for implementation of health-safe strategies for wireless communication. Most RF-engineers have no deeper understanding of biological systems. This has led to the current situation where potential bioreactivity of RF-systems are evaluated by RF-engineers (often totally lacking any real understanding of biological systems) with the measurement protocols used to evaluate transmitter and receiver efficiency.

The world is deeply in need of bridging this gap.

//Kim Horsevsad

plopplop
# Posted: 2 Dec 2017 13:29
Reply 


WELL EXPLAINED!

Do you know how the energies of coincidental (colliding) waves of different frequencies add up in terms of energies? Ie coming from different sources. Could this explain the cancer mutation rise? Gypsies living off grid have 1/50th of the cancer in the modern world.

Scientist said that sea waves could not get very big until they saw from satellites just how big the coincident energies of waves could make them.

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 6 Dec 2017 18:34
Reply 


WELL EXPLAINED!

Do you know how the energies of coincidental (colliding) waves of different frequencies add up in terms of energies? Ie coming from different sources. Could this explain the cancer mutation rise? Gypsies living off grid have 1/50th of the cancer in the modern world.

Scientist said that sea waves could not get very big until they saw from satellites just how big the coincident energies of waves could make them.




This is exceedingly difficult to calculate. I have - for some time - tried to develop a calculation matrix.

Photon energy does not accumulate directly, but photons affecting very sensitive near-equilibrium biological systems can, with very subtle energy levels, engage biological signalling cascades producing systemwide biological effects.

One example is the ELF-compoments of modern pulsed microwaves triggering VGCC's in the cell membrane.

//Kim Horsevad

plopplop
# Posted: 10 Dec 2017 13:13
Reply 


I have doubts whether the cumulative energies of coincidental waves just conveniently disappear because it would be more convenient for us if they did.

Science does not answer this question as it might explain energies sufficient to cause cancers from non ionising sources. Think of the potential collision densities of central London. Our Parliament is in the center. Is it any wonder they make such stupid decisions? SERIOUSLY.

"Photon energy does not accumulate directly" ?? So energy and temperature are non linear? but they are causally related. V2

My argument is that enough NI radiation can break DNA bonds if by no other means by oscillating it enough to shake it apart. Each human cell has 1 million single and double DNA break each day now! THIS IS NOT NATURAL.

Historically cancer was 1% and now it is over 50%. except for those gypsies / hippies who are totally off grid where it is 2%. WHY?

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 open source forum script miniBB™ © 2001-2020