|
|
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 7302 Back› Oldest» |
| On the difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields/Radiation, in regard to Biological Activity | |
| Netherlands | Created: 6 Apr 2017 |
|
Dear all - For your information the link to a new tutorial/article I wrote last week... http://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Man-made%20and%20Natural%20EMF%20EMR.pdf For those who are interested I hope it will not be too heavy and that it will improve your knowledge. I further hope that this tutorial will help to prevent further distribution of the incorrect statement that polarization makes the key difference between man-made and natural electromagnetic fields/radiation. This, and annoyance that such statements have appeared in scientific literature, were the reasons for me to write the tutorial. Some more background. As you know there are many charlatans in our field who sell often expensive gadgets and have invented their own pseudo-scientific language with impressive sounding words which have no meaning. They have websites and write stories on facebook. I have been approached by several to put their things on my website. One was very persistent and I had to be rather blunt to get rid of him. I have seen two of these charlatans in main TV programmes. They stories had no content, but far out most people watching TV don’t have any knowledge in this field, so this is not so important, but their gadgets were taken apart in the programmes. In the first case sand came pouring out after opening and holding it upside down. In the second case (last year), the gadget, a beautifully shining rod with nice ends was shows to be provided inside with one condensor, one resistor and something I have forgotten. In both cases the charlatans and their gadgets were ridiculed by a professor (who happened to be in the programme) and along EHS was ridiculed as well. So my conclusion is that we have to fight pseudo-science if possible. On a different level similar things happen. It happens that scientists who have a name in their own field start writing outside their field and when the two fields are too much apart the result is usually a disaster. Unfortunately this has happened in our field. After the first paper in 2015 I gave my comments in private, but recently a second paper appeared with the same wrong conclusion and the same false statement was made in a recent report. So there is the danger of the parrot effect. Something sounds nice, so one repeats it, without understanding, and someone else repeats it and so on. And at the end someone from the other side comes and says: hey all the EHS guys (scientists) think that polarized light is dangerous. So you should throw away you sun glasses if they are of the polaroid type, and don’t sit next to a swimming pool with the sun on the other side, because the reflected light has a high degree of polarization (reflection from Brewster angle). I realize that I am rather blunt now. I am sorry, but from the past it is my experience this is the best and sometimes the only way to bring over a message and that is what I want. And about the first paper it is not only the polarization statement which is wrong, the physics with the many formulae in it is not physics at all. Best regards, Leendert Vriens PS. I forgot to say, my tutorial is of course open for discussion and for suggestions to make it more readably for non-specialists. And for those who might be interested in my background, I have been a research physicist and manager of physics research for 38 years. After retirement I gave advanced physics courses for seven years. |
|
|
|
|
| Click here to view the source article. | |
| Source: StopUMTS, Dr. Leendert Vriens, 04 Apr 2017 | |
| «Latest ‹Forward News item: 7302 Back› Oldest» |