Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on November 22, 2015, 08:39:10 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html)
One of the problems with going rawpalaeo was that one still had to endure air-pollution in the cities and the pollution contains certain toxic compounds which are also found in cooked foods. Going to the sea or empty countryside was an option but, increasingly, we won't be able to escape at all.
-
Hopefully ships will be able to go to solar and maybe hydrogen in the next 20 years or so.
-
Luckily the Pacific Ocean side of our archipelago is still clean. I just spent a weekend there. Next weekend again.
-
Luckily the Pacific Ocean side of our archipelago is still clean. I just spent a weekend there. Next weekend again.
Nice. It's been almost 3 years since my last tropical vacation. LOL
-
At least electric cars and solar power will reduce pollution in cities. In 10 years or so electrics are going to be all that's even sold in most countries.
-
I will take an ocean breeze with the occasional passing ship over life in the mega city any day.
London was terrible to me, the smell was strong with exhaust and sewer gas, Paris was not much better.... I was impressed by the air of the Netherlands, there was so many green spaces and I spent 5 days riding on bike paths and it was very refreshing.
By Far Nice France had the best air for any large city, the clear water and ocean breeze seemed so pure...of course there were very few passing ships, mostly sail boats with the occasional curse ship passing by.
At least electric cars and solar power will reduce pollution in cities. In 10 years or so electrics are going to be all that's even sold in most countries.
Jack Kruse claims that electric cars give of huge amounts of emf and may not be as good for human health as being sold to us?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0)
Air cars are the way of the future, its truly a crime that this technology is being suppressed.
-
Jack Kruse claims that electric cars give of huge amounts of emf and may not be as good for human health as being sold to us?
Maybe a custom Faraday cage for the driver and passengers will do the trick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0)
Air cars are the way of the future, its truly a crime that this technology is being suppressed.
Wow, any news where this tech is now?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0)
Air cars are the way of the future, its truly a crime that this technology is being suppressed.
It's not suppressed! It's just not viable, as this poster truthfully wrote in the comments below the video:
Cliff Yablonski
For the past 10 years this company has announced every few months to the media that they are going into production but they never do, it's just a scam to sucker in new investors.
Reason is it sucks, only has a 5 mile range and top speed of 20 mph
Compressed air is a totally inefficient way to store energy: most is lost in heat.
-
If electric cars are so awful in terms of EMF, why aren't there studies showing that people who work around very strong EMF have a lot more health problems than other people?
-
Jack Kruse claims that electric cars give of huge amounts of emf and may not be as good for human health as being sold to us?
Funny, I felt this kind of vibe too. At one point I wanted to buy a scooter, and I was thinking about getting an electric one, but I had this impression that it would somehow harm me, like siting on a giant cellphone. So I got a gas car at 18 instead :P
I hope they'll find a more "organic", yet clean way to power our cars.
-
There are no real harms from the kinds of fields in an electric car. If there were, union workers in electrical power stations would demand all kinds of protections. Unions are concerned about their workers' health, because workers are concerned about their own health, and unions are run by workers.
-
Well, phone companies are now required to indicate the SAR (Specific absorption rate) of their products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
And there's the case of people who cannot tolerate most kind of EMFs, and must live in the middle of nowhere in houses covered with special anti-EMF fabric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
-
Cell phones CAN cause cancer, through MICROWAVE RADIATION. That has nothing to do with EMF. EMFs are literally magnetic fields. There are 2 kinds, moving fields and static fields. The moving fields can hurt you if they're strong enough and close enough, but the strength required for harm is hundreds of times stronger than what an electric car would ever expose you to.
-
We already have some members here who are hyper-sensitive to EMF radiation. I know I used to laugh at this stuff but so many others complain about it......
-
And those people who are sensitive to magnetic fields are extremely rare, and would probably be healed by a raw paleo diet.
-
I hope they'll find a more "organic", yet clean way to power our cars.
The most ecofriendly energy source for transportation is oil from conventional fields (which are getting depleted). Biofuels cause much more environmental damages, an hydrogen network is an Utopia and would be very inefficient, electricity must be generated somehow, batteries are all but ecological and even wind turbines need fossil fuels to be made and maintained.
-
We already have some members here who are hyper-sensitive to EMF radiation. I know I used to laugh at this stuff but so many others complain about it......
They are imagining it. People who actually get sick from these fields are EXTREMELY rare, and don't just "feel bad". They have specific symptoms. The people here who are "sensitive" to EMFs didn't become that way until they read some guru's preaching about it.
-
The most ecofriendly energy source for transportation is oil from conventional fields (which are getting depleted). Biofuels cause much more environmental damages, an hydrogen network is an Utopia and would be very inefficient, electricity must be generated somehow, batteries are all but ecological and even wind turbines need fossil fuels to be made and maintained.
Huh? At least you don't have to breathe battery exhaust. LOL and they can be recycled. Graphene batteries are going to be available in less than 10 years, and they will be very eco-friendly.
-
Cell phones CAN cause cancer, through MICROWAVE RADIATION. That has nothing to do with EMF. EMFs are literally magnetic fields. There are 2 kinds, moving fields and static fields. The moving fields can hurt you if they're strong enough and close enough, but the strength required for harm is hundreds of times stronger than what an electric car would ever expose you to.
You're right. The effect of EMFs on some people is most likely psychosomatic.
Huh? At least you don't have to breathe battery exhaust. LOL and they can be recycled. Graphene batteries are going to be available in less than 10 years, and they will be very eco-friendly.
Perhaps...we'll see, but anyway it takes at least 15 years to renew the world's one billion vehicles and this hasn't even started, except on a neglectful scale.
-
Hmm, some of us RPDers have been long-term on an RPD diet yet still had EMF symptoms.......
-
You're right. The effect of EMFs on some people is most likely psychosomatic. Perhaps...we'll see, but anyway, it takes at least 15 years to renew the world's one billion vehicles and this hasn't even started, except on a neglectful scale.
That's 15 years for total replacement at current levels of technology. We might be able to do it in as little as 10 years once they really start production, as automation continues to get better. And even if it takes 15 years, after 10 years, 2/3 of all vehicles would be electric. Combine that with the fact that solar cells are increasing in efficiency and decreasing in price tremendously every year, and we'll probably be down to 1/10 the current emissions levels in another 12 years or so.
-
Hmm, some of us RPDers have been long-term on an RPD diet yet still had EMF symptoms.......
Probably Psychosomatic, like Iguana says. I'm going to need more proof. What symptoms, and who?
-
Probably Psychosomatic, like Iguana says. I'm going to need more proof. What symptoms, and who?
I can't recall, but didn't raw-al complain once, among 5 others?
-
I can't recall, but didn't raw-al complain once, among 5 others?
Psychosomatic.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field#Health_and_safety
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field#Health_and_safety
Were you meaning to add a comment?
-
Lol I like the conclusion of this article ;D
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4072
"I'll close with an experience related by a listener who wrote in, that aptly illustrates this phenomenon:
We had an interesting incident near Humboldt State University. A new cell tower went up and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cell phone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health. To paraphrase the bottom line: "think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
I guess it is a psychosomatic phenomenon for lots of people. I personally never noticed any strong ill effects from being close to sources of EMFs over a long period of time. I just used to turn off the wifi at night as a measure of precaution. I do have this friend that is quite sensible to this kind of stuff, and advised me to move my bed at least 10cm from the electric socket. Don't remember if I ended up sleeping better or not.
-
The most ecofriendly energy source for transportation is oil from conventional fields (which are getting depleted). Biofuels cause much more environmental damages, an hydrogen network is an Utopia and would be very inefficient, electricity must be generated somehow, batteries are all but ecological and even wind turbines need fossil fuels to be made and maintained.
Yeah, I was thinking about hydrogen, but as far as I know the engine is very expensive because of the platinum piece(s) in it. And as you said, biofuel sounds like an increase in chemical conventional fields, which would be the opposite of ecological.
-
About hydrogen (H2) as a fuel, see for example the articles of Ulf Bossel (Google finds them) or
Joe Romm : The Hype about Hydrogen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen)
Alice Friedemann : The Hydrogen Economy. Savior of Humanity or an Economic Black Hole?
http://energyskeptic.com/2011/hydrogen/ (http://energyskeptic.com/2011/hydrogen/)
Julian Cox : Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/)
Hobbled by High Cost, Hydrogen Fuel Cells Will Be a Modest $3 Billion Market in 2030
http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/read/hobbled-high-cost-hydrogen-fuel-cells-will-be-modest-3-billion (http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/read/hobbled-high-cost-hydrogen-fuel-cells-will-be-modest-3-billion)
There's a strong lobbying for it from the nuclear industry (Areva and Bouygues in France), but it's a nonsense, the efficiency of an H2 propulsion chain "from well to wheel" being less than 30%.
-
Francois, graphene batteries are the next big thing. You might want to research it.
-
The trouble with all these alternative technologies is the vast expense. Indeed, Huebner et al are predicting that future technologies will cost such vast amounts that, eventually, they will become unfeasible.
-
Francois, graphene batteries are the next big thing. You might want to research it.
Maybe, but still you have to charge and recharge them and electricity generation is neither free nor infinitely abundant. If electric vehicles are well suited for use in short or medium distance, especially in an urban environment, their use on long journeys remains problematic. Tesla Motors is currently installing in the US and in Europe a network of "superchargers" of 120 kilowatts to recharge at 50% in 20 minutes the 85 kWh battery of its Model S. While some scattered refills take place at any time, these are just drops of water in a lake, but if thousands of electric vehicles in long distance use are recharged in tense period, the situation could become critical, especially as the European network is already at the limit during cold weather, and I guess the situation in North America isn't much better.
See International Energy Agency's "World Energy Investment Outlook - Executive Summary"
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energy-investment-outlook---executive-summary.html (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energy-investment-outlook---executive-summary.html)
-
The trouble with all these alternative technologies is the vast expense. Indeed, Huebner et al are predicting that future technologies will cost such vast amounts that, eventually, they will become unfeasible.
Every new technology drops in price quickly these days. Use your brain.
-
Maybe, but still you have to charge and recharge them and electricity generation is neither free nor infinitely abundant. If electric vehicles are well suited for use in short or medium distance, especially in an urban environment, their use on long journeys remains problematic. Tesla Motors is currently installing in the US and in Europe a network of "superchargers" of 120 kilowatts to recharge at 50% in 20 minutes the 85 kWh battery of its Model S. While some scattered refills take place at any time, these are just drops of water in a lake, but if thousands of electric vehicles in long distance use are recharged in tense period, the situation could become critical, especially as the European network is already at the limit during cold weather, and I guess the situation in North America isn't much better.
See International Energy Agency's "World Energy Investment Outlook - Executive Summary"
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energy-investment-outlook---executive-summary.html (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energy-investment-outlook---executive-summary.html)
You are forgetting the exponential increase in solar use.
-
The IEA has also forgot it!
But there's a solution: stop wasting energy (electricity and natural gas) for cooking food and keep it for transportation!
-
Every new technology drops in price quickly these days. Use your brain.
There is an upper limit, unfortunately. For example, fusion power is always going to be hyper-expensive.
-
There is an upper limit, unfortunately. For example, fusion power is always going to be hyper-expensive.
Who cares about fusion? Although I disagree that it will be always expensive. I imagine that it will take several decades before it's usable, though.
-
The IEA has also forgot it!
But there's a solution: stop wasting energy (electricity and natural gas) for cooking food and keep it for transportation!
Relatively little electricity and gas is used for cooking. More is used for heating hot water and heating homes, running TVs, refrigerators, etc. But I agree, it would save at least a little energy.
-
Relatively little electricity and gas is used for cooking. More is used for heating hot water and heating homes, running TVs, refrigerators, etc. But I agree, it would save at least a little energy.
I recall one article where globla warming was to a large extent blamed on third-worlders making wood-burning fires for cooking.
-
Who cares about fusion? Although I disagree that it will be always expensive. I imagine that it will take several decades before it's usable, though.
What is so certain such technologies will never happen is the over-enthusiastic predictions made by TSers such as yourself re predictions of 20-30 years later which, of course, never mature. Now if such predictions were for thousands od years later, I might pause for thought, but quite honestly, you are exhibiting hubris a la Kurzweil......
-
What is so certain such technologies will never happen is the over-enthusiastic predictions made by TSers such as yourself re predictions of 20-30 years later which, of course, never mature. Now if such predictions were for thousands od years later, I might pause for thought, but quite honestly, you are exhibiting hubris a la Kurzweil......
All such past predictions were guesswork. My predictions are actually based on the math of Moore's Law. It shows no signs of major slowing, and until it does, I'm sticking with my predictions--or Kurzweil's, actually. He's got a track record of being right.
-
All such past predictions were guesswork. My predictions are actually based on the math of Moore's Law. It shows no signs of major slowing, and until it does, I'm sticking with my predictions--or Kurzweil's, actually. He's got a track record of being right.
Errr....http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/20/ray-kurzweils-predictions-for-2009-were-mostly-inaccurate/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/20/ray-kurzweils-predictions-for-2009-were-mostly-inaccurate/) " [/quote]
-
EMFs are so ambiguous and ubiquitous that its impossible to say for sure if they are universally safe. Most of the man made EMF radiation we have been exposed to has only been around for the last 60 years, and only in the last 20 has it been taken to the level it is now. How could any study show the trans generational effects of EMFs, when there is no control data available. The effects could be literally entirely in ones head, in the way it interferes with circadian rhythm or other neuron electrical signaling.... these subtle metalogical effects are extremely difficult to measure scientifically. There is also the possibility of these energy fields disrupting our genetic structures, causing infertility or even degenerate offspring.
Animal studies have shown negative effects of chronic emf exposure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3553569/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3553569/)
and though most human studies are very uncontrolled and incomplete there is anecdotal evidence of possible issues
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071010/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071010/)
It would seem like taking precautionary measures are responsible in the absences of absolute proof either way. I worked as an electrician for years inside panel rooms, next to transformers, holding power tools for countless hours....... so I do the best to mitigate my past exposure by avoiding as mush as possible EMFs at home.....I sleep on a magnetic bed, and make sure all electrical devices are turned off at night. I don't carry a cell phone on me, don't have a smart meter on the house, don't live right next to a cell tower and basically try to limit my exposure to the best of my ability.
A primary concern with EMF, which may have some scientific legitimacy is the way it can be mistaken for solar energy by the Pineal gland, and if you are exposed to high levels of EMF after dark it can trick your brain into thinking its still daylight, and thereby cause the suppression of the excretion of melatonin...... as well as interfere with other hormonal systems that rejuvenate during normal sleep cycles, which overtime can lead to insomnia, depression, behavioral issues, adrenal burnout, and a host of other related degenerative conditions.
The trouble with all these alternative technologies is the vast expense. Indeed, Huebner et al are predicting that future technologies will cost such vast amounts that, eventually, they will become unfeasible.
I feel the same...... it seems like even the cheapest electric vehicles coming to market in the next decade will be far beyond the average 1st world worker to afford, and even if the price comes down to reasonable levels the environmental cost with electric cars, though not as directly felt as combustion engines is still extremely high. The Batteries are insanely resource consumptive and full of toxic materials that would require extensive cost to maintain and recycle.
Solar panels are also resource intensive and contain very toxic substances which must be carefully disposed of?
There is still a lot of uncertainty about the possible issues with wind turbines...a google search will show conflicting evidence regarding wind turbine syndrom
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/animals-too-suffer-from-wind-turbine-syndrome/ (http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/animals-too-suffer-from-wind-turbine-syndrome/)
The energy saving light bulbs full of poisonous gas, give off a horrible depressing light frequency which is causing much more harm than good to both the earth and the human race.
Then there is "crack pot conspiracy theorist " whom believe that the entire green movement has been taken over by Phonies and useful idiots, and is simply an empty front being run by cartels that are more interested in profits than they are creating real viable solutions.
Still, I wonder if the resource that have been used on combustion engines where poured into other avenues of technological development, human ingenuity could find a way to provide effective, affordable and clean transportation to everyone. With the same effort that went into the Manhattan project we could avail ourselves of the need for fossil fuels.
-
LEDs don't contain toxic gases. Maybe you're thinking of CFLs or sodium vapor bulbs.
And graphene is not resource-consumptive. So....everybody shut up about that.
-
I Know the difference between LEDs, compact florescent, and high pressure sodium...My point is that the government regulations which required the phasing out of incandescent bulbs, where lobbied for by manufacturers who have made billions from selling the CFL transitional bulbs.... These bulbs are still being heavily used, and are extremely poisonous, and they give off a toxic and irritating frequency of light. They where everywhere I have traveled, and it will be decades before the transition to LED is complete...and in the meantime the civilized world will be subjected to the florescent tyranny
The phasing out of incandescent bulbs though it saves on energy cost, to me it is a prime example of eco tyranny...being perpetrated by those whom do not care about the well being of the people or the planet....these are religious fanatics that do not realize that by saturating the human population with low quality light they will be causing more harm than good.
The transitional halogen incandescent bulbs being produced now only have a one year life span, this is planned obsolescent by the light bulb cartels which have strategically orchestrated the whole transition to their favor.... The Incandescent....to halogen and CFL....then eventually to the ultra efficient and long lasting, but also very expensive LED. Though Led does not use toxic gas, and the new generation does seem to give off a much warmer and less harsh light, it still gives off high EMFs and its light in no way could ever match the living quality of incandescent light.
Graphene Batteries sound wonderful, and as soon as they are made affordable and readily available in cars with Faraday shielding, I would consider endorsing them.
-
For fuck's sake...you people eat the most robustifying diet on the planet, and then run from a little EMF. The whole point of the diet is so you don't have to be so afraid of everything. Jesus fuck. LOL whatever
And I agree with you on the CFL bullshit. I don't think it will be decades to replace them, though. Maybe 8-10 years, roughly, depending on their life span. And the LEDs are coming down in price FAST. They've dropped in price by half in the last year. And the light is gorgeous now. The entire main floor of my house is on LEDs now.
-
I noted a comment about EMF and phones and electric cars. One thing that is telling about cell phone technology is that the service persons who come out to repair and refurbish cell phone tower antennas, are not permitted to get within 10 feet of them (front, back, or sideways) without first turning them off. This is very appropriate and helps to preserve the service person's health, but the companies who make and utilize those towers don't also acknowledge that any people who live nearby are getting a steady stream of microwaves beamed at them (and some citizens live within 15 feet of said antennas). However the FCC in the U.S. has written laws that forbid a citizen to object to placement of a cellphone tower due to "health-related" problems. Now with electric cars also having internet "phone home" technology built into the core of their operation, drivers will have even more exposure to EMF. Genotoxicity is a real, demonstrated effect, but, as yet, no specific other health threats have been shown. For me, the changes to the genome are bad enough to be a bit worrisome.
-
*sigh* EMF is NOT microwaves. Fucking learn the difference. Microwaves are proven harmful in specific dosage. They cook you. But the whole point of this diet is to robustify you enough to counteract small, cumulative damage to your health. The body's DNA does have a pretty wonderful self-repair system.
-
Hhm, interesting:-
http://www.rblank.com/2013/08/05/genotoxicity-of-cell-phone-wifi-emf-radiation/ (http://www.rblank.com/2013/08/05/genotoxicity-of-cell-phone-wifi-emf-radiation/)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259987319_Enhanced_cytotoxic_and_genotoxic_effects_of_gadolinium_following_ELF-EMF_irradiation_in_human_lymphocytes (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259987319_Enhanced_cytotoxic_and_genotoxic_effects_of_gadolinium_following_ELF-EMF_irradiation_in_human_lymphocytes)
It is not conclusive, of course as some studies claim that the reported genotoxic effects are not reproducible, but still.... I used to be dismissive of EMF claims but did wonder at some reports in the media of people with severe reactions to any electrical gadget in their house etc.
-
Talk about an inconvenient truth, where is Al Gore when we need him.... The Inconvenient truth is that it is very well likely that there is no one singular cause for any number of conditions which lead to ill health and genetic damage, the conditions which lead life away from holistic balance and unity with nature are multifaceted.
There is a much larger structural establishment driven incentive for the denial of the damage of electromagnetic pollution than there is for other issues in the health community such as petrochemical and agricultural pollution. Its obvious with the preliminary animal studies that there is great cause for concern for all these issues, yet the only way to guarantee 100% safety would be to put a stop to the juggernauts of industry which control the electrical, agricultural, and fossil fuel policies which dictate to the people of the world the type of environment that they will have to live in if they want to participate within modern 1st world society.
There are prominent luminaries of our time grandstanding for clean air and clean food, while living inside a metropolis beaming with EMF pollution...people who wouldn't eat anything GMO, but think nothing of spending hours a day using their smart phones and living in an ocean of electromagnetic chaos....
In the state of affairs today we have no idea exactly what is responsible for all the disease and genetic abnormalities that has exploded since the electronic revolution. Even if it was proven 100% tomorrow that it was all scientific fact.... pollution from fossil fuels, conventional agriculture, and EMFs are all equally to blame for causing adverse health effects in the majority of people alive today...NOTHING would be do to change anything in any significant way.... The industry would find ways to discredit the truth...deny deny deny.....and it would be business as usual, and whatever collateral damage to life on this planet would just be written off as the price of doing business...then tossed down the memory hole.
The trouble is that everything regarding the causative factors of the modern epidemic of Genetic entropy and degenerative disease runs tandem. The same technology which makes it possible for GMO is responsible for smart phones, so trying to divide causation of adverse effects scientifically is not realistic....it is nearly impossible for science to isolate properly established control groups to test their theories without interference from other seperate but somehow related co-factors.
This inability to ascertain the causative agents within the quantum soup of emerging factors leaves those truly concerned.... with the only rational option to try and limit ones own exposure as much as possible..... to all of it. Dont live in the mega cities with its smog, fluoridated chlorinated water....Dont eat GMO foods from the mega stores... don't choose to live under power lines, next to cell towers, limit your exposure within reason as much as possible.
-
*sigh* EMF is NOT microwaves. Fucking learn the difference.
Yes they are?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field#Health_and_safety
The potential effects of electromagnetic fields on human health vary widely depending on the frequency and intensity of the fields. For more information on the health effects due to specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, see the following articles:
Static electric fields: see Electric shock
Static magnetic fields: see MRI#Safety
Extremely low frequency (ELF): see Power lines#Health concerns
Radio frequency (RF): see Electromagnetic radiation and health
Light: see Laser safety
Ultraviolet (UV): see Sunburn
Gamma rays: see Gamma ray
Mobile telephony: see Mobile phone radiation and health
-
EMFs are FIELDS. That's what the F in EMF stands for. Microwaves are WAVES. EMF are generated by magnets or by electricity moving through a wire. The Earth's magnetic field is generated by its magnetic core, for example. Electrical wiring in homes also generates a field, from the alternating electrical current moving through it. Microwaves have nothing to do with that.
Seriously, do none of you have enough scientific training to know the difference? The fuck are you people doing arguing about this stuff when you don't know what you're talking about?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339511/Schoolgirl-15-hanged-developing-allergic-reaction-WiFi-school.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339511/Schoolgirl-15-hanged-developing-allergic-reaction-WiFi-school.html)
-
EMFs are FIELDS. That's what the F in EMF stands for. Microwaves are WAVES. Seriously, do none of you have enough scientific training to know the difference? The fuck are you people doing arguing about this stuff when you don't know what you're talking about?
Do you even read about the stuff you claim to know so well? And what do you think those "fields" are composed of?
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/ (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/)
"What makes the various forms of electromagnetic fields so different?
One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength."
On the sources of EMFs:
Natural sources of electromagnetic fields
Electromagnetic fields are present everywhere in our environment but are invisible to the human eye. Electric fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms. The earth's magnetic field causes a compass needle to orient in a North-South direction and is used by birds and fish for navigation.
Human-made sources of electromagnetic fields
Besides natural sources the electromagnetic spectrum also includes fields generated by human-made sources: X-rays are employed to diagnose a broken limb after a sport accident. The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. And various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information – whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations.
-
Jeune, you don't understand the difference between fields and waves. You really need to shut the fuck up about it all.
The thing you people don't understand is that the diet is so you can function. It's not an extension of your anxiety and neuroses. It's an ANTIDOTE, for your physical AND mental issues.
I mean, go live on a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean if you want. Don't pretend that things are more dangerous than they are, though. Not here. If you want to play "I'm too sensitive to function", the raw vegans are masters of that game. Go play it on their forums. Not here. Here we don't lie to ourselves.
-
Jeune, you don't understand the difference between fields and waves. You really need to shut the fuck up about it all.
More than you do, apparently. I'll shut up about it because I know how much it frustrates you to be wrong.
Otherwise, please explain.
-
Waves propagate out for long distances in a straight line. We can detect light, x-rays, etc. from distant stars and even other galaxies in some cases. In contrast, the EM fields emanating from the cores of those same stars don't even reach more than a few million miles out.
-
I insist that there is still so much we do not know about the functioning of all the intrinsic details of life at these energtic levels.
Its very well likely.... at a basic biologic level of where genes are being encoded, proteins are being synthesized, and the basic building block mechanistic view of life is being played out... "moderate" exposure to such EMFS and microwaves have very little measurable effects.
What is totally unknown is how electrical magnetic pollution effects things at the epigenetic level. There are forces at play within the structure of life that are not merely a function of this mechanistic view.... there are very subtle and sly energies which are only detected at the epigenetic level. Phenomenon such as morphogenetic resonance could indeed be affected by even the most subtle interference.....There are informational feedback mechanisms which signal epigentic programming to perform critical DNA repairs and alterations....these systems may indeed be affected by interference....in a way that the nuts and bolts of Genetic biology can appear to go along as usual, but the spirit of life and its ability to rejuvenate, reconcile, and evolve may very well be affected.
The chronic exposure to frequencies of artificial electromagnetic interference, could obstruct and alter the way in which the process of genetic repair and adaptation occurs...regardless of how pure the diet is or how clean the environment..... Genes break down and need to frequently undergo systematic repairs, but if there is a constant 24/7 barrage of EMF and Microwave interference inundating the body then these systems may be prevented from operating optimally.
Not to say that its all doom and gloom and that such interference with the inner workings of the epi-mechanics of life poses an eminent threat....my primary concern is in how artificial interference, be it chemical, spiritual, nutritional, or electromagnetic.... inhibit one from living and passing on to the next generation the most optimal life possible.
-
It's all a bunch of worry over nothing. Unless you live within a few dozen yards of high voltage lines or a cell tower, there's nothing to worry about for the vast majority of people. Perhaps a few are naturally sensitive to it, but none of those people have tried this diet, so it's an open question as to whether they might be completely cured by fixing their diets.