 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008EM pollution threatens with breakdown of Earth's magnetic field
Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from cellphones and other sources of EM field could cause the breakdown of Earth's natural magnetic field. Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize Earth's core if strong enough, or in accidental superposition. The result: Earth loses magnetosphere and Solar radiation and cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere with nearly full strength, causing damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize > Earth's core if strong enough, or in accidental superposition. Your speculation is not supported be data. Paleomagnetism and Applications to Structural Geology http://mason.gmu.edu/~aweese/bookbag/geol401/index.htm http://mason.gmu.edu/~aweese/bookbag/geol401/reversals.gif > > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://mason.gmu.edu/~aweese/bookbag/geol401/index.htm > http://mason.gmu.edu/~aweese/bookbag/geol401/reversals.gif Google on "electromagnetic pollution". On Jul 6, 2:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >> > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having >> > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from >> > cellphones and other sources of EM field could cause the breakdown of >> > Earth's natural magnetic field. .> >> > Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize >> > Earth's core if strong enough, or in accidental superposition. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Google on "electromagnetic pollution". Duh, I'm sure Sam knows what electromagnetic pollution is. Where is the theory and evidence to support your assertion that "Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize Earth's core"? Have you worked out how much power it would take to do it deliberately or how you would wind the big coil required? On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:26 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Have you worked out how much power it would take to do it deliberately or > how you would wind the big coil required? There were some findings (a TV science episode, I forgot which) where they predicted shift of magnetic poles in our age. Much sooner than demagnetizing Earth's core, we'd probably breakdown the magnetosphere, Earth's outer magnetic shield. But this probably won't happen before 2012, the end of the world by Mayas, but with *exponential* growth of human induced magnetic fields, they'd reach the level of Earth's strength before too long. From the first Googled article I've learned that plane 50,000 V computer monitor generates as high as 200,000 nT. Each new cellphone operater needs complete coverage of entire countries on additional frequency. Satellites emit strong enough that antenna fitted in microchips can detect their signal (GPS), and that is rather strong. I don't have a PhD paper on this subject, but common sense tells me there is a limit to which it can grow without harm, just as with thermal pollution. > There were some findings (a TV science episode, I forgot which) where > they predicted shift of magnetic poles in our age. The geologic record shows many many reversals and disappearances of the earths magnetic.... try a bit more self education before posting your speculations! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal > From the first Googled article I've learned that plane 50,000 V > computer monitor generates as high as 200,000 nT. Each new cellphone > operater needs complete coverage of entire countries on additional > frequency. There are no 50 kV monitors; at those voltage levels a magnetic field would be the least of your concerns in your quest to find lead overalls to get near the thing.  SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > There were some findings (a TV science episode, I forgot which) where > they predicted shift of magnetic poles in our age. The magnetic pole is already wandering like a lazy eye. This has been happening for decades, though its' faster now than it used to be. > Much sooner than demagnetizing Earth's core, we'd probably breakdown > the magnetosphere, Earth's outer magnetic shield. You have no idea how a dynamo works, or what is involved in a pole flip. Hint: The sun does it every 11 years. > But this probably won't happen before 2012, the end of the world by > Mayas, but with *exponential* growth of human induced magnetic fields, > they'd reach the level of Earth's strength before too long. It _probably_ won't happen for another few thousand to hundred thousand years. > From the first Googled article I've learned that plane 50,000 V > computer monitor generates as high as 200,000 nT. Each new cellphone > operater needs complete coverage of entire countries on additional > frequency. Dipole fields fall off as 1/r^3 - higher multipole moments even faster, and there are no monopole fields. What's 1/r^3 at 100 feet for a monitor? That's assuming, of course, the numbers you pulled out of your a.s are at least close to the reality. How much energy is stuffed inside the Earth's field? Its' proportional to the square of the field times the enclosed volume. How much energy do we generate? Count the orders of magnitude. > Satellites emit strong enough that antenna fitted in microchips can > detect their signal (GPS), and that is rather strong. Learn to distinguish between radiation and static fields. > I don't have a PhD paper on this subject, but common sense tells me > there is a limit to which it can grow without harm, just as with > thermal pollution. Yea. The limit is somewhere between "zero" and "strong enough to spark the vacuum". What's the average field strength along the bore of an MRI magnet? > > On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > What's the average field strength along the bore of an MRI magnet? I did not plan to enter a quarrel, or insult anyone. I am sorry it is impossible to discuss a matter without strife and offense to personality. > I did not plan to enter a quarrel, or insult anyone. I am sorry it is > impossible to discuss a matter without strife and offense to > personality. You post a bunch of utter, babbling nonsense as fact on a science group then are surprised when people jump on you? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jul 8, 9:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > I did not plan to enter a quarrel, or insult anyone. I am sorry it is > > impossible to discuss a matter without strife and offense to > > personality. > > You post a bunch of utter, babbling nonsense as fact on a science group > then are surprised when people jump on you? I guess you meant telling there are no 50,000 kV CRT monitors? Marv > On Jul 8, 9:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Marv Bummer. I meant to say 50 kV CRT monitors. Which agrees with previously said 50,000 V, proving that this was a lapsus. > > On Jul 8, 9:05?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Marv > Bummer. I meant to say 50 kV CRT monitors. Which agrees with > previously said 50,000 V, proving that this was a lapsus. It doesn't matter as it is all nonsense like everything else you have posted. Huge TV CRT's (which have all been replaced with flat screens today) went into the low 30 kV region, but computer CRT's are typically below 20 kV. No 50 kV monitors. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Much sooner than demagnetizing Earth's core, we'd probably breakdown > the magnetosphere, Earth's outer magnetic shield. Where do you think the magnetic field in the magnetosphere comes from? <...> On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" >But this probably won't happen before 2012, the end of the world by >Mayas, but with *exponential* growth of human induced magnetic fields, >they'd reach the level of Earth's strength before too long. The earths magnetic field is around 60 microteslas (0.6 gauss) at it's strongest points on the earth surface. You can buy magnets on ebay that have a field strength several thousand times that. Perhaps you'd better warn them of the danger :-) Oh no wait, hold everything. I bet you have a stronger a magnet on your fridge door seal. Better not open your fridge or the torque will cause the planet to flip upside down. On Jul 9, 2:46 pm, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 10:42 am, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fridge door seal. Better not open your fridge or the torque will cause the > planet to flip upside down. This made me laugh. Now imagine (in a thought experiment) all magnets and sources of magnetic field on Earth accidentally aligned together. > On Jul 9, 2:46?pm, "Cwatters" > <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > fridge door seal. Better not open your fridge or the torque will cause the > > planet to flip upside down. > This made me laugh. > Now imagine (in a thought experiment) all magnets and sources of > magnetic field on Earth accidentally aligned together. Now imagine (in a thought experiment) that you accidentally said something that made the slightest bit of sense. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jul 9, 2:46 pm, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >> Oh no wait, hold everything. I bet you have a stronger a magnet on your >> fridge door seal. Better not open your fridge or the torque will cause [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Now imagine (in a thought experiment) all magnets and sources of >magnetic field on Earth accidentally aligned together. I think you need to figure out the difference between flux and flux density for starters. > Your speculation is not supported be data. Who cares? LOTS of physics theories are not supported by data! Personally I LIKE the theory that cellphones are causing the end of the world! Sure, seems to fit with a lot of the data I have personally observed! Now. "Hang up and THINK!" >> Your speculation is not supported be data. > > Who cares? LOTS of physics theories are not supported by data! That's Science --- theories not supported by data and contradicted by observation must be discarded.... that's what happens to most theories. Rejecting theories that are contradicted by observation is at the heart of science. > > Your speculation is not supported be data. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now. "Hang up and THINK!" I am thinking maybe someone make a long distance call just like in the movie fifth element. Could charged particles from a supernova qualify as a long distance call because according to Douglas Adam they started to build a intergalactic motorway the day betelguese seven collapsed. Scientists say betelguese 7 could go nova anyday, that is it could gone nova already 400 years ago. They say a star going supernova 200 light years away would anihilate earth i have a feeling a star going nova 400 light years away would not be that healthy either. From Wikipedia: It is more than likely that Betelgeuse will eventually go supernova, possibly a Type II supernova. Some believe that, considering its size and apparent age, it may explode within the next thousand years, or may have already[citation needed]. Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, it is believed that Betelgeuse's supernova would not cause a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage Earth's ecosystem even with its relatively close proximity of 427 light years. However, the Betelgeuse supernova would be close enough to easily outshine the Moon in the night sky. Well that is one hell of a long distance call, you remember the ball approaching earth in fifth element i think they are right it will outshine the moon. And i think i am going underground when it happen. > From Wikipedia: > It is more than likely that Betelgeuse will eventually go supernova, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 427 light years. However, the Betelgeuse supernova would be close > enough to easily outshine the Moon in the night sky. (1/.00763 arcsec) = 427.5 light years... Just checking. :-) It should easily be visible by day. > Well that is one hell of a long distance call, you remember the ball > approaching earth in fifth element i think they are right it will > outshine the moon. And i think i am going underground when it happen. HR 8210 is even closer. Some blasts from the past... http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/proamcollab/SNEWS.html?page=4&c=y | Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having | lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of | skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. Forget your medication today? In sci.physics, Marvin Barley <mtodorov3_69@yahoo.com> wrote on Sun, 6 Jul 2008 03:58:51 -0700 (PDT) <4a9e408b-ee2e-4a50-9a1f-7b1d33277256@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>: > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize > Earth's core if strong enough, or in accidental superposition. It could, but it would take a *lot* of energy. The Earth's magnetic field is probably generated by interaction with the Earth's rotation and something in the liquid part of its iron core. It does take a tiny amount of energy to overcome the friction in a pivot-point of a magnetic compass needle. I don't think a billion compasses would be enough to make a measurable difference. > The result: Earth loses magnetosphere and Solar radiation and cosmic > rays penetrate the atmosphere with nearly full strength, causing > damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of > skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. I'd be more worried about the poles flipping. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2152-anomalies-hint-at-magnetic-pole-flip.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/10/science.research though the latter may not be quite as rigorous, and should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all! ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of > skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. That would make a nice april fools story. Marvin Barley <mtodorov3_69@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4a9e408b-ee2e-4a50- 9a1f-7b1d33277256@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > lost orientation, exponentially growing magnetic pollution from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of > skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. That's not how magentic fields work. If you want to make the earth's field "break down," you have to use Ampere's Law and generate a large enough current to cancel it out, which you can't do with EM radiation. Go get yourself a second semester freshman physics textbook and study up on Ampere's Law. I'd recommend Sears, Zemansky & Young, Book 2. > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > lost orientation, That's just silly. The Earth's natural field flaps and billows around constantly due to entirely natural causes, mostly the inconstant solar wind and flares whanging into it; bees have dealt with that for many millions of years. It's not as if there were permanent, natural "flux line" highways in the sky that bees depended on until evil, inconsiderate humans started screwing with technology. > exponentially growing magnetic pollution from cellphones Bees can't "see" AC (meaning Alternating Current as in RF, Radio Frequency) fields, just DC (Direct Current, as in not changing over time) fields. Hence cellphones, powerlines, and stuff like that (anything measured in cycles per second AKA Hertz) don't bother them. > and other sources of EM field could cause the breakdown of > Earth's natural magnetic field. > > Strong enough EMF from man-made magnetic pollution could demagnetize > Earth's core if strong enough Utter nonsense; you obviously have no idea what "strong enough" means. The Earth's field is only about a half-Gauss at the surface but it's generated by roughly six-billion-Ampere currents flowing in the liquid (mostly) iron outer core which is as large as the entire planet Mars. In order to alter the Earth's field significantly (over and above the hundreds of billions of megajoules it has naturally varied in the last hundred years or so) we'd have to apply at least that much energy, deliberately concentrated as a DC field opposing that of the Earth. If you knew ANYTHING about electricity you'd be laughing hysterically at the technological imagery such an effort necessarily implies. > or in accidental superposition. Please don't use words when you don't know their meanings. > The result: Earth loses magnetosphere and Solar radiation and cosmic > rays penetrate the atmosphere with nearly full strength, causing > damage to electric appliances, but also causing exponential growth of > skin cancer and possible threat to life on Earth. Whose utter, complete bullshit are you parroting? Let me guess; Green Nazis. Mark L. Fergerson On Jul 7, 6:53 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > > lost orientation, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson I hate nazis, and I hate hippies. I cannot imagine a more perfect union of hatred than nazi hippies. On Jul 8, 4:53 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apart from potentially confusing bees and causing them to die having > > lost orientation, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson I feel humble doing it, while you have the position from above ridiculing me, just like when they told your kind the Earth isn't flat. > On Jul 8, 4:53 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > ridiculing me, just like when they told your kind the Earth isn't > flat. "My kind". It so happens I never believed the Earth was flat. If you care to try to actually dispute anything I wrote, feel free to do so. Otherwise, if you do not want to be "ridiculed"*, please refrain from posting ridiculous nonsense particularly when it's clear that you don't understand at any significant level _why_ it's nonsense. * This is a science group, hence it isn't about humility or pride; it's about getting the facts straight. Just be glad Uncle Al didn't light into you. Mark L. Fergerson On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 4:53 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > "My kind". It so happens I never believed the Earth was flat. No, But you believe Earth is unbreakable. Both are mainstream beliefs of the times. It started to change only recently. Just twenty years ago serious scientists were mocking global warming theory and ice cap melting possibility with threat to coastal cities was science fiction. > If you care to try to actually dispute anything I wrote, feel free > to do so. Otherwise, if you do not want to be "ridiculed"*, please > refrain from posting ridiculous nonsense particularly when it's clear > that you don't understand at any significant level _why_ it's > nonsense. You haven't scientifically disproved anything I said. A guy said magnetic field falls with 1/r^3. I've checked my memory and Biot- Savart law says it falls with 1/r^2 for infinitesimal "magnetic charge", but since that doesn't exists, the magnetic field for a endless wire is I * 1/r. The monitors may not have 50,000 V, but they certainly have 24,000 V, which is not an order of magnitude lower. Such is the reasoning of all other "scientific arguments" that break down my theory. This far I don't have simulation model (yet), only a thought experiment. But most of physics wasn't much more in the beginning of 1900. It is only a false assumption that tensors, extensive matrices and supercomputers make up for a lack of idea. > * This is a science group, hence it isn't about humility or pride; > it's about getting the facts straight. Just be glad Uncle Al didn't > light into you. A science group should not address mental health issues upon emerging of a new idea. What would happen if they've given Heisenberg a pill? Humility may be a metaphysical issue rather than scientific, but true knowledge is usually accompanied with the awareness of it's fragility. I am aware there were scientists with difficult characters. Nevertheless, Google on "electromagnetic pollution"; link 1 and 2 will back enough of my claims, though not the possibility of magnetosphere breakdown or core depolarization due to human-induced interference. Probably there would be a tenfold increase in cancer, memory problems and (guess) Alzheimer before that. Just imagine exponentially growing energy consumption. There will be bigger power plants and inevitably more of stronger long distance high voltage power lines. We all know that there is a tendency to put merge all those systems together, so they'd be in phase - which brings stability of power, and synergic cooperation of generators, instead of phase cancellation of electric voltage waves. This means that we don't have just a problem of a 24,000 V, 200,000 nT transformer in a single monitor, but all electric appliances will produce magnetic field IN PHASE. Horizontal components will due to random placement in space cancel out each other, while the vertical components will superimpose and add up. Which means 200,000,000 monitors and TV sets of USA in sync pulsing 60 Hz. Now, imagine world economy outgrows hunger problem in third world and they all start earning enough to buy a TV and a computer. This means 3 fold increase in world consumption of energy, at least. Now, don't ask me refs and calcs, that is your (scientist's) job. OK, if I think it could happen in next 5 years I'd probably do more homework. Right now it is a THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY. Besides, we just don't know all natural and electrical laws - something new may emerge from half of the Earth pulsing with 60 Hz adn the other with 50 Hz - like emitting enough for informing the aliens and attracting the Borg (they are the only ones not concerned with Prime Directive :-). >On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >and attracting the Borg (they are the only ones not concerned with >Prime Directive :-). They are not pulsing with 60Hz. The incoming AC gets rectified into a DC which is converted to high voltage DC via high frequency switching power supply. The switching frequency is not fixed and varies from design to design. SignatureBoris Mohar > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > No, But you believe Earth is unbreakable. Both are mainstream beliefs > of the times. It started to change only recently. Your "your kind" comment above added to your presumption to know what I believe reveals your arrogance. > Just twenty years ago serious scientists were mocking global warming > theory and ice cap melting possibility with threat to coastal cities > was science fiction. Now you want to move the goal posts. Just thirty years ago "serious scientists" were touting global _cooling_ as the Next Big Disaster. Guess what the alleged cause and suggested cure were? Yep, excessive hydrocarbon fuel usage, and cutting back severely. When that failed to gain traction AGW was trotted out. Same alleged cause and cure. BTW you _are_ aware that Earth isn't the only planet in this solar system warming up? Care to blame that on manmade CO2? > > If you care to try to actually dispute anything I wrote, feel free > > to do so. Otherwise, if you do not want to be "ridiculed"*, please [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You haven't scientifically disproved anything I said. I falsified your "concerns" about bees; they are effectively blind to cellphone (and all other radio) frequencies. They have dealt successfully with natural variations, reversals, _and_ zeroings of the Earth's field for as long as they've existed. (If you're really worried about bees, worry about Colony Collapse Disorder.) If you knew anything about electromagnetism you'd know I falsified your "concerns" about human technology affecting, much less demagnetizing Earth's core. > A guy said > magnetic field falls with 1/r^3. I've checked my memory and Biot- > Savart law says it falls with 1/r^2 for infinitesimal "magnetic > charge", but since that doesn't exists, the magnetic field for a > endless wire is I * 1/r. The monitors may not have 50,000 V, but they > certainly have 24,000 V, which is not an order of magnitude lower. I am not "a guy". However, since you brought it up, I have a question for you; what do you believe is the connection between the (contained) voltage of (obsolete) CRT monitors and "breaking down" the Earth's magnetic field? > Such is the reasoning of all other "scientific arguments" that break > down my theory. AFAICT you don't yet have a theory, just a bunch of handwaving arguments derived from ignorance. > This far I don't have simulation model (yet), only a thought > experiment. > > But most of physics wasn't much more in the beginning of 1900. It is > only a false assumption that tensors, extensive matrices and > supercomputers make up for a lack of idea. You don't need supercomputers, you just need to get a handle on the concept of "cause and effect". So far you have not described any causes that could produce the effects you claim to worry about. > > * This is a science group, hence it isn't about humility or pride; > > it's about getting the facts straight. Just be glad Uncle Al didn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I am aware there were scientists with difficult characters. Non sequitur. > Nevertheless, Google on "electromagnetic pollution"; link 1 and 2 will > back enough of my claims, though not the possibility of magnetosphere > breakdown or core depolarization due to human-induced interference. Apparently you don't know that Google doesn't necessarily return the exact same search results for everyone. Care to provide URLs? > Probably there would be a tenfold increase in cancer, memory problems > and (guess) Alzheimer before that. Have you ever heard of the New York City subway system? It's electrically powered. Riders typically sit within feet of mega-ampere conductors (generating multi-Tesla fields) switching at apparent random. One would think there'd be a correlatable increase in such illnesses among habitual subway riders over that of the general population, but there isn't. There also isn't a correlatable proportional increase of such illnesses among electrical workers (specifically high-voltage linemen) over that of the general population. So no, there probably wouldn't. > Just imagine exponentially growing energy consumption. There will be > bigger power plants and inevitably more of stronger long distance high > voltage power lines. We all know that there is a tendency to put merge > all those systems together, so they'd be in phase - which brings > stability of power, and synergic cooperation of generators, instead of > phase cancellation of electric voltage waves. That's an obsolete artifact of timing systems that used the 60 Hz powerline frequency as a master timing reference. These days we use radio signals from atomic clocks, and longline interties are DC, not AC. There is no reason to think that your power, wherever you are, is in any particular phase relationship to mine. > This means that we don't have just a problem of a 24,000 V, 200,000 nT First, are you not aware that CRTs (the type of high-voltage- operated vacuum tube display device used in old-fashioned TVs and monitors) are obsolete? No manufacturers are building new facilities to make them; they're all going to various kinds of flat-panel displays which use far less power. Also, what system of units? Did you mean nanoTesla? Flat panel displays do not use high voltages, meaning they don't use flyback transformers. BTW do you know what kind of voltage multiplier most flat-panel displays use to run their backlights? http://www.fuji-piezo.com/piezo.htm > transformer in a single monitor, but all electric appliances will > produce magnetic field IN PHASE. If everyone owns the exact same obsolete model, places them in the exact same orientation, and operates them from power sources in the exact same phase. This WILL NOT happen. > Horizontal components will due to > random placement in space cancel out each other, while the vertical > components will superimpose and add up. Where did you get that idea? > Which means 200,000,000 monitors and TV sets of USA in sync pulsing 60 > Hz. With every sentence you reveal your scientific and technological ignorance. > Now, imagine world economy outgrows hunger problem in third world and > they all start earning enough to buy a TV and a computer. This means 3 > fold increase in world consumption of energy, at least. Nope. Display power usage drops dramatically with every technological generation. The next generation will use what's today called "smart paper" and the most power-hungry component will be the backlight. > Now, don't ask me refs and calcs, that is your (scientist's) job. OK, > if I think it could happen in next 5 years I'd probably do more > homework. Right now it is a THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY. No, it's not. You admit that you're parroting somebody else's claims and that you have no "refs and calcs", but when I refute you using "refs and calcs" you deny that your second-hand claims have been refuted. Yours is not a scientific attitude, it's a religious one. So enjoy your crusade but stop claiming to have scientific backing for any of your claims. Mark L. Fergerson On Jul 10, 7:28 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 226 lines] > > read more » You asked for links. This one clearly disproves your statement of no increase in cancer in workers on high voltage power lines and nearby residents. http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303163909 And more authoritative, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health There are some good references in the latter article. About my ignorance ... CRT displays may be phased out but they are still concern. You forgot the high voltage power lines. About New Your subway. Forgive me my ignorance, but in all movies I saw New York's subway trains are made of steel or some metal. They are also grounded, over third rail if there is one - so the train wagon is a perfect example of Farraday cage - electromagnetic field inside tends to be zero. So this may not be the best example. I still have CRT monitors at work and at home - they might not be replaced so soon, but I'm working on it - since I notice the impact on my concentration. I used to think this is my personal weakness until I've read the studies. Also, ... about bees. Poor bees. The EMF from wireless LANs is known to cause concentration problems in children. So, it does impair living organism. The bees cannot be immune to microwave EMF since it spins their H20 molecules just as if they were inside the very weak microwave oven. It causes heat, and electrolysis due to induced electric current (water is conductor, so are nerves at least). There's a congressional report on this. http://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emrnetwork.org%2F conference%2Fcongressional_staff_briefing_2001.ppt&ei=q7p1SO3zJ4aomwPBw-XuAg&usg =AFQjCNHxxbA0b0kP4lbMdJKaUyW_cvXo1Q&sig2=832Du6mMvYbafK4bV9SkYA Apparently, EPA stopped measuring health effects of EMF radiation and it stopped funding studies, just when it exploded. I know, dear friend, that cancer is exploding - I studied it very well since my mother died from it - science has just yet unable to determine cause. It could be very well that electrolysis effect from induced current due to EMF radiation is producing free radicals that could damage tissues and immune system. It seems to me, my friend, for you the science is only what Big Money is funding. And Big Money will never act to earn less. I've seen your great scientists beautifying results. If Cisco is ordering a "scientific and neutral" study, he will be unhappy to pay something that tells them they have to shutdown main tech line that was supposed to bring M$ or G$. Likewise it was with GMO and Talidomid. The latter's "safe product" victims are now suing the company for they lack limbs. Due to a scientifically proven safe product for pregnant women. So much for mainstream science and medicine. It learns nothing without a thousand of corpses. Try not to be one of them, my friend. (snippage for brevity's sake) > You asked for links. > > This one clearly disproves your statement of no increase in cancer in > workers on high voltage power lines and nearby residents. > > http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303163909 I can't find anything on that page about powerline workers and cancer. Would you care to point me to the relevant section(s)? Also, you are apparently not concerned that the website's parent organization touts quack pseudoscientific devices such as the "Teslar Watch", "Pulsor", and "Cocoon" which supposedly shield or otherwise protect the wearer from "harmful" ELF fields. Don't you find it odd that a "nonprofit" organization will not reveal the inner workings of these devices, but instead recommends you buy them for from US$150 to US$1500? Don't you find it at least slightly disturbing that the first four-fifths of the page sets you up with fear, and the last offers surcease in the form of expensive devices whose operating principles are not explained? > And more authoritative, Wikipedia: "Authoritaive" and "Wikipedia" in the same sentence; not good. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health > > There are some good references in the latter article. "Health effects of electric power transmission The preponderance of evidence shows that the low-power, low-frequency, electromagnetic radiation associated with household current is very safe, and whilst some biophysical mechanisms for the promotion of cancer have been proposed (such as the electric fields around powerlines attracting aerosol pollutants), none have been substantiated." "Leukemia and cancer In 1996, the Stevens Report was released by the National Academy of Sciences. Based on the current research of EMF produced from power lines, the report concluded that there was no evidence that showed exposure to EMF from power lines presented a human health hazard." ...and so on. Yes, good references. > About my ignorance ... CRT displays may be phased out but they are > still concern. You forgot the high voltage power lines. Are you referring to the short "high voltage power lines" in CRTs? What about them? > About New Your subway. Forgive me my ignorance, but in all movies I > saw New York's subway trains are made of steel or some metal. They are > also grounded, over third rail if there is one - so the train wagon is > a perfect example of Farraday cage - electromagnetic field inside > tends to be zero. No, they are not perfect Faraday cages; the metal shells are pierced by large windows. The extremely strong magnetic fields generated by switching the huge currents running the trains penetrate the cars easily (magnetic fields do not "ground out"). > I still have CRT monitors at work and at home - they might not be > replaced so soon, but I'm working on it - since I notice the impact on > my concentration. I used to think this is my personal weakness until > I've read the studies. Do you have corroboration from any medical professionals that your supposed impacted concentration is directly caused by anything from the CRTs, or do you simply uncritically buy the "explanations" from quack websites like the one you cited? > Also, ... about bees. Poor bees. The EMF from wireless LANs is known > to cause concentration problems in children. I saw that allegation on the first page you referenced, but no substantiation. That means your usage of "known" is at the very least premature. > The bees cannot be immune to microwave EMF since it spins > their H20 molecules just as if they were inside the very weak > microwave oven. Again you try to move the goal posts; first it was bees' navigating was being disrupted, now they're being slowly cooked. Think for a moment, will you? If that were true, those same microwaves have to penetrate many meters of air to get to the bees. Those many meters of air contain water molecules which will absorb the microwaves leaving nothing to annoy the bees. > It causes heat, and electrolysis due to induced > electric current (water is conductor, so are nerves at least). You're back to being silly again. > There's a congressional report on this. > > http://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emrnet... That's not a Congressional document. Who authored it? What is the originating website? > Apparently, EPA stopped measuring health effects of EMF radiation and > it stopped funding studies, just when it exploded. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > induced current due to EMF radiation is producing free radicals that > could damage tissues and immune system. "Unable to determine"... "could be". Everything you present is full of such phrases yet you accept it all as foregone conclusions. > It seems to me, my friend, for you the science is only what Big Money > is funding. And Big Money will never act to earn less. I've seen your > great scientists beautifying results. If Cisco is ordering a > "scientific and neutral" study, he will be unhappy to pay something > that tells them they have to shutdown main tech line that was supposed > to bring M$ or G$. There you go again attributing Evil Intention to me. Consider the evil bastards selling "Teslar watches" etc. that do nothing. > Likewise it was with GMO and Talidomid. What is "GMO"? > The latter's "safe product" victims are now suing the company for they > lack limbs. Due to a scientifically proven safe product for pregnant > women. Now you demonstrate your ignorance of history. Thalidomide was never "proven safe" for pregnant women; it was never _tested_ on pregnant women in the first place because when it was approved nobody had any idea it could be teratogenic. Thalidomide was in fact a major factor in requiring drugs that were proposed for FDA approval be tested for teratogenic properties. This all happened over forty years ago. The drug has recently been re-approved for use in restricted cases of leprosy and certain cancers because of its pain-reducing properties. Nobody will ever give it to a pregnant woman again. > So much for mainstream science and medicine. It learns nothing without > a thousand of corpses. Try not to be one of them, my friend. The quack pseudoscience you promote learns nothing regardless of how high the corpses it causes are piled. Mark L. Fergerson On 10 Juli, 07:28, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 234 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson Do we know if the total amount of cosmic radiation and particles that hit earth change from time to time? Do scientist have possibility to measure these things, satellites? If a nearby star was in late stage of red giant would that change the amount of infalling radiation, or does it not change until it goes nova? Is there evidence to support disturbance of the magnetic field or global warming effects, from stars going nova in ancient time? JT On Jul 10, 3:20 am, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > Do we know if the total amount of cosmic radiation and particles that > hit earth change from time to time? Yes, we know this sort of thing for about the last fifty years or so by direct measurement. We suspect it for much longer in the past but have very little physical record of it. By "physical record" I mean tree rings, ice cores, and sea and lake sediments and such which can tell us about rainfall and other climatic factors for very long times into the past but as far as I know do not show any clear correlation with cosmic ray variations although there have been suggestions that metal isotope ratios in deep rock strata could be affected by supernovae. As for other kinds of radiation, most that we get is from the sun. Its magnetosphere generally shields the whole Solar System from radiation from other stars. However, the Solar System is currently traveling through a sort of bubble apparently blown in the interstellar gas and dust by a supernova 443 million years ago which may have been close enough to overcome the Sun's and the Earth's magnetospheres' shielding effects, causing the great extinction at the end of the Ordovician Age via gamma ray irradiation followed by global cooling. > Do scientist have possibility to measure these things, satellites? Some can be measured on the ground, and some from satellites. Unfortunately there is very little instrumentation in place to measure these things because they are not considered to be "important" except as basic science, which always gets the least funding. > If a nearby star was in late stage of red giant would that change the > amount of infalling radiation, or does it not change until it goes > nova? Not so much from an ordinary nova, but from a supernova if it were close enough, and generally speaking the first radiation issue would be neutrinos which could do enormous damage to living things but only if it were very close; say within 50 light years. Remember it like other forms of radiation is subject to inverse-square attenuation with distance. A supernova would have to be within roughly 100 light years to be considered a threat to life on Earth. This would vary with the orientation of the star's spin axis with respect to Earth because such supernovae can spew jets of particle radiation along their axes and if we were in the way it could affect us from much farther away than if we were not. > Is there evidence to support disturbance of the magnetic field or > global warming effects, from stars going nova in ancient time? As far as I know, no ancient climatic global warming trends have been correlated with supernovae, conversely above I mentioned a supernova possibly causing global cooling. Notice that for most of Earth's history it's been warmer than it is now; for the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the Earth the average temperature was ten or more degrees warmer than now. Also, as far as I know there's not much a supernova could do to our magnetic field directly. The most direct effects from nearby supernovae would be gamma rays which can strip off much of our ozone layer in a matter of minutes. On the other hand the Sun would also intercept considerable radiation flux which might upset its function, and that might have an effect on Earth's magnetic field. But that requires several "mights" in a row so I give it a low probability. I am not an expert in this area, but then there really aren't any at all since it's such a new area of study. The mere idea that forces outside the Earth can affect its climate and weather is actually fairly recent and we are just beginning to understand a few of the possible ways we can be affected. Mark L. Fergerson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.