That's funny, I was involved in discovery for a high profile patent infringement suit where the guy suing sold foil hats and lived in a trailer out of paranoia.
I know that this is a diversion from foil hats and their equivalent, but how did John Meyer do with his Heyser speech at the AES? I haven't read anything about it yet.
Now John Meyer and I did work together starting about 45 years ago, but John actually decided that acoustic problems were far worse, (and more measurable) than my electronic improvements, so he doesn't give me much attention these days, and he has developed quite a business. Could it be better? Probably, 'but he don't care'. '-) Still, I know him to be a brilliant man and I am interested in what he does think is important in audio these days.
Now John Meyer and I did work together starting about 45 years ago, but John actually decided that acoustic problems were far worse, (and more measurable) than my electronic improvements, so he doesn't give me much attention these days, and he has developed quite a business. Could it be better? Probably, 'but he don't care'. '-) Still, I know him to be a brilliant man and I am interested in what he does think is important in audio these days.
There is cherry picked info, so what ?.
Seems Mr Firstenberg lost the plot but so what ?...JN your implication serves to discredit the work of others.
So why is it that Soviet EMR exposure limits have historically been orders of magnitude lower than US exposure limits ?.
How about 'The World Health Organization later reversed itself on May 31, 2011, declaring RF radiation a class 2B (possible) carcinogen in the same category as lead and DDT." ?.
Biological effects of EMR is at present a somewhat 'grey' area, but given time it will be defined and understood and remedied.
I have been acutely electrosensitive, and I am still sensitive to an extent, more as an active sense than bodily reaction.
I venture that we all are electrosensitive to varying degrees, and moderated by exposures history, stress in a number of forms, general health and in particular toxic load in the body.
I venture that the likes of dowsing is electrosensing, with magnetic and gravity sensing thrown in.
I venture that EMR per se is not necessarily deleterious, but modulations more so subtle modulations are the modifying agent.
There is more to this than meets the eye and some of it is old knowledge, very old knowledge.
Dan.
Last edited:
Last first.. You "venture" a lot of things,none supported. Perhaps "guess" is apropos.
As to cherry picking, the pdf you provided was a commissioned work, designed with only one goal in mind, and that was to support a preconceived notion.
The "paper" was written in a style consistent with actual academic papers, but it is not. It was designed so as to fool people into believing that it was, you are one of many to take the bait.
This paper would not have been published in any place I referee, but I must admit that the box I would check doesn't exist. My options are:
1. Publish as written
2. Publish with revisions (with details)
3. Not suitable for publication as a result of basic flaws (again, with specifics)
This paper requires another box entitled "doesn't pass the smell test". In this case, a math ScB drops out of med school and blames dental x-rays for his lot in life, sues his next door neighbor for half million dollars because their cell phones and electronic devices are killing him.
Why do you think he would commission that paper?
Oh, I would add a fifth box..."why have you wasted my time reviewing 33 pages of a copyrighted cherry picked preordained outcome drivelling piece of non academic work"?
As to aluminum, I remember when the link to alzheimers was established. Despite efforts by others, the correlation could not be duplicated anywhere else.
Eventually, it was found that HVAC work was being done at the lab and the contractor was grinding aluminum, the HVAC system broadcast the dust and contaminated the samples.
That is how peer review and publishing works.
Learning from copyrighted works of fiction is not the best way to learn, nor are internet blog sites.
Jn
Last edited:
As to Soviet emr standards and microwave ovens, I recall USA standards were set at 10% of the power level required to cook living tissue, soviet was three orders of magnitude lower...that I like better of course.
Someday I will revisit the exposure standards for that, just to learn.
Just went through that exercise for ultrasonics. You mentioned old knowledge in reference to 80's research..pfft, the bulk of ultrasonic work was done in the mid 1940's.
Jn
Someday I will revisit the exposure standards for that, just to learn.
Just went through that exercise for ultrasonics. You mentioned old knowledge in reference to 80's research..pfft, the bulk of ultrasonic work was done in the mid 1940's.
Jn
I said
I mean ancient knowledge, not just last century.
As a youngster in the early 70's I spent some school holidays on a far outback property where there was no electricity supply, no AM, no FM, no TV, only SW radio services were available.
I well remember the naturalness of that environment, at the far corners of the property there was silence, acoustic silence and radio silence and a wonderful sense of peace, calmness and stability.
That time has gone, we now are all subject to man made EMR of some sort and will never know the difference I describe above.
JN, when I say 'I venture' I make those statements from personal experience, perhaps if you were to be less automatically contrary you might ask the right questions and learn things outside your 'office cubicle'.
None of us can be 'Jack of all trades', perhaps others have experience, senses and knowledge that you do not.
This is how we all learn.
My 'Yes' to aluminium discussion is to do with field effects, same but different to altering wines.
I find it fascinating and intensely curious that for red wines the colour/transparency changes, the meniscus and trails change, the nose and the flavour changes by altering local fields of the containing vessel.
I find it sad that some seek to ridicule the likes of the above findings from the perspective of no personal experience, this is pure ignorance and ultimately quite selfish.
Dan.
Last edited:
Some would consider me ancient.
You didn't specify how long ago, but all being discussed in that pdf appears to be early 80's work.
First of all, I do not have a cubicle. I have two real offices in two real buildings half a mile apart, and where I do the bulk of my "stuff" is in a building where the typical problems I have to address require a quarter mile walk in the building, or in a different building where I occasionally have to avoid critical lifts below a 15, 18, or 30 ton indoor building crane, to work on electronics, mechanics, epoxies, soldering, motion control, software, ultrasonic welding... All of this I do on a production floor in support of building very advanced stuff that many will never understand.
So your inference that all I do is sit in front of a computer and criticize is hugely off the mark.
As to the "right questions", you clearly avoided answering the questions I last had for you. So what is to be gained by my asking you questions if you do not answer them but instead avoid?
You have no idea the extent of my knowledge in many many areas. And the reason I have a wide knowledge base is precisely because of the people I work with every single day. I work with world class level people in about a zillion different sciences and technologies and I know when to ask. I do not pretend to knowledge I do not possess, unlike many posters on websites.
When my two kids were in college, I told them, I can answer any science question their profs can pose, no matter how high level it is, and many times answers beyond the prof's level. If it is in my area of expertise, immediate, if not, it takes a day for me to get the answer (if the person I would ask is not on vacation or at a conference of course.)
Apparently, you do not profess what you practice. You do not come in here asking, you come in here "venturing", meaning your personal guesses. And to question your guesses is to invoke your attack on the questioner's ability to learn.
No, your "yes" was a direct response to my post (which you quoted) about you referring to that alzheimers thing.
When I pointed out the correlation results of the research being non repeatable, with an absolutely clear cause, that being the aluminum grinding contamination of the samples, you then did an about face and went with "fields". So, I guess your editing time ran out so now it's part of the permanent record.
It's fun to watch the squirming. Reminds me of trying to squish a drop of mercury on the table..
jn
ps. In case ya hadn't noticed, I really do not care for internet armchair "scientists" attempting to teach those with actual knowledge, by using copyrighted fictional papers, internet blogs, vendor "white papers".
Reading through the blather that armchair scientists present as "evidence" is really just a waste of time. Humorous at times, but still a waste of pixels. 33 pages of drivel that I can never get back..
Last edited:
Findings??? What findings?
You've made entirely unsupported claims, presented no facts, nothing. And when someone questions or asks for actual data or facts (not fiction), you call the questioner ignorant and selfish???
I am neither. I ask for data, for proof..
All you give back is static..
A friend asked me if his magnetic bracelets actually worked. I told him, if he feels better wearing them, who am I to question?
jn
These wouldn't by any chance survive being photographed? Even the Cottingley Fairies did.
Dan you continue to quote results without mention of controls of "secret"devices with no details and no tangible evidence but repeated reports of what your mates said.
Last edited:
Just because you typed stuff on a website doesn't make them facts.
The web is full of people making wild and unsupported claims, then calling those who ask for facts ignorant. It is a typical internet ploy to call unbelievers closed minded.. so far, you've followed the playbook to a T.
If you have any facts in support of your claims, I would love to see them.
Oh, just repeating the same thing over and over is not what we call "facts"
Nor does denigration of those who question you have the ability of raising claims to factual..
Nor does linking to someone else who made the same claim without facts.
John
Last edited:
No point arguing with Dan. If responses are intended as a warning to others that may be reading not go down the same path, maybe that could be of some value. Dan, however, has already decided what he believes about the power of his mixtures, and evidence he believes helps justify that belief. Nothing will change that, he is effectively immune to allowing it to happen, IMHO. Attempts at educating and or arguing are doomed to failure, again, IMHO.
That's interesting I was just about to say Dan's desire to give a good "vibe" to all experiences is an admirable thing, I think he is a good guy at heart.
I think he is a good guy too. Certain of his beliefs don't change that part of his personality.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.