adsfqwop

This is only a guess, but I get the impression Album Archive is some sort of aggregator service. The original Blogger images appear to still be stored in Blogger's own media manager.

For example, many images referenced from Blogger posts contain links with URLs like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/... further strengthening the case that these images originate from Blogger, not the Archive service.

So in summary, my guess is that shutting down Album Archive will not affect Blogger media files.

Another case for this conclusion, is that it seems totally insane to delete all of Blogger's media files, and not inform Blogger users directly, but instead do it through some obscure Archive service notice.

Would be nice to get an official confirmation on this, but let's say we can make an educated guess that people's Blogger photos are probably safe.

Researching flat earth and flat earthers forced me learn a lot about how we can prove globe earth in various interesting ways.

One cool device I discovered is the Gyrotheodolite. It's a north-seeking gyrocompass, used in mining where GPS is not available and a magnetic compass would be too inaccurate.

The north-seeking effect happens only because the earth is round and rotates the way it does. Without this rotation, the gyrocompass would not work. Hence the earth is round and it rotates. QED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotheodolite

I'm not an expert, but I think there's pretty much an infinite number of ways to execute space trajectories.

Just looking at it visually it seems Orion is (perhaps?) taking a more roundabout (slower) route, and it's also ending up at the moon in a different orbital configuration than Apollo.

Another factor, I am sure, is cost. The faster you want to get there, the more fuel you need to burn. I'm also going to guess it's not a linear equation, which means the faster you want to get there, the fuel requirements will increase in something like an exponential proportion.

Therefore slower is cheaper, to a point. If you go TOO slow, your astronauts will starve, or you need to bring more food and provisions, which will cancel the cost savings on speed reduction. So somewhere in there is going to be an optimal cost/fuel/food/provision trajectory for each mission.

So, in summary: different mission, different parameters for optimal execution.

Ha. Great. Also needs a giant ginormous sticky header and menu structure at the top of the page, so that together with the sticky footer it covers up pretty much any remaining article content.

Interesting interview with doctor in NY using it on over 600 patients so far. 100% success rate.

https://youtu.be/1TJdjhd_XG8?t=117

You do understand that the ionizing argument is a logical fallacy?

If I say A is dangerous because of X, it is a logical fallacy to say B is safe because lack of X.

Lack of X is not an argument for safety, therefore you cannot use lack of ionization as any form of proof for safety. The only thing you can say, is that it does not ionize. It does not say anything else related to any other biological effects.

With regards to the mechanism and the observed effects in laboratory and animal experiments, here is the proposed pathophysiology:

https://i.imgur.com/xNzDsPo.png

If you want the TL;DR, the summary is: there are other ways to cause cellular and genetic disruption, than just ionizing radiation or by heating effects.

And yes, we have a good grip on the science: here is a graph of peer-reviewed scientific publications, showing biological effects much below current exposure limits:

https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

The problem is, this science has not been incorporated into the current safety standards. This science shows, there exists non-thermal non-ionizing mechanisms of harm, that have not been taken into consideration.

But if you trust the over 20 year old FCC guidelines, then of course you will think everything is fine.

It is not a question of being scared, it is a question of looking at the science, and updating our understanding, and then look at the technology with this new understanding, so that we can make it safer.

It's not necessarily a good argument to compare to sunlight, because we also have take into account biological adaptation.

Sunlight has existed for millions of years on this planet, and therefore all biological life has had time to adapt to it.

Human skin for example, has both a protection mechanism, in the form of melanin, and a utilizing mechanism, in the form of vitamin D production.

So these are the two things you would normally expect to happen with adaptation: protection and utilization.

But when it comes to RF radiation, especially in the microwave range, the natural background flux is not 1000W/m2, but 10^-18 W/m2 (!), at 1 GHz.

The current safety limits again are set at around 10W/m2 @ 1Ghz. That's a difference to the background of over a quintillion times (18 zeroes). See image here for reference:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt2NMoJU4AE2oYY.jpg

Because the background has been 10^-18 W/m2, we can consider it basically nonexistant, and therefore there has been no adaptation to these frequencies, no utilization, and no protection.

But there is another difference to natural sunlight also, and that is that man-made RF is not continuous, but pulsed.

Consider what would happen, if the sun suddenly started pulsing on and off a few thousand times per second.

These are some of the factors that need to be taken into consideration. It is not as simple as just saying that pulsed microwaves are just like sunlight.

From both a physics standpoint, but especially from a biological standpoint, they are not the same, and that is where the problems come from.

Related: FCC is being sued because of their failure to update the safety standards to take into account the latest research.

https://lawandcrime.com/administrative-law/scientists-sue-fc...

Even if it is on certain strains, it means we need to consider what it means on a larger scale. What other strains? What other frequencies?

By not considering the possible implications of this interaction, IF TRUE, you may be overlooking something important which needs further study.

Or I hope you are not suggesting we just cross our fingers, forget about it, and hope these were all just "high school level errors"?

Here is another factor to consider that I think many are overlooking: our steadily increasing RF-exposure may be altering the growth rate and antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria and other microorganisms.

I don't think many are considering this possibility, and I don't like what I find. It seems RF-radiation, even at non-thermal exposure levels, is able to both alter the growth rate and antibiotic interaction of microorganisms.

"Extremely High Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation Enforces Bacterial Effects of Inhibitors and Antibiotics":

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51408122_Extremely_...

"Evaluation of the Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Router and Mobile Phone Simulator on the Antibacterial Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298474/

"Effect of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on physiological features of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain UCM Y-517":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456218

"Preliminary results on the non-thermal effects of 200-350 GHz radiation on the growth rate of S. cerevisiae cells in microcolonies":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12452574

Yes it's true. Unfortunately I cannot edit my comment any more. I do apologize, as it seems I actually misinterpreted your comment.

You can erase all references to your professor and swimwear tower climbing from the text. Hats off to him! And again, sorry for the mistake.

> that dogs align themselves to earth's magnetic field when pooping.

Well actually that seems like relevant information for this topic, because if that is true it means that dogs can sense magnetic fields. And as we know RF waves are composed of both an electric and magnetic component.

So this guy might actually know something that the rest of us do not know. If dogs can sense magnetic fields, it means electromagnetic radiation could have an unknown impact on their sense of direction. Sounds important to me.

Here's another guy that seems to know what he is talking about.

Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Seems like someone you might want to listen to, especially since he has participated in several studies on this subject:

https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-work-of-olle-johansso...

You can also find his talks on the subject on Youtube, which I suggest people watch. They are very easy to listen to, and provides a good introduction to these topics.

Then we have this guy:

Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada

He was commissioned by the electrical power companies to actually invent the RF dosimeter in 1991, that many use now to gauge exposure levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1930308

I'd certainly want to know what he has to say. Let's look at some of the rest:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=H%C3%A9roux%20P%5B...

Several publications relating EMF exposure. I think we want to know what he has to say also.

So perhaps you should not have give up so easily, and continued to look a little further instead. We want to look for the people who have the expertise in this field, and listen to what they have to say.

To finish off, I'd like to know where are the scientists that have studied this subject as extensively as someone like Heroux or Johansson, and are willing to sign their names on a pledge of microwave safety for all of humanity. I haven't seen such a list.

"The 5G recommendation for global irradiation. Go ahead, we take responsibility for full irradiation." In fact there is no such recommendation, as both insurance companies and even the cellular manufacturers are increasingly distancing themselves from liability.

That's what I call a clue.

Have a look at section 2.4 of this document:

https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09...

Some excerpts:

"Panagopoulos et al. [99] exposed fruit flies (D. melanogaster) to radiation from a mobile phone (900 MHz) during the 2–5 first days of adulthood. The reproductive capacity of the species reduced by 50–60% in modulated radiation conditions."

"The authors concluded that radio frequencies, specifically GSM, are highly bioactive and provoke significant changes in physiological functions of living organisms."

The paper references over 100 studies in total on the subject of biological RF effects.

> Professor also admonished us that such technicians must always be infinitely certain that the transmitter is not operational at the time of service.

It's a good thing your professor is not a tower technician. No self respecting technician climbs up a tower without knowing his potential exposure.

There is a reason both the US FCC and EU ICNIRP have guidelines for human exposure, and if you are a tower technician you wear a personal RF densitometer to ensure you are not exposed above these levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor

"Electromagnetic field densitometers, as used in the cellular phone industry, are referred as "personal RF safety monitors", personal protection monitors (PPM) or RF exposimeters.[1] They form part of the personal protective equipment worn by a person working in areas exposed to radio spectrum radiation."

And even with a densitometer, when working on high-powered live equipment, you also wear a protective suit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Nardaler...

I hope you forward this information to your professor. Industrial RF radiation is not something you want to play around with.

Here's a study that looked at microwave absorption in insects at different frequencies (picture):

https://media.springernature.com/lw900/springer-static/image...

"All insects showed a general increase in absorbed RF power at and above 6 GHz, in comparison to the absorbed RF power below 6 GHz. Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3

It doesn't seem like pseudoscience to me either. In fact it looks to me like more real science needs be done on this subject, to figure out if there is a real danger or not.

Light is 400,000 GHz to 800,000 GHz and has always existed on this earth. Man-made pulsed microwaves are 300 MHz to 600 GHz, and have never existed on this planet before.

Both from a physics standpoint, as well as from a biological standpoint, they are not the same thing.

Both are biologically active, but for one of them we have adapted (Vitamin D production and photosynthesis, for example), for the other we have not.

From another perspective; the FCC limit for for microwave radiation is 10^18 times higher than natural background. That's a difference of a quintillion times.

Backround levels (green), compared to current exposure: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt2NMoJU4AE2oYY.jpg

Therefore you can't really compare visible light exposure with microwave exposure. One has existed on the planet for billions of years, the other is completely artificial and man-made, and unlike visible light it penetrates tissues through the whole body, and there is no adaptation.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

When you extract temporal and frontal lobe glioblastoma from the rest of brain tumor numbers you get a graph like this:

https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/de-vocht-respo...

Not saying it's a direct correlation, this is a very difficult topic to analyze, but if you are a heavy phone user you take your chances. Cancer has a long latency period, so you may die of other causes before the damage is realized.

Personally I think other more immediate non-thermal effects of pulsed RF are of more concern than cancer at the moment. This may change, but that's what the current research seems to point towards.

I've been following this debate for a long time, and it's definitely not settled science.

In fact The Lancet just published this article:

"Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

There is plenty of evidence of non-thermal and non-ionizing biological effects [1]. The problem is at the moment most people are focused on cancer, when in fact there are a lot of other published effects that need to be looked into.

ICNIRP and FCC are both focused solely on thermal effects, with human modeling as a blob of jelly, when the latest science shows there also exists non-thermal effects on a cellular and bio-molecular level.

[1] An example of 500 published papers on EMR (electromagnetic radiation) since August 2016: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/04/recent-research.html

Very interesting story. Thanks for this. I've had good success with DMSA myself, it was almost immediate relief when I started, but never got to this dumping stage as you describe, and now it feels like the progress has plateaued. Perhaps this is a similar situation.

I think I actually inhaled lead paint, which caused my particular problems. Sanding old furniture without a mask, not a good idea at all. Many many years ago. Young, and had no clue what I was doing :-/

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping with more details about your protocol? If so can you e-mail me at [email protected]. Thanks a lot.

You mean the people at the World Health Organization are crackpots? Microwave radiation is classified as a Class 2B carcinogen by WHO.

Here's 67 studies on the biological effects of microwaves, ranked by transmission power:

https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

All of them crackpots?

Here's a study of EM fields on neonatal babies:

"Electrical Grounding Improves Vagal Tone in Preterm Infants"

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/475744

There was also an article written on this publication:

https://www.futurity.org/grounding-nicu-babies-1507412/

I guess the babies were not informed of your crackpot theory?

Here's a website with a database of 26,819 publications on the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology, including human and animal studies:

https://www.emf-portal.org/en

More crackpots, I assume?

We have constantly accumulating evidence that EM radiation in fact IS harmful. The biggest reason the public is not aware of this, is simply because the wireless industry is making too much money from this technology.

The wireless industry employ some of the biggest lobbying groups in the world. With the amount of funds and leverage available to them, it becomes easier to influence legislation and decision makers.

That's all there is to it. No conspiracy, no crackpots. It's simply business

This is a good point.

This was known before the advent of cell phones by radar operators as radar sickness. The army has known about these problems for a long time.

You can read here an excerpt from 1973 from the WHO symposium in Warsaw on electromagnetic radiation. The Russians had studied this phenomenon for 20 years prior, and the conclusion is in the symposium papers:

https://twitter.com/ChronicExposure/status/10057668842167255...

> Electromagnetic hypersensitivity theory has no scientific basis and double blind studies show that the symptoms are not dependent on electromagnetic field.

Of course it has scientific basis. The scientific basis is that electromagnetic fields alter biological processes, thereby it is possible to produce effects in both animals and humans.

And if you deny that electromagnetic fields can alter biological processes, then you really completely deny science.

In addition, EHS is really a poor choice as a descriptive term for these symptoms. It is no different than saying that when someone punches you repeatedly, you develop human fist hypersensitivity.

It is a misunderstanding that people who suffer from EHS could somehow sense microwave radiation directly. This is impossible, because humans have no direct sensing apparatus for this type of radiation.

What happens is that they feel the secondary effects of the disruption in their biology. For example a change or disruption in the ATP production of the cell can lead to many secondary effects, as can can the effects on cell wall permeability, just as two examples.

Trying to do provocation tests on human subjects, only really shows a misunderstanding of what is happening.

Here are the websites:

https://www.5gappeal.eu/

https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/

I'm just curious what your own scientific credentials are, to be able to label other scientists in this field as crackpots?

In case you aren't aware, and it seems you are not, there is a mountain of research and evidence on the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology.

Or are you going to dismiss 26,813 publications and all of their writers as crackpots?

https://www.emf-portal.org/en