Is Autism a direct result of wireless microwave EMF emissions acting upon the brains and intestines of the anemic unborn, barbaric birthing procedures and vaccines? Is this the medical establishment with their eyes wide shut, the Autism researchers and foundations hiding up in first class and the wireless industry literally waiting in the wings staring them in the face together on a flight taking our unborn and newborn children straight into an uncertain future? Get your tickets in advance for this one folks.
Not too long ago, I put forth the following article on this very topic on this very blog: https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/
SO IS THIS WHERE THE RUBBER NOW MEETS THE ROAD?
Maybe so for now but this wheel turns awful fast. In the meantime, let’s hope all of their carbonyl iron levels are where they need to be as they all fly in circles on their flat earth.
I GUESS WE GOT THEIR ATTENTION FOR ALL IT IS WORTH.
THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE IN AMERICA TODAY IS STILL INSIDE OF A MOTHER’S WOMB. YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD KNOW BETTER OR AT LEAST WANT TO HELP.
#1 by welcome from science blog on August 17, 2013 - 10:05 pm
At the keyboard, hoping the no-preview bug doesn’t bite tonight
August 18, 2013
In the following, I use some trivial html entities: aelig (’cause I like using obsolete typography for obsolete concepts like aether and homoeopathy), sup2 for superscript2; mu for the Greek letter meaning micro; times for the times symbol; mdash for the em dash; and pi for that Greek letter. If WordPress’ bugs eat them, just put them back in where they would make sense.
—————————————————————————
Before getting to the good stuff, Ray, I’d like to ask you for a clarification of something you wrote in you introductory screed: you mentioned, more than once, the concepts of “RF radiofrequency” radiation. Since “RF” means “radio-frequency” in the field, would you explain the difference and utility of the concepts of “radio-frequency radio frequency” (as you reference) vs “non-radio-frequency radio frequency” (negating the modifier) vs “radio-frequency non radio frequency” (negating the noun). Once you do so, there may be a chance that your ‘contribution’ might be considered to make a little sense.
—————————————————————————-
#112 Ray, August 17, 2013:
Johnny – A nanowatt is an appropriate unit to used when comparing wireless radiation to background levels. Why is it that you are ignoring the fact that levels in a classroom are millions of times higher?
You, earlier, were talking nanowatts per square meter (but I’m not going to reread all your drivel above to find the reference). Now you’re talking “millions of times higher” levels than that, which amounts to milliwatts per square meter, and you’re complaining about WiFi signals.
You had earlier misstated that the multiple WiFis in a classroom are additive with respect to power. This is not correct, since each WiFi channel is half duplex: there can be no more than one active transmission at a time on any given channel. Thus, no matter how many devices are using each channel, there can be no more than one device’s RF in the’æther’ at any time, so the maximum power in the whole system is three or four times the maximum channel power (sometimes a room can use as many as four channels; usually, the limit is three.) Because of required deadtime between packets, the utilization of a channel is far less than 100%, but we can ignore that for simplicity.
I haven’t found the US limits, but the EU power limit is 100 milliwatt (mw) EIRP per device. EIRP is the radiated power integrated over the entire sphere surrounding the device. One square meter is the surface area of a sphere with a radius of (about) 282 mm, 28 cm, or ’bout 11 inches — call it a foot for simplicity.
How many square meters per student? I’m 1.8 m tall by less than .5m at my widest aspect: that makes me maybe .9m². A large high-school student might be this big. An elementary-school student might be .2 to .3 m².
How close is the average student to the radiation source? As a SWAG, I’d say 6 meters, or about 20 feet. This, again, is likely to be small, giving Ray yet another benefit of known error. The RF source is at the center of a sphere of 6m radius: the sphere’s area is about 450 m², according to my handy calculator widget, using area = 4 × π × r².
Let’s take a large kid, 70% of my height and width, thus presenting half my area, or about .45m², to the radiation. Since the radiation covers 450m², he’s getting .001 (.1%) of it. Since the max EIRP is 100 mw, he’s getting less than 100 μw.
One hundred microwatts is in the range of a few thousands of nanowatts, not millions of them — and that’s with all the errors of approximation going your way, Ray.
#2 by mom1 on August 18, 2013 - 1:31 pm
wow! You lost me at the first sentence with your Medical Establishment perspective: “obsolete concepts like . . . homoeopathy).” Doesn’t it get tiresome being part of the Establishment, not open to considering new ideas, unless they involve monetary gain from your pal, Big Pharma?
I guess your greed overtakes the boredom factor.