Maker Pro
Maker Pro

On the harmfulness of microwaves

  • Thread starter Rene Tschaggelar
  • Start date
D

dalai lamah

Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:
Fortunately most of them do not have any significant harmful effects.

Even if chemical A and chemical B are harmless if taken alone, this doesn't
prove that chemical A+B will be harmless.
And new chemicals are screened extensively before they are allowed out
of the lab. Sometimes they miss dangerous side effects like with
Thalidomide, and I have my suspicions about some artificial sweeteners
like cyclamates and most recently sucralose. But tests suggest that
they are OK in moderation

Food additives tests are done just like drug tests: by giving to animals or
persons (depending on the trial stage) extreme dosages of a single
chemical, and studying the effects. As far as I know, there isn't any real
effort in finding possible new interactions with others chemicals (apart
those already known in literature).
Do you have any idea about the number of distinct chemicals in a
decent bottle of wine?

I mean the chemicals that you artificially put into food, from the field to
the factory. Actually the wine is a very good example of this; grapes are
one of the cultures most abused with pesticides, and several of them are
already classified as mutagenic or toxic. Even if we take the leap of faith
to believe that a carcinogenic chemical is almost harmless at a
concentration lower than X (...), the problem of interactions between
chemicals still stands, even at very small amounts.

This is a biased source, but it contains several interesting informations
(all the site does, actually):

http://www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Briefings/Message_in_a_Bottle.pdf

If wines were subjected to the same limitations used for water, they would
be all rejected. I don't know if laugh or stop drinking wine.
Natural does not equal safe.

Of course not. Who have you taken me for, some kind of hippie? :)

I'm not one of those nutjobs/luddites/whatever that blame the tecnology for
each one of their miseries, "chemicals are bad, let's ban them all and go
live on trees!". IMHO chemical industry is the second great technological
advance of our era, right after microelectronics. But just like we can't be
scared of each technological improvement, we can't embrace it blindfolded
either.
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Martin said:
And one of the main applications is to soften the plastic containers
that fast food and cook chill microwavable junk food is served in.
Fatty foods can leach the plasticiser when hot. A sedentary lifestyle
combined with a fat rich junk food diet almost certainly plays its
part in the demise of Western fertility.

But it's not just in the West.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

Don Klipstein

In said:
And one of the main applications is to soften the plastic containers
that fast food and cook chill microwavable junk food is served in.

Though most of those ar not softened by plasticizers.

The few that are are detectably softer/more-flexible than usual of
plastic items with same number within the recycling symbol. Although
polycarbonate (whatever recycling number that has? 6? 7? ) is suspect,
but not used much for food containers other than baby bottles.
Fatty foods can leach the plasticiser when hot. A sedentary lifestyle
combined with a fat rich junk food diet almost certainly plays its
part in the demise of Western fertility.

Western society appears to me to have too many people dying too young
and otherwise aging too poorly with big ticket medical bills due to
sedentary lifestyle and bad diet (eating excessive calories and/or
insufficient veggies, though high intake of animal and/or tropical fats
and/or worse-still hydrogenated-anything [especially if partially] is a
*Bad Thing*!).
I would prefer not to smoke an unnecessary 1/2 cigarette per day. YMMV

I do not smoke those or other tobacco products or other inhaled
recreational drugs at all. I also do not use any nicotine products in any
form.
I am bad enough with caffeine. :)
Don't be too sure of that. The really nasty ones are those that only
hit a small fraction of the population a very long time after first
exposure. One such really bad example in the dyestuffs industry was
beta-naphthylamine in the 1960's. Some guys shovelled it around for
years without harm others visited the site once and died later.

I still expect that one and at least 100, probaly thousands of others,
to affect me less than 1 beer per week.
You do have to worry a bit about the high incidence of certain
illnesses in the orchard areas of Belgium for instance.

Can you tell me what the illness specific to there is, preferably with
what it is to be blamed by?
And you don't have to look that far for modern food adulteration like
the milk with melamine to fake the protein content in China last year. It
also made it into US pet food killing a fair few pets by kidney
stone/renal failure.

That one is a specific small range of problems from a specific chemical
well-known to be poisonous, used by outlaws to achieve higher protein
scoring by common cheap tests that don't discern melamine from protein.

The offenders have forced American suppliers of impacted foodstuffs to
tighten their monitoring of low-bid imports from China, in order to avoid
business failures that such scandal (which actually did occur) can lead
to.

It appears to me that a few of the worse offenders in China for that
case had to take in bullets fired into the lower-rear of their heads.

Quick read tells me related to melamine.
Same for various dodgy toxic azo dyes that turn up in Indian spices
with monotonous regularity.

I would not trade my entire consumption of food dyes azo or otherwise
for 1/2 of 1 cigarette per day.
The flip side of this is that some additives are very important to
ensure food safety. Use the wrong pH for things like herbs stored in
oil and you can end up dying of botulism. And Organic(TM) peanut
butter stored incorrectly is capable of harbouring and very likely
already growing fungi that create extremely nasty aflotoxins. The
preservative(s) are a much lesser evil than the entirely natural
deadly poison.

If you already smoke 40 a day then it doesn't alter your life
expectancy by much.
But what about non-smokers?


We may well live to regret the fashion for obsessively hygenic worktop
surfaces and wipes with bactericides that leach out. The technology is
clever, but the benefits pander to the super clean modern life with an
unchallenged immune system in infants. Autoimmune diseases are on the
increase. Adding trace soya bean and peanut proteins to almost all
processed food also appears to have created a huge increase in
allergies to peanuts and other nuts.

And I really love the bakery now with such insanities as "Walnut Cake"
and "Peanut Brittle" that "may contain nuts".

So are the peanut allergies increasing as a result of trying to make
Western society "more-peanut-safe"? Or are those increasing as a result
of increased detection and reduced embarassment-to-have-been-detected as
having peanut allergy or autism or homosexuality or
partially-hermaphrodyte reproduction equipment dimensions?
DDT is amazingly safe to mammals considering its potency as a
insecticide. Unless you are an avian raptor it isn't really much of a
problem it just accumulates in your fatty tissue (and poisons any egg
laying birds that eat you).

I do remember well that DDT was especially bad for avian raptors -
notably including "bald eagles". USA has a particular liking for that
specific species of bird!
Even for the dioxins that always get a very bad press some are much
more deadly than others (and the polychlorinated biphenol transformer
oils that they are impurities in are much more of an acute threat).
Typically most victims end up with a bad case of chloracne. I lived in
Belgium during their dioxins in eggs & poultry scandal. Barely noticed
it apart from all the gaps in the supermarket shelves as we had our
own chickens. But it was obscene the way their government hid the
information from the general population until eventually a
whistleblower broke the story. These sorts of incidents do colour how
mainland Europe looks at food and farming.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/belg-j08.shtml

An entire population around Seveso in Italy was exposed to a massive
dose of dioxins when the local chemical plant exploded. Again it
didn't help that they failed to warn or evacuate the population in a
timely manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster

Thanks for that link.

It appears to me that those having dioxin and/or other organochlorine
exposure at least 1-2 orders of magnitude less have little to fear.
Regards, Martin Brown

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
D

Don Klipstein

Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:


Even if chemical A and chemical B are harmless if taken alone, this doesn't
prove that chemical A+B will be harmless.

Can't prove a negative!

Meanwhile, most of the ill effects increasing in western society in
recent decades I blame highly on overeating, sedentary lifestyle,
undereating veggies, excessive alcohol consumption, sunbathing, criminal
lifestyle, radon in post-mid-1970's-more-airtight homes, aggressive
driving, and fight-rather-than-flight when presented with barroom brawls
or domestic abuse situations. Next after that - probably promiscuity.

Despite the above and 1/3 of a bazillion chemicals and modern radiation
hazards, members of "western" societies have their life expectancies
increasing.

Despite the above including chemicals and radiation as well as in
addition abortion and increased acceptance of non-reproductive lifestyles
(such as homosexual couples and heterosexual couples using
contraceptives), the human population still manages to increase.

<I snip from there including a reference to the infamous thalidomide
that I thought got banned around 40-45 years ago after single-digit years
of usage>

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
M

Martin Brown

  Though most of those ar not softened by plasticizers.

Yes. Although home freezer containers do tend to be softened.
but not used much for food containers other than baby bottles.

That is a fairly important case though.
Fatty foods can leach the plasticiser when hot. A sedentary lifestyle
combined with a fat rich junk food diet almost certainly plays its
part in the demise of Western fertility.

  Western society appears to me to have too many people dying too young
and otherwise aging too poorly with big ticket medical bills due to
sedentary lifestyle and bad diet (eating excessive calories and/or
insufficient veggies, though high intake of animal and/or tropical fats
and/or worse-still hydrogenated-anything [especially if partially] is a
*Bad Thing*!).

Dunno what can be done about it though. Some people are determined to
eat badly and excercise not at all.

[snip]
  I still expect that one and at least 100, probaly thousands of others,
to affect me less than 1 beer per week.

If you are male then the odds would not be good. It eventually caused
bladder cancer in a high proportion of the men exposed to it (and was
considered so bad that all industrial processes using it were
abandonned). The symptoms were so distinctive that cases were traced
back to the plant (or other exposure).
  Can you tell me what the illness specific to there is, preferably with
what it is to be blamed by?

Thought to be due to spraying of pesticides affecting workers and
drifting onto domestic premises and school playgrounds. I don't recall
the full details (it would be mostly reported in French speaking
Belgian press).
  I would not trade my entire consumption of food dyes azo or otherwise
for 1/2 of 1 cigarette per day.

Again there are some (cheap) azo dyes that you really do not want to
eat. The approved ones for food colouring have a reputation for
causing hyperactivity these days but I am not sure if it is the dye or
the other ingredients of the soft drinks. The brominated oils that go
into some of soft drinks are not something I would want to consume
either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_vegetable_oil
  So are the peanut allergies increasing as a result of trying to make
Western society "more-peanut-safe"?  Or are those increasing as a result
of increased detection and reduced embarassment-to-have-been-detected as
having peanut allergy or autism or homosexuality or
partially-hermaphrodyte reproduction equipment dimensions?

I am fairly convinced that the rising Western peanut allergy is self
inflicted. Societies that live on significant quantities of peanuts in
their diet do not have the same problem. The conjecture is that by
adding peanut and soya proteins to flour and thence to processed foods
a low level of exposure primes the immune system of young children
against it.
  I do remember well that DDT was especially bad for avian raptors -
notably including "bald eagles".  USA has a particular liking for that
specific species of bird!

Understandably. I saw one once on a tree in the grounds of the Scripps
Institute. Very impressive but it flew off before I could get my
camera.
  Thanks for that link.

  It appears to me that those having dioxin and/or other organochlorine
exposure at least 1-2 orders of magnitude less have little to fear.

The dose makes the poison. But also so does the structure. There are a
handful of dioxins that really are extremely nasty carcinogens whereas
the rest are just very unpleasant. PCBs (transformer oils) are nasty
but useful. You don't really want to ingest organochlorines
unecessarily. That said I have lived in a semitropical country where
the tapwater often smelled of chloroalkanes (a trade off for killing
the sewage content in the water).

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:



Even if chemical A and chemical B are harmless if taken alone, this doesn't
prove that chemical A+B will be harmless.

You can never prove a negative.
You can only observe if there are any unforseen consequences when A+B
are used together.

There are just too many permutations to test them all. One typical
scenario is where people are self medicating with some random health
food shop plant extract and taking a conventional prescibed medicine.
Either on its own would be OK but both together and the kidneys give
up the ghost. But in most of these cases neither A nor B is totally
harmless - just tolerated without permanent damage at the dose level
used.

I can think offhand of a few very simple combinations of A and B that
would get you into serious trouble. Again neither of A or B are
entirely harmless on their own but reacting them together is extremely
bad.
Food additives tests are done just like drug tests: by giving to animals or
persons (depending on the trial stage) extreme dosages of a single
chemical, and studying the effects. As far as I know, there isn't any real
effort in finding possible new interactions with others chemicals (apart
those already known in literature).

It is done by watching out for side effects.
I mean the chemicals that you artificially put into food, from the field to
the factory. Actually the wine is a very good example of this; grapes are
one of the cultures most abused with pesticides, and several of them are
already classified as mutagenic or toxic. Even if we take the leap of faith
to believe that a carcinogenic chemical is almost harmless at a
concentration lower than X (...), the problem of interactions between
chemicals still stands, even at very small amounts.

This is a biased source, but it contains several interesting informations
(all the site does, actually):

http://www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Briefings/Message_in_a_Bottle.pdf

If wines were subjected to the same limitations used for water, they would
be all rejected. I don't know if laugh or stop drinking wine.

I think they are exaggerating. Hard to tell without knowing what
analytical technique they used to identify and quantify the pesticides
in the wine. I am surprised they didn't find any ethylene glycol ;-)
Of course not. Who have you taken me for, some kind of hippie? :)

I get a bit fed up with the "ban all chemicals brigade". The website
you quoted is an example. I favour minimum inputs farming where the
pesticides are used as needed - I do not approve of hairshirt
overpriced Organic(TM) produce that panders to the irrational fears of
the worried well.

UK has a serious measles problem because of a falsely claimed autism
link to the MMR vaccine. Herd immunity was broken in some areas and
the children now pay the price by catching the real diseases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7633399.stm
I'm not one of those nutjobs/luddites/whatever that blame the tecnology for
each one of their miseries, "chemicals are bad, let's ban them all and go
live on trees!". IMHO chemical industry is the second great technological
advance of our era, right after microelectronics. But just like we can't be
scared of each technological improvement, we can't embrace it blindfolded
either.

Cleanroom work seems to engender certain health risks too. Never clear
to me why.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
R

Rich Grise

I'm having a continuous argument with a colleague of mine about the harm
of microwaves. While he considers them harmful at any level, I tend to be
caring less when the level is below -10dBm. We're talking about
frequencies between 10 and 40GHz. I don't have a problem to have the coax
to waveguide coupler open (and operational at -10dBm) while mounting gear
at the network analyzer. Beside that a part of the -10dBm is reflected, I
consider such little power is not harmful on the basis that sunlight
coming with a density of 1kW/m^2 making 1mW/mm^2 is still orders of
magnitude stronger than these -10dBm distributes over a radian or so. And
we can stand the sunlight occasionally over shorter periods of time
unharmed.

How do you guys regard that subject ? Strictly no exposure at no level at
all ?
When I was in the USAF, one of the systems I worked on "ECM Pods" - a self-
contained jamming transmitter that sticks to one of the airplane pylons.

When we finished one and buttoned it up, we used to check if it was
radiating with our hand - if it feels warm, the pod is transmitting.

This was at levels over 100 watts.

The adverse effect of "microwaves" is heating, and not much more. I'd
watch my eyes, though. (they don't like to be heated much).

I've heard about megawatt radar sites, where the antenna techs would
carry along a little ball of steel wool. To verify that they system
was off and safe, they'd throw the steel wool ball in front of the
antenna. If the steel wool didn't burn, it was safe to work on the
antenna. :)

Have Fun!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

What if the signal is OOK'ed at 3 or 5 pps, and gets rectified ionically
in the brain, and the modulating signal is picked up at very low levels
across billions of neurons, and triggers a seizure? Not saying it could
happen, but...

Then you're going to die. Since you can't escape them, you might as well
just give up. ;-p

Have Fun!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

True, but its another cumulative risk factor. And it seems that cumulative
risk factors might already be showing epidemiologically in everything from
asthma and allergies increasing, to the phenomenal rise of autism to sperm
counts in men decreasing by 60% in 50 years.

Epidemiologists are idiots.

Thanks,
Rich
 
G

GregS

When I was in the USAF, one of the systems I worked on "ECM Pods" - a self-
contained jamming transmitter that sticks to one of the airplane pylons.

When we finished one and buttoned it up, we used to check if it was
radiating with our hand - if it feels warm, the pod is transmitting.

This was at levels over 100 watts.

The adverse effect of "microwaves" is heating, and not much more. I'd
watch my eyes, though. (they don't like to be heated much).

I've heard about megawatt radar sites, where the antenna techs would
carry along a little ball of steel wool. To verify that they system
was off and safe, they'd throw the steel wool ball in front of the
antenna. If the steel wool didn't burn, it was safe to work on the
antenna. :)


When I was in the Army we used to check the 440 mHz transmitter by touching the antenna
too. I got tired of that trick and made up a detector with part of an airplane fin, a rod and
some kind of lamp. Just to make sure the antenna was radiating and had good coax
connections. That could not insure the transmitter was tunned to the right
frequency, but it helped. When we shot off a drone aircraft it would keep flying
if everythibg was OK. If not the chute would come out and cut the engine.
Seems like the transmitter had around 100 watts. All about my RCAT life....
http://zekfrivolous.com/rcat/rcat.pdf

greg
 
G

GregS

When I was in the Army we used to check the 440 mHz transmitter by touching the
antenna
too. I got tired of that trick and made up a detector with part of an airplane
fin, a rod and
some kind of lamp. Just to make sure the antenna was radiating and had good
coax
connections. That could not insure the transmitter was tunned to the right
frequency, but it helped. When we shot off a drone aircraft it would keep
flying
if everythibg was OK. If not the chute would come out and cut the engine.
Seems like the transmitter had around 100 watts. All about my RCAT life....
http://zekfrivolous.com/rcat/rcat.pdf


It didn't seem that long ago, the first and only cruise I went on was a small
FUN ship in 1986. I thought I would cruise up to the radio room one evening and check it out.
Well I have a 2nd class radiotelegraph license.
I was suprised buy an old style station. really, a guy was using a straight key sending
morse code. I look up the wall where the antenna feedline was and there was a light bulb
in tune with the morse. I went back to crusin.

greg
 
R

Rich Grise

There are actually two parts of the human body that have a poor ability to
shed microwave-induced heat. The other body part is only found on males.

The thought had crossed our minds, but we never got that close. On the
other hand, it'd be a cheap substitute for a vasectomy if you're done
breeding, or if you're childfree by choice. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
D

dalai lamah

Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:
You can never prove a negative.

Of course you can, if you have a finite set of parameters. When the
parameters are too much, you have two ways:

1) Make some sensible assumptions to preventively rule out most of them,
then use statistics to confirm your assumptions (the so called "null
hypotesis tests").

2) Improve analysis techniques (either by brute force - e.g. computerized
simulation models - or not), so that you can make less arbitrary
assumptions. Even if we can't test everything, it doesn't mean that there
is no point in testing more.

The way (1) is widely used, but it has several practical and
epistemiological (I hope that the english spelling is correct :)) limits.
If the assumptions are wrong, it is very likely that the results will be
contradictory or useless.

A silly example (but not too much): the use of the helmet when riding the
bike. There are several studies that demonstrate that the helmet is
credited for a significant reduction of bike injuries; there are several
other studies that demonstrate that it hasn't any effect above statistical
significance. These studies have been mostly conducted by universities and
important organizations; how come that their results are opposite?
You can only observe if there are any unforseen consequences when A+B
are used together.

In the same way, one can't predict that he won't have an accident the next
time he drives. But this doesn't mean that it's useless to improve your
driving skills, to use the seatbelts (by the way, some studies deny also
their effectiveness), etc. The unforeseen can't be ruled out, but it can be
made less influent.
I think they are exaggerating. Hard to tell without knowing what
analytical technique they used to identify and quantify the pesticides
in the wine.

What do you mean? They have just sent some wine samples to commercial (and
independent, I presume) laboratories, and asked to test them against the
most common pesticides. How can it could have been more straightforward?

I know, you can lie also with good data and good statistics if you want to,
but still...
I get a bit fed up with the "ban all chemicals brigade".

I frequently make jokes on them. :)

In some italian health-themed newsgroups there was (or still is, I don't
follow them anymore) a legendary netkook that supported almost every
"natural" cure and conspiracy theory involving chemicals, from the most
popular (SLS, mercury into vaccines, etc) to the most disturbing (urine
therapy, curing cancer with sodium bicarbonate, etc). Well, years ago some
clever group participants make him believe that there was this deadly
chemical, present in huge amounts in food, air and rivers (even in
Antarctica, below kilometers of ice!). Easily absorbed by human body, it
could kill a man (or even an elephant!) in few minutes: the dreadful
"dihydrogen monoxide"! He took the bait and wrote a concerned article on
its site, with some expert proposals on how eliminate this horrible
substance from your body by using natural medicine.

This prank has become a legend. :)
 
M

Martin Brown

Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:



Of course you can, if you have a finite set of parameters. When the
parameters are too much, you have two ways:

1) Make some sensible assumptions to preventively rule out most of them,
then use statistics to confirm your assumptions (the so called "null
hypotesis tests").

2) Improve analysis techniques (either by brute force - e.g. computerized
simulation models - or not), so that you can make less arbitrary
assumptions. Even if we can't test everything, it doesn't mean that there
is no point in testing more.

It is worth looking closely at any that might be expected to be
tricky. But you cannot realistically hope to prove that for every
possible permutation of even a three component mixture that there is
not one dangerous one.

Famously there was an A level school science experiment on eutectic
mixtures that had such a sting in the tail. It actually required an
odd sequence of events to trigger including leaving the mixtures over
a weekend in sunlight but eventually it happened and one mix exploded
after an organic peroxide formed.
A silly example (but not too much): the use of the helmet when riding the
bike. There are several studies that demonstrate that the helmet is
credited for a significant reduction of bike injuries; there are several
other studies that demonstrate that it hasn't any effect above statistical
significance. These studies have been mostly conducted by universities and
important organizations; how come that their results are opposite?

Usually one lot a sponsored by the freedom to be stupid brigade and
the other by manufacturers of safety helmets. It is even more bizarre
for seatbelts. I would charge anyone injured through not wearing a
seatbelt for any cosmetic surgery needed because of their own
stupidity. Freedom to act stupidly comes at a price. I would also
reduce the explosive charge in US airbags to be sub-lethal for small
women and teenage drivers.
In the same way, one can't predict that he won't have an accident the next
time he drives. But this doesn't mean that it's useless to improve your
driving skills, to use the seatbelts (by the way, some studies deny also
their effectiveness), etc. The unforeseen can't be ruled out, but it can be
made less influent.

The ones that claim seatbelts don't help are definitely in the lunatic
fringe. Rally or racing car 4 or 5 point restraint harness would be
better still. You can contrive a situation where they are damaging but
compared to the horrific injuries people incur when unrestrainted
limbs go out through car windows as the car rolls or someones head
goes through a laminated windscreen and is garotted on the recoil. The
latter happened at the end of my road - very messy.

I was an unrestrained back seat passenger in a serious car smash once.
Now I always wear a seatbelt. The driver wearing his seatbelt
incorrectly suffered internal bleeding, but the front passenger
wearing a seatbelt correctly went on to have lunch.

I doubt if Ronaldo would have walked away from his wrecked Ferrari
yesterday had he not been wearing a seatbelt.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article5474171.ece
What do you mean? They have just sent some wine samples to commercial (and
independent, I presume) laboratories, and asked to test them against the
most common pesticides. How can it could have been more straightforward?

It isn't that easy to do ultra trace organic chemical analysis in
complex matrices like wine and they have an incentive to report any
false positives as true detections. Without knowing the methodology
employed it is hard to decide whether their claims are genuine or
simply a reflection of systematic failures in the analysis procedure.
The most sensitive ultratrace methods are at best semiquantitative and
you need to know the instrument detection limit for the method(s)
used.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
D

Don Klipstein

The thought had crossed our minds, but we never got that close. On the
other hand, it'd be a cheap substitute for a vasectomy if you're done
breeding, or if you're childfree by choice. ;-)

Though destroying those glands may cause some impairment to males
participating in activities that they and/or their partners may desire
and desire to be not prone to generating children.

Then again, back in a time when there were castrato male singers,
supposedly there were some ladies desiring those - such men had to work
harder to "climax" and got their ladies farther along the way with more
time having a vigorous good time than "entire men" did. Though a castrato
supposedly required physical stimulation to manage a "stiffie".

Meanwhile, I suspect permanent complete impairment of sperm production
by microwaves would be extremely painful.

The lenses of the eyes, on the other hand, lack pain receptors (and
nerveendings of all kinds including ones for temperature sensation) and
also lack blood vessels. Those things can overheat awfully easily from
multiple milliwatts per square centimeter of microwave/RF and first
indication that you are cooking those things could be vision getting
foggier-permanently. And effects may be delayed a bit (hours?) and can
easily be more severe with seeing conditions more revealing of the damage
than those of when the damage was done. (Fogging parts of the/any light
path portion of your eyeballs shows up a lot worse when you are driving at
night!)

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
J

JosephKK

I'm having a continuous argument with a colleague of mine about the harm
of microwaves. While he considers them harmful at any level, I tend to
be caring less when the level is below -10dBm. We're talking about
frequencies between 10 and 40GHz. I don't have a problem to have the
coax to waveguide coupler open (and operational at -10dBm) while
mounting gear at the network analyzer. Beside that a part of the -10dBm
is reflected, I consider such little power is not harmful on the basis
that sunlight coming with a density of 1kW/m^2 making 1mW/mm^2 is still
orders of magnitude stronger than these -10dBm distributes over a
radian or so. And we can stand the sunlight occasionally over shorter
periods of time unharmed.

How do you guys regard that subject ? Strictly no exposure at no level
at all ?

{BTW. I'm aware of the so called microwave solders in WW2}

Rene

The exposure does not bother me in the least. The potential damage to
the (possibly very complex) signal generators does. I have read some
quality work about microwave exposure biophysics, that does not make
me an expert though.
 
J

JosephKK

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:09:22 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html
http://tinyurl.com/68n8km

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report
yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising
males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals,
including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves
a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being
disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for
ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new
European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have
"gender-bending" effects.

It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows
that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in
pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.

"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says
Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of
chemicals, who wrote the report.

Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals
in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per
cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper
safety information on 85 per cent of them.

Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" – or gender-benders
– because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used
in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications;
flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned
group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and
many pesticides.

The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than
250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on
wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of
the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in
the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.

It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of
vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and
mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a
widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone
receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore,
observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of
concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are
immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in
not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among
the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be
developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have
been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely
from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage
treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of
sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising
man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a
host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in
Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay
in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

Research at the University of Florida earlier this year found that 40
per cent of the male cane toads – a species so indestructible that it
has become a plague in Australia – had become hermaphrodites in a
heavily farmed part of the state, with another 20 per cent undergoing
lesser feminisation. A similar link between farming and sex changes in
northern leopard frogs has been revealed by Canadian research, adding to
suspicions that pesticides may be to blame.

Male alligators exposed to pesticides in Florida have suffered from
lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels, abnormal testes, smaller
penises and reproductive failures. Male snapping turtles have been found
with female characteristics in the same state and around the Great
Lakes, where wildlife has been found to be contaminated with more than
400 different chemicals. Male herring gulls and peregrine falcons have
produced the female protein used to make egg yolks, while bald eagles
have had difficulty reproducing in areas highly contaminated with chemicals.

Scientists at Cardiff University have found that the brains of male
starlings who ate worms contaminated by female hormones at a sewage
works in south-west England were subtly changed so that they sang at
greater length and with increased virtuosity.

Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be
widely affected.

Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to
have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same
proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have
genital abnormalities.

In South Africa, eland have been revealed to have damaged testicles
while being contaminated by high levels of gender-bender chemicals, and
striped mice from one polluted nature reserved were discovered to be
producing no sperm at all.

At the other end of the world, hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises
and vaginas – have been discovered and gender-benders have been found to
reduce sperm counts and penis lengths in those that remained male. Many
of the small, endangered populations of Florida panthers have been found
to have abnormal sperm.

Other research has revealed otters from polluted areas with smaller
testicles and mink exposed to PCBs with shorter penises. Beluga whales
in Canada's St Lawrence estuary and killer whales off its north-west
coast – two of the wildlife populations most contaminated by PCBs – are
reproducing poorly, as are exposed porpoises, seals and dolphins.

Scientists warned yesterday that the mass of evidence added up to a
grave warning for both wildlife and humans. Professor Charles Tyler, an
expert on endocrine disrupters at the University of Exeter, says that
the evidence in the report "set off alarm bells". Whole wildlife
populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be
reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at
risk from hazards such as global warming.

Dr Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, one of
the world's foremost authorities on gender-bender chemicals, added: "We
have thrown 100, 000 chemicals against a finely balanced hormone system,
so it's not surprising that we are seeing some serious results. It is
leading to the most rapid pace of evolution in the history of the world.

Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected
academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag"
at humanity. He said: "If we are seeing problems in wildlife, we can be
concerned that something similar is happening to a proportion of human
males"

Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state
shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were
more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also
had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign
of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed
that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play
with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and
Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer
a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide.
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is
slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys
have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20
countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per
millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce
nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of
Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling
evidence for effects in humans".

Wow, i haven't had that good of a laugh in a long time. That is even
more junk "science" than AGW.

What do i have to do to become hermaphrodite like the polar bears that
you mention twice?
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

JosephKK said:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:09:22 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax



Wow, i haven't had that good of a laugh in a long time. That is even
more junk "science" than AGW.

What do i have to do to become hermaphrodite like the polar bears that
you mention twice?

Keep drinking water contaminated with oestrogenic chemicals.
Try a higher concentration like people in cities whose water is taken
from rivers polluted with treated sewage (the pill from women's urine
still being measurably present)

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
Top