I disagree. There are many backyard scientists/hobbyists who do far more laborious and expensive experiments than this for free.




Can you provide a source for this study, please?

So is this the talking mode the study Sally presented here?I'd assume talking mode is when you talk and listen.

What is talk mode? A google search does not reveal an appropriate definition. Sorry, but I am completely anti-cellphone

I assumed it was that the phone was able to receive signal?!

Much love,
Sally
xx

Dear Elf Machine,

Ok then go for it.
I prefer to take my spare time to cook some AYA

And regarding this experiment:
You have to take my word for it, because I´ve performed it on my own.
I had heard about such a test and couldn´t believe it, didn´t found data about it (this was in 1994), so I did it on my own.
Borrowed this amplifier (price >25.000$, i don´t know how much exactly) from my former employer and made this measurement.

I´m deeply into science for about 30 years without having a university degree or something like that, so I´m one of these "backyard scientist", and when I´m interested in something and there isn´t the needed data around, I´m trying to perform my own tests. Nothing better than first hand information.



I haven´t read this study yet, I thought she refered to another study I´ve heared about, where the conclusion was that even that every 30 minute signal can be harmful because it is transmitted at full output power. A normal converstion by cellphone sometimes needs only 10% of that, because of a nearby cell transmitter.

Yes talking mode means that you are talking and listening to the phone, so it´s actively transmitting and recieving data. The same thing is if you are using a headset, beside that the bluetooth signal (2.4-2.48 GHz)comes in addition.


No it means, as I stated above, that you have an active connection for a phone conversation or surfing in the internet.
I don´t know if you have UMTS in the US. These phones have a 24/7 full duplex connection, means they are nearly all the time transmitting and recieving data.


I really love science but please take into account that all science works only with models of reality. Science always tries to evolve the models to get them more and more asymptoticly (don´t know if this ist the right term for it) to the real nature of everything.
Somtimes with success somtimes not.

The german philosopher Wittgenstein was once asked in a classroom situation if that, what he was talking about, is true. He answered: It is certainly true enough!

Or to quote Terence McKenna: "Where is it carved in stone that we as a kind of monkeys can entertain the notion of truth."

We simply don´t have enough data and or knowlegde to describe everything in our universe.

Garfield

A few quick questions on this topic:

1) What is the resonance frequency of our inner organs? I can't really make sense of this idea. How do organs resonate at all and what is their frequency and how do you explain this?

2) you state that RF-radiation interferes with with nerve signals somehow or at least that there is an effect. Is this really proven?

3) The experiment with the plants IMO would have to be done blind, i.e. the person administering the water would not be allowed to know which water was microwaved and which wasn't, so as not to let the bias of the administrator sort of get known by the plant. As far as I understand it plants can pick up on intentions of humans to a certain degree. If we were out to prove that microwaved water killed plants this might have an effect on the plant growth. Other factors might also be involved. So it would be best if it was not known by the person giving the water.

4) can you elaborate on how you measured your cellphone frequency from the water? did you do control measurements without the water in the cage etc? what kind of machinery did you use to measure this?

so I can see that maybe microwaves have adverse effects on cells and more complex molecules/proteins even DNA. I don't really know how severe these effects are say compared to cosmic or solar radiation that these molecules are subjected to anyway - I simply don't have the data at hand. Either way what I can't understand is why in the world microwaves would have any effect at all on water. I thought the idea of water having a memory was disproven...

the reference article I might be able to get tomorrow and attach here.
http://www.nature.com/na...0/full/nature03383.html

in the mean time this is a decent read about the whole water-memory thing.

so far the whole RF-vs-organism thing seems more like superstition to me. But what do I know...

you should know alot about it from experience...
radio waves aren't very energetic, but you already knew that.

any epilepsy yet?

yeah, and not even if I stick my head close to the magnet do funny things happen :/

But good point benz. I mean it's possible to cook say protein samples with the RF fields we irradiate with in there. Same goes for microwave irradiation. but mainly if something happens it's that the samples will just dry out from overheating and then the proteins will not be functional any more. If RF or µw radiation really had evil effects on proteins I guess my work would be completely useless since I would not be investigating *live* molecules any more, and the info on them would be useless.
I think the consensus is though that the RF and µw irradiation doesn't really harm the molecules if it's applied in moderation and doesn't boil the sample, and the functionality and structure remains the same even after days/weeks of measuring.

**shrugs**

Dear Enoon,

first to your questions:
1) What is the resonance frequency of our inner organs? I can't really make sense of this idea. How do organs resonate at all and what is their frequency and how do you explain this?

First of all every physical body and/or shape which is electrically conductive works as an antenna for elektromagnetic signals. Every transversal EM-frequency has a defined wavelength(WL), because these kind of waves are trevelling at the speed of light. (Formula: speed of light devided by frequency)
The frequecies to which the organ relates to, is defined by it´s physical size.

Regarding cellphones and microwave ovens here some examples:
800MHz (cellphone) has a WL of about 37.47 cm
1.9GHz (cellphone) ~ 15.77cm
2.4GHz (Bluetooth, UMTS, WLan) ~ 12.49cm
2.55GHz (microwave oven) = 11.76cm
To make it bit more complicated technical antennas are tuned not to the wavelength itself, but to the 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8 (and so on) of it. To explain the whys and hows here would explode the given frame.

The size of our organs simply fit perfect in that range respective the WL/2 or WL/4.
That´s simply electro physics.


2) you state that RF-radiation interferes with with nerve signals somehow or at least that there is an effect. Is this really proven?

Yes it is. I don´t have the studies at hand but they show artifical signals mixed with body signals.


3) The experiment with the plants IMO would have to be done blind, i.e. the person administering the water would not be allowed to know which water was microwaved and which wasn't, so as not to let the bias of the administrator sort of get known by the plant. As far as I understand it plants can pick up on intentions of humans to a certain degree. If we were out to prove that microwaved water killed plants this might have an effect on the plant growth. Other factors might also be involved. So it would be best if it was not known by the person giving the water.

Right.


4) can you elaborate on how you measured your cellphone frequency from the water? did you do control measurements without the water in the cage etc? what kind of machinery did you use to measure this?

First I tested the farady cage, of course. Within the frequency range of the amplifier was no disturbing signal present.
Then I puted my jar in it, oriented the antenna towards the water sample, closed the cage and started the measurement.
I can´t remember the specific type of measurement amplifier that was. It had a frequency range from 100MHz to 4.X GHz.


so I can see that maybe microwaves have adverse effects on cells and more complex molecules/proteins even DNA. I don't really know how severe these effects are say compared to cosmic or solar radiation that these molecules are subjected to anyway - I simply don't have the data at hand.

read some of the studies I´ve refered to earlier.


And yes I know that most scientists believe that there is no such thing like a memory in water. Most of them try to debunk this, using the reformation of watercluster argument. But in my opinion these clusters are the wrong place to look at. I think the memory has something to do with a Bell-like field. The same thing as in our brain, just by removing or damaging a small part of the brain we do not loose certain memories. -> The storing mechanism is a nonlocal one. As long as we don´t have sensors, machines or what so ever, which are able to show us everything on a quantum level, we will not be able to come to a final conclusion here.

I did a lot of research in that area, mostly with testing devices which aren´t scientific standard. So on a hardcore scientific level that would not count, but as I mentioned in my last post Science don´t own the truth!!!

Science is always at the current level of misapprehension, more or less always trying to approach truth.

Out of my experience I can say scientific aproach is a helpful tool, but it´s not applicable for everything.
I love science but it´s only a/one tool nothing more, nothing less.
Don´t put science on a thrown, otherwise we create a new religion.

The personal experience should always weigh higher than anything what´s imposed on you. Right?!
That´s why I wrote in my first post in this thread to check it out!

Garfield

As I posted earlier we are talking about effects on the ppm-level here!

As far as I understand it, the size is not the only thing that will make an antenna out of something. I mean you need a certain conductivity. In a metal you have electrons floating free with very little resistance. I'm not sure that an organ, which is not really rod-like either, really works so well as a resonator. It certainly sounds nice... the idea of resonance etc is compelling but I'm just not sure it's true. At least not in this direct sense.


let's see. How is RF-radiation produced? by moving charge in general. Moving electrons or ions. Alternatively you could induce a current by some kind of magnetic oscillation, which would in turn cause radiation again. I just don't see any mechanism that would cause a persistent, coherent motion of water molecules, that normally tumble randomly, to create a net radiation/magnetic oscillation.
Water is not a complex system like the brain where the interconnections could exhibit some kind of higher order holographic functioning. And frankly I'm not convinced of the model of the hologram for the memory storage of the brain either. I have yet to really look into it, I'm not sure that it is really understood as of yet how memory is stored at all - so saying it's like this with water would not really be helping to create clarity.

I'm also not sure what you mean with quantum level. Atoms are at the quantum level. what exactly do you suspect is the source of this radiation? I mean even on the quantum level you can certainly for example excite atoms magnetically and flip their spins into a non-equilibrium position but there are only very few substances (and water is not one of them) that will retain this non-equilibrium state for a very long time. In liquids the spins will be back in equilibrium within less than a second. In a water crystal at low temperatures this might take longer but no longer than a few seconds. What other quantum effects do you imagine play a role here?

I think science is more than the scientific consensus you seem to equate it with. Science is the art of critical and analytical thinking, of problem solving, and establishing a clear language to communicate phenomena that can then be understood (to a degree) and taken advantage of.

Can you show a study that proves homeopathy right?

Ok, here's the nature article I promised. Haven't read it yet though.

No it´s primarily the size, the circumference and or any other physical length. In technical terms form and conductivity are part of the optimzation to hit the resonance factors properly. Otherwise you have a damped oscillation witch occurs in the organ. There is no need for an EM-signal to have a high grade resonance in order to induce a current, it is just weaker than in an optimzed technical antenna.



Me neither. But it happens. I don´t know the mechanism which produced the ~800MHz signal that I detected in the water sample after 3 month. But it was present!



I don´t know if the holographic model is true, but I would not consider water to be a simple system.
I know this sounds strange to most of you, but out of my research I´m considering water to be a strange kind of life-form itself. Regarding my research on this topic, this cell phone frequency experiment was just the first of a long row (more than 100) of experiments I preformed with water.



I meant the sub-atomic level, the area of quantum foam and so on. When you excite a atom magnetically you work on the atomic level and not directly on the quantum level, there are magnitudes inbetween. And sorry I don´t know what the mechanism is here.


I totally agree with you on that. Sorry for my imprecision here.
I´m devoted to exactly these principals.

When it comes to scientific work in real life, you can find innumerable examples where financial, emotional and ego issues are flowing right into the arguments, findings and discussions. Beginning with experimental setups which only allow the one expected outcome to appear, ending with using such findings to strike on others and their findings as beeing not scientific.

hope this made it clear

Garfield

If your experiment is reproducible, why dont you contact randy foundation, show them what you've found and completely change the world's view on how chemistry and physics works, plus getting a million bucks on the side?

Look for some of the studies performed at the Charite in Berlin (academic medical center and university hospital).
I found only german abstracts, but they are working on an international level, so you´ll find what you are looking for.

When I performed this experiment, I repeated the measurement three times, always with the same result. So it should be reproducible, but there are some sourrounding conditions regarding the storing of the samples.
Regarding JREF:
Sorry that´s not my way nor my job. I´m using my experiments for my own education and for my own developments.
If at some point life guides me to do such an application, it will be with a much more significant experiment.

for valid experimental evidence, you must also have a control group to compare it to, or else reproducibility means nothing.


this is what separates science from religion, and evidence from belief.

I know that.

Since this is a very temporary effect, i find all claims of microwave effects lasting for hours, weeks or even months a bit at odds with this.

The only way i could i could think of that could explain any such effect would be if the type of electron-cloud of the atoms could be altered without changing the structure of the molecules. Since water molecules have such a simple structure, maybe that could be possible: you would still have H2O but only with slightly tilted hydrogen atoms.

I think it's up to the believers to come up with data, showing these things (could) happen.