1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.


Discussion in 'The EMF Rx' started by Jack Kruse, Mar 18, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Why are X-rays and gamma rays from the sun stopped by atmosphere while they are more energetic than UV or IR light? Doesn't this seem unusual? They interact with the atmosphere but many can't understand which phenomenon act to stop them. In brief, X-Rays have enough energy to ionize molecules in the atmosphere and they are absorbed in the process. X rays have a short wavelength. Imagine a road covered with ping-pong balls. Try to roll a marble across, and it will most probably bounce back and forth amongst the balls, and eventually stop without getting to the other side. Now try a soccer ball. These will cross almost all the time. And now a truck. I doubt that you will find a situation where these don't cross the road.
    Similarly, the atmosphere can be thought as the road in this analogy with ping pong balls acting as the molecules of gas, and EM waves are various objects you try to roll. Radio waves have large (1 meter &c) wavelengths. Nobody or few things stop these waves. High powered light waves in the spectrum have much smaller wavelengths (in μ m), but those are still large as compares to atoms (these are to the order 10^−10 m). X rays are small enough to be obstructed by everyone, thus they interact with our atmosphere and do not reach terrestrial Earth to harm life. This is very counterintuitive to common sense.
    An interesting side note: The reason that makes radio waves are abundant is the same reason why they are harder to use than light/x-rays in astronomy. Because of their size, they do not give an accurate reading unless we employ large telescopes. Think back to the truck. If an ant hypothetically throws a truck at you, you really can't be sure where the ant is located with precision. But if the ant throws a marble or a sesame seed (assuming you catch the seed and determine its velocity), you can calculate the trajectory and find the ant with accuracy in space, and squash him for throwing things at you. The same principle applies when searching for a radio source.
    Scompy likes this.
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Scompy likes this.
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Scompy likes this.
  4. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    drezy likes this.
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    More on RF risks that are coherent with the NTP study of 11/1/2018:

    I have had a lot of inquiries about moves to Puerto Rico after the storm (Maria)........I would be careful about it for two reasons. The destruction will fast-track 5G and the largest radar dish in the world is already been there for close to 60 years. The amount of RF there is astronomical and they have several cancer clusters as a result.

    When it comes to telescopes, there are few as awe-inspiring as the one at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. At 1,000 feet (305 meters) across and 167 feet deep, the Arecibo telescope is the largest and most sensitive radio telescope in the world. It is used to scan the sky for near-Earth objects capable of hitting Earth mimicking what happened to us 65 million years ago. It is also the LARGEST pulsed RADAR machine in the world. The amount of antenna's in this area is astounding. Blood cancers seem to be on the rise in this region even though it sits at 18N latitude. http://www.rcpr.org:81
    Alex97232 likes this.
  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Another incredible article and a rare moment of truth in reporting. Bravo to GQ magazine!

    All of the naysayers who claim that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones, smart meters, laptops, Apple watches, fitbits, gaming systems, etc. should read this. It’s not a conspiracy theory. There are many published peer-reviewed independent studies showing the dangers. You’re just ignoring them BC they ruin your narrative and your precious wireless tech.

    Ignoring the facts does not make them any less factual.

    “It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.
    Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: Israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumor risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

    Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."
    Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.)

    Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults.

    Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.”

    Scompy and Alex97232 like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page