adsfqwop
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
431
Submissions
105
Member since
Mar 5
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
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.
Comment · 4 years ago
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.
Comment · 4 years ago
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.
Comment · 6 years ago
Interesting interview with doctor in NY using it on over 600 patients so far. 100% success rate.
Comment · 6 years ago
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.
Comment · 6 years ago
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.
Comment · 6 years ago
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...
Comment · 7 years ago
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"?
Comment · 7 years ago
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":
Comment · 7 years ago
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.
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.