Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Friday, March 19, 2010
Grand Unified Theory of Physics
Yesterday I received the three volume, 1727 page, "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" by Randell Mills. I successfully replicated Mill's original experiments when I was in grad school at MIT, and have followed his research ever since. It's been fascinating to observe how science progresses at such glacial speeds, especially when the disruptive insights are greatest. For example, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was in the new again today about achieving a new level of energy. What most people don't realize is that the LHC is largely a waste of money. The hypotheses the LHC hopes to test are largely irrelevant in the context of Mill's discoveries. Unlike string theory, which is mostly un-testable math, Mill's theory, which integrates Maxwell's equations with Einstein's field equations (aka relativity), actually gives measurable, testable predictions--and the results have actually worked. No theory can ever be "proven" true, but they can be proven false (see Karl Popper). In Mills' case, there are many testable assertions and the theory has survived testing. The cool part is that the theory opens up whole new possibilities for technology--new energy, new materials, superconductivity, even anti-gravity. Think about the world pre/post electricity--the changes in technology that this will enable will be on a similar scale of magnitude.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Cell Tower Radiation Poisoning of School Children
A substantial body of research suggests that radio frequency (RF) radiation (the kind emitted by cell towers as they provide "signal" to mobile phones) has harmful health effects on humans and animals, even in amounts well below FCC exposure limits. Surprisingly, the FCC standards for RF emissions are based on thermal effect but the case for non thermal hazards from RFs is substantial. Here are a few examples:
A study presented in the peer-reviewed publication of Germany's environmental medicine society found that the risk of newly developing cancer was three times higher among those patients who had lived during past ten years (1994-2004), within a distance of 400m from a cellular transmitter, in comparison to those who had lived further away. The study indicates a 99% confidence interval that the difference observed was not due to a random statistical effect.
An Israeli study published in the peer-reviewed journal The International Journal of Cancer Prevention also showed an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station. In a two year period, there were 4.15 times more cancer cases in the area of proximity to the cell tower than in the entire population. The authors made a point of noting, "The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re-evaluated."
The Bioinitiative Working Group, a collaboration of neuroscientists and others studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation from a variety of sources, has taken the position that "current standards are inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures and that an entirely new, biologically-based standard is needed."
The European Union, which deployed GSM cellular technology on a broad basis long before it was deployed in the US, and thus has been able to observe longer exposures on its population, formally adopted a resolution in April 2009 recommending that GSM antennas be kept a safe distance from schools.
Why would a resolution be needed to keep towers out of schools? Because the cell tower companies prey upon schools that have prime locations and need the money. They also take advantage of the lack of finance and legal resources at most schools so they can get an advantageous contract.
Parents in Cupertino, CA successfully fought a proposal to place a tower at Monte Vista High School, as have many other schools and municipalities throughout the U.S. In 2000, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education adopted a resolution opposing the placement of cellular telecommunications towers on or immediately adjacent to school property until appropriate regulatory standards have been adopted. For a list of other municipalities examining this issue, see http://cloutnow.org/localres/ .
However, their success is even more notable since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits municipal governing bodies from saying “no” to cell towers based upon health concerns. See page 117 of the Act (Section 704 amendment). Who was the genius legislator who put something like that into law? In reality, it was more likely instituted by the cellular companies through a lobbying process to provide liability coverage, should the truth eventually emerge. I predict the tort cases from cell tower induced cancer will eclipse the tobacco industry’s damages.
A study presented in the peer-reviewed publication of Germany's environmental medicine society found that the risk of newly developing cancer was three times higher among those patients who had lived during past ten years (1994-2004), within a distance of 400m from a cellular transmitter, in comparison to those who had lived further away. The study indicates a 99% confidence interval that the difference observed was not due to a random statistical effect.
An Israeli study published in the peer-reviewed journal The International Journal of Cancer Prevention also showed an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station. In a two year period, there were 4.15 times more cancer cases in the area of proximity to the cell tower than in the entire population. The authors made a point of noting, "The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re-evaluated."
The Bioinitiative Working Group, a collaboration of neuroscientists and others studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation from a variety of sources, has taken the position that "current standards are inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures and that an entirely new, biologically-based standard is needed."
The European Union, which deployed GSM cellular technology on a broad basis long before it was deployed in the US, and thus has been able to observe longer exposures on its population, formally adopted a resolution in April 2009 recommending that GSM antennas be kept a safe distance from schools.
Why would a resolution be needed to keep towers out of schools? Because the cell tower companies prey upon schools that have prime locations and need the money. They also take advantage of the lack of finance and legal resources at most schools so they can get an advantageous contract.
Parents in Cupertino, CA successfully fought a proposal to place a tower at Monte Vista High School, as have many other schools and municipalities throughout the U.S. In 2000, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education adopted a resolution opposing the placement of cellular telecommunications towers on or immediately adjacent to school property until appropriate regulatory standards have been adopted. For a list of other municipalities examining this issue, see http://cloutnow.org/localres/ .
However, their success is even more notable since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits municipal governing bodies from saying “no” to cell towers based upon health concerns. See page 117 of the Act (Section 704 amendment). Who was the genius legislator who put something like that into law? In reality, it was more likely instituted by the cellular companies through a lobbying process to provide liability coverage, should the truth eventually emerge. I predict the tort cases from cell tower induced cancer will eclipse the tobacco industry’s damages.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
