PW3: anything available to turn off LED

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh, absolutely, yes. "Measles parties" were a normal thing in Britain in the 1960s. If a local child caught a mild childhood illness like measles or chickenpox, all the local parents would send their children around in the hope of them catching it. As you say, this would probably be regarded as child abuse by some today!

It was rare here in the US (where I was born and raised), but before I was born my parents lived in England (where the locals called them 'lord and lady'), so they probably adopted a limey tradition...

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by Yourcat

@NullNix Let's hope that the external EM field is not so strong that it penetrates 2cm skin/fat and influences directly the inner body parts. It should be shorted by the sourrounding body. That's one of the reasons why there's a Colon therapy.

EDIT: As I said, heat and light are EM fields. And therapeutic electromagnets emit a very strong (baseband) EM field (and medical diathermy machines emit microwave EM fields as well). Most absorbed EM merely induces heating, trivial compared to sunlight, and that is all. Even being exposed to a microwave oven operating with an open door (with a defeated safety switch) is mostly just a danger to the eyes from the heating effect.

EM fields are very frequency dependent. It is only ionizing radiation (UVB and above) that can damage DNA. And some ELF frequencies (way below AM radio frequencies) are thought to affect certain hormone production or other cause other possible cellular disruption, but only at high-energy levels for long exposures. I have not seen any specific research to support this notion, but it seems plausible. And Wifi is very unlikely to cause such problems, because it is converted to heat when absorbed by water molecules in our bodies, and the only real known danger there is a possible contribution to cataracts if our eyeballs get too hot. But staring at a campfire big bed of hot coals too long can have the same effect (heating the cornea)...

It is the same problem with getting safe and clean thorium (or depleted uranium) power plants approved -- to get elected, politicians must avoid any scary 'radiation' discussions, even though coal and petroleum are less efficient and more polluting (but less dangerous to political careers).

Wow... Now not just scary wifi "radiation", but scary "dangerous wifi rays" (like a scary "dangerous ray gun"): Ontario Parents Try to Protect School Kids From Dangerous WiFi Rays

Politics and science seem to not mix well, to the detriment of our education system. Do we see "Brawndo" in our future?

EDIT2: I strongly recommend checking out all my embedded links above.

[dhdurgee]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

EM fields are very frequency dependent. It is only ionizing radiation (UVB and above) that can damage DNA. And some ELF frequencies (way below AM radio frequencies) are thought to affect certain hormone production or other cause other possible cellular disruption, but only at high-energy levels for long exposures. I have not seen any specific research to support this notion, but it seems plausible. And Wifi is very unlikely to cause such problems, because it is converted to heat when absorbed by water molecules in our bodies, and the only real known danger there is a possible contribution to cataracts if our eyeballs get too hot. But staring at a campfire big bed of hot coals too long can have the same effect (heating the cornea)...

It is the same problem with getting safe and clean thorium (or depleted uranium) power plants approved -- to get elected, politicians must avoid any scary 'radiation' discussions, even though coal and petroleum are less efficient and more polluting (but less dangerous to political careers).

Wow... Now not just scary wifi "radiation", but scary "dangerous wifi rays" (like a scary "dangerous ray gun"): Ontario Parents Try to Protect School Kids From Dangerous WiFi Rays

Politics and science seem to not mix well, at the detriment of our education system. Do we see "Brawndo" in our future?

You remind me of a book on the topic:

The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear

Dave

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by dhdurgee

You remind me of a book on the topic:

The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear

Dave

I embedded more links in my post (not yet in your quote). Though time-consuming, they are well worth checking out (watch the videos to completion) IMHO.

That book you mentioned, "7 used from $500.000" -- are they printed on solid gold tablets, or what? Yes, amazon is confusing on that, when they ALSO show availability at $39.95 (still expensive for a paperback book).

The problem is that our governments prefer the dirty, dangerous, expensive kind of nuclear energy, because of its military uses. My links show safe alternative nuclear energy that also solves our nuclear waste storage problem AND our shortage of rare earth materials needed by the tech industry. And our politicians prefer to not discuss or act upon our need for such a change, because of the scary sensationalized connotation of that "radiation" word.

Cars are WAY more dangerous than cellphone and wifi (trigger warning: scary word) "radiation".

[dhdurgee]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

I embedded more links in my post (not yet in your quote). Though time-consuming, they are well worth checking out (watch the videos to completion) IMHO.

That book you mentioned, "7 used from $500.000" -- are they printed on solid gold tablets, or what? Yes, amazon is confusing on that, when they ALSO show availability at $39.95 (still expensive for a paperback book).

I can only assume that it is long out of print and few remain available for sale. I read it from my public library back in the 1980s and still remember it as looking objectively at the end-to-end impacts of power generation and supporting the argument that nuclear is the best option.

I just thought to check and it appears that Google books does not have it online. I followed their link to worldcat and it appears that it is still available at many libraries. Given this, I would suggest you check your local libraries for one. In the worst case you could get it via an inter-library loan.

Dave

[joblack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How are you able to use a computer, as a matter of interest? I don't know of any computer monitors that don't emit light.

Yes there is a difference and I think it's nerve ranking. And you can see the difference even by day.

I can still use computer monitors but the prefer reading on e-ink. If you don't care about the fron tlight you can still have it enabled all the time.