[CliveG]

I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.

And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.

I am not hypnotisable no matter how much I want to try it.

And my memory on this is excellent, being long term and noted in writing when my memory overall was good. I was very good at hypnosis and had thoroughly researched it. You cannot accept it because you probably do not believe in the existence of a spirit world.

Even at that time I knew how some experiments turned out to be just very sensitive sight and hearing (and smell) of the subjects. Like reading the book in reflection of a person eyes through the tiny slits of the supposedly closed eye. Or hearing the sub-vocalisation of people concentrating on a word. So I would have people in another room in the house.

I could relate the experiences in detail but I do not want to derail the thread.

[CliveG]

There are interesting articles about Alzeheimer's and the sensitivity of the gut.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterochromaffin_cell
Release of the vesicles occurs after chemical, neurological or mechanical stimulation of the EC cells and is predominantly calcium dependent, suggesting excretion via exocytosis. The combined effect of increased calcium flux and a liberation of stored calcium within the cell changes the cell potential triggering release of the 5-HT vesicles. The vesicles pass from the basal margin into the surrounding lamina propria for interaction with nearby nerve synapses, lymph and blood vessels.

Again and again one finds the references to calcium channel signalling.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyloid_beta
...The ion channel hypothesis postulates that oligomers of soluble, non-fibrillar Aβ form membrane ion channels allowing the unregulated calcium influx into neurons that underlies disrupted calcium ion homeostasis and apoptosis seen in Alzheimer's disease.

...The suggested mechanisms by which amyloid beta may damage and cause neuronal death include the generation of reactive oxygen species during the process of its self-aggregation. When this occurs on the membrane of neurons in vitro, it causes lipid peroxidation and the generation of a toxic aldehyde called 4-hydroxynonenal which, in turn, impairs the function of ion-motive ATPases, glucose transporters and glutamate transporters. As a result, amyloid beta promotes depolarization of the synaptic membrane, excessive calcium influx and mitochondrial impairment. Aggregations of the amyloid-beta peptide disrupt membranes in vitro.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease
The first symptoms are often mistakenly attributed to ageing or stress. Detailed neuropsychological testing can reveal mild cognitive difficulties up to eight years before a person fulfils the clinical criteria for diagnosis of AD. These early symptoms can affect the most complex activities of daily living. The most noticeable deficit is short term memory loss, which shows up as difficulty in remembering recently learned facts and inability to acquire new information.

One realizes just how sensitive living cells are to tiny tiny changes in voltage around and in them. For instance, how does a hair follicle know when to stop growing certain hairs like on ones arm. Voltage differentials if I remember correctly. How does a fertilized cell know which is up and down and which is left and right. Voltage differentials. How else?

And do you think the cell can operate properly under pulsating fields? Even tiny fields? Despite the marvelous repair and check mechanisms there are still mistakes that are not corrected. The amyloid beta results from improper folding of the proteins. The mechanisms for folding are probably incredibly sensitive and here we go bombarding the cells with microwave radiation.

[Bored chemist]

I am not hypnotisable

I didn't say you were...

[CliveG]

I am not hypnotisable

I didn't say you were...

Nice side-step.

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?

[Bored chemist]

No.
Your claim to be not hyponitisable wasn't a nice side step.

It wasn't even a very good try.
So, as I said, thanks for showing how suggestible you are.

[CliveG]

No.
Your claim to be not hyponitisable wasn't a nice side step.

It wasn't even a very good try.
So, as I said, thanks for showing how suggestible you are.

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?

(You are the one insisting on answers to all your posts - how about quid pro quo?)

And here is where you can ignore my request.

I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!

Since you have repeated an unsubstantiated (and wrong) claim about my suggestibility, please add argument to support it.

I have a track record of not following the herd and being a maverick. That is not indicative of suggestibility.

[alancalverd]

Going back to the original question, why would anyone make a downward-directed transmitter? All the people immediately underneath the transmitter can talk directly to each other with no need for a phone, and the power required to relay incoming signals downwards is negligible. The only possible hazard is from the handsets below the transmitter. 

[Bored chemist]

I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!

I recognise that you meant that.
However, the fact is that you were sidestepping my point.
Your acceptance that you believe stuff that's not real shows that you are suggestible.

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

Yes, there are certainly connections there.

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?

You made that bit up.
Not least, you ignore the fact that people are big bags of salty water. That's an uncommonly good way to screen a connection.
It's also important to recogniser how bad an impedance match there is between a nerve cell and any passing RF.

We know that the cells are not, in fact, very sensitive.
Because people are walking around in the fields produced by phones with no actual evidence of harm.
(just before you try to dispute that, remember the bit about suggestibility)

[CliveG]

Going back to the original question, why would anyone make a downward-directed transmitter? All the people immediately underneath the transmitter can talk directly to each other with no need for a phone, and the power required to relay incoming signals downwards is negligible. The only possible hazard is from the handsets below the transmitter.

I answered this. They are only slightly downward (maybe 15 degrees) but are not directional. 20 meters in front of the antenna at 20 meters of height above the ground has the same power level as 5 meters from the base of the mast at ground level because each point is about 20 meters from the antenna and the inverse square law applies.

Essentially they are non-directional. A circular pattern. They are intended to cover a very short distance from the mast, say 300 meters, rather than the directional antennae which had to cover 2,500 meters. This is because the mast can only handle a certain amount of cell phone traffic. The number of cell devices and the amount of time spent on a cell device has sky-rocketed hence each mast can only handle a small area. And this means a much higher density of masts as well.

And I also explained the difference between cell radiation from a cell phone and that from the mast. Even if one's cell phone was communicating 24 hours a day to a distant tower it is not the same. It is only transmitting 1/8 of the time because of the time slots it is allowed to use.

There are about 12 to 24 antennae on the mast, so one would need 12 to 24 cell phones transmitting 24 hours a day in one's house to match the number of working transmitters. The one has to multiply that by 8 to get the radiation to occupy the full time slot spectrum available.

The mast also searches for phones and changes power levels to adjust to the lowest power. Phones close to the tower would require minimal power, but they are at max power while ringing and establishing the connection. Power pulsations are a key factor in causing harm.

So one needs 192 cell phones being switched on all of the time and then briefly off at 2 minute intervals (to get the power level adjustments) for 24 hours a day in the house to get the same as living next to a tower. Assuming the phones are just lying around and not next to an ear.

People choose phones but dislike towers. So the industry propaganda is that the phones give much more radiation dosage than towers to lower community resistance. The subject is complex enough that the majority of people and even engineers simply accept it because it takes analysis to discover the truth.

The truth is also borne out by the problems around masts. My wife has asked me to build a mesh cage that she can put over herself when she sleeps. She is struggling. Our bedroom is only about 20-30 uW/sqm. The neighbors on the other side are asking for a meeting because they have moved out of their house a month ago. They have about 200 to 600 uW/sqm.

We are finding another house to buy (at a big loss) because of the health hazards. The neighbors do not want to move. I have suggested a massive metal fence to shield the entire house from the tower - and redirect the radiation to the owners who apparently have no problems - yet.

[CliveG]

I meant YOU were doing the sidestep!!!

I recognise that you meant that.
However, the fact is that you were sidestepping my point.
Your acceptance that you believe stuff that's not real shows that you are suggestible.
(snip)

Not real? On what basis do you say that? Do you know for a fact that the Ultimate Existence is only the physical phenomena that science experiments can currently measure?

Our current understanding is that everything physical exists in a quantum energy sea, and that matter can pop in and out of existence in that sea. Can you imagine how ridiculous that would have sounded two hundred or more years ago?

So why can humans not be mentally tuned to another form of energy. A shadow spirit world that has intelligence and intelligent entities in it. You probably accept the possibility of a multiverse with different universes coexisting but are absolutely certain that a coexisting universe of spirit with a weak connection cannot exist.

I know what I saw and heard. No one suggested it to me, except to inform me that it may be possible.

What you are doing is using one of a number of standard techniques used by some to discredit personal observation. "Ha, ha, ha - methinks the man is feeble minded to say he saw me kill my wife. The blood on my hands is from my holding her poor dead body in my arms."

Dream on and delude yourself that "you" are simply a bag of salty meat that will eventually rot and be eaten by the worms. While you may be right, you cannot, with certainty, explain some experiences that happen to people. I cannot and I have had a few. Some of them I would accept the possibility of a brain malfunction but others cannot be explained that way.

[CliveG]

(snip)

How about a comment on the calcium channel connection to Alzheimer's and gut communication to the brain?

Yes, there are certainly connections there.

And the level of sensitivity of cellular mechanism and communications that are so incredibly small and fragile (to EMFs)?

You made that bit up.
Not least, you ignore the fact that people are big bags of salty water. That's an uncommonly good way to screen a connection.
It's also important to recogniser how bad an impedance match there is between a nerve cell and any passing RF.

We know that the cells are not, in fact, very sensitive.
Because people are walking around in the fields produced by phones with no actual evidence of harm.
(just before you try to dispute that, remember the bit about suggestibility)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are not reading the references I have been giving you, and you are no expert in the field of cellular microbiology.

Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is. The protein sensor folds upon itself a number of times to increase the sensitivity. The ion channels in the cell membrane have to detect a voltage differential that is a fraction of the voltage of the cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts. And it has to react only to a change caused by an imbalance in only its specific ion - sodium or calcium.

The minute imbalance is usually caused by a release of ions from a neighboring cell. Look at nerve and neuron signalling. There is no electrical impedance matching. If there is a voltage caused by sudden imbalance then the ion channel reacts. If the voltage imbalance is due to a pulsation from a microwave emf that has penetrated the brain then the channel can be confused. It may turn on and off a number of times causing a cascade of false interaction with surrounding cells. Leading to fatigue and maybe even failure.

The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.

We are a complex community of cells joined together and communicating to each other with speed and incredible complexity. On a molecular level. A sodium channel can open and allow a million sodium ions a sec through the opening. Only sodium - and not calcium, or hydrogen, or potassium ions.

The various proteins that form tiny machines to produce more proteins, or to replicate, must signal each other in order to perform the function. The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell me how they function because maybe I am reading all the wrong science.

[CliveG]

Two follow-ups.

Hair follicles. There are three phases, Growth, transition and rest. Short hair like eyelashes have a long rest and a short growth. One does not notice the hairs falling out and being replaced. This was also answered on Naked Scientist.

My wife's eye problems. She has rosacea. This can cause eye irritation. Once more, the Emfs may aggravate the conditions she has.

Edited to add:
I wondered what determined the timing of various phases in different follicles in different parts. It seems that FGF5 is produced by the hair follicle itself. But what starts that cycle? How do the stem cells know they has been active for a certain time?

Life has all these built-in timers and clocks. How do they work? I know that when I was traveling on business (frequent) and needed to set my alarm clock, I would wake up 3-5 minutes before the alarm. Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.

[alancalverd]

the inverse square law applies.

Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.

[alancalverd]

Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.

Me too. Even across a couple of time zones.  It seems to be wired into the mammalian brain - my dog always demanded a treat (usually a fish head) at 7 pm, regardless of where we were or what we were doing.

[Bored chemist]

The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.

How fortunate, then, that nobody said we were.
The real bottom line is that all out internal workings- nerves etc are inside a bag of salt water. which tends to "short out" any external influence.

Which is why there's no evidence of harm from phone masts.

Once more, the Emfs may aggravate the conditions she has.

There's no evidence for EMFs influencing rosacea.

There is strong evidence for stress aggravating it.

By repeatedly banging on about this scare story, you are probably making her condition worse.

Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is.

Dr Pall has reportedly done work on electrosensitivity.
However, as we have discussed, the condition doesn't actually exist- every lab test for it failed to find it.
So, I think it's fair to say he's a quack.

The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell me

You are wrong.
As you say the voltages are of the order of tens of mV

cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.

And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell  membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a

[CliveG]

the inverse square law applies.

Which is why your handset will fry your brain long before the mast does.

You are applying on one criteria. And repeating cell industry propaganda.

Read my post - I detail multiple mast antennae, and periods of transmission.

That said, holding a cell phone to one's head while ringing is a no-no. Or even talking to a distant tower.

[CliveG]

Mechanical or electrical or digital - whether covered and aimed away from me. The precision amazes me.

Me too. Even across a couple of time zones.  It seems to be wired into the mammalian brain - my dog always demanded a treat (usually a fish head) at 7 pm, regardless of where we were or what we were doing.

We agree. Hurray! Me too with time zones. And no familiar sounds or lights to give a clue as to time. 3 am or 4 am were typical times I needed to get up in an unfamiliar hotel room.

The precision with which some people can add up columns of numbers or multiply big numbers is another instance of the brain having an unknown precision and skill - and doing it without fail. Better than a Boeing Max!

While the fallibility of the human brain is used against anecdotes, there are examples of precision and accuracy. My brain used to be (not any more) precise and analytical.

[CliveG]

Re: Does mobile phone tower radiation pose health problems?
« Reply #514 on: Today at 12:19:37 »
Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    The bottom line is that we are not a bag of salt.

How fortunate, then, that nobody said we were.
The real bottom line is that all out internal workings- nerves etc are inside a bag of salt water. which tends to "short out" any external influence.

Which is why there's no evidence of harm from phone masts.

You said we were in post number 507 by saying: " Not least, you ignore the fact that people are big bags of salty water."
And you repeat it albeit slightly differently. Do you not remember or are you being facetious?

You miss the point entirely. Microwaves penetrate hence the efficiency of heating. Your model of a human is so wrong that one cannot begin to debate with you. There are times that I think you are actually a 19 year old female living at home rather than a 50 year old male with a chemistry degree. Or have you fried your brain with chemicals?

Your leap from statements 1 and 2 to conclusion 3 is mind-boggling.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    Dr Martin Pall has explained how sensitive the calcium cell channel is.

Dr Pall has reportedly done work on electrosensitivity.
However, as we have discussed, the condition doesn't actually exist- every lab test for it failed to find it.
So, I think it's fair to say he's a quack.

His work has been computer modeled and shown to be correct. I asked him in an email and he was gracious enough to point me to the study.

He is an eminent university scientist - unlike the paid-for sponsored studies treating people like lumps of dead meat whose only response is to show a temperature increase.

His analysis and hypothesis explain the thousands of tests In vitro and in vivo that demonstrate harm.

As for quackery - apply your infamous mirror test. And remember to engage brain before hitting the keys on the keyboard.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    The voltage differentials are hardly measurable. If I am wrong, tell me

You are wrong.
As you say the voltages are of the order of tens of mV

Read my post carefully. The equilibrium voltages are in the order of tens of millivolts. The differential to unbalance those voltages are tiny fractions of a millivolt and very fast.

I did not mean just "tell me", I meant show and tell me. Give me an scientific paper that either estimates those differentials or measures them.