EMF remarks •Passive shielding is basically a solved problem, but it might not be practical. You cant spend your life in a steel coffin. Plus, you dont know exactly what youre shielding against (but you can rule out a lot of possibilities using brute force). •60+ Ghz EMF is quickly attenuated (blocked) by ordinary obstacles, including wood and brick. Heres a CBS News video showing a reporter blocking the 95 Ghz Active Denial System with a board of plywood, as well as a mattress. •Starting points to investigate shielding advice (Wikipedia): Electromagnetic shielding; Skin effect; Dielectric heating. Bad science / disinformation •A frequently-cited article, Mind Fields (Omni Magazine, 1985) doesnt say what Nick Begich has led his readers to believe what it says. In the article, Delgado scoffs at the notion of long-distance EMF attacks, but Begich doesnt quote that part of the article. •A patent doesnt mean anything without a working model. Bad patents do slip past USPTO examiners. Besides, a sensitive technology (as defined by the NSA, NASA, the DOE, or the US military) wouldnt be patentable due to the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. •Anybody can claim anything in a lawsuit. A lawsuit filing isnt proof of anything. •Reputable scientific journals generally dont have to announce that theyre peer reviewed; its a given. •Manufacturers, even defense contractors, may make false claims about the efficacy and safety of their products. •Electrical pollution: look a lot more closely at the existing studies. Youre going to find flaws, even in peer reviewed studies. Magda Havas infamous double-blind heart rate experiment, for example, doesnt allow for electrical interference with the measurements of the subjects heart rates. •Studies that show correlation - without leading researchers to underlying causes - have to be dismissed. Results from these studies arent trustworthy.
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 06:12:24 +0000