Posted by
bbin37 on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Garth-I-have-more-now-tp1541394p1541418.html
--- In
[hidden email], Garth Hitchens <garth@...> wrote:
>
> >> Marc Says:
> >> I'm still wondering what all this has to do with electrical
> >> sensitivity? Sure, everything puts out some sort of electromagnetic
> >> field, but I don't think this group is for people who are having
> >> a hypersensitive reaction to the EMF produced by a blade of grass.
> >> This is more for people having problems with computers, power lines,
> >> cell phones, transmission towers, etc.
>
> > Charles Says:
> > I fully agree with you.
> > These discussions, however interesting, should not be held in this
> > group.
>
> I fully agree too.
>
> That was my point in challenging the claim that chemicals (like
> flourides, halides) emitted EMF. I maintain that sensitivity to
> these chemicals is chemical sensitivity, not due to some mysterious
> EMF that they emit.
>
> In a final response to the last post, neither thermography nor
> spectroscopy would show that a bucket of sodium fluoride emits more
> EMF (or light, or infrared, for that matter) than the bucket of
> water. It may absorb different frequencies of light, as measured
> in spectroscopy, but it wouldn't emit any more EMF.
>
> I guess I feel I've made my point, and won't post further on this
> matter.
>
I also agree with you, Garth.
Presented below are three discussion topics that may help to finish
the discussion.
1) Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mass
2) Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
3) On the use of the acronym EMF
Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mass
-----------------------------------------
As far as standard physics has observed, any physical mass
* that is a solid, liquid or dense gas
* that has a temperature above absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin)
radiates a continuous thermal spectrum covering all wavelengths
measurable to date where the intensities are above or at the threshold
of our current sensing instruments. (For more, look up discussions
and explorations of Wien's "Law".)
Since all masses observed so far are above 0 deg K (and quantum
mechanics predicts that no mass can be at 0 deg K) we can extend the
observed results with some sense that the rest of the untested
material masses locally residing around us behave the same as their
tested counterparts. With this in mind, all dense bodies on Earth
possibly radiate electromagnetic energy at all types of wavelengths.
This is kind of surprising!
However, the issue is intensity, like both you and Marc have
mentioned. For example, the microwave emissions from our bodies' mass
constituents is *extremely* small compared to the emission of a cell
phone. So for all intents and purposes we don't consider most masses
as microwave emitters compared with wireless emissions. And the
statement about a bucket of sodium flouride emitting the same amount
of EMR as a bucket of water is thought to be accurate if both masses
are the same temperature since the thermal electromagnetic spectrum of
the EMR emission only depends on temperature.
Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
-----------------------------------------------
Chemical sensitivity symptoms are very similar - and for some people
the same - as electrical sensitivity symptoms. Maybe this is leading
some to think that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation are somehow
identical. Though the symptoms can be the same, the natures of the
incitants are not identical.
For chemical sensitivity, usually very close proximity interaction
with some amount of a chemical is needed to provoke reaction. For
most this usually means skin contact interaction or absorption into
the body. But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The nature
of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be due to the
energetic emissions of the substances involved. However, the
presently measurable electromagnetic radiation emitted most likely
isn't a factor here because the spectrum shape is only a function of
temperature and not what type of substance is involved. But some type
of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since people can
react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a chemical even if
their is no longer any of the chemical present, say like in a 200C
preparation.
In the case of electrical sensitivity, the symptom trigger is the
presence of an electromagnetic field whether it be in radiative form
like radio waves, non-radiative form as is the case for electrostatic
and magnetostatic fields, or a combination like the presence of an AC
field and its attendant EMR. The interaction mode is not externally
introduced chemicals interacting with chemicals in the body. It seems
to be some kind of bodily reaction to the properties of the EMR or
EMF, namely its frequency and intensity, or in the case of a static
field the amount of energy stored in the field. And the distance from
a measurable field can be substantial while provoking symptoms.
On the use of the acronym EMF
-----------------------------
The acronym "EMF" does sees usage in the area of gas emissions, i.e.,
emission of gaseous substances not electromagnetic radiation. There
are references made in this context to the Energy Modeling Forum at
Stanford University which studies the environmental impact of chemical
pollution (like greenhouse gases) from energy generation like the
burning of coal, oil & gasoline, and natural gas.
Maybe this has contributed to some confusion around the issue of gas
and the term EMF that this group uses to refer to electromagnetic
fields or electromotive force.
b