Suspicious "experiment/demonstration" — status: debunked

[VinzC]

Hi all.

Someone contacted me recently about a video they found on the internet about alleged effects of EM waves and radiofrequencies on health. I personally have no faith in such claims but I'm not sure I alone have all the required knowledge and argumentative talents to debunk this. Therefore I'd like to request your help. Here's the video in question.

Disclaimer: I know I am already biased (negatively that is) and I hereby may have lead you away from neutrality but can you, please, do all you can to remain as neutral as possible? Rest assured that I'll meanwhile do my own research on the subject, too, in order to compare my analysis with yours.

Also please note that I'd like to read argumentation from you instead of "that's just BS" (I think I already know) as I will most probably have to provide a valid argumentation to the person who contacted me.

Much thanks in advance.

[ebastler]

I don't feel like watching that long video. Where does he make controversial statements (about alleged physiological effects of electromagnetic radiation, I assume)?

When I skimmed through it, it was all about detecting charge, capacitive coupling and radiated emissions -- which get coupled to the human body as they do to other, inanimate objects. Not all that interesting, but not a scam either. Could you give timestamps of the sections you found problematic?

[joeqsmith]

...
Someone contacted me recently about a video they found on the internet about alleged effects of EM waves and radiofrequencies on health. ...

... I will most probably have to provide a valid argumentation to the person who contacted me.
...

I have had people write me with similar questions about various products like blankets that protect you while you sleep.  For the most part I ignore them.  I did a quick scan of the video and saw the plasma globe and talking head.  Really not something I would spend any time watching.   

That said obviously RF can cause problems with health and there are published standards for the acceptable levels.  I may even have a copy at home if you would like me to look it up.   If the discussion is more on the level of people that write me about their blankets, rather than spending your time providing a valid argument, ask them too.  That is assuming you actually have some interest in it.   

 

[VinzC]

Ok, I'm already ten minutes in and I have noted dozens of false claims, evasive wording, incorrect explanations, wrong descriptions...

It reeks bullshit more than I anticipated. It typically is the kind of "demonstration" bullshitters use to manipulate ignorant audiences and lead them into believing into harmful effects while still remains to be demonstrated. Comments are disabled, which is already a red flag. He uses instruments without technical details, no datasheet, no source, no documentation, no nothing.

At one third of the video, I've watched enough to make myself a permanent opinion on that clown.

I don't feel like watching that long video. Where does he make controversial statements (about alleged physiological effects of electromagnetic radiation, I assume)?

When I skimmed through it, it was all about detecting charge, capacitive coupling and radiated emissions -- which get coupled to the human body as they do to other, inanimate objects. Not all that interesting, but not a scam either. Could you give timestamps of the sections you found problematic?

Thanks for helping. From what I've noticed so far, every minute or so. Don't waste your time, I didn't expect it to be so easy to debunk, even with my limited knowledge.

Really not something I would spend any time watching.

Truth is the person who contacted me already propagates such disinformation via conferences and asked me to help him find evidence. Fortunately (I hope) they also told me they were in search for "experts" in the field to verify if all that's said is valid... I'll try my best to make that person un-believe that crap. I don't hold my hopes very high though...

That said obviously RF can cause problems with health and there are published standards for the acceptable levels.

The levels I've come to know through conference videos of scientists who studied the field, the most important "candidates" are prolonged smartphone users, due to the constant exposure and the emission levels close to the skin. However no significant effect has been demonstrated yet and the only conclusive experiments that were undertaken cannot be extrapolated to humans (FTR done on mice that already were susceptible to develop tumors and were exposed to both high levels of RF emissions **and** known carcinogenous substances).

[VinzC]

I can't believe I watched up to 25 minutes of that crap!

Here are my conclusion: this is pure and utter bull crap. As for red flags:

• cascade of logical fallacies
• bold claims, lies and deceit
• technical arguments used outside rigorous context and definitions
• jargon without any theory nor reference
• vague, fuzzy, incomplete definitions
• dubious analogies and comparisons
• no order of magnitude given (probably to mislead the audience, letting it form a wrong idea)
• invalid demonstrations, without any relation with the premises and, worse, potentially falsified (e.g. measuring 200mA in a copper tubing loop next to a wallwart adapter, I only get 4mA next to a laptop brick...)
• unbacked up claims, no source, no verification
• no demonstrated evidence as to the relation between the subject of the webinar and the... "experiments"
• use of inappropriate hardware (e.g. AM radio instead of a near field probe, a multimeter in amp mode to measure the current through the body instead of appropriate medical electrodes... ah, and also touching only **one** f@$ing probe!  about @18:00)
• instrumentalizing perfectly explained physical phenomena (without giving the appropriate theory of course) to serve a cause that doesn't say its name
• topics boarded without prior experience in the field, that is explaining medical causes using electrical approach, use of inappropriate hardware, electric not medical as it should, measuring currents with only one lead... (that one cracked me up)

I could also add blatant incompetence as the guy is perfectly unable (or willing) to make the difference between capacitive coupling, moving charges, electrostatic and electrodynamic... Fortunately the number of views is very low. I also flagged the video. First time I ever do that in a lifetime!

[eutectique]

The video is sponsored by "Building Biology Institute".

In turn, BBI has the list of Electromagnetic Radiation Specialists™ (yes, trademarked). The author of the said video is himself on the list as an EMRS™. He has 1 (one) video on his channel with 36 subscribers. Vested interest? Never heard of such thing.

Then, anyone can become an EMRS™ for a mere $6365. Note the URL of ENROLL link at the bottom of the page: blah/product/emr-specialist-advance-purchase-save-830-00/ So, the normal retail price, as of May 2024, is $7195.

A piece of kitchen foil around the head and the gonads would be way, way more cheaper.

As the classic said,

Muscovites were characteristic of the new millennium. Those same “faggots, forged from pure steel from head to toe” (whose arrival was foreseen from the abyss by Venedikt Erofeev): graduates of "lifespring++" courses, impeccably trained for success, already approaching the realization of its highest fruit -- opening their own small business of sharpening high-carbon faggots, called "springlife++" or similar.

[mendip_discovery]

In turn, BBI has the list of Electromagnetic Radiation Specialists™ (yes, trademarked). The author of the said video is himself on the list as an EMRS™. He has 1 (one) video on his channel with 36 subscribers. Vested interest? Never heard of such thing.

I just looked it up, they tried to trademark it but it was declined as they failed to answer the questions asked about it. Rare for the US but it looks like even they thought that trademarking that term was a little vague.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90589928&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

[eutectique]

I just looked it up, they tried to trademark it but it was declined as they failed to answer the questions asked about it. Rare for the US but it looks like even they thought that trademarking that term was a little vague.

As the USPTO document reads:

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the function or purpose of applicant’s services.
...
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services.

[VinzC]

Adds one to the list of lies of that crap, by the looks of it...

[RJSV]

   I'd say examine the varieties of established measurement,  specifically INVERSE SQUARE law.   That specifies that most field driven effects will diminish, a lot faster than linear, as you move away.   If you get located 200 yards, and double the distance to 400 yards most radio frequency cell phone towers will have transmission power way less than 1/2 the power you got, up close.
   That means any such 'harmful' effects attributed can go to less meaningful levels due to some distance, going down way faster than a linear drop as you move away.

   Not to say no danger, but I think it's less subtle, like say, IONIZING radiation is one danger...but that's pretty extreme exposure.   Meaning that a cell tower 1/4 mile away would have to have nuclear detonation to supply IONIZING effects on your skin.
And, no, I don't think such EM exposure would somehow bypass the skin, and start altering your brain matter, for example.  No, you'd likely have massive skin burns, etc. along with internal damage.

   Certain animals, whales for example might sense a nearby cell phone tower, but at very close range.

   Sure though, a sensitive antenna might measure some 'frequencies', which, by the way is not a technical term for EM Fields, but rather just a 'folk' or common term, very inappropriate.
(Maybe like calling rain 'drowning fluid'.

   You might enjoy picking up a good engineering book, on RF and HIGH VOLTAGE safety, from an Industrial Hygienist, because there are various dangers when involved up close, like in a testing laboratory, etc.