Wireless charging, 1.9kw @ 1.3MHz Go Disney

[MrW0lf]

I grew up with a humming transformer sitting right in my yard.  I turned out fine.  I think?  The voices in my head tell me I'm ok.

Some like a 3 pints too much and still live to old age. There is no universal truth. My point is mainly that perfect machines do not emit anything if not meant to. All sorts of pollution (including line AC, RF) are result of poor science, design or craftmanship. After not too long search I found entire area in suburbs where there is brand new by-the-book underground electrical distribution and background level almost the same as in sparsely populated countryside. Overall there are 2 approaches to how things should be done, somehow like the latter more

1) f*ck nature


2) integrate with minimal impact

[Halcyon]

Some like a 3 pints too much and still live to old age. There is no universal truth.

Decades of science has basically come to the conclusion there is little to no evidence that what you're suggesting increases instances of cancer. Like I said, they're not going to come out and say there is absolutely 100% no chance, because that's not how science and biology works.

My point is mainly that perfect machines do not emit anything if not meant to. All sorts of pollution (including line AC, RF) are result of poor science, design or craftmanship.

You seem to be backpedaling now. I thought the point you were making was electromagnetic radiation from AC power lines and circuits cause cancer and I refer you back to when you said: "it is scientifically proven fact that with nearby high voltage power lines child leukemia rates spike". How you've changed your "point" to something entirely different. Could it perhaps you went into this discussion a little half-cocked?

I also can't help but notice your use of the term "(electromagnetic) pollution" which implies some kind of negative health impacts or undesirable effects. It seems to be a buzz-word bandied around by the sorts of people who don't have much of an idea about what they are promoting and want to pump up their argument a bit (like how "dangerous climate change" gets thrown around). For the sake of accuracy, let's call it "electromagnetic energy" or "radiation" because that's what it is; good, bad or indifferent.

Anyway, even the finest engineered devices do emit something, but it's not necessarily a bad thing or anything worth worrying about. I'd hardly call that "poor science, design or craftsmanship".

I will agree on your point that underground power cabling is much more aesthetically pleasing than overhead wiring.

[MrW0lf]

Decades of science has basically come to the conclusion there is little to no evidence that what you're suggesting increases instances of cancer.

Take almost any controversial health subject. Lots of studies either way. Most of the "official" studies say nothing to worry about. Yet they predict 50% cancer rate soon, autism rates soaring also. Hmm...

You seem to be backpedaling now.

Because it's pointless discussion. Doubt anyone gonna change his point of view here or learn something.

Could it perhaps you went into this discussion a little half-cocked?

What use would be to link 10+ studies here? Someone would find 10+ saying opposite.

I also can't help but notice your use of the term "(electromagnetic) pollution" which implies some kind of negative health impacts or undesirable effects.

Ok, will give you quote from WHO website, guess it's most they can say without hurting industry too much:

"IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."

IMHO quite simple, it means "better safe than sorry". Since it's bad for T&M also, why not "clean up" or pick "clean" environment in that regard 

people who don't have much of an idea about what they are promoting

To me it rather seems most technocrats have no idea how biology works. Many "debunking" studies are plain primitive. Sadly same with biologists. There was some test they looked for powerline related issues based on cows or lambs (do no remember which), not realizing that those are grounded by means of 4 feet and do not develop high "body voltages".

So overall - yawn. I have point of view based on my measurements and actual problems and health issues of some people I know (which will not disclose, but these were "wake up call" for me). You have some other point of view because lack of "personal experience". Neither will change. Lets leave it at that.

[Halcyon]

Take almost any controversial health subject. Lots of studies either way. Most of the "official" studies say nothing to worry about. Yet they predict 50% cancer rate soon, autism rates soaring also. Hmm...

So... because "they" predict an increase in cancer/autism rates (and I'd like to see the sources you're quoting here as well, but let's just run with it...), how are you drawing the line between that and HV power lines when the vast majority of evidence and studies says otherwise?

Doubt anyone gonna change his point of view here or learn something.

Yes, you're right, and it's a real shame. It is hard to educate some people, mostly because they are unwilling to learn (not because they don't have the capacity to).

Ok, will give you quote from WHO website, guess it's most they can say without hurting industry too much:

"IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."

Yes, I'm familiar with the paper you're quoting. It specifically relates to the study of wireless devices (such as mobile phones), not extremely low frequency.

I refer you to a more relevant document, IARC Monographs Volume 80 - Studies of Cancer in Humans which specifically deals with ELF fields. It basically concludes:

There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of extremely lowfrequency magnetic fields in relation to childhood leukemia. There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of extremely lowfrequency magnetic fields in relation to all other cancers.

I will point out, that "limited" evidence is very limited indeed (it makes for interesting bedtime reading).

So overall - yawn. I have point of view based on my measurements and actual problems and health issues of some people I know (which will not disclose, but these were "wake up call" for me). You have some other point of view because lack of "personal experience". Neither will change. Lets leave it at that.

Yep, fair enough. You can hold your views and opinions and I wouldn't dream of telling you how to think or that your opinion is invalid. It's just when people come on here spouting "facts" that highly disputed by the scientific community comprised of people smarter than you or I, I get a little annoyed because the average person reading it might get the wrong idea and draw ridiculous conclusions from there.

We should be spreading knowledge and encourage learning and challenging ourselves rather than just guessing.

[MrW0lf]

Ok, some links to illustrate situation:

About soaring autism:
Here same stats are linked to glyphosate:
http://images.medicaldaily.com/sites/medicaldaily.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2015/01/05/autism-prevalenceuse-glyphosate.JPG
Here to organic food sales
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/autism-organic2.jpg
Only thing can conclude that autism IS soaring, but is anyones guess why. In such situation makes sense to rely on personal experience and observations.

Now back to ELF:
Here some dude says link to powerlines exists:
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1290
Later same dude says basically no link (after manipulating stats in a bit different way):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2965853/
So again 

Here some other studies:
Ahlbom, Anders; Elisabeth Cardis, Adele Green, Martha Linet, David Savitz, Anthony Swerdlow (December 2001). "Review of the Epidemiologic Literature on EMF and Health". Environ Health Perspect. 109 (S6) - [View abstract]
Fews, Peter; Denis Henshaw, Paul Keitch, Julie Close, Richard Wilding (December 1999). "Increased exposure to pollutant aerosols under high voltage power lines". Int J Radiat Biol. 75 (12): 1505-21. - [View Abstract]
Fews, Peter; Denis Henshaw, Richard Wilding, Paul Keitch (December 1999). "Corona ions from powerlines and increased exposure to pollutant aerosols". Int J Radiat Biol. 75 (12): 1523-31. - [View Abstract]
"SAGE first interim assessment: Power Lines and Property, Wiring in Homes, and Electrical Equipment in Homes" - [Summary plus downloads]

Here we finally see some indication of brain activity, for example
"Increased exposure to pollutant aerosols under high voltage power lines"

Aha! Second order effects! Someone took head out of his ... for a moment...

Lets try to go down this path:
http://www.sciencealert.com/study-finds-that-chronic-stress-really-does-spread-cancer-in-the-body

Stress... Hmm... Maybe ELF contributes to stress? And stress messes up health?
After all man is eletrical machine, if it transmits, maybe shall receive also, and Rx modulates some internal processes?

http://www.measurement.sk/2005/S2/Lipkova.pdf

But back to stress:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4256039/

"Our data demonstrated that the responses observed in the animals after exposure to the different frequencies of ELFEMF (1 and 5 Hz) may differ according to the frequency, and time of exposure. These data also indicated that one of the most prominent organs which can be activate after field exposure is at least some parts of the brain, which manifested by changes in behavior and hormonal level in the animals. In other word, our data explained the hazardous of the field exposure which can destabilize all body organs by the mechanisms which are not fully understand."

And just to spice up:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/237183/

"In conclusion, we demonstrated that 50?Hz ELF-EMF exposure can induce the alterations of genome-wide methylation and the expression of DNMTs. These results suggest that epigenetic regulation might play an important role in the biological effects of 50?Hz ELF-EMF exposure. Although we could not confirm whether the long-term exposure of alternating current does harm to our health based on the present study, we recommend that charge power supply and high voltage wire should be kept as far as possible from our body to reduce the absorption of radiation by cells."

So it's all very much open do discussion, nothing is "debunked" and no "final word" is said.

[Halcyon]

 

Now I'm convinced you're just a forum troll or at the very least, cherry picking studies/papers from Google in order to support a weak argument.

Most of what you posted has absolutely no relevance to anything being discussed here and I would hardly cite them as reputable sources in any case.

Of the two links relating to electromagnetic fields you provided, "some dude" concluded that "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation." If you actually bothered to read the paper, his findings were purely based on statistics rather than any real evidence, because as you would know from high school science, correlation does not equal causation. It looks like he has slapped it together as part of a university assessment.

I'm impressed that you managed to find a government site which "supports" your argument, but again, you didn't read it did you? This study came to the conclusion that the risk of childhood leukaemia was the same in the highest and lowest exposures they looked at but nevertheless "found no statistically significant associations between childhood-cancer risks and estimated magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines near the child's home address at birth" and "made no attempt to estimate magnetic fields from sources other than high-voltage power lines, such as substations, underground cables, distribution or house wiring, or domestic appliances".

This source which you're now relying on directly contradicts what you claimed earlier: "However they were puzzled why rates do not vary as square of distance (mag. field), but are linear instead".

Furthermore neither study you cited were performed on active participants.

As I said before, the general consensus in the scientific and educational communities indicate risk cannot be entirely ruled out and based on current research there is suggestion of a marginal increased risk in children, albeit it seems to be anecdotal. If you had bothered to read any of the source material, you'd come to the same conclusion.

You seem to have convinced yourself that there is some elevated risk and however you choose to live your life is fine, wear all the tin foil hats you desire. But if you come on a forum where the member base is largely intelligent, analytical and where many hold some very respectable qualifications, expect to be challenged if you post utter bollocks without any substantiation. Anyway, I've entertained you enough. If you choose not to educate and challenge yourself and your own beliefs, I feel a little sorry for you.

[MrW0lf]

Now I'm convinced you're just a forum troll or at the very least, cherry picking studies/papers from Google in order to support a weak argument.

Well obviously you are in "strong position" also and completely ignore studies & stuff that might shed some light into the matter. Technocrats are quite interesting creatures - they are happy to slap on heart rate monitors, EKG stuff, various other electrical sensors. So they have no problem with Tx part of (human) biology. But as soon as talk goes into Rx territory it complete no. Suddenly there are only heat effects possible and aggressive dismissal anything besides "official standpoint" starts So as you can see we both learned nothing, but bytes were wasted in forum database. So think better to conserve resources and wrap this up...

[Halcyon]

Yeah I'm not so sure a 1.9KW transmitting pole in the middle of a room is such a great idea, it would taste fuzzy.

[Marco]

It's presumably not 1.9 kW when it's not intentionally coupling to anything.

[MrW0lf]

It will couple to everything metallic conductive... But reason for whole concept is difficult to understand. To transmit power for high power appliances it clearly pointless, bacause those are usually fixed in place. But humans go with light. So why not just stick some "solar film" to appliance and absorb needed energy. Potentially it could be transparent so whole screen of devices could absorb energy. Complement with little battery - all done... BUT some military dudes have decided that >20% effective solar is "dual use" tech and probably we wont see this anytime soon... On the lab-test at least 4x better was achieved looong way ago. I can see what their problem with high efficiency solar is - nobody (incl "bad guys") would need infrastructure - no infra => no weak points to attack => no control. But with transparent film based tech even around 20% would yield something usable.