 |
Xanadu 2012: Micro Wave Pollution |
Category: Articles 8 comments 23 Oct 2010 @ 01:51 by swanny @70.65.31.24 : Energy Datawell regarding my previous post at oct 21 2010 AB CA 3:28 PM MDT Well being trying to piece some data together on this, Daily energy consumption in around 2002 was 13 terawatts globally and if you take that a powerful radio or TV transmitter can emit 0.3 watts per meter and you assume say 30% or more of that global energy usage creates electromagnetism of some sort you've got a man made source of electromagnetism of about 5 tera watts daily and globally in cities as high as 0.3 watts per meter in some places. So I suppose combined with the heat of greenhouse gas effect of CO2 and the thermal heat generated by things warming physically along with the nuking of the air through electromagnetism its small wonder the world has warmed about 2 degrees C. since the 1940s. The average microwave oven can achieve about 1000 watts these days so how much heat could a 5 tera watt micro wave produce in a day? I'm getting a headache. Apparently 5 tera watts is about the equivalent of the average solar magnetic storm. Although inside the outer ozone layer that normally shield us from such ed jonas Q: How powerful is a magnetic storm? A: A large magnetic storm generates about 5 terawatts of power ( 5 x 10^12 watts). This is about the same power capacity of the United States. ed jonas FOR WHOM THE CELL TOLLS by Nathaniel Rich May 2010 ...Electromagnetic radiation is as old as the universe. We spend our lives immersed in it. Until the twentieth century, the greatest emitter of electromagnetic radiation known to man was the sun. Today, however, man-made EMFs overwhelm natural ones in developed areas. Every object that generates an electric charge creates an electromagnetic field. Radio and television signals are forms of electromagnetic radiation. Whenever you walk down the street you pass through innumerable overlapping fields, as obliviously as a bird crosses national borders or an airplane passenger enters new time zones. Electromagnetic radiation is not only everywhere; it is forever. It diminishes in strength the farther it travels from its source, but it never disappears. Long after the sun devours the earth, man-made electromagnetic waves will continue their march through the universe at the speed of light. At the time of this article’s publication, for instance, Orson Welles’s 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast will be streaming over the star Epsilon Cygni, seventy-two light-years away. Not all radiation is created equal. High-frequency electromagnetic radiation—nuclear radiation, X-rays, even the ultraviolet rays of a tanning booth—is powerful enough to break chemical bonds, creating highly unstable atoms called ions. Ionizing radiation harms the cells of living tissue: it damages DNA and increases the risk of cancer. These facts are no longer disputed, though it took sixty years of poorly regulated X-ray use, and corresponding spikes in cancer-incidence rates, before scientists fully understood the dangers involved. Today’s controversy focuses on the lower part of the electromagnetic spectrum. These waves—frequencies below 300 GHz—are considered too weak to damage human tissue. If they indeed cause biological damage, then they must do so in ways unexplained by conventional science. First in 1976, and then in 1989 and 1990, The New Yorker published a series of chilling articles by Paul Brodeur presenting evidence that exposure to extremely low- frequency electromagnetic radiation—from power lines, radar antennae, and video-display terminals—increased the risk of cancer. The mainstream medical and scientific community dismissed these studies, and Brodeur himself came under attack. Yet there was a turning point in 2000, when a team of eminent epidemiologists concluded, based on the studies to date, that high exposure to these EMFs doubled the risk of childhood leukemia. The following year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, made the decision to classify extremely low-frequency EMFs, such as those emitted by power lines, as a Group 2B agent: a possible human carcinogen. 23 Oct 2010 @ 02:45 by swanny @70.65.31.24 : links links Microwave and Broadcast Climate Change theory link = http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-17-L3.PDF link = http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/ link = http://broadcast.homestead.com/Cover.html 23 Oct 2010 @ 02:57 by swanny @70.65.31.24 : radio wave chart chart http://broadcast.homestead.com/2nd_TEMP_GRAPH.jpg 23 Oct 2010 @ 10:32 by swanny @70.65.31.24 : Warming Contributors oct 23 2010 sat 4:30 am mdt rd ab ca re:Arctic warming at near record pace Thus if you consider my preceding posts you have 3 or 5 possible sources or drivers or contributors of global warming all coinciding and working in tandem to drive temps up past the 15.3 * C avg for all of the 20th century most the result of industry and tech increasing temps within the shortest time frame on record Temp Warming Contributors 1. CO2 emissions past 350 ppm creating greenhouse effect 30% 2. 5 tera watts of ambient microwave radiation nuking relative humidity in atmosphere 25% 3. Standard air pollution choking the air and atmosphere and preventing thermal heat loss to space 25% 4. Solar Cycles 10% 5. Normal Planetary temp swings 10% = 100% are there other possible contributors perhaps? most from sources unknown to the earth until after 1900 AD Current global temp for the first decade of 21 century equals 16.3 * C an increase of 1* C or more. ed jonas 28 Oct 2010 @ 21:32 by Ethan Clark @67.183.210.97 : Microwave pollution I'm still not convinced that CO2 is a major contributing factor. The atmospheric heating signatures do not match up with CO2 warming and show ozone depletion signatures: http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/25348/No_Evidence_to_Support_Carbon_Dioxide_Causing_Global_Warming.html And although the global EM output may affect the hydrology by altering the the ambient absorption of EM waves into atmospheric moisture, perhaps changing the disassociation rate of water molecules and the altitude of evaporate in certain areas, the greatest impact as I see it is from the process of Electron Precipitation as the EM waves at specific frequencies interact with the ionosphere causing runaway ion outflows near the polar regions. These outflows of ions interact with atmospheric Nitrogen to create NOx which is known as one of the leading factors of stratospheric ozone destruction and modeling. "At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere. Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]." http://www.lpce.cnrs-orleans.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php I also have a hard time seeing the percentages you are presenting here when you are talking about a system as massive as the global atmosphere. Soooo many factors here, but if you look at our historic use of broadcast frequencies, the affects those Fq have on the different layers of the ionosphere with regards to experiments carried out to assess the effects of Fqs on the production of REP:Relativistic Electron Precipitation, you can see a definite pattern here that hints at REP being one of the most significant factors in climate change. IMO anyways, Ethan Clark - [email protected] 14 Mar 2015 @ 05:09 by truckfirelawyer @182.186.210.206 : You should comment on the competition co You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog. You can highlight it's mind boggling. Your blog exploration/tour will broaden your conversions. 1 Apr 2015 @ 10:14 by Aspex Technology @39.36.31.123 : I am happy when reading your blog with u I am happy when reading your blog with updated information! thanks alot and hope that you will post more site that are related to this site. 2 Jan 2016 @ 10:10 by Jugar Juegos Gratis @198.199.75.241 : juegos online Juegos gratis, minijuegos online y multijugador. Juegos sociales y con logros en internet, juegos en flash y Unity 3D para pasarlo genial. Con y sin registro. Other entries in Articles 23 Aug 2022 @ 09:55: Gravity battery ref 23 Aug 2022 @ 09:53: Gravity battery ???. 2 May 2022 @ 06:45: How to Get Quality Dofollow Backlinks 23 Nov 2021 @ 18:26: What is Linkbuilding 25 Jun 2021 @ 15:37: Longitude at sea? 24 Aug 2020 @ 12:42: Climate and ocean 24 Aug 2020 @ 12:37: Climate update Aug 2020 15 Mar 2020 @ 19:11: Hang in.. 29 Jul 2019 @ 16:12: Onward 28 Feb 2019 @ 14:41: Solar Neighborhood pic
|
21 Oct 2010 @ 21:35, by Unknown