Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jim Feeley

"a reminder of the power of radio frequencies"

Recommended Posts

A Mystery Frequency Disrupted Car Fobs in an Ohio City, and Now Residents Know Why

 

It sounded like something from an episode of “The X-Files”: Starting a few weeks ago, in a suburban neighborhood a few miles from a NASA research center in Ohio, garage door openers and car key fobs mysteriously stopped working.

Garage door repair people, local ham radio enthusiasts and other volunteer investigators descended on the neighborhood with various meters. Everyone agreed that something powerful was interfering with the radio frequency that many fobs rely on, but no one could identify the source.

 

Rest of the story, about a five-minute read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/us/key-fobs-north-olmsted-ohio.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Twilight Zone episode where the neighborhood was freaking out because only one neighbor had power and it turned out it was aliens experimenting on them like ants? Their system was hard wired and controlled the electricity. It wouldn’t be that hard to kill all communications and wireless devices using 2.4gHz with a powerful enough amp....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JonG said:

. It wouldn’t be that hard to kill all communications and wireless devices using 2.4gHz with a powerful enough amp....

Like I do with my zaxnet amp 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Woodcock said:

Like I do with my zaxnet amp 😁

 

I used to be able to with my IFB100, but with all the wireless junk that camera brings onto set these days, even at full power, my transmissions get stepped on. 

 

But man back before all the Teradeks and wireless follow focuses, I could step onto set, and kill all the WiFi so the producers would stop tapping away on their laptops and pay attention lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this happen on a set in Georgia once a few years back.  None of the RF on the set would work.  UHF, VHF, Comteks, focus, walkies, nothing.  All worked fine in the AM.  None worked at all in the PM.  

 

I put it down to some sort of military "jamming" but we never did find out an answer.

 

Weird.

 

D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there I was, self-taught* high school hardware hacker, running my jury-rigged transmitter in the middle of the AM band when a local station shut off for the night. I'd walk around nearby blocks, listening to my taped self on a transistor radio. Nobody complained.

 

Here's a guy who just wanted to light a bulb when someone is upstairs, and he immobilizes a whole neighborhood!

 

Times were sure different then.

 

-

*Thanks, RCA Receiving Tube Manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Key West and various island in Tahiti, I have found that there is so much RF around that the scans on all blocks (and RF Explorer) showed a completely congested UHF spectrum. I couldn’t get five feet of range, it was crazy. Somehow I had anticipated this and brought an mkh70 with me, so everything turned out alright. But that was certainly a window into the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dalton Patterson said:

Food for thought...

 

Oh no, no antennaphobiacs here, please! ;)

 

If mobile phones were dangerous at all we would be seeing the effects years ago. Wondering about the insane "talent" embracing homeopathy, anti vaccine movements, 200$ a shot "detox" smoothies and all that crap, how do they react to radio mics? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, borjam said:

If mobile phones were dangerous at all we would be seeing the effects years ago. 

 

The „we would have known by now“ argument is so incredibly lame, I can’t believe you would actually use it. It’s similar to what the cigarette manufacturers used to say, whereas nowadays everyone is pretty sure that cigarettes are unhealthy. How long have mobile phones really been around? For how long have people been using them as extensively as they are today? There is no „years ago“. We are not talking about using a phone once and dying immediately. This is about years and years of many hours of use everyday. We simply don’t know yet of longterm effects. Also, during the years we‘ve had mobile phones the network types changed. Gsm is quite different from 4G, 5G is going to be very different again. 

 

Please note, I‘m not saying there actually is a negative effect, I‘m just saying we don’t know yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

The „we would have known by now“ argument is so incredibly lame, I can’t believe you would actually use it. It’s similar to what the cigarette manufacturers used to say, whereas nowadays everyone is pretty sure that cigarettes are unhealthy. How long have mobile phones really been around? For how long have people been using them as extensively as they are today? There is no „years ago“. We are not talking about using a phone once and dying immediately. This is about years and years of many hours of use everyday. We simply don’t know yet of longterm effects. Also, during the years we‘ve had mobile phones the network types changed. Gsm is quite different from 4G, 5G is going to be very different again. 

 

First: Physics. Remember that we are made of atoms. We do know pretty well what happens when electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter. Especially, we do know pretty well that in order to obtain a non-thermal you need a pretty high energy photon. EMR with such high energy photons is known as "ionizing radiation" and its frequencies are above those of visible light, slightly above ultraviolet-A. If UHF "photons" were dangerous, visible light photons would be lethal. 

 

Second, electomagnetic radiation in the UHF frequencies used by mobile phones is not new. Some of the bands have been used by analog TV broadcasts since the 50's or so, with transmission powers in the order of several KW. I remember an image in Madrid, around Torrespaña (a large telecommunications tower surrounded by residential areas). Houses around it had the TV antennas attached to windows and balconies instead of the typical pole on the roof. Is there a know cancer cluster there? Not at all. That adds some historical data to the "we would already know" argument. 

 

The radio spectrum is quite densely populated. It's not only mobile phones, but radio and TV broadcasts, utility radio, radar, microwave links, etc. For example, have  you ever visited a harbor or boarded a small ship with radar? Civil marine radars usually work on the 10 GHz band (5x to 10x frequency of the mobile phones), transmit pulses (some phobiacs now claim that pulsed transmissions are more harmful) and with powers up to 45 KW. I guess fishermen have a higher risk of skin cancers, but, is it the sun or the radar?

 

So what's different between the old analog system around 450 MHz, GSM, 3G, 4G and 5G? Some frequency bands have been reused. And the more modern the technology, the more efficient its transmissions, which means that they require less energy to transmit the same amount of information. I guess some people became paranoid with GSM mobile phones because the transmission is so incredibly dirty interference can be heard on a nearby passive loudspeaker. 

 

There are no increases in cancer cases that you could link to mobile phone usage and it's been more than twenty years now. The cancer cases linked to people working around radars are not caused by the radar microwaves (non ionizing) but by X-ray leaks affecting operators (X-ray is well above ultraviolet, so it's certainly ionizing radiation and very harmful). Mainteinance staff can be at risk of inhaling harmful substances when repairing power electronics because well known dangerous substances are used. Again, nothing related to radio transmissions. 

 

I don't think we have reasons to think that it's dangerous. Of course tobacco companies denied the harm while lung cancer cases were raising dramatically. The same thing is sort of happening now with the controversy around diesel. Better than gasoline in the long term (it emits less CO2) but really bad in the short term (it emits very harmful pollutants linked to lots of cancer cases in urban areas). 

 

There is no physical effect that might explain any kind of harm. Frequency or application selective? Forget it. Cancer cases? Nothing. Studies? A large long term study carried out recently with mice gave a quite convincing result: nothing. Actually, as a statistical artifact EMR was beneficial! Yes, there is a well known Spanish biologist claiming that EMR is decimating bird populations. The guy even dared publishing a "paper" in which he showed that he was unable to distinguish mobile phone transmissions from radio broadcasts in a spectrum analyzer and he quoted the "measured radiation levels" in plain dB. Not dBµ, dBm or whatever.

 

Even the surroundings of Chernobyl, where there is indeed a lot of extremely harmful nuclear radiation, have become a wild life haven. Yes, there are no cell towers there. Might as well be a worthy experiment to plant several active cell phone mast simulators there and see what happens. 

 

I really don't think we have any reasons to worry at all. I am deeply worried about the impact of social networks and instant communication on democracy but that's an entirely different matter. 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Constantin said:

Please note, I‘m not saying there actually is a negative effect, I‘m just saying we don’t know yet.

 


So far there's no proof, not even indirect. Meanwhile we have really strong reasons to think that it's harmless. And as a research subject for a physicist it would be like a dream. Someone proving and describing such a harmful effect would be a good candidate to become a Nobel laureate on Physics or Chemistry. It would certainly demolish a lot of what we know about matter. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, borjam said:

I really don't think we have any reasons to worry at all

 

It is indeed non-ionizing radiation. That in itself does not mean that it has no effect on humans. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation and I would not like to be in one (I know, I know, that’s not the same as mobile phones) 

But the heating of tissue and the effect of that on the brain, for example, are not 100% clear to scientists, though currently the general opinion is that it’s probably harmless. 

 

The difference to your radio since the 50‘s, but also between 2/3/4/5G is, among other things, the frequency. It makes a big difference. 

 

Even those multi KW radio transmitters were not and are not held to someone‘s face for up to several hours. Even using a hand-free device is going to make a big difference. 

There is also a combination of all the various devices that emit EMR which we didn’t have just a few years ago. And 4G didn’t replace 3G it added to it. 

We coordinate our frequencies, because we know that they can interact unfavorably with each other. Could that have an effect on humans, if various mobile phones or wifi routers or whatever interact?

 

The WHO has classified EMR from mobile phones as „possibly carcinogenic“. This means that there are enough indicators that EMR could actually cause cancer, but they could also be occurring due to other factors (such as chance), and that further research is needed. 

 

The NTP study you alluded to (I assume) above did indeed not find any link in mice, but it did in male rats. They could be shown to be affected by EMR from mobile phones. 

 

Some forms of cancer need 20-30 or even 40 years before they even break out. So you think 20 years of mobile phone use is enough?

 

Hundreds of studies have already been conducted and most did not find any conclusive evidence that EMR caused any illnesses. But they also didn’t show that it didn’t and many had some indicators that there was a negative effect and almost all concluded that more research was needed. And more research is underway all over the world, e.g. in Europe a study with 290.000 participants that‘s to run 20-30 years.

 

None of this would be needed if it were as clear-cut as you make it seem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

It is indeed non-ionizing radiation. That in itself does not mean that it has no effect on humans. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation and I would not like to be in one (I know, I know, that’s not the same as mobile phones) 

But the heating of tissue and the effect of that on the brain, for example, are not 100% clear to scientists, though currently the general opinion is that it’s probably harmless. 

 

A microwave oven uses an enormous amount of power of course. The thermal effects due to using a mobile phone are negligible compared to walking under the sun. Of course some of the more surreal "studies" are suggesting exotic explanations linked to oxidative stress, "artificially polarized radiation" and whatnot.

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

The difference to your radio since the 50‘s, but also between 2/3/4/5G is, among other things, the frequency. It makes a big difference. 

 

Not so much. 3G and 4G are working on the frequency bands used formerly for television broadcasts. When I say "radio" I mean radio transmissions in general, including TV. And humans have been exposed to powerful radar transmissions on higher frequencies, such as 5 GHz (meteo radar) and 10 GHz (shipping radar) for many years. What may cause just certain frequencies to be dangerous and not others? And what about the powerful infrared radiation emitted by the now phased out common incandescent lamps?

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

Even those multi KW radio transmitters were not and are not held to someone‘s face for up to several hours. Even using a hand-free device is going to make a big difference. 

 

Depends on how far of the multi KW transmitter you are. Go to a roof in an urban area and check with a spectrum analyzer. The strongest signals (around -20 dBm on the roof of the University here) are the FM broadcasts.

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

There is also a combination of all the various devices that emit EMR which we didn’t have just a few years ago. And 4G didn’t replace 3G it added to it. 

We coordinate our frequencies, because we know that they can interact unfavorably with each other. Could that have an effect on humans, if various mobile phones or wifi routers or whatever interact?

 

They interact with each other like two people speaking simultaneously. If the signals are strong you can even suffer intermodulations of course. However, will two improperly set up transmitters cause damage to the receiver? No :) They don't interact with each other, the problem is in the receiver if the spectra of the signals somehow overlap or one of them causes non linear effects (distortion, intermodulation) on the receiver.

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

The WHO has classified EMR from mobile phones as „possibly carcinogenic“. This means that there are enough indicators that EMR could actually cause cancer, but they could also be occurring due to other factors (such as chance), and that further research is needed. 

 

The classification as "possible" is not even a hint. Lots of substances and agents are classified as "possible".

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

The NTP study you alluded to (I assume) above did indeed not find any link in mice, but it did in male rats. They could be shown to be affected by EMR from mobile phones. 

 

It was a statistical artifact. I don't have the explanation here (I can dig it) but it really didn't prove anything. Also, there was no indication of dose response. And we are talking about a study done with mice especially susceptible to cancer. 

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

Some forms of cancer need 20-30 or even 40 years before they even break out. So you think 20 years of mobile phone use is enough?

 

Well, statistically in a population of millions of people using mobile phones and wireless devices daily not all of the cases would develop at the same pace. We would have seen it already. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

Hundreds of studies have already been conducted and most did not find any conclusive evidence that EMR caused any illnesses. But they also didn’t show that it didn’t and many had some indicators that there was a negative effect and almost all concluded that more research was needed. And more research is underway all over the world, e.g. in Europe a study with 290.000 participants that‘s to run 20-30 years.

 

None of this would be needed if it were as clear-cut as you make it seem.

 

 

There are lots of poorly made studies pretending to show something. The well done studies show nothing. Yet there are some people succeeding in keeping some "controversy" around the subject, the same kind of "controversy" around evolution or vaccines. It is impossible to prove that something is harmless. However, if you fail to prove any harm you can have a pretty good assurance that it's not harmful. 

 

My apologies, this is a peaceful forum and I am not intending to begin a war on the subject. But, really, unless substantial proof is shown (so far there is none) I won't stop using wireless devices. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If prehistoric man had had as many governmental agencies, environmental impact studies, rules and regulations as we do today, we'd all be sitting around small fires in smoky caves waiting on dinner to cook. Except we wouldn't have fire.

Best Regards,

Larry Fisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, borjam said:

A microwave oven uses an enormous amount of power of course. 

 

Yes of course. I was not saying that microwave ovens actually were comparable to phones, just pointing out that non-ionizing radiation is not per se harmless. 

 

16 hours ago, borjam said:

he classification as "possible" is not even a hint. Lots of substances and agents are classified as "possible".

 

Yes it is a hint. The WHO said: 

„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.“

 

16 hours ago, borjam said:

It was a statistical artifact. I don't have the explanation here (I can dig it) but it really didn't prove anything. Also, there was no indication of dose response. And we are talking about a study done with mice especially susceptible to cancer. 

 

Pretty much none of that is true. 

From the NTP website: 

The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with:

Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.

 

the rats were standard lab rats. Read all about it here: 

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

 

16 hours ago, borjam said:

Well, statistically in a population of millions of people using mobile phones and wireless devices daily not all of the cases would develop at the same pace. We would have seen it already. 

 

That may well be true. But would it be statistically relevant enough for us to hear about it?

 

16 hours ago, borjam said:

There are lots of poorly made studies pretending to show something

 

Well, that’s a bit of a cheap argument. You simply discount all studies which don’t support your narrative? By comparison, your „we would have known by now“ was much better. 

 

The NTP study linked to above is a peer-reviewed thorough study. 

 

There is also the Interphone study, carried out by the IARC, an agency if the WHO:

„An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the Interphone study reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone. However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.“

 

Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC said: "An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited."

 

by „highest level“ they mean half an hour per day. Nowadays the levels would be much higher, but also offset by more efficient technology and the increased use of handsfree technology. 

 

There is much more. Check out https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

for much more information. Of course, there are many more studies there, which didn’t find any adverse health effects, but they don’t support my narrative ;)

 

17 hours ago, borjam said:

My apologies, this is a peaceful forum and I am not intending to begin a war on the subject. But, really, unless substantial proof is shown (so far there is none) I won't stop using wireless devices. 

 

And you shouldn’t. And I don’t think there is any uncivility in this, it’s simply a discussion. 

I don’t stop using wireless devices, either, and I‘m not even worried. 

That said, what’s wrong with acknowledging that this may not have been fully researched yet, and further investigations are warranted. Just like so many reputable scientists are doing. That has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution „controversy“, or chemtrails or whatever else. 

 

You can agree with many many scientists and think that there is no negative effect, and that’s fine. But it’s not fine to insinuate that everyone who doesn’t agree with you, and may have further questions, is basically a whacko. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LarryF said:

If prehistoric man had had as many governmental agencies, environmental impact studies, rules and regulations as we do today, we'd all be sitting around small fires in smoky caves waiting on dinner to cook. Except we wouldn't have fire.

Best Regards,

Larry Fisher

 

That‘s probably very true. OTOH governmental agencies make sure my drinking water is clean, so I call it even. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

Yes of course. I was not saying that microwave ovens actually were comparable to phones, just pointing out that non-ionizing radiation is not per se harmless. 

 

Well, dosis venenum facit :) Even visible light can cause rather impressive thermal effects. Try a high power laser. 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

Yes it is a hint. The WHO said: 

„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.“

 

So they are not sure at all, that's why it is in that cathegory.

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

 

Pretty much none of that is true. 

From the NTP website: 

The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with:

Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.

 

the rats were standard lab rats. Read all about it here: 

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

 

The conclusions of the experiment have been debated. To add more confusion check the attempt by the Ramazzini institute to duplicate that study. Again, there were statistical artifacts like just one mice among 400 or so (citing from memory) and a definite lack of dose response. Looks like low powers suggest a link to those tumors, while at higher powers there were no cases.

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

That may well be true. But would it be statistically relevant enough for us to hear about it?

 

When there is some crazy around it, certainly. I can recommend you an interesting website (https://microwavenews.com). It looks like a serious publication, turns out it hosts a lot of the crazy stuff about the matter. Theories about "non thermal effects" which would be quantum (or should I consider them "soul effects"?) but quantum level effects are ruled out unless someone earns a Nowel award describind something definitively new.

 

On the other hand, if there is an effect but it's so statistically insignificant, well, turns out eating sausages or drinking a beer would be much more dangerous. 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

Well, that’s a bit of a cheap argument. You simply discount all studies which don’t support your narrative? By comparison, your „we would have known by now“ was much better. 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

The NTP study linked to above is a peer-reviewed thorough study. 

 

Yes, again, contested and the evidence is really too faint. The Ramazzini study shows, again, nothing really consistent. 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

There is also the Interphone study, carried out by the IARC, an agency if the WHO:

„An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the Interphone study reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone. However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.“

 

Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC said: "An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited."

 

by „highest level“ they mean half an hour per day. Nowadays the levels would be much higher, but also offset by more efficient technology and the increased use of handsfree technology. 

 

There is much more. Check out https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

for much more information. Of course, there are many more studies there, which didn’t find any adverse health effects, but they don’t support my narrative ;)

 

In my case it's not a narrative. I have no reason to believe that there is some mysterious non thermal effect. There are a lot of bullshit "studies" pretending to prove that radio transmissions (again, electromagnetic radiation at a frequency below 300 GHz) are dangerous. The two studies that stand out and were well executed (in my opinion), the NTP and Ramazzini don't show anything really definitive. If you did it 20 times and you found the same results, well, there would be something. But in one case with the Ramazzini study we are talking about one affected mouse. And sadly they didn't perform proper necropies as far as I know. So the conclusion is really weak.

 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

And you shouldn’t. And I don’t think there is any uncivility in this, it’s simply a discussion. 

 

I was talking about myself, I tend to get carried away in these cases and someone can get annoyed ;) And hope a sarcasm or two is not taken as an offense!

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

I don’t stop using wireless devices, either, and I‘m not even worried. 

That said, what’s wrong with acknowledging that this may not have been fully researched yet, and further investigations are warranted. Just like so many reputable scientists are doing. That has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution „controversy“, or chemtrails or whatever else. 

 

Well, as I said. so far there are no solid reasons think it is dangerous. Can it be researched? Good, of course. But if you read what is being written around this subject (I happen to be a member of the Spanish Skeptics association and I've seen unspeakable stuff at the Gates of Tannhauser) you will see that it's exactly the same bullshit. Someone (in the "anti radiation" camp) even said that the NTP and Ramazzini studies are not valid because they didn't use real phones, go figure. Maybe we should perform the tests using phones transmitting conversations in different languages and talking about different subjects. Football? Politics? Religion? UFOs? ;)

 

Those people who are spreading all this fear have absolutely no understanding of radio technology. In Spain we have a biologist who experimented by putting an aquarium full of tadpoles (funny enough, of a protected species and "supplied by an anoymous source" (sic)) on the roof "close to a cell tower" and he performed the measurements on the ground level! He played with toy instruments, stated signal levels in "dB" and whatnot. Search for Balmori. 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Constantin said:

 

You can agree with many many scientists and think that there is no negative effect, and that’s fine. But it’s not fine to insinuate that everyone who doesn’t agree with you, and may have further questions, is basically a whacko. 

 

 

No, I am not insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with me is a whacko, of course! But in any of these subjects there be dragons. Peruse the website I linked and compare it to, say, the anti vaccine movement or even flat earthers. By the way I really recommend to watch "Behind the Curve" on Netflix.

 

I know there are serious people looking into the matter and doing serious experiments. Curiously, those experiments are always non conclusive.

 

Now I go back to playing with my HF transceiver, at a much lower frequency (7 and 14 MHz right now) ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 1:22 PM, LarryF said:

If prehistoric man had had as many governmental agencies, environmental impact studies, rules and regulations as we do today, we'd all be sitting around small fires in smoky caves waiting on dinner to cook. Except we wouldn't have fire.

Best Regards,

Larry Fisher

 

This is my new favorite quote on jwsoundgroup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If prehistoric man had the same social and economic setup we've got now, we'd either be barely able to afford the rent on those caves or be underwater on their mortgages, and fire would belong to a big company that sold it to us by the BTU. With no public health or FDA, most of our kids would already be dead and the raw meat we had would be tainted.

 

Capitalism and Communism are both great systems... on paper. Both fall apart when faced with human greed and gaming the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel required to respond, I posted that image as an oppositional argument. I have, and always will think in an oppositional format. It has nothing to do with real or not real issues. I deeply appreciate your input no matter your position or opposition. 

 

With that being said, I would like to put the lid back onto this particular can of worms. 

 

The conclusion I have come to is that the waves on the beach( problematic issues) will never stop, it is best to catch a good ride when a nice wave comes along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...