This is not so much for stating something that is proven, but for bringing up the topic for discussion. How much of a factor is Radiology on the weather? In previous years we've had a lot of people push forwards their views on climate change and even some on climate control. So with the help of what brainiacs might frequent this forum perhaps we can work out weather what I have come to believe pays any part at all. (I've stated things that are "hypothetical" in blue. Please understand that the human mind is complex, it attempts to understand things by finding shapes in patterns or working out structures. Some of the things I've hypothesised are potentially constructs that are completely incorrect in the real world, but I kind of need your help to work out if any of them have substance or if each of these points should just be thrown to the wayside) You see since the mid 1990's, mobile telephone communications has steadily risen, with ever increasing advances in technology. Initially there were a number of reports about how mobiles could increase the brains speed when held in close proximity (hyp: Probably due to something like the electromagnetic fluctuations stimulating the NMDA receptor's), even some reports suggesting the increase in the potentials of cancer (hyp: Certain radiological levels can stimulate Mitosis). (The following should probably be all blue for identifying hypothesis.)My current hypothesis is however more along the lines of identifying the overall RF output globally. Every antenna, transponder, wireless access point and mobile phone can output a very small amount of radiology. This radiology is obviously created through the use of energy and results in distorting spacetime. (The distortion is proportionate to the energy input) This in turn potentially (again hypPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! increases overall global molecular friction. Atoms and molecules collide riding the crest of this many waves, obviously depending on the frequency modulation and length defines just how much energy is truly being exerted. This initially cause me to think about the global warming problem, although seeing it as potentially only a minor factor in any temperature increase. Further hypothesis considered the potential that the permeation of the Permafrost would actually cause ice crystals to either stop forming or melt, causing the retreat of polar icecaps. Now the reason I mention all these hypothesizes is obviously because the current world-wide "Cold spell" would contradict any temperature increases, but in reality it doesn't contradict at all. You could ask a simple question to try and get what I spotted: What freezes faster, Water or Steam? Well the answer is steam to my knowledge, water has a higher molecular volume in regards to consistency so will take longer to freeze even though steam needs to cool first. This made me realise that when water droplets are potentially diffracting various frequency levels, they are potentially causing the molecules to move further apart, causing the liquid to move more towards vapour. As a vapour my understanding was that it was allowing the molecules to freeze quicker and this suggested reasoning over why the snow that has fallen in some areas was "thick". (Not small snow flakes but complex frozen structures that were large in size) In essence it would suggest that depending on what frequencies cloud base had applied would define whether rain/sleet falls or whether snow or hailstones fall in place. (A simple modulation could turn a frozen flurry into a torrential downpour by inhibiting ice crystals to form complex patterns.) Any thoughts on Radiology and it's effect, or my own hypothesizes? (preferably not rude ones)
The energy transfer from rf is miniscule. I would be willing to bet that more heat is transfered to the environment from people going into and out of heated buildings. What makes you think cell phones speed up the brain and what does speed up the brain even mean?
Many years ago one day I was talking to my friends on cell phone and its about 1-2 hours. After that I had a headache for it. I knew some bad effects to our environment of cell phone radiation.
Radiation has a number of effects on us and our environment. mobile towers, electronics, also some industries which pollute the environment by emitting radiating particles are the major reason for creating radiation pollution.
Sounds completely coincidental. One time many years ago I got a headache after I saw a Sharp Shinned hawk. That does not prove that seeing a Sharp Shinned hawk causes headaches. The medical evidence says that there is no harm from cell phone use.
The net power output from cars is quite big too. I don't know, but I expect that the warming from radiation is less. It sure can influence clouds, they absorb microwaves very well. I even believe such experiments have been made. But the power output even of big radar stations is small comapred to the mass of clouds (the amount to water vapor, drops and ice crystals). http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zsbwjxs You need a lot of power to heat up 10.000 tons of water, which seems to be a common weight for clouds, according to this source. Much less chances for the big clouds.
Yes, thanks about it. I found many claims about mobile phone from many sources. Its harmful to children, human brain.......etc. But simply I thought that it should be sunlight radiation than mobile and towers( ionizing effect that claimed). But I had a headache for talk to my friends because its about 1-2 hours.
A column of air does not make a very efficient antenna; the energy passes through without very much absorption, other than infrared or optical wavelengths. The ionosphere mostly reflects radio waves and absorbs or reflects UV. But energy is conserved, and whatever doesn't radiate away into space is eventually absorbed by something down here. My guess would be that no matter how you use the energy produced, powering it with something other than burning coal or other fossil fuels will be better in terms of global warming than otherwise.
On the other hand, I got a headache and knee pain after reading this thread and at least one of those is probably not coincidental.
Read- http://www.sciencelog.net/2014/12/radioactive-pollution-causes-and-effect.html -For various radioactive effects on environment Health effects- (i) Short Range (Immediate) Effects: They appear within days or a few weeks after exposure. The effects included loss of hair, nails, subcutaneous bleeding, change in number and proportion of blood cells, changed metabolism, and proportion of blood cells, etc. (ii) Long Range (Delayed) Effects: They appear several months or even years after the exposure. The effects are caused by development of genetic changes, mutations, shortening of life span, formation of tumour, cancers, etc. The effect of mutations can persist in the human race. Source-http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/pollution/essay-on-radioactive-pollution-sources-effects-and-control-of-radioactive-pollution/23271/
I am well aware of the effects of ionizing radiation. The OP is about cell phones and radio towers which are not ionizing radiation.
Yes, there are many studies which proves exposure to radioactive waves from cell phone towers at close proximity can cause short and long term health effects.
And I think there are no electron guns or picture tube system in transmitter of cell phone towers that can produce harmful electromagnetic waves and there is no radioactive material too.
