For wildlife it appears to be increased hypoxia effects within a 15 mile radius. It is strongly correlated with the total power level/number of overlapping radars.
My p-value stats looked at 59 radar towers and 2 years of fish kills (>1000) due to hypoxia/algae blooms. It compared them to 59 random/coastal locations. Melbourne, Florida is the 27th largest town but happens to have the most radars and tremendous disease problem in the lagoon. Many of the mammal necropsies are showing signs of shock http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-02-01/news/os-manatee-deaths-indian-river-20140201_1_indian-river-lagoon-katie-tripp-dead-manatees Sort of like Dave building his transmitter and confusing power with energy.... Power(joules/sec) * duration (secs) = Energy (joules) Power <> Energy Water = Energy Flowrate of water = Power Fire hose on for 1/2 second knocks you on your ass using little energy but lots of power. NOAA does not know the difference. I think it is killing us one DNA/RNA strand at a time along with free radical/oxidative stress in our blood streams, just like the waterways. Take your anti-oxidants and eat fruits and vegetables! On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > ChemE, > > What is the avg radius of detrimental health effects around the Doppler > stations? > > -mark > > > > *From:* ChemE Stewart > [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com');>] > > *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 4:29 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');> > *Subject:* [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio > > > > Bob, agreed. I told the biologist that is running statistics that I think > the microwave radars may be breaking RNA/DNA strands and triggering single > stranded RNA viruses like norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships. > > > > http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/04/27/were-cooked/ > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Dave-- > > > > One possible effect is the resonant absorbtion of radiation by > biologically active molecules, which cause ionization and destruction of > the molecules. This is particularly damaging when the molecule is a DNA or > RNA molecule. Weak H bonds occur in these molecules and such destruction > leads to modified DNA or RNA activity. The average heating idea also is > appropriate, however it is not as much as a problem as the destruction or > disabling of the large molecules that control the body's production of > other complex molecules. DNA in skin and eye cells would be more > susceptible than those more deeply situated in the body. Reproductive > organs near the surface of the body are more venerable to such radiation > and hence to genetic changes that are passed on to offspring. Such a > problem applies to humans as well a smaller animals and birds that have the > least amount of shielding of their gonads. > > > > The other issue associated with DNA destruction could be the stimulated > emission of tritium by the exposure to the intense radiation of the > radars. Tritium is a bad actor when it decays in a nucleus of a cell. The > beta from the tritium is about 18 Kev. This energy is deposited over a > path of about 6 microns. The average dimension of a cell nucleus is about > 6 to 10 microns. This means a large fraction of the beta from tritium > decay is deposited in the nucleus where it is bound to cause numerous > double breaks of DNA molecules and the genetic damage that goes along with > these breaks. Such mutagenic effects were observed in the vole population > around Chernobyl after the nuclear accident as a result of tritium > contamination in the drinking water consumed by the vole population. > > > > (Considering the damage to gene cells of the body, the EPA drinking water > standard for tritium, 20,000 pico curies per liter, is way to high (about > 100 times) to prevent unreasonable damage to gene cells. Small breeding > populations of animals, including some populations of humans, can be > unreasonably affected by such high bodily tritium concentrations as allowed > by the current standards. The justification by the EPA and the ICRP that > any defects in the genetics passed on to the society get greatly diluted to > reduce risk, does not apply to small breeding populations. And of course, > if you are one in a million of the people at risk that develop a health > problem that is non-mutagenic , it does not help you at all.) > > > > I am one to believe that there should be no risk to vertebrates, except > birds, existing around hazards that causes more than one health effect of > the population subjected to the hazard. Important insects such as bees > should be included in this no risk criteria. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >
