Rusty's avatar
Rusty
rusty@getalby.com
npub16guy...ulsy
Rusty from the interwebz. I hack, design and teach the nature's way of jumpstarting your Mitochondria's All dis-eases have 1 thing in common and i.e. dysfunctional energy makers. Free Tech is the only way we can get back our freedom. Bitcoin, Nostr and Quantum Biology Maximalist. Follow me for my BASED takes on living a life... worth living. a life backed by P.O.W.
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
How far is it safe to live from a Weather RADAR? RADAR is one of the most bio-disruptive RF signal you can be exposed to. Weather radars like NEXRAD have very high peak power (hundreds of kW) & large antenna gain, but their average power is far lower. That combination gives a very directive beam that can produce high instantaneous peaks yet a lower time-averaged power density at distance From an Engineering perspective, Safety limits are based on this average power, that's the heating effect over time. But from a Biological perspective, Researchers like Dimitris Panagopoulos argue that it’s the peak pulses, not the averages, that matter. So If you live within 5–10 km of a large weather radar & have a clear view of the antenna (especially at a similar elevation) you’re likely inside a zone of high peak exposure. To fall below Building Biology “Extreme Concern” You’d need to be atleast 50+ km away. image
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
If Cellphones were a Drug, They’d never pass safety trials. – Devra Davis, Founder EHT and Author of "Disconnect"
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
Cellphones cannot be studied like drugs in a controlled trial. Neither the 3 letter agencies test cell phones for safety before they're marketed nor does it monitor them for safety afterwards. It relies on the advice of industry experts and prodding from consumer advocacy groups. RF Exposure guidelines are a sham and were last updated in 1996, almost three decades ago. The short and sweet of it is: Stop putting your phone next to your fuckin' head. image
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
I usually stick to speakerphone for about 95% of the time. When I do use my $10 JBL wired earphones for longer sessions, I clip on these ferrite beads. image
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
Just like a cellphone number is used for protection against DDOS attacks and rate limiting, Bitcoin's Proof of Work consensus mechanism represents a limited real-world resource. In the near future, Bitcoin could be harnessed for rate limiting and DDOS protection via APIs. All that energy being utilised by bitcoin mining networks becomes a defensive shield for the internet Bitcoin becomes the global rate limiter. Wild to even think about.
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
No one reads the damn fine print that comes with their cellphones anymore
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS IS HUGE image
Rusty's avatar
ze_rusty 3 months ago
All earphones/headphones have small permanent magnets that creates SOUND. It generates STATIC magnetic fields that goes upto 100 µT For reference, Earth’s geomagnetic field varies from 25-65 µT In-Ear monitors (IEMs) often have slightly stronger fields due to their packed design (small but strong magnets) Large over-the-ear headphones with powerful drivers & bigger magnets have even higher localized static magnetic fields BUT these fields drop off quickly with distance. And that’s where Physics steps in. Magnetic fields don’t spread like light, They fade much faster. Instead of the Inverse Square Law you hear about with radiation, magnetic dipole (like a bar magnet or headphone driver) obey the inverse cube law (1/r³) That means 2x the gap → field drops to 1/8th 3x the gap → fields drop to 1/27th of the intensity So while over-ear headphones might have beefier magnets inside, their distance from your skull makes all the difference This makes over-the-ear headphones better than in-ear