Slashdot Mirror


User: PooFlinger

PooFlinger's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
2
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 2

  1. Re:Psuedoscience on Electrical Noise Causing Physiological Stress? · · Score: 1

    I know exactly how your mom feels. Crappy monitors and cheapo flourescents are nightmare for me. I'm not sure it is a condition so much as it is a combination of the frequency of the light and the way people's eyes work. When I try to focus under these conditions, I find my eyes following the twitches, so that the muscles are working overtime to stay on target and stay focused..resulting in painfully sore eyes and then a headache. Because your mom only has one eye to work with in the first place, it is already overworked, so the effects from unsteady light could be even worse. The important thing to note, is that this is not about the electricity, but about the light.

  2. Electric complexity of modern living on Electrical Noise Causing Physiological Stress? · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I find it interesting that the supposedly intelligent /. readership lacks the imagination to see the true complexity of this situation. They are getting bent out of shape over the lack of extremely narrow test parameters when the problem involves the interaction of multiple emissions from many sources. It is not just ONE monitor, or ONE wireless network; in my apartment alone ther are at least SIX viable wireless signals at any given time. Now add in my crappy refrigerator throwing spikes into the house wires, a tv, a dvd player, a laptop(sometimes 2), a stereo, and lighting, and you have an extremely complex electo-magnetic environment. Then you can add in the wiring in the apartments around you, and the transmission lines running near by, and cell signals....The list is very long, and all of the emission from all of these devices do not operate in isolation.

    Oh, and don't forget the varying ages, conditions, and characteristics of the different distribution systems.

    I am not suggesting you buy into the articles every claim, or even that any of it is "true" in the end, but to be so dismissive in the face of such complexity is almost antithetical to the basic tenants of science upon which many of you are basing your derision.