Are there good Wacom AES or MPP devices that support linux?

Discussion in 'What Tablet PC Should I Buy?' started by Hell-Cat, Jul 24, 2020.

  1. Hell-Cat

    Hell-Cat Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    You clearly haven't measured plain monitors with EMF meters. I have.

    Building biology guideline and bioinitiative report say non-ionizing radiation becomes dangerous above 100uW/m^2. Anything above 10uW/m^2 isn't good, either.

    Non-ionizing radiation and non-heating radiation can both be dangerous and cause DNA mutations.

    If you want to dispute further, come back with measurements of electric field, magnetic field, and electromagnetic radiation.
     
    thatcomicsguy likes this.
  2. ATIVQ

    ATIVQ V⅁O⅄ Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    584
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I think you're severely confused. Bluetooth outputs at most 0.1 watt, that's the maximum legally permissible power. A 300-nits display outputs about 0.250 watts of light. Bluetooth operates at 2.4GHz which has no known health effects other than producing heat when absorbed. Visible light, in particular blue light, has known and severe health effects, like promoting macular degeneration and cancer.

    I don't think you understand what you're measuring.
     
  3. Hell-Cat

    Hell-Cat Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Blindly stating that I am severely confused or I don't understand what I'm measuring is rude. I want you to be a bit respectful if you want kindness to be reciprocated. If you want to engage me further, show some respect.

    0.1 watt translates into 100mW, and measurements are usually made in mW/m^2 or uW/m^2. Actual exposure level depends on surface area.

    Here's building biology guideline.

    building biology guideline.jpg

    https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ presents various evidences of non-heating low-level microwave as carcinogen.

    Blue light can be harmful at night because it reduces melatonin, but visible light itself isn't harmful if it's natural light. Reduction of melatonin can lead to cancer because melatonin is essential to immune system strength. Blue light or visible light from everyday light sources doesn't directly cause widespread cellular damage which microwave can cause indiscriminately.

    Above 100uW/m^2, microwave can damage DNA faster than human cells can repair DNA.

    Also, http://www.sammilham.com/Huntersvill OM report September 28.pdf indicates that electromagnetic radiation at 20khz is linked with eye cancer.

    Different frequency bands of electromagnetic radiation have different effects. But, microwave is generally a lot more harmful than visible light. Microwave had been used against humans during world wars as invisible weapon, too.

    If I measure a plain monitor and wacom cintiq with an AM radio, Wacom EMR emits a lot of electromagnetic radiation between 550khz and 600khz. It reaches into a few meters. A plain monitor's electromagnetic raidation in AM radio frequencies isn't nearly as strong as Wacom EMR's.

    If you know watts but not mW/m^2, uW/m^2, or V/m, I think I understand what I measure better than you do. If you ever used an EMF meter in your life, you would have used one of those units. Why do I take you seriously if you never actually measured electromagnetic radiation and never heard of bioinitiative report and building biology guideline in your life? If you are trying to be respected, you are failing. Are you now going to state again that non-heating microwave doesn't cause damage while ignoring evidences I present in this comment? If you are going to willfully ignore researches, I won't engage you further. If you start considering researches, I may forgive you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
  4. Shogmaster

    Shogmaster Pen Pro - Senior Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,265
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    231
    DOES THIS MEAN I AM BECOMING X-MEN THANKS WACOM!!
     
    Smiley and doobiedoobiedum like this.
  5. thatcomicsguy

    thatcomicsguy Pen Pro - Senior Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Hey, Hell-Cat, I recently came across a new bit of information and research;

    Turns out the orientation of an EM waveform, that is, whether or not it is polarized, makes a difference in how cell tissues are affected. That is, man-made EM is polarized to a large degree where naturally occurring EM in the same wavelength neighborhood is not, and does not appear to have the same kind of biological impact.

    So here's a thought: Apparently, there's some talk that natural silk cloth might be able to de-polarize EM emissions from your standard office equipment.

    It's preliminary and untested and all that, but I thought you might be interested since you seem to be good at researching this sort of thing.

    Cheers!
     
    Smiley likes this.
  6. JoeS

    JoeS I'm all ears Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Likes Received:
    3,703
    Trophy Points:
    331
    * citation needed :p
     
  7. thatcomicsguy

    thatcomicsguy Pen Pro - Senior Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Sorry. Here's the one I'm thinking of:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

    Abstract:

    "In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized. Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field. Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR. This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects."
     
    Smiley likes this.
  8. Shogmaster

    Shogmaster Pen Pro - Senior Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,265
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Wait, so no X-men? :(
     
  9. JoeS

    JoeS I'm all ears Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Likes Received:
    3,703
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Thanks, I appreciate it! Somewhat interesting, BUT: this was published in Scientific Reports, which is not a top level journal (despite the top level domain being Nature.com). Also, note that in five years it was cited a total of 24 times, of which five times by the lead author himself! So not a super high impact paper. Another paper by this same author is entitled "On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals". It's perhaps not quite in the crackpot category, but this author does seem to gravitate toward out-there topics.

    As for the manuscript, it starts with six pages of extremely basic stuff: oscillatory fields give oscillatory motion of ions around and in cells. Fine. If you demand that the ion starts at position zero and you pick a cosine-like oscillatory solution (he does), you need a non-zero average position (offset). But.. the author says "this doubles the amplitude (it doesn't), and that's going to be even worse with repeated pulses". That's nonsense. I haven't read the last bit very carefully, but the first impression of this paper is "not super credible".

    Before worrying about such effects, I would at least look for guidance from official sources (any government regulations from developed countries, I think the USA still belongs in that group) and highly cited papers in highly respected journals. It's good to learn more, but it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and hypochondria without a firm understanding of the physics or biology.

    All that said, it's fair to say that natural sources are typically not as monochromatic and polarized as man-made sources, and yes, this would make ions in biological tissue move differently (possibly larger distances, likely in a more "back and forth" rather than randomized manner), but the fact that not everybody is ringing the alarm bells makes me think that the amplitudes are small, and the effects near-negligible. In my non-expert opinion! :D
     
    Smiley and thatcomicsguy like this.
  10. thatcomicsguy

    thatcomicsguy Pen Pro - Senior Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Oh, I wouldn't try to persuade anybody that EM poses a threat to them. It's not my job or interest. It occupies approximately the same neighborhood of cultural relevance as astrology, (of which I'm also a big fan), so there's about as much point trying to sell it to the general population as trying to convince them to collect plastic G.I. Joe figures from the 80's or to take up snorkeling.

    I treat it as a (very intense) hobby. Consequently, my avenues of investigation can afford to be based on fringe connections since they don't affect anybody but me and my fellow tinfoil hatters. (Tinfoil doesn't work, btw. But you'd only know that if you're subscribed to the newsletter. Har har!)
     
    Smiley and JoeS like this.
Loading...

Share This Page