Topic: [WTS] Conductive Cu/Ni Fabric - Let's make Faraday cages (Read 21686 times)

Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations: a cross-sectional study http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836.full

34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Health Effects From Wi-Fi www.wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html

My sources aren't websites they are journal articles, I can refer you to specific articles but I can't realistically link you to them or post them. Thank our overly private peer reviewed journal system.

Check out the recent WHO working group on the subject, the articles being generated from that group are interesting.

Don't waste too much energy on Grue. He is a well known OCD basement dwelling classified add troll whos life consists of doing pretty much this, in hundreds if not thousands of marketplace ads over and over for years on end. I think he might actually need psychological help to be perfectly honest, maybe medication, or just a life.

Oh boy, we got a "critical thinker" in here who knows how to use "ad hominem" and "red herring". on with the argument...

Let me ask you 2 simple questions:
Where are the "peer reviewed scientific articles" that support your conclusion?
What sort of evidence do you need for you to conclude that cellphone radiation is not dangerous?

these are memes: http://reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/
this is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

But nothing in science is absolute. The best model we have of radiation is that non ionizing radiation can't damage DNA. Unless you have a better model, are you going to go on a crusade against wireless technology because it's not absolutely safe?

Selectively disproving some of your uses is cherrypicking? LOL. Those were the only ones I found problems with. Surely there's wrong with only disproving the ones that are wrong?

I was merely asking for additional evidence, which is what you also did. now stop accusing me of "pulling out your e-dick", faggot.

You should post them.

Usually people afraid of "EMF" and the like are crackpots or ill informed.

Clearly you do not follow peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject, because despite these facts we have found increased cancer rates in many different cases. You say these things like you are certain which clearly shows you aren't a scientist, because scientist don't talk in absolutes about new technology. Proving something causes cancer is incredibly difficult, and we can't say anything for certain until after the fact.


But it is not, it is me a scientist, reading peer reviewed articles on the subject which have indicated both that it may and may not be carcinogenic and so I remain skeptical. If anything this is you having a religious level of faith in the fact that the current science is a perfect picture of the universe, which is an absurd position.

Pointing out other seemingly mundane things that may be carcinogenic has nothing to do with the discussion, so I'm just going to ignore that red herring.

You over using memes that don't really apply.


It is not a strawman, perhaps you should read more about what a strawman argument because it is often misused.

You are basically making the claim that we have a perfect understanding of all the fields being generated by cellphones and know the full consequences of it. There is no other reason to believe this other than the fact that is it useful, unless you can provide a reason you believe it despite no scientific backing, that doesn't just amount to faith.

We haven't had enough time to prove anything yet, so having certain belief in anything related to cell phone radiation would be silly. And history serves to prove this correct over and over.


Again, you may want to retake that critical thinking class you took in college because that is not an ad-hominem attack. If anything you could argue it was an appeal to authority because I was making the claim you should have been educated in the subject before sharing your opinion.

It was certainly not an ad-hominem, so your hubris about telling me to go is almost comical. I did not attack you, I pointed out your shallow arguments, then said I would more interested if you were actually an authority of the subject.

But really I don't really care what your uninformed opinion is on the subject, your time would be better used actually studying the subject instead of wasting that time sharing your opinion about it. No one really cares about your uninformed opinion about random subjects you never bothered to study in detail, most people want the specs on the material because it does have practical uses despite what you believe.


Well thanks for cherry picking the ones you found easy to attack and ignoring all the other practical uses to make your argument seem stronger, nice tactic.


Or you can stop being so fucking lazy and do a google search. Seriously this is what is so frustrating, is you waste time trolling people in my thread with your uninformed opinions when you could have spent that time fucking looking it up. Its one thing if you actually educate yourself before coming in and having a disagreement but being willfully ignorant and full of hubris just makes you look like an ass.  

http://www.jemic.com/faraday-bags.html

Nice job "mowing" that one down.


Fair point, but that is a bit more of a hassle than slipping it into and out of a bag.

Again nice job "mowing" that one down. Must have been in debate club with these epic debate skills.


Again seriously can't you just do a fucking google search before puffing up your chest and pulling out your e-dick? http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html

Also that was an example, since rfid's are very useful they will be in more things. So this material may find more creative uses.

And again amazing work "mowing" that one down.

tl/dr: Retake that critical thinking class, stop acting like an superior asshole about subjects you didn't bother to research and stop trolling my thread

But I do. EM radiation emitted by cellphones are non-ionizing, and therefore does not have the energy required to damage DNA. Furthermore, the heating effect of of cellphones is non existent because it operates at such low levels. Radiant heat from the sun will heat your head faster. Also, cell phone technology is not new at all. It uses radio, which was discovered in the early 20th century. Cellphones are merely an application of an old technology. If you would please, can you present any scientific backing to your fears?

But that's just FUD. Why aren't you afraid of all the other "possibly carcinogenic" substances like coffee, pickled vegetables, carbon black, talcum powder, or nickel?

I never claimed this, and therefore that is a strawman.

ad hominem pls go


also, since i'm in the mood, i'll mow down all your other uses as well
[citation needed]
or you can, just take out the battery. bonus: it costs $0
What country do you live in? My recently renewed passport only has a magnetic stripe, no RFIDs.

Thank you for contributing that information, I don't know much about EMP's but it is definitely an interesting subject.

Real EMP shielded rooms don't have any outside wires or openings. In fact EMP "proof" containers are basically a metal box suspended within another metal box with an insulator in between. A sufficiently strong EMP wave can follow any incoming wire or get in any unshielded opening. While such a room as you describe would reduce the effect of an EMP, I wouldn't count on it stopping it completely, but it might save some stuff depending on where it came from, opening size and position, strength, etc. You would be better off building small boxes for electronic components if that was your goal.

Bump because I dropped the price 60 cents a foot.

I was looking around and there are some people selling conductive fabric claiming you can cover an entire room but I'm still skeptical. It would definitely significantly reduce the signal strength but I'm not sure you could create a complete faraday cage.

With my experience making bags, the seemingly small holes do make a difference.

So I think you are right the ventilation and such would be a major issue still. The material is only somewhat breathable. It would still weaken the signal even if there are holes though. Another possibility would be to line a box and put items in the box you would like to be protected.

I'm not really well read on EMP, so this is just my best guess. If you are interested we can try to determine what frequencies you would need to block and see if this material could actually block those signals. If it does not we could determine the type of material you would need.

If I were to line an entire room with this material, would it realistically protect the contents from an EMP blast, or would multiple holes (as large as 6" diameter) in the room for ventilation and electrical compromise it's effect?

Hey, been super busy with my work but I'm back if anyone wants to get some conductive fabric for their own projects.

I did finish bag designs but just didn't have time to produce more of them for sale because of my lab work. That position is ending soon so I will soon be able to do this full time while I apply for grad school. Help pay for my graduate school applications and test prep materials by buying conductive fabric.

Grue you are making assumptions without scientific backing because it would be impossible to have any considering how new the technology is. No one can say for certain yet if the technology is dangerous, but it would ignoring history to assume its safe because its useful.

Unless you are a physicist who studies this subject you are being a troll by harassing people in this thread who want to know more about the fabric and not your opinion.

Again, my argument is not on whether or not cell phone radiation is harmful, because the evidence on that is inconclusive at best. I am questioning your actions to avoid EM radiation on the basis that it's on the list of "POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC" substances. If you think this is not your argument, stop reading now, and post a reply clarifying your reasons for avoiding EM radiation.

Every rational human acts consistently. If you're avoiding EM radiation because some agency put it on some list, you should, therefore, avoid other items on the list too. Otherwise, you are being inconsistent, and therefore, irrational. This is what I'm interpreting from your reference to iarc.fr. Again, if this isn't your reason, stop reading now, and post what your argument is. To act consistently, one must act in a similar manner when faced with a similar situation. The situation in question is other substances being on the class 2b of possibly carcinogenic substances. If your basis for avoiding EM radiation is because of its presence on the list, to act consistently, you must avoid other items on the same list. Otherwise, you're making an exception to yourself, and therefore, are not acting rationally. Now, I listed a few mundane things that are in the same class of substances as EM radiation. The technique I'm using is Reductio ad absurdum. Of course it's absurd trying to avoid coffee, or ripened fruits, but this is what your logic is implying, and that is the reason why it's wrong.

All of those substances have nothing to do with EM waves, therefore unrelated. If you would like to prove my absurd logic, print a picture of my avatar and glue it to your face, then go argue in a mirror - you'll get nothing but absurd arguments (likely found via a 10 second Google search without any actual understanding).

How is that unrelated? I'm trying to show how absurd your logic is.

You bring up unrelated subjects and I am using a strawman? Refractory much?

That wasn't my claim. Quit strawmaning. My claim is that to be consistent, you should avoid nickel and rippened fruits as well, since they are also "possibly carcinogenic".