Nothing personal but… shoddy science makes another physicist to advise Martin L. Pall

Because of its importance, I am posting here, in full, comment submitted today by Leendert Vriens of stopumts.nl . The message from Leendert Vriens was sent to Martin Pall already on June 14, 2021.

********************

On June 14 I [Leendert Vriens] did send the following comment to Martin Pall:

Dear Martin,

Millimeter wave (MM-wave) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are predicted to not produce penetrating effects in the body. The electric but not magnetic part of MM-EMFs are almost completely absorbed within the outer 1 mm of the body

  • So you [Martin Pall] separate electric and magnetic parts. The mm-wave electromagnetic fields used for wireless communications are composed however of photons and photons are well known to be elementary particles. Elementary means that they cannot be subdivided, not themselves nor in their interaction with other particles or any material. So in sentence 2 you make a very basic error. That should not be acceptable for any scientific publication. Also, everything based on this separation must be considered to be incorrect. I scanned a few more pages and saw some things that a good physicist would not appreciate. I am sorry, but if I were you I would withdraw this manuscript. I hope it is still time. [emphasis added DL]

With best regards,

Leendert

Pall didn’t send an answer.

P.S. from DL

I think the advice of withdrawing manuscript because of shoddy science could, and should, be extended to all of Martin L. Pall’s rumblings on wireless radiation and health. No matter what anti-5G activists think.

9 thoughts on “Nothing personal but… shoddy science makes another physicist to advise Martin L. Pall

  1. Pingback: Martin Pall’s claims on EMF, VGCC and Alzheimer’s lack scientific evidence of proof or even likelihood | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  2. andreag771112 thank you for your reply. I just wanted to make the point that we don’t use any of these devices without touching them. And usually they are in our pockets, hands, laps, against our torsos, etc. That is how they are used.

  3. Pingback: If claims by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos are confirmed, Martin L. Pall committed scientific misconduct and his articles published since 2017 should be urgently retracted by the journals | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  4. Yes Derborah Rubin,
    The lower the band/ frequency the wider near field will be.

  5. In response to andreag771112, would it also be correct to assume that depending on the location of the antennae, with tablets on our laps or even in our hands, with cell phones in our hands or in our pockets, with laptops on our laps, we are also in the nearfield?

  6. Thank you Leendert and Dariusz. The post confirms what I concluded about Pall at the conference in Mainz in October 2019. Just such a pity that so many people are desperate for his messages and spread it without reflection.

  7. Exactly Leendert,
    In the far field the relationship of Efield and the Hfield will NOT break down in other materials wrt air.
    Secondly the use of coherent EMF field is flawed and makes no sense with the complex modulation and scattered EMF used today for mobile technology.
    Electronic EMF are NOT highly coherent, and they are NOT generated at a specific frequency, (ie. considering 5G which have bandwidth up to 400 mhz) NOT with always specific phase (qam modulation is a phase and Amplitude modulation changing accordingly to the request); the polarity is crossed from bts and changes in the space after being reflected/ refracted from surfaces. See: https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-11-10-1137&id=72384

  8. The comment by andreag is indeed correct for cell phones “glued” to the head or within one to two wavelengths from the head (in the near field). My comment is correct in the far field, hence for distances of the cell phone antenna (or other antannas) from the head (or other parts of the body) beyond about 1 to 2 wavelengths (at most 1 to 2 cm for mm waves).
    For near and far field see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field /

  9. I haven’t read the article @pub-med but technically speaking none of them are right! to measure the E field and the H field separately you need to be in the near field region: if you are close to the mobile phone and close to the antenna is highly probable the you are in the near field of the antenna (which is a region defined by the following equation: 2*D*D/lambda; D is the max dimension of the antenna and lambda is the wavelength, providing you are far away @ a distance > lambda). For millimetric waves this occurs for short distances of course. Putting a cell-phone “glued” to the head, due to the array dimension of the 5G 26 GHz antenna, you are in the near field where the E field and H field are split-apart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.