Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the historical development of the concept of energy of activation, which has been used in the past to frame the belief that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is harmless at non-thermal levels.The power and telecommunications industries have used two arguments to support their view that human exposures to non-thermal non-ionizing radiation is inoffensive. First, the radiation is non-ionizing. Second, the energy quanta of the radiation are too weak to overcome the competing energy of thermal motion. Those arguments rest on the Arrhenius equation (1889) and on the concept of energy of activation. Later scientific developments such as the Eyring equation (1935) and the Bennett-Chandler (1977–1978) equation on reaction rates, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, recognized in living systems by Schrödinger as “negentropy”, all undermine these arguments.The Second Law of Thermodynamics supplies the ionization claimed to be lacking, while some biological processes are independent of thermal motion.We contribute a new view of the physics and biology of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation hygiene which explains many epidemiological, toxicological and scientific observations.The health effects of non-thermal non-ionizing radiation presently observed are in fact completely supported by physics. Furthermore, the expansion of wireless data rates is in direct conflict with preservation of a healthy environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".