Are Chromosomes Magnetic?

It’s a valuable asset to Scientists as well as other analytical thinkers, to be able to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Ionizing radiation won’t just alter some molecules within the human body, but will alter any molecule in our bodies, including genes. And this last phenomenon, is one reason for which ionizing radiation, at low, prolonged exposures, causes an increase in the risk of cancer. This includes neutrons and gamma-rays, but also, if originated within the body, alpha and beta radiation as they were originally named: Energetic Helium Nuclei and Electrons.

On the other hand, radio-waves including microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. This means that although in some cases correlation with leukemia and other cancers were noted, nobody has yet explained how radio-waves and microwaves could cause cancers, because we don’t really know what these waves do within our bodies, other than ‘To increase the amount of vibration between our molecules.’ This last excuse is quite non-factual, because the very temperature of our bodies is already causing its molecules to vibrate. Hence, an adult male who takes a 10 minute bath in 40⁰C hot water, is unlikely to be able to conceive directly afterward, but also won’t get leukemia either.

And yet, the simple fact that we don’t know the explanation for a phenomenon, is not itself proof that the phenomenon does not exist, or that it never takes place.

What caused me to pause and think, was the fact that women are considerably more likely to develop breast-cancer in their left breasts, than they are in their right breasts. Why would that happen? I’ve seen people pounce on such explanations, as the fact that statistically, woman’s left breasts are also slightly larger than their right breasts. But in fact, this sort of explanation is equally nonsensical, because on the average, woman’s left breasts would need to be at least twice as large as their right breasts, in order to cause such a large deviation. Are they?

A basic question which I’d like an answer to next would be, ‘Is it possible that actual genetic material, such as chromosomes, are paramagnetic?’ If they are, then they will be vibrating in response to EMFs, radio waves and microwaves, much more strongly, than the rest of the cell’s physical substance, and more strongly, than as a result of thermal agitation alone.

I think that what most right-handed people tend to do – who wear shirts – is just to slip their cell-phones into their left shirt-pockets.

(Update 07/21/2018 : )

Continue reading Are Chromosomes Magnetic?

Why the inter-atomic world only approximates the macroscopic properties of matter.

In a previous posting, I wrote that the microscopic world, in this case implying inter-atomic distances, generates an approximation of the macroscopic, mechanical properties of matter.

What any alert reader should notice, is that in order for this theory to be true, it actually needs to lead to an exact result at some point, and not just to approximate results. And so the question which should follow is, ‘Why only an approximation, the way it was described?’

There is a family of answers to that question, which starts with the fact that not all solids are covalent solids. I was taught that there exist essentially three types of solids:

  1. Molecular Solids,
  2. Covalent Solids,
  3. Ionic Solids.

I feel that the WiKiPedia article I linked to in this list, gives a good explanation for what Molecular Solids are, and also gives links to the other types of solids. If the reader has serious questions, I recommend he read that WiKi next; they explain certain details better than I can.

At the same time, solids which I was taught were covalent solids, are really just a combination of molecular and covalent solids, due to the way molecules could be linked in certain directions, but not linked in other directions, in 3D. This is why the WiKi describes those types of solids as ‘mesh-solids’.

Organic polymers are extreme examples of meshes, while certain structural materials such as beryllium are completely different, being highly covalent, and being much stronger therefore, than organic polymers.

Another reason for which my first description is only an approximation, is the existence of thermal agitation. This means that individual nuclei are always in motion, even if the macroscopic body is not noticeably in motion. Furthermore, due to the involvement of Quantum Mechanics, heat can take the form of transitions between discrete states, instead of all the heat being stored, just as the continuous agitation of the nuclei. Hence, molecules which have a greater number of QM states to occupy, at any given temperature, will also store more heat, as their temperature changes, and will therefore also have greater specific heat. If heat was just the kinetic energy of the nuclei, we should find that all matter have very predictable properties of specific heat, just a function of atomic density, when in fact this is not so.

And, the velocities associated with thermal agitation at room temperature, are often underestimated. They can be enough to break the bonds between molecules by themselves, which is also a reason ‘why ice melts at room temperature’.

Continue reading Why the inter-atomic world only approximates the macroscopic properties of matter.