Quote:

---

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets:
An Empirical Study

1: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, MIT.
2: Media Laboratory, MIT.



Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.

Results

For all helmets, we noticed a 30 db amplification at 2.6 Ghz and a 20 db amplification at 1.2 Ghz, regardless of the position of the antenna on the cranium. In addition, all helmets exhibited a marked 20 db attenuation at around 1.5 Ghz.

Conclusion

The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.

It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

---

Quote:

---

www.rfsafetysolutions.com/rf_safety_signs.htm

Why and where do shocks and burns occur?

A shock or an RF burn occurs when you come into contact with either an RF radiator or a re-radiator. RF radiators are usually some type of antenna. Many antenna designs cause RF current to flow in their metallic components which in turn is radiated into space. Touch one of these surfaces and the energy flows through your body to ground.

Similarly, the same thing can happen if you touch a re-radiator. Any ungrounded, conductive (usually metal) object that is in the field of a strong RF source can be illuminated by the RF field and re-radiate the energy back into space.

It is often very difficult to make a good RF ground so objects that appear to be well grounded are often "floating." For example, the U.S. Navy goes to great lengths to add copper straps to the railings that are welded to the hull of the ship. Yet, when the straps are broken due to damage or corrosion from salt, it is not uncommon for sailors to receive burns when they touch the railing. When you touch a re-radiator, you provide a path to ground through you.

A surge of energy occurs at the point of contact. This results in a shock and, in many cases, an RF burn.

If the frequency is close to where you make an ideal, quarter-wave antenna, then the potential is much higher. This occurs at about 40 MHz for well grounded adults.

Many engineers that have received shocks and burns approach a conductive object with trepidation and reach out to touch it much like one would lightly touch a wall to see if the paint was still wet. This is absolutely the worse thing that you can do! When you touch an object with the tip of your finger, all the current flows through a very small area. If you grasp the object or touch it with the palm of your hand, the area that makes contact is about 100 times larger. And the current density is only about one percent as much. This is the reason that the IEEE standard for contact current is based on a grasp. It was felt by the committee members that limiting the field levels to a point where a point contact would not produce a shock or burn would result in very restrictive exposure limits. The standard would be based on concern for shock rather than body heating.

www.rfsafetysolutions.com/shocks_&_burns.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
What a waste of time and money
[snip]
MIT is way behind the curve on this kind of thing, prolly cause it's just plain outside the scope of what their rigid little public schooled minds can accept

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I like mocking MIT tho, it's a long story.

---