How strong would a magnetic field have to be to kill you?(gravityandlevity.wordpress.com)
gravityandlevity.wordpress.com
How strong would a magnetic field have to be to kill you?
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/how-strong-would-a-magnetic-field-have-to-be-to-kill-you/#comment-3929
115 comments
An MRI machine has a very uniform field inside the magnet, and a very strong gradient outside as the field curls back on itself. If you move your head back and forth outside the end of the bore, it causes dizziness, by inducing eddy currents in the brain (I've not done it myself, I'm very risk averse, but I've seen others doing it). I'd be much more worried about moving through a very strong gradient, spatially or temporally, than about the absolute field strength. Human made sustained field strengths are generally not dangerous, if the field is uniform. For example there is human and animal imaging at 7T , although lower field strengths are more common (the limiting factor, other than making the static field, is generally the RF frequency, which gets higher with field strength and introduces other issues as it does)
Yep! At these fields, the effects of shaking your head around an MRI machine are:
- Dizziness/vertigo/headache: AC: typical thresholds is 2T/s for 1 s. DC mechanism: differential susceptibility of vestibular structures (46 T2/m perceived 1% g)
- Acidic/metallic taste: provoked presumably by electrolytic reactions due to eddy currents in the tongue, effect felt by 15% of test subjects @3T. Threshold dB/dt2.3 T/s (e.g. shaking head @ 0.6 Hz in a 0.5 T fringe field). May be contrasted by opening the mouth.
- Magnetophosphenes: perceived flickering lights caused by electrical stimulation of the retina/optical nerve. (0.2 mV). Threshold dB/dt 2T/s for 50 mS (max. sensitivity 20 Hz)
(source in my other comment)
- Dizziness/vertigo/headache: AC: typical thresholds is 2T/s for 1 s. DC mechanism: differential susceptibility of vestibular structures (46 T2/m perceived 1% g)
- Acidic/metallic taste: provoked presumably by electrolytic reactions due to eddy currents in the tongue, effect felt by 15% of test subjects @3T. Threshold dB/dt2.3 T/s (e.g. shaking head @ 0.6 Hz in a 0.5 T fringe field). May be contrasted by opening the mouth.
- Magnetophosphenes: perceived flickering lights caused by electrical stimulation of the retina/optical nerve. (0.2 mV). Threshold dB/dt 2T/s for 50 mS (max. sensitivity 20 Hz)
(source in my other comment)
Another way to think about this is via the effects achievable with transcranial magnetic stimulation. A TMS machine generates fields on the order of 1T at the magnet, and rather less in the brain.
From this, you can get all kinds of interesting phenomena: phosphenes, temporary “lesions”, and even facilitation of some behaviors.
From this, you can get all kinds of interesting phenomena: phosphenes, temporary “lesions”, and even facilitation of some behaviors.
What behaviors?
I was a test subject for someone's PHD on this. AFAIR it was about identifying the part of the brain that is responsible for aborting actions. Like if you decide to pickup a pan, and then notice the handle is hot, some people can't help but pickup the pan anyways because they lack this abort function.
They took an MRI of my brain. They found where one part of my brain resided in the MRI images. I performed reaction tests -- press this button for green circle, press that button for blue circle, abort pressing button if the icon gets crossed out (the crossing out was delayed) Then they strapped the magnet to my head (not touching but very close AFAIR) Then do all the tests again
AFAIR they showed that part of the brain did affect your ability to abort an action. I think they knew this anyway because of behavior of people with brain injuries. So I guessed they learned the magnet scrambled that part of the brain?
It was extremely boring doing these tests. I don't remember much about it except that the magnet made unreasonably loud popping sounds.
They took an MRI of my brain. They found where one part of my brain resided in the MRI images. I performed reaction tests -- press this button for green circle, press that button for blue circle, abort pressing button if the icon gets crossed out (the crossing out was delayed) Then they strapped the magnet to my head (not touching but very close AFAIR) Then do all the tests again
AFAIR they showed that part of the brain did affect your ability to abort an action. I think they knew this anyway because of behavior of people with brain injuries. So I guessed they learned the magnet scrambled that part of the brain?
It was extremely boring doing these tests. I don't remember much about it except that the magnet made unreasonably loud popping sounds.
Absolutely fascinating :-)
I am assured that the human brain is so incredibly complex that it is almost impossible to understand it ... but experiments like this make me worry that Evolution just knocked most of it up in Perl over a weekend...
An inability to abort an action when facts change ? What if there was a test for that. Would we stop people standing for office? Be set free from some crimes?
I demand to see the source code for human brains ! It needs a proper security audit.
(relevant XKCD reference to be looked up later)
I am assured that the human brain is so incredibly complex that it is almost impossible to understand it ... but experiments like this make me worry that Evolution just knocked most of it up in Perl over a weekend...
An inability to abort an action when facts change ? What if there was a test for that. Would we stop people standing for office? Be set free from some crimes?
I demand to see the source code for human brains ! It needs a proper security audit.
(relevant XKCD reference to be looked up later)
My PhD was (partially) on this. The inability to inhibit actions when facts change on a short timescale (sub-second) is thought to be biological. According to the most widely accepted theory, think of the brain as having a slow system and a fast system. The slow system is good for complex processing, but of course it is slow. There is also a fast system for quickly responding to things. If something changes while the slow system is working, usually the fast system is pretty good at stopping the slow system from acting, allowing the brain time to incorporate the new information into its plans. But if you are already planning on doing something and getting ready to do it, there is a limit to how quickly the fast system can interrupt the slow system. It tends to be on the order of 1/10 to 1/5 of a second.
On a longer timescale (minutes to days), there is a clinical symptom called "perseveration" whereby people can't let go of previously held beliefs in the face of changing information. It is common in, e.g., patients with schizophrenia.
On a longer timescale (minutes to days), there is a clinical symptom called "perseveration" whereby people can't let go of previously held beliefs in the face of changing information. It is common in, e.g., patients with schizophrenia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration
oh - the highly repetitive response common in autism.
Are there gradients of perseveration? This is absolutely fascinating - a brain based answer to why people do many behaviours - from sitting in the corner mumbling one word over and over, to various forms of self sabotage ("always picking the wrong man")
(And I might say heartening - as the father of an ASD child, it can seem hopeless, but just being armed with some knowledge of where the behaviours come from might allow some hope)
oh - the highly repetitive response common in autism.
Are there gradients of perseveration? This is absolutely fascinating - a brain based answer to why people do many behaviours - from sitting in the corner mumbling one word over and over, to various forms of self sabotage ("always picking the wrong man")
(And I might say heartening - as the father of an ASD child, it can seem hopeless, but just being armed with some knowledge of where the behaviours come from might allow some hope)
There are ways we can measure perseveration in the lab, and so yes, it can be higher or lower in different people. If you want to look into it more, a popular way to measure it is the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST), or the version for children, the Dimension Change Card Sort task (DCCS). However, like all cognitive tests, these are imperfect measurements of perseveration - they may be indicators of higher or lower perseveration, but scores may be influenced by a multitude of other factors as well. Likewise, there may be aspects of perseveration not captured by these tests - like you mention, there are different ways that one can be perseverative, and one single number can't ever represent the complexity of human behavior.
thank you
I was once using an old but high end HP DC power supply to test a repaired 12V microcontroller circuit that someone else mysteriously blew up "with a spark". Before I hooked up the fraying and grimy alligator clips coming off the supply, I had the thought to check the actual voltage with a multimeter, in case the supply was out of calibration. Before I consciously perceived what my multimeter read, my hands rapidly dropped the frayed wires. I connected up the multimeter again, and it read 120V! Someone had mistakenly missed a decimal point, and the archaic LED display made it look like 12.0V.
A low level part of my brain definitely took over control of my hands, based on interpretation of visual signals. That was 6 years ago and I still think about it every few days.
A low level part of my brain definitely took over control of my hands, based on interpretation of visual signals. That was 6 years ago and I still think about it every few days.
> I think they knew this anyway because of behaviour of people with brain injuries.
Tests like this are intended to prove or refine information derived from clues from damaged subjects. You can learn a lot of things about complex systems like the brain by studying their failure modes, but you have to be careful of inferring causation from correlation and other such fallacies — for instance here they could have been trying to rule out the behaviour being a secondary symptom (the correct response actually being controlled elsewhere normally, but that is blocked by the damage rather than the damage having affected it more directly), or testing to see if multiple areas are directly involved in the behaviour rather than it being as simple as that one area seeming to control the veto, or just ruling out a pre-existing condition in the initial subjects unrelated to the subsequent damage.
Tests like this are intended to prove or refine information derived from clues from damaged subjects. You can learn a lot of things about complex systems like the brain by studying their failure modes, but you have to be careful of inferring causation from correlation and other such fallacies — for instance here they could have been trying to rule out the behaviour being a secondary symptom (the correct response actually being controlled elsewhere normally, but that is blocked by the damage rather than the damage having affected it more directly), or testing to see if multiple areas are directly involved in the behaviour rather than it being as simple as that one area seeming to control the veto, or just ruling out a pre-existing condition in the initial subjects unrelated to the subsequent damage.
Not sure this is what GP was referencing, but TMS is approved[0] for treatment-resistant OCD, depression, and migraine headaches.
[0]: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-perm...
[0]: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-perm...
There are also promising studies into the use of TMS for treating substance addiction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206564/
Tough question!
TMS is fairly common tool for neuroscience research and its effects depend on where, when, and how it is applied, as well as the quirks of each person’s own anatomy. This paper has a table of some studies reporting “beneficial” effects, mostly on perception and memory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083569/ There are many more studies showing that TMS (transiently) impairs performance too.
We don’t totally understand how it works—-or what’s normally required for many of these behaviors—-so it’s hard to give a grand unified theory of how it acts, but it definitely does something to brain circuits. That said, the FDA approved TMS treatments for depression and a few other indications, and it’s also used as a tool for neurosurgical planning.
TMS is fairly common tool for neuroscience research and its effects depend on where, when, and how it is applied, as well as the quirks of each person’s own anatomy. This paper has a table of some studies reporting “beneficial” effects, mostly on perception and memory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083569/ There are many more studies showing that TMS (transiently) impairs performance too.
We don’t totally understand how it works—-or what’s normally required for many of these behaviors—-so it’s hard to give a grand unified theory of how it acts, but it definitely does something to brain circuits. That said, the FDA approved TMS treatments for depression and a few other indications, and it’s also used as a tool for neurosurgical planning.
"Sensory Substitution Devices"
by Tom Wright was an interesting talk at CodeKen 2011[1] touching on the subject of TMS. It was the first time I had heard about this and it fascinated me deeply. I remember that the talk got a lot of votes in the feedback round, so I was certainly not alone with this experience.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=81cN6XFIPSg
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=81cN6XFIPSg
Dumb question potentially, but this sounds incredibly dangerous to the layperson. Is it?
Not really, these are huge fields and quite mild effects. The vertigo one is the most dangerous because you could fall and hit your head on something!
I've done a few MRI scans around the head (both 3T and 1.5T machines) and I tasted this metallic taste every time, despite staying still as much as possible (I'm not so bad at it).
Interesting - if it happened during the scan it would be due to the gradient coils, not the main solenoid field. The gradient coils are much weaker but turn on and off during the scan (the main solenoidal field is static).
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/slew-rate
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/slew-rate
> AC: typical thresholds is 2T/s for 1 s.
Does this depend on frequency?
Does this depend on frequency?
Yeah, 2, tesla per second is a ramp rate — equivalent to roughly half a Hz for a 1T magnitude field.
At 16 T you can levitate a frog purely through diamagnetism. I imagine you could do the same for a human as well if you could create a chamber that large with a uniform field of that magnitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM
That said, assuming 16 T cancels gravity, I imagine being imaged in a MRI machine at 7 T horizontal magnetic field would probably feel like a net gravity vector at an angle, i.e. lying on a steep slope of arcsin(7/16) = 0.452 radians, which is pretty steep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM
That said, assuming 16 T cancels gravity, I imagine being imaged in a MRI machine at 7 T horizontal magnetic field would probably feel like a net gravity vector at an angle, i.e. lying on a steep slope of arcsin(7/16) = 0.452 radians, which is pretty steep.
That levitation is based on their being a large field gradient (diamagnetic levitation is based on the field gradient), so you could not do the same for a human.
Do you have a source for this? I don't believe it is true. Diamagnetism is a fundamental quantum mechanical property related to the quantum mechanical analog to the Lorentz force. Spin 1/2 electrons have exactly 2 states: opposing or attracting a static magnetic field, regardless of direction of the field or orientation of the particle.
When all electrons are paired (and the spin fields cancel), all that is left is that Lorentz force and you get diamagnetism. Otherwise, you generally get paramagnetism (attractive because of the net dipole created by net spin).
See the Stern Gerlach experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experime...
When all electrons are paired (and the spin fields cancel), all that is left is that Lorentz force and you get diamagnetism. Otherwise, you generally get paramagnetism (attractive because of the net dipole created by net spin).
See the Stern Gerlach experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experime...
The energy of a diamagnetic material is lower in a lower magnetic field, so there's a force pushing it away from higher fields. This force is proportional to the gradient of the field. In a constant magnetic field, there will be no change in energy and so no force on the diamagnetic material.
Correction: proportional to the gradient of the square of the field.
Okay, there are a few misunderstandings here.
That is the 1800's classical explanation of electric charge, which is not consistent with experiments, nor does it line up with magnetism, which is inherently quantum.
1. Even in your classical description, what you just described (following field lines) does not require there to be a gradient. If there is a gradient, yes, the forces will follow it. But there is still a force in a static infinite applied field, and potential energies still change as things move.
2. Diamagnetism is a quantum property, not a classical one. It exists due to the polarity of spins in an electron pair (although frankly, this explanation is weak and magnetism is one of the less understood subjects in physics). Even if a macroscopic field has a gradient, it will look like a static field at the scale of an atom, at which scale diamagnetic forces exist.
That is the 1800's classical explanation of electric charge, which is not consistent with experiments, nor does it line up with magnetism, which is inherently quantum.
1. Even in your classical description, what you just described (following field lines) does not require there to be a gradient. If there is a gradient, yes, the forces will follow it. But there is still a force in a static infinite applied field, and potential energies still change as things move.
2. Diamagnetism is a quantum property, not a classical one. It exists due to the polarity of spins in an electron pair (although frankly, this explanation is weak and magnetism is one of the less understood subjects in physics). Even if a macroscopic field has a gradient, it will look like a static field at the scale of an atom, at which scale diamagnetic forces exist.
Sigh.
1. Yes, a gradient is required. If the energy of the diamagnetic material does not change, there cannot be a force, as this will violate conservation of energy. You are proposing a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
2. The quantum nature of diamagnetism doesn't matter in the slightest to the argument being made, so why are you bringing this up?
1. Yes, a gradient is required. If the energy of the diamagnetic material does not change, there cannot be a force, as this will violate conservation of energy. You are proposing a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
2. The quantum nature of diamagnetism doesn't matter in the slightest to the argument being made, so why are you bringing this up?
I do believe I was mistaken in my original post and that a locally constant magnetic field will not produce an appreciable diamagnetic force.
Diamagnetism works by inducing dipoles in the medium, and a dipole placed in a constant field experiences no net force. It may experience a torque if it is not aligned with the field, but in the case of diamagnetism the induced dipoles are naturally aligned, and so there is neither force nor torque.
Diamagnetism works by inducing dipoles in the medium, and a dipole placed in a constant field experiences no net force. It may experience a torque if it is not aligned with the field, but in the case of diamagnetism the induced dipoles are naturally aligned, and so there is neither force nor torque.
It appears that you are conflating a field gradient with a potential energy gradient.
Potential energy changes when moving parallel to any field force, regardless of whether that field is static or has some gradient.
Potential energy changes when moving parallel to any field force, regardless of whether that field is static or has some gradient.
Let us consider an experiment. Take a long cylindrical coil, so that in most of the coil the magnetic field is constant. In the center, place a diamagnetic material. Does it experience a force toward either end of the coil? If not, why not, according to your reasoning? If so, why does it experience a force toward that end of the coil and not the other?
I misinterpreted your point due to my own misunderstanding of quantum spin, a subject I'm currently studying. I see your point now, due to the dipole nature of magnetism, and the confusion came from the original "so you could not do the same for a human," in which I think you meant "you could not do the same in a perfectly uniform field."
This back and forth was fantastic to read, though I understand basically none of it.
You could not do it to a human because you'd need a nonuniform field over a much larger distance, which means the maximum of that field would have to be enormous, far higher than in the frog case, and far higher than could be generated by any practical electromagnet, superconducting or otherwise.
Yeah, it's less likely that constant high field will get you, but dB/dt will quickly induce deadly currents (in the heart/brain etc) on anything in it. That's particularly true for AC fields (or quenched magnets), because your body actually has a lower impedance at moderate (100Hz to MHz) frequencies than at DC.
yeh one of the common injuries around MRI are not the magnetic field affecting your body but the hidden little metal jewelries in people pockets flying around the room. once we had a metal chair get stucked in and had to shut everything down to remove it.
Projectile hazards get all the attention, but burns are by far the most common injury in MRI, and account for about 60-70% of adverse events.
https://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=di...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734033/
https://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=di...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734033/
Yeah, undetected metal can certainly be an issue.
I was with my wife in the MRI room, when it was done I handed her her shoes--and felt the magnet pulling on them. I have no idea how there was metal in there, she specifically picked them because they were soft at all points. The pull wasn't strong (had I let go they would have gone to the floor, not to the magnet) but it definitely was there.
From that second article it sounds like manufacturers should be required to put on the label whether a garment was MRI safe or not.
I was with my wife in the MRI room, when it was done I handed her her shoes--and felt the magnet pulling on them. I have no idea how there was metal in there, she specifically picked them because they were soft at all points. The pull wasn't strong (had I let go they would have gone to the floor, not to the magnet) but it definitely was there.
From that second article it sounds like manufacturers should be required to put on the label whether a garment was MRI safe or not.
All patients/volunteers going into the scanner should change into a gown and remove their shoes. Places that don’t do this have a vastly greater accident rate in my experience.
It’s surprising what is conductive or magnetic. Many garments now include silver or other anti-microbial materials. I’ve encountered clothing with electronics inside or with metal in the labelling.
Burns are the most common accident in MRI and in someone sedated or under anaesthesia you will cause massive harm. It’s all scary, so I change everyone.
‘MRI safe’ is a risky claim to make, as something safe on one scanner is unsafe on another.
It’s surprising what is conductive or magnetic. Many garments now include silver or other anti-microbial materials. I’ve encountered clothing with electronics inside or with metal in the labelling.
Burns are the most common accident in MRI and in someone sedated or under anaesthesia you will cause massive harm. It’s all scary, so I change everyone.
‘MRI safe’ is a risky claim to make, as something safe on one scanner is unsafe on another.
> Among the 133 projectile events were 35 reports (26%) involving patient walkers, wheelchairs, stretchers, and chairs, 13 incidents (10%) with gas cylinders, 13 cases (10%) of magnet components exposed during servicing, 10 events (8%) with workmen's tools.
Yeah, but a gas cylinder or a hammer flying across the room is way cooler.
Yeah, but a gas cylinder or a hammer flying across the room is way cooler.
Oh for sure.
When a crisis occurs in the MRI department (a collapse, arrest, drug reaction etc) someone better man the door, or even better, lock it.
Every emergency seemingly has someone helpfully attempt to take something into the magnet. A wheelchair, oxygen cylinder, defibrillator, stethoscope, or most often, scissors.
When a crisis occurs in the MRI department (a collapse, arrest, drug reaction etc) someone better man the door, or even better, lock it.
Every emergency seemingly has someone helpfully attempt to take something into the magnet. A wheelchair, oxygen cylinder, defibrillator, stethoscope, or most often, scissors.
Somebody told me that they knew of a case where a hospital porter decided to push a gas cyclinder through the MRI room while the machine was on (shortcut?). The gas cyclinder went through a wall.
It says at: https://www.hospitalmanagement.net/features/feature51496/
"Gas cylinders are a particular risk in the MRI environment. Such cylinders can weigh from 30lb to 150lb when full. Ferromagnetic gas cylinders are especially dangerous in a magnetic environment, where they can be uncontrollably accelerated. Potential hazards include gas-propulsive missile impaction, explosion and fire. If the cylinder regulator valve is damaged on initial impact, the cylinder may propel away from the magnet, only to return for a second impact."
It says at: https://www.hospitalmanagement.net/features/feature51496/
"Gas cylinders are a particular risk in the MRI environment. Such cylinders can weigh from 30lb to 150lb when full. Ferromagnetic gas cylinders are especially dangerous in a magnetic environment, where they can be uncontrollably accelerated. Potential hazards include gas-propulsive missile impaction, explosion and fire. If the cylinder regulator valve is damaged on initial impact, the cylinder may propel away from the magnet, only to return for a second impact."
> Somebody told me that they knew of a case where a hospital porter decided to push a gas cyclinder through the MRI room while the machine was on (shortcut?).
The trap is that they are pretty much never ‘off’, they are magnetic when not scanning.
This issue may be reduced with technology such as the Philips Blue Seal thing where you can remove (reduce?) the field at the flick of a switch. However things like this where the danger goes from being ‘always’ to ‘sometimes’ can actually increase accidents. It’ll be an interesting space to watch.
https://www.medgadget.com/2018/09/philips-helium-free-mri-sy...
The trap is that they are pretty much never ‘off’, they are magnetic when not scanning.
This issue may be reduced with technology such as the Philips Blue Seal thing where you can remove (reduce?) the field at the flick of a switch. However things like this where the danger goes from being ‘always’ to ‘sometimes’ can actually increase accidents. It’ll be an interesting space to watch.
https://www.medgadget.com/2018/09/philips-helium-free-mri-sy...
I assumed it was an electromagnet. Do MRIs all have permanent magnets?
Most are superconducting electromagnets, so.. sort of? They have shipped full of liquid helium then get ramped up (or at least, this is how Siemens do it). With any luck they stay up for many years.
Do you still have to quench the magnet to shut it down? I read back in the day, older magnets could suffer irreversible damage so it would often total the whole machine.
>we had a metal chair get stucked in
You mean like this? https://youtu.be/6BBx8BwLhqg
You mean like this? https://youtu.be/6BBx8BwLhqg
In an experimental setting, I was once given a screwdriver to feel the field around an MRI machine. They asked me to be very careful of course, because loosing the grip would indded have ment the machine would need to be shut down...
I have a meteorite wedding band and we were passing it around outside the bore to feel how strong the pull was. A grad student lost their grip and the ring shot into the bore like a bullet. No damage luckily but it really drove home how dangerous these can be.
Yeah, this question is akin to: how strong a gravitational field would you have to be in, to kill you? Well, you could be in a gravitational field of 10^12548125971 Newtons, you wouldn't feel anything though, you would be weightless. It's the Spaghettification [1] that can hurt you, and that's due to the gradient in the field, not the actual field strength.
Thank you for your comment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
Thank you for your comment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
It's not the same question, and that's the point of this article. Gravity acts equally on all your particles, so it doesn't cause any disruption (other than that gradient.) Magnetism affects different particles differently, particularly moving ones, as in electrons. The article says how a strong field compresses and deforms electron orbitals, to the point where covalent bonds fail. Field strength alone causes that, not gradient.
I don't know if we could measure the difference, but since gravity's force decreases with distance, I bet there is a difference between the gravity on the top of your head vs the bottom of your feet.
It's probably small enough to be negligible, but it should be there.
It's probably small enough to be negligible, but it should be there.
Are you so sure that you wouldn't be harmed in an extraordinarily strong gravitational "field", with field lines parallel to your body?
I imagine that the difference in force exerted on your feet vs. your head is significant, in raw Newton's rather than as a percentage. The r^2 is basically constant across the length of your body, compared to M, but it's not actually constant, and when M is so large, I imagine even small changes in r^2 lead to (relative to our scale) large changes in F. Is my intuition wrong?
I imagine that the difference in force exerted on your feet vs. your head is significant, in raw Newton's rather than as a percentage. The r^2 is basically constant across the length of your body, compared to M, but it's not actually constant, and when M is so large, I imagine even small changes in r^2 lead to (relative to our scale) large changes in F. Is my intuition wrong?
You are saying the same exact thing as the comment you replied to. Differences in the force at the feet and head is exactly the gradient of the field. If you have no gradient the forces are equal everywhere.
You're describing a way for a meaningful gradient to exist, so it amounts to the same thing.
So, would a very strong gravitational wave wipe out humanity?
Certainly, but making one that strong is essentially impossible even if you have a convenient pair of black holes.
Here are some slides from a talk I heard on the topic (warning, PowerPoint) by a CERN magnet scientist:
https://indico.bnl.gov/event/609/contributions/15418/attachm...
There's some great stuff in there! Like calculating a 3% increase in systolic blood pressure due to magnetic drag at 8T.
One of the main takeaways is that DC fields are most likely to kill you because of a fast-moving screwdriver that someone left nearby.
By contrast, AC fields --- or moving in non-uniform DC fields --- can be more dangerous.
Apart from mechanical (flying screwdrivers) or electrical (fires in the bus-bars) hazards, he indicated that the most common hazard occurred when technicians put their head into/near a very high-field magnet: This affects parts of the "inner ear" vestibular system and therefore causes dizziness/vertigo. In short: They could fall over!
https://indico.bnl.gov/event/609/contributions/15418/attachm...
There's some great stuff in there! Like calculating a 3% increase in systolic blood pressure due to magnetic drag at 8T.
One of the main takeaways is that DC fields are most likely to kill you because of a fast-moving screwdriver that someone left nearby.
By contrast, AC fields --- or moving in non-uniform DC fields --- can be more dangerous.
Apart from mechanical (flying screwdrivers) or electrical (fires in the bus-bars) hazards, he indicated that the most common hazard occurred when technicians put their head into/near a very high-field magnet: This affects parts of the "inner ear" vestibular system and therefore causes dizziness/vertigo. In short: They could fall over!
As a CERN summer student in 1993, I remember we had a very similar presentation.
This is not surprising that CERN is that knowledgable about extreme magnetic fields given how hard it is to deviate the beams.
This is not surprising that CERN is that knowledgable about extreme magnetic fields given how hard it is to deviate the beams.
If the fringe theory of microtubules storing memories in quantum states in the human brain is correct, there is a critical magnetic field past which you'd forget everything... including the things you learned in infancy, like how to hold your head up, crawl, talk, etc.
I suspect that critical field would be somewhere near 1000 Tesla, as the critical temperature is well above 2000k. (The theory is that memories are stored in a topological superconductor which would denature well before the critical temperature was reached)
This type of reversion to infancy is the stuff of nightmares.
I suspect that critical field would be somewhere near 1000 Tesla, as the critical temperature is well above 2000k. (The theory is that memories are stored in a topological superconductor which would denature well before the critical temperature was reached)
This type of reversion to infancy is the stuff of nightmares.
Thanks to the CIA's extremely vital work in the 1960s (MKUltra), there apparently has been research into this...
http://www.ect.org/dr-camerons-casualties/
e.g. using a tape loop to encourage people to forget who their parents are.
Ethics is important.
http://www.ect.org/dr-camerons-casualties/
e.g. using a tape loop to encourage people to forget who their parents are.
Ethics is important.
Archived copy from 2008 : https://web.archive.org/web/20080223080510/http://www.ect.or...
(I have a php error with the direct url)
(I have a php error with the direct url)
> If the fringe theory of microtubules storing memories in quantum states in the human brain is correct, there is a critical magnetic field past which you'd forget everything... including the things you learned in infancy, like how to hold your head up, crawl, talk, etc.
This was a plot point in one of my favorite sci-fi books [0]. I thought it was totally made up for the book.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33413556-the-gone-world
This was a plot point in one of my favorite sci-fi books [0]. I thought it was totally made up for the book.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33413556-the-gone-world
This links to a comment on the blog post, rather than the blog post itself. The link should be https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/how-strong...
Mice have been levitated in a 16 tesla field and survived.
Frogs likewise. See https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic-levit.... This achievement won the Ig Nobel prize for Andre Geim.
A decade later he won the Nobel prize for discovering how to create graphene using scotch tape: https://www.improbable.com/2010/10/05/geim-becomes-first-nob.... As far as I know he remains the only person to win both prizes.
An interesting side note is that neither piece of research was what his lab was supposed to be working on. He established a tradition of Friday Night wacky experiments on stuff that had nothing to do with his lab's official business, in areas of science that they knew little about.
A decade later he won the Nobel prize for discovering how to create graphene using scotch tape: https://www.improbable.com/2010/10/05/geim-becomes-first-nob.... As far as I know he remains the only person to win both prizes.
An interesting side note is that neither piece of research was what his lab was supposed to be working on. He established a tradition of Friday Night wacky experiments on stuff that had nothing to do with his lab's official business, in areas of science that they knew little about.
So cool, nice ideas often come from serendipity or saying "yeah why not if..."
Some video of the levitating frogs, and a few other things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM
> he remains the only person to win both prizes
Wow, if I was a scientist this would definitely be my new life goal. I love the comments on the levitation page under "Why did you use a frog?"
Wow, if I was a scientist this would definitely be my new life goal. I love the comments on the levitation page under "Why did you use a frog?"
Winning one Nobel prize is probably a sufficient life goal for a scientist.
Well, that and being a member of The Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists
https://www.improbable.com/hair-club/
https://www.improbable.com/hair-club/
Funny, isn't it? The human was impervious to our most powerful magnetic fields, yet in the end he succumbed to a harmless sharpened stick!
I always found that story highly implausible, somehow this alien monster - the 'human' - has evolved a defense against one of the things that binds all life together but has a fatal weakness towards something otherwise innocuous, and it has traveled through space to the one planet where its weakness can be found!
It is just a hackneyed updating of the myth of Rolnak of the three stones, only with a sharpened stick taking the place of fire.
I guess some crafters of tale care more about the money than coherence in the tale.
It is just a hackneyed updating of the myth of Rolnak of the three stones, only with a sharpened stick taking the place of fire.
I guess some crafters of tale care more about the money than coherence in the tale.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mundangerous
I've worked with 21T magnets (NMR), the head just in the unshielded parts of it (you cant really get your head inside these as the bore size is small but you are right where the field lines start to bend). Never noticed anything. Colleagues working on larger bore but lower field magnets told me that moving their head fast around them was making them feel weird.
Back in the day I spent the best part of three years working with NMR machines pretty much on a daily basis, also never noticed any physical effects.
Once I almost had a magnet snatch my bunch of lab keys out of my hand, having forgotten the cardinal rule to "leave all magnetic materials at the desk before you approach the magnet with your sample tube"...
Heard a joke about the children of NMR staffers having atypical sex ratio, but that was just student humour. I think :)
Once I almost had a magnet snatch my bunch of lab keys out of my hand, having forgotten the cardinal rule to "leave all magnetic materials at the desk before you approach the magnet with your sample tube"...
Heard a joke about the children of NMR staffers having atypical sex ratio, but that was just student humour. I think :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
The magnetic field of a magnetar could kill a human from 1,000KM away.
The magnetic field of a magnetar could kill a human from 1,000KM away.
I'm pretty sure coming within 1000 KM of any neutron star is pretty dangerous due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
You would probably already be pesto from radiation anyway even before you reaech spaghettification.
I remember looking up a paper (something I guarantee they never did...) some 5G nut linked to me, one of the studies used was trying to show that shoving a mouse in what was effectively an MRI machine did something - this is obviously totally dissimilar to a 5G signal.
The interesting thing is that some of these studies (biology p-values keep in mind, though) did show an effect of somewhat realistic microwaves. What's the catch? That doesn't mean this effect poses any risk beyond possibly existing at all.
The interesting thing is that some of these studies (biology p-values keep in mind, though) did show an effect of somewhat realistic microwaves. What's the catch? That doesn't mean this effect poses any risk beyond possibly existing at all.
Magnetic field != gradient of magnetic field.
Changes in fields induce currents, you can stop your heart or cause seizures with enough currents in the wrong places.
Field from a magnet falls off with the inverse cube of distance... so "I was somewhere near an insanely powerful magnet" isn't really saying much.
In an MRI you're probably more likely to see effects of heating from the excitation RF-- which is multiple kilowatts of UHF for 1.5T magnets, and scales with the field strength.
Changes in fields induce currents, you can stop your heart or cause seizures with enough currents in the wrong places.
Field from a magnet falls off with the inverse cube of distance... so "I was somewhere near an insanely powerful magnet" isn't really saying much.
In an MRI you're probably more likely to see effects of heating from the excitation RF-- which is multiple kilowatts of UHF for 1.5T magnets, and scales with the field strength.
Yes the pulsed fields can definitively cook you. It is often a limiting factor in saturation experiments (used to hide a signal in a sample to increase dynamic range) that increases experimental time. I've seen solvents boiling in samples analyzed in NMR magnets. And it usually messes up your experiments way before that anyway because temperature make some of the signals shift in the spectrum you acquire.
> Normally, these little electron orbits all point in more or less random directions. But in the presence of a strong enough external magnetic field, the electron orbit will tend to get aligned so that its “north pole” points in the same direction as the magnetic field. By my estimate, this would happen at a few hundred Tesla.
Isn't this exactly what happens in an MRI machine?
Isn't this exactly what happens in an MRI machine?
Reminds me of What If? from Randall Monroe.
https://what-if.xkcd.com
https://what-if.xkcd.com
This book is pure entertainment. I bought the ebook by impulse not knowing exactly what it was about. Reading it was a surprising joy.
It's shame that after that entire explanation (the moon-earth firepole one) that he never actually answers the question of how long it would take...
Most of the time goes into climbing, which he estimates as taking "several years".
You can't climb the pole. Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation rules, you can't bring enough food to climb the pole. (Yes, I know, it's not a rocket. It really should be called Tsiolkovsky's logistics equation--it applies to any situation where you have to bring along your power source, whether it's a rocket or not.)
Really? I must be misunderstanding something then.
The Earth-Moon L1 point is ~63 km from the Moon. Let's say me and my gear weigh 200 lbs, and the Moon's gravity acceleration is 1.62 m/s^2. 63 km * 200 lbs * 1.62 m/s^2 gives a potential energy of only 2,213 kcal. The human body is only 18-26% efficient [0] at converting food into energy, so we're probably looking at around 10-13,000 calories. Depending on what you're eating, that's 4-10 lbs of food.
Obviously, I'm ignoring the time it would take to climb that far, but in terms of energy, it seems reasonable that a human could carry enough good with them, unless I'm gravely misunderstanding something.
I'm guess that assuming "potential energy" means "the energy needed to move X pounds to Y height at Z gravity" is incorrect.
[0] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46788/how-effici...
The Earth-Moon L1 point is ~63 km from the Moon. Let's say me and my gear weigh 200 lbs, and the Moon's gravity acceleration is 1.62 m/s^2. 63 km * 200 lbs * 1.62 m/s^2 gives a potential energy of only 2,213 kcal. The human body is only 18-26% efficient [0] at converting food into energy, so we're probably looking at around 10-13,000 calories. Depending on what you're eating, that's 4-10 lbs of food.
Obviously, I'm ignoring the time it would take to climb that far, but in terms of energy, it seems reasonable that a human could carry enough good with them, unless I'm gravely misunderstanding something.
I'm guess that assuming "potential energy" means "the energy needed to move X pounds to Y height at Z gravity" is incorrect.
[0] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46788/how-effici...
I believe your L1 distance is off by about three orders of magnitude.
Oh crap you're right, not sure how I got such a low number.
The rocket equation is not necessarily relevant here, because you can have the pole be a space elevator that brings you food.
This is sort of like asking what the lethal dose of neutrinos is.
I think it's a question worth answering simply because there are people out there who fear magnetic fields, be they from power lines, electromagnetic transmitters or otherwise. I've seen the effects of magnetic fields referred to in several posts from people trying to prove that Chinese 5G bats are causing covid.
Some basic research and napkin math to show people they have nothing to fear might be useful, although I'm not sure how far you'd get in a discussion with people that firmly believe in such nonsense.
I'm also kind of curious what the lethal dose of neutrinos would be. I know humanity will be burned to a crisp by an exploding sun before a neutrino overdose would ever become a problem, but if there's a theoretical deadly dose I'd be interested to know it.
Some basic research and napkin math to show people they have nothing to fear might be useful, although I'm not sure how far you'd get in a discussion with people that firmly believe in such nonsense.
I'm also kind of curious what the lethal dose of neutrinos would be. I know humanity will be burned to a crisp by an exploding sun before a neutrino overdose would ever become a problem, but if there's a theoretical deadly dose I'd be interested to know it.
Don't leave us hanging like that. What IS the lethal dose of neutrinos?
Since neuronal-signal transmission does not actually transport ions in the direction of information travel (unlike electrons in circuits), this is not too surprising ?
I would fear more a mechanical damage than DNA mutation. Even relatively small neodymium magnetos can crush easily a finger.
What would happen to your hand if you hand a hand size MRI machine and stuck your hand through?
Would it in anyway disable your hand?
Would it in anyway disable your hand?
OP link points to a comment instead of the article itself.
Somewhat related anecdote: Roughly 20 years ago, I took part in a scientific experiment which aimed to confirm a theory that in blind individuals, parts of the formally vision-related parts of the brain are involved in reading tactile braille. The experiment itself was pretty interesting, since it was conducted in an fMRI machine. Back then, the f in fMRI was sort of the new thing. I was used to a yearly MRI checkup, so this is why I volunteered. It wasnt particularily relaxing, as every session took roughly 3 hours. They tailor-made a helmet from gypsum so that my head wouldnt move at all. My compensation for all of this was clearly not the money (which was too little to remember), but the relaxed chat with the lead brain researcher and the MRI technicians during and after the experiment. At the time, the magnetic field strength of the fMRI I was getting was the highest I ever received. I was used to MRI around 0.5 tesla. During the experiment, I was getting 3 tesla. And I was feeling a strange sort of shiver going down and up my spine. They were experimental imaging people, so I took the opportunity to chat about the fonrtier of healthyness. MRI has this air of "you dont feel it and it cant hurt you". I still believe around 3 tesla can be perceived slightly by your body. I have received higher magnetic field strength in normal medical settings since, and sometimes I can feel that shiver. Anyway, as we were chatting about tesla, the scientist dropped quite casually. "At 11 a mouse is cooking." So much about boundaries. I never asked him if they know because they tried :-)
Funny enough, 5G (electromagnetic waves) are enough to cause DNA damage in cells, but your skin prevents a lot of them from getting in. Presumably the skin cells themselves are shed before they mutate I guess? Anyway, agencies of the WHO have labeled EMF “potentially carcinogenic”. Here is from 2019:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... (Scientific American)
Yet the capitalist industry pushes it into all the cities now, so we’ll be surrounded by It on every city block. The skin is the only reason the cells inside humans and pets are safe from all this EM radiation. Here are a few references:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6 (Nature Magazine 2020)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ (National Institutes of Health)
This is not the case for insects, though, as their epithelial cels do not form such a protective barrier. I would not be surprised if cellphone towers, wifi and other radiomagnetic waves are killing off the insects around cities. Their skin doesn’t actually block all those waves!
PS: I am not an expert, but is the 5G for cellphone mini towers the same as the 5G for wifi networks? Because we have been around those for a decade now.
EDIT: Why all the downvotes? This is relevant basic information that not everyone here knows, with references to mainstream publications that go more in depth for anyone who is interested.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... (Scientific American)
Yet the capitalist industry pushes it into all the cities now, so we’ll be surrounded by It on every city block. The skin is the only reason the cells inside humans and pets are safe from all this EM radiation. Here are a few references:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6 (Nature Magazine 2020)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ (National Institutes of Health)
This is not the case for insects, though, as their epithelial cels do not form such a protective barrier. I would not be surprised if cellphone towers, wifi and other radiomagnetic waves are killing off the insects around cities. Their skin doesn’t actually block all those waves!
PS: I am not an expert, but is the 5G for cellphone mini towers the same as the 5G for wifi networks? Because we have been around those for a decade now.
EDIT: Why all the downvotes? This is relevant basic information that not everyone here knows, with references to mainstream publications that go more in depth for anyone who is interested.
The blog post is about magnetic fields, not EM radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of an electromagnetic field. What I wrote is directly relevant to the topic, and is also something that has is currently being put into place around the country so it also connects the topic to what’s actually going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
As usual - if you don’t like something, simply disagree on the substance. I am happy to be corrected on anything I may have misstated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
As usual - if you don’t like something, simply disagree on the substance. I am happy to be corrected on anything I may have misstated.
The post is about a constant magnetic field, not a changing one. So, no, stuff about 5G is quite irrelevant.
As to why all the downvotes: the folks here are well aware that you're talking out of your rear-end or are unaware that we are exposed to EM waves orders of magnitude more powerful and of significantly higher frequency. This type of EM radiation is called "visible light", perhaps you have heard of it. Take a physics class before talking about capitalist industry agenda, please.
Oh, and as for your references: both non-opinion pieces (Scientific American blog post is an opinion) explicitly state that no adverse effects were noticed. Didn't you read them or did you expect nobody would call out your bullshit?
Oh, and as for your references: both non-opinion pieces (Scientific American blog post is an opinion) explicitly state that no adverse effects were noticed. Didn't you read them or did you expect nobody would call out your bullshit?
> we are exposed to EM waves orders of magnitude more powerful
Different materials absorb different wavelengths, light absorbed by the upper layer of skin, or that pass right through us never get a chance to damage anything.
Different materials absorb different wavelengths, light absorbed by the upper layer of skin, or that pass right through us never get a chance to damage anything.
I think I was clear… the adverse effects are not happening for humans due to the epithelial cells absorbing / blocking the radiation… did you not read what I wrote or did you expect I wouldn’t point out the strawman?
I said that these may be harmful to insects, that the same mechanism isn’t present.
For example: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html
Here is a direct quote:
Of the 83 studies deemed scientifically relevant, 72 showed that radiation had a negative effect on bees, wasps and flies.
These effects ranged from a reduced ability to navigate due to the disturbance of magnetic fields to damage to genetic material and larvae.
Get it now?
I said that these may be harmful to insects, that the same mechanism isn’t present.
For example: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-mobile-insects-german.html
Here is a direct quote:
Of the 83 studies deemed scientifically relevant, 72 showed that radiation had a negative effect on bees, wasps and flies.
These effects ranged from a reduced ability to navigate due to the disturbance of magnetic fields to damage to genetic material and larvae.
Get it now?
I think people speak this subject too anthropocentric here, the real problem is EM pollution at a massive and unprecedented scale is making the insect population collapse. All of that, without mentioning the lack of methods and funding to study the dangers because the economic incentives are too high. Time will speak by itself.
> but is the 5G for cellphone mini towers the same as the 5G for wifi networks
Nah. "5G" in Wi-Fi refers to transmitting around 5 GHz instead of the usual 2.4 GHz. "5G" in mobile refers to the fifth generation of cellular networks, which can run at a whole range of frequencies.
Nah. "5G" in Wi-Fi refers to transmitting around 5 GHz instead of the usual 2.4 GHz. "5G" in mobile refers to the fifth generation of cellular networks, which can run at a whole range of frequencies.
[deleted]