In the 20th century, radio signals were considered benign and in large part this was due to the view that proteins and other large cellular molecules were determined by covalent bonds which were high energy bonds. So, safety calculations were then based on the amount of heating or bond breaking energy in the radio waves. And indeed FCC safety limits these days are based on that sort of calculation.
In the 21st century the realization is becoming widespread that the proteins don't achieve their amazing feats by covalent bonds and instead use obtuse quantum effects such as quantum criticality and electron entanglement. And the proteins utilize electromagnetic waves in bizarre ways. Indeed chlorophyl achieves its efficiency by these effects. And herein lies the problem, it means the safety calculations are completely wrong.
Two years ago anyone who said they were electromagnetic hypersensitive would have gotten a silent laugh from me as I wondered what unicorn they rode in on. Not now. Evidence of immune system suppression from ordinary levels of cell phone, wifi, blue tooth, etc, is breaking through the literature fog, but the problem these days is that the common ambient level of radio signal strength of the whole spectrum is so high, it is hard to run tests. Moreover, biologists aren't trained in electrical engineering or physics, much less quantum physics or quantum chemistry.
We are in other words running the biggest uncontrolled experiment on the whole earth, and it looks like it is a big mistake, huge. Further, just to make the case that things aren't so good, 50% of all Americans have one or more chronic disease, and 25% have 2 or more chronic diseases.
Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Already radio waves and the proliferation of radio waves is a very interesting thing to look at I am not sure that the EM spectrum is something that should be the major concern. But I do wonder what the background difference in overall radiation is compared to say 50 years ago. Do you have any facts and figures on that?
My major concern is foods that we are consumers an everyday basis. Most of these are laced with the chemicals and other items for preservation and retention of freshness. My nephew who is a mortician made an interesting comment a few years ago that there was no longer a hurry to pick up bodies because of the amount of chemicals that are in our day-to-day food we stay fresh longer after death. After hearing that I kind of went on a one-man crusade to eliminate as many chemicals that I ingest as possible. I have noticed some benefits but more importantly I have found that now when I go and eat some fast foods I find my body does not like them and I get sick to my stomach. Although they still taste quite delicious I feel that anything that causes you to feel nauseous might not be good for you.
So I try to grow as much food as I can with this little chemicals as I can reasonably expect. I think would be foolhardy to try to avoid everything not because it would be better for you but because the associated costs and bother.
My major concern is foods that we are consumers an everyday basis. Most of these are laced with the chemicals and other items for preservation and retention of freshness. My nephew who is a mortician made an interesting comment a few years ago that there was no longer a hurry to pick up bodies because of the amount of chemicals that are in our day-to-day food we stay fresh longer after death. After hearing that I kind of went on a one-man crusade to eliminate as many chemicals that I ingest as possible. I have noticed some benefits but more importantly I have found that now when I go and eat some fast foods I find my body does not like them and I get sick to my stomach. Although they still taste quite delicious I feel that anything that causes you to feel nauseous might not be good for you.
So I try to grow as much food as I can with this little chemicals as I can reasonably expect. I think would be foolhardy to try to avoid everything not because it would be better for you but because the associated costs and bother.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
A factor of 10**18 higher across the spectrum.
It is never the one thing. And 20th century focus was on genetics, which amounts to 25k genes coding for 100,000 proteins, but the Microbiome was discovered in the 21st century using forensics type techniques and in the Microbiome which inhabits blood, tissue, organs, and cells themselves including immune cells there are millions of genes for 10's of thousands of different bacteria and fungi. Further, I classify anyone that thinks the Microbiome is some benevolent I would like to point out the 5 different fungi found to be causally associated with Alzheimers.
And in addition, plants have their own Microbiome and immune systems. Moreover, all species of palm trees in Florida are dying due to an illness.
And worms also use the earth's magnetic field to know up versus down.
It is never the one thing. And 20th century focus was on genetics, which amounts to 25k genes coding for 100,000 proteins, but the Microbiome was discovered in the 21st century using forensics type techniques and in the Microbiome which inhabits blood, tissue, organs, and cells themselves including immune cells there are millions of genes for 10's of thousands of different bacteria and fungi. Further, I classify anyone that thinks the Microbiome is some benevolent I would like to point out the 5 different fungi found to be causally associated with Alzheimers.
And in addition, plants have their own Microbiome and immune systems. Moreover, all species of palm trees in Florida are dying due to an illness.
And worms also use the earth's magnetic field to know up versus down.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
I have a physicist friend who is convinced that RF is dangerous. If he must use a cell phone, he holds it at arm's length and uses a hands free headset.
We were looking at using RF to treat parasites in goats a couple of years back. The goat guy never could get funding, but the preliminary approach was going to be to expose the parasites, Haemonchus contortus, to a series of frequencies on a modified microscope slide, while bathed in trypan blue stain. Particular frequencies, depending on the response of specific molecules, were expected to rip up cell membranes, and the leaks should show up by staining blue. The effect might, with luck, be highly selective for the parasite. The basic approach was an adaptation of Rife Frequency Therapy, which you might look up. While Rife thought the effects could be therapeutic, clearly the mechanism could be used for damage. So the trick would be finding a frequency that killed the parasite without causing harm to the goat.
My joke in another part of the forum regarding tinfoil hats is based on something else. The old gag that crazy people wear tinfoil hats to keep the government from reading their minds was always funny because clearly they could not. Except, a couple of years back a method for reading the visual cortex found that, while we cannot yet read visual images, we can now tell what color the subject is looking at. So maybe the time is coming.
But it is not the government that worries me. This goes back to "The President's Analyst," a corny movie in which it turned out that The Phone Company wanted to put telephone chips in our heads, which would let them read our minds. Some people today would buy into this option. The amount of intrusion we're allowing The Me-Phone Companies to have on our lives, tracking our location, buying preferences, communications, etc, is getting pretty close to mind reading. And they're irradiating our heads with microwaves.
So maybe the tin foil hat is getting less crazy. Heck, we're getting tin-foil sleeves for our credit cards! But I think a WWII steel infantry helmet would offer better shielding.
We were looking at using RF to treat parasites in goats a couple of years back. The goat guy never could get funding, but the preliminary approach was going to be to expose the parasites, Haemonchus contortus, to a series of frequencies on a modified microscope slide, while bathed in trypan blue stain. Particular frequencies, depending on the response of specific molecules, were expected to rip up cell membranes, and the leaks should show up by staining blue. The effect might, with luck, be highly selective for the parasite. The basic approach was an adaptation of Rife Frequency Therapy, which you might look up. While Rife thought the effects could be therapeutic, clearly the mechanism could be used for damage. So the trick would be finding a frequency that killed the parasite without causing harm to the goat.
My joke in another part of the forum regarding tinfoil hats is based on something else. The old gag that crazy people wear tinfoil hats to keep the government from reading their minds was always funny because clearly they could not. Except, a couple of years back a method for reading the visual cortex found that, while we cannot yet read visual images, we can now tell what color the subject is looking at. So maybe the time is coming.
But it is not the government that worries me. This goes back to "The President's Analyst," a corny movie in which it turned out that The Phone Company wanted to put telephone chips in our heads, which would let them read our minds. Some people today would buy into this option. The amount of intrusion we're allowing The Me-Phone Companies to have on our lives, tracking our location, buying preferences, communications, etc, is getting pretty close to mind reading. And they're irradiating our heads with microwaves.
So maybe the tin foil hat is getting less crazy. Heck, we're getting tin-foil sleeves for our credit cards! But I think a WWII steel infantry helmet would offer better shielding.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
I think the take away point is that what was considered to be benign due to the supposed nature of molecules behaving according to strong covalent bonds is now in doubt so the safety calculations have to be thrown out... and we have nothing to replace them. The next point is that we are bathing the whole world without knowing what the effects are, and some effects have been shown conclusively to have debilitating behavior effects at unexpectedly low power levels and low frequencies.
The research has also shown that radio signals can suppress the immune system of animals, which ties into the recent classification of cell phones as carcinogenic. Where it goes from there is not good from research that I have read. And $ Trillions are at stake so the controversy and chance for bodged research is to be expected given the tobacco and asbestos research misdeeds.
One unsettling historical result was the radiation exposure in Hiroshima resulted in 100% death due to cancer with some dying decades later, but dying early nevertheless. So, effects may not always be evident right away.
The research has also shown that radio signals can suppress the immune system of animals, which ties into the recent classification of cell phones as carcinogenic. Where it goes from there is not good from research that I have read. And $ Trillions are at stake so the controversy and chance for bodged research is to be expected given the tobacco and asbestos research misdeeds.
One unsettling historical result was the radiation exposure in Hiroshima resulted in 100% death due to cancer with some dying decades later, but dying early nevertheless. So, effects may not always be evident right away.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
2 cites please:
Cell phones are carcinogenic
100% death rate to cancer from Hiroshima weapon
Cell phones are carcinogenic
100% death rate to cancer from Hiroshima weapon
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
I'll dig them out.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Thanks!
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Those statements did strike me as fishy.
Hiroshima: Some survivors lived for decades. It is statistically impossible that in that period, some did not die of other causes.
Cell phones and cancer: I recall a tentative link, suspicion but not proof.
I will say I notice a very strong correlation between people who keep one of those infernal things pressed up to the side of their heads most of the day, and moronic behavior. But it is difficult to prove cause and effect. Does the phone make you stupid, or do you over-use the phone because you were already stupid? I will be totally unsurprised if, in the long run, they turn out to be killing brain cells, but if the effect were pronounced, we'd be seeing unambiguous evidence. We may be overlooking evidence, though.
If you want me to turn mine on, call ahead on the land-line or e-mail me (my computer is hooked up via Cat 5e cable, not wireless). I leave it off unless I'm headed out and need to be contacted. My attitude toward them: it is amazing how modern technology has transformed the ball and chain into something lightweight and easy to carry. The purpose of the things is to give the prisoner mobility so they can never get away from work.
Hiroshima: Some survivors lived for decades. It is statistically impossible that in that period, some did not die of other causes.
Cell phones and cancer: I recall a tentative link, suspicion but not proof.
I will say I notice a very strong correlation between people who keep one of those infernal things pressed up to the side of their heads most of the day, and moronic behavior. But it is difficult to prove cause and effect. Does the phone make you stupid, or do you over-use the phone because you were already stupid? I will be totally unsurprised if, in the long run, they turn out to be killing brain cells, but if the effect were pronounced, we'd be seeing unambiguous evidence. We may be overlooking evidence, though.
If you want me to turn mine on, call ahead on the land-line or e-mail me (my computer is hooked up via Cat 5e cable, not wireless). I leave it off unless I'm headed out and need to be contacted. My attitude toward them: it is amazing how modern technology has transformed the ball and chain into something lightweight and easy to carry. The purpose of the things is to give the prisoner mobility so they can never get away from work.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Ok, I have too many articles and sources.
First, yes, officially:
IARC PRESS RELEASE N° 208
IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 — "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use."
This classification has been criticized because it addresses only risk for glioma. It is also 2011 and thus reflects studies where exposure is not the modern exposure of today.
Second, my memory appears to be 'interpretive', a better statement would be, paraphrased, ‘brain tumors take a long time to develop, it took 40 years for it to show up in Japanese atomic bomb blast survivors... And it takes 10 years for it to show up with 1 cell call a week for six months rate of use.’
From:
"The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation" -- Dr Devra Davis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
at 43:06
First, yes, officially:
IARC PRESS RELEASE N° 208
IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 — "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use."
This classification has been criticized because it addresses only risk for glioma. It is also 2011 and thus reflects studies where exposure is not the modern exposure of today.
Second, my memory appears to be 'interpretive', a better statement would be, paraphrased, ‘brain tumors take a long time to develop, it took 40 years for it to show up in Japanese atomic bomb blast survivors... And it takes 10 years for it to show up with 1 cell call a week for six months rate of use.’
From:
"The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation" -- Dr Devra Davis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
at 43:06
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 13290.html
Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird
Nature 509, 353–356 (15 May 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13290
Received 28 January 2014 Accepted 28 March 2014 Published online 07 May 2014
Article tools
Electromagnetic noise is emitted everywhere humans use electronic devices. For decades, it has been hotly debated whether man-made electric and magnetic fields affect biological processes, including human health1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So far, no putative effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise at intensities below the guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization1, 2 has withstood the test of independent replication under truly blinded experimental conditions. No effect has therefore been widely accepted as scientifically proven1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Here we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise. When European robins, Erithacus rubecula, were exposed to the background electromagnetic noise present in unscreened wooden huts at the University of Oldenburg campus, they could not orient using their magnetic compass. Their magnetic orientation capabilities reappeared in electrically grounded, aluminium-screened huts, which attenuated electromagnetic noise in the frequency range from 50 kHz to 5 MHz by approximately two orders of magnitude. When the grounding was removed or when broadband electromagnetic noise was deliberately generated inside the screened and grounded huts, the birds again lost their magnetic orientation capabilities. The disruptive effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is not confined to a narrow frequency band and birds tested far from sources of electromagnetic noise required no screening to orient with their magnetic compass. These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.
TED talk, end mentions how the European Robin detects the earth’s magnetic field
http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_al_khalili ... _questions
at 13:52
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v15/ ... t4484.html
A magnetic protein biocompass
Nature Materials 15, 217–226 (2016) doi:10.1038/nmat4484
Received 04 August 2015 Accepted 21 October 2015 Published online 16 November 2015
Abstract
The notion that animals can detect the Earth’s magnetic field was once ridiculed, but is now well established. Yet the biological nature of such magnetosensing phenomenon remains unknown. Here, we report a putative magnetic receptor (Drosophila CG8198, here named MagR) and a multimeric magnetosensing rod-like protein complex, identified by theoretical postulation and genome-wide screening, and validated with cellular, biochemical, structural and biophysical methods. The magnetosensing complex consists of the identified putative magnetoreceptor and known magnetoreception-related photoreceptor cryptochromes (Cry), has the attributes of both Cry- and iron-based systems, and exhibits spontaneous alignment in magnetic fields, including that of the Earth. Such a protein complex may form the basis of magnetoreception in animals, and may lead to applications across multiple fields.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-bi ... rence.html
Quantum biology: Algae evolved to switch quantum coherence on and off
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2577 ... _mmode=std#
Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The study was carried out on 16 Wistar Albino adult male rats by dividing them into two groups such as sham (n =
and exposure (n = . Rats in the exposure group were exposed to 2.4 GHz radiofrequency (RF) radiation for 24 hours a day for 12 months (one year). The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group except the Wi-Fi system was turned off. Immediately after the last exposure, rats were sacrificed and their brains were removed. miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p, miR-106b-5p, miR-107, miR-125a-3p in brain were investigated in detail.
RESULTS:
The results revealed that long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs such as miR-106b-5p (adj p* = 0.010) and miR-107 (adj p* = 0.005). We observed that mir 107 expression is 3.3 times and miR- 106b-5p expression is 3.65 times lower in the exposure group than in the control group. However, miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p and miR-125a-3p levels in brain were not altered.
CONCLUSION:
Long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.
Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird
Nature 509, 353–356 (15 May 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13290
Received 28 January 2014 Accepted 28 March 2014 Published online 07 May 2014
Article tools
Electromagnetic noise is emitted everywhere humans use electronic devices. For decades, it has been hotly debated whether man-made electric and magnetic fields affect biological processes, including human health1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So far, no putative effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise at intensities below the guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization1, 2 has withstood the test of independent replication under truly blinded experimental conditions. No effect has therefore been widely accepted as scientifically proven1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Here we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise. When European robins, Erithacus rubecula, were exposed to the background electromagnetic noise present in unscreened wooden huts at the University of Oldenburg campus, they could not orient using their magnetic compass. Their magnetic orientation capabilities reappeared in electrically grounded, aluminium-screened huts, which attenuated electromagnetic noise in the frequency range from 50 kHz to 5 MHz by approximately two orders of magnitude. When the grounding was removed or when broadband electromagnetic noise was deliberately generated inside the screened and grounded huts, the birds again lost their magnetic orientation capabilities. The disruptive effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is not confined to a narrow frequency band and birds tested far from sources of electromagnetic noise required no screening to orient with their magnetic compass. These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.
TED talk, end mentions how the European Robin detects the earth’s magnetic field
http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_al_khalili ... _questions
at 13:52
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v15/ ... t4484.html
A magnetic protein biocompass
Nature Materials 15, 217–226 (2016) doi:10.1038/nmat4484
Received 04 August 2015 Accepted 21 October 2015 Published online 16 November 2015
Abstract
The notion that animals can detect the Earth’s magnetic field was once ridiculed, but is now well established. Yet the biological nature of such magnetosensing phenomenon remains unknown. Here, we report a putative magnetic receptor (Drosophila CG8198, here named MagR) and a multimeric magnetosensing rod-like protein complex, identified by theoretical postulation and genome-wide screening, and validated with cellular, biochemical, structural and biophysical methods. The magnetosensing complex consists of the identified putative magnetoreceptor and known magnetoreception-related photoreceptor cryptochromes (Cry), has the attributes of both Cry- and iron-based systems, and exhibits spontaneous alignment in magnetic fields, including that of the Earth. Such a protein complex may form the basis of magnetoreception in animals, and may lead to applications across multiple fields.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-bi ... rence.html
Quantum biology: Algae evolved to switch quantum coherence on and off
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2577 ... _mmode=std#
Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
MicroRNAs (miRNA) play a paramount role in growth, differentiation, proliferation and cell death by suppressing one or more target genes. However, their interaction with radiofrequencies is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted from a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) system on some of the miRNA in brain tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The study was carried out on 16 Wistar Albino adult male rats by dividing them into two groups such as sham (n =
and exposure (n = . Rats in the exposure group were exposed to 2.4 GHz radiofrequency (RF) radiation for 24 hours a day for 12 months (one year). The same procedure was applied to the rats in the sham group except the Wi-Fi system was turned off. Immediately after the last exposure, rats were sacrificed and their brains were removed. miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p, miR-106b-5p, miR-107, miR-125a-3p in brain were investigated in detail.RESULTS:
The results revealed that long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs such as miR-106b-5p (adj p* = 0.010) and miR-107 (adj p* = 0.005). We observed that mir 107 expression is 3.3 times and miR- 106b-5p expression is 3.65 times lower in the exposure group than in the control group. However, miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p and miR-125a-3p levels in brain were not altered.
CONCLUSION:
Long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
And for a bit more insomnia curative reading:
http://www.bioinitiative.org
I have really only looked into this subject for personal interest (and with great health benefit I might add), and have no interest in convincing anyone of validity of the bio effects. However, I strongly suspect that the interest from many groups will escalate rapidly and there will be a severe backlash against the rush to RF. Further, the bio effects, if you follow the logic, effects all life, plant (which also have immune systems), insects, and animals.
http://www.bioinitiative.org
I have really only looked into this subject for personal interest (and with great health benefit I might add), and have no interest in convincing anyone of validity of the bio effects. However, I strongly suspect that the interest from many groups will escalate rapidly and there will be a severe backlash against the rush to RF. Further, the bio effects, if you follow the logic, effects all life, plant (which also have immune systems), insects, and animals.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Biological Sensitivity to Radio Waves
If all this were true I should be toast, but then again they don't gold plate those windows to make them look pretty.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.