> Has anyone tried radiating hive infestation of chemicals or parasites
> with different wavelengths of sound or light"?
> He argues that most every organism or molecule has a wavelength which
> will destroy it.
He is perfectly correct about the "light" approach, but "sound"
would have very limited applications for tiny things like chemicals
and parasites, and would be better suited for larger objects, like
bridges and buildings.
Now some atomic bonds require a great deal of energy to break, so
we can't expect this to work easily for everything, but many
modern pesticides are specifically designed to break down in sunlight.
I think that most exploit the UV component of sunlight.
There is also electron beam ("e-Beam") irradiation, such as the devices
that the Post Office bought after the anthrax mailings in 2001. This
is nothing more than a stream of electrons at high energy, and it is
said to be powerful enough to kill any living thing.
Third, there is the "gamma radiation" of the sort used to irradiate
food, and which has been used to decontaminate comb and woodenware.
So, we have Sunlight (UV photons), e-Beam (electrons), and gamma
radiation (also photons).
Regardless of the choice of photons or electrons, the process is
roughly the same. Understanding all this will allow you to
see yet another reason why I am so certain that CCD is a "pathogen
problem" rather than a "pesticide problem", if you accept that
irradiation makes a tangible difference to new colonies installed
on CCD deadout comb.
There are two terms to grock - "flux" and "energy":
"Flux" is the number of bullets flying through a specific slice of
air, and "Energy" is the muzzle velocity of the bullets.
Solar UV radiation is much higher flux but much lower energy than
the gamma radiation that was used to decontaminate combs in the
Penn State attempt to clean up the "Hackenberg CCD Dead-outs.
Radiation from e-Beam would also be "high energy, low flux".
The energy difference means that a gamma photon will destroy
a chemical bond in any atom it hits, while a UV photon has
a much smaller probability of destroying a bond (by a factor
of thousands), and can only affect certain types of bonds
anyway.
Any virus is thousands of times larger than any pesticide
molecule, but a virus and a pesticide molecule each represent
one functional unit. The destruction of almost any single
atomic bond in a virus will likely inactivate (kill) the virus.
This is true for the pesticide molecule as well, but the virus
is much larger and needs many more intact bonds in order to
stay functional/operational.
A given flux of radiation will destroy a large percentage
of the virus particles in a given sample and a much smaller
percentage of pesticide molecules because of the size difference.
Some pesticide molecules will be "missed" by the "bullets".
Its a statistical thing.
What all this means is that modern pesticides (but not pathogens)
are more likely broken down by simply UV from sunlight, where
pathogens and not pesticides) are more likely broken down by
irradiation.
Lastly, sound. If I had a big enough subwoofer and a powerful
enough amplifier, I could simulate an earthquake. The 1970s
schlock disaster movie "Earthquake" did exactly that in theaters.
They called it "Sensurround". There are also "resonances" that
can bring down bridges, which is why solders marching across
bridges are always told to break step, and not march in step
with each other. But sound waves are very long (low frequency)
as compared to the sizes of pesticides and pathogens, so I'm
going to guess that the "sound" end of the electromagnetic
spectrum is going to not have any impact on tiny things.
Resonance works in things that are longer than the wavelength.
(Wavelength is the inverse of the frequency, and "sound" we can
hear ranges from 10 Hz to 16kHz.)
Aren't you so glad you asked? :)
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
