This is only a guess, but I get the impression Album Archive is some sort of aggregator service. The original Blogger images appear to still be stored in Blogger's own media manager.
For example, many images referenced from Blogger posts contain links with URLs like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/... further strengthening the case that these images originate from Blogger, not the Archive service.
So in summary, my guess is that shutting down Album Archive will not affect Blogger media files.
Another case for this conclusion, is that it seems totally insane to delete all of Blogger's media files, and not inform Blogger users directly, but instead do it through some obscure Archive service notice.
Would be nice to get an official confirmation on this, but let's say we can make an educated guess that people's Blogger photos are probably safe.
Researching flat earth and flat earthers forced me learn a lot about how we can prove globe earth in various interesting ways.
One cool device I discovered is the Gyrotheodolite. It's a north-seeking gyrocompass, used in mining where GPS is not available and a magnetic compass would be too inaccurate.
The north-seeking effect happens only because the earth is round and rotates the way it does. Without this rotation, the gyrocompass would not work. Hence the earth is round and it rotates. QED.
I think an equatorial mount/platform is one of the best devices for demonstrating it.
It's possible to cobble a simple one together out of pretty basic parts, or even scrap. It's just a turntable set at an angle, which you can mount some kind of pointer/viewfinder/camera on.
The demonstration comes in that it has to be set up so that the axis of the turntable is at an angle to the ground equal to your latitude (at 0°lat it has to be horizontal, at 90°lat vertical), and the direction of the tilt is towards a pole (north in the northern hemisphere, south in the southern). You can then fix your webcam or whatever to the turntable, pointing at any celestial object (star, moon, sun - but don't look directly at the sun!) and see that you can follow any of them at a constant rate of approx 15° per hour, for days. You can follow when and where the object goes below the horizon, and predict when and where it will rise above the horizon again.
All of those requirements, from the tilt angle being equal to your latitude, to the requirement to point the tilt north/south, to the constant rate of rotation, and the direction of rotation depending on whether you're in the north or south hemisphere, are easily explained by the shape of the earth, and make no sense in any flat earth model. And they're easily checked. You might need a few collaborators to check the results at different latitudes, but there seem to be plenty of flat earthers out there.
Also the slightly different rotational speeds needed to track the sun (~1°/day) and the moon (~4°/day) vs that of all of the stars also follow from the heliocentric model of the solar system, and not whatever alternate bonkers cosmology someone has pulled out of their ass.
I'm not an expert, but I think there's pretty much an infinite number of ways to execute space trajectories.
Just looking at it visually it seems Orion is (perhaps?) taking a more roundabout (slower) route, and it's also ending up at the moon in a different orbital configuration than Apollo.
Another factor, I am sure, is cost. The faster you want to get there, the more fuel you need to burn. I'm also going to guess it's not a linear equation, which means the faster you want to get there, the fuel requirements will increase in something like an exponential proportion.
Therefore slower is cheaper, to a point. If you go TOO slow, your astronauts will starve, or you need to bring more food and provisions, which will cancel the cost savings on speed reduction. So somewhere in there is going to be an optimal cost/fuel/food/provision trajectory for each mission.
So, in summary: different mission, different parameters for optimal execution.
Ha. Great. Also needs a giant ginormous sticky header and menu structure at the top of the page, so that together with the sticky footer it covers up pretty much any remaining article content.
It's not necessarily a good argument to compare to sunlight, because we also have take into account biological adaptation.
Sunlight has existed for millions of years on this planet, and therefore all biological life has had time to adapt to it.
Human skin for example, has both a protection mechanism, in the form of melanin, and a utilizing mechanism, in the form of vitamin D production.
So these are the two things you would normally expect to happen with adaptation: protection and utilization.
But when it comes to RF radiation, especially in the microwave range, the natural background flux is not 1000W/m2, but 10^-18 W/m2 (!), at 1 GHz.
The current safety limits again are set at around 10W/m2 @ 1Ghz. That's a difference to the background of over a quintillion times (18 zeroes). See image here for reference:
Because the background has been 10^-18 W/m2, we can consider it basically nonexistant, and therefore there has been no adaptation to these frequencies, no utilization, and no protection.
But there is another difference to natural sunlight also, and that is that man-made RF is not continuous, but pulsed.
Consider what would happen, if the sun suddenly started pulsing on and off a few thousand times per second.
These are some of the factors that need to be taken into consideration. It is not as simple as just saying that pulsed microwaves are just like sunlight.
From both a physics standpoint, but especially from a biological standpoint, they are not the same, and that is where the problems come from.
I think its a very good argument to compare because its based on our understanding of physics.
Even with all our adaptations we still get cancer from sunlight on a regular basis.
It is easy to understand why, UVB light is near ionizing has enough energy to damage human DNA causing cancer.
Below UVB there is not enough energy to cause DNA damage through a known mechanism except heating.
Heating directly related to power absorption, a 1500 watt microwave will cook you a 300 milliwatt pulsing microwave transmitter will not heat your flesh enough to cause any damage.
We have a pretty good grip on how various frequencies of radiation affect human biology and cell phone emissions are orders of magnitude lower power that whats needed to heat flesh enough to cause damage you literally get more heat directly from the phone being warm than RF absorption.
I don't propose we stop looking for any possible biological activity due to microwave (or any other spectrum) but repeated test have not shown this to be the case and to do so would mean there is some new mechanism for this to do so.
If you are scared of 300 milliwatt RF emissions I would be more scared of multi-watt LED light emissions due to higher energy levels (terahertz vs gigahertz).
You do understand that the ionizing argument is a logical fallacy?
If I say A is dangerous because of X, it is a logical fallacy to say B is safe because lack of X.
Lack of X is not an argument for safety, therefore you cannot use lack of ionization as any form of proof for safety. The only thing you can say, is that it does not ionize. It does not say anything else related to any other biological effects.
With regards to the mechanism and the observed effects in laboratory and animal experiments, here is the proposed pathophysiology:
If you want the TL;DR, the summary is: there are other ways to cause cellular and genetic disruption, than just ionizing radiation or by heating effects.
And yes, we have a good grip on the science: here is a graph of peer-reviewed scientific publications, showing biological effects much below current exposure limits:
The problem is, this science has not been incorporated into the current safety standards. This science shows, there exists non-thermal non-ionizing mechanisms of harm, that have not been taken into consideration.
But if you trust the over 20 year old FCC guidelines, then of course you will think everything is fine.
It is not a question of being scared, it is a question of looking at the science, and updating our understanding, and then look at the technology with this new understanding, so that we can make it safer.
It is most definitely not a fallacy to argue that EM radiation below a certain energy threshold has no proven mechanism other than heating to damage DNA.
Maybe we haven't found it yet, and we should always keep looking, but it is no more likely to be caused by microwave or visible light at this point.
The images you posted are to a paper done by Martin L. Pall who is a known scaremonger for EMF and has been met with skepticism [1]. It certainly is not proof of microwave being dangerous to the human body at power levels emitted by cellphones, its a theory that has yet do be proven of a possible pathway that is non thermal.
Here is another factor to consider that I think many are overlooking: our steadily increasing RF-exposure may be altering the growth rate and antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria and other microorganisms.
I don't think many are considering this possibility, and I don't like what I find. It seems RF-radiation, even at non-thermal exposure levels, is able to both alter the growth rate and antibiotic interaction of microorganisms.
"Extremely High Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation Enforces Bacterial Effects of Inhibitors and Antibiotics":
"Evaluation of the Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Router and Mobile Phone Simulator on the Antibacterial Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli":
That study which mentions routers and wifi seems questionably controlled - increased exposure time decreasing inhibition radius? I would expect that from just time passing would do that - it only mentions the radius shrinking not shrinking at a faster rate.
To be frank that sounds like a high school level procedure error.
Plus even if taken at face value they admit they only notice the effects on certain strains at certain phases.
You're not supposed to mention RF exposure. You're obviously a tin-foil loony, even if you cite legitimate research papers. All the industry-sponsored studies say its totally harmless...
> that dogs align themselves to earth's magnetic field when pooping.
Well actually that seems like relevant information for this topic, because if that is true it means that dogs can sense magnetic fields. And as we know RF waves are composed of both an electric and magnetic component.
So this guy might actually know something that the rest of us do not know. If dogs can sense magnetic fields, it means electromagnetic radiation could have an unknown impact on their sense of direction. Sounds important to me.
Here's another guy that seems to know what he is talking about.
Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Seems like someone you might want to listen to, especially since he has participated in several studies on this subject:
You can also find his talks on the subject on Youtube, which I suggest people watch. They are very easy to listen to, and provides a good introduction to these topics.
Then we have this guy:
Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
He was commissioned by the electrical power companies to actually invent the RF dosimeter in 1991, that many use now to gauge exposure levels.
Several publications relating EMF exposure. I think we want to know what he has to say also.
So perhaps you should not have give up so easily, and continued to look a little further instead. We want to look for the people who have the expertise in this field, and listen to what they have to say.
To finish off, I'd like to know where are the scientists that have studied this subject as extensively as someone like Heroux or Johansson, and are willing to sign their names on a pledge of microwave safety for all of humanity. I haven't seen such a list.
"The 5G recommendation for global irradiation. Go ahead, we take responsibility for full irradiation." In fact there is no such recommendation, as both insurance companies and even the cellular manufacturers are increasingly distancing themselves from liability.
"Panagopoulos et al. [99] exposed fruit flies (D. melanogaster) to radiation from a mobile phone (900 MHz) during the 2–5 first days of adulthood. The reproductive capacity of the species reduced by 50–60% in modulated radiation conditions."
"The authors concluded that radio frequencies, specifically GSM, are highly bioactive and provoke significant changes in physiological functions of living organisms."
The paper references over 100 studies in total on the subject of biological RF effects.
For example, many images referenced from Blogger posts contain links with URLs like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/... further strengthening the case that these images originate from Blogger, not the Archive service.
So in summary, my guess is that shutting down Album Archive will not affect Blogger media files.
Another case for this conclusion, is that it seems totally insane to delete all of Blogger's media files, and not inform Blogger users directly, but instead do it through some obscure Archive service notice.
Would be nice to get an official confirmation on this, but let's say we can make an educated guess that people's Blogger photos are probably safe.