Mostly because 1) The article I read said he was trying to invent a cancer treatment with these radio waves

As a quick note, he's reinventing the wheel there-- there's a couple dozen groups like

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/chemistry/faculty/dai/group/research5_3.htm

with clinical results on techniques like this, and techniques like BNCT have exploited the general principle for a while. (Essentially, you build some molecule or particle that absorbs some form of radiation that the human body is transparent to, and also sticks preferentially to cells undergoing rapid division.) Techniques that kill cancer cells in a dish are a dime a dozen, in any event. Clinical results are the tough ones.

This sort of thing is the most common reason 'garage' type scientists frequently run into walls-- the pros have all the journal subscriptions (and the student manpower to scan them), funds to attend conferences, ready access to patent lawyers, etc., and they're able to build on existing knowledge, rather than starting from scratch on everything.

It does make me wonder (if this is true) what these frequencies would do to a person since we are mostly salt water...

Likely cause burns, starting at the surface, for the same reasons kitchen microwaves or infrared lasers (see also: Valg's right hand near the wrist) would. You're sending energy into a substance, and it's getting absorbed. It has to turn into something, and heat is the most common side effect.

This is something I haven't found, but it seems (based on absolutely nothing) that it would be the case, especially since you could (presumably) supply the RF over a much larger area than electrolysis would be feasible.

I agree that's based on absolutely nothing. After all, what are you using to generate those radio waves? You already have one extra step in generating the energy, so the bond-breaking method needs to be two steps better. It could be, but without a measurement there's no reason to think it is a priori.

On a psuedo unrelated note, I saw some stories recently about RFID tags and the such causing cancer in animals due to irritation at the implant site. Have you seen anything/have any insight into that?

That story is getting reported by more reputable media, and it's definitely going to spur a specific study. All they know so far is that they saw a high tumor incidence in mice with the chips implanted, but without control groups/etc. (the investigators weren't looking for cancer) it's tricky to interpret. My gut feeling is that it'll end up being a materials problem-- something leeching out of the particular RFID chip or a conseqeunce of the implantation method, rather than a consequence of the radio waves themselves.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com