yes, resonance can be significant, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that the energies here are significant, nor that the frequencies applied are the right frequencies, and resonant enough, for damage.
the underlying point is that unless we're capable of doing the relevant experiments ourselves, we need to trust that people in the field are cognizant enough to realize these obvious issues, test them, and report their findings. it's unlikely that lay people like us are going to find and gotcha the researchers in the field.
that's not to say that, in aggregate, we can't give researchers ideas about what to be researching. that, we can--and should--do, via conversations like this.
> yes, resonance can be significant, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that the energies here are significant, nor that the frequencies applied are the right frequencies, and resonant enough, for damage.
I did not claim that the proposed method has to be harmful. I stated that ultrasound imaging gives little to no insight in what happens at frequencies that are an order of magnitude or two higher than that. The second reply was an attempt to do away with the misconception that "higher flux of energy" was necessary for damage.
the underlying point is that unless we're capable of doing the relevant experiments ourselves, we need to trust that people in the field are cognizant enough to realize these obvious issues, test them, and report their findings. it's unlikely that lay people like us are going to find and gotcha the researchers in the field.
that's not to say that, in aggregate, we can't give researchers ideas about what to be researching. that, we can--and should--do, via conversations like this.