Talk:Tin foil hat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Aspartme

Um, my roommate isn't afraid of aspartame in his food because he's paranoid; he's allergic to it because it causes him to have seizures. Perhaps we could find some other ingredient to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.49.134 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2002

I think it's better to simply specify why paranoids fear aspartame. It's possible to fear aspartame for multiple different reasons, some of them reasonable and some of them delusional. Bryan Derksen

Echelon reference

I don't like the implication that being concerned about Echelon automatically labels someone as stereotypically paranoid. I have no trouble with the idea that paranoid people are stereotypically concerned about being watched (e.g. the TV is looking back at them), I just don't like this example. I haven't changed the article as I thought I'd see if anyone agrees first. - S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.45.172 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 May 2003

So what are the non-stereotypically paranoid fears of echelon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.151.11 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 May 2003

Ummm - how about the erosion of civil liberties that routine surveillance of private communications implies? That is a real concern, and is definitely not something that can be dismissed as "paranoia". Graham 06:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Paranoid concepts

I didn't think the digression into "paranoid concepts" belonged here, so I removed it. It belongs in paranoia or some other article. —Ashley Y 18:28, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Humorists?

Was the term actually coined by humorists? "Tinfoil hat" seems like a pretty neutral description of "headgear lined with aluminum foil"; couldn't it perhaps have been used by serious wearers of such headgear first? --Delirium 00:04, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, change it. —Ashley Y 06:50, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Velostat

3M Velostat would probably be ineffective. It is a conductive packing material designed to prevent packaging friction induced static electricity build-up which can damage electronic components. The film of conducting material is very thin and would probably not stop external electromagnetic radiation. There was a story some years ago of airline pilots lining their caps with tinfoil to counter the effects of increased particle bombardment at higher altitudes. Some science in that, but the protection would be negligible compared to the thickness of the skin of the plane. Probably just airline urban legend, like the flight-attendants who started growing feathers instead of body hair. Anjouli 06:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Origin in Signs

I added a notice about the appearace of tinfoil hats in "signs", I don't know if that's where if came from originally though, feel free to correct em on that one and just change it toa mention that it's appeared there. --Obli 21:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• This term was definitely in the lexicon prior to 2002!! People have been using it online for years and years. Moncrief 21:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move??

Why oh why was this moved to "tin foil hat"?? "Tinfoil" is one word. Google has 22,900 hits for "tinfoil hat" and 15,800 hits for "tin foil hat." Personally, I find it really irritating when people move much-worked-upon articles without any discussion, particularly when the move is unnecessary. Moncrief 19:47, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

According to the normal rules of the English language, "tin foil" is two words - just like "paper cup" or "brick road". Your google results are probably due to Tinfoil Hat Linux, which is spelled that way (a take on Red Hat Linux.) Mkweise 21:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, tinfoil is one word, and the word dates from the 14th century. It is also spelled as a single word in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's not an American/British issue. -- Nunh-huh 21:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tinfoil is absolutely one word. Of course it started out as two separate words but, like many compound words that have since become one word, it is now commonly spelled as one word. Look at any dictionary published in the past 40 or 50 years and tell me that they don't spell it as one word. I will take this to a larger vote if you don't agree because I am certain your moving this article was a mistake. Moncrief 23:47, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, we have a precedent in the location of tin foil [sic]. If this page is moved, that one should be moved as well for consistency. Beyond that I don't care too much about the issue, though my dictionary does list it as "tin foil, also tinfoil". Mkweise 00:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not precedent. Both "tin foil" and "tinfoil hat" are idiomatic. English is weird like that. —Ashley Y 04:26, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Devastating comments from a reader of another forum

“

....It should be added that, as with all pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason to be found in the tin-foil hat story. A well constructed tin-foil hat would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (notionally harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation that would otherwise pass through the subject's brain.....

That statement is untrue. There isn't the slightest "kernel of truth or reason to be found in this explanation." A "partial" faraday cage (actually there is no such thing) requires grounding to be the slightest bit effective. In matter of fact, an aluminum hat (ungrounded) would become an antenna. That is, it's dimensions will make it an effective antenna at a given wavelength. Again, a tin-foil hat is not electrically grounded, nor is it grounded at RF. So, the wiki citation above is incorrect. Anyone that wears a tin foil hat to stop "radiation" is either grossly misinformed or a loon...... there aren't any other explanations, nor should there be any attempt at such. This is an example, in my mind, of the NPOV going directly against the facts. RF and its behaviors are no mystery, they are very well understood.

To be more specific with regard to a faraday cage. To be a faraday cage and to invoke the "skin" effect, the enclosure must be 360 degrees. In the case of a tin hat beanie, there is no "enclosure" and the only way to keep the rf from "crawling" into the internal part of the "tin" skin is to ground it. Does that make it clearer? THe skin effect will only help if the enclosure fully surrounds the subject. Otherwise an ungrounded piece of metal becomes an antenna (at given wavelengths and their harmonics (odd multiples, in particular).

"TRUE" Faraday cages are reasonably effective at RF up to 100mhz (about midway into the FM band). They are notoriously ineffective at frequencies above 100mhz. THe only exception to this would be a faradday cage with no holes, whatsoever. No air holes, no light, completely sealed metallic structure.

Moreover, a beanie isn't even close to being a faraday cage, so the analogy is quite incorrect.

Add-on after original posting of this one: You have now been peer reviewed, a least a little bit.

”

Andries 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I seem to have been lumped into the tin-foil hat crowd. Literally! My intention was not to suggest that tin-foil hats were good at shielding from RF. Only that tin-foil hats resemble Faraday cages -- which *do* have the intended effect. I have modified my contribution to emphasise that tin-foil hats are not good Faraday cages.

I should add, however, that your response contains some misunderstandings. A "partial Faraday cage" does indeed exist, contrary to your assertion; indeed, imperfections in conductivity mean that there is no such thing as a perfect Faraday cage.

The skin effect is a local process -- it does not require the enclose to be 360 degrees. Wave guides, for example, are not complete enclosures, but are of course used to channel RF in one direction (along the axis) versus others. Similarly, parabolic reflectors rely on the conductivity of the metal to partially reflect the wave towards the antenna. Before you jump all over me, yes, the skin effect technically refers only to the attenuation of the transmitted wave.

Does the RF "crawl" in through holes in the conductor larger than the wavelength? Yes, of course. But a poor FC does not *need* to be grounded to provide partial shielding. If a wave is arriving from a side of the FC that does not have a large hole, then it will be attenuated/reflected for the exact same reasons that an idealized FC would.

Finally, your assertion that to attenuate FM frequencies, the FC must have "no holes, no light," etc, is completely incorrect. There is nothing magical about 100 MHz. You just need a material with sufficient conductivity, and to make sure any holes in the FC are much smaller than the wavelength of what you wish to block.

Or, in summary: this author respectfully disagrees with the comments from his anonymous referee.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.200.182 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 August 2004

Hmm -- just noticed an error someone introduced into this page: "There is no one frequency at which blocking begins, since electromagnetic radiation can tunnel to a greater or lesser extent through a conductor whose thickness is comparable to its wavelength." This is not true; note that the skin depth for, say, AM, is much much smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. The person who wrote this is presumably thinking of diffraction related effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.25.28 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 August 2004

Pseudoscience section

Replaced "as with all pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason" with "as with much pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason". I continue to believe that the devils are in the details. --Moiche 04:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the Tin-foil hat

Anyone have any idea how this reference first started? --Viriditas 09:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The earliest comment I can remember was from a silly movie called "Love Sick" (1983) where Dudley Moore plays a physchiatrist in love with one of his patients (played by Elizabeth McGovern). One of his other patients is a homeless guy who is convinced that the CIA, FBI, DOD, space aliens, etc are transmitting messages into his head. Moore gives him a piece of aluminum foil to play the rays. --Amcalabrese 19:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think in the classic 1967 film "They Came From Beyond Space" there is a reference. As I recall, the aliens that land in the moon-meteor thing zap people with blue cosmic rays which control their minds. You had to wear metal hats to block them. --FForeclosers 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the stuffed toy image

I have removbed the stuffed toy image that previously illustrated this page. Tin-foil hats are a deadly serious issue for those paranoid individuals who wear them; many of them are sufferers from schizophrenia, a severe mental illness. This is a serious subject, and cuddly toy illustrations are not appropriate. We can, and should, report on the mockery of the wearers of tin-foil hats that is the most common meme regarding them -- we should not, however, take part in it. -- The Anome 11:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Meissner effect and perfect Supraconductor Faraday Cage.

Imperfections in conductivity mean that there is no such thing as a perfect Faraday cage.

Superconductor are known to offer no electrical resistance, thus allowing perfect Faraday Cage.

In addition, a Supraconductor actively excludes magnetic fields from its interior; this is called the Meissner effect. One of the theoretical explanations of the Meissner effect comes from the London equation. It shows that the magnetic field decays exponentially inside the superconductor over a distance of 20-40 nm. It is described in terms of a parameter called the London penetration depth.

Therefore, a Supraconductor Faraday Cage might provide perfect shielding against both electric and magnetic fields.

Related Link:

The Meissner Effect.

--203.198.113.49 03:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wear a tinfoil hat

Ive been wearing the aluminum paper liner to a package of corn pops I find that it blocks much psychic communication which makes the user feel like a Z I urge anyone with patterned thoughts to wear a tinfoil hat. My particular issue is a bit like Asimov's character the Mule that is able to use psychic powers to overstimulate a technician to produce valuable technologies. Anyway during the 20th century there were up to 2 million United states schizophrenics I think te effect of the tinfoil hat is beneficial if the wearers believe n the rest of society just says "well, even a placebo makes a difference"

Treon Verdery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.98.54 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 January 2005

When designing experiments, modelling proteins or writing computer programmes, I regularly wear a tin foil hat and this helps concentrate my cerebral vibrations and block extraneous mental signatures from interfering with my thought processes. In fact, my scientific career is quite reliant on regular tin-foil hat wearing and I am quite offended at some editors suggestions that I am a nut!!!! mxpule 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rational behaviour

I'd like to defend the rationality of the choice to wear such a hat. Clearly these people are suffering in these experiences (presumably, symptoms of mental disturbance), and they find that wearing a "magic hat" makes the suffering stop. Stopping one's own suffering is rational behaviour. —Ashley Y 11:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Are we sure about this?

While there have been and still are many people who believe in the actual utility of such devices...

Is this true, or is the source of this particular phrase just the internet picking up and repeating a pop culture shorthand for paranoia? --Michael Snow 03:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are some people who are serious about this. =)

• http://www.zapatopi.net/afdb.html
• http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html

-- Sy / ^(talk) 23:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a couple of crank websites (either that or parodies - the first one is in the external links section and marked as such). And only the first seems to refer to mind control, the second is more generically about electromagnetic fields. I'm going to tone down the content to better reflect what the actual facts support. --Michael Snow 19:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patent non-sense: candidate for deletion?

IMHO, the article Tin-foil hat and this talk page are utter non-sense.--AI 02:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat may be a candidate for deletion according to "incomplete" policy. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Hoaxes.--AI 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then take off your tinfoil hat and put it on VFD. I'm certain the aliens won't abduct you before the process finishes. ;) -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lets keep this page, i have heard many people that benefit from this device be it pseudoscience or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsitan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 July 2005

It's need not be about whether it works. People think so and wear them and TFH is a phrase and thus it deserves an article. Weren't those Radio Free Head hats made from Copper Polyester actually blocking a certain spectrum of radio frequency? Although the Radio Free head caps were sold on the Internet in 1998 or so I can find no mention of them anywhere despite still owning one. The copper fabric oxidizes quite nicely to a bright green in spots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.129.224 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 21 October 2005

AI: you added the "This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion." tag even though your link above (re: hoaxes) has a clear response saying "Articles about a particularly notable hoax may or may not be accepted by the community." and, further, "Hoax articles... are explicitly not speedy-deletable." -- Why, oh why, do you not just put it on VFD?! That would be much more appropriate. abfackeln 03:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems systemic bias prevents this dubious article from being deleted. My opinion of course. Should we try to delete it again? :) --AI 02:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Biophoton?

Why does the "See Also" list have a link to biophoton? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, do you were a tinfoil hat? --AI 03:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean "wear", AI? As for whether I wear one, or have ever worn one, perhaps you could explain how there would be any possible relevance to the answer, whether it be "yes" or "no". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please put it back on. --AI 21:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC) It's just a joke, I apologize. --AI 03:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the biophoton article and you'll understand why someone wants to link the article with the tinfoil hat article. Pseudoscience breeds more pseudoscience. --AI 03:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reading the biophoton article was the first step I took when I started to wonder "What's the connection between biophotons and tin-foil hats?" I can certainly imagine why someone might want to associate the concept of the biophoton with the tin-foil hat (very nearly the emblem of delusional crank "science"). But that reason really doesn't seem sufficient reason to keep the link, so I was asking if anyone had a better reason. If I had gotten one (for instance, if it turned out that some believers in biophotons advocated tin-foil hats to keep good biophotons in and bad biophotons out) that would have given us an avenue to improve one or both articles by making the connection clearer. As it is, though, it seems like someone just wanted to mock the biophoton concept, and though I frankly suspect that biophotons are typical crank pseudoscience, that's not the way Wikipedia should work. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, this entire article is dubious. --AI 23:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You've been challenged to detail that assertion and not once have you actually substantiated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, put your tin foil hat back on. --AI 17:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anything dubious about the article. It is certainly widely attested that some people use the hat in the belief that it will protect them from various phenomona. ~~~~ 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

P.s. Al, you will read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and desist from commenting against Antaeus. ~~~~ 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Caption under current photo

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you"? I think we need to be serious, even if we do think certain people are crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.85.172 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 6 August 2005

I think you're correct -- it's funny, but unfortunately when something's funny on Wikipedia it often (not always) means someone's being slighted. I'm not sure I have a good alternate caption to suggest, though. Any volunteers? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a diagnosed chronic schizophrenic, in my opinion the caption is completely objective. Nothing funny about it at all.

Oracular 00:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether it's funny or not, it's not very informational. However, what can you say about a guy wearing a tin-foil hat except "here's a guy wearing a tin-foil hat"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)