On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:31:02 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes
from the use of cell phones?

Probably none. The reason why is that the studies are looking for effect
in general, not positive or negative ones. To look for a specific
positive or negative from the start is more in line with creation
science.

Hi Mike,

Did you read the material you offered yesterday? Science reveals all
results observed without going into a study mining for expectations as
you rightly offer here.

I'm certain that if some positive result is found, we'll hear about it.

The very first study, on the very first page with the very first
paragraph offers:
"Overall,the TDMA field-exposed animals exhibited
trends toward a reduced incidence of spontaneous
CNS tumors (P 0. 16, two-tailed) and ENU-induced
CNS tumors (P 0.16, two-tailed)."

The very last study, on the very last page with the second paragraph
offers:
"For an effectively transmitted power of 0.25 W,
the maximum averaged SAR values in both cubic
and arbitrary-shaped volumes are, respectively, about
1.72 and 2.55 W kg-1 for 1g and
0.98 and 1.73 W kg-1 for 10 g of tissue."

These choices are offered as they represent what a reasonable, but
only slightly interested reader would peruse while ignoring the bulk
of the document. As no one has shown any interest in the bulk, and
even less in the first page (much less the last); I introduce it here
to everyone's embarrassment. Don't worry, the feeling will pass with
alacrity.

Interpretation is the name of the "game" here in this forum and I am
sure Brett would find plenty to worry about when the first study says
that exposure REDUCES tumors in the Central Nervous System. The Bible
must inform us this is an error and only Satan could have published
the first study.

The last study gives us more exposure data (the discussion of which
inevitably scatters in the rhetorical wind of debate). I can only
wonder if the reader can draw a conclusion from this quoted sentence
that can be expressed in temperature rise. There's enough data to do
this, only intelligence remains to perform.

Your link, like the data of the original post, offers enough data to
warrant informed discussion. The original post's data reveals a
howler of invention. That cast aside, it allowed a cascade of
spiritualism to dominate. Let me kick off the next side-thread of
belly-button contemplation and ask: "Why don't we see this data
discussed?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC