Richard Clark wrote:

...
Let's see, if one were to take a cubic inch block of dry air-chilled
sodium straight out of the fridge and dump it into a bath tub with 4
orders of more magnitude volume of water, no heat should be possible
because of the massive heat sink of that water at room temperature and
that same cold block of material. The same could be said of
Phosphorous going in the reverse direction.
...


I have always found a good cigar, a stiff vodka collins and getting laid
has a much more beneficial effect on my general well being ... a good
chat over the cell phone with a close friend "bragging" about my good
luck seems to add some pleasure to this experience also--your mileage
may vary ...

If the chilled sodium, water, phosphorous don't work for you, you may
consider my choice(s.) ;-)

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:15:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Admittedly, this is the first time that I have heard "not likely"
turned into certitude. I would at one time have said that wasn't very
likely.

See how this grows?

WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that direction
quite vigoously.



However, as to your literal statement above, I feel it is "very
likely" that you HAVE heard "not likely" turned into a certitude:
"...due to the nature of Improbability calculations,
that which is Infinitely Improbable is actually very
likely to happen almost immediately..."

And I feel it is "very likely" you can name the author.


I would have to say that it is Douglas Adams?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:45:12 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

so the only
conclusion I can make is that the sensation I felt, I did not feel.

Let's see, if one were to take a cubic inch block of dry air-chilled
sodium straight out of the fridge and dump it into a bath tub with 4
orders of more magnitude volume of water, no heat should be possible
because of the massive heat sink of that water at room temperature and
that same cold block of material. The same could be said of
Phosphorous going in the reverse direction.

Exactly! Not. The power or lack of it on the part of cell phones to
cause much direct thermal heating does not mean that one who experiences
the sensation of heat is not feeling it. The Jalepeno has a chemical
which triggers pain receptors on your tongue, mucus membranes and skin.
Your sodium example - and puhleeze don't anyone try that,it is an
extremely vigorous reaction - is based on sodium's reactivity with
Water. Just as the odd heat sensation that some people get from extended
use of a cell phone, there is probably something else going on.

Direct thermal heating via cellphone is at best a red herring. Heating
sources abound, so I just don't buy it.


You willing to witness this test (sodium or phosphorous) to confirm
the supposition?

I'll pass. I wouldn't mind watching from a distance though. I'm foolish
that way. Remember, I'm the one who uses a chainsaw to dig his radial
trenches. (Don't try this at home kids!)


Better yet, can you prove that the jalapenos don't lead to CNS tumors.
Are you willing to accept the responsibility for your stand that they
don't.

Side note - they've recently found out why hot food is popular. Over the
years, people have suggested reasons such as making people in tropical
zones sweat to cool them off, or a sort of masochism. I never bought
either of those, although I can get a good hot food sweat going, but it
just didn't make sense to me.

Turns out that after the initial burn, the same chemicals give you a bit
of euphoria. Receptors in the brain apparently enjoy it.

Looks like a new target for the war on drugs! ;^)

"Your honor, the task force did observe the defendant consuming several
objects that after testing in the lab and from stool samples, turned out
to be capsicum annuuum" We arrested him on the spot, Tasers were used,
as pepper spray would only enhance his high, and would possibly lead to
a Hot High, during which offenders are known to experience superhuman
enjoyment."



- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Exactly! Not. The power or lack of it on the part of cell phones to
cause much direct thermal heating does not mean that one who experiences
the sensation of heat is not feeling it. The Jalepeno has a chemical
which triggers pain receptors on your tongue, mucus membranes and skin.
Your sodium example - and puhleeze don't anyone try that,it is an
extremely vigorous reaction - is based on sodium's reactivity with
Water. Just as the odd heat sensation that some people get from extended
use of a cell phone, there is probably something else going on.
...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -



Michael:

I don't know how "the course of the river" has been diverted to the
argument that "heating" is the "consideration of danger" a prudent man
would, at least firstly, exercise in thought/logic/research.

It is the energetic/fast/absolute reversal of the dipole water molecules
(and even oxygen molecules) which would seem the most obvious area of
exploration ... indeed, I have seen reference made to the "spinning" of
this molecules.

This:

"Dipolar Bonding in Water

The dipolar interaction between water molecules represents a large
amount of internal energy and is a factor in water's large specific
heat. The dipole moment of water provides a "handle" for interaction
with microwave electric fields in a microwave oven. Microwaves can add
energy to the water molecules, whereas molecules with no dipole moment
would be unaffected.


The polar nature of water molecules allows them to bond to each other in
groups and is associated with the high surface tension of water. The
polar nature of the water molecule has many implications. It causes
water vapor at sufficient vapor pressure to depart from the ideal gas
law because of dipole-dipole attractions. This can lead to condensation
and phenomena like cloud formation, fog, the dewpoint, etc. It also has
a great deal to do with the function of water as the solvent of life in
biological systems. "

From he

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/diph2o.html

Makes note of the fact microwave DO cause noticeable effects/affects in
just water ... there are other polar molecules in the body which have
NEVER been the subject of study in relation to microwaves ... this is
simply a fact ...

Those who would claim all is known, nothing of significance will ever be
discovered of microwaves, even low levels, effect on the body, are
simply idiots--isn't that obvious and totally apparent? If these idiots
can convince others they have some form of "psychic knowledge" which
requires no more scientific testing/exploration--well, the term, "Buyer
beware" comes to mind ...

Why would anyone argue against "confirmation of safety", unless one has
a horse in the race or is just an idiot with "a message from God?"

Regards,
JS

Michael Coslo wrote:


WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that
direction quite vigoously.


sigh..... "vigorously too!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:33:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:


WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that
direction quite vigoously.


sigh..... "vigorously too!

and highly likey.... (I wasn't going to go here until you posted
this. Actually, I LIKED vigoously.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael Coslo wrote:

[stuff] ...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -



Michael:

Sometimes when I run into personalities which are "all about themselves"
and attempt to serve as an "oracle of truth(s)", I seek out minds and
those minds products who "I really DO respect."

Here is a page:

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshir...einQuotes.html

Which will take you to quotes from such a man I DO respect. Looking
them over, and then richards' posts, just seems to put things in proper
perspective, for me--perhaps you can find the same?

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:33:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that
direction quite vigoously.

sigh..... "vigorously too!

and highly likey.... (I wasn't going to go here until you posted
this. Actually, I LIKED vigoously.)


Well, I didn't want to unjustly accuse you of being to vigoose! ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

[stuff] ...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -



Michael:

Sometimes when I run into personalities which are "all about themselves"
and attempt to serve as an "oracle of truth(s)", I seek out minds and
those minds products who "I really DO respect."

Here is a page:

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshir...einQuotes.html

Which will take you to quotes from such a man I DO respect. Looking
them over, and then richards' posts, just seems to put things in proper
perspective, for me--perhaps you can find the same?

Well, I certainly do respect old Albert.

I was reading through this and enjoying it. Then I came upon this line:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Whoa.



Then again, I don't get too mad at Richard. He's got quite a command of
the language, and can be a bit acerbic. But he keeps me on my toes. More
like I'm running to keep up.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

After reading 1/4 of the "Biological studies..." it is interesting. But
we
need to remember that experiments only become valid when repeated
numerous
times. As these are only summaries, they are hard to compare and we
loose
that without having the full experiment laid out before us. I have
tended
to throw away those that didn't describe the frequency and field
strength in
some way as less than anecdotal.


I'm still not convinced that use of tobacco products are bad for you,
and I've got scientific evidence from tobacco industry lawyers to back
me up. ;^) No relation to this issue except there are people who stand
to profit by both being harmless.


There is always the question of how many studies it takes to make
something "real". I always like to mention the book from the 1870's that
mentions how smoking causes lung cancer; chewing causes oral cancer. But
it wasn't until almost a hundred years later that it really did, because
it took that long to be "proven".

All we can do is make an informed guess, and stick with it. I choose to
limit my cell phone use.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

One way to tell is by looking around you to see how those around you are
being affected. Perhaps the MEDIA causes the most brain damage on the
planet by spreading madness on grand scales. I can point to a whole lot of
people who WERE harmed in so many ways by Tobacco products. I can only
point to ONE who has been harmed by RF. The guy leaned up against an
inverted V and grabbed on to it. Probably 5kw and it killed a line in his
palm. It did completely heal though. Still I wouldn't consider a ban on
either, as long as the user can keep it from costing or endangering me.
Don't forget there is a political agenda to do away with a lot of things.
The RF hazard thing is based on a minor risk blown out of proportion by
those whose million dollar views were spoiled by transmitter sites. If it
weren't for well funded environmental lobbyists, the FCC wouldn't have been
pressured into cutting exposure limits to half from what was learned by
military studies in the 40's to the 60's and established in the 70's and cut
to half of that in the 80's and finally made into law for hams and cut in
half again for nervous people who still can't point to anything more
concrete than the old military studies. Those same people had oil
production cut in this country so that now you have to pay $4 a gallon. Who
profits isn't always the point. Some people have to be vindicated even if
it comes all out of someone else's pocket.

BTW I don't even own a cell phone. I have had them but they are too much
of a distraction.