Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
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 -

Mad? Hmm, never got much from it ... but, been there, done that; likely
to repeat the same mistake(s.) :-(

However, "spiking the debate/discussion" in not below my reach. ;-)

It takes a whole bunch of different types to make things interesting ...

Warm regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

I don't think the nicotine in a cigarette is going to "calm richards'
condition."

Perhaps some Thorazine would help, but that is only by prescription ...
"getting laid" has always helped me ... GRIN

Regards,
JS

I should think there would be health risks from "getting laid" face down in
the mud.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

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



I developed a liking to high power at an early age ... also, brought my
fingers within too close a distance to a plate cap of large transmitting
tube at this time ... all it took was one hole completely though my
finger to gain a HIGH appreciation for caution around high power RF ...

I would like to tell you this single lesson was enough for me -- it
wasn't ... still, I eventually learned.

Now you know two stupid guys. ;-)

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

...
I should think there would be health risks from "getting laid" face down in
the mud.



Yeah, there is ... but, being 6'2" and having an uncle who was an
ex-amateur boxer made my risks fairly low ... :-) Now I am 55, I worry
more about it ... :-(

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"Joel Koltner" wrote in
:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
While the hand feeling could easily be attributed to the battery
discharge warmth, the feeling around the ears is more difficult to
ascribe to the batteries.

Umm... many cell phones get noticeably warm over time due to internal
power dissipation. (In fact, the amount of heat generated by the
battery is negligible compared to the heat generator by, e.g., the RF
power amplifiers, the digital circuitry, etc.)

Strange, I could have said just that!. Oh wait, I did. Look, it is easy
for a person's hand to get warm and attribute it to battery warmth. I
trust you are not ascribing the same for an area that the phone isn't
touching? That is easy to check for, as the hand would be heated by
conduction, and the area around the ear that isn't being touched would be
radiative heat. Other wise there would be a significant thermal gradient.



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.

Like wine and alcohol in moderation are
now considered to be!

It is easy to find out the effects of alcohol. Lots of studies. And they
found out a lot of things they didn't expect, such as keeping the blood
vessels clean, and other more obvious things such as stress
relief/relaxation in moderation.

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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

When "it" gets hot pop the battery off - now, which is hot the battery or
the phone?

Dave

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)

They do? All this time I was certain that trees produced oxygen.


We're both right, Dave. Trees produce CO2 or O2 depending on the
time of day. I can smell the changeover as it is getting dark and the
trees shift.

My trees only shift in a heavy wind, Mike. Now I have this video stuck
in my head of you sniffing the output of trees at twilight. ;-)

Dave K8MN

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
"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'vve always thought we get the media we deserve.....




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.

Ouch! I was hit once with about 50 watts. One of my first antennas was
a random wire, and RF was coupled to the metal ring around the tuning
cap on my matchbox. Hurt something awful, put a hole in my finger, and
there was even a little smoke. That guy must have really hurt.

Who was it here that told about birds landing on ladder line and
getting zapped. leaving only their feet wrapped around the line?



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.

Well, that is one of the reasons. We sometimes tend to focus pretty
narrowly. That some of these folk don't like much of anything is pretty
spot on. But we shouldn't carry that over as blanket condemnation. Its
like blaming the little old lady sitting at home drinking her sherry
with binge drinking college students.


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.

There have been lots of studies since then.


Those same people had oil
production cut in this country so that now you have to pay $4 a gallon.

The supply/demand effects of our oil production via offshore, or unused
interior drilling, are not responsible for the prices we are paying now.
There is a combination of massive demand by the developing countries,
large demand by ourselves, and rampant speculation.

There is also the issue of we really only have so much oil. And we've
used most of it (unless you ascribe to the abiotic oil theory)

Don't discount the possibility of sitting on reserves. In our area,
there were gas and oil wells drilled between 25 years ago, and the
present. Most of them sat, some to the point of needing new caps put on
the wells because the old ones got rusty. But there are many hundreds,
perhaps thousands of wells there. As we speak, there are new pipelines
being put in to bring the stuff to market. Simply when the price became
right, the supply was "uncorked". And it looks like there is a lot of
it. More gas than oil, but still significant.

Not a liberal or a tree hugger in the mix. Just good old supply and demand.


You want to point fingers? There has been a bubble of shady speculation
running through the business world. A few years back, it was the Dot.com
bubble. then it was the criminally innovative accounting practices that
burst Enron and World.com into the news. Then it was the real estate
issue, with loans so bad that some of these people were folding back
their interest payments into their principal. That is insanity. How on
earth could such a thing be allowed or legal? But the people originating
the loans had not reason not to. They got their commission, and the loan
was immediately sold to some other institution, who would then play a
game of "hot potato", whoever was holding the mortgage when it defaulted
was the loser. Interesting that the gasoline prices went haywire so soon
after the real estate markets collapsed. These folk (a very loose
aggregation, but certainly a trend) just moved from one form of
speculation to another.

Speculation is and should be a good thing, allowing money to be put into
risky and unproven fields. But it can be taken too far. See the above.


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

I'd rather not, but I have to.. 8^(

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Dave Heil wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

My trees only shift in a heavy wind, Mike. Now I have this video stuck
in my head of you sniffing the output of trees at twilight. ;-)

The XYL says I look kinda like a dog, sniffing at the air. Probably is
a litle disturbing to watch! ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
JB wrote:

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.

There have been lots of studies since then.


I would suggest taking a look at the latest IEEE/ANSI standard for
exposure. The actual limits in the standard only take a few pages. The
other 100 pages is the critical analysis of the hundreds of studies with
respect to every effect one can imagine, and then some.

As Michael points out, there's been a LOT of studies in the last few
years (driving, for instance, a change from field strength limits to SAR
limits in some cases)

What the standard and accompanying analysis makes very clear, though, is
that there is no way to "prove a negative": i.e. there is no way to
"prove" that a particular EM field exposure doesn't have any long term
effects. All you can do is say that there is no known mechanism by
which such an effect can be produced, or that if it does exist, there's
no way to measure it in a statistically significant way, or, in some
cases, that greater exposures have been shown experimentally to have no
moderate term effects (e.g. nobody's done a longitudinal study lasting
30-40 years that's been controlled for other confounding effects).

What you CAN say is that the studies prompting the early alarmist
literature (e.g. "currents of death", "VDTs cause miscarriage") have
severe methodological or statistical problems. Unfortunately, those
early studies have been (poorly) abstracted and summarized many times
and the caveats in the original paper, or subsequent better studies, are
ignored.

Particularly in non-technical trade literature (e.g. trade magazines
aimed at, for example, small business owners), the author of an article
writing about minimizing hazards in the workplace might not actually
know very much about the details of the hazards, nor do a whole lot of
research beyond what's in Wikipedia or copied from some other trade
magazine. They certainly don't go back to the original source, nor do
they look at current standards, etc. I still run across articles that
(indirectly) cite the famous (and totally misinterpreted) Kaiser VDT
study from 1981/1982, published in 1988. While that study found a
correlation, one has to remember correlation is not causation. Someone
googling VDT and miscarriage will no doubt turn up articles in the NY
Times from 1988, for instance, but not pay attention to the fact that
the article is 20 years old, because, on the web, the date is tiny print
and grey.

Example of the real problem ...
 

"Ed Cregger" wrote in
:

Since yo mentioned this.....
Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the
years that the cellphone has been available to the public.

Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too.

Major truth disguised as sarcasm alert!

The really cool thing is that the cell phone user can cause an accident.
kill someone, and call 911 to efficiently get an ambulance to take them
to the morgue! At least they weren't killed by a drunk driver....

Sarcasm alert off

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

Relating cell phone use while driving to drunken driving.

The Harvard cell phone study.

http://www.youngmoney.com/technology...ends/030205_02

Quick look:

2600 deaths per year/500,000 injuries.

Sorry Ed, I respectfully disgree 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -