Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

...
Just to clarify, I never said that, you did.



Then, let me clarify what I said, 300mw @ 6mm IS 1.2288KW at
~38cm/~15-inches ... if you think it "just slightly" dangerous to do
one, why would you EVER do the other?

I mean, I don't mean to "jump all over the place" or "act like a child";
and please excuse my past behavior ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:13:01 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Who here would tape a wire to their child's head with up to a watt of
power running through it at those freq's ? Child protective services
would probably declare you unfit, take the kids away from you,

Hi Mike,

Child protective services probably would do that even if you NEVER put
ANY rf through the wire. They would react to the obvious issue of
abusive behavior. They haven't got a clue what RF would do, and they
wouldn't distinguish between 1W or 1µW as being good, bad, or
indifferent; and it would be the height of absurdity to expect them to
rummage through their car trunk for exposure meters to figure that out
when they are faced with a wacko and nothing more needs to be sorted
out.

Again, this sort of logic (sic) merely perpetuates the nonsense Brett
Gump loves to forward through these threads.

I can imagine the drift of topic would speculate they would idly stand
by and wait for proof positive that the adult had finally warmed up
the Henry and threw the switch before they were legally obligated to
do what was long obvious.

and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.
Using an ankle cuff with an RF link. Now, apparently, what is
dangerous to the head is entirely benign to the foot - tell this to a
diabetic. Care to assume the liability for this suggestion? Does the
hint of cuffs pinching your wrists come to mind?

This is the absurdity of Brett's Yellow Journalism research and how
the topic has drifted from the technical to the superstitious. Mike,
do you care to respond to my technical comment of 3 days ago, or is
this deviant speculation really that more relevant to anything?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

First off, you need to use a proper setup and evaluation of the spectrum
analyzer. A setup like you described can give wildly erroneous indications
and even damage sensitive circuits. Just having multipath in the room can
result in reinforcement of the signal. And you were standing where the
signal was best? You aren't the only one caught by that. I never brought
mine to work because "experts" had somehow convinced the powers that be that
burnt out test equipment was a normal thing, so invariably only one or none
might be working, being "in transit" to the depot.

A lot of devices are using modulation techniques that can be detected by
analog devices, and nothing seems to more prone than amplified computer
speakers. I can hear cell phone noise on mine even outside the building,
even though they don't respond to my HF station with the linear on.

It doesn't make sense that energy 1 gig away would cause interference. I
would be more suspicious of the audio circuits and switching transients.
Consider that since RF power is on-off keyed, there is much less than 100%
duty cycle of the On time, so heating effect are much lower than with FM.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It should be noted, those without a cell phone, or too old to desire/use
one need not worry ... but then, you already knew that!

Regards,
Brett :-)

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

You wrote:

...
Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
...

Let's say just those figures are correct ...

My Motorola Razar V3 phone is approx. 6mm thick (when opened), and where
the antenna is buried in the phone. This means the antenna can be no
more than 6mm from my head if the phone lies against my head. Now, we
assume the phone is emitting 300mw. This would be equivalent to 1.2w of
power emanating from that same antenna at a distance of 12mm from my
head. And, the latter would be equivalent to 4.8w emanating from the
same antenna at a distance of 24mm from my head. And, the last would be
equivalent to 19.2w emanating from the same antenna at a distance of
48mm from my head ... your higher figure, of two watts, is simply
frightening ...

The lunacy is exposed ... correct any error you see in the above ...

Regards,
JS

Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

In article ,
Highland Ham wrote:

In a built-up area or along the highway with nearby base stations the
power can be very low ,whereas at remote locations it can be as high as
2 Watts (at least here in Europe).

BUT we were talking about Handheld Cellphones, and these typically have
a Maximum RF Power to the antenna of 300 Milliwatts, which is then
Telcommanded Lower by the Base Station, depending on Base Stations
Received Signal to Noise Ratio. There are a few, up to, 3 Watt Digital
Cellphone Subscriber Units, but they ALL have external Antennas, and
these antennas are NOT designed to be attached to your HEAD....
Apples and Oranges......

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

You wrote:

...
Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

EXACTLY! That is why the further the source is from the
"receiver/your-skull" the further the sources power must be increased to
maintain the same field-density! You got it!

Inverse Square Law in action! Or, ~2:4 ratio--every doubling in
distance requires the fourfold increase of the sources output to
maintain field density -- what part of my posts must I "rewrite" for you
to obtain that meaning from them?

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:53:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

but then, you already knew that!

No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
and then 2 more in response to yourself, it still won't be sorted out.
.... not that anyone has ever confused that with an intellectual
aspiration.

Having said that, I will skip the bleeding obvious (sorry Reggie).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

You wrote:

...
Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

Or, to simplify, once again, 300mw@6mm ~= ... re-read my
posts, you (that is your "name", right? grin) missed it!

However, I have rethought those distances, since, I now realize the
antenna in the phone is much closer to my skull than I had first
thought; here is the "new breakdown":

3mm@300mw =
=
=
=
=
=

19.2cm ~= ~7.5-inches

Anyway, point is, when I use my cell phone without a headset, that spot
on my head, directly under the cell phones' antenna, is getting the same
exposure as it would get from a 1.2288KW source utilizing the same
antenna, and at a distance of 7.5 to ~15 inches from my head! (realize
the importance of that 19.2cm/7.5-inch vs. 1.2288KW figure!)

Anyway you cut that--it ain't pretty! My wife, frequently, makes 2+ hr
calls to family! Did that help?

Now, anyone want to explain the "yellow journalism" in that to me?

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
and then 2 more in response to yourself, it still won't be sorted out.
... not that anyone has ever confused that with an intellectual
aspiration.

Having said that, I will skip the bleeding obvious (sorry Reggie).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Three or more follow-ups, by me, heck, with you around, it will, most
likely, take many more than that!

Some here are just "slow on the uptake", then some like you like tossing
suspicion to hard data around and disinformation (even though cloaked as
"cryptic comments.")

Pull up a chair, get a drink and relax--we may be in for that "ride" you
are threatening ... (i.e., clarifying/defensive posts.)

Did I mention the fact that, those with few/or-no friends are not in
danger, much, from cell phones either? grin

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:

...
Now, anyone want to explain the "yellow journalism" in that to me?

Regards,
JS

Here are complete disassembly instructions for my phone, the one in
question. The antenna IS NOT where the "kid" (well, he was much younger
than me grin) at "the cell phone place" told me it was ... indeed, it
is UNDER MY HAND while I hold the phone! (actually, between head and
hand!--nice for efficiency, huh?--probably drives it towards that 300mw
all-the-more-quicker!) (so much for "placing the antenna logically!")

Now I am thinking the area of highest exposure, on my head, is my
cheek/nose/upper-gum-area ... and, this makes the area of the phone
containing the antenna further from my head; and the equivalent
distance to a 1+KW source is much further, feet away instead of inches
.... but, I would be hesitant to remain in my garage with I in one corner
and an "omni-directional, Cooking Band(CB), frequency generator" of 1+KW
in the other corner! -- But then, that is just me ... (and the phone is
a MUCH closer danger than that ...)

That all changes little in my mind. Although I really do not sweat HF
RF, much, I would still be hesitant to expose myself to levels of it of
those intensities in question FOR the length of time(s), and that
frequently, as is in question, however, if the need arouse, I'd probably
do it ... at VHF/SHF I WOULD NOT! And, especially to those freqs in the
CB Bands (Cooking Bands grin)

It would take "extreme motivation" for me to ignore the "prudent man
rule"; but, even that is possible ...

I am sorry if this has been a source of "yellow journalism", to me, they
seem honest mistakes/bad-data, but I admit, the mistakes do not help ...
my original point seemed "so harmless", "be prudent/cautious" :-(

Tell you what, consider all this just "One Mans' Opinion", gather your
data and then you decide ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:

...
Regards,
JS

Oh yeah, the disassembly instructions:

http://uselessinfo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dismantlev3.htm

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:53:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

but then, you already knew that!

No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am correcting an error from previous postings, I suspect this
to-be/might-be the "yellow journalism" you complain of ... I was in
error on the antennas' placement within the phone ...

I now consider the "clear and present danger" of the cell phone, to my
brain (frontal lobe(s) now), to be an equiv. to a 1.2288KW source at a
distance of 448cm/~176-inches/~14-ft. from my frontal lobes ... a
"distance error" of magnitudes!

But, IMHO, a still a REAL, CLEAR AND PRESENT, danger ... glad you made
me improve the accuracy of the data I was offering ... THANKS!

I did not compute the dangers to my eyes, from an equiv. source ... the
eyes are thought first to go, right? LOL!

However, the placement of the antenna has introduced a new high exposure
areas, my nose/cheek/lips/upper-gum/hand ... and the placement means the
phones antenna is completely engulfed in a "shield" of my body ...
undoubtedly lowering that antennas' efficiency and forcing it towards
max. power all the more quicker ...

If there are inaccuracies here, in this post, you will have to point
them out to me so I can see them ... and this is only one phone ...
where is the antenna in "all the others?"

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:13:01 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Who here would tape a wire to their child's head with up to a watt of
power running through it at those freq's ? Child protective services
would probably declare you unfit, take the kids away from you,

Hi Mike,

Child protective services probably would do that even if you NEVER put
ANY rf through the wire. They would react to the obvious issue of
abusive behavior. They haven't got a clue what RF would do, and they
wouldn't distinguish between 1W or 1µW as being good, bad, or
indifferent; and it would be the height of absurdity to expect them to
rummage through their car trunk for exposure meters to figure that out
when they are faced with a wacko and nothing more needs to be sorted
out.

Perhaps I would be better served by my argument that a lot of people
are selectively stupid. They pick and choose what they find dangerous.
They hurtle towards each other on the highways often at relative speeds
of 160 miles per hour, while carrying tanks of liquid so flammable as to
be almost explosive. Yet not a thought is given to the gasoline in their
tank, except perhaps to the cost.


Again, this sort of logic (sic) merely perpetuates the nonsense Brett
Gump loves to forward through these threads.

Perhaps a simplification of my argument is in order again.

People are very selective about what they fear. Sometimes they embrace a
technology that is no less dangerous than another action that they would
never do.




and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.
Using an ankle cuff with an RF link. Now, apparently, what is
dangerous to the head is entirely benign to the foot - tell this to a
diabetic. Care to assume the liability for this suggestion? Does the
hint of cuffs pinching your wrists come to mind?

Strictly speaking there is a difference in the tissue between the
exposed areas. Is there a difference? I don't know. That's another test.


This is the absurdity of Brett's Yellow Journalism research and how
the topic has drifted from the technical to the superstitious. Mike,
do you care to respond to my technical comment of 3 days ago, or is
this deviant speculation really that more relevant to anything?

Sorry Richard, I didn't see that post. I might google it up when I get a
chance.

But I detect an interesting drift to your reply. How much of your
disagreement with me is due to my speculation on how people are
remarkably inconsistent in their acceptance of risk, and how much is the
disagreement because for once, I am in agreement with Mr. Smith?

This is in no way an argument for elimination of cell phones. It is an
argument that we should not have them hanging off the side of our heads
for hours. Even my XYL will chat with a friend for an hour plus on her
cell. Makes me cringe. My own personal rule is no more than a minute,
and I stick to it.


My arguments for exposing one's offspring are specifically designed to
be ridiculous upon reception. No one in their right mind would ever
expose their children like that, nor their husbands, wives, etc. But to
the brain tissue, an exact analog could be delivered. Yet why would we
not do it? The answer is because we shouldn't.


My point has been proven. I'm a little surprised that it was you who
provided the proof.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:49:09 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

My point has been proven. I'm a little surprised that it was you who
provided the proof.

Hi Mike,

Make that two posts you need to re-read.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
M0WYM wrote:
You wrote:


Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem.

No problem:

http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm



M0WYM:

LOL!

Warm regards,
JS

Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier. I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier. I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
...." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.

PLONK!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for
it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even
more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your
fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the
unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated
by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra
money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure
that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier.
I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)


I was joking about actually putting an amplifier on any wireless device that
you can put in your pocket and runs on batteries. But I guess I have to be
very careful with the ignorant and superstitious, because an offhand quip
might be taken to heart and grow to be a religion like your exposure rant.
You call them "cell towers" because it is your boogie man. You probably
haven't even been on a tour to a transmitter site.

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
..." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.


PLONK!

Regards,
JS

Everyone check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Read the section on "Red Herring fallacies"


Your numbers are all wrong so you call me an idiot. These newsgroups are
googled and will probably be around for a while. Your conclusions based on
your own erroneous suppositions won't make me an idiot. But you obviously
have an environmental liberal whacko agenda to promote or you would produce
your evidence.

My 30 year + observations of a community of professionals (and not so
professionals) is the only statistical evidence I need to prove your dog
can't walk because it has no legs.

If you want to do some good, why don't you rant about X-ray exposure from
CRT's and why everyone should get rid of them in favor of LCD's for computer
monitors, because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little
wireless devices.

You are correct that California is way AFU, but you don't know the half of
it. Until you do, the same mistakes will be made when it comes to your
town, because you are lock-stepped to belief systems that reject reality, so
you will continually lay the blame for your error elsewhere until it has you
by the throat.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

...

Did I hear something?

I thought I heard something!

Guess not ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

If you want to do some good, why don't you rant about X-ray exposure from
CRT's and why everyone should get rid of them in favor of LCD's for
computer
monitors, because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little
wireless devices.


I spent 5 years in front of large CRTs while wearing a radiation monitor.
When no one showed any sign of radiation the monitoring ceased. Did pick up
some radiation from unrelated sources, but nothing from the CRTs.

Probably getting more radiation from the ionization smoke detector on the
ceiling of my den! Not to mention all the natural sources - bananas for
example.

Dave

Example of the real problem ...
 

John Smith wrote:

...
In closing, "Keep On Cookin', Men!" (should be considered equiv. to
"Keep On Truckin', Men!") WINK

Regards,
JS

This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/...=2008&public=0

and is VERY similar to how studies such as the one mentioned he

http://www.rense.com/general26/2yrs.htm

are being ignored.

But then, some will attempt to dismiss all this to "environmental
wackos"--"Darwin Awards" coming soon!

Regards,
JS

Example of the real problem ...
 

John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Example of the real problem ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms
of radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until
proved/proven harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in
nature and to which the human body (or any biological organisms for that
matter) has never been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to
chant a "paranoid/wacko" mantra and such forms of thought are naturally
generated in the human mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to
be, "If we have never seen it before, if we have never been exposed to
it before, maybe it is actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think
the proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to
continue, without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all
revolved over disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the
dangers ... indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that
"smoking was bad" was met with those chanting the myths of flawed
studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available
to vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible
men and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my
thinking", maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep
abreast of the "Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting
Better, don't trust your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply
does NOT motivate me "To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone
radiation is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more
sexually attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest,
unbiased studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in
New York and the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being
dumped into the environment were harming/killing people! ... how many
examples before one chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS

Example of the real problem ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Example of the real problem ...
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813
2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Now there is someone with some sense.
Mike, VK6MO

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:18:16 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

Wrong again. The base fluid of blood is very like sea water, and with
good reason. The salt and other solute contents are essentially the
same between blood serum and sea water.

Unfortunately, your radio knowledge seems to be as inadequate as your
biology.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JosephKK wrote:

...
Wrong again. The base fluid of blood is very like sea water, and with
good reason. The salt and other solute contents are essentially the
same between blood serum and sea water.

Unfortunately, your radio knowledge seems to be as inadequate as your
biology.


This:

"First off, while both contain many of the same salts, concentration of
dissolved particles in blood is very different from that in seawater.
The primary constituents of both are sodium and chlorine (which together
make up common salt, NaCl), but seawater has three times as much sodium
and five times as much chlorine per unit weight. Hardly the same.
Furthermore, it contains eight times as much calcium and fifty times as
much magnesium."


From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Will idiots never cease? At least learn how to Google and NOT be lazy
so you can't get off yer dead arse to do it!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:10:05 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Brett,

You've been going to the gong show for science? Talk about lazy:
I think I first heard this one in a junior high school assembly during a "Mr. Wizard" film.

Creation scienz basing its refutation on a 50 year old program for
children is about as reputable a source of information as believing
the Georgian-Soviet (whoops russian) peace accord (which is to say
suitable only for the white house intelligence community who wanted it
signed in Atlanta which is a shorter DC helicopter flight than to
Moscow Idaho).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I threw in the creation science web site just for you!

Google up some university site(s), it will be the same ... now, git
offn' yer' lazy bum ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:10:05 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Brett,

You've been going to the gong show for science? Talk about lazy:
I think I first heard this one in a junior high school assembly during a "Mr. Wizard" film.

Creation scienz basing its refutation on a 50 year old program for
children is about as reputable a source of information as believing
the Georgian-Soviet (whoops russian) peace accord (which is to say
suitable only for the white house intelligence community who wanted it
signed in Atlanta which is a shorter DC helicopter flight than to
Moscow Idaho).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Come to think of it, your Google-ing abilities may be as wanting as your
logic abilities ...

So, a hint, if blood had as high a concentration of salt as sea water, a
person might be able to drink it and survive ... or, the osmotic
pressure of blood is around 300, that of sea water is over 1000 ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, come to think of it, that won't do now, will it?

I mean your education in biology is probably just as lacking as in all
the other sciences you have demonstrated here ...

This:

"Human blood plasma has an osmotic pressure of about 290 mOsm and water
from the open ocean has an osmotic pressure of about 1010 mOsm. This
indicates that there is much more salt in sea water than in human blood
plasma and also that there is less pure water in a liter of sea water
than in a liter of plasma. Just as ions diffuse from areas of high
concentration in a solution to areas of low concentration, so do water
molecules diffuse from areas of high water concentration (= low osmotic
pressure) to areas of low water concentration (= high osmotic pressure).
In considering this it is well to remember that salt added to water
lowers the water concentration of the resulting solution. When water
diffuses through membranes such as those around cells (called
semipermeable membranes because they are nearly impermeable to ions but
very permeable to water), this diffusion of water is called osmosis.
Osmosis is the reason that the skin on our hands wrinkles into "prune
fingers" when we stay too long in the bath or shower. Water diffuses
from the higher water concentration (but low salt concentration) of the
fresh water in the bath into the lower water concentration (but higher
salt concentration) of our skin, causing it to swell and be thrown into
wrinkles. The exact opposite happens when we immerse ourselves in sea
water at the beach and our skin, particularly on our hands and faces,
shrinks by osmosis and feels tight."

From he

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/osmoticprimer.html

Feel free to investigate other sites, perhaps harvard.edu?

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:04:46 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Well, come to think of it, that won't do now, will it?

No one would think so from you Brett,

But a shallow clip and paste education has served your product here
for years as a substitute to understanding certainly. Simple point of
your posting to a forum of licensed radio operators where you can't
even pass a minimal FCC test serves to illustrate this. Your
pretending to be anonymous pollutes any sense of authentic thought
even more.

Insofar as spamming articles here to elevate your sham status: if
posting three times to a single offering (a signature if ever,
especially when you respond to yourself twice too) were to crown you
king of the xerox over Cecil, you would still have 10,000 postings to
go to eclipse his commentaries - shouldn't take you more than an
afternoon to reach that exalted height.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:04:46 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Well, come to think of it, that won't do now, will it?

No one would think so from you Brett,

But a shallow clip and paste education has served your product here
for years as a substitute to understanding certainly. Simple point of
your posting to a forum of licensed radio operators where you can't
even pass a minimal FCC test serves to illustrate this. Your
pretending to be anonymous pollutes any sense of authentic thought
even more.

Insofar as spamming articles here to elevate your sham status: if
posting three times to a single offering (a signature if ever,
especially when you respond to yourself twice too) were to crown you
king of the xerox over Cecil, you would still have 10,000 postings to
go to eclipse his commentaries - shouldn't take you more than an
afternoon to reach that exalted height.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Your capabilities are quite obvious to those with serious gray matter
.... your tactics remind me of gorilla warfare and behaviors I have seen
demonstrated in high school :-( ... your ramblings into shakespeare
suggest your education is more suited to the liberal arts (there is
nothing wrong with that, mind you!)

You made a grave mistake in all the educational institutions you may
have attended ... you thought who taught the material mattered--it did
not, only the material mattered--how/where to find it, etc. This has
shattered your credibility and taken you far off course from logic ...
you are stuck with attacking the messenger and NOT the message.

If you ever wish to change the fact you are easily ignored and made the
butt of jokes ... look to the above ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:09:30 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

you thought who taught the material mattered
Imagine if Brett were to sign his own name to a post and had to
indulge the sophist fantasies of a "John Smith" in pointless reply. Is
it your fear that it would be a tough slog to hold your own as either
the plebe or the troll in that dim mirrored contest of wit?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:09:30 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

you thought who taught the material mattered
Imagine if Brett were to sign his own name to a post and had to
indulge the sophist fantasies of a "John Smith" in pointless reply. Is
it your fear that it would be a tough slog to hold your own as either
the plebe or the troll in that dim mirrored contest of wit?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL ...

"Dim Mirrored" is better than "dim-witted!" The shoe box your mind lays
in is much too small ... however, I doubt you can ever raise up far
enough to peek over the edge ... sorry story really ... :-(

Now, go bother other dim-wits ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:53:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

"Dim Mirrored" is better than "dim-witted!"

Sure, but which one is it? John or Brett? Who gets nicked when you
shave using this mirror? Brett seems bloodless, and JS is a ghost.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Sure, but which one is it? John or Brett? Who gets nicked when you
shave using this mirror? Brett seems bloodless, and JS is a ghost.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hey, what comes around, goes around ...

Since all your responses to any of my posts have/has been
non-nonsensical, moronic, stupid, ignorant, without substance, vicious,
vindictive, etc., all I can do is repay the favor(s.)

Look for as much worth in my responses to your posts as I have found in
yours ... what? You expected different? LOL!

Good luck, may the others be stupid enough to remain your pawns ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:29:00 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

all I can do is repay the favor(s.)

Rather bloodless and ghost-like imitation(z) really.

Good luck, may the others be stupid enough to remain your pawns ...
You misspelled prawns again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:29:00 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

all I can do is repay the favor(s.)

Rather bloodless and ghost-like imitation(z) really.

Good luck, may the others be stupid enough to remain your pawns ...
You misspelled prawns again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Check my spelling on "idiot", IDIOT!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:29:00 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

all I can do is repay the favor(s.)

Rather bloodless and ghost-like imitation(z) really.

Good luck, may the others be stupid enough to remain your pawns ...
You misspelled prawns again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Look, if you keep this up, I am going to find out what nut house they
have you stuck in, and you are hiding in, in Washington state. I then
am going to make a complaint and have them cut your computer privileges,
think about that ... you won't like it. 8-)

They might even take away your comic books and ice cream at bed time!
ROFLOL!

Regards,
JS