|
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:00:40 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Check my spelling on "idiot", IDIOT! You misspelled idiom twice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:00:40 -0700, John Smith wrote: Check my spelling on "idiot", IDIOT! You misspelled idiom twice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Geesh, what was I thinking? Arse is with the capital "A", of course! Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:20:12 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Washington - place name spellings are capitalized. So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington? How boring. Instead, can you explain how a Blackberry can source 5KW to offer a -10dBW indication some 15 wavelengths away? No one else seems interested in that either, so feel free to expand on how you might visit all the sights like the Lincoln Memorial and such. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:20:12 -0700, John Smith wrote: Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Washington - place name spellings are capitalized. So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington? How boring. Instead, can you explain how a Blackberry can source 5KW to offer a -10dBW indication some 15 wavelengths away? No one else seems interested in that either, so feel free to expand on how you might visit all the sights like the Lincoln Memorial and such. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC .... Your noise to signal ratio is overwhelming man! Regards, Brett Maverick AKA John Smith |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:29:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Washington - place name spellings are capitalized. So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington? .... Your noise to signal ratio is overwhelming man! You remind me of a contester I heard years ago: "You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?" Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Dave Holford wrote:
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. There is a lot of lead in that CRT glass. That stops the X rays rather nicely. So I guess the fellow is saying that there is absolutely no effects. And guarantees it also. I'm impressed by the level of confidence he has. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
... You remind me of a contester I heard years ago: "You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?" Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You remind of a funny guy I knew ... "Special Ed." ;-) Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:29:27 -0700, John Smith wrote: Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Washington - place name spellings are capitalized. So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington? ... Your noise to signal ratio is overwhelming man! You remind me of a contester I heard years ago: "You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?" Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC .... or, another guy who struggled against great odds, with an antenna "one element short of a full antenna!" Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: ... You remind me of a contester I heard years ago: "You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?" Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You remind of a funny guy I knew ... "Special Ed." ;-) Regards, JS Remember Cheech and Chong's "Sister Mary Elephant" skit? Might be fitting here kids...... Class?......Class?......... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Remember Cheech and Chong's "Sister Mary Elephant" skit? Might be fitting here kids...... Class?......Class?......... - 73 de Mike N3LI - LOL! Point well taken ... ;-) Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:53:34 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that! Washington - place name spellings are capitalized. So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington? ... Your noise to signal ratio is overwhelming man! You remind me of a contester I heard years ago: "You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?" Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett. ... or, another guy who struggled against great odds, with an antenna "one element short of a full antenna!" Brett, I see you got the relay, even from someone with one element short. (Curious sort of thanks you offer your assistant.) At least it has a asymptotic trajectory towards the topic. Let's just nudge that into more than a glancing contact: I know its a challenge for you to stay technical, but how much signal is lost with that one missing element? Let's say an NBS Yagi. Can you choose any one element and describe the net shift in dBi? You couldn't respond to the Subject Line of how a Blackberry could source 5KW to provide -10dBW at 15 wavelengths, so this may be out of your league too. ;-( So, for the comic relief we can all count on Brett for, can you, perhaps, tell us how many missing elements you would have to have to reduce this pocketed Blackberry's boiling contribution to the sea water in your Bulbo-Cavernous Artery by one degree Celsius? Please post your bench test on youtube. Better yet, don't remove ANY elements and repeat the bench test, and I bet 60 Minutes will air that! What a coupe! Validation at last! And I bet they will, probably, maintain your anonymity - maybe (so much for validation). Anyway, its worth our fun to watch this by any name, and OK so it will probably only be carried by Mythbusters (poetic about that too). So, the NBS Yagi report? The 15 wavelength explanation? Boiling sea water experiment? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
... So, for the comic relief we can all count on Brett for, can you, ... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: Upgrade from tech+. It will give you something to do! Heck, you may even stop "growing hair on yer' palms! YUCK! (just the thought :-( ) Regards, JS |
Example of the real problem ...
"John Smith" 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 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 ------------ How many people have developed the brain tumors associated with cellphone use versus the number of people whose lives have been saved because of the use of a cellphone? Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the years that the cellphone has been available to the public. I am NOT saying that cellphone use is entirely safe. I truly do not know, one way or the other, but, if immediate tumors or other cancers had been developed during the all to brief preliminary testing of devices operating at such high frequencies in close approximation to the human body, I feel certain that said developers would not have rushed their devices into mass production so quickly. Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too. Ed, NM2K |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Holford wrote: 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. There is a lot of lead in that CRT glass. That stops the X rays rather nicely. So I guess the fellow is saying that there is absolutely no effects. And guarantees it also. I'm impressed by the level of confidence he has. - 73 de Mike N3LI - The only use of the word guarantee I see it the foregoing is "because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little wireless devices." in reference to CRT X-rays. But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. Dave |
Example of the real problem ...
Ed Cregger wrote:
... ------------ How many people have developed the brain tumors associated with cellphone use versus the number of people whose lives have been saved because of the use of a cellphone? Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the years that the cellphone has been available to the public. I am NOT saying that cellphone use is entirely safe. I truly do not know, one way or the other, but, if immediate tumors or other cancers had been developed during the all to brief preliminary testing of devices operating at such high frequencies in close approximation to the human body, I feel certain that said developers would not have rushed their devices into mass production so quickly. Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too. Ed, NM2K Yes, exactly, back to the original intent of my original post ... Maximize benefits, minimize risk, error on the side of caution, watch out for yourself--trust no one to do it for you ... I believe you present an excellent case. Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Dave Holford wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Holford wrote: 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. There is a lot of lead in that CRT glass. That stops the X rays rather nicely. So I guess the fellow is saying that there is absolutely no effects. And guarantees it also. I'm impressed by the level of confidence he has. - 73 de Mike N3LI - The only use of the word guarantee I see it the foregoing is "because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little wireless devices." in reference to CRT X-rays. But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. Dave Dave; Don't forget the radioactive potasium in your heart. Another Dave |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Dave Holford wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave Holford wrote: 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. There is a lot of lead in that CRT glass. That stops the X rays rather nicely. So I guess the fellow is saying that there is absolutely no effects. And guarantees it also. I'm impressed by the level of confidence he has. - 73 de Mike N3LI - The only use of the word guarantee I see it the foregoing is "because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little wireless devices." in reference to CRT X-rays. The health risk from an unshielded CRT would be significant. I'm not so sure about the risks from cell phone near field RF (yes, I know the discussion is often far field, but sometimes I think I'm "wrong" because some people don't like John Smith. At the risk of bringing actual research into this http://tinyurl.com/6ghw69 It is a pdf with abstract/conclusions of several studies. A lot of interesting stuff there. I haven't read it all yet - its 76 pages long, but at first blush, it appears that it is unlikely to have carcinogenic effects. Some studies see some things happening, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a carcinogenic conclusion. At the same time, there are some EEG effects that are very interesting. Take a look, and try not to focus on only the effects that say "no problem here!" or "problem here!" Keeping in mind that many of these tests are very specific (as they should be to build a knowledge base) It is not overwhelmingly difficult to come to the conclusion that there might be something going on that is not carcinogenic, but neurological in nature. Even in one of the tests, there are people who report a warming feeling on their hands and around the side of their head when using a cell phone for an extended time. I'm one of them. 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. But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. There are some granite counter tops that are significantly radioactive. What surprises me is that the fact surprises so many people. So anyhow, the research is submitted for bathroom reading, People can feel free to discount/invalidate whatever research they don't agree with...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
David G. Nagel wrote:
Dave Holford wrote: But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. Dave Dave; Don't forget the radioactive potasium in your heart. Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
"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.) How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes from the use of cell phones? Like wine and alcohol in moderation are now considered to be! |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Even in one of the tests, there are people who report a warming feeling on their hands and around the side of their head when using a cell phone for an extended time. I'm one of them. 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. ... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Nice set of bowling balls! grin I stopped short of commenting on the "warming effect" ... yes, even the wife has remarked on it, I am only surprised you are the first, other than me and the wife, which has made comment on it--I had just written it off to warm batteries and paranoia ... could it just be the batteries? I wonder ... but if most are willing to argue the obvious--that question could/would "roll on forever ..." Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Joel Koltner wrote:
"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.) How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes from the use of cell phones? Like wine and alcohol in moderation are now considered to be! The Li-Ion battery in my DV9000 HP 17" laptop are away from processor/hard-drive/video-card (high circuity heat sources), the battery GETS HOT all on its' own ... my cell phone is also Li-Ion so I do think most of the heat generated is from the battery--testing to prove all this one way or another is simply beyond my time allotments and means to do so ... I will accept that "cell phone heat" is explainable to battery/components/circuitry and simply is transfered, or the "sense of heat is transfered", to body components in close proximity .... it certainly is the MAJOR component of this "perceived heat." Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
"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 - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Michael Coslo wrote in news:g8fadf$1iqk$1
@f04n12.cac.psu.edu: David G. Nagel wrote: Dave Holford wrote: But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. Dave Dave; Don't forget the radioactive potasium in your heart. Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - No Mike that's caused by cow belches John W3JXP |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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. Dave K8MN |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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. Dave K8MN During the daylight hours, trees and other plants do make oxygen. At night, in the dark, they do consume some of the oxygen--however, there is a net gain; i.e. they do "make oxygen." Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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 |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
... 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. ... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Since you seem more than willing to act as an expert and inform the masses that a 300mw, omni-directional, source of cooking band freqs held millimeters from the skull does absolutely no damage what-so-ever, at just what power intensities should we begin to worry and expect damage? One-watt, ten-watts, one-hundred-watts, one-kilowatt, multi-kilowatts? Perhaps your point is that human flesh is unaffected by microwave energy which cooks our food and any power level can be tolerated by the body? You will excuse me if I hold out for much more "in depth" studies done by institutions/colleges/consumer-watchdogs, etc. which have absolutely "no horse in the race!" Decades of living with "safe radiation levels" established for atomic elements sources which were "re-evaluated" to downward levels many times has made me a bit more cautious than yourself ... Perhaps these are the "evolved cell phones?" Produced from throwing handfuls of metal, glass, plastic, etc. into a mud hole, allowing these elements "to evolve" and then digging out the cell phones? Well, of course I would expect different than yourself! I purchased a manufacturers cell phone! ;-) Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
The Belly Button Gaze becomes fixated and the side thread begins:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:30:42 -0700, John Smith wrote: I purchased a manufacturers cell phone! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
The Belly Button Gaze becomes fixated and the side thread begins: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:30:42 -0700, John Smith wrote: I purchased a manufacturers cell phone! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Or, the idiot fires up and "reinforces" his "experts' argument" with personal attacks on personalities rather than offer concrete "proofs", logic/logical-arguments to the validity of his arguments ... yawn ... you have already been there, done that ... You have everything in your "shoe-box." Just make sure you maintain control by keeping everything limited to the points which will "prove" your "shoe-box assumptions/theories/logic." To me, you only appear as a "witchdoctor expert", and only a technician grade one at that ... Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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. The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor. Trees take liquid water out of the ground and turn it into water vapor. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
John Passaneau wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote in news:g8fadf$1iqk$1 @f04n12.cac.psu.edu: David G. Nagel wrote: Dave Holford wrote: But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a problem. Dave Dave; Don't forget the radioactive potasium in your heart. Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - No Mike that's caused by cow belches From both ends, it would seem! - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
John Smith wrote:
... To me, you only appear as a "witchdoctor expert", and only a technician grade one at that ... Regards, JS Oh yeah, and "Technically", only an "Amateur" one at that ... :-( Probably only be ethical to emphasize that as well, so your "expert qualifications" are well defined and placed in a proper position in your shoe box ... some of us are only relying on our "logic based opinions" to exercise caution on and defend against money, power, greed, corruption, etc. which may fail in the face of our best interests ... Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
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. Not all of it yet. I confess to skimming the oncological studies - although I did notice the tumor reduction outcome. Interesting. 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?" A very good question indeed! I might speculate a bit here. It is a big complicated world, and so many people are intellectually lazy. It is easier to say "RF exposure is bad" than it is to actually find out if it is. It is easier to say "liberals are the cause of all life's problems" than it is to investigate and find that the last liberal died in 1985. So many people are capable of great suspension of disbelief. There are people who protest vigorously against a cell phone tower in their neighborhood because of "RF exposure", yet I don't doubt some of them use cell phones. It's just a little thing - it can't be bad.... Look at radioactivity for instance. While people are scared spitless over it, these same folks would put that granite in their houses, sometimes tons of it, and can't even figure out that the granite comes from a volcanic process that is mixing all sorts of minerals, including hot ones. But they are too busy watching "Beauty and the Geek or some other trash on television. I dunno why, many of these folk are intelligent, yet stupid at the same time. It is apparently hard to get at the truth. Let's not forget the propaganda effect. The tobacky industry for years fought off the fact that tobacco is a cause of a whole lot of problems, from cancer to emphasyma and more. Just as there is a whole lot of money involved in both Cell phones and tobacco, there is a lot of reason to discount any problems caused by them. Now that being said, the "other side" can use those same examples to say that the Cell phone industry equates with the tobacco industry. It does not. Different industries, and just maybe the same tactics. Sometimes I think it just boils down to some people want them to be harmless, and nothing will convince them otherwise. Another group wants them to be dangerous, and nothing will convince them otherwise. A third group wants actual facts, and probably ****es all of the others off.. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36... I trust you are not ascribing the same for an area that the phone isn't touching? What I'm saying is that a phone uses a certain amount of power -- in the ballpark of a watt -- and much of that is being turned into heat. Although most of the actual heat generation isn't the battery, heat of course flows, so in general the handset can get warm in many places other than where the heat is actually being produced. Batteries tend to get warm because they're good heat sinks, I would imagine. To look for a specific positive or negative from the start is more in line with creation science. I agree with you there, although I have a suspicion many studies are desirous of finding deleterious effects. ---Joel |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:01:17 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote: 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?" A very good question indeed! I might speculate a bit here. Hi Mike, But that is still only the fixated gaze at the belly button. Fully anticipated and fulfilled. The problem is how to turn off this fire hydrant. I would like to see some numbers from data offered - its all there to give us a temperature rise from KNOWNS! Even Brett's three function calculator (one function is not approved by creation scienz) might be able to come close. Unfortunately, for many others it is obviously more comforting to enjoy gazing upon an approaching asteroid than to find it is nothing more than a mote in the eye. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
"John Smith" wrote in message
... at just what power intensities should we begin to worry and expect damage? One-watt, ten-watts, one-hundred-watts, one-kilowatt, multi-kilowatts? There are guidelines available for this from the FCC -- it's a function of exposure time, frequency, and of course power. The numbers have been around for many decades now, and you might recall some questions about it showing up on your license exam. That being said, I'm not suggesting more studies aren't in order, just that many people have a very mistaken impression that there aren't already many, many studies that have tried to ascertain "safe" exposure levels to RF. (Another thing most people aren't aware of is that cell phone antennas are usually specifically designed to *not* radiate "into" the head. Ham radio antennas usually aren't, yet you see plenty of folking holding up a 5W HT to their mouths...) Decades of living with "safe radiation levels" established for atomic elements sources which were "re-evaluated" to downward levels many times has made me a bit more cautious than yourself ... Life today is far, far safer overall than it was decades ago. Anything like "safe RF exposure levels" is always going to be a bit subjective, so producing e.g., 1 additional tumor in a population of a million has to be weighed against saving 100 lives from having a phone handy in an emergency. (I'm just making up the numbers here, of course, but you get the point.) ---Joel |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
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." 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. that's pretty simple.. Assume that the tissue has the specific heat of water. 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water about 1/4 degree C.. So, dump 2.55W/kg and you get about 0.0006 degree rise per second. Hang on the phone for, say, 10 minutes (600 seconds) and you'll get a temperature rise of a bit less than 1/2 degree C. For comparison: putting your head in sunlight results in an incident flux of about 1kW/square meter (peak). Assuming skin reflectivity of 0.36, the flux being absorbed is about 640W/square meter. Let's assume that the energy is absorbed in the first centimeter of your skin/bone, and that your head is a circle about 10cm in radius (e.g. 314 square centimeters).. That works out to about 20 watts total power being absorbed (compare to the 0.25W RF in the example above). Again, let's say that the density is 1g/cc, so the 20W is being dumped into 0.314 kg, or a SAR of 64 W/kg. That's a rise of 0.015 degree/second, or 10 degrees in 10 minutes. In reality, you won't see that much rise, because bloodflow carries some of the heat away, and so does convection. |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Mike, But that is still only the fixated gaze at the belly button. Fully anticipated and fulfilled. The problem is how to turn off this fire hydrant. I would like to see some numbers from data offered - its all there to give us a temperature rise from KNOWNS! Even Brett's three function calculator (one function is not approved by creation scienz) might be able to come close. Unfortunately, for many others it is obviously more comforting to enjoy gazing upon an approaching asteroid than to find it is nothing more than a mote in the eye. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You "play the odds." You bet that all which is knowledge/in-print is correct--you counsel others to only walk well worn paths. Of course, the odds will bear this out ... it is only that rare event which will produce something revolutionary, useful or provides a path for further exploration, etc. In all your posts, this is the ONE fact which always proves true. You attempt to "look smart" by poking fun at others attempts to further and refine that which already exists, their speculations/logic/experiments/etc. You find safety in other mens endeavors which have born fruit ... You have a low self-opinion of yourself (perhaps a correct one!) You, long ago, gave up on the ability of your mind/thinking/experiments to produce anything usable (again, perhaps correct.) You have absolutely nothing to offer except those things thought-of/discovered/experimented-with/documented-by other men, you must protect your ego at all costs--this implies you must NEVER be wrong, at any cost(s) ... you recognize this deficiency in yourself and attempt to convert it into an asset rather than a liability. The energy/stealth and deception/deceit afford you a modicum of success--the general public is easily confused and fooled ... You think I am the only one to notice these things about you, and much more? I think not, most just don't like arguing with children. Your glass house not only exhibits holes/fractures/breaks, whole panes are missing! Now, on about your business -- I will be watching and recording, long past all others have grown bored and moved on. There is something morbid and fascinating about such self-inflicted punishment(s) which grabs a minds attention, and pity ... the size of your shoe-box has been seen and duly noted ... You attempt to make words suggesting caution a directly conflict to some chosen point(s) of yours, a slight-of-hand fitting a grade school student ... as you were soldier, carry on ... Regards, JS |
Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:23:11 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: 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." 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. that's pretty simple.. Assume that the tissue has the specific heat of water. 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water about 1/4 degree C.. So, dump 2.55W/kg and you get about 0.0006 degree rise per second. Hang on the phone for, say, 10 minutes (600 seconds) and you'll get a temperature rise of a bit less than 1/2 degree C. For comparison: putting your head in sunlight results in an incident flux of about 1kW/square meter (peak). Assuming skin reflectivity of 0.36, the flux being absorbed is about 640W/square meter. Let's assume that the energy is absorbed in the first centimeter of your skin/bone, and that your head is a circle about 10cm in radius (e.g. 314 square centimeters).. That works out to about 20 watts total power being absorbed (compare to the 0.25W RF in the example above). Again, let's say that the density is 1g/cc, so the 20W is being dumped into 0.314 kg, or a SAR of 64 W/kg. That's a rise of 0.015 degree/second, or 10 degrees in 10 minutes. In reality, you won't see that much rise, because bloodflow carries some of the heat away, and so does convection. Thanx Jim. Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones. Let's approach this from first principles. The battery in the phone is the only source of power. My own as an example has by the manufacturers rating - From Nokia for their 6263 model: BL-5C 1020 mAh Capacity; Talk time GSM up to 3 hours 20 min; Stand-by GSM up to 11.25 days Dump that capacity at a potential of 3.6V for the full talk time after a fresh charge gives us 1.10 W PER HOUR. Put 3 1/2W 51 Ohm resistors into a series circuit across the terminals of a 12V DC Source, hold the resistor pack (less than 1cM²) against the skin (I used my earlobe) and you have a literal tissue test under the full power capacity of the battery as used continuously in a Nokia 6263 EXCEPT 100% of that power is lost to heat entirely - nothing towards the display, nothing towards the RF, nothing towards the speaker, nothing towards the microprocessor, etc. ALL of the heat is confined with nothing towards the greater mass of tissues in the CNS. What is the temperature rise? As measured using a fever thermometer on the opposite side of the lobe: from 98.0°F to 99.4°F for 11.82V @0.0778A after several minutes. Cut the blood flow by tightly griping the lobe/pack/thermometer, and you can push this up another 6°F. As Jim offers in his last comment, blood flow makes all the difference (unless the creationists are worried about the tumor inducing effects on corpses). You have to first ask yourself, how to make the RF "grip" the tissue to lower blood flow to raise temperature. Next you have to ask how to make the RF ignore the mass of tissue. An ear lobe is highly insulated from the heat absorbing bulk of the skull. Ask any creationist why God chose large ears for animals that have to shed heat that can't escape their fur covered bodies. Next you have to ask how to make the Total conversion of battery power into RF (lossless, perfect source) available for total, selective absorption in the tissue. All questions above are for the worriers to dwell upon and to conspire to fulfill through creationist scienz (ironically "blame God" would be their answer). First, 1020mAh is maximum available battery capacity. Other ratings for a replacement battery range as low as around 500-750mAh. You may elevate the earlobe temperature by 1.4°F - but not for long. This particular Nokia model operates as high as 2.1GHz (14cM band) and would require an extremely complex antenna (pointed directly into your skull) to focus a beam in a 0.6cM³ cube (1/16th wavelength area within less than a wavelength from the antenna). As the medicos would say: the application of a directional antenna of these design requirements for a general coverage service is contra-indicated. Unless someone comes up with other figures (you will need the creationist un-approved full four function calculator), it would seem that nothing less than navel gazing can propel this thread further. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com