Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
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..


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.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:33:55 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. The athermal effects you describe such as "photon
energy" is a temperature so low that for all practical purposes could
be called absolute zero. No one has suggested frost-bite induction as
a source of CNS trauma. Besides, thermal effects (or athermal) are
related to phononic energy. Phonon-Photon interaction is the
principle you are implying, and besides myself, I doubt anyone could
follow that discussion. Aside from yourself, no one here showed any
capacity to either calculate a temperature rise, or test it at the
bench. This leaves little room for dialog on the matter - hence the
plunge into shamanism.

As for the E field, a 9 volt battery clipped between the ears hardly
suffices, and electroshock therapy goes a further and most obvious
distance. The arguments put forward by those who cry caution beg for
dramatic and catastrophic effects that are unnoticed - a contradiction
on the face of it: an anticonvulsant taser wound without a mark. The
lack of substantive evidence is begged off as being undetectable (the
same contradiction) or too mysterious to have been thought of (which
is a vanity statement). My allusion to Phonons would certainly fall
into this last category, but it is an old field of established study
that is rare, not unknown.

I've calibrated defibrillators and worked with peak energy delivery
systems from millijoules to kilojoules. A cell phone does not qualify
- not even acute and chronic is several orders of magnitude below
that. Every thing about the design conspires against it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
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.
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Really? You are kidding me, or else you don't know what you are talking
about, again, right? I mean, this is the best apple & oranges
comparison I have ever seen done by an IQ-challenged person!

Ghz cell phones, which cause a oscillations (indeed, complete
turn-abouts of the water molecules) ~one-billion times per/sec is a good
comparison to light? Who said that, the wizard of oz?

You idiot ... such oscillations cause actual changes in the cell walls
of food being cooked which can be observed ... google is your friend
wizard richard ... what was your title again? Excellent kiss-a$$ to the
real experts? "One who stands in the shadow of the big guys hoping
something will rub off?"

I should think, "Brown-Noser-Wannabe" pretty much sums up the title you
deserve, to everyones satisfaction--certainly to mine!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. ...

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Simplier than even that, indeed, causing me to coin a new term to
describe such simplicity demonstrated by a simpleton!

"RICHARD CLARK SIMPLE!"

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"Joel Koltner" wrote in
:

"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...)

Some differences are that HT conversations tend to be a lot shorter.

I'll bet my XYL spends 4 hours a day on various wireless and cell phones.
I know some who spend more. But they are convenient, they are handy. You
can walk around with them and do other things whil you are doing it. Its
a "big help" in her business.

That's okay, she thinks I'm nuts with my concern for cellphone use also.
Hopefully I'm wrong.....


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 ...

We've revised them downward because we've found out more about them.

Life today is far, far safer overall than it was decades ago.

Right. Its a learning process. We've found out about a lot of things
that can do us damage.

- 73 d e Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...

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.



That was my point restated ever so diligently.

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 have seen data from a few of the experiments before and further
experimentation would be a good thing particularly the ones that seem to
describe low levels with certain modulation specifics. Also we need to
differentiate the studies that involved 60 Hz AC fields which do seem to
have an effect, but again more experimentation is required to try to figure
out why some of these experiments conflict.

I have performed an RF evaluation at my station and recommend prudence when
operating. I am expected to do this because I am in control of the
equipment and can make changes that may result in higher levels of exposure.
Those who go out and buy the wireless device are limited by the FCC approval
of the whole unit, and battery vs. talk time also limit the potential of
exposure and hazard to negligible.

Now as for certain people who equate that with hazards that require the
defeating of safety interlocks to prove their point? Cars are dangerous,
but most of all, people who run off the road into overpasses to prove
the point. God help them.

Real hazards are people trying to expose themselves to exhaust
fumes with the vehicle in reverse or in a closed garage or removing the
guards from lawn mowers and putting their hand in the blade or electing
someone to public office that makes selections on judges, who also pals
around with extremists and radicals, including those who hate the country
they live in and make death threats on those they hate. You can judge a
book by its cover if it is trying to tell you what is inside. Dropping some
friends just because you are running for public office says something too.
Also it seems to me that those who promote "change" without positive
solutions are really seeking to destroy.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:


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.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:


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.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable? Now THAT is an argument
for the books and sure to defy any measure, qualification, or
solution. We may as well speculate that if you fall out of bed while
dreaming of plunging off a cliff, then you die when you strike the
floor.

This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.
Unfortunately, theologians don't really argue the Bible, they argue
religion which has some very rigorous protocols. I don't see any
protocols observed in the anecdote and is one reason why the Vatican
rarely admits new miracles.

If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue. If you
want the science behind the "perception." I would offer that it is
only remotely associated with Physics as initiator, and backfilled
with the Ape's reflex of drawing away from the fire (the scienz of
psychology that you anticipate above).

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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.

I applied similar calculations to a jalepeno pepper I ate today. I took
it out of the refrigerator in which it had stabilized at around 35
degrees. Popped it in my mouth and munched away. The pepper made my
mouth hot and it burned pretty good.

It isn't possible to do that. Given that the pepper was at 35 degrees,
it in fact should have lowered the temperature in my mouth temporarily
until blood flow could compensate.

Further inspection showed that there were no apparent blisters or
unusual redness in my mouth after eating the pepper, so the only
conclusion I can make is that the sensation I felt, I did not feel.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:

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.
So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable.

Richard, I can stuff words into my mouth easily, I don't need help.

So, you experience it as a burn,

I experience it as a warming sensation

it isn't a burn

It's a warming sensation


and it is as serious as a burn,

I don't know if is a serious matter or not. I just report it. I'm not
the only one



This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.

C'mon, Richard. It follows then that cell phone use is proscribed by the
bible? At least according to the local Amish Bishops...

The last statement was nonsense, ant the quote it replied to wasn't much
above it.

I broke my ankle a few years back. It hurt like hell. Of course that's
anecdotal too. 8^)


If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

I have to carry a cell as part of my work. My average call is less than
a minute. I use it as little as possible.


If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue.

For a very narrow issue. One that is not related to what I am looking at.

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

From the sublime to....

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a productive
discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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 -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
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.
...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

In the loose, dataless environment of this debate, spontaneous
combustion from the use of a cell phone is now a reality supported by
dialog. That it is a fiction is overwhelmed by it inhabiting debate
about real worry.

Of course I introduced this tar-baby and it worked. There is no way
to back out of its grip without data now.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a productive
discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What is really going to "cook your noodle" is when you realize this is
how cigarette smoking was determined to actually be good for you.
Remember the old ads with doctors, of actors who looked like doctors,
telling how studies had actually determined smoking improved/enhanced
your health?

Now class, can you find any examples of this/these "disinformation
methods" still in use today? Any suspected examples?

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

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

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

No bang would be heard, if you weren't there to hear it.

You willing to witness this test (sodium or phosphorous) to confirm
the supposition? Take a bigger bite of an apple size Chipotle and
report about the absence of blistering instead.

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

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

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

One might begin to think that there is bit of a difference between
scientific discourse and English discourse. That is likely. Whereas I
highly doubt that it would happen, you use that doubt as a springboard
to add to the issue.

All without answering my question!

I doubt that using a cell phone wil cause me to crave lutefisk either.
So we add another possibility to the mix.

Ask a scientist if a singularity might show up and start spitting to
coffee cups S/he will probably say "not likely", when indeed it is
almost impossible, yet not eliminated. Something like almost infinitely
unlikely, depending on if we ascribe to the big crunch eventually
following the big bang, or even the big cigarette. But at least take a
shower. But I digress.....

It doesn't ipso fatso mean they accept that as a real possibility. But
the odds, as scientists look at them, make it difficult to state 100
percent yes or no. We see it all the time on TV cop shows when they go
to court. They even give odds on DNA evidence.

Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a
productive discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What is really going to "cook your noodle" is when you realize this is
how cigarette smoking was determined to actually be good for you.
Remember the old ads with doctors, of actors who looked like doctors,
telling how studies had actually determined smoking improved/enhanced
your health?


I remember Arther Godfrey.

http://www.bigsmilehealth.com/blog/6/war-on-smoking/

http://www.blujay.com/?page=ad&cat=7170000&adid=1449506

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

.... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

.... well, I certainly going to have to re-check my spelling and words in
my posts. GRIN

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

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

See how this grows? We are now engaged in debating what is "not
likely," but of course that is how it started out anyway. What is
embraced as a real risk is equally dismissed by the same logic. Anyone
who worries about CNS tumors induced by cell phones, must allow that
they could suffer spontaneous combustion from the same source, same
risk. Risk, after all, is not a thing, it is a number. Without data,
employing risk as rhetoric automatically elevates everything that was
once inconsequential to life threatening.

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

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

QED

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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


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

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

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

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

See how this grows?

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



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

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


I would have to say that it is Douglas Adams?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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



- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

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



Michael:

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

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

This:

"Dipolar Bonding in Water

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


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

From he

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

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

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

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

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:


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


sigh..... "vigorously too!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

Michael Coslo wrote:


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


sigh..... "vigorously too!

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

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



Michael:

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

Here is a page:

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

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

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

Michael Coslo wrote:

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

sigh..... "vigorously too!

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


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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

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



Michael:

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

Here is a page:

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

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

Well, I certainly do respect old Albert.

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

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

Whoa.



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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

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


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


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

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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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

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

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 -