On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:00:22 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

I'm looking for those who think it isn't dangerous to have the courage
of their convictions.

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately, by your conjecture
I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.
this implies a co-equivalent risk where neither activity have any data
to support that a risk exists. Merely having a fear does not create
that missing data or Saddam's WMD would have been on display in the
white house rose garden.

Haven't found any yet. They actually might be on to something, they just
don't know it.

They actually might be grossly ignorant is more appropriate. The
positive spin is that with great fortune in luck, desire, or hope that
they (there is nothing "actual" involved) might (the illusions of a
gambler betting against the house) be on to something (a fog of
correlation masquerading as causation).

Those with the courage of conviction have more self-assurance than to
drop their lives to join any contest in a flood of whim. What your
challenge would reveal is quite the opposite: those who lack
faculties, are insecure, and hopelessly embrace the latest
superstition. Some swing their banners here without needing an
inviting challenge.

Let's simply return to:
With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna.
and examine this from first principles.

5 feet away from an uncalibrated antenna (the emission is at twice the
"2.4 gig antenna" whatever that means) is also 15 wavelengths away
(probably more, but 15 is certainly instructive). Is this a gain
antenna? That would remove some of the hot-house steam from this
orchid's appeal. The breathless "yes, 100mW" is the dazzle of looking
at the sun through binoculars.

However, let's put the issue of gain aside and accept this valuation,
along with the only known facts - that same 15 wavelength separation.
A simple model performed using a free version of EZNEC, employing a
clear path, no disturbing environment (like a skull), and perfect,
lossless matching of source and load gives a path loss of 45dB. That
report of "yes, 100mW" requires the Blackberry to source something
closer to 5KW.

It is more likely that -10dbW was "actually" -10dBm; and I am tempting
credulity to even allow that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Unfortunately, by your conjecture
I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.
this implies a co-equivalent risk where neither activity have any data
to support that a risk exists. Merely having a fear does not create
that missing data or Saddam's WMD would have been on display in the
white house rose garden.
...

Funny, didn't someone just mention how it was known tobacco was harmful
to us--long before there was "proper proof."

This argument would hold much more water if microwave freqs from .9Ghz
to 20+ Ghz were not so efficient at heating/affecting water and other
polarized molecules. Now, didn't I read, somewhere, that the brain is
mainly composed of "fat"--fat IS a polarized molecule, and the brain
does contain water ...

I think most prudent men would be leery of holding a device emitting
freqs capable of cooking food next to their brain ...

Ever heard of bluetooth?

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cryptic, but if reference is made to 30Mhz and below (however, John
Kanzius DOES burn sea water with ~13.56Mhz--and, our blood DOES contain,
roughly, the same concentration of salt as sea water) ... not much worry
here; But then, for decades men have been exposed to TREMENDOUS fields
of these freqs--indeed, hang a turkey on a 5kw antenna, you'll eat a
cold dinner.

On power, my bluetooth is lucky to reach 30ft. I am amazed at how far
my cell phone reaches out to contact a tower ... I do get dropouts
(queued packets are dropped because they have timed out of their "place
in line", loss-of-signal and garble-ing in the valleys in the foothills
and behind hills/mountains.

An ear-set/mic would be the best, however, I always tear the cord loose ...

The phone is always on the console in the car ... when I am home/office,
it forwards calls to the internet phone.

I never claimed I could limit my risks to an absolute zero ... only that
prudent men would worry about this subject--perhaps even enough to take
precautions, which they are capable of.

In summary, if I wish to heat a chicken leg, a burner on the stove is
best (or microwave grin.) However, I DO believe I could accomplish
the same thing with my cigarette lighter, it would just take longer.

Regards,
JS

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL ...

Regards,
JS

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Regards,
JS

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Regards,
JS

That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance. Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions because
they are crazy.

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke, falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Regards,
JS

Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem. So far,
NOBODY has shown that to be the case. Not even in the 2.4 Ghz
ISM Band where BlueTooth operates, with significantly LESS
Power Density. There are enough of these devices around that
should all this "Wild Speculation", actually have Observable Effects,
the researchers into this area wouldn't be needing to do Statistical
Analysis, to Magically try and prove some nebulous Causal Effect.

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

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Regards,
JS

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

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