John Smith wrote:
You wrote:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
JS

I should have clarified "the meaning" in the above ...

Or, to summarize, 300mw sounds both UNGODLY and IRRESPONSIBLE, IMHO ...
I would suspect it to be much nearer 50-100mw ... and I can logic this
by the size of the battery and the time it lasts between charges. (no,
I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the computations!)

However, doing the math, 50mw is too much. And, an equivalent of 1kw
emanating from the antenna comes at MUCH TOO CLOSE a distance ...

Sorry I had to take two posts to make that clear.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
... (no,
I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the
computations!)
...
Regards,
JS

I am surprised, the BR60 li-ion battery is 3.7v @ 900mah ... the ~2hr
talk time suggests 300mw is well within reason ... I am surprised the
battery packs that kind of punch. :-(

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote:
... (no, I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the
computations!)
...
Regards,
JS

I am surprised, the BR60 li-ion battery is 3.7v @ 900mah ... the ~2hr
talk time suggests 300mw is well within reason ... I am surprised the
battery packs that kind of punch. :-(

Regards,
JS

Of course, our "difference" could stem solely from differing definitions
of the word prudent, such as in "prudent man."

I am using this definition:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Prudent \Pru"dent\, a. [L. prudens, -entis, contr. from
providens: cf. F. prudent. See Provident.]
1. Sagacious in adapting means to ends; circumspect in
action, or in determining any line of conduct; practically
wise; judicious; careful; discreet; sensible; -- opposed
to rash; as, a prudent man; dictated or directed by
prudence or wise forethought; evincing prudence; as,
prudent behavior.

Moses established a grave and prudent law. --Milton.

Regards,
JS

Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.



That is a lot, and WAY overly complicated, IMHO ... and no, I don't need
do all that ...

I need only "error on the side of caution." (If only I'd done that with
smoking!) But then, that is keeping with the theme of "prudent
man/men", which was my original statements intent.

Besides, Bluetooth improves the whole "phone experience", hands free
digit dial and name dial are very handy. And, it is a law to be
hands-free on the phone while driving an auto in California ... :-) A
win-win situation which has few equals. Your particular mileage may
vary ...

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.



Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of ...
Regards,
JS

In the above, can we abbreviate "cooking bands" to just "CB?" wink

At first, I failed to catch the level of my own humor! LOL!

Regards,
JS

Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

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

JB wrote:

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



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

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

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. ...

I will be honest with you, I have been "dishonest by omission"--I know
the general public is completely unaware of the REAL dangers (well, I am
being kind, they are simply too ignorant to be concerned) ... I know
there are few "experts" who are aware (and "those threats" are being
extinguished with money/lawyers/"orchestrated-studies") ... and those
few who do know are in the medical profession, a couple of them vocal on
the subject ... most say/believe "the government will protect
us"--others say ignorance is bliss (well, I do) ...

Back in the 1980's a "deal was brokered" with the FCC (Hmmm, isn't that
when cell phones "came out?") ... cell phones fall though a "legal
loophole"--they are considered a "low powered device" and unable to do
the damage one needs to fear from a microwave oven--they are exempt,
there really is no Maximum Permissible Levels established which
manufacturers/engineers/industry can EFFECTIVELY be held to ... they
suffer virtually no regulation ... perhaps SAR, but then that is like 4w
per KG? You probably can cook an egg with that! (albeit slowly) LOL!

However, from this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...56/oet56e4.pdf

You will find within, "Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible
Exposure (MPE)" and "(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled
Exposure" ...

.... you may draw your own conclusions about a 300mw source of cooking
frequency within 6mm of your cranium (I have been thinking about that,
the antenna is probably embedded in the middle of that case and ~3mm
from my head :-( ) ... personally, I caution my wife from standing too
close, let alone placing her forehead against the microwave door when in
operation! (she does that yanno'!)

Funny, I just always assumed the people here (well, other than the
idiots) would already be taking precautions (headsets--short
exposures/calls.)

I only hope to be here when they hand out the "Darwin Awards" to those
deserving--post mortem-ously for them, most likely ...

Regards,
JS