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

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

Hi Mike,

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

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


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

Perhaps a simplification of my argument is in order again.

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




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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -