JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier. I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
...." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.

PLONK!

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for
it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even
more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your
fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the
unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated
by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra
money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure
that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier.
I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)


I was joking about actually putting an amplifier on any wireless device that
you can put in your pocket and runs on batteries. But I guess I have to be
very careful with the ignorant and superstitious, because an offhand quip
might be taken to heart and grow to be a religion like your exposure rant.
You call them "cell towers" because it is your boogie man. You probably
haven't even been on a tour to a transmitter site.

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
..." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.


PLONK!

Regards,
JS

Everyone check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Read the section on "Red Herring fallacies"


Your numbers are all wrong so you call me an idiot. These newsgroups are
googled and will probably be around for a while. Your conclusions based on
your own erroneous suppositions won't make me an idiot. But you obviously
have an environmental liberal whacko agenda to promote or you would produce
your evidence.

My 30 year + observations of a community of professionals (and not so
professionals) is the only statistical evidence I need to prove your dog
can't walk because it has no legs.

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.

You are correct that California is way AFU, but you don't know the half of
it. Until you do, the same mistakes will be made when it comes to your
town, because you are lock-stepped to belief systems that reject reality, so
you will continually lay the blame for your error elsewhere until it has you
by the throat.

JB wrote:

...

Did I hear something?

I thought I heard something!

Guess not ...

Regards,
JS

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.

Dave

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 -

"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 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

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 -

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 -

"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!