John Smith wrote:

...
In closing, "Keep On Cookin', Men!" (should be considered equiv. to
"Keep On Truckin', Men!") WINK

Regards,
JS

This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/...=2008&public=0

and is VERY similar to how studies such as the one mentioned he

http://www.rense.com/general26/2yrs.htm

are being ignored.

But then, some will attempt to dismiss all this to "environmental
wackos"--"Darwin Awards" coming soon!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms
of radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until
proved/proven harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in
nature and to which the human body (or any biological organisms for that
matter) has never been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to
chant a "paranoid/wacko" mantra and such forms of thought are naturally
generated in the human mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to
be, "If we have never seen it before, if we have never been exposed to
it before, maybe it is actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think
the proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to
continue, without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all
revolved over disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the
dangers ... indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that
"smoking was bad" was met with those chanting the myths of flawed
studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available
to vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible
men and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my
thinking", maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep
abreast of the "Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting
Better, don't trust your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply
does NOT motivate me "To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone
radiation is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more
sexually attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest,
unbiased studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in
New York and the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being
dumped into the environment were harming/killing people! ... how many
examples before one chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813
2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms of
radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until proved/proven
harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in nature and to which
the human body (or any biological organisms for that matter) has never
been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to chant a "paranoid/wacko"
mantra and such forms of thought are naturally generated in the human
mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to be, "If we have never seen
it before, if we have never been exposed to it before, maybe it is
actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think the
proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to continue,
without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all revolved over
disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the dangers ...
indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that "smoking was bad"
was met with those chanting the myths of flawed studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available to
vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible men
and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my thinking",
maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep abreast of the
"Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting Better, don't trust
your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply does NOT motivate me
"To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone radiation
is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more sexually
attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest, unbiased
studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in New York and
the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being dumped into the
environment were harming/killing people! ... how many examples before one
chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS

------------

How many people have developed the brain tumors associated with cellphone
use versus the number of people whose lives have been saved because of the
use of a cellphone?

Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the years
that the cellphone has been available to the public.

I am NOT saying that cellphone use is entirely safe. I truly do not know,
one way or the other, but, if immediate tumors or other cancers had been
developed during the all to brief preliminary testing of devices operating
at such high frequencies in close approximation to the human body, I feel
certain that said developers would not have rushed their devices into mass
production so quickly.

Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too.

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:

...
------------

How many people have developed the brain tumors associated with cellphone
use versus the number of people whose lives have been saved because of the
use of a cellphone?

Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the years
that the cellphone has been available to the public.

I am NOT saying that cellphone use is entirely safe. I truly do not know,
one way or the other, but, if immediate tumors or other cancers had been
developed during the all to brief preliminary testing of devices operating
at such high frequencies in close approximation to the human body, I feel
certain that said developers would not have rushed their devices into mass
production so quickly.

Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too.

Ed, NM2K



Yes, exactly, back to the original intent of my original post ...

Maximize benefits, minimize risk, error on the side of caution, watch
out for yourself--trust no one to do it for you ... I believe you
present an excellent case.

Regards,
JS

"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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"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 -

------------

In the end, none of what transpires in life truly matters anyway. I am a
believer (God, I hate using that word - oops!) in non locality. As such, and
believing that all that has ever happened, or ever will happen, is bundled
up in one tight little ball of data, we have no free will anyway, thus,
nothing is a matter of choice. It simply is and we're just those little
football players on the magnetic football game of life. Enjoy what you can
and ignore the rest.

Ed, NM2K

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813
2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Now there is someone with some sense.
Mike, VK6MO