On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:53:34 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Even retired alcoholic barbers in washington know that!
Washington - place name spellings are capitalized.
So Brett, you are retired and planning to visit washington?
...
Your noise to signal ratio is overwhelming man!

You remind me of a contester I heard years ago:
"You are coming in 5 by 9, CAN YOU REPEAT? CAN YOU REPEAT?"

Maybe someone in Sacramento can relay the message to you, Brett.

... or, another guy who struggled against great odds, with an antenna
"one element short of a full antenna!"

Brett, I see you got the relay, even from someone with one element
short. (Curious sort of thanks you offer your assistant.) At least
it has a asymptotic trajectory towards the topic. Let's just nudge
that into more than a glancing contact:

I know its a challenge for you to stay technical, but how much signal
is lost with that one missing element? Let's say an NBS Yagi. Can
you choose any one element and describe the net shift in dBi? You
couldn't respond to the Subject Line of how a Blackberry could source
5KW to provide -10dBW at 15 wavelengths, so this may be out of your
league too. ;-(

So, for the comic relief we can all count on Brett for, can you,
perhaps, tell us how many missing elements you would have to have to
reduce this pocketed Blackberry's boiling contribution to the sea
water in your Bulbo-Cavernous Artery by one degree Celsius? Please
post your bench test on youtube.

Better yet, don't remove ANY elements and repeat the bench test, and I
bet 60 Minutes will air that! What a coupe! Validation at last! And
I bet they will, probably, maintain your anonymity - maybe (so much
for validation). Anyway, its worth our fun to watch this by any name,
and OK so it will probably only be carried by Mythbusters (poetic
about that too).

So, the NBS Yagi report? The 15 wavelength explanation? Boiling sea
water experiment?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
So, for the comic relief we can all count on Brett for, can you,
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Upgrade from tech+. It will give you something to do! Heck, you may
even stop "growing hair on yer' palms! YUCK! (just the thought :-( )

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

"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

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

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

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 -

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 -

"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!

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
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.
...
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Nice set of bowling balls! grin

I stopped short of commenting on the "warming effect" ... yes, even the
wife has remarked on it, I am only surprised you are the first, other
than me and the wife, which has made comment on it--I had just written
it off to warm batteries and paranoia ... could it just be the
batteries? I wonder ... but if most are willing to argue the
obvious--that question could/would "roll on forever ..."

Regards,
JS