Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)

They do? All this time I was certain that trees produced oxygen.


We're both right, Dave. Trees produce CO2 or O2 depending on the time
of day. I can smell the changeover as it is getting dark and the trees
shift.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

John Passaneau wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote in news:g8fadf$1iqk$1
@f04n12.cac.psu.edu:

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 -



No Mike that's caused by cow belches


From both ends, it would seem!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

John Smith wrote:
...
To me, you only appear as a "witchdoctor expert", and only a technician
grade one at that ...

Regards,
JS

Oh yeah, and "Technically", only an "Amateur" one at that ... :-(

Probably only be ethical to emphasize that as well, so your "expert
qualifications" are well defined and placed in a proper position in your
shoe box ... some of us are only relying on our "logic based opinions"
to exercise caution on and defend against money, power, greed,
corruption, etc. which may fail in the face of our best interests ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

Did you read the material you offered yesterday? Science reveals all
results observed without going into a study mining for expectations as
you rightly offer here.

Not all of it yet. I confess to skimming the oncological studies -
although I did notice the tumor reduction outcome. Interesting.



Your link, like the data of the original post, offers enough data to
warrant informed discussion. The original post's data reveals a
howler of invention. That cast aside, it allowed a cascade of
spiritualism to dominate. Let me kick off the next side-thread of
belly-button contemplation and ask: "Why don't we see this data
discussed?"

A very good question indeed! I might speculate a bit here.

It is a big complicated world, and so many people are intellectually
lazy. It is easier to say "RF exposure is bad" than it is to actually
find out if it is. It is easier to say "liberals are the cause of all
life's problems" than it is to investigate and find that the last
liberal died in 1985.

So many people are capable of great suspension of disbelief. There are
people who protest vigorously against a cell phone tower in their
neighborhood because of "RF exposure", yet I don't doubt some of them
use cell phones. It's just a little thing - it can't be bad....

Look at radioactivity for instance. While people are scared spitless
over it, these same folks would put that granite in their houses,
sometimes tons of it, and can't even figure out that the granite comes
from a volcanic process that is mixing all sorts of minerals, including
hot ones.

But they are too busy watching "Beauty and the Geek or some other trash
on television. I dunno why, many of these folk are intelligent, yet
stupid at the same time.

It is apparently hard to get at the truth.

Let's not forget the propaganda effect. The tobacky industry for years
fought off the fact that tobacco is a cause of a whole lot of problems,
from cancer to emphasyma and more. Just as there is a whole lot of money
involved in both Cell phones and tobacco, there is a lot of reason to
discount any problems caused by them.

Now that being said, the "other side" can use those same examples to say
that the Cell phone industry equates with the tobacco industry. It does
not. Different industries, and just maybe the same tactics.

Sometimes I think it just boils down to some people want them to be
harmless, and nothing will convince them otherwise.

Another group wants them to be dangerous, and nothing will convince them
otherwise.

A third group wants actual facts, and probably ****es all of the others
off..

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
I
trust you are not ascribing the same for an area that the phone isn't
touching?

What I'm saying is that a phone uses a certain amount of power -- in the
ballpark of a watt -- and much of that is being turned into heat. Although
most of the actual heat generation isn't the battery, heat of course flows, so
in general the handset can get warm in many places other than where the heat
is actually being produced. Batteries tend to get warm because they're good
heat sinks, I would imagine.

To look for a specific
positive or negative from the start is more in line with creation
science.

I agree with you there, although I have a suspicion many studies are desirous
of finding deleterious effects.

---Joel

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:01:17 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Your link, like the data of the original post, offers enough data to
warrant informed discussion. The original post's data reveals a
howler of invention. That cast aside, it allowed a cascade of
spiritualism to dominate. Let me kick off the next side-thread of
belly-button contemplation and ask: "Why don't we see this data
discussed?"

A very good question indeed! I might speculate a bit here.

Hi Mike,

But that is still only the fixated gaze at the belly button. Fully
anticipated and fulfilled. The problem is how to turn off this fire
hydrant.

I would like to see some numbers from data offered - its all there to
give us a temperature rise from KNOWNS! Even Brett's three function
calculator (one function is not approved by creation scienz) might be
able to come close. Unfortunately, for many others it is obviously
more comforting to enjoy gazing upon an approaching asteroid than to
find it is nothing more than a mote in the eye.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
at just what power intensities should we begin to worry and expect damage?
One-watt, ten-watts, one-hundred-watts, one-kilowatt, multi-kilowatts?

There are guidelines available for this from the FCC -- it's a function of
exposure time, frequency, and of course power. The numbers have been around
for many decades now, and you might recall some questions about it showing up
on your license exam.

That being said, I'm not suggesting more studies aren't in order, just that
many people have a very mistaken impression that there aren't already many,
many studies that have tried to ascertain "safe" exposure levels to RF.
(Another thing most people aren't aware of is that cell phone antennas are
usually specifically designed to *not* radiate "into" the head. Ham radio
antennas usually aren't, yet you see plenty of folking holding up a 5W HT to
their mouths...)

Decades of living with "safe radiation levels" established for atomic
elements sources which were "re-evaluated" to downward levels many times has
made me a bit more cautious than yourself ...

Life today is far, far safer overall than it was decades ago. Anything like
"safe RF exposure levels" is always going to be a bit subjective, so producing
e.g., 1 additional tumor in a population of a million has to be weighed
against saving 100 lives from having a phone handy in an emergency. (I'm just
making up the numbers here, of course, but you get the point.)

---Joel

The very last study, on the very last page with the second paragraph
offers:
"For an effectively transmitted power of 0.25 W,
the maximum averaged SAR values in both cubic
and arbitrary-shaped volumes are, respectively, about
1.72 and 2.55 W kg-1 for 1g and
0.98 and 1.73 W kg-1 for 10 g of tissue."

The last study gives us more exposure data (the discussion of which
inevitably scatters in the rhetorical wind of debate). I can only
wonder if the reader can draw a conclusion from this quoted sentence
that can be expressed in temperature rise. There's enough data to do
this, only intelligence remains to perform.



that's pretty simple.. Assume that the tissue has the specific heat of
water. 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water about 1/4
degree C..

So, dump 2.55W/kg and you get about 0.0006 degree rise per second.
Hang on the phone for, say, 10 minutes (600 seconds) and you'll get a
temperature rise of a bit less than 1/2 degree C.

For comparison:
putting your head in sunlight results in an incident flux of about
1kW/square meter (peak). Assuming skin reflectivity of 0.36, the flux
being absorbed is about 640W/square meter. Let's assume that the energy
is absorbed in the first centimeter of your skin/bone, and that your
head is a circle about 10cm in radius (e.g. 314 square centimeters)..
That works out to about 20 watts total power being absorbed (compare to
the 0.25W RF in the example above). Again, let's say that the density
is 1g/cc, so the 20W is being dumped into 0.314 kg, or a SAR of 64 W/kg.

That's a rise of 0.015 degree/second, or 10 degrees in 10 minutes. In
reality, you won't see that much rise, because bloodflow carries some of
the heat away, and so does convection.

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Mike,

But that is still only the fixated gaze at the belly button. Fully
anticipated and fulfilled. The problem is how to turn off this fire
hydrant.

I would like to see some numbers from data offered - its all there to
give us a temperature rise from KNOWNS! Even Brett's three function
calculator (one function is not approved by creation scienz) might be
able to come close. Unfortunately, for many others it is obviously
more comforting to enjoy gazing upon an approaching asteroid than to
find it is nothing more than a mote in the eye.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You "play the odds." You bet that all which is knowledge/in-print is
correct--you counsel others to only walk well worn paths. Of course,
the odds will bear this out ... it is only that rare event which will
produce something revolutionary, useful or provides a path for further
exploration, etc. In all your posts, this is the ONE fact which always
proves true.

You attempt to "look smart" by poking fun at others attempts to further
and refine that which already exists, their
speculations/logic/experiments/etc. You find safety in other mens
endeavors which have born fruit ...

You have a low self-opinion of yourself (perhaps a correct one!) You,
long ago, gave up on the ability of your mind/thinking/experiments to
produce anything usable (again, perhaps correct.) You have absolutely
nothing to offer except those things
thought-of/discovered/experimented-with/documented-by other men, you
must protect your ego at all costs--this implies you must NEVER be
wrong, at any cost(s) ... you recognize this deficiency in yourself and
attempt to convert it into an asset rather than a liability. The
energy/stealth and deception/deceit afford you a modicum of success--the
general public is easily confused and fooled ...

You think I am the only one to notice these things about you, and much
more? I think not, most just don't like arguing with children. Your
glass house not only exhibits holes/fractures/breaks, whole panes are
missing!

Now, on about your business -- I will be watching and recording, long
past all others have grown bored and moved on. There is something
morbid and fascinating about such self-inflicted punishment(s) which
grabs a minds attention, and pity ... the size of your shoe-box has been
seen and duly noted ...

You attempt to make words suggesting caution a directly conflict to some
chosen point(s) of yours, a slight-of-hand fitting a grade school
student ... as you were soldier, carry on ...

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:23:11 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:


The very last study, on the very last page with the second paragraph
offers:
"For an effectively transmitted power of 0.25 W,
the maximum averaged SAR values in both cubic
and arbitrary-shaped volumes are, respectively, about
1.72 and 2.55 W kg-1 for 1g and
0.98 and 1.73 W kg-1 for 10 g of tissue."

The last study gives us more exposure data (the discussion of which
inevitably scatters in the rhetorical wind of debate). I can only
wonder if the reader can draw a conclusion from this quoted sentence
that can be expressed in temperature rise. There's enough data to do
this, only intelligence remains to perform.



that's pretty simple.. Assume that the tissue has the specific heat of
water. 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water about 1/4
degree C..

So, dump 2.55W/kg and you get about 0.0006 degree rise per second.
Hang on the phone for, say, 10 minutes (600 seconds) and you'll get a
temperature rise of a bit less than 1/2 degree C.

For comparison:
putting your head in sunlight results in an incident flux of about
1kW/square meter (peak). Assuming skin reflectivity of 0.36, the flux
being absorbed is about 640W/square meter. Let's assume that the energy
is absorbed in the first centimeter of your skin/bone, and that your
head is a circle about 10cm in radius (e.g. 314 square centimeters)..
That works out to about 20 watts total power being absorbed (compare to
the 0.25W RF in the example above). Again, let's say that the density
is 1g/cc, so the 20W is being dumped into 0.314 kg, or a SAR of 64 W/kg.

That's a rise of 0.015 degree/second, or 10 degrees in 10 minutes. In
reality, you won't see that much rise, because bloodflow carries some of
the heat away, and so does convection.


Thanx Jim.

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.

Let's approach this from first principles. The battery in the phone
is the only source of power. My own as an example has by the
manufacturers rating -
From Nokia for their 6263 model:
BL-5C 1020 mAh Capacity;
Talk time GSM up to 3 hours 20 min;
Stand-by GSM up to 11.25 days
Dump that capacity at a potential of 3.6V for the full talk time after
a fresh charge gives us 1.10 W PER HOUR.

Put 3 1/2W 51 Ohm resistors into a series circuit across the terminals
of a 12V DC Source, hold the resistor pack (less than 1cM²) against
the skin (I used my earlobe) and you have a literal tissue test under
the full power capacity of the battery as used continuously in a Nokia
6263 EXCEPT 100% of that power is lost to heat entirely - nothing
towards the display, nothing towards the RF, nothing towards the
speaker, nothing towards the microprocessor, etc. ALL of the heat is
confined with nothing towards the greater mass of tissues in the CNS.

What is the temperature rise? As measured using a fever thermometer
on the opposite side of the lobe: from 98.0°F to 99.4°F for 11.82V
@0.0778A after several minutes. Cut the blood flow by tightly griping
the lobe/pack/thermometer, and you can push this up another 6°F. As
Jim offers in his last comment, blood flow makes all the difference
(unless the creationists are worried about the tumor inducing effects
on corpses).

You have to first ask yourself, how to make the RF "grip" the tissue
to lower blood flow to raise temperature.

Next you have to ask how to make the RF ignore the mass of tissue. An
ear lobe is highly insulated from the heat absorbing bulk of the
skull. Ask any creationist why God chose large ears for animals that
have to shed heat that can't escape their fur covered bodies.

Next you have to ask how to make the Total conversion of battery power
into RF (lossless, perfect source) available for total, selective
absorption in the tissue.

All questions above are for the worriers to dwell upon and to conspire
to fulfill through creationist scienz (ironically "blame God" would be
their answer). First, 1020mAh is maximum available battery capacity.
Other ratings for a replacement battery range as low as around
500-750mAh. You may elevate the earlobe temperature by 1.4°F - but
not for long.

This particular Nokia model operates as high as 2.1GHz (14cM band) and
would require an extremely complex antenna (pointed directly into your
skull) to focus a beam in a 0.6cM³ cube (1/16th wavelength area within
less than a wavelength from the antenna). As the medicos would say:
the application of a directional antenna of these design requirements
for a general coverage service is contra-indicated.

Unless someone comes up with other figures (you will need the
creationist un-approved full four function calculator), it would seem
that nothing less than navel gazing can propel this thread further.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC