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

Richard Clark wrote:
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..


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.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:33:55 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. The athermal effects you describe such as "photon
energy" is a temperature so low that for all practical purposes could
be called absolute zero. No one has suggested frost-bite induction as
a source of CNS trauma. Besides, thermal effects (or athermal) are
related to phononic energy. Phonon-Photon interaction is the
principle you are implying, and besides myself, I doubt anyone could
follow that discussion. Aside from yourself, no one here showed any
capacity to either calculate a temperature rise, or test it at the
bench. This leaves little room for dialog on the matter - hence the
plunge into shamanism.

As for the E field, a 9 volt battery clipped between the ears hardly
suffices, and electroshock therapy goes a further and most obvious
distance. The arguments put forward by those who cry caution beg for
dramatic and catastrophic effects that are unnoticed - a contradiction
on the face of it: an anticonvulsant taser wound without a mark. The
lack of substantive evidence is begged off as being undetectable (the
same contradiction) or too mysterious to have been thought of (which
is a vanity statement). My allusion to Phonons would certainly fall
into this last category, but it is an old field of established study
that is rare, not unknown.

I've calibrated defibrillators and worked with peak energy delivery
systems from millijoules to kilojoules. A cell phone does not qualify
- not even acute and chronic is several orders of magnitude below
that. Every thing about the design conspires against it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. ...

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Simplier than even that, indeed, causing me to coin a new term to
describe such simplicity demonstrated by a simpleton!

"RICHARD CLARK SIMPLE!"

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
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.
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Really? You are kidding me, or else you don't know what you are talking
about, again, right? I mean, this is the best apple & oranges
comparison I have ever seen done by an IQ-challenged person!

Ghz cell phones, which cause a oscillations (indeed, complete
turn-abouts of the water molecules) ~one-billion times per/sec is a good
comparison to light? Who said that, the wizard of oz?

You idiot ... such oscillations cause actual changes in the cell walls
of food being cooked which can be observed ... google is your friend
wizard richard ... what was your title again? Excellent kiss-a$$ to the
real experts? "One who stands in the shadow of the big guys hoping
something will rub off?"

I should think, "Brown-Noser-Wannabe" pretty much sums up the title you
deserve, to everyones satisfaction--certainly to mine!

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote in
:


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.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:


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.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable? Now THAT is an argument
for the books and sure to defy any measure, qualification, or
solution. We may as well speculate that if you fall out of bed while
dreaming of plunging off a cliff, then you die when you strike the
floor.

This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.
Unfortunately, theologians don't really argue the Bible, they argue
religion which has some very rigorous protocols. I don't see any
protocols observed in the anecdote and is one reason why the Vatican
rarely admits new miracles.

If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue. If you
want the science behind the "perception." I would offer that it is
only remotely associated with Physics as initiator, and backfilled
with the Ape's reflex of drawing away from the fire (the scienz of
psychology that you anticipate above).

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:

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.
So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable.

Richard, I can stuff words into my mouth easily, I don't need help.

So, you experience it as a burn,

I experience it as a warming sensation

it isn't a burn

It's a warming sensation


and it is as serious as a burn,

I don't know if is a serious matter or not. I just report it. I'm not
the only one



This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.

C'mon, Richard. It follows then that cell phone use is proscribed by the
bible? At least according to the local Amish Bishops...

The last statement was nonsense, ant the quote it replied to wasn't much
above it.

I broke my ankle a few years back. It hurt like hell. Of course that's
anecdotal too. 8^)


If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

I have to carry a cell as part of my work. My average call is less than
a minute. I use it as little as possible.


If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue.

For a very narrow issue. One that is not related to what I am looking at.

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

From the sublime to....

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a productive
discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

In the loose, dataless environment of this debate, spontaneous
combustion from the use of a cell phone is now a reality supported by
dialog. That it is a fiction is overwhelmed by it inhabiting debate
about real worry.

Of course I introduced this tar-baby and it worked. There is no way
to back out of its grip without data now.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:45 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

Hi Mike,

Not likely? This "certitude" falls into the same category of
speculation that began this side thread. The rhetoric of "not likely"
automatically admits it into having the same small possibility of cell
phone tumor risk.

Admittedly, this is the first time that I have heard "not likely"
turned into certitude. I would at one time have said that wasn't very
likely.

One might begin to think that there is bit of a difference between
scientific discourse and English discourse. That is likely. Whereas I
highly doubt that it would happen, you use that doubt as a springboard
to add to the issue.

All without answering my question!

I doubt that using a cell phone wil cause me to crave lutefisk either.
So we add another possibility to the mix.

Ask a scientist if a singularity might show up and start spitting to
coffee cups S/he will probably say "not likely", when indeed it is
almost impossible, yet not eliminated. Something like almost infinitely
unlikely, depending on if we ascribe to the big crunch eventually
following the big bang, or even the big cigarette. But at least take a
shower. But I digress.....

It doesn't ipso fatso mean they accept that as a real possibility. But
the odds, as scientists look at them, make it difficult to state 100
percent yes or no. We see it all the time on TV cop shows when they go
to court. They even give odds on DNA evidence.

Now onto the concept of spontaneous human composting er combustion....


- 73 de Mike N3LI -