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 -

Michael Coslo wrote:

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


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

.... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

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


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

... was lazy today; just shaved and looked in the mirror. I do believe
I am more handsome today than yesterday! It is incredible, certainly
NOT my imagination.

So, I stood before and asked the wife if she noticed the drastic
improvement--she did not. But then, she is jealous that way. Since the
multitude of cosmetic products she has applied have only have a minimal
effect, the fact she is green with jealousy limits her ability to truly
appreciate my good fortune--and sudden increase in handsomeness!

I do attribute it to using the cell phone yesterday, perhaps I will have
to re-thing things! 8-)

Regards,
JS

.... well, I certainly going to have to re-check my spelling and words in
my posts. GRIN

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:15:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

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.

See how this grows? We are now engaged in debating what is "not
likely," but of course that is how it started out anyway. What is
embraced as a real risk is equally dismissed by the same logic. Anyone
who worries about CNS tumors induced by cell phones, must allow that
they could suffer spontaneous combustion from the same source, same
risk. Risk, after all, is not a thing, it is a number. Without data,
employing risk as rhetoric automatically elevates everything that was
once inconsequential to life threatening.

However, as to your literal statement above, I feel it is "very
likely" that you HAVE heard "not likely" turned into a certitude:
"...due to the nature of Improbability calculations,
that which is Infinitely Improbable is actually very
likely to happen almost immediately..."

And I feel it is "very likely" you can name the author.

QED

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:15:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

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.

See how this grows?

WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that direction
quite vigoously.



However, as to your literal statement above, I feel it is "very
likely" that you HAVE heard "not likely" turned into a certitude:
"...due to the nature of Improbability calculations,
that which is Infinitely Improbable is actually very
likely to happen almost immediately..."

And I feel it is "very likely" you can name the author.


I would have to say that it is Douglas Adams?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:


WEll yes. It's highly likey you're pushing it along in that
direction quite vigoously.


sigh..... "vigorously too!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What is really going to "cook your noodle" is when you realize this is
how cigarette smoking was determined to actually be good for you.
Remember the old ads with doctors, of actors who looked like doctors,
telling how studies had actually determined smoking improved/enhanced
your health?

Now class, can you find any examples of this/these "disinformation
methods" still in use today? Any suspected examples?

Regards,
JS