In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
Hint: YOU quoted a single value for less than ten years and single
value for above, maybe you do not understand that is a step, do I
have to draw a graph of your statement.

No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities,
like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently
like yours, certainly not in reality.

It was you who described a step function and I am disputing it precisely
because it can not be as you describe, why don't you admit that your
description is wrong instead of pretending that you are not, or are you
to stupid to understand that you are wrong.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus wrote:
In article , Cecil Moore writes

Prometheus wrote:
No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities,
like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently
like yours, certainly not in reality.

It was you who described a step function ...

Sorry, until you choose to tell the truth, I have
nothing further to say. What I described was a
ramp function starting at 10 years of use. It was
*you*, not I, who introduced the *step* function
concept.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Cecil Moore writes

Prometheus wrote:
No, you should get in touch with reality. Discontinuities,
like step functions, exist only in limited minds, apparently
like yours, certainly not in reality.
It was you who described a step function ...

Sorry, until you choose to tell the truth, I have
nothing further to say. What I described was a
ramp function starting at 10 years of use. It was
*you*, not I, who introduced the *step* function
concept.

It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the
article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered
twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", that you subsequently
present a hypothetical ramp function of your own creation and not
attributed to the original article does not change the quote from the
article in to a ramp function.

There is no point attempting deception by omitting my quotes from your
replies since everyone can read them and see that you are a liar.

Can you even recognise the truth, presumably not since you are not
telling it.

--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus wrote:
It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the
article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered
twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", ...

Again, It's more than obvious that I said absolutely nothing
about any "step" function. That you believe a tumor can appear
instantaneously as a step function is a mental problem for
which you probably should seek professional help.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Cecil Moore
writes
Prometheus wrote:
It was you in Message-ID: who quoted from the
article that "People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered
twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users", ...

Again, It's more than obvious that I said absolutely nothing
about any "step" function. That you believe a tumor can appear
instantaneously as a step function is a mental problem for
which you probably should seek professional help.

If you believe stating "No tumors were associated with less than 10
years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone
use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" as you have
does not describe a step at ten years then you are stupid. I do not
believe it can be a step function as you proposed.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus wrote:
If you believe stating "No tumors were associated with less than 10
years of cellphone use" and "People with more than 10 years of cellphone
use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users" as you have
does not describe a step at ten years then you are stupid.

"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of cellphone use."
Translation for feeble-minded people: The graph of brain tumors was
the same for users and non-users for the first ten years of use.

"People with more than 10 years of cellphone use suffered twice as
many tumors as non-cellphone users." Translation for feeble-minded
people: The graph of brain tumors for users and non-users started
to diverge after ten years with twice as many tumors in the user
group as there were in the non-user group.

Statement of fact for feeble-minded people: The above two graphs
were single-valued functions, i.e. no vertical steps existed.

Must be really hard for you to type with that straightjacket on.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find
that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst
for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the
inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd
membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would
be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that
is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let
childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary
and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle",
specifically used to limit or halt future crisis.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF


The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing
that affects health.

The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to
heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello.

I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning
up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies
ability to either use or produce "T" cells.

Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and
there isn't likely to be enough)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:55:20 -0500, default
wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 02:45:43 -0800, "G1LVN" wrote:

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find
that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst
for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the
inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd
membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would
be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that
is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let
childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary
and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle",
specifically used to limit or halt future crisis.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF


The "standards" for RF safety assume that heating is the only thing
that affects health.


Sunlight is Electromagnetic radiation and hardly anybody seems to
mention this when talking about cell phone sand RF safety. Sunlight
also causes heating effects and lots of it. (I know I enjoy it) 1000W
per square metre of radiation hitting the earth on a nice day. That's
a bit more than a cell phone emits I believe AND it contains the
ionizing type of radiation too which is known to cause cancer of
course.

I believe that if there is something to this cell phone thing that it
may be from the electric part of the near field.

I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

my 2 cents.

R.F.




The standard as tested and applied will prevent problems due to
heating - and make the world a safer place for Jello.

I seem to remember at least one case of a researcher in the US turning
up some evidence that low frequency magnetic fields inhibit a bodies
ability to either use or produce "T" cells.

Personally, I don't think there is enough research into it. (and
there isn't likely to be enough)

R. F. Burns wrote:
I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link
was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until
brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
R. F. Burns wrote:
I'm certainly not too worried because they seem to have too hard of a
time proving anything. Unlike smoking and lung cancer anyway.

How many years was it from the first smoke until the lung cancer link
was suspected? How many years was it from the first cellphone until
brain tumors were suspected? It is unlike only in the amount of time.

It is also 'unlike' in that the link between smoking and lung cancer is
a 100% proven fact (well known since the 1950s) whereas the link between
cellphones and brain tumours is at best tenuous.

Surprisingly, people are suing tobacco companies on the grounds that
'they didn't know' that smoking was bad for you. I suspect that these
are the same type of people who want to ban phone masts, but not the
phones themselves, of course, ie pretty thick!

Ian.
--