Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing mi

[Brendon]

Dave wrote:

Their DECT and WDECT phones
do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in
range,
etc.

Relevant point: The base unit of DECT phones continuously transmit a
beacon signal. The interval varies depending on whether it's DECT or
WDECT from memory.

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote

PeterD wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote
imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
PeterD wrote

Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
responsible for us!

you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
but close range EM radiation?

If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
and non-ionizing radiation... <g

I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
omnidirectionally.)

What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?

Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic inches.

Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating
effects do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly
insulated, so there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be
true. In fact, the head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at
these rates), so maybe just take that 15 cubic inches of water and
put it on a table.

In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
from that one watt of power.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:51:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote
imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
PeterD wrote

Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
responsible for us!

you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
but close range EM radiation?

If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
and non-ionizing radiation... <g

I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
omnidirectionally.)

What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?

Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

---
So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?


--
JF

 

[PeterD]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

PeterD wrote:



Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?


I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
'physically' impossible?

Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

 

[Nick]

"Jim P Sharma" <jps@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45ca6534$0$1155$61c65585@un-2park-reader->> You know, you really ought
to read a book, Mr. Speed. ;o)

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****** child.

And yet you, apparently, can't.

Have to say, I agree with Jim and PeterD - you are, quite obviously, a 12
year old suffering from a lack of a decent upbringing. I think I'll
killfilter you as well.

I was going to say that you could always post something intelligent and
informative but then again - you can't, can you?

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:51:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote
imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
PeterD wrote

Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
responsible for us!

you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
but close range EM radiation?

If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to
ionizing and non-ionizing radiation... <g

I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with
the phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There
is a simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more
energy out than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his
head' to the extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort
and a three day headache) would require many watts of power,
perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50% would be lost
since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)

What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating
effect that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if
it's 'physically' impossible?

Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Nick <nick@you.com>
wrote just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:27:42 -0500, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

PeterD wrote:



Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?


I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
'physically' impossible?


Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

---
Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the
water.

For example, let's assume that the phone is putting out an average
power of 3 watts, that it's resting against someone's ear, and that
the head the ear is attached to is an ellipsoid with equatorial
radii of 3.5" and a polar radius of 5.5".

If we further assume that the flesh affected by the RF signal covers
half the head, that it's 1/8" thick and that it's axis is normal to
the equator, then its volume will be:


V = V1 - V2, where:


4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.5" * 3.5" * 5.5"
V1 = -------------- = ---------------------------- ~ 141"^3,
6 6



4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.25" * 3.25" * 5.25"
V2 = -------------- = ------------------------------- ~ 116"^3,
6 6


so,


V = V1 - V2 = 141"^3 - 116"^3 = 25 cubic inches


Now, since that flesh is going to be 90% water, let's err on the
conservative side (more water means it takes more power to heat it
to a given temperatrure in a given time) and say it's _all_ water.

Further, since the phone's antenna puts out an omnidirectional
radiation pattern, let's say that half the power leaving the phone
will be absorbed by the 25 cubic inches of water. It won't be,
(look at the geometry) but again, we err on the side of caution.

Half of the phone's output power is 1.5 watts, which is about 5 BTU.

Salt water weighs about 64 pounds per cubic foot, and a cubic foot
is 1728 cubic inches, so our 25 cubic inches weighs:


25"^3
F = --------- * 64lb = 0.925lb
1728"^3


Therefore, since 1 BTU is the amount of power required to raise the
temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit in one hour, 5
BTUs will raise the temperature of 25 cubic inches of water 1F in 12
minutes, or about 0.1F per minute. Some people might be able to
detect that rate of rise in their skin temperature over ambient, and
remember that the power density won't be the same throughout the 25
cubic inches, so the temperature rise in the skin closest to the
antenna will be considerably greater than 0.1F per minute.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

---
While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
_some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
winds.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, both
sides of the argument are suspect.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.

--
JF

 

[Clockmeister]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d4lps2525km3kmr2pkbf3aee1nnvdb6slf@4ax.com...

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health
effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

---
While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
_some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
winds.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, both
sides of the argument are suspect.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.

Indeed.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

No could about it, thats the whole point of double
blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

Not a shred of evidence that it is.

and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.

Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use those
frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time now and time has told
that there isnt a shred of rigorous scientific evidence that there are ANY health
effects whatever at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

 

[Rod Speed]

Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d4lps2525km3kmr2pkbf3aee1nnvdb6slf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health
effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

---
While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
_some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
winds.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, both
sides of the argument are suspect.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.


Indeed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to crash cars.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:27:42 -0500, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

PeterD wrote:



Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?


I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
'physically' impossible?


Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the water.

Nope, the power levels used by DECT phones are MUCH too low for that.

For example, let's assume that the phone
is putting out an average power of 3 watts,

Stupid assumption, its NOTHING like that.

Reams of pointless wanking with irrelevant numbers flushed where it belongs.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:534v6bF1r69gsU2@mid.individual.net...

Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d4lps2525km3kmr2pkbf3aee1nnvdb6slf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health
effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

---
While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
_some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
winds.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, both
sides of the argument are suspect.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.


Indeed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to
crash cars.

Did you say something?

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:17:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:27:42 -0500, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

PeterD wrote:



Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?


I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
'physically' impossible?


Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the water.

Nope, the power levels used by DECT phones are MUCH too low for that.

---
Nonsense. _Any_ power dissipated in an RF absorber will result in a
temperature rise of the absorber.
---

For example, let's assume that the phone
is putting out an average power of 3 watts,

Stupid assumption, its NOTHING like that.

---
OK, then, what power levels _do_ they work at?
---

Reams of pointless wanking with irrelevant numbers flushed where it belongs.

---
You obviously missed the point, don't understand the simple physics
involved, and are starting to become insulting in order to try to
change the direction of the discussion in an attempt to hide your
ignorance and keep from having to admit that you were wrong.

Pity.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:14:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

No could about it, thats the whole point of double
blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

---
Not necessarily. The point is that a double blind test set up to
test the RF sensitivity of many people could easily make the
sensitivity of a single individual seem like an aberration in the
test or just the result of statistics.
---

I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

---
I never said you explicitly said it, but your attitude seems to be
one of "If it hasn't been proven to be all bad then it must be all
good."
---

That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

---
Yes, but you're comparing high-power RF with low-power RF; apples
and oranges, as it were.
---

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

---
Now, now... If you want to get insulting, two can play that game.

Do you have links to any long-term studies that have been done WRT
any negative aspects of cellphone use?
---

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

---
Sure I do. It seems to be that if you don't consider a proposition
valid (or more to the point, if you don't understand it) then you
damn it.
---

and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

Not a shred of evidence that it is.

---
That doesn't mean that it isn't. After all, the double-blind tests
to which you keep referring haven't been done, so all the evidence
isn't in yet, is it?
---

and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.

Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use those
frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time now and time has told
that there isnt a shred of rigorous scientific evidence that there are ANY health
effects whatever at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

---
Again, without rigorous _scientific_ testing at the frequencies and
power levels involved over an extended period of time all of your
"evidence" is just anecdotal. Now, it may well be true that
cellphone use poses no health risk at all, but without adequate
testing, over an extended period of time, how would one know?


--
JF

 

[Rod Speed]

Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:534v6bF1r69gsU2@mid.individual.net...
Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d4lps2525km3kmr2pkbf3aee1nnvdb6slf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific
evidence to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The
Truth" even though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to
support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it
needs rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of
any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

---
While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
_some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
winds.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary,
both sides of the argument are suspect.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.


Indeed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever
get to crash cars.

Did you say something?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to crash cars.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones,
it needs rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of
any health effect. PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial
to do a proper double blind trial on the stuff like headaches and
lightheadedness etc.

While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

No could about it, thats the whole point of double
blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

Not necessarily.

Fraid so.

The point is that a double blind test set up to test
the RF sensitivity of many people could easily make
the sensitivity of a single individual seem like an
aberration in the test or just the result of statistics.

A double blind trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS TO
BE GETTING AN REAL EFFECT proves without a shadow of
doubt whether its a real or imagined effect WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

And its completely trivial to design the trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL
to decide whether the result is statistically significant or not.

I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

I never said you explicitly said it,

I didnt even imply anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

but your attitude seems to be one of "If it hasn't
been proven to be all bad then it must be all good."

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

Yes, but you're comparing high-power RF with low-power RF;

Nope. When that effect with high power radars was discovered,
the epidemiology with lower power RF was carefully scrutenised
and there isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects with those
who use normal low power RF transmitters.

Similar epidemiology has been done with nuclear radiation once
it became clear that high levels does indeed produce significant
health effects, and it looks rather like low level effects not only
dont produce health effects, they actually produce health benefits.
And that appears to be because they encourage the system to
deal with genetic damage, primes the immune system in effect.

apples and oranges, as it were.

Wrong, as always.

In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

Now, now... If you want to get insulting, two can play that game.

You can play any game you like, you have always been
and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Do you have links to any long-term studies that have
been done WRT any negative aspects of cellphone use?

Find them yourself using medline.

The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

Sure I do.

No you dont.

It seems to be that if you don't consider a proposition valid
(or more to the point, if you don't understand it) then you damn it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
in fact have a clue about what my position actually is.

And your puerile jab in brackets fools no one.

and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

Not a shred of evidence that it is.

That doesn't mean that it isn't. After all, the double-blind
tests to which you keep referring haven't been done,

Corse they have.

Its very unlikely indeed that that fruit loop gutless wonder
is the only individual in the entire world that actually gets an
effect that can be sustantiated in a proper double blind trial.

so all the evidence isn't in yet, is it?

It never is in that sense that every single individual
in the entire world is tested to see if they can detect
the effect of low level RF in a double blind trial.

Only a fool would suggest that that means a damned thing.

and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

As I see it, only time will tell.

Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use
those frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time
now and time has told that there isnt a shred of rigorous
scientific evidence that there are ANY health effects whatever
at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

Again, without rigorous _scientific_ testing at the frequencies
and power levels involved over an extended period of time

Thats been done by all those individuals using those, fool.

all of your "evidence" is just anecdotal.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about what epidemeology is about.

Now, it may well be true that cellphone use poses no health risk at all, but without
adequate testing, over an extended period of time, how would one know?

Pity about the epidemeology.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
PeterD wrote

Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

I meant actually what explanation do you have for
the heating effect that I and others experience when
using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?

Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only
a statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the water.

Nope, the power levels used by DECT phones are MUCH too low for that.

Nonsense.

We'll see...

_Any_ power dissipated in an RF absorber will
result in a temperature rise of the absorber.

Pity that that is swamped by much bigger effects like the pulse
when its something as big as the head with those power levels.

For example, let's assume that the phone
is putting out an average power of 3 watts,

Stupid assumption, its NOTHING like that.

OK, then, what power levels _do_ they work at?

Thats already been stated in the thread with DECT phones.

Reams of pointless wanking with irrelevant numbers flushed where it belongs.

You obviously missed the point,

No I didnt.

don't understand the simple physics involved,

In your dreams. I understood them before you were even born thanks.

and are starting to become insulting in order to try to change
the direction of the discussion in an attempt to hide your
ignorance and keep from having to admit that you were wrong.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Pity.

Pathetic, actually.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:536kubF1r4canU1@mid.individual.net...

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones,
it needs rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of
any health effect. PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial
to do a proper double blind trial on the stuff like headaches and
lightheadedness etc.

While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear
up
whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

No could about it, thats the whole point of double
blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

Not necessarily.

Fraid so.

The point is that a double blind test set up to test
the RF sensitivity of many people could easily make
the sensitivity of a single individual seem like an
aberration in the test or just the result of statistics.

A double blind trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS TO
BE GETTING AN REAL EFFECT proves without a shadow of
doubt whether its a real or imagined effect WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

And its completely trivial to design the trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL
to decide whether the result is statistically significant or not.

Yes, but you have decided the outcomes of the trials before such trials have
been conducted, unless you can ofcourse cite references to those trials and
their outcomes that support your assertions.