Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing mi

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless car crashing fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote just the puerile
shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5375jtF1r4biqU1@mid.individual.net...

Some gutless car crashing fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote just the puerile
shit thats all it can ever manage.

So you have conceded... good.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:32:25 +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
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.

---
Oh, is _that_ what you meant... Next time it would behoove you to
phrase your claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted. Or
is English not your first language? BTW, it's "A REAL EFFECT" not
"AN REAL EFFECT."
---

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.

---
Not at all. If you didn't mean for your statement to imply what it
did, then perhaps you should consider attending a course in English
remedial writing.
---

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.

---
I've noticed you like to say that a lot, as if you're some kind of
authority, and yet you never cite references which lend credence to
your claims. Much as if you were the be-all and end-all of what you
want to be considered an authority over.

Is there a reason for that?
---

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.

---
More blather, but paint-by-numbers seems to be your stock in trade.

That is, if you don't have an answer, you just fire off one of your
canned epithets in order to try to avoid the issue by creating a
momentary diversion.

Truly an amateur tactic, particularly when the epithets are banal,
repetitious, and dated, LOL!
---

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.

---
Geez, it seems like if knew as much about it as you say you do,
you'd be anxious to prove me wrong with a simple link which
substantiates your rather shaky position so far. Oh well...
---

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.

---
Yes, I do.

How about this:

You're a rather self-absorbed narcissist who can't bear to think
that he's just ordinary and who will go to great lengths to convince
himself that he isn't.

Whether he can fool anyone else into falling for his line isn't as
important as fooling himself, in that that way he can always fall
back on his delusions and convince himself that he is right and
everyone else is wrong, no matter what proof they offer.
---

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.

---
Hmmm...

Isn't that remarkably similar to the:

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

You posted _twice_ to Clockmeister?

I think I also saw it somewhere else with your name attached to it,
so it seems you've learned to paint that picture over and over and
over and over again with slightly different colors, but from the
same page in the coloring book.
---

And your puerile jab in brackets fools no one.

---
Parentheses, actually, and it's not intended to, since it's true.

Puerile it had to be in order to allow you to understand it. Seems
like it worked!
---

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.

---
"Corse"?

Got some links?
---

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.

---
Then there'll be more than one who can, so why try to poison the
results by identifying him and calling him a fruit loop gutless
wonder in order to try to exclude him from the sample? Because you
want to do what you can to try make your position unassailable by
discreting him.

A true double blind trial would be independent of your bias, but it
seems you want those whom you disagree with to vanish in order to
make the results favor your bent. So, in the end, you're a coward
who's unwilling to be judged by a jury you haven't tampered with.
---

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.

---
Geez, and here you are, explaining what you think that means...
---

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

---
What frequencies and for how long?
---

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.

---
Geez, isn't that remarkably similar to your:

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

Nothing substansive or pithy, just the ruminations of an old cow.
---

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.

---
LOL, what would you know about that?

Even if you were in the field your duties would more than likely be
nothing more than issuing protective clothing to your betters.

Push come to shove, when you finally realize that you're shit,
what're you gonna do?



--
JF

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless car crashing fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote just the puerile
shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[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
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.

Oh, is _that_ what you meant...

That is what I originally said to the fruit loop, that until he can
establish with a proper double blind trial, that he can in fact
actually detect whether the DECT phone is transmitting,
all we have is his assertion that he can, and its MUCH more
likely that he's actually imagining any effect he claims to get.

Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

In http://groups.google.com/group/aus.comms.mobile/msg/ffb8835fccbb62ad
I actually said

I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

Even someone as stupid as you should have been able to read and comprehend that if
someone was actually stupid enough to lent you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Or is English not your first language?

Even someone as stupid as you should have been able to read and
comprehend a sentance thats as simple as that if someone was
actually stupid enough to lent you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

BTW, it's "A REAL EFFECT" not "AN REAL EFFECT."

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

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.

Not at all.

Corse you do.

If you didn't mean for your statement to imply what it did, then perhaps
you should consider attending a course in English remedial writing.

No perhaps about you needing bullshitting 101 in spades.

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.

I've noticed you like to say that a lot, as if you're some kind of authority,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

and yet you never cite references which lend credence to your claims.

Another pig ignorant bare faced lie.

Much as if you were the be-all and end-all of
what you want to be considered an authority over.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Is there a reason for that?

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

And it isnt even possible to post a cite for the statement that
'its actually a case of no evidence of any affect on health what so ever'
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

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.

More blather, but paint-by-numbers seems to be your stock in trade.

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

That is, if you don't have an answer, you just fire
off one of your canned epithets in order to try to
avoid the issue by creating a momentary diversion.

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

Truly an amateur tactic, particularly when the
epithets are banal, repetitious, and dated, LOL!

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

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.

Geez, it seems like if knew as much about it as you say
you do, you'd be anxious to prove me wrong with a simple
link which substantiates your rather shaky position so far.

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

Oh well...

Indeed.

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.

Yes, I do.

No you dont.

How about this:

You're a rather self-absorbed narcissist who can't
bear to think that he's just ordinary and who will go
to great lengths to convince himself that he isn't.

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

And that wouldnt be you resorting to insults when its clear
that you cant actually sustain that stupid claim that I have
ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like
what my position actually is on erring on the side of caution ?

Whether he can fool anyone else into falling for his line isn't as
important as fooling himself, in that that way he can always fall
back on his delusions and convince himself that he is right and
everyone else is wrong, no matter what proof they offer.

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

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.

Hmmm...

Isn't that remarkably similar to the:

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

You posted _twice_ to Clockmeister?

Fools like you two dont qualify for anything better, fuckwit.

I think I also saw it somewhere else with your name attached
to it, so it seems you've learned to paint that picture over and
over and over and over again with slightly different colors,
but from the same page in the coloring book.

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

And your puerile jab in brackets fools no one.

Parentheses, actually,

Wrong again.

and it's not intended to, since it's true.

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

Puerile it had to be in order to allow you to understand it.
Seems like it worked!

Pathetic, really. Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

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.

"Corse"?

You get to like that or lump it, fuckwit.

Got some links?

Got anything other than pathetic excuse for bullshit and puerile shit ?

Corse you havent.

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.

Then there'll be more than one who can, so why try to poison the results

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

by identifying him and calling him a fruit loop gutless
wonder in order to try to exclude him from the sample?

Never ever did anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

I in fact told him that that is the only way to prove if he's getting a real or imaginary effect.

Because you want to do what you can to try make
your position unassailable by discreting him.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

A true double blind trial would be independent of your bias,

Must be one of those rocket scientist pathetic excuses for bullshit artists.

but it seems you want those whom you disagree with
to vanish in order to make the results favor your bent.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

So, in the end, you're a coward who's unwilling
to be judged by a jury you haven't tampered with.

There is no jury with a double blind trial, fuckwit.

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.

Geez, and here you are, explaining what you think that means...

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

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

What frequencies and for how long?

Chase that up for yourself.

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.

Geez, isn't that remarkably similar to your:

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

You get to like that or lump it.

Nothing substansive or pithy,

Your puerile shit in spades.

just the ruminations of an old cow.

Corse you never ever resort to insults when you've got done
like a fucking dinner, time after time after time, do you fuckwit ?

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.

LOL, what would you know about that?

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

Even if you were in the field your duties would more than likely
be nothing more than issuing protective clothing to your betters.

Push come to shove, when you finally realize that you're shit,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

what're you gonna do?

Take a dump on you, just like everyone else does with your mindless shit.

 

[lynx]

John Fields wrote:

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.

Thanks for your input. This from
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rfstand/rf_std_fct.pdf ...

"The Standard incorporates a 'precautionary approach' which requires
owners of RF sources to minimise unnecessary exposure of the public to
RF fields. Australian regulators and codes of practice will decide how
this statement is applied."

and...

"Significant safety factors are incorporated into the exposure limits-
that is, the limits are set well below the level at which all known
adverse health effects occur."

Note.. "KNOWN adverse health effects". The ARPANSA at least doesn't have
doubts about health risks from RF exposure.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au

As I see it, only time will tell.

--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished!'

 

[lynx]

John Fields wrote:

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

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote


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.

Rod will play ad infinitum. It seems to be his main interest in life.

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

there's this:
http://news.com.com/Study+links+cell+phones,+tumors/2100-1039_3-5409531.html

and ..

"Overall nine epidemiological studies have been published, four from the
United States, two from Sweden, and one each from Denmark, Finland, and
Germany. Seven studies were mainly on brain tumors, with one
investigating in addition to brain tumors salivary gland cancer and
another cancer of the hematopoietic and lymphatic tissues, and one
examining intraocular melanoma. All studies have some methodological
deficiencies: (1) too short duration of mobile phone use to be helpful
in risk assessment, (2) exposure was not rigorously determined, and (3)
there is a possibility of recall and response error in some studies.
Nevertheless, all studies approaching reasonable latencies found an
increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use. Estimates of
relative risk in these studies vary between 1.3 and 4.6 with highest
overall risk for acoustic neuroma (3.5) and uveal melanoma (4.2), and
there is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and
duration of mobile phone use."

from: http://tinyurl.com/26t5ff Note that.. "ALL studies .. found an
increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use", and... "there
is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and
duration of mobile phone use"

---
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?

There's certainly a lot of talk on the subject. Google gives over nine
million links! - http://tinyurl.com/38fp4h

So to use an old cliché .. where there's smoke there's fire. And the
common view, as I understand it, is that mobiles have been in use for
too short a period of time for studies producing definitive results to
have been done.


--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Dinner will be ready when the smoke alarm goes off!'

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote


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.


Rod will play ad infinitum. It seems to be his main interest in life.

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


there's this:
http://news.com.com/Study+links+cell+phones,+tumors/2100-1039_3-5409531.html

and ..

"Overall nine epidemiological studies have been published, four from
the United States, two from Sweden, and one each from Denmark,
Finland, and Germany. Seven studies were mainly on brain tumors, with
one investigating in addition to brain tumors salivary gland cancer
and another cancer of the hematopoietic and lymphatic tissues, and one
examining intraocular melanoma. All studies have some methodological
deficiencies: (1) too short duration of mobile phone use to be helpful
in risk assessment, (2) exposure was not rigorously determined, and
(3) there is a possibility of recall and response error in some
studies. Nevertheless, all studies approaching reasonable latencies
found an increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use.
Estimates of relative risk in these studies vary between 1.3 and 4.6
with highest overall risk for acoustic neuroma (3.5) and uveal
melanoma (4.2), and there is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with
increasing latency and duration of mobile phone use."

from: http://tinyurl.com/26t5ff Note that.. "ALL studies .. found an
increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use", and... "there
is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and
duration of mobile phone use"


---
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?

There's certainly a lot of talk on the subject. Google gives over nine million links! -
http://tinyurl.com/38fp4h

So to use an old cliché .. where there's smoke there's fire.

So there must be werewolves, vampires, unicorns, leprechauns,
angels, martians, aliens, dragons etc etc etc eh ? Yeah, right.

And the common view, as I understand it, is that mobiles have been in use for too short a period
of time for studies producing definitive results to have been done.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about
anything at all, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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.


Thanks for your input. This from
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rfstand/rf_std_fct.pdf ...

"The Standard incorporates a 'precautionary approach' which requires
owners of RF sources to minimise unnecessary exposure of the public to
RF fields. Australian regulators and codes of practice will decide how
this statement is applied."

and...

"Significant safety factors are incorporated into the exposure limits-
that is, the limits are set well below the level at which all known
adverse health effects occur."

Note.. "KNOWN adverse health effects". The ARPANSA at least doesn't have doubts about health risks
from RF exposure.

No one does with cataracts with radar, fuckwit child.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au

As I see it, only time will tell.

 

[lynx]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:45cc1659$0$9770$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ca461f$0$16371$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.

Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the
dangers are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient proof one
way or the other.


**Certainly. I am ready to listen to anyone who has performed a proper
placebo trial with DECT 'phones which show them to be harmful to humans. I
have yet to see any such study.

Google gives over 90,000 hits: http://tinyurl.com/yr485r so feel free
to check them out.

Of interest by way of general info:
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/00674/index.html?lang=en

and this..

"All DECT base units that have been measured continuously emit
microwaves 24 hours a day every day! Unplug it and send it for
recycling! Wire some extra telephone sockets into the house (and even up
the garden into shed or garage) and buy a few more wired phones (you can
get some for less than 10 pounds each. Cordless phones are bad news. The
latest Lennart Hardell paper on mobile phone use and brain tumours (x3
for 5 years use and x 3 to 4 for 10 years use) also show a dose response
increased brain cancer risk for long-term (over 5 years) regular
cordless phone use. Everyone really should minimise their exposure to
these things.

Basically you have installed your own GSM base station right inside your
own house! Powerwatch has long advised people not to use cordless phones
unless very occasionally up the garden or in the bath etc and always to
keep the base-unit and remote extra handsets away from usual sitting and
sleeping areas.

The cordless phone (+ extra handsets if you have any) will dominate the
microwave fields in the house. DECT cordless phones work at a fixed
power, whereas real mobiles turn their power down to the lowest level
possible. When you are near a base station this can be much lower than a
DECT cordless!

DECT uses a FIXED power data pulses of 0.25W ALL OF THE TIME. It has a
1:24 duty-cycle and so the average power is only 0.01W - but the pulses
are still 0.25W for 417us every 10ms - and I believe that we are NOT
talking about SAR (i.e. heating effects) but about signalling and
informational effects - the regular tapping disrupts intercellular
signalling processes.

GSM mobiles use the following (peak pulse) power steps: 2, 1.25, 0.8,
0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.125, 0.08, 0.05, 0.03, 0.02, 0.0125, 0.008

so for most of its operating power levels it is operating below the
signal level of the DECT cordless phones. Interesting, eh? "

quoted from:
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=60

And anyone wanting to follow this discussion thread , can do so here:

http://www10.pcbcafe.com/ng/article.php?id=22280&group=alt.electronics#22280


It seems to me that anyone who believes that mobiles and cordless phones
are completely harmless to human health, is ignoring what is being
suggested by what evidence there is on the matter.


--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why should I grow up? This is more fun!'

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:45cc1659$0$9770$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ca461f$0$16371$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.

Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the
dangers are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient
proof one way or the other.


**Certainly. I am ready to listen to anyone who has performed a
proper placebo trial with DECT 'phones which show them to be harmful
to humans. I have yet to see any such study.

Google gives over 90,000 hits: http://tinyurl.com/yr485r

FAR more for grovelling to some damned god or other, fuckwit child.

so feel free to check them out.

Feel free to go and fuck yourself.

Of interest by way of general info:
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/00674/index.html?lang=en

Wota stunningly impeccible site, fuckwit child.

and this..

"All DECT base units that have been measured continuously emit microwaves 24 hours a day every
day!

Pig ignorant drivel, as always with your mindless shit.

Unplug it and send it for recycling!

Bullet in the back of the neck for those fuckwits would make a hell of a lot more sense.

Wire some extra telephone sockets into the house (and even
up the garden into shed or garage) and buy a few more wired phones (you can get some for less than
10 pounds each.

Cordless phones are bad news.

Thats it then, with such compelling scientific evidence, who are we to argue ?

<reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

Basically you have installed your own GSM base station right inside your own house!

Pig ignorant lie. Hasnt got a fucking clue about the different power levels involved.

<reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:37:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Oh, is _that_ what you meant...

That is what I originally said to the fruit loop, that until he can
establish with a proper double blind trial, that he can in fact
actually detect whether the DECT phone is transmitting,
all we have is his assertion that he can, and its MUCH more
likely that he's actually imagining any effect he claims to get.

---
Why? Because _you_ think so?

I've at least demonstrated that temperature rise of the skin _has_
to happen in the presence of RF, while all you do is whine
incessantly about the need for double-blind tests to disprove your
half-baked beliefs. Take a look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/24/ray.gun.ap/index.html
---

Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

In http://groups.google.com/group/aus.comms.mobile/msg/ffb8835fccbb62ad
I actually said

I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

---
If you wanted someone to take that bet you'd have to put up
something more substantial than that shack you live in.

And where is it you live, Australia? I thought it was only
criminals the Brits shipped there, but It seems some of the
mentally deficient (your great grandparents, perhaps?) got shipped
over there as well.

Case in point, following is the bulk of your replies to my last
post:
---

Even someone as stupid as you should have been able to read and comprehend that if
someone was actually stupid enough to lent you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

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

No perhaps about you needing bullshitting 101 in spades.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fools like you two dont qualify for anything better, fuckwit.

Wrong again.

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

Pathetic, really. Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

You get to like that or lump it, fuckwit.

Corse you havent.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Never ever did anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

Must be one of those rocket scientist pathetic excuses for bullshit artists.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

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

Chase that up for yourself.

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

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

---
LOL, seems like I hooked a minnow!

If you can't be more entertaining I'll have to cut the line and let
you go.



--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:53:41 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote


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.


Rod will play ad infinitum. It seems to be his main interest in life.

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


there's this:
http://news.com.com/Study+links+cell+phones,+tumors/2100-1039_3-5409531.html

and ..

"Overall nine epidemiological studies have been published, four from the
United States, two from Sweden, and one each from Denmark, Finland, and
Germany. Seven studies were mainly on brain tumors, with one
investigating in addition to brain tumors salivary gland cancer and
another cancer of the hematopoietic and lymphatic tissues, and one
examining intraocular melanoma. All studies have some methodological
deficiencies: (1) too short duration of mobile phone use to be helpful
in risk assessment, (2) exposure was not rigorously determined, and (3)
there is a possibility of recall and response error in some studies.
Nevertheless, all studies approaching reasonable latencies found an
increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use. Estimates of
relative risk in these studies vary between 1.3 and 4.6 with highest
overall risk for acoustic neuroma (3.5) and uveal melanoma (4.2), and
there is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and
duration of mobile phone use."

from: http://tinyurl.com/26t5ff Note that.. "ALL studies .. found an
increased cancer risk associated with mobile phone use", and... "there
is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and
duration of mobile phone use"


---
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?




There's certainly a lot of talk on the subject. Google gives over nine
million links! - http://tinyurl.com/38fp4h

So to use an old cliché .. where there's smoke there's fire. And the
common view, as I understand it, is that mobiles have been in use for
too short a period of time for studies producing definitive results to
have been done.

---
Yes. Thanks for the links.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:46:42 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

....

reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs

If it's shit, then I think it should be flushed into that cesspool
you call your mouth.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:37:19 +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
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.

---
Dumbass, the power in the pulse will be absorbed as well.

What is it you don't understand about "average"?
---

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.

---
Then your problem must be the relentless onset of Alzheimer's.

BTW, "physics" is singular.


--
JF

 

[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

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.

Oh, is _that_ what you meant...

That is what I originally said to the fruit loop, that until he can
establish with a proper double blind trial, that he can in fact
actually detect whether the DECT phone is transmitting,
all we have is his assertion that he can, and its MUCH more
likely that he's actually imagining any effect he claims to get.

Why? Because _you_ think so?

Nope, because the power levels involved are so low that its very
unlikely indeed that he can actually detect them, let alone have them
cause headaches and 'lightheadedness' and heart palpitations etc.

I've at least demonstrated that temperature rise
of the skin _has_ to happen in the presence of RF,

Like hell you have in a proper double blind trial with a DECT phone.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/24/ray.gun.ap/index.html

Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the RF produced BY A
DECT PHONE is even detectable by anyone in a proper double blind trial.

Its absolutely no news to anyone that if you are stupid enough
to put your head into a microwave oven, bypass the door lock,
and zap your head for a while, you will certainly notice an affect.

Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

In
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.comms.mobile/msg/ffb8835fccbb62ad
I actually said

I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[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
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.

Dumbass,

Fuckwit cretin,

the power in the pulse will be absorbed as well.

That was the pulse in the arterys, not the RF, fuckwit cretin.


<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:37:53 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
I've at least demonstrated that temperature rise
of the skin _has_ to happen in the presence of RF,

Like hell you have in a proper double blind trial with a DECT phone.

---
You just don't get it, do you, you poor, dumb bastard?

The post I made about temperature rise has nothing to do with a
double blind test, and only involves a temperature rise which is
caused by absorption of RF. No personalities, no bullshit, just
physics.
---

reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

---
LOL, when you don't know what you're talking about you always try to
throw some shit around, dont'cha? Fucking idiot, you are...
---

Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/24/ray.gun.ap/index.html

Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the RF produced BY A
DECT PHONE is even detectable by anyone in a proper double blind trial.

---
You missed the point again, which was merely that RF is capable of
causing a rise in skin temperature and is quantifiable, as my
earlier post showed.
---

Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

---
I'm not the one in any kind of a predicament. You, on the other
hand seem incapable of extricating yourself from a situation where
you're clearly the intellectual inferior without resorting to your
perpetual whining about double blind tests and your cookie-cutter
attempts at muddying the water.
---

In
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.comms.mobile/msg/ffb8835fccbb62ad
I actually said

I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

Blow me.


--
JF

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

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

I've at least demonstrated that temperature rise
of the skin _has_ to happen in the presence of RF,

Like hell you have in a proper double blind trial with a DECT phone.

You just don't get it, do you, you poor, dumb bastard?

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

The post I made about temperature rise has nothing to do with a
double blind test, and only involves a temperature rise which is
caused by absorption of RF.

Pity you plucked a terminally stupid figure on the wattage
involved in the transmitter out of your arse and when the
real wattage of DECT phones is used, that is so low that it
will be completely swamped by convection from the skin etc.

No personalities, no bullshit, just physics.

Pure bullshit actually, using some stupid number you plucked out of your arse.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/24/ray.gun.ap/index.html

Completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the RF produced BY A DECT
PHONE is even detectable by anyone in a proper double blind trial.

You missed the point again,

Nope.

which was merely that RF is capable of causing a rise in skin temperature and is quantifiable,

That is absolutely no news to anyone at all, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Its absolutely no news to anyone that if you are stupid enough
to put your head into a microwave oven, bypass the door lock,
and zap your head for a while, you will certainly notice an affect.

as my earlier post showed.

Pigs arse it ever did with the actual power levels seen with DECT phones.

Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

I'm not the one in any kind of a predicament.

Corse you are, and everyone except those two fruit loops have noticed.

They're so stupid they wouldnt even notice if their arse was on fire.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>