Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing mi

[John Fields]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:33:37 +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

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.

---
You keep saying that, as if it was a mantra, but it has no real
meaning that I can discern. Would you be so kind as to explain it
to me, please?
---

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.

---
So say you, but do you have anything but opinion to prove that your
claim is true?
---

No personalities, no bullshit, just physics.

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

---
OK, then, if three watts rankles you, what power do you think will
keep an RF load from getting hot ?


--
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

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.

You keep saying that, as if it was a mantra, but it has no real meaning
that I can discern. Would you be so kind as to explain it to me, please?

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.

So say you, but do you have anything but opinion to prove that your claim is true?

No opinion whatever involved in what DECT phones emit, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

No personalities, no bullshit, just physics.

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

OK, then, if three watts rankles you, what power
do you think will keep an RF load from getting hot ?

What DECT phones produce for starters.

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to put some
water in a container next to one and discover that any purported
heating isnt even measurable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:15:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to put some
water in a container next to one and discover that any purported
heating isnt even measurable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

---
Instead of merely pooh-poohing it you ought to try it. You might be
surprised.

Don't forget to use salt water with a salinity of about 3.5% and a
good thermometer.

Oh, and just in case you can't quite figure out how to set up the
experiment, post back and I'll help you.


--
JF

 

[lynx]

Rod Speed wrote:

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

HeadRush wrote:


Lynx, you should immediately stop driving or travelling in a car if
you're that concerned about your health. There is a much, much
greater chance of you dying in a car accident than from RF exposure.

I need to travel. I don't need to have a cordless phone, except for
convenience.


No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one, fuckwit child.

No, no one is forcing me to use it, but I am interested in discussing
the subject of health risks associated with this technology, and since
that seems to meet with your disapproval, and in your unworthy opinion
warrants your insults, ridicule, and abuse, and since the fact that I
have been completely ignoring your responses seems to have escaped your
attention, or if it hasn't escaped your attention, the message that I'm
not interested in your pathetic rantings has not penetrated your thick
skull, or if it has, has been completely ignored.. then allow me to put
it to you this way.. just FOAD!

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

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

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to put some
water in a container next to one and discover that any purported
heating isnt even measurable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Instead of merely pooh-poohing it you ought to try it.

Dont need to. I have spent quite a bit of my time actually measuring
the performance of a solar greenhouse and know what sort of power
levels are needed before the effects will be measurable.

What is produced by DECT phones doesnt get within
a bulls roar with something the mass of a human head.

You might be surprised.

Not a chance.

Don't forget to use salt water with a salinity
of about 3.5% and a good thermometer.

Pointless, even if 100% absorption of the energy is assumed,
and it wont be anything like that, it STILL wont be measurable.

Oh, and just in case you can't quite figure out how
to set up the experiment, post back and I'll help you.

Pass. You're so stupid that you cant even manage
to work out the power levels of DECT phones.

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
HeadRush wrote

Lynx, you should immediately stop driving or travelling in a car if
you're that concerned about your health. There is a much, much
greater chance of you dying in a car accident than from RF exposure.

I need to travel. I don't need to have a cordless phone, except for convenience.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one, fuckwit child.

No, no one is forcing me to use it, but I am interested in discussing
the subject of health risks associated with this technology,

What you should be doing instead is a proper double blind
trial to see if you can even detect the DECT phone at all.

and since that seems to meet with your disapproval,

The only thing that meets with my disapproval is your terminally
silly crap like that terminally stupid claim about smoke without
fire and your complete incapacity to be able to grasp that if thats
what its about, there must be leprechauns, fairys at the bottom
of the garden, vampires, angels, dragons, werewolves, and
ground rhino horn is the fix for your erection problems etc etc etc.

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

 

[atec]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:33:37 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:


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

---
You keep saying that, as if it was a mantra, but it has no real
meaning that I can discern. Would you be so kind as to explain it
to me, please?
---

What it means it's is out of it's depth
has a very vague idea and is blustering

now if you did as he wished the floor would swallow you up .
Press harder and the capitulation will happen

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:13:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to put some
water in a container next to one and discover that any purported
heating isnt even measurable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Instead of merely pooh-poohing it you ought to try it.

Dont need to. I have spent quite a bit of my time actually measuring
the performance of a solar greenhouse and know what sort of power
levels are needed before the effects will be measurable.

---
A solar greenhouse do not a cellphone make.
---

What is produced by DECT phones doesnt get within
a bulls roar with something the mass of a human head.

---
???
---

You might be surprised.

Not a chance.

---
I see. You know everything, do you?
---

Don't forget to use salt water with a salinity
of about 3.5% and a good thermometer.

Pointless, even if 100% absorption of the energy is assumed,
and it wont be anything like that, it STILL wont be measurable.

---
Wrong. Keep on thinking that way and you'll soon be homeless.

Think of it this way: Let's say that instead of an antenna there's
a resistor connected to the output of the cellphone, and that that
resistor is sitting in a glass of water. Do you think the
temperature of the water won't rise when the phone's transmitting?
---

Oh, and just in case you can't quite figure out how
to set up the experiment, post back and I'll help you.

Pass. You're so stupid that you cant even manage
to work out the power levels of DECT phones.

---
Not at all, it's just that it would be pointless.

I've already posted the tools which can be used to determine the
temperature rise for any power level, so it's just a question of
plugging in the power and solving for temperature.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the wherewithal to do that, or
to understand the process, so what can I say? I'm sorry that you're
such a dunce? OK, done.


--
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

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to put some
water in a container next to one and discover that any purported
heating isnt even measurable, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Instead of merely pooh-poohing it you ought to try it.

Dont need to. I have spent quite a bit of my time actually measuring
the performance of a solar greenhouse and know what sort of power
levels are needed before the effects will be measurable.

A solar greenhouse do not a cellphone make.

No one ever said it did, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

What is produced by DECT phones doesnt get within
a bulls roar with something the mass of a human head.

???

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting
again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

You might be surprised.

Not a chance.

I see. You know everything, do you?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting
again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

Don't forget to use salt water with a salinity
of about 3.5% and a good thermometer.

Pointless, even if 100% absorption of the energy is assumed,
and it wont be anything like that, it STILL wont be measurable.

Wrong.

Right.

Keep on thinking that way and you'll soon be homeless.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting
again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

Think of it this way: Let's say that instead of an antenna there's
a resistor connected to the output of the cellphone, and that that
resistor is sitting in a glass of water. Do you think the temperature
of the water won't rise when the phone's transmitting?

Wont rise MEASURABLY with the power levels that DECT
phones use, and water of the same mass as a human head.

Oh, and just in case you can't quite figure out how
to set up the experiment, post back and I'll help you.

Pass. You're so stupid that you cant even manage
to work out the power levels of DECT phones.

Not at all, it's just that it would be pointless.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting
again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

I've already posted the tools which can be used to determine
the temperature rise for any power level, so it's just a question
of plugging in the power and solving for temperature.

Your steaming turd is completely irrelevant. Even if you assume
that 100% of the transmitted energy of a DECT phone is
absorbed, you STILL wont get a measurable temperature
rise, essentially because the power level involved is so low.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to have the wherewithal
to do that, or to understand the process, so what can
I say? I'm sorry that you're such a dunce?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting
again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

OK, done.

You're done like a dinner in fact.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:58:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

A solar greenhouse do not a cellphone make.

No one ever said it did, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

---
OK, so I'm not a bullshit artist. Then I must be telling the truth.
Got a problem with that?
---

What is produced by DECT phones doesnt get within
a bulls roar with something the mass of a human head.

???

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before posting again,
if someone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

---
Geez, I thought I was posting to one!


--
JF

 

[lynx]

Rod Speed wrote:

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote

HeadRush wrote

Lynx, you should immediately stop driving or travelling in a car if
you're that concerned about your health. There is a much, much
greater chance of you dying in a car accident than from RF exposure.

I need to travel. I don't need to have a cordless phone, except for convenience.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one, fuckwit child.

However having purchased it, naturally I would want to use it, and use
it with confidence that there are no health issues associated with it's use.

No, no one is forcing me to use it, but I am interested in discussing
the subject of health risks associated with this technology,


What you should be doing instead is a proper double blind
trial to see if you can even detect the DECT phone at all.

I'm continuing to evaluate the matter by my own methodology to attempt
to rule out some sort of unconscious or subconscious psychosomatic
effect, as time permits.

and since that seems to meet with your disapproval,


The only thing that meets with my disapproval is your terminally
silly crap like that terminally stupid claim about smoke without
fire and your complete incapacity to be able to grasp that if thats
what its about, there must be leprechauns, fairys at the bottom
of the garden, vampires, angels, dragons, werewolves, and
ground rhino horn is the fix for your erection problems etc etc etc.

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

Many of your arguments are flawed and easily countered, but it's a
complete waste of time doing so and pointing out what errors there are
or may be for three very good reasons: (a) you refuse to consider any
view that contradicts your own, and (b) any efforts to do so will only
merit insult and abuse, and (c) I have much better things to do with my
time than trying to make you see reason. But let me try just this one
time. Take the interaction that you allude to above for example, and
which I now quote:

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.

---------

This response is so flawed, it's laughable, and trivial to dismiss.

With the issue of DECT technology, we are talking about facts, and a
factual matter. So firstly the FACT that the health issues of this
technology are being discussed to such extent that nine million links
can be provided (that's quite a lot you know!) is evidence of the FACT
that it's an issue that is worthy of consideration. Secondly the various
views presented are usually FACTUALLY supported, since those espousing
them are mostly persons qualified in the relevant fields of study, and
so suitably qualified to have and present their views, and who can
therefore provide FACTS in support of their arguments. And thirdly,
quite apart from the FACT that the topic we're discussing is an issue
entirely separate and unrelated to ones dealing with any of those you
mention, and so any evidence relating to this topic is irrelevant to any
discussions about those, is the simple FACT that whilst the existence of
those creatures may be discussed, or is being discussed, any such
discussions are in FACT not based on FACTS, such as the existence of
EMF's and EMR, as is the basis for what we're attempting to discuss
here. Your conclusion therefore that nine million links to discussions
of health issues re DECT technology, and any inferences that can be
drawn from that, is evidence for the existence of those creatures you
mention, or is relevant to discussions about them, is therefore an
erroneous one.



--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Language was invented so women could complain'

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

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

A solar greenhouse do not a cellphone make.

No one ever said it did, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

OK, so I'm not a bullshit artist. Then I must be telling the truth.
Got a problem with that?

Cant even manage the most basic comprehension, or anything else at all, either.

What is produced by DECT phones doesnt get within
a bulls roar with something the mass of a human head.

???

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before
posting again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you
anywhere near one.

Geez, I thought I was posting to one!

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to help you before
posting again, if someone is actually stupid enough to let you
anywhere near one.

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
HeadRush wrote

Lynx, you should immediately stop driving or travelling in a car
if you're that concerned about your health. There is a much, much
greater chance of you dying in a car accident than from RF exposure.

I need to travel. I don't need to have a cordless phone, except for convenience.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one, fuckwit child.

However having purchased it, naturally I would want to use it, and use it with confidence that
there are no health issues associated with it's use.

No one has ever established any health issues
associated with its use using decent rigorous science.

No, no one is forcing me to use it, but I am interested in discussing the subject of health
risks associated with this technology,

What you should be doing instead is a proper double blind
trial to see if you can even detect the DECT phone at all.

I'm continuing to evaluate the matter by my own methodology to attempt to rule out some sort of
unconscious or subconscious psychosomatic effect, as time permits.

The ONLY way to do that is to use a double blind trial.

Thats why double blind trials were invented.

and since that seems to meet with your disapproval,

The only thing that meets with my disapproval is your terminally
silly crap like that terminally stupid claim about smoke without
fire and your complete incapacity to be able to grasp that if thats
what its about, there must be leprechauns, fairys at the bottom
of the garden, vampires, angels, dragons, werewolves, and
ground rhino horn is the fix for your erection problems etc etc etc.

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

 

[lynx]

Rod Speed wrote:

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

Translation: I acknowledge the truth of your remarks, am unable to
refute them, and so with head firmly in sand, have deleted them.

And thanks for confirming that it's futile to attempt rational dialogue
with you- as if we needed any more evidence than the superabundant
examples already in existence.

 

[Rod Speed]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

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

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:25 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:


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




Translation: I acknowledge the truth of your remarks, am unable to
refute them, and so with head firmly in sand, have deleted them.

And thanks for confirming that it's futile to attempt rational dialogue
with you- as if we needed any more evidence than the superabundant
examples already in existence.

---
Indeed. Well said


--
JF

 

[atec 77]

Rod Speed wrote:

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

Silly little puffs of steam and smoke from Woddles feet and ears as he

loses yet another one , get a clue you STUPID OLD DUCK>

 

[Otto Sykora]

I have been for long time working with one of the most serious test
and development institution in this field, providing all the test
equipment for such matters for almost all scientific labs in the world
for this. Prof Niels Kuster is one of the most serious scientists on
that field in the world (my for mer boss)
(www.speag.com)

I can only say following:
to measure all those signals is very difficult, since the power of the
DECT is so low.
But the SAR values are measured too. Separate models are for man,
women and childern.

However, it still could not be found any way to proove any health
problems with DECT phones or other mobile phones which transmitt even
much more higher power.
Some people claim to be affected by this, but it isvery difficlut to
be clearly significant. Blind tests show just simple staisticly no
significant results.
It is also very difficult to estimate the real (not measured in
experimental conditions) field exposure. There are so many RF radiatin
devices producing higher fieldstrength which you do not see. All kind
of mobile radio communication, radars, navigation equipment etc. The
fields produced are often much higher then some DECT devices.

And as far as statistics are concerned , this is very complex toy to
play with. If used the wrong way, people can produce any results to
folks not understanding the details.
One can simply say, people who wear wrist watches will die sooner on
hard attack then people who do not wear wrist watch.
OK, in Zaire, less people die on hardattack then in europe. In Zaire
less people wear wrist watches then in europe, thus there is direct
significance between wrist watch and hard attack?

 

[Rod Speed]

atec 77" <atec77 \"@ hotmail.com <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

<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:

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