or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

_Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane - Page 11

post #151 of 155

Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:01:28 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> .
> .> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:12:16 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> .> That's subjective. Give us a NUMBER.
> .
> .The text below *gives* you some numbers. Why don't you read the
> .friggin post before replying?
>
> You are just repeatedly displaying your ignorance. 1/10 watt is meaningless
> unless you say how much each cc of brain tissue absorbs.


Hey moron, I gave you the number if 100% of that 1/10 watt is absorbed.
It is *still* too low to cause a significant increase in temperture.

> .> A cell phone
> .> .transmits at around 1/2 watt the same in all directions around its
> .> .antenna's axis. So you have under 1/4 watt available to heat you
> .> .head, and most of that radiation passes through, so you are going
> .> .to have under 1/10 of a watt absorbed by the brain and skull (possibly
> .> .significantly under that value.) Meanwhile, it takes 4.2 joules to
> .> .raise the temperature of water 1 degree Celsius. <snip>
> .
> .> You obviously don't know ANYTHING about the subject of health impacts of EMF!
> .> The STANDARD is 1-10 mw/cm^2, and is insufficient to protect one from harm.
> .> Biological harm has been demonstrated down to 1 micro-watt/cm^2. 1/10 watt is
> .> 10-100 times the standard. Do your homework first. Come back when you know
> .> something about the subject.
> .
> .Sigh. 1/10 of a watt is the total *power* absorbed. Even if you take
> .half the output of the cell phone (about 0.25 watts), and divide by
> .the area covered by one side of a head (about 100 cm^2), you get 2.5
> .mw/cm^2, which is in the range you just claimed is safe according to
> .the standards.
>
> Now you are lying again. I didn't say it was "safe". You FABRICATED
> that. In fact, I said that even values BELOW the standard are not
> safe. Do you have that much trouble listening?


You said it was the "standard", and standards for that are set to be
safe to the best of our knowledge.

> .Instead of pontificating about "doing your homework", I'd suggest you
> .take a remedial course in high school physics. Even at that level,
> .people generally know that you have to divide the power in watts by
> .an area to get the numbers you were using.
>
> And you just proved my point: the radiation from a cell phone is
> above the standard -- a standard that is too high by 2-3 orders of
> magnitude to protect us. If you knew anything about the subject we
> are discussing, you would know that. You keep repeating the only
> thing you know about, which is radiation IN A VACUUM (i.e., in a
> textbook).


I gave you the results for radiation inside a conductor, and you
ignored that. The ideat that the standard is "too high" by "2-3
orders of magnitude" is simply an unsubstantiated conjecture of
yours.

BTW, in case you don't know, you are surrounded by electromagnetic
radiation from natural sources: at room temperature, a blackbody emits
about 45 mW for every square cm of surface area. (Actually, I rounded
to 300 K.) The frequency where the spectrum reaches its maximum,
however, is well above the range used by cell phones (but MV had
previously decided to discount frequency as a factor for some
strange reason.)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #152 of 155
Thread Starter 

Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:19:02 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
..
..> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:01:28 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
..> .
..> .> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:12:16 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
..> .> That's subjective. Give us a NUMBER.
..> .
..> .The text below *gives* you some numbers. Why don't you read the
..> .friggin post before replying?
..>
..> You are just repeatedly displaying your ignorance. 1/10 watt is meaningless
..> unless you say how much each cc of brain tissue absorbs.
..
..Hey moron, I gave you the number if 100% of that 1/10 watt is absorbed.
..It is *still* too low to cause a significant increase in temperture.

What is "significant"? That is totally subjective. On the other hand, if you
knew ANYTHING about the subject of EMF effects on health (i.e., more than
NOTHING), you would know that health impacts aren't due just to heating!

..> .> A cell phone
..> .> .transmits at around 1/2 watt the same in all directions around its
..> .> .antenna's axis. So you have under 1/4 watt available to heat you
..> .> .head, and most of that radiation passes through, so you are going
..> .> .to have under 1/10 of a watt absorbed by the brain and skull (possibly
..> .> .significantly under that value.) Meanwhile, it takes 4.2 joules to
..> .> .raise the temperature of water 1 degree Celsius. <snip>
..> .
..> .> You obviously don't know ANYTHING about the subject of health impacts of EMF!
..> .> The STANDARD is 1-10 mw/cm^2, and is insufficient to protect one from harm.
..> .> Biological harm has been demonstrated down to 1 micro-watt/cm^2. 1/10 watt is
..> .> 10-100 times the standard. Do your homework first. Come back when you know
..> .> something about the subject.
..> .
..> .Sigh. 1/10 of a watt is the total *power* absorbed. Even if you take
..> .half the output of the cell phone (about 0.25 watts), and divide by
..> .the area covered by one side of a head (about 100 cm^2), you get 2.5
..> .mw/cm^2, which is in the range you just claimed is safe according to
..> .the standards.
..>
..> Now you are lying again. I didn't say it was "safe". You FABRICATED
..> that. In fact, I said that even values BELOW the standard are not
..> safe. Do you have that much trouble listening?
..
..You said it was the "standard", and standards for that are set to be
..safe to the best of our knowledge.

You are living in fantasyland. This is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we are talking
about, dumdum. They are totally controlled by POLITICS and the COMMUNICATION
INDUSTRY. You would know that, if you had read ANYTHING on this subject.

..> .Instead of pontificating about "doing your homework", I'd suggest you
..> .take a remedial course in high school physics. Even at that level,
..> .people generally know that you have to divide the power in watts by
..> .an area to get the numbers you were using.
..>
..> And you just proved my point: the radiation from a cell phone is
..> above the standard -- a standard that is too high by 2-3 orders of
..> magnitude to protect us. If you knew anything about the subject we
..> are discussing, you would know that. You keep repeating the only
..> thing you know about, which is radiation IN A VACUUM (i.e., in a
..> textbook).
..
..I gave you the results for radiation inside a conductor, and you
..ignored that. The ideat that the standard is "too high" by "2-3
..orders of magnitude" is simply an unsubstantiated conjecture of
..yours.

How would YOU know -- someone who has read NOTHING on this subject. I refer you
to Prof. H. Lai of the University of Washington, one of the experts in the
field. He just spoke at a conference at SF State, but of course you missed it.
You are fabricating again.

..BTW, in case you don't know, you are surrounded by electromagnetic
..radiation from natural sources: at room temperature, a blackbody emits
..about 45 mW for every square cm of surface area. (Actually, I rounded
..to 300 K.) The frequency where the spectrum reaches its maximum,
..however, is well above the range used by cell phones (but MV had
..previously decided to discount frequency as a factor for some
..strange reason.)

No, I didn't. You are fabricating again.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #153 of 155

Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:19:02 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:


> You are living in fantasyland. This is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we are talking
> about, dumdum. They are totally controlled by POLITICS and the COMMUNICATION
> INDUSTRY. You would know that, if you had read ANYTHING on this subject.


Conspiracy theory.

> .I gave you the results for radiation inside a conductor, and you
> .ignored that. The ideat that the standard is "too high" by "2-3
> .orders of magnitude" is simply an unsubstantiated conjecture of
> .yours.
>
> How would YOU know -- someone who has read NOTHING on this
> subject. I refer you to Prof. H. Lai of the University of
> Washington, one of the experts in the field. He just spoke at a
> conference at SF State, but of course you missed it. You are
> fabricating again.


I pointed out that, at 300 K, Stefan's Law gives you about 45 mW/cm^2
for the electromagnetic radiation generated by heat at the surface of
a black body.

If you take the radiation levels you are proposing as the "safe"
limit, those limits are exceeded by the electromagnetic radiation you
yourself generate due to being a warm body.

Whatever Prof Lai might have said, and whatever you think he said, it
is idiotic to claim that power levels well below the levels you
yourself generate are dangerous at radio frequencies, where the energy
per photon is too low to cause ionization.

If you want to make such claims, you damn well better produce some
really convincing physical evidence to back them up - the exact
mechanisms by which whatever damage you claim is produced. Heating
won't do it (which is what you were claiming.)

> (but MV had .previously decided to discount frequency as a factor
> for some .strange reason.)
>
> No, I didn't. You are fabricating again.


Actually, you did - although you could claim you did not understand
the discussion, even though claimed any discussion of wavelength
was irrelevant. You do know that wavelength and frequency are
related, don't you?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #154 of 155
Thread Starter 

Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:33:55 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
..
..> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:19:02 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
..
..> You are living in fantasyland. This is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we are talking
..> about, dumdum. They are totally controlled by POLITICS and the COMMUNICATION
..> INDUSTRY. You would know that, if you had read ANYTHING on this subject.
..
..Conspiracy theory.

No, FACT. You would know that, if you knew ANYTHING about this subject.

..> .I gave you the results for radiation inside a conductor, and you
..> .ignored that. The ideat that the standard is "too high" by "2-3
..> .orders of magnitude" is simply an unsubstantiated conjecture of
..> .yours.
..>
..> How would YOU know -- someone who has read NOTHING on this
..> subject. I refer you to Prof. H. Lai of the University of
..> Washington, one of the experts in the field. He just spoke at a
..> conference at SF State, but of course you missed it. You are
..> fabricating again.
..
..I pointed out that, at 300 K, Stefan's Law gives you about 45 mW/cm^2
..for the electromagnetic radiation generated by heat at the surface of
..a black body.
..
..If you take the radiation levels you are proposing as the "safe"
..limit, those limits are exceeded by the electromagnetic radiation you
..yourself generate due to being a warm body.
..
..Whatever Prof Lai might have said, and whatever you think he said, it
..is idiotic to claim that power levels well below the levels you
..yourself generate are dangerous at radio frequencies, where the energy
..per photon is too low to cause ionization.

Nice THEORY, but it's irrelevant. EXPERIMENT is the only way to answer the
question, because you may not know everything.

..If you want to make such claims, you damn well better produce some
..really convincing physical evidence to back them up - the exact
..mechanisms by which whatever damage you claim is produced. Heating
..won't do it (which is what you were claiming.)

I never said that. I said that there are other than heat-caused biological
effects.

..> (but MV had .previously decided to discount frequency as a factor
..> for some .strange reason.)
..>
..> No, I didn't. You are fabricating again.
..
..Actually, you did - although you could claim you did not understand
..the discussion, even though claimed any discussion of wavelength
..was irrelevant. You do know that wavelength and frequency are
..related, don't you?

It's obviously a waste of time arguing with someone who refuses to read anything
about the subject, and yet thinks he is an expert on it.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
post #155 of 155

Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:33:55 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> writes:
> .
> >> You are living in fantasyland. This is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we
> >> are talking about, dumdum. They are totally controlled by
> >> POLITICS and the COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY. You would know that, if
> >> you had read ANYTHING on this subject.

> .
> .Conspiracy theory.
>
> No, FACT. You would know that, if you knew ANYTHING about this subject.


No, conspiracy theory.

> .Whatever Prof Lai might have said, and whatever you think he said, it
> .is idiotic to claim that power levels well below the levels you
> .yourself generate are dangerous at radio frequencies, where the energy
> .per photon is too low to cause ionization.
>
> Nice THEORY, but it's irrelevant. EXPERIMENT is the only way to answer the
> question, because you may not know everything.


Nope, reality ...

> .If you want to make such claims, you damn well better produce some
> .really convincing physical evidence to back them up - the exact
> .mechanisms by which whatever damage you claim is produced. Heating
> .won't do it (which is what you were claiming.)
>
> I never said that. I said that there are other than heat-caused biological
> effects.


Nope - you whined about heat, but you did not produce any physical
mechanism or data explaining precisely why low levels of low-frequency
electromagnetic radiation might be "dangerous."

> It's obviously a waste of time arguing with someone who refuses to
> read anything about the subject, and yet thinks he is an expert on
> it.


I'm claiming expertise in physics. You made numerous claims that
violated basic physical laws. Until you get that right, I'm not
going to even begin to take you seriously.

I'd agree, however, that *you* are a waste of time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mountain Bikes
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. Kane